A Day in American History:
Founding a Nation and Fighting to Keep it
A series of volumes, written by Ron Graham, about…
…the founding of a new nation
…the fight to keep a nation
…the expansion of a nation
…the fight to not break apart a nation
…TBD
Volume I - The „Morning Gun‟ and a Stamp of Disapproval: 1750-1766
Volume II - Blood and Tea and a Tough Act to Follow: 1766-1774
-1-
Volume I
The „Morning Gun‟ and a Stamp of Disapproval: 1750-1766
On Sunday morning, February 4, 1750*, the Reverend Jonathan Mayhew (1720-1766), pastor
of the West Church, Boston, delivered a very thought provoking sermon about unlimited
submission and non-resistance to the higher powers.1 The source of
text for his sermon came from Romans 13:1-8, which can be
summarized in part as; all are subject unto the ruling authorities or
higher powers and the ruling authorities are ordained by God.
Mayhew used January 30th, the anniversary of the execution of King
Charles I (1600–1649), as the occasion for his sermon. Many
historians have referred to Mayhew‟s sermon as “The Morning Gun
of the Revolution.” *All years in this volume refer to the Gregorian
style calendar system. See „Facts for Fun‟ in the pages that follow for
more information on the Julian and Gregorian style calendars.
More than one hundred years prior to Mayhew‟s „higher powers‟
sermon, the administration of King Charles I had been full of tyranny
and oppression as a result of the king ignoring the constitution and
the laws of the kingdom. Charles placed himself in contradiction to the coronation oath he had
taken during his crowning ceremony, which required him to exercise only the powers granted to
him by the constitution. A personal oath of allegiance was taken by the king‟s subjects requiring
them to obey the king while he exercised his constitutional powers. The king was bound by his
1 Memoir of the Life and Writings of Reverend Jonathan Mayhew, D. D. Pastor of the West Church and Society in Boston, from
June, 1747, to July, 1766. Bradford, Alden. C. C. Little & Company, 1838, pp. 103, 104 and 109.
-2-
oath not to deny the people their legal rights and the people were bound by their oath to render
obedience to the king. If the king broke his oath, then his subject‟s were no longer bound by
theirs. In order to defend their natural and legal rights from the abuses made by their king, the
subjects of King Charles I resisted him and ultimately forced him to lose both his crown and the
head which it sat upon.
Mayhew published a discourse of his February 4th sermon in which he emphasized that all
people were, by God‟s command, subject to the ruling authority. He strongly advocated that it
was the people‟s moral duty to overthrow any government whose commands run counter to the
revealed will of God when he declared “it is generally allowed that the people may get redress by
resistance, if other methods prove ineffectual.”(1) He went on to say that if the directions of civil
rulers are inconsistent with the word and commands of God then disobedience “is lawful and
glorious; particularly if people refuse to comply with any legal establishment of religion, because
it is a gross perversion and corruption of a pure and divine religion, brought from God to man by
the Son of God himself, the only head of the Christian church.”(1) Tyranny sometimes starts out
small and seemingly insignificant, then, like a cancer growing and spreading throughout the body,
it can eventually consume an entire country. “Thus it is, also, as to ecclesiastical tyranny - the
most cruel, intolerant and impious of any. From small beginnings, it exalts itself above all which
is called God, and that is worshipped.”(1)
In the preface to his discourse, Mayhew wrote that “Obedience to the civil magistrate is a
Christian duty”2 and if rulers “rob and ruin the public instead of being guardians of its peace and
welfare, they immediately cease to be the ordinance and ministers of God and no more deserve
that glorious character than common pirates and highwaymen.”3
2 Methodist review, Volume 43. Methodist book concern, 1861, pp. 690-691.
3 King and People in Provincial Massachusetts. Bushman, Richard L. UNC Press, 1992, p. 262.
-3-
For Your Information: The colonies of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey,
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia were Royal Colonies and were ruled directly
by Great Britain. However, the colonists in the Royal Colonies elected their own Assembly or
Lower House. The colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations (hereafter referred to as
Rhode Island) and the colony of Connecticut were Charter Colonies. The colonies of Delaware,
Maryland and Pennsylvania were Proprietary Colonies.
The ruling authority, that Mayhew was alluding to in his sermon and
subsequent discourse, was George II (1683-1760); Great Britain‟s king
from 1727 to 1760. The king was responsible for appointing the governors
and the Council or Upper House for each of the Royal Colonies in America.
The religious denomination of the governor appointees was Episcopalian.
Governors in the colonies of Massachusetts Bay (hereafter referred to as
Massachusetts), New Hampshire, New York and New Jersey favored
Episcopal clergy because they were very restrictive and would, whenever
possible, not allow the Congregationalist clergy, such as Mayhew, to be
ministers of the Gospel. The Episcopal clergy wanted to increase the
membership of the English Episcopal Church and to interfere with the other
clergy, a plan that was supported by the English hierarchy. Extending
Episcopal Church membership would secure obedience to political
measures and plans that the governors may have had.(1)
In the Church of England the priests answered to bishops and the bishops answered to the king
and Parliament, which consisted of two representative bodies; the House of Commons and the
House of Lords. In the Congregational Church there was no answering to the government; a true
separation of church and state existed as long as the church was free from control by the state.
-4-
Government was not to misuse its power and interfere with the preaching of God's Word. The
purpose of „separation of church and state‟ was to keep the government out of the church; not to
keep the church‟s moral values or religious symbols, out of government. Mayhew‟s sermon
created an apprehension that bishops, priests and certain requirements of the church would be
imposed upon the Congregationalists by Parliament. The American Revolution began when
the Morning Gun was fired!
Parliament continued to interfere with the free market system that the American colonists were
enjoying and prospering from. They passed the Iron Act in 1750, which limited the growth of the
iron industry in the American colonies in order to protect the iron industry in England and they
passed the Currency Act in 1751, which banned the issuing of paper money by the New England
colonies.
Facts for Fun: The last day that Great Britain and its
colonists used the Julian calendar was September 2,
1752.4 By the 1700‟s the Julian calendar was eleven
days behind that of the Gregorian calendar. Great
Britain switched to the Gregorian style calendar when
Parliament decreed that September 3rd would become
September 14th. Provisions were made so that nobody
lost or gained interest on debts when the switch occurred
but some people still went into panic wanting their
“eleven days back”. In addition, the legal start of a new
year changed from March 25th to January 1st. Thus,
American History has no September 3-13, 1752.
4 Astronomy Without Mathematics 7th edition. Grimthorpe, Baron Edmund Beckett. Society for Promoting Christian
Knowledge, 1883, pp. 161-162.
-5-
In October of 1753, Virginia Governor Robert Dinwiddie (1693-1770) sent twenty-one year old
Major George Washington (1732-1799) on an eight-man expedition to the Ohio region to deliver
a letter to the French commandant requesting that the French withdraw from the region. When
Washington returned in January of 1754, he reported to Dinwiddie that the French had refused to
withdraw.
By February, Captain William Trent and a detachment of Virginia soldiers, acting on behalf of
the Ohio Company, began building a fort at the junction of the Monongahela and Allegheny
rivers, a strategic location in the heart of the Ohio region. In April, the French seized control of
the fort during its construction and named it Fort Duquesne.
Washington was commissioned Lieutenant Colonel in April and was sent, as second in
command, to protect the fort he assumed the Ohio Company was building. As Washington and
the men under his command marched towards the fort they came upon Ensign Joseph Coulon de
Jumonville (1718-1754) and the French soldiers with him in their encampment near the Great
Meadows in western Virginia; about eleven miles southeast of present day Uniontown,
Pennsylvania, on May 28, 1754.5 Jumonville and several of his men were killed as a result of a
surprise attack by Washington. Most of the surviving French soldiers were taken prisoner. The
skirmish between Washington and Jumonville marked the beginning of the French and Indian
War.
