Misplaced Pages

Sugar Act: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:00, 14 February 2008 view sourceSmackBot (talk | contribs)3,734,324 editsm Date the maintenance tags or general fixes← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:34, 14 December 2024 view source JJMC89 bot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Administrators3,666,242 editsm Moving Category:Sugar industry in the United Kingdom to Category:Sugar industry of the United Kingdom per Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Speedy 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|British legislation imposing import duties on American colonies}}
{{accuracy}}
{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}}
{{POV|date=February 2008}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2022}}
{{British legislation lists, Acts}}
{{Infobox UK legislation
| short_title = Sugar Act 1763
| type = Act
⚫ | parliament = Parliament of Great Britain
| long_title = An act for granting certain duties in the British colonies and plantations in Africa, for continuing, amending, and making perpetual, an ] of his late majesty ], (initituled, An act for the better securing and encouraging the trade of his Majesty's sugar colonies in America) for applying the produce of such duties, and of the duties to arise by virtue of the said act, towards defraying and disallowing several drawbacks on exports from this kingdom, and more effectually preventing the clandestine conveyance of goods to and from the said colonies and plantation, and improving and securing the trade between the same and Great Britain.
| year = 1764
| citation = ]. c. 15
| introduced_commons = ] ], ]<br /><small>], ] & ]</small>
| introduced_lords =
| territorial_extent = ]
| royal_assent = 5 April 1764
| commencement = 29 September 1764
| expiry_date =
| repeal_date = 1766
| amends =
| replaces =
| amendments = ]
| repealing_legislation = ]
| related_legislation = ]
| status = Repealed
| legislation_history =
| theyworkforyou =
| millbankhansard =
| original_text =
| revised_text =
| use_new_UK-LEG =
| UK-LEG_title =
| collapsed =
}}
{{American Revolution sidebar}}


The '''Sugar Act''' (citation 4 ] c. 15), officially called the American Duties Act, passed on ], ], was a ] passed by the ]. The preamble to the act stated that, "it is expedient that new provisions and regulations should be established for improving the revenue of this Kingdom ... and ... it is just and necessary that a revenue should be raised ... for defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the same."<ref>Miller pg. 101</ref> The earlier ], which had imposed a tax of six pence per gallon on ], been had never been effectively collected due to colonial evasion. By reducing the rate in half and increasing measures to enforce the tax, the British hoped that the tax would actually be collected.<ref>Miller pg. 100-101</ref> The '''Sugar Act 1764''' or '''Sugar Act 1763''', also known as the '''American Revenue Act 1764''' or the '''American Duties Act''', was a ] passed by the ] on 5 April 1764.<ref name="ushistory.org">{{cite web|url=http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/sugaract.html|title=The Sugar Act; Titled The American Revenue Act 1764|work=UShistory.org|publisher=]|access-date=2008-09-23}}</ref> The preamble to the act stated: "it is expedient that new provisions and regulations should be established for improving the revenue of this Kingdom ... and ... it is just and necessary that a revenue should be raised ... for defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the same."<ref>Miller p. 101</ref> The earlier ] 1733, which had imposed a tax of six pence per gallon of ], had never been effectively collected due to colonial evasion. By reducing the rate by half and increasing measures to enforce the tax, Parliament hoped that the tax would actually be collected.<ref name="Miller pg. 100-101">Miller pp. 100–101</ref> These incidents increased the colonists' concerns about the intent of the British Parliament and helped the growing movement that became the ].<ref name="LessonPlanet-Garran">{{cite web | author = Daniella Garran | title =Steps to the American Revolution | publisher = Lesson Planet | date = 2010-07-19 | url = http://www.lessonplanet.com/article/history/steps-to-the-american-revolution | access-date = 2010-07-21 }}</ref>


==Background== ==Background==
⚫ The ] 1733 was passed by Parliament largely at the insistence of large plantation owners in the British West Indies. Molasses from French, Dutch, and Spanish West Indian possessions was inexpensive. Producers of sugar from the British West Indies priced sugar much higher than their competitors, and they had no need for the large quantities of lumber, fish, and other items offered by the colonies in exchange. Sometimes colonists would pay Molasses Act taxes because they were rather low depending on where they resided and how much money they had. In the first part of the 18th century, the British West Indies were Great Britain's most important trading partner, so Parliament was attentive to their requests. However, rather than acceding to their demands to prohibit the colonies from trading with the non-British islands, Parliament passed a prohibitively high tax on the colonies on molasses imported from those islands. If actually collected, the tax would have effectively closed that source to New England and destroyed much of the rum industry. Instead, smuggling, bribery or intimidation of customs officials effectively nullified the law.<ref>Miller pp. 96–99</ref>


