Editing Stamp Act 1765 (section)

==Reactions==
As the act imposed a tax on many different types of paper items, including newspapers, contracts, deeds, wills, claims, [[indentures]] and many other types of legal documents, its effect would be felt in many different professions and trades, resulting in wide spread protests from newspapers, citizens, and even attacks on public officials, tax collectors and their offices and homes.{{sfn|Alexander|2002|pages=25–26, 28, 222}}

===Political responses===
Grenville started appointing stamp distributors almost immediately after the act passed Parliament. Applicants were not hard to come by because of the anticipated income that the positions promised, and he appointed local colonists to the post. Benjamin Franklin even suggested the appointment of [[John Hughes (Pennsylvania politician)|John Hughes]] as the agent for Pennsylvania, indicating that even Franklin was not aware of the turmoil and impact that the tax was going to generate on American-British relations or that these distributors would become the focus of colonial resistance.{{efn|Separate appointments were made for the three Canadian colonies ([[Province of Quebec (1763–1791)|Quebec]], [[Nova Scotia]], and [[Newfoundland Colony|Newfoundland]]), one each for [[East Florida|East]] and [[West Florida]], and five for the islands of the West Indies.{{sfn|Weslager|1976|pages=51–52}}{{sfn|Draper|1996|page=223}}}}

Debate in the colonies had actually begun in the spring of 1764 over the Stamp Act when Parliament passed a resolution that contained the assertion, "That, towards further defraying the said Expences, it may be proper to charge certain Stamp Duties in the said Colonies and Plantations." Both the [[Sugar Act]] and the proposed Stamp Act were designed principally to raise revenue from the colonists. The Sugar Act, to a large extent, was a continuation of past legislation related primarily to the regulation of trade (termed an external tax), but its stated purpose was entirely new: to collect revenue directly from the colonists for a specific purpose. The novelty of the Stamp Act was that it was the first internal tax (a tax based entirely on activities within the colonies) levied directly on the colonies by Parliament. It was judged by the colonists to be a more dangerous assault on their rights than the Sugar Act 1764 was, because of its potential wide application to the colonial economy.{{sfn|Morgan|1948|pages=311–313}}

The theoretical issue that soon held center stage was the matter of [[No taxation without representation|taxation without representation]]. Benjamin Franklin had raised this as far back as 1754 at the Albany Congress when he wrote, "That it is suppos'd an undoubted Right of Englishmen not to be taxed but by their own Consent given thro' their Representatives. That the Colonies have no Representatives in Parliament."{{sfn|Draper|1996|page=216}} The counter to this argument was the theory of [[virtual representation]]. [[Thomas Whately]] enunciated this theory in a pamphlet that readily acknowledged that there could be no taxation without consent, but the facts were that at least 75% of British adult males were not represented in Parliament because of property qualifications or other factors. Members of Parliament were bound to represent the interests of all British citizens and subjects, so colonists were the recipients of virtual representation in Parliament, like those disenfranchised subjects in the British Isles.<ref>Morgan (1956) p. 19{{full citation needed|date=March 2023}}</ref> This theory, however, ignored a crucial difference between the unrepresented in Britain and the colonists. The colonists enjoyed actual representation in their own legislative assemblies, and the issue was whether these legislatures, rather than Parliament, were in fact the sole recipients of the colonists' consent with regard to taxation.{{sfn|Draper|1996|pages=216–217}}

[[File:Samuel_Adams_by_John_Singleton_Copley.jpg|thumb|[[Samuel Adams]] opposed the act]]

In May 1764, [[Samuel Adams]] of Boston drafted the following that stated the common American position:

{{blockquote|For if our Trade may be taxed why not our Lands? Why not the Produce of our Lands & every thing we possess or make use of? This we apprehend annihilates our Charter Right to govern & tax ourselves&nbsp;– It strikes our British Privileges, which as we have never forfeited them, we hold in common with our Fellow Subjects who are Natives of Britain: If Taxes are laid upon us in any shape without our having a legal Representation where they are laid, are we not reduced from the Character of free Subjects to the miserable State of tributary Slaves.{{sfn|Draper|1996|page=219}}}}

Massachusetts appointed a five-member [[Committee of Correspondence]] in June 1764 to coordinate action and exchange information regarding the Sugar Act, and Rhode Island formed a similar committee in October 1764. This attempt at unified action represented a significant step forward in colonial unity and cooperation. The Virginia House of Burgesses sent a protest of the taxes to London in December 1764, arguing that they did not have the specie required to pay the tax.{{sfn|Weslager|1976|pages=58–59}}{{sfn|Ferling|2003|page=33}} Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Connecticut also sent protest to England in 1764. The content of the messages varied, but they all emphasized that taxation of the colonies without colonial assent was a violation of their rights. By the end of 1765, all of the [[Thirteen Colonies]] except Georgia and North Carolina had sent some sort of protest passed by colonial legislative assemblies.{{sfn|Morgan|1948|pp=314–315}}{{sfn|Draper|1996|page=223}}

