More handpicked essays just for you.
An essay on representative democracy
English language persuasive writing techniques
Paragraph about the stamp act
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: An essay on representative democracy
The first argument that the author makes against the Stamp Act is that laws passed by Parliament shouldn’t apply to the colonies because they have no representation in the British government. He then declares that therefore, New England will only accept the jurisdiction of the royal governors assigned to offices in America. The author also argues that Parliament is robbing the King of his “sole right to govern” the colonies by passing such unfair acts, and that the King is no better than Parliament if he allows the injustice to continue. The author’s tone seems to be one of unctuous persistence. He continually addresses the king as “Your Majesty” and embellishes the title with words like “excellent” and “gracious”. He concludes the letter
After the Seven Years Way England was broke for she had spent more money needed to win the war. Also winning the war gave the colonist a “we can do it spirit”. However because England now was facing debt she decided to tax the colonies. One the first acts passed was the sugar act passed in 1764. This Act was the raise revenue in American colonies. What it did was lowered the tax from six penses to three penses per gallon on foreign molasses. Molasses is a product made by refining sugarcane, grapes or sugar beets into sugar. This upset the colonist because before the sugar act they didn’t have to pay the tax so even if it was lowered that meant nothing for they now had to pay for it. A year later, in 1765, the Britain’s passed another act known as the Stamp Act. The Stamp Act put a tax on stamped paper, publications, playing cards, etc. Because it was on all paper products in a way it affected everyone; from the papers for the upper class such as lawyers, publications such as newspapers for the middle class, and playing cards for the lower class for entertainment. Next, the Townshend Act passed by Charles Townshend. This came in 1767, which imposed taxes on colonial tea, lead, paint, paper, and glass which just like the Stamp Act affected all of the classes in the colonist in the Americas. Though this act was removed three years later in 1770, it still left colonists with a warning that conditions may become worse. Around 1773, parliament passed the Intolerable Acts one of those acts which affected taxation was the Bost...
The author takes into the humanitarian aspect of revolution in prospect; he talks about how Americans wanted to be equal to Englishmen in respect to being represented in the House of Parliament. The "Stamp Act" is what the thoughts of the author are revolving around. Morgan associated the "Stamp Act" with what he believes Americans have reached before anyone else in the world which is "human equality." They have done so by denying that new taxes and tariffs...
After this he goes on to list all the grievances the colonies have by number and points out the flaw in each argument. One argument he makes is that the colonies sought out England for protection in the war and were glad for their help up until they had to help contribute towards the expenses. England imposed one small tax on the colonies to pay for their expenses, and in turn the colonies go into an uproar, which is unreasonable to say the least. Towards the end he makes another important counterargument, which is that the colonies say they never agreed to get taxed or give their
By commencing every paragraph with “Sir,” or “Here, sir,” or “This sir” Banneker uses repetition. He does this to persuade Jefferson that he is indeed a person of importance and over and over again he is kind to him and demonstrates the proper manner that Jefferson ought to be written to in. As a result of appealing to Jefferson by using the simple recurrence of one word: sir; Banneker’s letter will most likely actually be read and thought about rather than read and ignored, or even ditched due to someone who doesn’t write with respect. After his sir introduction to every paragraph, Banneker immediately proceeds to get right to the point. This will be his tone during the course of this letter. Banneker seems to be very kind but he is drilling Jefferson and accusing him of the same things he indicted Great Britain of. Banneker scolds Jefferson saying: “You clearly saw into the injustice of a state of slavery” then, but now you do the same thing King George and England did to us. Banneker inserts yet another rhetorical device to push his argument against slavery----this time it is an analogy between England against the colonies and the new government against them. He continues to even go as extreme as to quote Jefferson from the Declaration in saying that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights” to drive even harder the fact that he believes Jefferson and the government is hypocritical and that slavery needs eradicated from
The beginning of the document is worded in such a way that it has an almost patronizing tone as the emperor praises the king’s humility. However, as the document progresses it becomes much firmer and in the final lines the tone becomes very harsh as the emperor warns the king to never act on his denied demands.
King begins his letter by establishing his credibility to the clergymen in order to assist in making his arguments stronger. His first words to the clergymen are “My Dear Fellow Clergymen.” By addressing the men in this way, King is implying that he is equal ...
