what were the townshend acts and what was the colonists response to them

Political precursor to the American Revolution

Charles Townshend spearheaded the laws, but died before their detrimental effects became credible.

The Townshend Acts ()^[1] or Townshend Duties, refers to a serial of British acts of Parliament passed during 1767 and 1768 relating to the British colonies in America. They are named afterward, the Chancellor of the Exchequer who proposed the program. Historians vary slightly every bit to which acts they include under the heading "Townshend Acts", only five are often listed:^[2]

• The New York Restraining Act 1767 passed on v June 1767.
• The Revenue Act 1767 passed on 26 June 1767.
• The Indemnity Act 1767 passed on 29 June 1767.
• The Commissioners of Customs Human activity 1767 passed on 29 June 1767.
• The Vice Admiralty Court Act 1768 passed on six July 1768.

The purposes of the acts were to:

• raise revenue in the colonies to pay the salaries of governors and judges so that they would remain loyal to Bang-up Britain
• create more than constructive ways of enforcing compliance with trade regulations
• punish the Province of New York for failing to comply with the 1765 Quartering Human action
• plant the precedent that the British Parliament had the right to tax the colonies^[3]

The Townshend Acts were met with resistance in the colonies, which eventually resulted in the Boston Massacre of 1770. They placed an indirect taxation on glass, lead, paints, paper, and tea, all of which had to be imported from Britain. This form of revenue generation was Townshend'southward response to the failure of the Stamp Act 1765, which had provided the get-go form of directly taxation placed upon the colonies. However, the import duties proved to be similarly controversial. Colonial indignation over the acts was expressed in John Dickinson's Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania and in the Massachusetts Round Letter. There was widespread protest, and American port cities refused to import British goods, then Parliament began to partially repeal the Townshend duties.^[four] In March 1770, most of the taxes from the Townshend Acts were repealed past Parliament nether Frederick, Lord North. Notwithstanding, the import duty on tea was retained in order to demonstrate to the colonists that Parliament held the sovereign authority to taxation its colonies, in accord with the Declaratory Act 1766. The British government connected to tax the American colonies without providing representation in Parliament. American resentment, decadent British officials, and calumniating enforcement spurred colonial attacks on British ships, including the burning of the Gaspee in 1772. The Townshend Acts' taxation on imported tea was enforced one time again by the Tea Act 1773, and this led to the Boston Tea Party in 1773 in which Bostonians destroyed a large shipment of taxed tea. Parliament responded with severe punishments in the Intolerable Acts 1774. The Thirteen Colonies drilled their militia units, and war finally erupted in Lexington and Concord in April 1775, launching the American Revolution.

Background [edit]

Following the Seven Years' War (1756–1763), the British regime was deep in debt. To pay a small fraction of the costs of the newly expanded empire, the Parliament of Bang-up Britain decided to levy new taxes on the colonies of British America. Previously, through the Trade and Navigation Acts, Parliament had used taxation to regulate the merchandise of the empire. But with the Carbohydrate Act of 1764, Parliament sought, for the commencement fourth dimension, to tax the colonies for the specific purpose of raising revenue. American colonists argued that there were constitutional issues involved.^[v]

The Americans claimed they were non represented in Parliament, only the British government retorted that they had "virtual representation", a concept the Americans rejected.^[6] This issue, simply briefly debated following the Sugar Act, became a major point of contention after Parliament's passage of the Stamp Act 1765. The Stamp Act proved to exist wildly unpopular in the colonies, contributing to its repeal the following year, forth with the failure to raise substantial acquirement.