The [[House of Burgesses|Virginia House of Burgesses]] reconvened in early May 1765 after news was received of the passage of the act. By the end of May, it appeared that they would not consider the tax, and many legislators went home, including [[George Washington]]. Only 30 out of 116 Burgesses remained, but one of those remaining was [[Patrick Henry]] who was attending his first session. Henry led the opposition to the Stamp Act; he proposed his resolutions on 29 May 1765, and they were passed in the form of the [[Virginia Resolves]].{{sfn|Ferling|2003|pages=32–34}}{{sfn|Middlekauff|2005|page=83}} The Resolves stated:

{{blockquote|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 Liberties, privileges, Franchises, and Immunities that have at any Time been held, enjoyed, and possessed, by the People of Great Britain.

Resolved, That by the two royal Charters, granted by King James the First, the Colonists aforesaid are declared entitled to all Liberties, Privileges, and Immunities of Denizens and natural Subjects, to all Intents and Purposes, as if they had been abiding and born within the Realm of England.

Resolved, That the Taxation of the People by themselves, or by Persons chosen by themselves to represent them, who could only know what Taxes the People are able to bear, or the easiest method of raising them, and must themselves be affected by every Tax laid on the People, is the only Security against a burdensome Taxation, and the distinguishing characteristick of British Freedom, without which the ancient Constitution cannot exist.

Resolved, That his majesty's liege people of this his most ancient and loyal Colony have without interruption enjoyed the inestimable Right of being governed by such Laws, respecting their internal Polity and Taxation, as are derived from their own Consent, with the Approbation of their Sovereign, or his Substitute; and that the same hath never been forfeited or yielded up, but hath been constantly recognized by the King and People of Great Britain.{{efn|The Resolves were widely reprinted and many versions of them are still seen. Middlekauff used the wording from the journal of the House of Burgesses.{{sfn|Middlekauff|2005|page=84}}}}}}

On 6 June 1765, the Massachusetts Lower House proposed a meeting for the 1st Tuesday of October in New York City:

{{blockquote|That it is highly expedient there should be a Meeting as soon as may be, of Committees from the Houses of Representatives or Burgesses in the several Colonies on this Continent to consult together on the present Circumstances of the Colonies, and the difficulties to which they are and must be reduced by the operation of the late Acts of Parliament for levying Duties and Taxes on the Colonies, and to consider of a general and humble Address to his Majesty and the Parliament to implore Relief.{{sfn|Weslager|1976|page=60}}}}

There was no attempt to keep this meeting a secret; Massachusetts promptly notified [[Richard Jackson (colonial agent)|Richard Jackson]] of the proposed meeting, their agent in England and a member of Parliament.{{sfn|Weslager|1976|page=65}}

===Colonial newspapers===
{{main|&nbsp;Early American publishers and printers}}
[[File:New Hampshire Gazette announcement of the Stamp Act, October 31, 1765.jpg|thumb|upright=0.8|''New Hampshire Gazette'', October 31, 1765 issue, with black borders, protesting the coming of the Stamp Act]]
[[File:Pennsylvania Journal, Stamp Act announcement.jpg|left|upright=0.8|thumb|Pennsylvania Journal, October 31, 1765, issue, with black borders, protesting the stamp act]]

John Adams complained that the London ministry was intentionally trying "to strip us in a great measure of the means of knowledge, by loading the Press, the colleges, and even an Almanack and a News-Paper, with restraints and duties."<ref>{{cite book|author=Richard D. Brown|title=The Strength of a People: The Idea of an Informed Citizenry in America, 1650–1870|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=D2Ew8TbLAKkC&pg=PA57|year=1997|publisher=U of North Carolina Press|page=57|isbn=9780807846636|access-date=23 September 2018|archive-date=19 August 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200819030432/https://books.google.com/books?id=D2Ew8TbLAKkC&pg=PA57|url-status=live}}</ref> The press fought back. By 1760 the fledgling American newspaper industry comprised 24 weekly papers in major cities. Benjamin Franklin had created an informal network so that each one routinely reprinted news, editorials, letters and essays from the others, thus helping form a common American voice. All the editors were annoyed at the new stamp tax they would have to pay on each copy. By informing colonists what the other colonies were saying the press became a powerful opposition force to the Stamp Act. Many circumvented it and most equated taxation without representation with despotism and tyranny, thus providing a common vocabulary of protest for the Thirteen Colonies.<ref>Roger P. Mellen, "The Colonial Virginia Press and the Stamp Act." ''Journalism History'' 38.2 (2012).</ref>