Fearing an attack by a retaliatory French force for the defeat of Jumonville, Washington
fortified his position by building a simple and crude fort he called Fort Necessity. The circular
fort, located at the Great Meadows, was completed by early June. Washington spent the rest of
June establishing a road that began at the fort and continued towards the Ohio River. He received
reports that a large force of French soldiers and Indians were headed to the Great Meadows,
5 The United States: A History of Three Centuries, 1607-1904; Population, Politics, War, Industry, Civilization – Vol. 2 Colonial
Union 1698-1774. Chancellor, William Estabrook and Hewes, Fletcher Willis. G. P. Putnam's sons, 1905, p. 255.
-6-
which forced him and his men to stop construction on the
road and return to their fort. They arrived on July 1st, and
reinforced the fort on July 2nd. Captain Louis Coulon de
Villiers (1710-1757), the brother of Ensign Jumonville, laid
siege to the fort with nearly seven hundred French soldiers
and Indians on July 3, 1754.6 Washington was forced to
surrender with the honors of war, making it the first and only
time he ever surrendered.
The Lords of Trade sent a circular letter, in September of 1753, to the colonial governors of the
American colonies requesting that a congress should meet in Albany for the purposes of making
an agreement or treaty with the Six Nations (a confederation of six tribes of Iroquois Indians) and
to discuss establishing a common defense against the French. In an effort to facilitate establishing
that defense, Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), founder and owner of the Pennsylvania Gazette
newspaper, published in his May 9, 1754 issue, an illustration in the likeness of a snake cut into
eight parts.7 The head of the snake represented New England and
the seven other parts stood for New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and South
Carolina. The caption “Join, or Die.” was placed beneath the
snake. The illustration, with its caption, is considered to be the
first political cartoon published in an American newspaper.
Between June 19th and July 11th, 1754, representatives from New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York,
6 The United States: A History of Three Centuries, 1607-1904; Population, Politics, War, Industry, Civilization – Vol. 2 Colonial
Union 1698-1774. Chancellor, William Estabrook and Hewes, Fletcher Willis. G. P. Putnam's sons, 1905, p. 256.
7 Cartoons Magazine, Volume 7, Part 2. Editor: Henry Havens Windsor. H.H. Windsor 1915, p. 573.
-7-
Pennsylvania and Maryland gathered together and formed the Albany Congress. 8 On July 9th, the
congress agreed upon a plan of union and Benjamin Franklin, one of the Pennsylvania
representatives, wrote the draft for that plan. On July 10th, the Albany Plan of Union was adopted
by the congress and on July 11th, the congress adjourned. The plan requested that “one general
government may be formed in America” and was transmitted to the several colonies but did not
receive approval from any of them. Georgia and Delaware were not included in the plan as part
of the union. Acting without recommendation, the Lords of Trade laid the plan before King
George II and it was totally rejected. The Albany Plan of Union was the first attempt at uniting
the American colonies.(7)
Early in 1755, Major General Edward Braddock (1695-1755) was sent to America as
commander-in-chief of the British forces there. One of the first missions he planned and set into
motion was an attempt to capture Fort Duquesne, which had become a major French stronghold.
In June of 1755, Braddock and nearly 1,400 British soldiers, wearing their bright red coats, set out
from Virginia and began their march to Fort Duquesne. George Washington, who had been
assigned as an aide to Braddock, warned the general that marching in rows and columns made the
British easy targets. Braddock ignored Washington‟s advice.
On July 9, 1755, Braddock and his men were ambushed, before reaching Fort Duquesne, by
Indian warriors and French soldiers. As Washington had warned Braddock, the British soldiers
were easy targets for the French and Indians as they came out from hiding behind rocks and trees
during their attack. Braddock and nearly 1,000 soldiers were killed in what became a bitter defeat
for the British. Washington led the survivors back to Virginia.
It would not be until early 1756, that war was officially declared between the French and
British in America. During the years 1756 and 1757, military activity between French and British
8 Select Charters and Other Documents Illustrative of American History, 1606-1775. MacDonald, William. The Macmillan
Company, 1910, pp. 253-254.
-8-
soldiers was mostly inconclusive. In 1758, the British started to break the French stronghold in
America and in 1759, they captured Quebec. Detroit fell to the British in mid 1760, and by
September, Montreal was under British control. The French were then defeated in America.
The war between Great Britain and France continued in Europe for more than two years after
the French defeat at Montreal. In June of 1761, France tried to negotiate for peace with Britain
but failed. Negotiations resumed in late 1762 and were concluded in Paris on February 10, 1763,
with the signing of the Treaty of Paris.9
King George II died on October 25, 1760, and news of his death reached
Boston in late December. By parliamentary requirement, all current writs
of assistance expired six months after the death of a reigning monarch,
thereby requiring new writs to be issued on April 25, 1761. Writs of
assistance were general warrants that gave custom house officers the
authority, without limitation, to search any house, ship or warehouse for
suspected smuggled goods.
James Otis (1725-1783) was appointed to the Massachusetts Office of
Advocate General in February of 1761. One of the responsibilities of that
office was to provide support for any petitions from the custom house
officers in upholding the writs of assistance. Several custom house officers came to Otis
requesting he defend them in a pending case that involved a group of Boston merchants
petitioning against the legality of the writs. The merchants wanted their case heard before any
new writs were issued.
Otis resigned his office rather than defend those who supported writs of assistance. When
several of the petitioning merchants learned of Otis‟ resignation they asked him to represent them
in their case.
9 Documentary Source Book of American History, 1606-1913. MacDonald, William. The Macmillan Company, 1916, p. 109.
-9-
On February 24, 1761, Otis argued the case for the merchants in the Superior Court of Boston
for nearly five hours while a young John Adams (1735-1826) sat in the audience and took notes.10
A portion of Otis‟ speech emphasized that man had an inherent and inalienable right to his life,
liberty and property, as revealed to man by God. Otis reasoned that men collectively form a
government for the mutual defense and security of that right, which was also a fundamental law
of the British constitution; a constitution that declared all men to be free and equal.
The speech by Otis marked the beginning of American resistance to Great Britain. Years later
Adams spoke of that speech saying “Otis was a flame of fire! ... American independence was
then and there born.”(9) Note: The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution eliminated Writs
of Assistance.
For Your Information: George William Frederick (1738-1820) became King
George III following the death of his grandfather, King George II, on October
25, 1760. One of the first things the new king did that most American
colonists overwhelmingly did not agree with was issue the Royal
Proclamation of 1763.
The proclamation, also referred to as the
Proclamation Line of 1763, became effective on October 7, 176311 and
created a boundary between the lands newly acquired from France and the
existing American colonies. The line closed off expansion by the colonists
into the western frontier and made them feel they were simultaneously
being penned in along the Atlantic coast and excessively controlled by Great
Britain.
10 Unreasonable Searches and Seizures: Rights and Liberties Under the Law. Otis H. Stephens, Richard A. Glenn. ABC-CLIO,
2006, p. 306. Additional reference: James Otis the Pre Revolutionist, Ridpath, John Clark, Kessinger Publishing, 2004, p. 23.
11 Documentary Source Book of American History, 1606-1913. MacDonald, William. The Macmillan Company, 1916, p. 113.
- 10 -
The Seven Years' War was very expensive for Great Britain and providing protection for their
interests in America after the war would also be expensive. The British ministry reasoned that
since the colonists benefited the most from the removal of the French, the colonists should pay for
their own protection going forward.
Early in 1763, Charles Townshend (1725-1767) became First Lord of Trade for the colonies in
America and began implementing a new system of colonial government. A system where the
king would no longer send requisitions to the colonial assemblies for supplying the military,
instead, the colonies would be taxed by acts of Parliament in order to provide funding for military
expenses. Colonial governors and judges were to be paid by the Crown, which would leave them
beholding to the Crown and not to the colonists. Townshend‟s new system
also included taxing the colonists by imposing upon them a stamp act.
George Grenville (1712–1770) was very receptive to the idea of collecting
revenue from a stamp act when he became prime minister in April of 1763.
Public and legal documents, newspapers and pamphlets were to have a stamp
or British seal on them as a result of the act. He gave the colonial agents the
opportunity to communicate with their respective governments in America,
so the agents could propose alternative methods of raising revenue, should
the colonists consider a stamp act unacceptable. In March of 1764, Grenville
presented to the House of Commons a series of Declaratory Resolves, which
became the basis for the Stamp Act.