Implicit in the Postage stamp Act dispute was an issue more than primal than taxation and representation: the question of the extent of Parliament's authorization in the colonies.^[7] Parliament provided its answer to this question when it repealed the Postage Act in 1766 by simultaneously passing the Declaratory Act, which proclaimed that Parliament could legislate for the colonies "in all cases whatsoever".^[8]

The five Townshend Acts [edit]

The New York Restraining Act 1767 [edit]

This was the first of the v acts, passed on 5 June 1767. It forbade the New York Assembly and the governor of New York from passing any new bills until they complied with the Quartering Act 1765. That deed required New York to provide housing, food and supplies for the British troops stationed there to defend the colony. New York resisted the Quartering Human action proverb they were existence taxed, notwithstanding had no direct representation in Parliament. Furthermore, New York didn't remember British soldiers were needed any more than, since the French and Indian State of war had come to an terminate. Earlier the deed was implemented, New York reluctantly agreed to provide some of the soldiers' needs, so it was never implemented.^[9]

The Revenue Act 1767 [edit]

This was the second of the five acts, passed on 26 June 1767. It placed taxes on drinking glass, lead, painters' colors, newspaper, and tea. It gave customs officials broad authorization to enforce the taxes and punish smugglers through the use of "writs of assistance", general warrants that could exist used to search private property for smuggled goods. There was an angry response from colonists, who accounted the taxes a threat to their rights equally British subjects. The use of writs of assistance was significantly controversial since the correct to be secure in i'due south private property was an established right in Britain.^[10]

The Indemnity Act 1767 [edit]

This act was the (articulation) third act, passed on 29 June 1767, the aforementioned day as the Commissioners of Customs Act (see below). 'Indemnity' means 'security or protection confronting a loss or other fiscal burden'.^[xi] The Indemnity Act 1767 reduced taxes on the British East Bharat Company when they imported tea into England. This immune them to re-export the tea to the colonies more cheaply and resell it to the colonists. Until this time, all items had to be shipped to England first from wherever they were fabricated and and so re-exported to their destination, including to the colonies.^[12] This followed from the principle of mercantilism in England, which meant the colonies were forced to trade but with England.^[thirteen]

The British East India Visitor was ane of England'due south largest companies but was on the verge of collapse due to much cheaper smuggled Dutch tea. Part of the purpose of the entire series of Townshend Acts was to save the company from imploding. Since tea smuggling had become a mutual and successful practise, Parliament realized how difficult it was to enforce the taxing of tea. The Deed stated that no more taxes would be placed on tea, and it made the price of the East India Company's tea less than tea that was smuggled via Holland. It was an incentive for the colonists to purchase the E India Company tea.^[fourteen]

The Commissioners of Customs Act 1767 [edit]

This human activity was passed on 29 June 1767 also. Information technology created a new Community Board for the N American colonies, to be headquartered in Boston with v customs commissioners. New offices were eventually opened in other ports as well. The Board was created to enforce shipping regulations and increase tax revenue. Previously, customs enforcement was handled past the Customs Board dorsum in England. Due to the altitude, enforcement was poor, taxes were avoided and smuggling was rampant. Once the new Customs Board was in operation, enforcement increased, leading to a confrontation with smuggling colonists. Incidents betwixt community officials, armed forces personnel and colonists bankrupt out across the colonies, eventually leading to the occupation of Boston by British troops. This led to the Boston Massacre.^[15]

The Vice Admiralty Court Human activity 1768 [edit]

This was the last of the v acts passed. It was not passed until 6 July 1768, a full year after the other iv. Lord Charles Townshend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, afterwards whom the Townshend Acts were named, had died suddenly in September 1767. Because of this, some scholars practise not include the Vice-Admiralty Court Deed with the other Townshend Acts, but most do since it deals with the same issues. The Act was not passed past Parliament, merely by the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury, with the blessing of the Rex.