The August 1, 1768, issue of the [[Pennsylvania Chronicle]], established by [[William Goddard (publisher)|William Goddard]], printed on the front page a four-column article of an address made at the State House (Independence Hall) against the [[Stamp Act]], and other excessive tax laws passed without colonial representation in the [[Parliament of England|British Parliament]].<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/the-pennsylvania-chronicle-and-universal-advertiser |title=Ira & Larry Goldberg Coins & Collectibles, Inc. |access-date=8 September 2021 |archive-date=8 September 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210908024328/https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/the-pennsylvania-chronicle-and-universal-advertiser |url-status=live }}</ref>

The newspapers reported effigy hangings and stamp master resignation speeches. Some newspapers were on the royal payroll and supported the act, but most of the press was free and vocal. Thus [[William Bradford (American Revolutionary printer)|William Bradford]], the foremost printer in Philadelphia, became a leader of the Sons of Liberty. He added a skull and crossbones with the words, "the fatal Stamp," to the masthead of his ''Pennsylvania Journal and weekly Advertiser''.<ref>{{cite book|author=David A. Copeland|title=Debating the Issues in Colonial Newspapers: Primary Documents on Events of the Period|publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group|url=https://archive.org/details/debatingissuesin00cope|url-access=registration|year=2000|page=[https://archive.org/details/debatingissuesin00cope/page/195 195]|isbn=9780313309823}}</ref>
[[File:O! the fatal Stamp.jpg|upright|thumb|Bradford's Philadelphia paper gave a graphic warning.]]
Some of the earliest forms of American propaganda appeared in these printings in response to the law. The articles written in colonial newspapers were particularly critical of the act because of the Stamp Act's disproportionate effect on printers. [[David Ramsay (historian)|David Ramsay]], a patriot and historian from South Carolina, wrote of this phenomenon shortly after the American Revolution:

{{Blockquote|It was fortunate for the liberties of America, that newspapers were the subject of a heavy stamp duty. Printers, when influenced by government, have generally arranged themselves on the side of liberty, nor are they less remarkable for attention to the profits of their profession. A stamp duty, which openly invaded the first, and threatened a great diminution of the last, provoked their united zealous opposition.{{sfn|Schlesinger|1935|page=65}}}}

Most printers were critical of the Stamp Act, although a few Loyalist voices did exist. Some of the more subtle Loyalist sentiments can be seen in publications such as ''The Boston Evening Post'', which was run by British sympathizers John and Thomas Fleet. The article detailed a violent protest that occurred in New York in December, 1765, then described the riot's participants as "imperfect" and labeled the group's ideas as "contrary to the general sense of the people."<ref>Tillman 2013, p. 4.</ref> Vindex Patriae denigrated the colonists as foreign vagabonds and ungrateful Scots-Irish subjects determined to "strut and claim an independent property to the dunghill".<ref>{{cite book |last1=Cornish |first1=Rory T. |title=The Grenvillites and the British Press: Colonial and British Politics, 1750–1770 |date=2020 |page=177 |publisher=Cambridge Scholars |isbn=9781527546370 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SWDNDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA177 |access-date=16 February 2022 |archive-date=14 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230114151203/https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Grenvillites_and_the_British_Press/SWDNDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA177&printsec=frontcover |url-status=live }}</ref> These Loyalists beliefs can be seen in some of the early newspaper articles about the Stamp Act, but the anti-British writings were more prevalent and seem to have had a more powerful effect.{{sfn|Schlesinger|1935|pages=63–83}}

Many papers assumed a relatively conservative tone before the act went into effect, implying that they might close if it wasn't repealed. However, as time passed and violent demonstrations ensued, the authors became more vitriolic. Several newspaper editors were involved with the Sons of Liberty, such as William Bradford of ''The Pennsylvania Journal'' and Benjamin Edes of ''The Boston Gazette'', and they echoed the group's sentiments in their publications. The Stamp Act went into effect that November and many newspapers printed their editions with black borders about the edges and columns, which sometimes included imagery of tombstones and skeletons, emphasizing that their papers were "dead" and would no longer be able to print because of the Stamp Act.{{sfn|Schlesinger|1935|page=74}} However, most of them returned in the upcoming months, defiantly appearing without the stamp of approval that was deemed necessary by the Stamp Act. Printers were greatly relieved when the law was nullified in the following spring, and the repeal asserted their positions as a powerful voice (and compass) for public opinion.{{sfn|Schlesinger|1935|page=69}}

[[File:Stamp Act 1765 - Triumph of America.jpg|thumb|An English newspaper bewails the repeal of the Stamp Act]]