⚫ During the ], known in Colonial America as the ], the British government substantially increased the ] to pay for the war. In February 1763, as the war ended, the ministry headed by ], the Earl of Bute, decided to maintain a standing army of ten thousand British regular troops in the colonies. Shortly thereafter, ] replaced Bute. Grenville supported his predecessor's policy, even more so after the outbreak of ] in May 1763. Grenville faced the problem of not only paying for these troops but servicing the national debt. The debt grew from £75,000,000 before the war to £122,600,000 in January 1763, and almost £130,000,000 by the beginning of 1764.<ref>Gary Nash p. 45; Middlekauff pp. 55–63.</ref>
⚫ The earlier ] was passed by Parliament largely at the insistence of large plantation owners in the British West Indies. A large trade had grown between the New England and Middle colonies and the French, Dutch, and Spanish West Indian possessions. Molasses from the British West Indies, used in New England for making rum, was priced much higher than its competitors and they also had no need for the large quantities of lumber, fish, and other items offered by the colonies in exchange. The British West Indies in the first part of the 18th Century were the most important trading partner for Great Britain so Parliament was attentive to their requests. However, rather than acceding to the demands to prohibit the colonies from trading with the non-British islands, Parliament passed the prohibitively high tax on the colonies for the import of molasses from these islands. If actually collected, the tax would have effectively closed that source to New England and destroyed much of the rum industry. Yet smuggling, bribery or intimidation of customs officials effectively nullified the law.<ref>Miller pg. 96-99</ref>


⚫ George Grenville did not expect the colonies to contribute to the interest or the retirement of the debt, but he did expect the Americans to pay a portion of the expenses for colonial defense. Estimating the expenses of maintaining an army in the Continental colonies and the West Indies to be approximately £200,000 annually, Grenville devised a revenue-raising program that would raise an estimated £79,000 per year.<ref>Middlekauff p. 62.</ref>
⚫ During the ], known in America as the ], the British government substantially increased the ] to pay for the war. In February 1763, as the war ended, the ministry headed by ], the Earl of Bute, decided that continuing Indian problems in North America necessitated the maintenance of a standing army of ten thousand British regular troops in the colonies. Shortly thereafter, ] replaced Bute. Grenville supported his predecessor's policy, even more so after the outbreak of ] in May 1763. Grenville faced the problem of not only paying for these troops but servicing the national debt. The debt grew from £75,000 before the war to £122,600,000 in January 1763, and over £800,000,000 by the beginning of 1764.<ref>Gary Nash pg. 45. Middlekauff pg. 55-63.</ref>


==Passage==
⚫ Grenville did not expect the colonies to contribute to the interest or the retirement of the debt, but he did expect a portion of the expenses for colonial defense to be paid by the Americans. Estimating that the expenses of defending the continental colonies and the West Indies to be approximately £200,000 annually, Grenville’s goal was that the colonies would be taxed for £78,000 of this needed amount.<ref>Middlekauff pg. 62.</ref>
⚫ The Molasses Act was set to expire in 1763. The Commissioners of Customs anticipated greater demand for both molasses and rum as a result of the end of the war and the acquisition of Canada. They believed that the increased demand would make a sharply reduced rate both affordable and collectible. When passed by Parliament, the new Sugar Act of 1764 halved the previous tax on molasses. In addition to promising stricter enforcement, the language of the bill made it clear that the purpose of the legislation was not to simply regulate the trade (as the Molasses Act had attempted to do by effectively closing the legal trade to non-British suppliers) but to raise revenue.<ref name="Miller pg. 100-101"/>


⚫ The new act listed specific goods, the most important being lumber, which could only be exported to Britain. Ship captains were required to maintain detailed manifests of their cargo and the papers were subject to verification before anything could be unloaded from the ships. Customs officials were empowered to have all violations tried in vice admiralty courts rather than by jury trials in local colonial courts, where the juries generally looked favourably on smuggling as a profession.<ref>Middlekauff p. 65.</ref>
==Passage of the Sugar Act==