The Act was passed to assist the prosecution of smugglers. It gave Royal naval courts, rather than colonial courts, jurisdiction over all matters apropos customs violations and smuggling. Earlier the Act, community violators could be tried in an admiralty courtroom in Halifax, Nova Scotia, if royal prosecutors believed they would not get a favourable outcome using a local judge and jury. The Vice-Admiralty Court Act added three new royal admiralty courts in Boston, Philadelphia and Charleston to aid in more effective prosecutions. These courts were run by judges appointed by the Crown and who were awarded v% of whatever fine the judge levied^[16] when they found someone guilty. The decisions were made solely by the judge, without the pick of trial by jury, which was considered to be a key right of British subjects. In add-on, the accused person had to travel to the court of jurisdiction at his own expense; if he did not appear, he was automatically considered guilty.^[17]

Townshend'south program [edit]

Raising acquirement [edit]

The first of the Townshend Acts, sometimes simply known as the Townshend Act, was the Revenue Deed 1767.^[18] This act represented the Chatham ministry's new approach to generating taxation acquirement in the American colonies later the repeal of the Stamp Act in 1766.^[19] The British regime had gotten the impression that because the colonists had objected to the Stamp Act on the grounds that it was a direct (or "internal") tax, colonists would therefore take indirect (or "external") taxes, such equally taxes on imports.^[20] With this in heed, Charles Townshend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, devised a plan that placed new duties on paper, paint, lead, glass, and tea that were imported into the colonies.^[21] These were items that were not produced in Northward America and that the colonists were only allowed to buy from Great Uk.^[22]

The colonists' objection to "internal" taxes did not mean that they would accept "external" taxes; the colonial position was that any taxation laid by Parliament for the purpose of raising revenue was unconstitutional.^[xx] "Townshend's mistaken conventionalities that Americans regarded internal taxes as unconstitutional and external taxes ramble", wrote historian John Phillip Reid, "was of vital importance in the history of events leading to the Revolution."^[23] The Townshend Revenue Human action received the royal assent on 29 June 1767.^[24] At that place was piffling opposition expressed in Parliament at the fourth dimension. "Never could a fateful measure have had a more quiet passage", wrote historian Peter Thomas.^[24]

The Acquirement Act was passed in conjunction with the Indemnity Act 1767,^[25] which was intended to brand the tea of the British East India Company more competitive with smuggled Dutch tea.^[26] The Indemnity Human activity repealed taxes on tea imported to England, assuasive information technology to be re-exported more cheaply to the colonies. This revenue enhancement cut in England would exist partially offset by the new Revenue Act taxes on tea in the colonies.^[27] The Revenue Human activity too reaffirmed the legality of writs of aid, or general search warrants, which gave customs officials broad powers to search houses and businesses for smuggled appurtenances.^[28]

The original stated purpose of the Townshend duties was to raise a revenue to help pay the toll of maintaining an army in North America.^[29] Townshend changed the purpose of the taxation plan, nevertheless, and instead decided to apply the revenue to pay the salaries of some colonial governors and judges.^[30] Previously, the colonial assemblies had paid these salaries, just Parliament hoped to have the "power of the purse"^[31] away from the colonies. According to historian John C. Miller, "Townshend ingeniously sought to have coin from Americans by means of parliamentary taxation and to employ it against their liberties by making colonial governors and judges contained of the assemblies."^[32]

Some members of Parliament objected because Townshend'southward plan was expected to generate only £40,000 in yearly revenue, only he explained that once the precedent for taxing the colonists had been firmly established, the program could gradually be expanded until the colonies paid for themselves.^[33] Co-ordinate to historian Peter Thomas, Townshend's "aims were political rather than financial".^[34]

American Board of Community Commissioners [edit]

To better collect the new taxes, the Commissioners of Community Act 1767 established the American Board of Customs Commissioners, which was modeled on the British Lath of Customs.^[35] The Board was created because of the difficulties the British Board faced in enforcing trade regulations in the distant colonies.^[36] Five commissioners were appointed to the lath, which was headquartered in Boston.^[37] The American Customs Board would generate considerable hostility in the colonies towards the British authorities. Co-ordinate to historian Oliver Dickerson, "The actual separation of the continental colonies from the residue of the Empire dates from the creation of this independent administrative board."^[38]

