Editing Stamp Act 1765 (section)

===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}}