What was the main reason the colonists in North America were upset by the taxes that the British placed on them following the French and Indian War?

By Stefanie Kunze

The Stamp Act of 1765 was ratified by the British parliament under King George III. It imposed a tax on all papers and official documents in the American colonies, though not in England.

King George III imposed a tax on official documents in American colonies

Included under the act were bonds, licenses, certificates, and other official documents as well as more mundane items such as plain parchment and playing cards. Parliament reasoned that the American colonies needed to offset the sums necessary for their maintenance. It intended to use the additional tax money to pay for war expenses incurred in Great Britain’s struggles with France and Spain.

Many American colonists refused to pay Stamp Act tax

The American colonists were angered by the Stamp Act and quickly acted to oppose it. Because of the colonies’ sheer distance from London, the epicenter of British politics, a direct appeal to Parliament was almost impossible. Instead, the colonists made clear their opposition by simply refusing to pay the tax.

Prominent individuals such as Benjamin Franklin and members of the independence-minded group known as the Sons of Liberty argued that the British parliament did not have the authority to impose an internal tax. Public protest flared and the ensuing violence attracted broad attention. Tax commissioners were threatened and quit their jobs out of fear; others simply did not succeed in collecting any money. As Franklin wrote in 1766, the “Stamp Act would have to be imposed by force.” Unable to do so, Parliament repealed the Stamp Act just one year later, on March 18, 1766.

American separatist movement grew during protest of Stamp Act

The colonists may well have accepted the stamp tax had it been imposed by their own representatives and with their consent. However, the colonists’ emerging sense of independence — nurtured by the mother country and justified by their multiple interactions with other trading nations — heightened the colonists’ sense of indignation and feelings of injustice. Even had they submitted to it, there is little doubt that many would have been troubled by the negative impact of a tax on the free press.

Scholars contend that the American separatist movement gained a great deal of influence as a result of its success in protesting the Stamp Act.

Stamp Act aftermath influenced constitutional safeguards, First Amendment

The act and the violence that erupted with its passage remained fresh in the young country’s memory. The crafters of the Constitution were careful to include safeguards against usurpations of freedom and the violence such acts could breed. Article 5 provides for a constitutional amending process, allowing for changes in the laws without resort to violent revolution.

The First Amendment secures freedom of speech, the right to peacefully assemble, and the right to petition government. It also protects the freedom of the press.

This article was originally written in 2009. Stefanie Kunze has a PhD in Political Science and is a Lecturer in the Department of Sociology at Northern Arizona University. Dr. Kunze specializes in perpetrators of ethnocide, and more specifically Native American experiences with settler colonialism.

Page 2

Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957) stands as the first U.S. Supreme Court case to expound upon the concept of academic freedom though some earlier cases mention it.

Most constitutional academic freedom issues today revolve around professors’ speech, students’ speech, faculty’s relations to government speech, and using affirmative action in student admissions. 

Although academic freedom is regularly invoked as a constitutional right under the First Amendment, the Court has never specifically enumerated it as one, and judicial opinions have not developed a consistent interpretation of constitutional academic freedom or pronounced a consistent framework to analyze such claims.

Jessie Palmer; January 2013
 ​The French and Indian War was very essential to the American Revolution because the war debt was the reason that Parliament started imposing taxes on the colonists in the first place. Also, the French and Indian War weakened Britain, making the colonists’ actions work more effectively. Since France, reasonably, was not happy with the outcome of the French and Indian War, it was also one of the reasons for France’s interest in helping the colonists throughout the Revolutionary War, which was a key element to the colonies’ victory.​The reason why Parliament started taxing the colonists was because of the war debt resulting from the French and Indian War. The first tax, the tax on sugar, was imposed on the colonists to help pay off the debt. Consequently, without that debt, the colonists wouldn’t have had their main argument of “taxation without representation.” Without that argument, the thought of breaking away from England most likely would not have started spreading through the colonies the way that it had during that time. Then, after the colonists got rid of the Sugar Act through protests and boycotts, it began a long fight between Parliament and the colonies that, ultimately, resulted in the American Revolution.​The French and Indian War weakened Britain so that the colonists’ actions, such as boycotting, were more effective to the colonial cause. Since there was debt because of the war, the economy was already suffering in Britain – ergo the taxes imposed on the colonies. When the colonies started boycotting British products and threatened to stop trade with them all together, it was effective because Britain’s economy wasn’t strong enough to handle those things. The merchants in Britain couldn’t afford to have trade with America, their primary source of exporting goods, end. If the British merchants were hurt, this would thus hurt the economy as a whole in Britain. In later decades, in the War of 1812, America would try to stop trade with Britain again using an embargo, which would not be effective because they did not have the debt that the French and Indian War had caused. Therefore, the reason that the actions of the colonists worked productively is because of the strain that the French and Indian War had put on Britain’s economy.​Because the French had lost the French and Indian War against Britain, the news of the American Revolution spiked their interest when they saw a chance to help in weakening the British Empire. It is evident that France’s money and, maybe more importantly, their Navy was key to the colonies gaining their independence. France’s Navy helped the colonists corner General Cornwallis at Yorktown which was the final significant colonial victory in the Revolution. Before that, France was helping the colonists by helping them get gun powder and ammunition. Though it is possible that France may have helped the colonists gain their independence anyways, the French and Indian War helped fuel the fire and it was recent enough that it was still on France’s mind. So, the French and Indian War helped the colonists gain their most beneficial ally, France, which helped lead to the colonies become independent from Great Britain.​One very essential element pertaining to the American Revolution was the French and Indian War. Britain’s economy was suffering because of the debt caused by the war, which led to the taxation that angered the colonists in the beginning. Also, the status of the economy after the French and Indian War is what provided the perfect conditions so that when the colonists implemented boycotts on Britain to try to stop the taxation, they were more effective than they would have been otherwise. The French and Indian War was also essential because it helped provided the colonists with their greatest ally, France. Therefore, without the French and Indian war the idea of independence would not have spread as promptly as it did, the colonists’ actions would not have been as effective, and there is a good chance the colonies could have, ultimately, lost the American Revolution.