The American Board of Customs Commissioners was notoriously corrupt, according to historians. Political scientist Peter Andreas argues:

merchants resented non only the squeeze on smuggling but too the exploits by unscrupulous community agents that came with it. Such "customs racketeering" was, in the view of colonial merchants, substantially legalized piracy.^[39]

Historian Edmund Morgan says:

In the establishment of this American Board of Customs Commissioners, Americans saw the extension of England'southward decadent system of officeholding to America. As Professor Dickerson has shown, the Commissioners were indeed corrupt. They engaged in extensive "customs racketeering" and they were involved in many of the episodes of heightened the tension between England and the colonies: information technology was on their asking that troops were sent to Boston; The Boston Massacre took place before their headquarters; the "Gaspee" was operating under their orders.^[40]

Historian Doug Krehbiel argues:

Disputes brought to the lath were nearly exclusively resolved in favor of the British government. Vice admiralty courts claimed to prosecute vigorously smugglers merely were widely decadent—community officials falsely accused transport owners of possessing undeclared items, thereby seizing the cargoes of unabridged vessels, and justices of the juryless courts were entitled to a pct of the goods from colonial ships that they ruled unlawful. Writs of assistance and coating search warrants to search for smuggled appurtenances were liberally abused. John Hancock, the wealthy New England merchant, had his transport "Liberty" seized in 1768 on a false accuse, incensing the colonists. Charges against Hancock were afterwards dropped and his ship returned because of the fear that he would appeal to more scrupulous customs officials in United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland.^[41]

Another measure to enforce the merchandise laws was the Vice Admiralty Courtroom Act 1768.^[42] Although oftentimes included in discussions of the Townshend Acts, this act was initiated by the Cabinet when Townshend was not present and was not passed until after his death.^[43] Before this human activity, at that place was simply one vice admiralty court in N America, located in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Established in 1764, this court proved to exist besides remote to serve all of the colonies, and and so the 1768 Vice Admiralty Court Act created four district courts, which were located at Halifax, Boston, Philadelphia, and Charleston. One purpose of the vice admiralty courts, which did non have juries, was to help customs officials prosecute smugglers since colonial juries were reluctant to convict persons for violating unpopular trade regulations.

Townshend as well faced the problem of what to practice about the New York General Assembly, which had refused to comply with the Quartering Act 1765 considering its members saw the act's fiscal provisions as levying an unconstitutional revenue enhancement.^[44] The New York Restraining Human action,^[45] which according to historian Robert Chaffin was "officially a part of the Townshend Acts",^[46] suspended the power of the Assembly until it complied with the Quartering Human activity. The Restraining Human action never went into result because, by the time information technology was passed, the New York Assembly had already appropriated money to cover the costs of the Quartering Act. The Assembly avoided conceding the correct of Parliament to tax the colonies by making no reference to the Quartering Human action when appropriating this money; they also passed a resolution stating that Parliament could not constitutionally append an elected legislature.^[47]

Reaction [edit]

Townshend knew that his program would be controversial in the colonies, only he argued that, "The superiority of the mother country tin can at no fourth dimension be amend exerted than now."^[48] The Townshend Acts did non create an instant uproar like the Stamp Act had done 2 years before, merely shortly, opposition to the programme had become widespread.^[49] Townshend did not live to see this reaction, having died suddenly on 4 September 1767.^[50]

The most influential colonial response to the Townshend Acts was a series of twelve essays by John Dickinson entitled "Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania", which began appearing in Dec 1767.^[51] Eloquently articulating ideas already widely accustomed in the colonies,^[51] Dickinson argued that there was no difference between "internal" and "external" taxes, and that whatever taxes imposed on the colonies by Parliament for the sake of raising a revenue were unconstitutional.^[52] Dickinson warned colonists not to concede to the taxes just because the rates were low since this would fix a dangerous precedent.^[53]