===Protests in the streets===
{{external media | width = 210px | float = right | headerimage=[[File:Burning of Stamp Act cph.3b53085.jpg|210px]]
 | video1 = [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtBSAXLNlU8 The Stamp Act: Troubling Their Neighbors], 58:01, Benjamin L. Carp, [[WGBH-TV|WGBH Forum]]<ref name="wgbh">{{cite web | title =The Stamp Act: Troubling Their Neighbors | publisher =[[WGBH-TV|WGBH]] and [[Lowell Institute]] | url =http://forum-network.org/lectures/exploring-stamp-act-hangings-effigy-crowd-actions-and-funerals-liberty/ | access-date =19 October 2015 | archive-date =11 September 2015 | archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20150911064323/http://forum-network.org/lectures/exploring-stamp-act-hangings-effigy-crowd-actions-and-funerals-liberty/ | url-status =live }}</ref>
 | video2 = [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI4juUiIM2k The Stamp Act: The Lowest Of The Mob], 49:35, Molly Fitzgerald Perry, [[WGBH-TV|WGBH Forum]]<ref name="wgbh2">{{cite web | title =The Lowest Of The Mob | publisher =[[WGBH-TV|WGBH]] and [[Lowell Institute]] | url =http://www.forum-network.org/lectures/lowest-mob/ | access-date =19 October 2015 | archive-date =11 September 2015 | archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20150911064351/http://forum-network.org/lectures/lowest-mob/ | url-status =live }}</ref>
}}

While the colonial legislatures were acting, the ordinary citizens of the colonies were also voicing their concerns outside of this formal political process. Historian Gary B. Nash wrote:

{{blockquote|Whether stimulated externally or ignited internally, ferment during the years from 1761 to 1766 changed the dynamics of social and political relations in the colonies and set in motion currents of reformist sentiment with the force of a mountain wind. Critical to this half-decade was the colonial response to England's Stamp Act, more the reaction of common colonists than that of their presumed leaders.{{sfn|Nash|2006|page=44}}

Both loyal supporters of English authority and well-established colonial protest leaders underestimated the self-activating capacity of ordinary colonists. By the end of 1765 ... people in the streets had astounded, dismayed, and frightened their social superiors.{{sfn|Nash|2006|page=59}}}}

====Maryland====
A popular pamphlet condemning the Stamp Act was written by Maryland lawyer [[Daniel Dulany the Younger|Daniel Dulany]] in 1765. It was named ''[[Considerations on the Propriety of Imposing Taxes in the British Colonies]]''.<ref name="Knollenberg32-33">{{harvnb|Knollenberg|1975|pp=32–33}}</ref> In [[Pocomoke City, Maryland|Pokomoke, Maryland]], a tax collector was assaulted.<ref name="Knollenberg61">{{harvnb|Knollenberg|1975|p=61}}</ref> In [[Talbot County, Maryland]], a group of unknown citizens released "Resolutions of the Freemen of Talbot County Maryland" on November 25, 1765. This proclamation declared that they should enjoy the same rights as British subjects and condemned the Stamp Act. They also declared that they would erect a gallows in front of the county court house with an effigy of a "stamp informer" hung in chains, which would remain until the Stamp Act was repealed.<ref name="Tilghman44-45">{{harvnb|Tilghman|Harrison|1915|p=44–45}}</ref>

====Massachusetts====
Early street protests were most notable in [[Boston, Massachusetts|Boston]]. [[Andrew Oliver]] was a distributor of stamps for Massachusetts who was hanged in effigy on 14 August 1765 "from a giant elm tree at the crossing of Essex and Orange Streets in the city's South End." Also hung was a [[jackboot]] painted green on the bottom ("a Green-ville sole"), a pun on both Grenville and the Earl of Bute, the two people most blamed by the colonists.{{sfn|Nash|2006|page=48}} Lieutenant Governor [[Thomas Hutchinson (governor)|Thomas Hutchinson]] ordered sheriff Stephen Greenleaf to take down the effigy, but he was opposed by a large crowd. All day the crowd detoured merchants on Orange Street to have their goods symbolically stamped under the elm tree, which later became known as the "[[Liberty Tree]]".  This date became accepted by the members of the Sons of Liberty in Boston as the date of the founding of their organization.<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--not stated--> |date=21 August 1769 |title=Untitled news item, column 1, top |url=https://www.masshist.org/dorr/volume/2/sequence/674 |work=The Boston Evening-Post |location=Massachusetts Historical Society |access-date=21 September 2022 |archive-date=21 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220921203204/https://www.masshist.org/dorr/volume/2/sequence/674 |url-status=live }}</ref>

Ebenezer MacIntosh was a veteran of the Seven Years' War and a shoemaker. One night, he led a crowd which cut down the effigy of Andrew Oliver and took it in a funeral procession to the Town House where the legislature met. From there, they went to Oliver's office{{snd}}which they tore down and symbolically stamped the timbers. Next, they took the effigy to Oliver's home at the foot of Fort Hill, where they beheaded it and then burned it{{snd}}along with Oliver's stable house and coach and chaise. Greenleaf and Hutchinson were stoned when they tried to stop the mob, which then looted and destroyed the contents of Oliver's house. Oliver asked to be relieved of his duties the next day.{{sfn|Nash|2006|pages=45–47}} This resignation, however, was not enough. Oliver was ultimately forced by MacIntosh to be paraded through the streets and to publicly resign under the Liberty Tree.{{sfn|Nash|2006|page=53}}