⚫ American historian ] wrote that the purpose of the Act was "to resolve the problems of finance and control that plagued the postwar empire". To do this "three kinds of measures" were implemented – "those intended to make customs enforcement more effective, those that placed new duties on items widely consumed in America, and those that adjusted old rates in such a way as to maximize revenues."<ref>Anderson p. 574</ref>
⚫ The Sugar and Molasses Act was set to expire in 1763. The Commissioners of Customs anticipated greater demand for both molasses and rum as a result of the end of the war and the acquisition of Canada. They believed that the increased demand would make a sharply reduced rate both affordable and collectible. When passed by Parliament, the new Sugar Act of 1764 halved the previous tax on molasses. In addition to promising stricter enforcement, the language of the bill made it clear that the purpose of the legislation was not to simply regulate the trade (as the Molasses Act had attempted to do by effectively closing the legal trade to non-British suppliers) but to raise revenue.<ref>Miller pg. 100-101</ref>


⚫ ==Effect on the American colonies==
⚫ The new act listed specific goods, the most important being lumber, which could only be exported to Britain. Ship captains were required to maintain detailed manifests of their cargo and the papers were subject to verification before anything could be unloaded from the ship. Customs officials were empowered to have all violations tried in vice admiralty courts rather than jury trials in local colonial courts where the juries generally looked favorably on smuggling as a profession.<ref>Middlekauff pg. 65.</ref>


⚫ The Sugar Act was passed by Parliament on 5 April 1764,<ref name="ushistory.org" /> and it arrived in the colonies at a time of economic depression. A good part of the reason was that a significant portion of the colonial economy during the ] was involved with supplying food and supplies to the British Army. Colonials, however, especially those affected directly as merchants and shippers, assumed that the highly visible new tax program was the major culprit. As protests against the Sugar Act developed, it was the economic impact rather than the constitutional issue of ] that was the main focus for the colonists.<ref>Middlekauff p. 66–67. Miller p. 101. Miller wrote, "The legislation was declared to have caused greater alarm in New England than the forays of the French and Indians during the darkest days of the Seven Years' War."</ref>
⚫ Historian Fred Anderson wrote that the purpose of the Act was “to resolve the problems of finance and control that plagued the postwar empire.” To do this “three kinds of measures” were implemented -- “those intended to make customs enforcement more effective, those that placed new duties on items widely consumed in America, and those that placed new duties on items widely consumed in America.”<ref>Anderson pg. 574</ref>


⚫ New England ports especially suffered economic losses from the Sugar Act as the stricter enforcement made smuggling ] more dangerous and risky. Also they argued that the profit margin on ] was too small to support any tax on molasses. Forced to increase their prices, many colonists feared being priced out of the market. The ], on the other hand, now had unrestricted exports. With supply of molasses well exceeding demand, the islands prospered with their reduced expenses while New England ports saw revenue from their rum exports decrease. Also the West Indies had been the primary colonial source for hard currency, or ], and as the reserves of specie were depleted the soundness of colonial currency was threatened.<ref>Miller p. 101–102.</ref>
⚫ ==Effect on the American colonies==


Two prime movers behind the protests against the Sugar Act were ] and ], both of ]. In May 1764 Samuel Adams drafted a report on the Sugar Act for the Massachusetts assembly, in which he denounced the act as an infringement of the rights of the colonists as British subjects:
⚫ The Sugar Act was passed by Parliament on April 5, ], and it arrived in the colonies at a time of economic depression. A good part of the reason was that a significant portion of the ] ] during the ] was involved with supplying food and supplies to the British Army. Colonials, however, especially those impacted directly as merchants and shippers, assumed that the highly visible new tax program was the major culprit. As protests against the Sugar Act developed, it was the economic impact rather than the constitutional issue of ], that was the main focus for the Americans.<ref>Middlekauff pg. 66-67. Miller pg. 101. Miller wrote, "The legislation was declared to have caused greater alarm in New England than the forays of the French and Indians during the darkest days of the Seven Years' War."</ref>


{{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?<ref>Draper p. 219</ref>}}
New England especially suffered economic losses from the Sugar Act. The stricter enforcement made smuggling more dangerous and risky, and the profit margin on rum, so the colonists argued, was too small to support any tax. Forced to increase their
⚫ prices, many Americans, it was feared, would be priced out of the market. The British West Indies, on the other hand, now had undivided access to colonial exports and with supply well exceeding demand the islands prospered with their reduced expenses while all New Englanders saw the revenue from their exports decrease. The foreign West Indies had also been the primary colonial source for specie, and as the reserves of specie were depleted the soundness of colonial currency was threatened.<ref>Miller pg. 101-102.</ref>