Dickinson sent a copy of his "Letters" to James Otis of Massachusetts, informing Otis that "whenever the Crusade of American Freedom is to be vindicated, I look towards the Province of Massachusetts Bay".^[54] The Massachusetts House of Representatives began a entrada against the Townshend Acts by offset sending a petition to King George asking for the repeal of the Revenue Deed, and and so sending a letter to the other colonial assemblies, asking them to join the resistance movement.^[55] Upon receipt of the Massachusetts Circular Alphabetic character, other colonies likewise sent petitions to the king.^[56] Virginia and Pennsylvania also sent petitions to Parliament, but the other colonies did not, believing that it might have been interpreted every bit an admission of Parliament's sovereignty over them.^[57] Parliament refused to consider the petitions of Virginia and Pennsylvania.^[58]

In U.k., Lord Hillsborough, who had recently been appointed to the newly created office of Colonial Secretary, was alarmed by the actions of the Massachusetts House. In Apr 1768 he sent a letter to the colonial governors in America, instructing them to dissolve the colonial assemblies if they responded to the Massachusetts Circular Letter. He likewise sent a letter to Massachusetts Governor Francis Bernard, instructing him to have the Massachusetts House rescind the Circular Letter. By a vote of 92 to 17, the Firm refused to comply, and Bernard promptly dissolved the legislature.^[59]

Boycotts [edit]

Non-importation agreement, dated Oct 1767, signed by Bostonians including Paul Revere

Merchants in the colonies, some of them smugglers, organized economic boycotts to put force per unit area on their British counterparts to work for repeal of the Townshend Acts. Boston merchants organized the first non-importation agreement, which called for merchants to suspend importation of certain British goods constructive 1 January 1768. Merchants in other colonial ports, including New York Urban center and Philadelphia, eventually joined the boycott.^[lx] In Virginia, the non-importation effort was organized by George Washington and George Mason. When the Virginia House of Burgesses passed a resolution stating that Parliament had no right to tax Virginians without their consent, Governor Lord Botetourt dissolved the assembly. The members met at Raleigh Tavern and adopted a boycott agreement known every bit the "Clan".^[61]

The non-importation movement was non as effective equally promoters had hoped. British exports to the colonies declined past 38 percent in 1769, just there were many merchants who did non participate in the boycott.^[62] The boycott movement began to fail by 1770 and came to an end in 1771.^[63]

Unrest in Boston [edit]

The newly created American Customs Lath was seated in Boston, so it was there that the Lath concentrated on enforcing the Townshend Acts.^[64] The acts were so unpopular in Boston that the Customs Board requested assistance. Commodore Samuel Hood sent the fifty-gun fourth-rate transport HMS Romney, which arrived in Boston Harbor in May 1768.^[65]

On 10 June 1768, customs officials seized the Freedom, a sloop owned by leading Boston merchant John Hancock, on allegations that the ship had been involved in smuggling. Bostonians, already aroused considering the captain of the Romney had been impressing local sailors, began to riot. Customs officials fled to Castle William for protection. With John Adams serving every bit his lawyer, Hancock was prosecuted in a highly publicized trial by a vice-admiralty court, just the charges were eventually dropped.^[66]

Given the unstable land of affairs in Massachusetts, Hillsborough instructed Governor Bernard to try to discover bear witness of treason in Boston.^[67] Parliament had adamant that the Treason Act 1543 was yet in force, which would allow Bostonians to be transported to England to stand up trial for treason. Bernard could observe no one who was willing to provide reliable prove, even so, and and so in that location were no treason trials.^[68] The possibility that American colonists might exist arrested and sent to England for trial produced alarm and outrage in the colonies.^[69]

