| Revision as of 02:39, 1 February 2008 view sourceClueBot (talk | contribs)1,596,818 editsm Reverting possible vandalism by 68.80.235.45 to version by Colliniscool. False positive? report it. Thanks, User:ClueBot. (194082) (Bot)← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:40, 1 February 2008 view source 68.80.235.45 (talk) ←Replaced page with 'hey its booby brown whats up'Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| hey its booby brown whats up | |||
| {{British legislation lists, Acts}} | |||
| The '''Sugar Act''' (citation 4 ] c. 15), passed on ], ], was a ] passed by the ]. It revised the earlier ], which had imposed a tax of six pence per gallon on ] in order to make English products cheaper than those from the ]. | |||
| ==Background== | |||
| 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> | |||
| 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> | |||
| 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> | |||
| ==Passage of the Sugar Act== | |||
| 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> | |||
| 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> | |||
| ==Effect on the American colonies== | |||
| 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 taxation without representation, that was the main focus for the Americans.<ref>Middlekauff pg. 66-67.</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> | |||
| 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> | |||
| ==Notes== | |||
| {{reflist|2}} | |||
| ==Bibliography== | |||
| {{wikisource|Customs Duties, etc. Act 1763|Sugar Act}} | |||
| * Alexander, John K. ''Samuel Adams: America’s Revolutionary Politician.'' (2002) ISBN 0-7425-2114-1 | |||
| * Draper, Theodore. ''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 | |||
| * 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 | |||
| *{{cite web|url=http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/sugaract.htm|title=The Sugar Act|accessmonthday=December 6 |accessyear=2005}} | |||
| ==External links== | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Revision as of 02:40, 1 February 2008
hey its booby brown whats up