Talk:Stamp Act 1765

message: Shouldn't this be moved to Stamp Act, 1765 or some such? There were several Stamp Acts in Britain as the Inland Revenue website attests]. Other Commonwealth countries had their own ones too and the concept of passing a law to impose duties is pretty common. adamsan  22:49, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: "1765 Stamp Act
HEELP i dont understand!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.110.164 (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Why does the section on protest/repeal not talk about the repeal? something should be done about that, and unfortunately, I do not know enough about the subject to do it myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.113.219.59 (talk • contribs).
hey this is for old people  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.5.142.127 (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: repeal?

message: Some idiot changed the page and i do not know what was there to begin with. Would whoever wrote this page please restore it to its original form? (note) i tried to guess at what it should have been, but I may be wrong
Beefpelican 21:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: edit

message: The main effect of the changes are obviously more detail and the addition of sources and footnotes.  The final "Later Effects" section of the article still needs to be rewritten and expanded on, and I intend to do that at some point.  The only place that I am aware of where I changed the actual substance of the previous article involved the purpose of the Stamp Act -- I attempted to make it clear that while the British debt had been a prime factor in general British policy, the funds from the Stamp Act were to be earmarked strictly for expenses of the British military in America.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by North Shoreman (talk • contribs) 15:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, nice expansion! I'll try to copyedit and clean up the article, and maybe we can bring it to GA/FA status. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Revision (9-24-2007)

message: The current article on the Stamp Act, considering the importance of the subject and WP:Article size, is of an appropriate size.  The existing section on the Stamp Act Congress is an integral part of the existing article.  The editor who tagged this section for elimination has provided no justification for his actions. If any changes are warranted, it would makes much more sense to eliminate the short, poorly written, largely undocumented, and non-encyclopedic article on the Stamp Act Congress and merge it into the Stamp Act main article. WP:MERGE makes this case when it says, “If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there.” Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: After over a month only two opposing opinions have been expressed nd there have been no comments in almost four weeks.  Closed w/oconsensus to merge. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No explanation was offered at the time that this proposed merger was made, and no response has been made to my above objections even though the editor involved has responded to the other proposed merger.  I will remove the proposed merger in the near future unless someone cares to defend the merger proposal. In particular, which of the four conditions for merger exist.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposition to Proposed Merger Involving Sons of Liberty

message: Material had been changed with the edit summary "I believe the "necessity" of that tax was - shall we say - hotly contested, and in fact was what makes the Act notable at all." However the reference to necessity was not intended to be to the Stamp Act, but to the overall economic program of which the Stamp Act was just a part.  The Stamp Act was not intended, as the edit sugested, to "alleviate Britain’s greatly increased national debt" but to pay for current and future expenses.  While the body of the article makes this clear, the lede did not so I have rewritten it so that the point cannot be missed. 
I removed the reference to an increased border size because I'm not sure it is accurate.  The border size between French Canada and British North America had been totally eliminated, and I don't think that this reduction was offset by new borders that the British had acquired.  In any event, the article is fully sourced and the sources used don't make the claim that total border area was a separate factor from the total size of the newly acquired.  Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits of 3-15-2008

message: This expression appears in the lede, with no wlink or no further reference in the body (except perhaps a reference to 'hard money' in some block text).  Could we have a wikilink please? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Continental paper money"   

message: Although this should not be placed in the article itself, as a note to the impact on which these stamps would have had on the colonial economy, it may be stated using inflation templates, what the equivalent costs of these duties would be in today's English pound sterling to gauge this law's effect on the prices of items in that day.
The English pound sterling then consisted of 240 pence (the British penny was then abbreviated "d"), which was then broken into smaller denominations, including the shilling, which was 1/20 of a pound sterling, which consisted of 12d.
The major increments of English money of that day are shown below with their modern-day equivalents:
* 1d = £
* 1s = £
* £1 = £
Bill S. (talk) 07:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact on colonial economy compared to monetary values today 

message: For unknown reasons, this article invites more than the usual share of vandalism. Given the nature of the topic, this article may invite a disproportionate number of middle-school or elementary-school visitors who may find it amusing to make inappropriate modifications. I suspect, the only way to solve this problem is a long-term partial lock, blocking novices and anonymous edits. Alex.deWitte (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: This article says nothing about the impact of the act in colonies outside the present United States, specifically the Caribbean colonies (which were also affected), and the colonies now part of Canada.  This would include economic and political consequences to the act, and reaction to the protests in the Thirteen. Magic♪piano 15:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: the economic impact was small everywhere because the tax was quite small.  The principle, however, was quite large. Rjensen (talk) 04:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The (intended) economic impact of the taxes may have been small, but that of the protest activity was not.  Trade dropped off substantially due to the non-importation agreements, and was of serious concern to West Indies interests, who depended on North American trade for basics like food and lumber.  American ships were under threat (or rumored threat) of seizure if they put into a port with unstamped papers. These forces were among those that made the (ultimately successful economic) case for repeal. Magic♪piano 23:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  local bias 

