Editing John Hancock (section)

==Growing imperial tensions==
After its [[Great Britain in the Seven Years' War|victory in the Seven Years' War]], the [[British Empire]] was deeply in debt. Looking for new sources of revenue, the [[Parliament of Great Britain|British Parliament]] sought, for the first time, to directly tax the colonies, beginning with the [[Sugar Act 1764]].{{sfn|Fowler|1980|p=53}} The earlier [[Molasses Act 1733]], a tax on shipments from the West Indies, had produced hardly any revenue because it was widely bypassed by smuggling, which was seen as a [[victimless crime]]. Not only was there little social stigma attached to smuggling in the colonies, but in port cities where trade was the primary generator of wealth, smuggling enjoyed considerable community support, and it was even possible to obtain insurance against being caught. Colonial merchants developed an impressive repertoire of evasive maneuvers to conceal the origin, nationality, routes, and content of their illicit cargoes. This included the frequent use of fraudulent paperwork to make the cargo appear legal and authorized. And much to the frustration of the British authorities, when seizures did happen local merchants were often able to use sympathetic provincial courts to reclaim confiscated goods and have their cases dismissed. For instance, Edward Randolph, the appointed head of customs in New England, brought 36 seizures to trial from 1680 to the end of 1682—and all but two of these were acquitted. Alternatively, merchants sometimes took matters into their own hands and stole illicit goods back while impounded.<ref>Smuggler Nation, Page 15</ref>

The Sugar Act 1764 provoked outrage in Boston, where it was widely viewed as a violation of colonial rights. Men such as [[James Otis Jr.|James Otis]] and Samuel Adams argued that because the colonists were not represented in Parliament, they [[no taxation without representation|could not be taxed]] by that body; only the colonial assemblies, where the colonists were represented, could levy taxes upon the colonies. Hancock was not yet a political activist; however, he criticized the tax for economic, rather than constitutional, reasons.{{sfn|Fowler|1980|p=53}}
[[File:Samuel_Adams_by_John_Singleton_Copley.jpg|thumb|Around 1772, Hancock commissioned John Singleton Copley to paint this portrait of Samuel Adams, Hancock's early political mentor.{{sfn|Fowler|1980|p=153}}]]
Hancock emerged as a leading political figure in Boston just as tensions with Great Britain were increasing. In March 1765, he was elected as one of Boston's five [[Boston Board of Selectmen|selectmen]], an office previously held by his uncle for many years.{{sfn|Fowler|1980|p=55}} Soon after, Parliament passed the [[Stamp Act 1765]], a tax on legal documents such as wills that had been levied in Britain for many years but which was wildly unpopular in the colonies, producing riots and organized resistance. Hancock initially took a moderate position: as a loyal [[British subject]], he thought that the colonists should submit to the act even though he believed that Parliament was misguided.{{sfn|Fowler|1980|p=56}} Within a few months Hancock had changed his mind, although he continued to disapprove of violence and the intimidation of royal officials by mobs.{{sfn|Fowler|1980|pp=58–60}} Hancock joined the resistance to the Stamp Act 1765 by participating in a boycott of British goods, which made him popular in Boston. After Bostonians learned of the impending repeal of the Stamp Act, Hancock was elected to the [[Massachusetts House of Representatives]] in May 1766.{{sfn|Fowler|1980|pp=63–64}}

Hancock's political success benefited from the support of Samuel Adams, the clerk of the House of Representatives and a leader of Boston's "popular party", also known as "Whigs" and later as "Patriots". The two men made an unlikely pair. Fifteen years older than Hancock, Adams had a somber, [[Puritans|Puritan]] outlook that stood in marked contrast to Hancock's taste for luxury and extravagance.{{sfn|Fowler|1980|p=109}}{{sfn|Fowler|1997|p=76}} Apocryphal stories later portrayed Adams as masterminding Hancock's political rise so that the merchant's wealth could be used to further the Whig agenda.{{sfn|Fowler|1980|p=64}} Historian [[James Truslow Adams]] portrays Hancock as shallow and vain, easily manipulated by Adams.{{sfn|Adams|1930|p=428}} Historian [[William M. Fowler]], who wrote biographies of both men, argues that this characterization was an exaggeration and that the relationship between the two was symbiotic, with Adams as the mentor and Hancock the protégé.{{sfn|Fowler|1980|pp=64–65}}{{sfn|Fowler|1997| p=73}}