On April 5, 1764, Parliament passed the Sugar Act, which became effective on September 29,
1764.12 The act placed duties on certain colonial imports and exports. The American colonists
knew that duties would definitely be collected from the enforcement of the Sugar Act and that the
revenue collection would be a perfect example of taxation without representation.
12 Documentary Source Book of American History, 1606-1913. MacDonald, William. The Macmillan Company, 1916, p. 118.
- 11 -
The Molasses Act, which had gone into effect on December 25, 1733, placed an import duty on
molasses, sugar and products made from sugar imported to America from non-British colonies.13
The act was meant to help the King‟s sugar colonies in America be more competitive with nonBritish colonies and was not a used as a primary source of revenue. Collection of the duty was
largely ignored. As part of the Sugar Act the Molasses Act was made perpetual and the duty on
sugar and molasses, reduced by one-half, would definitely be collected.
For Your Information: Methods used by Great Britain to tax American colonists were problematic
long before the American Revolution. One of the earliest examples in America of rebellion
against ‘taxation without representation’ came from the colony of Virginia in the spring of 1624.
Just before Virginia became a royal province, the General Assembly put on record its claim to
control taxation with the following enactment: “That the Governor shall lay no taxes or
ympositions upon the colony, its lands or goods, other way than by the authority of the General
14
Assembly, to be levied and ymployed as the said Assembly shall appoint.”
The colonists learned of Grenville‟s resolves and realized that Parliament
was one step closer to taxing them without their consent. At the annual
Boston town meeting held on May 24, 1764, Samuel Adams (1722-1803)
wrote the instructions for the four Boston representatives that were being sent
to the next session of the Massachusetts General Court.15 The instructions, in
the form of a series of resolutions, were adopted at the town meeting and
became the first public and formal action taken against the proposed
Stamp Act.
13 Documentary Source Book of American History, 1606-1913. MacDonald, William. The Macmillan Company, 1916, p. 104.
14 American History and Government. West, Willis Mason. Allyn and Bacon, 1913, p. 38.
15 The Rise of the Republic of the United States. Frothingham, Richard. Little, Brown, 1872. pp. 167-168.
- 12 -
The Boston representatives were instructed to maintain the rights given to the inhabitants by the
province charter and the rights that were granted to all subjects of Great Britain; maintain the
relative standing of a free assembly; and have the colony agent in London express a view of the
proposed taxation scheme as something that violates the charter right to govern and tax, and goes
against the privileges held in common by native born British subjects. The representatives were
also instructed to convey to the General Assembly that the Sugar Act was to be repealed. The
instructions closing statement, which speaks of a united colonial effort, is as follows: “As his
majesty's other Northern American colonies are embarked with us in this most important bottom,
we further desire you to use your endeavors, that their weight may be added to that of this
province; that, by the united applications of all who are aggrieved, all may happily obtain
redress.” Adams believed that if “the colonies form one political body, of which each is a
member” their eventual union would be their ultimate salvation.(14)
The Massachusetts House of Representatives began their first session of 1764 on May 30th,
with James Otis as one of the Boston representatives in attendance. Before the session began and
in his pursuance of the instructions he was given at the Boston town meeting, Otis wrote a
memorial he referred to as “The rights of the colonies in general, and of the Province of
Massachusetts Bay in particular, briefly stated, with remarks on the Sugar Act.” This memorial
was read in the House on the 8th of June and again on the 12th and was approved by the House,
without consulting Council, on the 13th.16
The House was in agreement with the requests of the Boston representatives and drafted a letter
to the colony agent in London expressing some of their concerns, offering some comments and
detailing the agent‟s instructions.17 The letter was read in the House on the 13th of June and
16 The Rise of the Republic of the United States. Frothingham, Richard. Little, Brown, 1872. p. 169.
17 Journals of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts, Volume 41. Massachusetts, General Court, House of
Representatives. Massachusetts Historical Society, 1971, pp. viii and 72-77.
- 13 -
approved on the same day. Instructions in the letter requested the agent work towards the repeal
of the Sugar Act and to take actions necessary to prevent the passage of the Stamp Act.
A summary of several of the concerns and comments found in the letter of instructions, which
was also written in the journals of the Massachusetts House of Representatives,(16) is as follows:
Silence from the province concerning the Sugar Act should not have been taken as an acknowledgment of
the right of Parliament to impose duties and taxes upon those who are not represented in the House of
Commons.
The unconstitutional scheme of committing the Colonies to maintain an army should have been
opposed.
The Northern Colonies, during the late war, exerted themselves in full proportion to that of Great Britain
and now have a large debt that will take years to pay off. The acquisition of Canada added to the
commerce of Great Britain but not to the Northern Colonies. Is it “possible that the Duties to be
imposed, and the Taxes to be levied, shall be assessed without the Voice or Consent of one
American in Parliament?”
In addition to maintaining our own civil Government, the Northern Colonies must pay towards the
support of the National, Civil and Military Government in Great-Britain.
“Every Charter Privilege may be taken from the Colonies by a Tack to a Money Bill, which it seems by
the Rules on your Side of the Water, must not at any Rate be petitioned against.”
Grenville allowed provinces a chance to offer different revenue solutions to the Stamp Act. That offer
amounted to “if the Colonies will not Tax themselves as they may be directed, the Parliament will
Tax them.”
Ireland is a conquered country and the Northern Colonies are not but no duties have been levied on
Ireland except those by their own parliament.
“People may be free and tolerably happy but without the Privilege of assessing their own Taxes,
they can be neither.”
- 14 -
Along with the letter of instructions the agent was to receive a copy of the “State of the Rights
of the British Colonies” and be informed that the „brief state‟ had been written by one of the
House members.(16) The House member was probably James Otis and the „brief state‟ was
probably his memorial referred to in the preceding paragraphs.
After the instructions for the agent were approved, the House then “Ordered that Mr. Otis, Mr.
Thacher, Mr. Cushing, Captain Sheafe, and Mr. Gray be a committee, in the recess of the court, to
write to the other governments, to acquaint them with the Instructions this day voted to be sent to
the agent of the province, directing him to use his endeavors to obtain a repeal of the Sugar Act,
and to exert himself to prevent a stamp act, or any other impositions and taxes upon this and the
other American provinces; and that the said committee, in the name and behalf of this House,
desire the several assemblies on this continent to join with them in the same measures.”(16) As
requested, the committee wrote a circular letter and sent it to the governments of the other
colonies, asking for a united action.
The Massachusetts House of Representatives, on November 3, 1764, approved a petition to the
House of Commons requesting that they not pass a stamp act.18 Six weeks later, on December
18th, the Virginia House of Burgesses approved a petition to the House of Commons making the
same request.19 Petitions from the colonial assemblies fell on deaf ears when presented to the
House of Commons since the house had a rule that forbid reception of any petitions against bills
concerning revenue.
Grenville brought the recommendation of a stamp bill to Parliament in February, 1765, while
the colonial agents, all of whom were against it, had no alternative recommendations. Parliament
18 Bradford, Alden - Speeches of the Governors of Massachusetts from 1765 to 1775, Russell and Gardner, proprietors of the
work, 1818.
19 Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, 1761-1765. Edited by John Pendleton Kennedy. The Colonial press, E. Waddey
Company, 1914, p. 303.
- 15 -
drafted and debated various aspects of the Stamp Act before finally approving it. The Stamp Act
received royal assent on March 22, 1765.20
An ever increasing number of troops were needed in the American colonies after the French
and Indian war in order to protect the expanding British interests. Parliament renewed the Mutiny
Act in 1765, as it had done annually since 1689, which authorized the dispatch of troops to the
colonies as deemed necessary. Parliament passed the Quartering Act to provide accommodations
for all of the troops in America. The act, which went into effect on March 24, 1765, was viewed
by the colonists as another way Great Britain was laying taxes on the American people.21 Note:
The Third Amendment to the United States Constitution eliminated the quartering of soldiers.