message: I'm wondering if the following quote by Samuel Adams really belongs to this article:
:For if our Trade may be taxed why not our Lands? Why not the Produce of our Lands & every thing we possess or make use of? This we apprehend annihilates our Charter Right to govern & tax ourselves – It strikes our British Privileges, which as we have never forfeited them, we hold in common with our Fellow Subjects who are Natives of Britain: If Taxes are laid upon us in any shape without our having a legal Representation where they are laid, are we not reduced from the Character of free Subjects to the miserable State of tributary Slaves
For one thing, he wrote this about the Sugar Act in May 1764, nearly a year before the Stamp Act was voted. Also, the quote starts with "for if our trade may be taxed", which disconnects the quote from the Stamp Act since it was not a tax on trade.
In fact, the whole passage that starts with "Debate in the colonies over the Stamp Act had actually begun in the spring of 1764" and ends with "Although the content of the messages varied, they all emphasized that taxation of the colonies without colonial assent was a violation of their rights." seems out of place. It deals with events that predate the Stamp Act, even though it is in the "Political responses" section.
I think it should be moved to a more relevant article, or into the Background section, though in my opinion the paragraph about taxation and representation in the Background section is sufficient as it is. LeCid (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it explains Adams' position before the specific stamp act came up--and shows he did not change positions. Rjensen (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  quote by Samuel Adams 

message: august body the Parliament of Great Britain. 
II.That His Majesty's liege subjects in these colonies, are entitled to all the inherent rights and liberties of his natural born subjects within the kingdom of Great-Britain. 
III.That it is inseparably essential to the freedom of a people, and the undoubted right of Englishmen, that no taxes be imposed on them, but with their own consent, given personally, or by their representatives. 
IV.That the people of these colonies are not, and from their local circumstances cannot be, represented in the House of Commons in Great-Britain. 
V.That the only representatives of the people of these colonies, are persons chosen therein by themselves, and that no taxes ever have been, or can be constitutionally imposed on them, but by their respective legislatures. 
VI.That all supplies to the Crown, being free gifts of the people, it is unreasonable and inconsistent with the principles and spirit of the British Constitution, for the people of Great-Britain to grant to His Majesty the property of the colonists. 
VII.That trial by jury is the inherent and invaluable right of every British subject in these colonies. 
VIII.That the late Act of Parliament, entitled, An Act for granting and applying certain Stamp Duties, and other Duties, in the British colonies and plantations in America, etc., by imposing taxes on the inhabitants of these colonies, and the said Act, and several other Acts, by extending the jurisdiction of the courts of Admiralty beyond its ancient limits, have a manifest tendency to subvert the rights and liberties of the colonists. 
IX.That the duties imposed by several late Acts of Parliament, from the peculiar circumstances of these colonies, will be extremely burthensome and grievous; and from the scarcity of specie, the payment of them absolutely impracticable. 
X.That as the profits of the trade of these colonies ultimately center in Great-Britain, to pay for the manufactures which they are obliged to take from thence, they eventually contribute very largely to all supplies granted there to the Crown. 
XI.That the restrictions imposed by several late Acts of Parliament, on the trade of these colonies, will render them unable to purchase the manufactures of Great-Britain. 
XII.That the increase, prosperity, and happiness of these colonies, depend on the full and free enjoyment of their rights and liberties, and an intercourse with Great-Britain mutually affectionate and advantageous. 
XIII.That it is the right of the British subjects in these colonies, to petition the King, Or either House of Parliament. 
Lastly, That it is the indispensable duty of these colonies, to the best of sovereigns, to the mother country, and to themselves, to endeavour by a loyal and dutiful address to his Majesty, and humble applications to both Houses of Parliament, to procure the repeal of the Act for granting and applying certain stamp duties, of all clauses of any other Acts of Parliament, whereby the jurisdiction of the Admiralty is extended as aforesaid, and of the other late Acts for the restriction of American commerce.
– "Resolutions of the Stamp Act Congress," 1765
Taxation in this manner and the Quartering Act (which required the American colonies to provide food and shelter for British troops) were soundly thrashed in colonial assemblies. From Patrick Henry in Virginia to James Otis in Massachusetts, Americans voiced their protest. A Stamp Act Congress was convened in the colonies to decide what to do.
The colonists put their words into action and enacted widespread boycotts of British goods. Radical groups such as the Sons and Daughters of Liberty did not hesitate to harass tax collectors or publish the names of those who did not comply with the boycotts.
Soon, the pressure on Parliament by business-starved British merchants was too great to bear. The Stamp Act was repealed the following year.
The crisis was over, but the uneasy peace did not last long.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.100.120 (talk) 04:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a page for the discussion of RS's for the improvement of the article. Your post has no point in this regard - asking an Administrator to 'hat' this post, please - thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Stamp Act 

message: Substituted at 06:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: 2600:6C50:7A7F:F63F:5869:2817:D568:EAA5 (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2022 

message: Change "A majority considered it a violation of their rights as Englishmen to be taxed without their consent" to "A majority considered it a violation of their rights as Englishmen not to be taxed without their consent". Danielsimonsdk (talk) 11:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done, the current wording is correct in my view. You are suggesting a double-negative (on without), which flips the meaning. --Mvqr (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2023