Even before the Liberty riot, Hillsborough had decided to send troops to Boston. On 8 June 1768, he instructed General Thomas Gage, Commander-in-Chief, N America, to send "such Force every bit You shall retrieve necessary to Boston", although he conceded that this might lead to "consequences not easily foreseen".^[seventy] Hillsborough suggested that Cuff might ship one regiment to Boston, but the Freedom incident convinced officials that more than one regiment would be needed.^[71]

People in Massachusetts learned in September 1768 that troops were on the fashion.^[72] Samuel Adams organized an emergency, extralegal convention of towns and passed resolutions against the imminent occupation of Boston, but on ane Oct 1768, the start of four regiments of the British Ground forces began disembarking in Boston, and the Customs Commissioners returned to town.^[73] The "Journal of Occurrences", an anonymously written series of newspaper articles, chronicled clashes between civilians and soldiers during the military occupation of Boston, apparently with some exaggeration.^[74] Tensions rose after Christopher Seider, a Boston teenager, was killed by a customs employee on 22 Feb 1770.^[75] Although British soldiers were not involved in that incident, resentment against the occupation escalated in the days that followed, resulting in the killing of five civilians in the Boston Massacre of 5 March 1770.^[76] After the incident, the troops were withdrawn to Castle William.^[77]

Partial repeal [edit]

On 5 March 1770— the same day as the Boston Massacre although news traveled slowly at the time, and neither side of the Atlantic was aware of this coincidence—Lord N, the new Prime number Minister, presented a motion in the House of Commons that chosen for partial repeal of the Townshend Revenue Act.^[78] Although some in Parliament advocated a consummate repeal of the act, Northward disagreed, arguing that the tea duty should be retained to assert "the right of taxing the Americans".^[78] After contend, the Repeal Human activity^[79] received the Majestic Assent on 12 Apr 1770.^[lxxx]

Historian Robert Chaffin argued that piffling had actually changed:

Information technology would be inaccurate to merits that a major office of the Townshend Acts had been repealed. The revenue-producing tea levy, the American Board of Customs and, well-nigh important, the principle of making governors and magistrates independent all remained. In fact, the modification of the Townshend Duties Act was scarcely any modify at all.^[81]

The Townshend duty on tea was retained when the 1773 Tea Act was passed, which allowed the East India Visitor to ship tea straight to the colonies. The Boston Tea Party soon followed, which set the stage for the American Revolution.

Notes [edit]

