Talk:Townshend Acts

message: Too many posts are going unsigned. 76.183.213.20 04:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sign your posts 

message: Perhaps the term "British American" should be used instead of "American". 
Even though the term "American" was in use in the 1760, it carried quite different(more geographic, less political) connotations then modern usage. Also, there was no desire for independence from Britain in 1767. Colonials were overwhelmingly loyal to the Crown, and any disagreeable polices were simple seen as bad policy that needed change, not violent upheaval. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Semyonkotko (talk • contribs) 19:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where's your source?  Also, by your use of the word "colonials" instead of "colonists," I have to assume that you are speaking with an East-side-of-the-Atlantic perspective.  Consider this: To this day, numerous countries under the British Commonwealth system, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Jamaica, swear loyalty to the Queen of England, yet neither you nor they would probably consent to them being called "British Canadians," "British Australians," "British Jamaicans," etc.  To call my forefathers "British Americans," though they may have spoken the King's English, bought manufactured goods from England, and drunk Earl Gray, smacks of historical revisionism.  Although some were British businessmen trying to make a buck in an emerging market, the vast majority were emigrants from Britain trying to make a new life for themselves in the American Colonies.  They were "Americans."  Even as they toiled under the yoke of a tyrannical King, and may have continued to swear allegiance to him (who wouldn't when a squad of weapon-weilding Redcoats is stationed down the street?), they had already put their British past firmly behind them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.130.27 (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I TOTALLY agree!! =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.44.214 (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled discussion 

message: These tidbits were added by an anonymous editor. As they stand right now, they're inappropriate for inclusion into article, but if someone wants to work them in, be my guest.
* Meant to raise revenue and tighten customs
* 1768 - February, Samuel Adams of Massachusetts writes a Circular Letter opposing taxation
* Endorsed by the Massachusetts House of Representatives
* Calls for united resistance 
* British governor of Massachusetts abolishes the state's legislature
* Lord Hillsborough 
* Orders Governor of Massachusetts to dissolve the General Court
— Edward Z. Yang(Talk) 02:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ... and there are so many of these "facts" that are not cited. 76.183.213.20 04:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I want to switch the “cleanup tag with the “disputed” tag. 76.183.213.20 07:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If you want to flag up a dispute, you can use one of the templates in: Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes. Road Wizard 17:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have decided to not use the  tag. 76.183.213.20 04:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts 

message: The article mentiones both "Townsend" and "Townshend". What is correct?
It appears to me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is called "Charles Townsend" without 'H'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hklinke (talk • contribs) 13:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: (talk  —Preceding undated comment added 23:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trust me its an "H" 

message: Should this be "taxation without representation"? I've never heard of "pleasure without protection".Sir Akroy 21:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pleasure without Protection

message: The article attempts to promote the simplistic cliche that there was a difference of complexity between two separate issues: lack of colonial representation at Westminster, and the issue of Parliamentary supremacy in the thirteen colonies.
This a false dichotomy, which is resolved accurately by thorough and prominent discussion of the role of the colonial legislatures in the post-Seven Years' War period.  The colonists did not want the authority of their legislatures usurped, "local" representation was the right they held that they inherited from the 1689 Bill of Rights. ~----  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.108.183 (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs to Incorporate the Role of the Colonial Legislatures 

message: This, which appears to be a draft essay on this subject, was added for no apparent reason by IP 69.10.222.66 on 3 June 2013 (together with some vandalism). I've collapsed it (and fixed the other stuff), but I'm wondering if it needs to be here at all. Delete? Moonraker12 (talk) 06:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: (Collapsed addition)

message: I've just reverted some edits that changed the text from British to American English. I reverted per ENGVAR, as the article was in British English before, but its an open question whether American English would be more appropriate in this case. What does anyone think? Whichever it is to be, it needs recording somewhere, maybe with the BritEng or AmEng templates or something. Moonraker12 (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engvar 

message: "The first of the Townshend Acts, sometimes simply known as the Townshend Act, was the Revenue Act of 1767."
I am not sure, but i think this is wrong. If you are counting the New York Restraining Act as a Townshend Act it would probably be the first.
I do not know which act was proposed earlier, but the New York Restraining Act was passed before the Revenue act. 
The Revenue Act was passed on June 29, 1767 and the New York Restraining Act on June 15, 1767.
Please correct me if I am wrong!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luco107 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first Townshend Act? 

message: The order of the Acts given in the introduction and the later section is wrong, but is more correct in the section "Townshend's program". It is therefore apparent that the dates given for the acts - which seem to have all come from a single source (revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com) - are wrong too.
For "The Vice Admiralty Court Act 1768", the claim that "The Act was not passed by Parliament, but by the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury, with the approval of the King." For a start, the Treasury could not pass legislation. The source has the text of a privy council order, which refers to a letter from the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury; and cites the act of parliament that gives the legal power to create the vice admiralty courts. The privy council order is merely the commission making the administrative arrangements of where courts would be established, not the legislation itself.
The legislative record gives the acts as being passed in this order:
# Commissioners of Customs Act 1767 (7 Geo 3 c 41)
# Revenue Act 1767 (7 Geo 3 c 46)
# Indemnity Act 1767 (7 Geo 3 c 56)
# New York Restraining Act 1767 (7 Geo 3 c 59)
# Vice Admiralty Court Act 1768 (8 Geo 3 c 22)
Mauls (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of the Townshed Acts/Errors