[[File:Sons of Liberty Broadside, 1765.jpg|thumb|A 1765 [[Broadside (printing)|broadside]] regarding the resignation of [[Andrew Oliver]] under the [[Liberty Tree]]]]

As news spread of the reasons for Andrew Oliver's resignation, violence and threats of aggressive acts increased throughout the colonies, as did organized groups of resistance. Throughout the colonies, members of the middle and upper classes of society formed the foundation for these groups of resistance and soon called themselves the Sons of Liberty. These colonial groups of resistance burned effigies of royal officials, forced Stamp Act collectors to resign, and were able to get businessmen and judges to go about without using the proper stamps demanded by Parliament.<ref>Wood, S.G. "The American Revolution: A History." Modern Library. 2002, pp. 29–30</ref>

On 16 August, a mob damaged the home and official papers of William Story, the deputy register of the Vice-Admiralty, who then moved to Marblehead, Massachusetts. Benjamin Hallowell, the comptroller of customs, suffered the almost total loss of his home.{{sfn|Adair|Schultz|1961|page=52}}

On 26 August, MacIntosh led an attack on Hutchinson's mansion. The mob evicted the family, destroyed the furniture, tore down the interior walls, emptied the wine cellar, scattered Hutchinson's collection of Massachusetts historical papers, and pulled down the building's cupola. Hutchinson had been in public office for three decades; he estimated his loss at £2,218<ref>Hosmer pp. 91–94</ref> (in today's money, at nearly $250,000). Nash concludes that this attack was more than just a reaction to the Stamp Act:

{{blockquote|But it is clear that the crowd was giving vent to years of resentment at the accumulation of wealth and power by the haughty prerogative faction led by Hutchinson. Behind every swing of the ax and every hurled stone, behind every shattered crystal goblet and splintered mahogany chair, lay the fury of a plain Bostonian who had read or heard the repeated references to impoverished people as "rable" and to Boston's popular caucus, led by Samuel Adams, as a "herd of fools, tools, and synchophants."{{sfn|Nash|2006|page=48}}}}

Governor [[Sir Francis Bernard, 1st Baronet|Francis Bernard]] offered a £300 reward for information on the leaders of the mob, but no information was forthcoming. MacIntosh and several others were arrested, but were either freed by pressure from the merchants or released by mob action.{{sfn|Nash|2006|pages=49–50}}

The street demonstrations originated from the efforts of respectable public leaders such as [[James Otis, Jr.|James Otis]], who commanded the ''Boston Gazette'', and Samuel Adams of the "[[Loyal Nine]]" of the [[Boston Caucus]], an organization of Boston merchants. They made efforts to control the people below them on the economic and social scale, but they were often unsuccessful in maintaining a delicate balance between mass demonstrations and riots. These men needed the support of the working class, but also had to establish the legitimacy of their actions to have their protests to England taken seriously.{{sfn|Nash|2006|page=49}} At the time of these protests, the Loyal Nine was more of a social club with political interests but, by December 1765, it began issuing statements as the [[Sons of Liberty]].{{sfn|Maier|1972|page=85}}

====Rhode Island====
Rhode Island also experienced street violence. A crowd built a gallows near the Town House in [[Newport, Rhode Island|Newport]] on 27 August, where they carried effigies of three officials appointed as stamp distributors: Augustus Johnson, Dr. Thomas Moffat, and lawyer [[Martin Howard]]. The crowd at first was led by merchants [[William Ellery]], Samuel Vernon, and Robert Crook, but they soon lost control. That night, the crowd was led by a poor man named John Weber, and they attacked the houses of Moffat and Howard, where they destroyed walls, fences, art, furniture, and wine. The local Sons of Liberty were publicly opposed to violence, and they refused at first to support Weber when he was arrested. They were persuaded to come to his assistance, however, when retaliation was threatened against their own homes. Weber was released and faded into obscurity.{{sfn|Nash|2006|pages=50–51}}

Howard became the only prominent American to publicly support the Stamp Act in his pamphlet "A Colonist's Defence of Taxation" (1765). After the riots, Howard had to leave the colony, but he was rewarded by the Crown with an appointment as Chief Justice of North Carolina at a salary of £1,000.<ref>Wilkins Updike, ''History of the Episcopal church in Narragansett, Rhode Island'' (1847) p. 221</ref>

