[JerRocks2day]

Currently, I'm working on homework and need help with one question on the Stamp Act:

Why did Parliament pass the Stamp Act? How did the colonists respond to it.

I've tried looking in my book, but couldn't find much. Please just, try to summarize the answer to the question above.

Thanks.

[natedawg5280]

I believe they wanted money from the colonies to cover their North American expenses. (supporting their army, etc.)

The colonists were outraged by it, and there were the usual protests. The important thing probably is the 'Stamp Act Congress' of 1765 (NY). Eventually they repealed the Stamp Act I believe.

[Insane Drummer]

Ok. So basically we have this thing called the French and Indian War AKA the Seven Years' War. And it goes for like 9 years and is pretty costly. So at the end, the British are like, those damn colonists can't do anything right so we had to bail them out with our army when we had better things to do and bigger fish to fry. So basically alot of British felt that the homecountry (for which the colonies existed to serve) had had to expend alot of resources to protect the colonies and should be paid back. The colonies, however, felt that they had fought hard to protect Britain's investment in them and had actually kept things under control and had to repeatedly bail out those dumb continentals who had no clue how to fight an American war.

So essentially. The colonies felt Britain OWED them and Britain felt the colonies owed them.

As you can imagine, the colonists, who thought THEY had carried the brunt of the fight and paid most of the price FOR BRITAIN, were pretty amazingly pissed off that Britain felt the need to make the Colonists REPAY for the war and pay for the upkeep of British soldiers (standing armies were always equated with tyranny). The Brits thought the soldiers were for protecting the colonies the colonists thought it was for unjust repression.

I think you get the picture... Although, don't take my word on this and try to look into some reputable sources. That was just the really short and witty stamp act history.

[SecretAgentRat]

You're in your element here, Jason.

[Insane Drummer]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentRat

You're in your element here, Jason.

I am also pretty tired and need to do some reading for class tomorrow.

[H.M. Murdock]

The stamp act was a tax on the colonies by the British government that required a stamp on all legal documents and publications. It was enacted in 1765. The main reaction to the stamp act, when there was one, was that of violent rioting in major cities where the stamp act impacted the denser populations far more than the rural populations. The stamp act was repealed, but the Tea Act replaced it in 1773, which reignited the colonial tendency toward rebellion in the form of the Boston Tea Party.
As for why these taxes were placed on the colonies, Jason got some of it right. But the taxes in Britain were also ridiculously high. Colonists, pre-stamp act, paid very, very few taxes simply because it was difficult to collect. Instead, the British empire relied on their ability to put out raw goods that would be taken elsewhere, turned into finished goods, and then sold throughout the world, all the while bringing revenue to the British government through tariffs, sales taxes, import/export taxes and so forth. The British public didn't like it because, I would wager, they didn't realize that the colonies really were a "Golden Cow," as the US was called by Charles Dickens in his later years. So they started screaming for higher taxes from the colonies and lower taxes for themselves, as the colonies were paying a fraction of what pretty much everyone else was paying.
All of this occurred after the colonists called for representation in the British parliament to establish Britain's authority to tax them. The received no such representation, they gradually began to break off. Thus, the Stamp Act could be called a failed attempt to appease the British populace, as well as an effort to pull in the reins on a soon-to-be independent nation by showing that they could strongarm the money out of the colonists.

I think that's about it. I don't know. We only studied it for a little while last semester in history, but that's the general gist of it.