1. ^ "Townshend Acts". Dictionary.com . Retrieved xiii April 2020.
2. ^ Dickerson (Navigation Acts, 195–95) for case, writes that there were four Townshend Acts, and does non mention the New York Restraining Act, which Chaffin says was "officially a office of the Potato Acts" ("Townshend Acts", 128).
3. ^ Chaffin, "Townshend Acts", 126.
4. ^ Chaffin, "Townshend Acts", 143.
5. ^ Reid, Authorization to Tax, 206.
6. ^ Leonard W. Levy (1995). Seasoned Judgments. Transaction Publishers. p. 303. ISBN9781412833820.
7. ^ Thomas, Townshend Duties, 10.
8. ^ Knollenberg, Growth, 21–25.
9. ^ "New York Restraining Human activity". Revolutionary War and Beyond.
10. ^ "Revenue Act of 1767". Revolutionary War and Beyond.
11. ^ "Indemnity | Meaning of Indemnity past Lexico". Lexico Dictionaries | English.
12. ^ "Indemnity Human action of 1767". Revolutionary War and Beyond.
13. ^ "MERCANTILISM IMPORTS and EXPORTS". Archived from the original on 28 June 2004.
14. ^ "The Indemnity Act | Tea Party Boston".
15. ^ "Commissioners of Customs Act". Revolutionary War and Beyond.
16. ^ Ruppert, Bob (28 January 2015). "Vice-Admiralty Courts and Writs of Assistance". Journal of the American Revolution.
17. ^ "Vice-Admiralty Courtroom Human activity". Revolutionary War and Across.
18. ^ The Revenue Deed 1767 was 7 Geo. III ch. 46; Knollenberg, Growth, 47; Labaree, Tea Political party, 270n12. It is also known as the Townshend Revenue Act, the Townshend Duties Human activity, and the Tariff Human activity 1767.
19. ^ Chaffin, "Townshend Acts", 143; Thomas, Duties Crisis, ix.
20. ^ ^{a b} Reid, Authority to Tax, 33–39.
21. ^ Thomas, Duties Crunch, 9; Labaree, Tea Political party, 19–20.
22. ^ Chaffin, "Townshend Acts", 127.
23. ^ Reid, Authority to Tax, 33.
24. ^ ^{a b} Thomas, Duties Crisis, 31.
25. ^ The Indemnity Act was 7 Geo. III ch. 56; Labaree, Tea Party, 269n20. It is also known as the Tea Act 1767; Jensen, Founding, 435.
26. ^ Dickerson, Navigation Acts, 196.
27. ^ Labaree,Tea Political party, 21.
28. ^ Reid, Rebellious Spirit, 29, 135n24.
29. ^ Thomas, Duties Crisis, 22–23.
30. ^ Thomas, Duties Crisis, 23–25.
31. ^ Thomas, Duties Crunch, 260.
32. ^ Miller, Origins, 255.
33. ^ Chaffin, "Townshend Acts", 128; Thomas, Duties Crisis, 30.
34. ^ Thomas, Duties Crunch, thirty.
35. ^ Knollenberg, Growth, 47.
36. ^ Thomas, Duties Crisis, 33
37. ^ Chaffin, "Townshend Acts", 130.
38. ^ Dickerson, Navigation Acts, 199.
39. ^ Peter Andreas, Smuggler Nation: How Illicit Trade Made America (2012) p 34
40. ^ Edmund S. Morgan (1978). The Claiming of the American Revolution. W. W. Norton. pp. 104–5. ISBN9780393008760.
41. ^ Doug Krehbiel, "British Empire and the Atlantic Earth," in Paul Finkelman, ed., Encyclopedia of the New American Nation (2005) 1:228
42. ^ 8 Geo. III ch. 22.
43. ^ Thomas, Duties Crisis, 34–35.
44. ^ Chaffin, "Townshend Acts", 134.
45. ^ 7 Geo. Three ch. 59. Also known as the New York Suspending Act; Knollenberg, Growth, 296.
46. ^ Chaffin, "Townshend Acts", 128.
47. ^ Chaffin, "Townshend Acts", 134–35.
48. ^ Chaffin, "Townshend Acts", 131.
49. ^ Knollenberg, Growth, 48; Thomas, Duties Crunch, 76.
50. ^ Thomas, Duties Crisis, 36.
51. ^ ^{a b} Chaffin, "Townshend Acts", 132.
52. ^ Knollenberg, Growth, fifty.
53. ^ Knollenberg, Growth, 52–53.
54. ^ Knollenberg, Growth, 54. Dickinson's alphabetic character to Otis was dated 5 December 1767.
55. ^ Knollenberg, Growth, 54.
56. ^ Thomas, Duties Crunch, 84; Knollenberg, Growth, 54–57.
57. ^ Thomas, Duties Crisis, 85, 111–12.
58. ^ Thomas, Duties Crisis, 112.
59. ^ Thomas, Duties Crisis, 81; Knollenberg, Growth, 56.
60. ^ Knollenberg, Growth, 57–58.
61. ^ Knollenberg, Growth, 59.
62. ^ Thomas, Duties Crisis, 157.
63. ^ Chaffin, "Townshend Acts", 138.
64. ^ Knollenberg, Growth, 61–63.
65. ^ Knollenberg, Growth, 63.
66. ^ "Notorious Smuggler", 236–46; Knollenberg, Growth, 63–65.
67. ^ Thomas, Duties Crunch, 109.
68. ^ Jensen, Founding, 296–97.
69. ^ Knollenberg, Growth, 69.
70. ^ Thomas, Duties Crisis, 82; Knollenberg, Growth, 75; Jensen, Founding, 290.
71. ^ Reid, Rebellious Spirit, 125.
72. ^ Thomas, Duties Crisis, 92.
73. ^ Knollenberg, Growth, 76.
74. ^ Knollenberg, Growth, 76–77.
75. ^ Knollenberg, Growth, 77–78.
76. ^ Knollenberg, Growth, 78–79.
77. ^ Knollenberg, Growth, 81.
78. ^ ^{a b} Knollenberg, Growth, 71.
79. ^ 10 Geo. 3 c. 17; Labaree, Tea Political party, 276n17.
80. ^ Knollenberg, Growth, 72.
81. ^ Chaffin, "Townshend Acts", 140.