====New York====
{{Main|Province of New York#Stamp Act}}
In [[New York (state)|New York]], James McEvers resigned his distributorship four days after the attack on Hutchinson's house. The first shipment of stamps for New York and Connecticut arrived at New York Harbor on 24 October, greeted by a huge crowd of angry colonists, and were kept at [[Fort Amsterdam|Fort George]] for safe keeping. Placards appeared throughout the city warning that, "the first man that either distributes or makes use of [[stamped paper]] let him take care of his house, person, and effects." New York merchants met on 31 October and agreed not to sell any English goods until the act was repealed. Crowds took to the streets for four days of demonstrations, uncontrolled by the local leaders, culminating in an attack by two thousand people on Governor [[Cadwallader Colden]]'s home and the burning of two sleighs and a coach. Various stamp masters, including [[Zachariah Hood]] from Maryland, fled to Fort George out of concern for their safety. Unrest in [[New York City]] continued through the end of the year, and the local Sons of Liberty had difficulty in controlling crowd actions.{{sfn|Nash|2006|pages=53–55}}{{sfn|Ranlet|1986|pp=13–17}}   [[Sir Henry Moore, 1st Baronet|Sir Henry Moore]], who replaced Colden as provincial governor of New York, met with the influential [[Isaac Sears]], a leader of the Sons of Liberty,  in an effort to maintain peace and restore order to the city. Shortly thereafter Moore opened the gates of the fort as a gesture of good faith and invited people in.{{sfn|Ranlet|1986|pp=11–12, 17–18}}{{sfn|Engelman|1953|pp=574–576}}

====Virginia====
During the Stamp Act 1765 crisis, [[Archibald McCall (1734–1814)]] sided against patriots in [[Westmoreland, Virginia|Westmoreland]] and [[Essex County, Virginia]].<ref name="1802 AM to TJ">{{Cite web |title=Founders Online: To Thomas Jefferson from Archibald McCall, 19 November 1802 |url=http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-39-02-0025 |access-date=2021-10-20 |website=founders.archives.gov |language=en |archive-date=21 October 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211021225109/https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-39-02-0025 |url-status=live }}</ref> He insisted on collecting the British tax that was placed on stamps and other documents. In reaction, a mob formed and stormed his house in [[Tappahannock, Virginia]]. They threw rocks through the windows and McCall was captured, tarred and feathered. The act was an example of "[[No taxation without representation|taxation without representation]]" and a leading event to the war against the British.<ref name="Saison">{{Cite magazine |last=Saison |first=Dianne |date=2021-03-15 |title=In a Class by Itself |url=http://thehouseandhomemagazine.com/api/content/e9684f40-85ab-11eb-8c85-1244d5f7c7c6/ |magazine=The House and Home Magazine |language=en-us |access-date=2021-10-21 |archive-date=14 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230114151149/http://thehouseandhomemagazine.com/culture/in-a-class-by-itself/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

====Other Colonies====
In Frederick, Maryland, a court of 12 magistrates ruled the Stamp Act invalid on 23 November 1765, and directed that businesses and colonial officials proceed in all matters without use of the stamps. A week later, a crowd conducted a mock funeral procession for the act in the streets of Frederick. The magistrates have been dubbed the "12 Immortal Justices," and 23 November has been designated "[[Repudiation Day]]" by the Maryland state legislature. On 1 October 2015, Senator Cardin (D-MD) read into the ''[[Congressional Record]]'' a statement noting 2015 as the 250th anniversary of the event. Among the 12 magistrates was William Luckett, who later served as lieutenant colonel in the Maryland Militia at the Battle of Germantown.

Other popular demonstrations occurred in [[Portsmouth, New Hampshire]]; [[Annapolis, Maryland]]; [[Wilmington, North Carolina|Wilmington]] and [[New Bern, North Carolina]]; and [[Charleston, South Carolina]]. In [[Philadelphia, Pennsylvania]] demonstrations were subdued but even targeted Benjamin Franklin's home, although it was not vandalized.{{sfn|Nash|2006|pages=55–56}} By 16 November, twelve of the stamp distributors had resigned. The Georgia distributor did not arrive in America until January 1766, but his first and only official action was to resign.{{sfn|Middlekauff|2005|page=98}}

The overall effect of these protests was to both anger and unite the American people like never before. Opposition to the act inspired both political and constitutional forms of literature throughout the colonies, strengthened the colonial political perception and involvement, and created new forms of organized resistance. These organized groups quickly learned that they could force royal officials to resign by employing violent measures and threats.<ref>Wood, S.G. ''The American Revolution: A History.'' Modern Library. 2002, p. 30</ref>

====Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and the Caribbean====
The main issue was the constitutional rights of Englishmen, so the French in Quebec did not react. Some English-speaking merchants were opposed but were in a fairly small minority. The ''[[Quebec Gazette]]'' ceased publication until the act was repealed, apparently over the unwillingness to use stamped paper.<ref>{{cite journal | first = W.B. | last = Kerr | title = The Stamp Act in Quebec | journal = English Historical Review | date = October 1932 | volume = 47 | number = 188 | pages = 648–651 | doi = 10.1093/ehr/XLVII.CLXXXVIII.648 | jstor = 553075}}</ref> In neighboring [[History of Nova Scotia|Nova Scotia]] a number of former New England residents objected, but recent British immigrants and London-oriented business interests based in Halifax, the provincial capital were more influential. The only major public protest was the hanging in effigy of the stamp distributor and Lord Bute. The act was implemented in both provinces, but Nova Scotia's stamp distributor resigned in January 1766, beset by ungrounded fears for his safety. Authorities there were ordered to allow ships bearing unstamped papers to enter its ports, and business continued unabated after the distributors ran out of stamps.<ref>{{cite journal | first = Wilfred B. | last = Kerr | title = The Stamp Act in Nova Scotia | journal = New England Quarterly | date = September 1933 | volume = 6 | number = 3 | pages = 552–566 | doi = 10.2307/359557 | jstor = 359557}}</ref> The act occasioned some protests in [[Newfoundland (island)|Newfoundland]], and the drafting of petitions opposing not only the Stamp Act, but the existence of the customhouse at [[St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador|St. John's]], based on legislation dating back to the reign of [[Edward VI of England|Edward VI]] forbidding any sort of duties on the importation of goods related to its fisheries.<ref>{{cite book|last=Anspach|first=Lewis Amadeus|title=A History of the Island of Newfoundland|url=https://archive.org/details/ahistoryislandn00anspgoog|page=[https://archive.org/details/ahistoryislandn00anspgoog/page/n220 192]|publisher=self-published|year=1819|location=London|oclc=1654202}}</ref>

Violent protests were few in the Caribbean colonies. Political opposition was expressed in a number of colonies, including [[Barbados]] and [[Antigua]], and by absentee landowners living in Britain. The worst political violence took place on [[St. Kitts]] and [[Nevis]]. Riots took place on 31 October 1765, and again on 5 November, targeting the homes and offices of stamp distributors; the number of participants suggests that the percentage of St. Kitts' white population involved matched that of Bostonian involvement in its riots. The delivery of stamps to St. Kitts was successfully blocked, and they were never used there. [[Montserrat]] and Antigua also succeeded in avoiding the use of stamps; some correspondents thought that rioting was prevented in Antigua only by the large troop presence. Despite vocal political opposition, Barbados used the stamps, to the pleasure of [[George III of Great Britain|King George]]. In [[Jamaica]] there was also vocal opposition, which included threats of violence. There was much evasion of the stamps, and ships arriving without stamped papers were allowed to enter port. Despite this, Jamaica produced more stamp revenue (£2,000) than any other colony.<ref>{{cite journal | first = Andrew J. | last = O'Shaughnessy | title = The Stamp Act Crisis in the British Caribbean | journal = [[William and Mary Quarterly]] | date = Apr 1994 | volume = 51 | number = 2 | pages = 203–226 | doi = 10.2307/2946860 | jstor = 2946860}}</ref>

====Sons of Liberty====
{{Main|Sons of Liberty}}

It was during this time of street demonstrations that locally organized groups started to merge into an inter-colonial organization of a type not previously seen in the colonies. The term "sons of liberty" had been used in a generic fashion well before 1765, but it was only around February 1766 that its influence extended throughout the colonies as an organized group using the formal name "Sons of Liberty", leading to a pattern for future resistance to the British that carried the colonies towards 1776.{{efn|Maier noted that the term "sons of liberty", used in the generic sense, was used as early as the 1750s in some Connecticut documents.{{sfn|Maier|1972|pages=76–82}}}} Historian John C. Miller noted that the name was adopted as a result of Barre's use of the term in his February 1765 speech.{{sfn|Miller|1943|page=130}}

The organization spread month by month after independent starts in several different colonies. By 6 November, a committee was set up in New York to correspond with other colonies, and in December an alliance was formed between groups in New York and Connecticut. In January, a correspondence link was established between Boston and Manhattan, and by March, Providence had initiated connections with New York, New Hampshire, and Newport. By March, Sons of Liberty organizations had been established in New Jersey, Maryland, and Norfolk, Virginia, and a local group established in North Carolina was attracting interest in South Carolina and Georgia.{{sfn|Maier|1972|pages=78–81}}

The officers and leaders of the Sons of Liberty "were drawn almost entirely from the middle and upper ranks of colonial society," but they recognized the need to expand their power base to include "the whole of political society, involving all of its social or economic subdivisions." To do this, the Sons of Liberty relied on large public demonstrations to expand their base.{{sfn|Maier|1972|pages=86–88}} They learned early on that controlling such crowds was problematical, although they strived to control "the possible violence of extra-legal gatherings". The organization professed its loyalty to both local and British established government, but possible military action as a defensive measure was always part of their considerations. Throughout the Stamp Act Crisis, the Sons of Liberty professed continued loyalty to the King because they maintained a "fundamental confidence" that Parliament would do the right thing and repeal the tax.{{efn|Miller wrote, "Had Great Britain attempted to enforce the Stamp Act, there can be little doubt that British troops and embattled Americans would have shed each other's blood ten years before Lexington. As Benjamin Franklin remarked, a British army would not have found a rebellion in the American colonies in 1765 but it would have made one."{{sfn|Maier|1972|pages=101–106}}{{sfn|Miller|1943|page=139}}}}