...ned Stamp Act he stated that he, “never saw one of those Stamps” and that he was “certain I never paid a penny for one of them”. So with so much attention being paid to Thomas Paine and his “Common sense” and John Hancock’s larger than life signature, what was the reason for our revolution? While that question may never be answered, there are always the eternal words of Levi Preston, “what we meant in going in for those redcoats was this: we always had governed ourselves and we always mean to. That didn’t mean we should”
In this political philosophy the colonies had originally made a charter with the king who set a custom that he was to provide for the defense of the colonially while each colony maintained the right to legislative self-rule. Jefferson would state, “the addition of new states to the British Empire has produced an addition of new, and sometimes opposite interests. It is now therefore, the great office of his majesty to resume the exercise of his negative power, and to prevent the passage of laws by any one legislature of the empire, which might bear injuriously on the right and interest of another” (A Warning to the King: Thomas Jefferson, “A Summary View of the Rights of British-America”, Green, p. 234). In other words, for Americans to preserve the true ancient British constitution, it was vital to establish that parliament did not have authority over them, because they could never be required to give up actual popular consent or governance in the British Parliament. Thomas Hutchinson stated this idea clear, “The king might retain the executive power and also his share of the legislative without any abridgement of our rights as Englishmen, the Parliament could not retain their legislative power without depriving them of those rights, for after removal they could no longer be represented, and their sovereign, sensible of this charter or commissions made provision in every colon for legislature
In the first section of the letter, Crevecoeur mainly appeals to pathos and logos. By appealing to pathos, Crevecoeur evokes emotion, specifically evoking a sense of pride. He also appeals to logos in order to show his reasoning and thoughts about why America is a better place to live than England. In the middle of the section, Crevecoeur says, “Can a wretch who wanders about, who works and starves, whose life is a continual scene of sore affliction or pinching penury; can that man call England or any other kingdom his country?”.
The British rule that was established in the colonies was oppressive and unfair. The British rule was immoral because Parliament contained a totality of British politicians who only cared about Britain’s wants and needs. The Colonists, “wanted the right to vote about their own taxes, like the people living in Britain. But no colonists were permitted to serve in the British Parliament.” (Ember) This unfairness led to many unwanted laws such as the Intolerable Acts and the Stamp Act. These laws did not benefit the colonists in any way, but the acts significantly helped the British. Laws and acts were forced
(140) It was during this time period that “the government in London concerned itself with the colonies in unprecedented ways…to help raise funds to pay for the war and finance the empire.” (Forner 141) The British government was heavily in debt after fighting the Seven Years War on several fronts. The need to raise funds was paramount and the colonies were a ready source. The British government started imposing taxes on the colonies as a means of income. This was a change in the relationship between America and the mother country. Many Americans opposed these taxes. (Forner 142- 143) According to Forner, “Opposition to the Stamp Act was the first great Drama of the revolutionary era and the first major split between the colonist and Great Britain over the meaning of freedom.” (142) This act was eventually repealed by Parliament in 1766 after great opposition by Americans. (Forner 144) The Stamp Act was just the beginning of several events and taxes on the colonist leading up the Boston Tea
The war had been enormously expensive, and the British government’s attempts to impose taxes on colonists to help cover these expenses resulted in chaos. English leaders, were not satisfied with the financial and military help they had received from the colonists during the war. In a desperate attempt to gain control over the colonies as well as the additional revenue to pay off the war debt, Britain began to force taxes on the colonies. Which resulted in The Stamp Act, passed by parliament and signed by the king in March 1765. The Stamp Act created an excise tax on legal documents, custom papers, newspapers, almanacs, college diplomas, playing cards, and even dice. Obviously the colonist resented the Stamp Act and the assumption that parliament could tax them whenever and however they could without their direct representation in parliament. Most colonials believed that taxation without their consent was a violation of their constitutional rights as Englishmen. Which is where the slogan “No Taxation without Representation” comes
In the introductory paragraph, King introduces his reason for writing the letter and details who the audience is to be. He explains that he rarely answers criticisms and gives his reasons for answering this particular one. This grabs the reader's attention in the first three sentences of the letter and establishes the importance of the document, intriguing the reader to keep reading what becomes a gripping and moving letter.
The taxation that occurred on the colonies after French and Indian War, the British Monarchy and Parliament came to the conclusion that the colonist where going to be held accountable for this debt to the crown in defending the colonies during the war. Parliament’s response to this position was to pass several acts as their effort to collect money in which they believed to be their justified right to collect. The long and expensive war that defended the colonies gave the crown the impression of the colonies where now indebted to them, further giving Parliament the belief of having the right place a tax on the colonies under the Parliamentary Acts of 1764. Leading the colonist to berate the acts and cry out “no taxation without representation”
In the 1760s war was ravaging England's economy, they were fighting off the French on the northern borders and paying dearly for it. To pay for these prices England enacted the stamp act, a taxing system forced on the colonies making them pay heavy prices for their war. Not only did his enrage the colonies but also it gave England the stigma of a tyrannical force that the American revolutionaries would use to rationalize their war.