The Virginia House of Burgesses began a new session on May 1, 1765, and no protest to the
Stamp Act was offered during the first several weeks of meetings. A young Patrick Henry (17361799), elected as a first time Burgess, could see that no other
Burgesses were willing to speak out against Parliament‟s newest tax
and decided to make his own protest. On May 29th, he introduced
to the House seven resolutions against the Stamp Act and began his
speech in support of them. When Henry made his protest it was
near the end of the session and the House, with a total membership
of 116 Burgesses, had only 39 members present. During the heated
debate of the fifth resolution, the Speaker of the House shouted
“treason” and other members of the house echoed the same.
Patrick Henry responded with “If this be treason, make the most of
it.”22
20 Documentary Source Book of American History, 1606-1913. MacDonald, William. The Macmillan Company, 1916, p. 122.
21 Documentary Source Book of American History, 1606-1913. MacDonald, William. The Macmillan Company, 1916, p. 131.
22 The Struggle for American Independence, Volume 1. Fisher, Sydney George. J.B. Lippincott Company, 1908, pp. 78-84.
- 16 -
The first five of Patrick Henry‟s seven resolutions were passed by the Virginia House of
Burgesses on May 30, 1765.23 The resolutions passed by small majorities, as evidenced by the 20
to 19 vote for the fifth resolution, which was the strongest and most offensive of the five. Peyton
Randolph (1721-1775), who later became the first president of the First Continental Congress and
the first president of the Second Continental Congress, was one the Burgesses who did not
support the resolutions. Note: Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), a student at the time, listened during both the
debates on the resolutions and the casting of votes.
Patrick Henry left for home after all five resolutions had passed. During the meeting of the
next day, the fifth resolution was expunged from the records of the preceding day. The four
remaining resolutions became known as the “Virginia Resolves of the Stamp Act” and became
the first legislative protest against the Stamp Act.
Virginia Resolves of the Stamp Act
1. Resolved, That the first adventurers and settlers of this, his majesty's colony and dominion of
Virginia, brought with them and transmitted to their posterity, and all other his majesty's subjects,
since inhabiting in this, his majesty's said colony, all the privileges, franchises and immunities
that have at any time been held, enjoyed, and possessed by the people of Great Britain.
2. Resolved, That by two royal charters, granted by king James the First, the colonies aforesaid
are declared entitled to all privileges, liberties, and immunities of denizens and natural-born
subjects, to all intents and purposes, as if they had been abiding and born within the realm of
England.
23 Select Charters and Other Documents Illustrative of American History, 1606-1775. MacDonald, William. The Macmillan
Company, 1899, p. 316.
- 17 -
3. Resolved, That the taxation of the people by themselves or by persons chosen by themselves to
represent them, who can only know what taxes the people are able to bear, and the easiest mode
of raising them, and are equally affected by such taxes themselves, is the distinguishing
characteristic of British freedom, and without which the ancient constitution cannot subsist.
4. Resolved, That the Majesty's liege people of this most ancient colony have uninterruptedly
enjoyed the right of being thus governed by their own assembly in the article of their taxes and
internal police, and that the same hath never been forfeited, or any other way given up, but hath
been constantly recognized by the king and people of Britain.
The fifth, sixth and seventh resolutions, which were ultimately not approved and were not part
of the “Virginia Resolves of the Stamp Act”, are as follows:
5. Resolved, therefore, That the general assembly of this colony have the only and sole exclusive
right and power to lay taxes and impositions upon the inhabitants of this colony; and that every
attempt to vest such power in any person or persons whatsoever other than the general assembly
aforesaid, has a manifest tendency to destroy British as well as American freedom.
6. Resolved, That his majesty's liege people, the inhabitants of the colony, are not bound to yield
obedience to any law or ordinance whatever, designed to impose any taxation whatsoever upon
them, other than the laws or ordinances of the general assembly aforesaid.
- 18 -
7. Resolved, That any person who shall, by speaking or writing, assert or maintain that any person
or persons, other than the general assembly of this colony, have any right or power to impose or
lay any taxation on the people here, shall be deemed an enemy to his majesty's colony.24
Interesting Trivia: During the summer of 1765, an
association called the Sons of Liberty, which Samuel
Adams helped start, held meetings under a large elm tree
that stood in a small elm grove in Hanover Square, at the
corner of Orange (now Washington) and Essex (now
Boylston/Essex) streets in Boston. That large elm tree
later became known as the Liberty Tree and the Sons of
Liberty held many meetings under it.
On the morning of August 14, 1765, the Boston Sons of Liberty suspended two effigies from a
tree in Hanover Square, known as the Liberty Tree, as a protest to the Stamp Act. 25 One effigy
was that of Andrew Oliver, secretary of the colony, who had recently been appointed
Massachusetts‟ Stamp Distributor. The other effigy was a boot representing Lord Bute (aka John
Stuart – former First Lord of the Treasury) with the head and horns of the devil peeking out over
the top of the boot. That evening the effigies were cut down and a large crowd began a
procession with the effigies, shouting things such as “Liberty and property forever!”, “No
stamps!” and “No taxation without our consent.”(23) The crowd became an unruly mob as it
moved through the streets of Boston and eventually came across a small building soon to be used
24 Lectures on the Growth and Development of the United States: Illustrated, Volume 2. Editors:Wiley, Edwin and Rines, Irving
Everett. American Educational Alliance, 1916, p. 225.
25 The Pictorial Field-Book of the Revolution, Volume 1 of 2. Lossing, Benson John. Harper & Brothers, 1860, pp. 466-467.
- 19 -
by the colonists for purchasing stamps from. They pulled the building down and took large pieces
of it to Fort Hill to build a bonfire with. The mob then proceeded to Secretary Oliver‟s home,
beheaded the effigy of Oliver and then broke out all of the windows on the front of his house.
They then took the headless effigy back to Fort Hill and threw it into the bonfire. Next, they went
back to Oliver‟s home, broke down his door, declared their intention to kill him and proceeded to
destroy his furniture, fences and garden. Fortunately, Oliver had escaped out the rear of his
home. The next morning he resigned his office and several months later was compelled to
publicly read aloud his resignation.(23)
Soon after the mob incident of August 14th, Reverend Mayhew delivered a fiery sermon on
Sunday, August 25, 1765, that clearly stated his opposition to the Stamp Act.26 For his text he
used Galatians 5:12-13 and reminded his congregation of the importance of
Christians keeping their religious liberties and guarding their civil rights. He
specifically spoke out against acts of outrage, violence and riots.
On Monday evening, the day after Mayhew‟s sermon, a mob gathered at the
mansion of Lieutenant Governor Thomas Hutchinson (1711-1780) for the purpose
of damaging his property. Hutchinson and his family escaped just in time to save
their lives as the mob destroyed most of the interior of their house and its
contents. Mayhew was blamed for the incitement of that riot by some of those who disliked him
because of the sermon he had delivered the day before. Mayhew knew that Hutchinson had heard
about his most recent sermon, so in his own defense, he wrote him a sympathetic and apologetic
letter explaining the peaceful purposes of the message from his sermon and acknowledged that he
knew Hutchinson was against the Stamp Act. Colonial opposition to the Stamp Act continued to
increase during the months following the riot at Hutchinson‟s house in August, 1765.
26 Memoir of the Life and Writings of Reverend Jonathan Mayhew, D. D. Pastor of the West Church and Society in Boston, from
June, 1747, to July, 1766. Bradford, Alden. C. C. Little & Company, 1838, p. 420.
- 20 -
In June of 1765, the Massachusetts House of Representatives proposed that a congress should
convene for the purpose of considering Parliament‟s current plan of levying taxes on the colonies.
The House, by way of a circular letter, proposed to the other colonies to meet in New York in
October. The circular letter was presented to the Pennsylvania Assembly at Philadelphia on
September 10th, and the Assembly resolved to send representatives to the October congress. A
committee was appointed by the Assembly to come up with instructions for their representatives
and on September 21, 1765, the committee presented to the Assembly their “Resolves of the
Pennsylvania Assembly on the Stamp Act”.27
Resolves of the Pennsylvania Assembly on the Stamp Act
The House taking into Consideration, that an Act of Parliament has lately passed in England, for
imposing certain Stamp Duties, and other Duties, on his Majesty‟s Subjects in America, whereby
they conceive some of their most essential and valuable Rights, as British Subjects, to be deeply
affected, think it a Duty they owe to themselves, and their Posterity, to come to the following
Resolutions, viz.
