Parallels in American History
Loading ...The Beginnings of the American Revolution.
Beginning in 1763, an arrogant Parliament passed several Acts which exploded in their face. The Acts they passed set into motion the mechanisms that would eventually enable and result in the “Declaration of Independence” and the American Revolutionary War.
In 1764, the British Parliament under John Stuart, 3rd Earl of Bute, decided it was time the Colonists pay back at least a portion of the expense of keeping British troops stationed in America after the end of the “Seven Years War” (French and Indian War). With no military threats imminent, there really was no longer a need for such a large military force. So to keep them stationed in England would not be politically popular. To demobilize 10,000 troops, would put as many as 1,500 officers, many of whom were well connected in Parliament, out of work. So the decision was made to leave them stationed in America. The outbreak of Pontiac’s War, in 1763, seemed to justify this decision, but that’s not why they were here.
George Grenville became Prime Minister in April of 1763, and upon him fell the task of finding a way to finance this large deployment. Raising taxes on British citizens and/or businesses at home, was political suicide at the time, so he decided to tax the Colonists, ostensibly because they benefited the most from the military presence. He started with the Sugar Act of 1764. The Sugar Act reduced the tax on imported molasses, but also made it more enforceable. Imported (coming from anywhere but the British West Indies) molasses had been taxed since the passage of the Molasses Act of 1733 but was routinely circumvented by smuggling or bribing customs officials. The primary purpose of the Molasses Act was to give the British molasses a monopoly, which of course they controlled the price of. The Sugar Act also added new taxes and restrictions on other imports and exports. For example lumber could only be exported to Britain. Mandating a captive market gave the British control of that pricing too. The Colonist’s objections to the new taxes were economic at first, then, they turned to constitutionality: “Taxation without representation”. Since the Colonists were not represented in Parliament, and the British Constitution stated that Britons (which specifically included the Colonists) could not be taxed without their consent, they felt the new taxes were indeed unconstitutional. At the same time the Sugar Act was passed, the Parliament announced that a Stamp Act was also being considered. Mr. Grenville also reiterated that the government did have the right to tax the colonies, and that the Parliament ruled supreme over the colonies even though they weren’t represented in the Parliament. One needs to keep in mind that this is all taking place during a post war recession. This didn’t go over real well.
The Stamp Act passed Parliament March 22, 1765. The Act consisted of Revenue Stamps on official legal documents of varying amounts depending on the document. It also included the authorization of Admiralty (Naval) courts to prosecute tax violators. The belief here was that Britain was trying to usurp the authority of the Colonial courts with courts that were firmly under control of the British. The Act specifically mentioned “ecclesiastical jurisdiction courts”. Since there were no courts of this type in the colonies at this time, there was fear that the British were trying to reestablish state sanctioned religious institutions in the colonies. Tax protests continued to become more numerous until they turned violent, with effigial hangings and property destruction, the victims of which were mainly taxing officials. The Stamp Act was officially repealed on March 18, 1766. But, as a consequence, the Declaratory Act was passed on the same day-an act that claimed Parliament had absolute power to enact laws and changes to the colonial government as Parliament saw fit even without representation. Other acts passed subsequent to the passage of the Declaratory Act would continue to enrage the colonists, leading to the American Revolutionary War in 1775.
The parallels here are the government passing laws as they see fit without representation. We keep hearing about the supremacy of Federal Law. If “We the People” were properly represented when the Federal Law was passed, there wouldn’t have to be Federal Law supremacy. The mere idea that Federal Law has to be supreme means that the people didn’t want the law to begin with. How about giving the IRS enforcement authority? What’s Health Care got to do with revenue? The IRS is not an elected body. They function under the Secretary of the Treasury, which is a member of the president’s cabinet and is appointed by the president. Supposedly the IRS enforces those laws enacted by Congress, but they haven’t been listening either, so where’s the representation there? Remember, when Law Enforcement couldn’t take down Al Capone, the IRS did. Convenient, isn’t it? Kind of like making Naval courts supreme over local Colonial courts right? And with Federal Law supreme, what’s next? Religion, guns, education, vocation, seems the sky’s the limit. The Sugar Act was repealed, as may be the Affordable Health Care for America Act, but the stage has been set. Let us intervene now, peacefully, before we have to go through another revolution!
-Randbo
Please join us in sending a message to Washington by reading and signing our petition at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/wethepeople/. If you are asked to make a donation after signing the petition, simply close your browser or surf to your next site and you won’t be charged anything. Any donations made here would go to the Host, ipetitions.com (hey,,they gotta make a living somehow!) and NOT the sponsor of this petition. “We the People” (the sponsors of this petition), are NOT soliciting nor accepting any donations.
