MY PERSPECTIVE, Gary Damron

Last week we talked about the resolution of the first real conflict between Britain and her American colonies, which ended with the repeal of the Stamp Act in March of 1766. However, the lines had been drawn. Government by consent, as a right of the people became bigger than the monetary issues, and colonists were keeping track, as we'll see later, in the Declaration of Independence.

England's Declaratory Act, passed at the same time as the tax repeal, asserted that Parliament had “full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies ... in all cases whatsoever.” The colonists wrongly concluded that their position had been accepted and that the move was simply to save face. However, Parliament was making a statement. An accompanying Revenue Act imposed a duty on all molasses. The British called it an external, indirect tax and wrongly assumed it would be acceptable - that colonists only opposed internal, direct taxes. It was obviously not just to regulate trade, but to raise revenue without colonial input. The colonial riots that followed had created enough economic pressure to bring about repeal. Besides celebrating their victory, the colonies were establishing a pattern for resistance.

That same year, King George dismissed Rockingham, and in the spring of 1767, Charles Townshend became Chancellor of the Exchequer, the chief financial minister. His one consistency was taking a hard line toward the colonies.

In the new land, New York struggled with housing and supplying relocated frontier troops, and the Quartering Act met with resistance from the New York assembly. To them this was a tax law whose levies were collected in goods. Townshend persuaded Parliament to pass the New York Suspending Act, which restrained the colonial assembly from passing any laws until it complied with the Quartering Act.

That year, the annual budget in England, called the Townshend Revenue Act, imposed duties on tea, paper, glass, lead, and painters' colors. Revenue was not Townshend's only object. The preamble clarified that his goal was to pay the salaries of colonial governors, freeing them from dependence on colonial assemblies and tying them closer to England.

Also, an American Board of Customs Commissioners, appointed by the crown and housed in Boston, was created to enforce trade and revenue laws. The British army was withdrawn from most frontier posts and moved closer to the coast. Likely a cost-cutting measure, it however appeared they were present to police the colonists. So, Americans felt they were financing the enforcement of policies that undermined their rights.

A series of essays by lawyer John Dickinson was published in the Pennsylvania Chronicle and quickly reprinted in other newspapers. In his "Letters from a Pennsylvania Farmer”, Dickinson warned that what happened to New York could happen anywhere on any issue. He warned all colonies to pay attention, “for the cause of one is the cause of all.” He also advocated boycotts of imports, which resulted in the formation of non-importation associations.

But after stirring up these issues from across the ocean, Townshend suddenly died. He was replaced in 1770 by Frederick, Lord North, who would remain prime minister for twelve years and bring some stability to government. He was ready to repeal the Townshend Act, but felt it necessary to demonstrate Parliament’s right to tax Americans. So he retained the tax on tea. Many ports their abandoned boycotts, though some still refused to allow shipments of tea.

Events in Boston continued to reveal the tension. On March 5, 1770, British troops standing guard outside the Customs House shot into a hostile crowd, wounding eleven and killing five in what became known as the Boston Massacre. Troops had already become targets of protests because they took second jobs at lower pay and were generally considered a vulgar bunch. Colonists did not believe in peacetime armies, or that freedmen should be governed at the point of a gun.

The larger conflict still existed between Parliament’s claim to absolute authority and the colonies' insistence that powers should be limited. Parliament adopted the Tea Act in May 1773, to help the British East India Company avoid bankruptcy and recover financially by selling in America. The tax on tea was actually lowered, with proceeds to be sent to the company. The company mistakenly decided that only company-appointed agents could sell in America, which eliminated American merchants. These appointed men defended Parliamentary supremacy and stood outside the colonial mainstream.

For the colonists, the cheap tea shipments presented an issue: if they accepted them, they would be admitting that Parliament could lay taxes, and others would likely follow.

The company sent tea to harbors in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston. All but Boston persuaded the captains to turn around before they entered the ports. In Boston, the tea ship slipped into the harbor and then was not allowed to leave by British authorities until all duties were paid. So, the tea sat irritatingly in Boston Harbor.

Finally on December 16, 1773, men from Boston disguised as Indians swept down on the ships and threw into the harbor some 990,000 pounds of tea. The British government’s reaction escalated the conflict. Parliament had had enough, and the crown set out to bring the colonists in line. Next week, we'll discuss four measures named the Coercive Acts which were passed in the spring of 1774.