In August 1764, fifty ] ] agreed to stop purchasing British luxury imports, and in both Boston and ] there were movements to increase colonial manufacturing. There were sporadic outbreaks of violence, most notably in ].<ref>Alexander p. 24. Middlekauff p. 67–73.</ref> Overall, however, there was not an immediate high level of protest over the Sugar Act in either New England or the rest of the colonies. That would begin in the later part of the next year when the ] was passed.<ref>Miller pp. 149–150.</ref>
Two prime movers behind the protests to the act were ] and ], both of Massachusetts. In August 1764, fifty ] ] agreed to stop purchasing British luxury items, and in both Boston and New York there

were movements to increase colonial manufacturing. There were sporadic outbreaks of violence, most notably in Rhode
Island.<ref>Alexander pg. 24. Middlekauff pg. 67-73.</ref> Overall, however, there was not an immediate high level of protest over the Sugar Act either in New England or the rest of the colonies. That would begin in the later part of the next year when the ] was passed.<ref>Miller pg 149-50.</ref> The Sugar Act was repealed in 1766 and replaced with a further reduced tax of one pence per gallon on all molasses imports, British or foreign. This occurred around the same time that the Stamp Act was repealed (cancel an act or law).<ref>Draper pg. 290-291</ref> The Sugar Act 1764 was repealed in 1766 and replaced with the ], which reduced the tax to one penny per gallon on molasses imports, British or foreign. This occurred around the same time that the ] was repealed.<ref>Draper p. 290–291</ref>

==See also==
* {{section link|American Revolutionary War|Prelude to revolution}} for the context of the Sugar Act among other post-1763 revenue bills.
* ] for modern excises on sugar products and sugary soft drinks.


==Notes== ==Notes==
{{reflist|2}} {{reflist|colwidth=30em}}


==Bibliography== ==Bibliography==
{{wikisource|Customs Duties, etc. Act 1763|Sugar Act}} {{wikisource|Customs Duties, etc. Act 1763|Sugar Act}}
* Alexander, John K. ''Samuel Adams: America’s Revolutionary Politician.'' (2002) ISBN 0-7425-2114-1 * Alexander, John K. ''Samuel Adams: America's Revolutionary Politician.'' (2002) {{ISBN|0-7425-2114-1}}
* Anderson, Fred, ''Crucible of War'', 2000, ISBN 0375406425 * Anderson, Fred, 'Crucible of War'', 2000, {{ISBN|0-375-40642-5}}
* Draper, Theodore. ''A Struggle For Power:The American Revolution.'' (1996) ISBN 0-8129-2575-0 * ]. ''A Struggle For Power:The American Revolution.'' (1996) {{ISBN|0-8129-2575-0}}
* Middlekauff, Robert. ''The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789.'' (2005) ISBN 13:978 0-19-516247-9 * ]. ''The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789.'' (2005) {{ISBN|978 0-19-516247-9}}
* Miller, John C. ''Origins of the American Revolution.'' (1943) * Miller, John C. ''Origins of the American Revolution.'' (1943)
* Nash, Gary B. ''The Unknown American Revolution: The Unruly Birth of Democracy and the Struggle to Create America.'' (2005) ISBN 0-670-03420-7 * Nash, Gary B''The Unknown American Revolution: The Unruly Birth of Democracy and the Struggle to Create America.'' (2005) {{ISBN|0-670-03420-7}}
*{{cite web|url=http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/sugaract.htm|title=The Sugar Act|accessmonthday=December 6 |accessyear=2005}} *{{cite web|url=http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/sugaract.htm|title=The Sugar Act|access-date=6 December 2005}}


==External links== ==External links==
* {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110905054325/http://ahp.gatech.edu/sugar_act_bp_1764.html |date=5 September 2011 }}
*


⚫ {{British law and the American Revolution}}
⚫ ]
{{Sugar}}
⚫ ]
⚫ ]
⚫ ]
⚫ ]


] {{DEFAULTSORT:Sugar Act}}
⚫ ]
]
⚫ ]
]
]
]
⚫ ]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 01:34, 14 December 2024