Resolved, N. C. D. 1. That the Assemblies of this Province have, from Time to Time, whenever
Requisitions have been made by his Majesty, for carrying on military Operations, for the Defence
of America, most chearfully and liberally contributed their full Proportion of Men and Money for
those Services.
27 Publications of the University of Pennsylvania Series in History No. 1 The revolutionary Movement in Pennsylvania, 17601776. Lincoln, Charles Henry. Ginn & Company, Selling Agents, Tremont Place, Boston, Massachusetts, 1901. p. 131.
- 21 -
Resolved, N. C. D. 2. That whenever his Majesty‟s Service shall, for the future, require the Aids
of the Inhabitants of this Province, and they shall be called upon for that Purpose in a
constitutional Way, it will be their indispensable Duty most chearfully and liberally to grant to his
Majesty their Proportion of Men and Money for the Defence, Security, and other public Services
of the British American Colonies.
Resolved, N. C. D. 3. That the inhabitants of this Province are entitled to all the Liberties, Rights
and Privileges of his Majesty‟s Subjects in Great-Britain, or elsewhere, and that the Constitution
of Government in this Province is founded on the natural Rights of Mankind, and the noble
Principles of English Liberty, and therefore is, or ought to be, perfectly free.
Resolved, N. C. D. 4. That it is the inherent Birth-right, and indubitable Privilege, of every British
Subject, to be taxed only by his own Consent, or that of his legal Representatives, in Conjunction
with his Majesty, or his Substitutes.
Resolved, N. C. D. 5. That the only legal Representatives of the Inhabitants of this Province are
the Persons they annually elect to serve as Members of Assembly.
Resolved, therefore, N. C. D. 6. That the Taxation of the People of this Province by any other
Persons whatsoever than such their Representatives in Assembly, is unconstitutional, and
subversive of their most valuable Rights.
Resolved, N. C. D. 7. That the laying Taxes upon the Inhabitants of this Province in any other
Manner, being manifestly subversive of public Liberty, must, of necessary Consequence, be
utterly destructive of public Happiness.
- 22 -
Resolved, N. C. D. 8. That the vesting and Authority in the Courts of Admiralty to decide in Suits
relating to the Stamp Duty, and other Matters, foreign to their proper Jurisdiction, is highly
dangerous to the Liberties of his Majesty‟s American Subjects, contrary to Magna Charta, the
great Charter and Fountain of English Liberty, and destructive of one of their most darling and
acknowledged Rights, that of Trials by Juries.
Resolved, N. C. D. 9. That it is the Opinion of this House, that the Restraints imposed by several
late Acts of Parliament on the Trade of this Province, at a Time when the People labour under an
enormous Load of Debt, must of Necessity be attended with the most fatal Consequences, not
only to this Province, but to the Trade of our Mother Country.
Resolved, N. C. D. 10. That this House think it their Duty thus firmly to assert, with Modesty and
Decency, their inherent Rights, that their Posterity may learn and know, that it was not with their
Consent and Acquiescence, that any Taxes should be levied on them by any Persons but their own
Representatives; and are desirous that these their Resolves should remain on their Minutes, as a
Testimony of the Zeal and ardent Desire of the present House of Assembly to preserve their
inestimable Rights, which, as Englishmen, they have possessed ever since this Province was
settled, and to transmit them to their latest Posterity. 28
Resolves 1 and 2 stated the willingness of the Assembly to contribute to the support of the
colony, as requested by “his Majesty”, and showed no animosity towards Great Britain. Resolves
3 through 10 had a bit of a “sting” to them and along with Resolves 1 and 2 were agreed to
Nemine Contra Dicente (N.C.D.). When translated from the Latin, Nemine Contra Dicente
means no one speaks against.
28 The Avalon Project – Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy at the Lillian Goldman Law Library, Yale Law School.
- 23 -
The Assembly declared that the constitution of government of the province of Pennsylvania
was founded on the natural “Rights of Mankind” and therefore was perfectly free. The birth right
of every British subject was to be taxed only by his own consent or by his annually elected
representative serving as a Member of Assembly. Taxation without representation was
unconstitutional and that using the Courts of Admiralty to settle suits relating to the Stamp Act
would be destructive to an acknowledged right of trial by jury.
Admiralty courts, also known as maritime courts, were presided over by judges appointed by
the Crown and the cases could be tried anywhere within the British Empire. The judges‟ salaries,
in part, were based on the fines they levied. The accused was considered guilty until proven
innocent. There were no juries in the Admiralty courts.
In opposition to the Stamp Act and in defiance to the British
Parliament, twenty-eight delegates met to convene the Stamp Act
Congress in New York City Hall on October 7, 1765.29 The colonies of
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey,
Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland and South Carolina were represented
by committees of their Assemblies. New Hampshire, Virginia, North
Carolina and Georgia sent no delegates. The colonies of New York, New
Jersey and Delaware, with Assemblies that took no formal action in
response to the circular letter of the Massachusetts House, were
represented by men who had been informally designated as delegates.(26)
The Stamp Act Congress is considered the first Congress of the
American Colonies.
29 The American Revolution, 1763-1783: a history of the American people: an interpretation. Aptheker, Herbert. International
Publishers Company, 1960, pp. 62-63.
- 24 -
The “Resolutions of the Stamp Act Congress” were agreed
upon and released to the public on October 19, 1765.30 Timothy
Ruggles (1711–1795) of Massachusetts, who was chairman of
the congress, did not assent to the resolutions and was later
censured for his refusal by the Massachusetts House of
Representatives.
Resolutions of the Stamp Act Congress
The members of this Congress, sincerely devoted, with the warmest sentiments of affection and
duty to His Majesty's Person and Government, inviolably attached to the present happy
establishment of the Protestant succession, and with minds deeply impressed by a sense of the
present and impending misfortunes of the British colonies on this continent; having considered as
maturely as time will permit the circumstances of the said colonies, esteem it our indispensable
duty to make the following declarations of our humble opinion, respecting the most essential
rights and liberties of the colonists, and of the grievances under which they labour, by reason of
several late Acts of Parliament.
1. That His Majesty's subjects in these colonies, owe the same allegiance to the Crown of GreatBritain, that is owing from his subjects born within the realm, and all due subordination to that
august body the Parliament of Great Britain.
30 Documentary Source Book of American History, 1606-1913. MacDonald, William. The Macmillan Company, 1916, p. 136.
- 25 -
2. That His Majesty's liege subjects in these colonies are entitled to all the inherent rights and
liberties of his natural born subjects within the kingdom of Great-Britain.
3. That it is inseparably essential to the freedom of a people, and the undoubted right of
Englishmen, that no taxes be imposed on them, but with their own consent, given personally, or
by their representatives.
4. That the people of these colonies are not, and from their local circumstances cannot be,
represented in the House of Commons in Great-Britain.
5. That the only representatives of the people of these colonies, are persons chosen therein by
themselves, and that no taxes ever have been, or can be constitutionally imposed on them, but by
their respective legislatures.
6. That all supplies to the Crown, being free gifts of the people, it is unreasonable and inconsistent
with the principles and spirit of the British Constitution, for the people of Great-Britain to grant to
His Majesty the property of the colonists.
7. That trial by jury is the inherent and invaluable right of every British subject in these colonies.
8. That the late Act of Parliament, entitled, An Act for granting and applying certain Stamp
Duties, and other Duties, in the British colonies and plantations in America, etc., by imposing
taxes on the inhabitants of these colonies, and the said Act, and several other Acts, by extending
the jurisdiction of the courts of Admiralty beyond its ancient limits, have a manifest tendency to
subvert the rights and liberties of the colonists.
