Colonists' Grievances Against the British Parliament's Act - Essay Sample

Introduction

The British parliament forced the stamp to act on all the provinces of British America. The Act was not accepted by most of the British colonists, thereby creating grievances. For example, the Mutiny Act required that colonial assemblies' houses and supply British soldiers. Most of the colonists objected to being required to provide housing and supplies to the soldiers. The mentioned grievance being just a tip of the iceberg, this analysis discusses the main concerns of the colonist against the Act. It also analyzes what transpired at the British parliament following actions of protests that the colonist put up as they refuted the stamp act and inaugurated into action the Declaratory Act.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The demonstrations from the British parliament had required that the printed materials in the states were to be delivered for stamping in London. It would be automatic that they would convey an imposed income stamp. The printed materials were all kinds of written documents ranging from reports to magazines so long as they were used within the states (Thomas, 2018). The parliament emphasized that the payment should only be done in British currency and not in any other frontier paper cash. The reason given for the stamp is that the money was used to pay for the military troops that were keeping peace in the North of America. They took pride in the fact that they triumphed in the seven years of war. The British felt that the provinces were recipients of the military services, and nothing could be more efficient than them paying for the services. It is from the reasons as mentioned above that the colonists derived their main arguments that they presented in parliament to show that they were not satisfied with the Act.

To begin with, the colonists argued that the parliament and the military had no privilege to expense them. One representative, John C, supported the argument by mentioning that the arrangement of the congress and parliament meeting was already reason enough to do away with the taxation. As a colonist, he added to his argument that the collected tax was in no way beneficial to the provincial seaports in terms of military protection since the same charge was not shaped or restricted to the crowd of the ports, it could be used elsewhere too.

Another argument from the colonists represented by Francis Bernard is that the parliament should have to prescribe an accommodation to the Act until the time parliament was convinced to reject it. The argument was supported by the belief that the last determination on the stamp act would have contributed unity among the provinces of Britain, bringing them nearer together.

The last of the arguments of the colonists came from agent John Dickinson. In his case, he raised fourteen purposes of provincial dissent (Moore, 2017). His provisions proved that the settlers should have the same privileges as the English military men, declaring that the stamp act issue should have been rescinded.

The stamp Act was massive; however, the moral courage of the people to contend their rights was an apparent show of how the decade has individual lights of determination in expressing their issues. The decade had courageous people who were willing to represent their interests and fight for their rights that no expenses be forced on them. Payments would only be given to them with their accent. Most of the time, the individual mentioned the necessary privileges of humanity to express how serious they considered the stamp act issue.

The British parliament refuted the American claims by arguing that the provinces and the taxes did not begin with the parliament. They further requested that the issue ought to go to the King. The radical position held by most American delegates was rejected for the same reasons. However, their requests were sent to the King as the ruler. Further petitions were administered to both houses of the parliament to show the level of disappointment among the Americans.

Different from the opinion held by most colonists, the Declaratory Act was an expression of how the British Parliament saddled power in American just as they did in Great Britain. Different from most of the people's opinions parliament had no privileges to make laws (Hood, 2019). Further proof was determined when the Act stressed that settlement in America was subordinate to the supreme crown of the King and the parliament of Great Britain. However, the King's accent was considered magnificent and the center of Great Britain in parliament.

Even when most Americans held the position that delegates represented their interest better even without being chosen, the English were convinced that parliament spoke the attention of the entire nation. The English held the belief that all were spoken to in parliament in London even though there were not any delegates chosen (Moore, 2017). Americans felt choosing representatives straightforwardly puts the responsibilities to them. The delegates have to speak about the general population since that is how they were chosen. The most disadvantaged group was settlers with no representatives; Americans argued for the division of sovereignty to salvage the situation.

From the above discussion, it is clear that the declaratory Act by the parliament of Great Britain was an action that they did to save face. The declaration apart from giving voice to settlers ascertained that the role of parliament was to pass laws which had to be abided to especially in the part of binding American colonies.

References

Hood, J. C. (2019). Give me liberty: Liberty of opinion in the Presbyterian Church of Australia. Reformed Theological Review, The, 78(1), 51.

Moore, S. (2017). The Irish Contribution to the Ideological Origins of the American Revolution: Nonimportation and the Reception of Jonathan Swift's Irish Satires in Early America. Early American Literature, 52(2), 333-362.

Thomas, P. D. (2018). The first Rockingham ministry (1765-1766): The Stamp Act Crisis. In George III. Manchester University Press.