References [edit]

• Chaffin, Robert J. "The Townshend Acts crunch, 1767–1770". The Blackwell Encyclopedia of the American Revolution. Jack P. Greene, and J.R. Pole, eds. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell, 1991; reprint 1999. ISBN ane-55786-547-7.
• Dickerson, Oliver M. The Navigation Acts and the American Revolution. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1951.
• Knollenberg, Bernhard. Growth of the American Revolution, 1766–1775. New York: Free Printing, 1975. ISBN 0-02-917110-five.
• Labaree, Benjamin Woods. The Boston Tea Party. Originally published 1964. Boston: Northeastern Academy Printing, 1979. ISBN 0-930350-05-vii.
• Jensen, Merrill. The Founding of a Nation: A History of the American Revolution, 1763–1776. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968.
• Miller, John C. Origins of the American Revolution. Stanford University Press, 1959.
• Reid, John Phillip. In a Rebellious Spirit: The Argument of Facts, the Freedom Anarchism, and the Coming of the American Revolution. Academy Park: Pennsylvania Country University Press, 1979. ISBN 0-271-00202-6.
• Reid, John Phillip. Constitutional History of the American Revolution, II: The Authorization to Revenue enhancement. Madison: Academy of Wisconsin Printing, 1987. ISBN 0-299-11290-10.
• Thomas, Peter D. G. The Townshend Duties Crunch: The Second Phase of the American Revolution, 1767–1773. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. ISBN 0-19-822967-4.

Farther reading [edit]

• Barrow, Thomas C. Trade and Empire: The British Community Service in Colonial America, 1660–1775. Harvard University Printing, 1967.
• Breen, T. H. The Marketplace of Revolution: How Consumer Politics Shaped American Independence. Oxford Academy Press, 2005. ISBN 0-19-518131-X; ISBN 978-0-nineteen-518131-9.
• Brunhouse, Robert Levere. "The Issue of the Townshend Acts in Pennsylvania." Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography (1930): 355–373. online
• Chaffin, Robert J. "The Townshend Acts of 1767." William and Mary Quarterly: A Magazine of Early American History (1970): ninety-121. in JSTOR
• Chaffin, Robert J. "The Townshend Acts crisis, 1767–1770." in Jack P. Greene, J. R. Pole eds., A Companion to the American Revolution (2000) pp: 134–150. online
• Knight, Carol Lynn H. The American Colonial Printing and the Townshend Crunch, 1766–1770: A Study in Political Imagery. Lewiston: Eastward. Mellen Press, 1990.
• Leslie, William R. "The Gaspee Matter: A Written report of Its Ramble Significance." The Mississippi Valley Historical Review (1952): 233–256. in JSTOR
• Ubbelohde, Carl. The Vice-Admiralty Courts and the American Revolution. Chapel Hill: University of N Carolina Press, 1960.

External links [edit]

• Text of the Townshend Revenue Act
• Commodity on the Townshend Acts, with some menses documents, from the Massachusetts Historical Lodge
• Documents on the Townshend Acts and Menses 1767–1768

maycrues2000.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Townshend_Acts

Share this post