- 26 -
9. That the duties imposed by several late Acts of Parliament, from the peculiar circumstances of
these colonies, will be extremely burthensome and grievous; and from the scarcity of specie, the
payment of them absolutely impracticable.
10. That as the profits of the trade of these colonies ultimately center in Great-Britain, to pay for
the manufactures which they are obliged to take from thence, they eventually contribute very
largely to all supplies granted there to the Crown.
11. That the restrictions imposed by several late Acts of Parliament, on the trade of these colonies,
will render them unable to purchase the manufactures of Great-Britain.
12. That the increase, prosperity, and happiness of these colonies, depend on the full and free
enjoyment of their rights and liberties, and an intercourse with Great-Britain mutually affectionate
and advantageous.
13. That it is the right of the British subjects in these colonies, to petition the King, Or either
House of Parliament.
14. Lastly, That it is the indispensable duty of these colonies, to the best of sovereigns, to the
mother country, and to themselves, to endeavour by a loyal and dutiful address to his Majesty,
and humble applications to both Houses of Parliament, to procure the repeal of the Act for
granting and applying certain stamp duties, of all clauses of any other Acts of Parliament,
- 27 -
whereby the jurisdiction of the Admiralty is extended as aforesaid, and of the other late Acts for
the restriction of American commerce. 31
In the resolutions presented by the Stamp Act Congress the representatives confirmed their
allegiance to the Crown and declared their entitlement to the same rights as those born within the
kingdom of Great Britain. It was unreasonable for the people of Britain to grant to His Majesty
the property of the American colonists since that was inconsistent with the principles of the
British Constitution. Taxes could be imposed upon them only by their consent or by their elected
representatives since they were not, and due to the great distance between them and Britain, could
not be properly represented in the House of Commons. Extending the jurisdiction of the Courts
of Admiralty subverted their rights and liberties and would not preserve the inherent right to a
trial by jury.
On October 29, 1765, the Massachusetts House of Representatives unanimously passed
fourteen resolves, which had been drafted by Representative Samuel Adams, as an expression of
their rights as inhabitants of the province of Massachusetts.32
Resolves of the Massachusetts House of Representatives
Whereas the just rights of his Majesty's subjects of this Province, derived to them from the British
Constitution, as well as the royal charter, have been lately drawn into question: in order to
ascertain the same, this House do unanimously come into the following resolves:
31 The Avalon Project – Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy at the Lillian Goldman Law Library, Yale Law School.
32 The Writings of Samuel Adams, Collected and Edited by Harry Alonzo Cushing, Volume 1. G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1904, p. 23.
- 28 -
1. Resolved, That there are certain essential rights of the British Constitution of government,
which are founded in the law of God and nature, and are the common rights of mankind;
therefore,
2. Resolved, That the inhabitants of this Province are unalienably entitled to those essential rights
in common with all men: and that no law of society can, consistent with the law of God and
nature, divest them of those rights.
3. Resolved, That no man can justly take the property of another without his consent; and that
upon this original principle, the right of representation in the same body which exercises the
power of making laws for levying taxes, which is one of the main pillars of the British
Constitution, is evidently founded.
4. Resolved, That this inherent right, together with all other essential rights, liberties, privileges,
and immunities of the people of Great Britain, have been fully confirmed to them by Magna
Charta, and by former and by later acts of Parliament.
5. Resolved, That his Majesty's subjects in America are, in reason and common sense, entitled to
the same extent of liberty with his Majesty's subjects in Britain.
6. Resolved, That by the declaration of the royal charter of this Province, the inhabitants are
entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural subjects of Great Britain to
all intents, purposes, and constructions whatever.
- 29 -
7. Resolved, That the inhabitants of this Province appear to be entitled to all the rights
aforementioned by an act of Parliament, 13th of Geo. II.
8. Resolved, That those rights do belong to the inhabitants of this Province upon the principle of
common justice; their ancestors having settled this country at their sole expense, and their
posterity having approved themselves most loyal and faithful subjects of Great Britain.
9. Resolved, That every individual in the Colonies is as advantageous to Great Britain as if he
were in Great Britain and held to pay his full proportion of taxes there; and as the inhabitants of
this Province pay their full proportion of taxes for the support of his Majesty's government here, it
is unreasonable for them to be called upon to pay any part of the charges of the government there.
10. Resolved, That the inhabitants of this Province are not, and never have been, represented in
the Parliament of Great Britain; and that such a representation there as the subjects in Britain do
actually and rightfully enjoy is impracticable for the subjects in America; and further, that in the
opinion of this House, the several subordinate powers of legislation in America were constituted
upon the apprehensions of this impracticability.
11. Resolved, That the only method whereby the constitutional rights of the subjects of this
Province can be secure, consistent with a subordination to the supreme power of Great Britain, is
by the continued exercise of such powers of government as are granted in the royal charter, and a
firm adherence to the privileges of the same.
12. Resolved, as a just conclusion from some of the foregoing resolves, That all acts made by any
power whatever, other than the General Assembly of this Province, imposing taxes on the
- 30 -
inhabitants, are infringements of our inherent and unalienable rights as men and British subjects,
and render void the most valuable declarations of our charter.
13. Resolved, That the extension of the powers of the Court of Admiralty within this Province is a
most violent infraction of the right of trials by juries, a right which this House, upon the principles
of their British ancestors, hold most dear and sacred; it being the only security of the lives,
liberties, and properties of his Majesty's subjects here.
14. Resolved, That this House owe the strictest allegiance to his most sacred Majesty King
George the Third; that they have the greatest veneration for the Parliament; and that they will,
after the example of all their predecessors from the settlement of this country, exert themselves to
their utmost in supporting his Majesty's authority in the Province, in promoting the true happiness
of his subjects, and in enlarging the extent of his dominion.
Ordered, That all the foregoing resolves be kept in the records of this House, that a just sense of
liberty and the firm sentiments of loyalty be transmitted to posterity.(32)
In the resolves presented by the Massachusetts House the representatives reminded the British
government that the British Constitution provided certain unalienable rights that no law of society
could take away and that the inhabitants of Massachusetts were entitled to those same rights. The
representatives declared that all individuals had the right to representation in the body that
exercised the power of levying taxes on them and that British subjects in America were entitled to
the same rights, liberties and immunities as were the British subjects in Britain. The resolves set
forth that since the colonists paid their share of taxes to support the various governments within
the colonies they should not be required to pay additional taxes to support the government in
- 31 -
Great Britain. The House representatives stated in their resolves that the inhabitants of
Massachusetts were not represented in Parliament, never had been, and never would be due to the
great distance between America and Great Britain; extending the powers of the Court of
Admiralty was an infraction of the right of trials by jury and the House still maintained the
strictest allegiance to his most sacred Majesty King George the Third.
It was the Virginia House of Burgesses that passed the first legislative protest against the Stamp
Act with their “Virginia Resolves of the Stamp Act”; it was the Massachusetts House of
Representatives that first recommended a congress should convene in response to the Stamp Act;
it was the Pennsylvania Assembly that prepared instructions, known as the “Resolves of the
Pennsylvania Assembly on the Stamp Act”, for their congressional representatives going to the
Stamp Act Congress; it was the first Congress of the American Colonies that agreed upon and
released to the public the “Resolutions of the Stamp Act Congress”; and it was the “Resolves of
the Massachusetts House of Representatives” that asserted what rights the inhabitants of the
Province of Massachusetts had, rights that were applicable to all inhabitants of all colonies in
North America.
Henry Conway, the minister in charge of colonial affairs, was not in favor of taxing the
American colonists without their consent, but he knew the Stamp Act would soon take effect. He
could see that enforcement of the Act would be very difficult because the colonists were issuing
resolves and resolutions in protest to it; they were holding public meetings to discuss various
ways of avoiding it; and the Sons of Liberty were committing acts of violence in order to stop it.
Conway sent a circular letter to the colonial governors on October 24, 1765, requesting they do
their best to maintain law and order.33 In his letter, he gave the governors permission to call upon
the military for any needed assistance.