British legislation imposing import duties on American colonies

United Kingdom legislation
Sugar Act 1763
Act of Parliament
Parliament of Great Britain
Long titleAn act for granting certain duties in the British colonies and plantations in Africa, for continuing, amending, and making perpetual, an act in the sixth year of the reign of his late majesty King George the Second, (initituled, An act for the better securing and encouraging the trade of his Majesty's sugar colonies in America) for applying the produce of such duties, and of the duties to arise by virtue of the said act, towards defraying and disallowing several drawbacks on exports from this kingdom, and more effectually preventing the clandestine conveyance of goods to and from the said colonies and plantation, and improving and securing the trade between the same and Great Britain.
Citation4 Geo. 3. c. 15
Introduced byThe Rt. Hon. George Grenville, MP
Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer & Leader of the House of Commons (Commons)
Territorial extent British America and the British West Indies
Dates
Royal assent5 April 1764
Commencement29 September 1764
Repealed1766
Other legislation
Amended byStatute Law Revision Act 1867
Repealed byRevenue Act 1766
Relates toMolasses Act
Status: Repealed
Part of a series on the
American Revolution
Declaration of Independence (painting)
Declaration of Independence (painting)
The Committee of Five presents their draft of the Declaration of Independence to the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia
Origins
Context
Ideas
Conflict over taxation
Revolutionary War
Political developments
Forming a republic
Confederation period
Dissent and rebellions
Constitution
Legacy
flag United States portal

The Sugar Act 1764 or Sugar Act 1763, also known as the American Revenue Act 1764 or the American Duties Act, was a revenue-raising act passed by the Parliament of Great Britain on 5 April 1764. The preamble to the act stated: "it is expedient that new provisions and regulations should be established for improving the revenue of this Kingdom ... and ... it is just and necessary that a revenue should be raised ... for defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the same." The earlier Molasses Act 1733, which had imposed a tax of six pence per gallon of molasses, had never been effectively collected due to colonial evasion. By reducing the rate by half and increasing measures to enforce the tax, Parliament hoped that the tax would actually be collected. These incidents increased the colonists' concerns about the intent of the British Parliament and helped the growing movement that became the American Revolution.

Background

The Molasses Act 1733 was passed by Parliament largely at the insistence of large plantation owners in the British West Indies. Molasses from French, Dutch, and Spanish West Indian possessions was inexpensive. Producers of sugar from the British West Indies priced sugar much higher than their competitors, and they had no need for the large quantities of lumber, fish, and other items offered by the colonies in exchange. Sometimes colonists would pay Molasses Act taxes because they were rather low depending on where they resided and how much money they had. In the first part of the 18th century, the British West Indies were Great Britain's most important trading partner, so Parliament was attentive to their requests. However, rather than acceding to their demands to prohibit the colonies from trading with the non-British islands, Parliament passed a prohibitively high tax on the colonies on molasses imported from those islands. If actually collected, the tax would have effectively closed that source to New England and destroyed much of the rum industry. Instead, smuggling, bribery or intimidation of customs officials effectively nullified the law.

During the Seven Years' War, known in Colonial America as the French and Indian War, the British government substantially increased the national debt to pay for the war. In February 1763, as the war ended, the ministry headed by John Stuart, the Earl of Bute, decided to maintain a standing army of ten thousand British regular troops in the colonies. Shortly thereafter, George Grenville replaced Bute. Grenville supported his predecessor's policy, even more so after the outbreak of Pontiac's War in May 1763. Grenville faced the problem of not only paying for these troops but servicing the national debt. The debt grew from £75,000,000 before the war to £122,600,000 in January 1763, and almost £130,000,000 by the beginning of 1764.

George Grenville did not expect the colonies to contribute to the interest or the retirement of the debt, but he did expect the Americans to pay a portion of the expenses for colonial defense. Estimating the expenses of maintaining an army in the Continental colonies and the West Indies to be approximately £200,000 annually, Grenville devised a revenue-raising program that would raise an estimated £79,000 per year.

Passage

The Molasses Act was set to expire in 1763. The Commissioners of Customs anticipated greater demand for both molasses and rum as a result of the end of the war and the acquisition of Canada. They believed that the increased demand would make a sharply reduced rate both affordable and collectible. When passed by Parliament, the new Sugar Act of 1764 halved the previous tax on molasses. In addition to promising stricter enforcement, the language of the bill made it clear that the purpose of the legislation was not to simply regulate the trade (as the Molasses Act had attempted to do by effectively closing the legal trade to non-British suppliers) but to raise revenue.