===Stamp Act Congress===
{{Main|Stamp Act Congress}}
The [[Stamp Act Congress]] was held in New York in October 1765. Twenty-seven delegates from nine colonies were the members of the Congress, and their responsibility was to draft a set of formal petitions stating why Parliament had no right to tax them.<ref>Wood, S.G. ''The American Revolution: A History.'' Modern Library. 2002, p. 29</ref> Among the delegates were many important men in the colonies. Historian John Miller observes, "The composition of this Stamp Act Congress ought to have been convincing proof to the British government that resistance to parliamentary taxation was by no means confined to the riffraff of colonial seaports."{{sfn|Miller|1943|page=137}}

The youngest delegate was 26-year-old [[John Rutledge]] of South Carolina, and the oldest was 65-year-old [[Hendrick Fisher]] of New Jersey. Ten of the delegates were lawyers, ten were merchants, and seven were planters or land-owning farmers; all had served in some type of elective office, and all but three were born in the colonies. Four died before the colonies declared independence, and four signed the [[United States Declaration of Independence|Declaration of Independence]]; nine attended the [[First Continental Congress|first]] and [[Second Continental Congress|second]] Continental Congresses, and three were [[Loyalist (American Revolution)|Loyalists]] during the Revolution.{{sfn|Weslager|1976|pages=108–111}}

New Hampshire declined to send delegates, and North Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia were not represented because their governors did not call their legislatures into session, thus preventing the selection of delegates. Despite the composition of the congress, each of the Thirteen Colonies eventually affirmed its decisions.{{sfn|Miller|1943|pages=137–139}}{{sfn|Morgan|Morgan|1963|page=139}} Six of the nine colonies represented at the Congress agreed to sign the petitions to the King and Parliament produced by the Congress. The delegations from New York, Connecticut, and South Carolina were prohibited from signing any documents without first receiving approval from the colonial assemblies that had appointed them.{{sfn|Weslager|1976|page=148}}

Massachusetts governor Francis Bernard believed that his colony's delegates to the Congress would be supportive of Parliament. [[Timothy Ruggles]] in particular was Bernard's man, and was elected chairman of the Congress. Ruggles' instructions from Bernard were to "recommend submission to the Stamp Act until Parliament could be persuaded to repeal it."{{sfn|Morgan|Morgan|1963|pages=140–141}} Many delegates felt that a final resolution of the Stamp Act would actually bring Britain and the colonies closer together. [[Robert Livingston (1718–1775)|Robert Livingston]] of New York stressed the importance of removing the Stamp Act from the public debate, writing to his colony's agent in England, "If I really wished to see America in a state of independence I should desire as one of the most effectual means to that end that the stamp act should be enforced."{{sfn|Weslager|1976|page=109}}

{{wikisource|Declaration of Rights and Grievances}}
The Congress met for 12 consecutive days, including Sundays. There was no audience at the meetings, and no information was released about the deliberations.{{sfn|Weslager|1976|page=115}}{{sfn|Morgan|Morgan|1963|page=142}} The meeting's final product was called "The [[Declaration of Rights and Grievances]]", and was drawn up by delegate [[John Dickinson (politician)|John Dickinson]] of Pennsylvania. This Declaration raised fourteen points of colonial protest. It asserted that colonists possessed all the [[rights of Englishmen]] in addition to protesting the Stamp Act issue, and that Parliament could not represent the colonists since they had no [[right to vote|voting rights]] over Parliament. Only the colonial assemblies had a right to tax the colonies. They also asserted that the extension of authority of the admiralty courts to non-naval matters represented an abuse of power.{{sfn|Morgan|Morgan|1963|pages=145–152}}

In addition to simply arguing for their rights as Englishmen, the congress also asserted that they had certain natural rights solely because they were human beings. Resolution 3 stated, "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." Both Massachusetts and Pennsylvania brought forth the issue in separate resolutions even more directly when they respectively referred to "the Natural rights of Mankind" and "the common rights of mankind".{{efn|"Thus by the fall of 1765 the colonists had clearly laid down the line where they believed that Parliament should stop, and they had drawn that line not merely as Englishmen but as men."{{sfn|Morgan|Morgan|1963|pages=151–152}}}}

[[Christopher Gadsden]] of South Carolina had proposed that the Congress' petition should go only to the king, since the rights of the colonies did not originate with Parliament. This radical proposal went too far for most delegates and was rejected. The "Declaration of Rights and Grievances" was duly sent to the king, and petitions were also sent to both Houses of Parliament.{{sfn|Morgan|Morgan|1963|pages=147–148}}