33 Documentary Source Book of American History, 1606-1913. MacDonald, William. The Macmillan Company, 1916, p. 139.
- 32 -
On October 31, 1765, a large gathering of New York
City merchants held a meeting to discuss various ways
of not complying with the Stamp Act and how to strike
a blow at trade with Britain. The merchants concluded
their meeting by signing the “New York Merchants
Non-importation Agreement”34 The agreement became
the first of its kind in the American colonies and
required that all new orders for goods and merchandise
placed with Great Britain were to include the
stipulation that the order was void if the Stamp Act was
not repealed. By November, a large number of merchants in Philadelphia signed their own nonimportation agreement.35 Merchants and traders in Boston, Salem and Marblehead signed
agreements in December.(35) Following in the footsteps of New York City, merchants in Albany
signed a non-importation agreement in January, 1766.(35)
The Stamp Act became effective on November 1, 1765.36 The American colonists were
determined not to buy stamps or use stamped paper whenever possible. Commerce between the
colonies and Great Britain was an important part of daily life in America and any measure that
might interrupt that commerce would be felt largely by Britain. Businesses that could not avoid
using stamps as part of their day to day operations were suspended in some cases. Courts closed
and vessels were delayed in the harbors. Social and commercial operations in America nearly
stopped. The use of foreign luxuries in America was almost entirely stopped. When commonly
34 Prologue to Revolution: Sources and Documents on the Stamp Act Crisis, 1764-1766. Morgan, Edmund Sears. UNC Press,
1959, p. 106.
35 Transactions, Volume 19. Colonial Society of Massachusetts. The Society, 1918, pp. 198-200.
36 The pictorial field-book of the revolution, Volume 1 of 2. Lossing, Benson John. Harper & Brothers, 1860, p. 469.
- 33 -
used items were needed; those of domestic manufacture were more often selected over imports.
British manufacturers suffered financially because of the boycott of their goods by the American
colonists. Trade with Britain was almost entirely suspended.
Opposition to the Stamp Act continued to increase as evidenced by a large gathering of NewLondon, Connecticut citizens who organized a meeting on December 10, 1765, and agreed to a
set of resolves opposing the act.37 In like manner, residents of Wilmington, North Carolina,
gathered together on February 18, 1766, and signed a pledge of their “Faith and Honour” to
prevent “entirely the Operation of the Stamp Act.”38
The Sons of Liberty of the colonies of New York and Connecticut formed a union, “in the
presence of Almighty God”, where they pledged to protect those who would oppose the Stamp
Act and to “bring about, accomplish, and perfect” a similar “association with all of the colonies
on the continent.” 39 That protection would extend to judges, clerks, attorneys, those in the press
and other individuals in need of help. The Sons of Liberty believed that the Stamp Act would
“deprive them of the most invaluable part of the British constitution, viz. the trial by juries, and
the most just mode of taxation in the world, that is, of taxing themselves, rights that every British
subject becomes heir to as soon as born.”(39) A document containing the details of the union was
signed on Christmas Day, 1765.(39)
“Resolved, That we will go to the last Extremity, and venture our Lives and Fortunes,
effectually to prevent the said Stamp-Act from ever taking Place in this City and Province.” The
37 Prologue to Revolution: Sources and Documents on the Stamp Act Crisis, 1764-1766. Morgan, Edmund Sears. UNC Press,
1959, p. 114.
38 Prologue to Revolution: Sources and Documents on the Stamp Act Crisis, 1764-1766. Morgan, Edmund Sears. UNC Press,
1959, p. 117.
39 The history of the rise, progress, and establishment, of the independence of the United States of America: including an account
of the late war; and of the thirteen colonies, from their origin to that period; Volume 1. Gordon, William. Printed for the author,
1788, pp. 195-199.
- 34 -
Sons of Liberty in New York City wrote and agreed to that resolve and four additional resolves at
an assembly held at the house of Mr. William Howard on January 11, 1766.40
“Resol. 1. That the late act of Parliament called the Stamp-Act, is unconstitutional, and
intended to enslave the true subjects of America.” “Resol. 2. That we will oppose the same to the
last extremity, even to take the field.” The Sons of Liberty in Wallingford, Connecticut wrote and
agreed to those two resolves and three additional resolves at a meeting held on January 13,
1766.41
Very early in 1766, the Sons of Liberty in Boston were informed of the association between the
Sons of Liberty in New York and the Sons of Liberty in Connecticut. The Sons of Liberty in
Boston sent a circular letter, with details of the New York/Connecticut association, to several
Massachusetts towns requesting a reply as to the opinions of the people regarding the association.
Most of the towns signaled “their determination to march with their whole force to the support of
the British constitution, and consequently the relief of those that shall or may be in any danger
from the stamp-act or its abettors.”(39) They agreed to unite themselves with New York and
Connecticut and in a letter to the brotherhood at Norwich they proposed to form a continental
union, which Connecticut greatly approved. Details of the association were also sent to the Sons
of Liberty in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, where, after holding a brief meeting, they answered
with their approval of the steps already taken and their determination to oppose the execution of
the Stamp Act.
In Virginia, justices for the Northampton County courthouse adopted a resolution opposing the
Stamp Act and agreed to restrain from prosecuting anyone who did legal business without using
40 Prologue to Revolution: Sources and Documents on the Stamp Act Crisis, 1764-1766. Morgan, Edmund Sears. UNC Press,
1959, p. 115.
41 Prologue to Revolution: Sources and Documents on the Stamp Act Crisis, 1764-1766. Morgan, Edmund Sears. UNC Press,
1959, p. 114.
- 35 -
the required stamps. On February 11, 1766, they declared that the Stamp Act “did not bind, effect
or concern the inhabitants of this colony inasmuch as they conceived the said act to be
unconstitutional.”42 That was the first time a court in the British Empire held a
Parliamentary statute as unconstitutional.
“2. That we will resist, as far as in us lies, all illegal attempts to deprive us of our indubitable
rights; and for that reason, will, to the last extremity, oppose the exercise of the Stamp Act in the
colony.” 43 The Sons of Liberty in New Brunswick, New Jersey wrote and agreed to that resolve
and four additional resolves at a meeting held on February 25, 1766.(43)
“II. Resolved, That we will by all lawful ways and means, which divine providence hath put
into our hands, defend ourselves in the full enjoyment of, and preserve inviolate to posterity,
those in estimable privileges of all free-born British subjects, of being taxed by none but
representatives of their own choosing, and of being tried only by a jury of their own Peers; for, if
we quietly submit to the execution of the said Stamp Act, all our claims to civil liberty will be
lost, and we and our posterity become absolute slaves.”44 The Sons of Liberty in Norfolk,
Virginia wrote and agreed to that resolve and six additional resolves at a meeting held at the
Norfolk County Court House on March 31, 1766.(44)
Documents outlining the current state of American affairs had been submitted to Parliament at
their session opening in mid December, 1765; along with petitions that outlined the losses to
British trade as a result of the American colonists avoiding the enforcement of the Stamp Act. 45
In February, 1766, the House of Commons rejected continuing to enforce the Stamp Act by
more than a two to one majority. The House of Lords, by a small majority, resolved in favor of
42 The Relation of the Judiciary to the Constitution. Montgomery Meigs, William. Neale Publishing Company, 1919, p. 54.
43 Prologue to Revolution: Sources and Documents on the Stamp Act Crisis, 1764-1766. Morgan, Edmund Sears. UNC Press, 1959, p. 115.
44 Prologue to Revolution: Sources and Documents on the Stamp Act Crisis, 1764-1766. Morgan, Edmund Sears. UNC Press, 1959, p. 116.
45 Documentary Source Book of American History, 1606-1913. MacDonald, William. The Macmillan Company, 1916, p. 140.
- 36 -
continuing to enforce the Stamp Act. House members had referred to a recent presentation given
to them by Benjamin Franklin, which was in favor of repealing the Stamp Act, to strengthen their
argument for repeal. Parliament then proposed a declaratory resolution asserting their absolute
right to tax the colonies. The resolution was adopted by large majorities in both the House of
Commons and the House of Lords.