The new act listed specific goods, the most important being lumber, which could only be exported to Britain. Ship captains were required to maintain detailed manifests of their cargo and the papers were subject to verification before anything could be unloaded from the ships. Customs officials were empowered to have all violations tried in vice admiralty courts rather than by jury trials in local colonial courts, where the juries generally looked favourably on smuggling as a profession.

American historian Fred Anderson wrote that the purpose of the Act was "to resolve the problems of finance and control that plagued the postwar empire". To do this "three kinds of measures" were implemented – "those intended to make customs enforcement more effective, those that placed new duties on items widely consumed in America, and those that adjusted old rates in such a way as to maximize revenues."

Effect on the American colonies

The Sugar Act was passed by Parliament on 5 April 1764, and it arrived in the colonies at a time of economic depression. A good part of the reason was that a significant portion of the colonial economy during the Seven Years' War was involved with supplying food and supplies to the British Army. Colonials, however, especially those affected directly as merchants and shippers, assumed that the highly visible new tax program was the major culprit. As protests against the Sugar Act developed, it was the economic impact rather than the constitutional issue of taxation without representation that was the main focus for the colonists.

New England ports especially suffered economic losses from the Sugar Act as the stricter enforcement made smuggling molasses more dangerous and risky. Also they argued that the profit margin on rum was too small to support any tax on molasses. Forced to increase their prices, many colonists feared being priced out of the market. The British West Indies, on the other hand, now had unrestricted exports. With supply of molasses well exceeding demand, the islands prospered with their reduced expenses while New England ports saw revenue from their rum exports decrease. Also the West Indies had been the primary colonial source for hard currency, or specie, and as the reserves of specie were depleted the soundness of colonial currency was threatened.

Two prime movers behind the protests against the Sugar Act were Samuel Adams and James Otis, both of Massachusetts. In May 1764 Samuel Adams drafted a report on the Sugar Act for the Massachusetts assembly, in which he denounced the act as an infringement of the rights of the colonists as British subjects:

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 – 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?

In August 1764, fifty Boston merchants agreed to stop purchasing British luxury imports, and in both Boston and New York City there were movements to increase colonial manufacturing. There were sporadic outbreaks of violence, most notably in Rhode Island. Overall, however, there was not an immediate high level of protest over the Sugar Act in either New England or the rest of the colonies. That would begin in the later part of the next year when the Stamp Act 1765 was passed.

The Sugar Act 1764 was repealed in 1766 and replaced with the Revenue Act 1766, which reduced the tax to one penny per gallon on molasses imports, British or foreign. This occurred around the same time that the Stamp Act 1765 was repealed.

See also

Notes

  1. ^ "The Sugar Act; Titled The American Revenue Act 1764". UShistory.org. Independence Hall Association. Retrieved 23 September 2008.
  2. Miller p. 101
  3. ^ Miller pp. 100–101
  4. Daniella Garran (19 July 2010). "Steps to the American Revolution". Lesson Planet. Retrieved 21 July 2010.
  5. Miller pp. 96–99
  6. Gary Nash p. 45; Middlekauff pp. 55–63.
  7. Middlekauff p. 62.
  8. Middlekauff p. 65.
  9. Anderson p. 574
  10. Middlekauff p. 66–67. Miller p. 101. Miller wrote, "The legislation was declared to have caused greater alarm in New England than the forays of the French and Indians during the darkest days of the Seven Years' War."
  11. Miller p. 101–102.
  12. Draper p. 219
  13. Alexander p. 24. Middlekauff p. 67–73.
  14. Miller pp. 149–150.
  15. Draper p. 290–291

Bibliography

External links

Kingdom of Great Britain British laws relating to the American Revolution
Royal Proclamations, Acts of Parliament, and other legal issues relating to the American Revolution
Before 1763
Grenville ministry
(1763–1765)
Rockingham ministry
(1765–1766)
Chatham and Grafton
ministries (1766–1770)
North ministry
(1770–1782)
Other legal issues
Sugar as food commodity
List of sugars and sugar products
Chemistry
Sources
Products
Syrups
Solid forms
Other forms
Industry
Production
By region
Current
Historical
History
Culture
Related
Research
Categories: