Imagine being unjustly ruled by a foreign power without any voice in the government. Would this not invoke outrage? Such was the thoughts of the English colonists perched on the eastern coast of America. Outraged by having no say in their laws, the colonists thoughts were voiced clearly in the famous words of James Otis "Taxation without representation is tyranny," as act after act was enacted into law by the English Parliament. The colonists did not like to be seen as cattle, with the sole purpose to produce profit for the English.
In 1733, the English parliament passed the Molasses Act in order to promote profit for England. The act set a tax of six pence per gallon of any molasses that was imported by a foreign (non-English) power. This act, the predecessor of the sugar act, was weakly enforced and the colonists. Thus allowing molasses to be imported by bribes or smugglers. The lack of authority with which the act was carried out got the colonists used to conducting and executing their own affairs.
When the Sugar Act was
…show more content…
Some of the colonists organized a boycott of British luxury goods. As a result of the boycotting, some individuals arose such as Samuel Adams and James Otis. The Sugar Act was repealed in 1766. Also, repealed around the same time was the Stamp Act.
On March 22, 1765, Parliament decreed, under the careful eye of Grenville (the same Grenville as mentioned above), the stamp act with a vote of 205 to 49 in the House of Commons, and unanimously in the House of Lords. Grenville, in early 1764, disclosed that in addition to the Sugar Act, a stamp tax might also be needed for legal documents and other publications. The colonies scrambled as they wrote petitions and sent them to London along with Benjamin Franklin and others . However, Parliament refused to accept them. The colonies were