On March 18, 1766, the Stamp Act was repealed and the Declaratory Act became effective by
receiving royal assent from King George III.(45) The repeal of the Stamp Act gave the
American colonists their very first victory over Parliament!
The Declaratory Act was Parliament‟s way of flexing its muscles against the colonists by
declaring “That the said colonies and plantations in America have been, are, and of right ought to
be, subordinate unto, and dependent upon the imperial crown and parliament of Great Britain”
and Parliament “had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to bind the
colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever.”
Parliament declared they could tax America whenever and however they wanted.(45)
The colonist‟s continued a strong opposition to the Sugar Act, which led Parliament to repeal it
on June 6, 1766.46 The only portion of the Sugar Act not repealed was a tax on tea.
46 The Papers of Henry Laurens: September 1, 1765-July 31, 1768, Volume 5. Laurens, Henry. University of South Carolina
Press, 1976, p. 134.
- 37 -
Quick Summary
1750: Reverend Jonathan Mayhew fired the Morning Gun of the Revolution.
1754: The French and Indian war began. Representatives from seven colonies gathered
together, formed the Albany Congress and adopted the Albany Plan of Union.
1760: The British defeated the French in America and ended the French and Indian war.
1761: James Otis argued in court a case against writs of assistance and during his nearly five
hour presentation he emphasized that man had an inherent and inalienable right to his life,
liberty and property, as revealed to man by God. American independence was then and
there born.
1764: The Sugar Act went into effect. Samuel Adams wrote a series of resolutions that
became the first public and formal action taken against the proposed Stamp Act. The Sugar
Act, known as the American Revenue Act of 1764, became effective. The Massachusetts
House of Representatives and the Virginia House of Burgesses approved petitions to the
House of Commons requesting that they not pass a “Stamp Act”.
1765: The first of two Quartering Acts became effective. Patrick Henry gave his historic
speech against the Stamp Act. The Virginia House of Burgesses passed the first legislative
protest against the Stamp Act known as the “Virginia Resolves of the Stamp Act”. The
Committee on the Stamp Act and Other Grievances presented their “Resolves of the
Pennsylvania Assembly on the Stamp Act”. Representatives from nine colonies assembled
- 38 -
in New York for the First Congress of the American Colonies known as the Stamp Act
Congress. Resolutions of the Stamp Act Congress were agreed upon and released to the
public. The Resolves of the Massachusetts House of Representatives were passed
unanimously. The New York Merchants Non-importation Agreement was signed by New
York merchants and was the first of many more non-importation agreements. The Stamp
Act became effective.
1766: Throughout the colonies numerous Sons of Liberty groups wrote and agreed to
several resolves against the Stamp Act. The Declaratory Act became effective and the
Stamp Act was repealed. Parliament repealed the Sugar Act.
- 39 -
A Day in American History
February 4, 1750: Reverend Jonathan Mayhew, pastor of the West Church, Boston, delivered a
very thought provoking sermon about unlimited submission and non-resistance to the higher
powers that many historians have referred to as “The Morning Gun of the Revolution.”
September 29, 1751: The Currency Act of 1751, applicable to his Majesty's Colonies of
Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut and New Hampshire,
became effective.
September 2, 1752: The last day that Great Britain and its colonists used the Julian calendar.
Parliament switched from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar by adding 11 days to
September. Thursday the 3rd became the 14th. Also, new years would start on January 1st instead
of March 25th.
May 9, 1754: The first political cartoon in an American newspaper showed a divided snake with
the caption “Join or die.”
May 28, 1754: The French and Indian War, as it was called in North America, began.
July 3, 1754: George Washington surrendered the small, circular Fort Necessity in southwestern
Pennsylvania, to the French.
June 19, 1754: The Albany Congress met from June 19 to July 11, 1754 and produced the
Albany Plan.
- 40 -
July 9, 1755: Major General Edward Braddock and his men were ambushed, before reaching Fort
Duquesne, by Indian warriors and French soldiers.
September 18, 1759: The French surrendered Quebec to the British.
February 24, 1761: James Otis argued the case against Writs of Assistance for nearly five hours.
February 10, 1763: The Seven Years' War, known as the French and Indian War in America,
ended with the signing of the Treaty of Paris.
May 7, 1763: Pontiac's Rebellion began with an attempted seizure of Detroit that failed.
October 7, 1763: King George III issued the Royal Proclamation of 1763.
May 24, 1764: At the annual town meeting in Boston, a series of resolutions written by Samuel
Adams became the first public and formal denial of Parliament's right to tax the colonies without
their consent.
May 30, 1764: The Massachusetts House of Representatives began their first session of 1764 on
May 30, with James Otis as one of the four representatives from Boston in attendance.
September 1, 1764: The Currency Act of 1764, applicable to all colonies south of New England,
became effective.
- 41 -
September 29, 1764: The Sugar Act, known as the American Revenue Act of 1764, became
effective.
November 3, 1764: The Massachusetts House of Representatives petitioned the House of
Commons to not pass a "Stamp Act".
December 18, 1764: The Virginia House of Burgesses petitioned the House of Commons to not
pass a "Stamp Act".
March 22, 1765: The Stamp Act received royal assent.
March 24, 1765: The first of two Quartering Acts became effective.
May 29, 1765: Patrick Henry gave his historic speech against the Stamp Act, answering a cry of
treason with, "If this be treason, make the most of it."
May 30, 1765: The Virginia House of Burgesses passed the first legislative protest against the
Stamp Act known as the "Virginia Resolves of the Stamp Act".
August 14, 1765: The Sons of Liberty held a meeting under the "Liberty Tree" protesting the
Stamp Act.
August 25, 1765: The Reverend Jonathan Mayhew, pastor of the West Church, Boston, delivered
a fiery sermon against the Stamp Act.
- 42 -
September 21, 1765: The Committee on the Stamp Act and Other Grievances presented to the
Pennsylvania Assembly at Philadelphia their "Resolves of the Pennsylvania Assembly on the
Stamp Act".
October 7, 1765: Representatives from nine colonies assembled in New York for the First
Congress of the American Colonies popularly known as the Stamp Act Congress.
October 19, 1765: Resolutions of the Stamp Act Congress were agreed upon and released to the
public.
October 24, 1765: Henry Conway, Minister of Colonial Affairs, sent a circular letter to the
colonial governors requesting they do their best to maintain law and order and gave them
permission to call upon the military for assistance while they enforced the Stamp Act.
October 29, 1765: The Massachusetts House of Representatives unanimously passed fourteen
resolves which had been drafted by Representative Samuel Adams and asserted the inherent and
inalienable rights given to the people by the British Constitution.
October 31, 1765: At a meeting of the merchants of New York City, the New York Merchants
Non-importation Agreement was subscribed by nearly two hundred principal merchants and
became the first agreement of its kind in the American Colonies.
November 1, 1765: The Stamp Act became effective.
- 43 -
December 10, 1765: At a meeting of the general populace, in New London, Connecticut,
Resolves against the Stamp Act were agreed upon.
December 25, 1765: The Sons of Liberty from New York and from Connecticut formed a Union
in Arms.
January 11, 1766: The Sons of Liberty from New York proposed and agreed to, by a great
majority, several Resolves against the Stamp Act.
January 13, 1766: The Sons of Liberty from Wallingford, Connecticut proposed and agreed to
several Resolves against the Stamp Act.
February 11, 1766: Justices of Northampton County, Virginia declared that the stamp Act "did
not bind, effect or concern the inhabitants of this colony inasmuch as they conceived the said act
to be unconstitutional".
February 18, 1766: In Wilmington, North Carolina, residents gathered to pledge their faith and
honor to prevent the Stamp Act from succeeding.
February 25, 1766: The Sons of Liberty from New Brunswick, New Jersey proposed and agreed
to several Resolves against the Stamp Act.
March 18, 1766: The Declaratory Act became effective and the Stamp Act was repealed when
they both received royal assent from King George III.
- 44 -
March 31, 1766: The Sons of Liberty from Norfolk, Virginia proposed and agreed to several
Resolves against the Stamp Act.
June 6, 1766: Parliament repealed the Sugar Act except for the tax on tea.
- 45 -