13.07.2015 Views

The Freeman 1972 - The Ludwig von Mises Institute

The Freeman 1972 - The Ludwig von Mises Institute

The Freeman 1972 - The Ludwig von Mises Institute

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>1972</strong> THE MERCANTILE IMPASSE 43tween the haves and have-nots. Inshort, almost every interpretationthat could be imagined has beenoffered, and many of these havebeen buttressed by impressivearguments and such evidence asfitted them.One thing· is about as clear assuch things can ever be: mercantilistacts did not provoke the initialresistance in the mid-1760's.<strong>The</strong> Stamp Act of 1765 was not amercantilist act, nor was theSugar Act of 1764 primarily mercantilistic.Indeed, the Sugar Actaltered some of the original mercantilistfeatures of the MolassesAct of an earlier date. Moreover,there had been mercantilist restrictionson the American colo ...nists for more than a century, andnone of these had provoked violentresistance. <strong>The</strong>re can be no doubtthat colonists were long since usedto mercantilist restrictions, andpeoples are unlikely to revoltagainst that to which they havebecome accustomed. <strong>The</strong> fact isthat when representatives of thecoloni~ts gathered at the StampAct Congress to air their grievances,they announced that whatthey fundamentally opposed was"taxation without representation"a, thing contrary to the Britishconstitution. <strong>The</strong>y readily granted- at first - that Britain had theright to regulate their commerce.It follows, then, that the immediateprovocation to resistance wasnot mercantilist measures.But this is only to look at thingsfrom the surface and to wrenchthem out of a much broader historicalcontext where they belong.Suppose that instead of askingwhy and what the colonists resistedwe ask why the British persistedin passing measures whichprovoked the colonists. More directly,why did Parliament attemptto raise revenues from thecolonies in ways that departedfrom custom and long establishedpolicy? Why did they lay directand indirect taxes on the colonies?For Revenue Only<strong>The</strong> answers to these questionsare not far to seek. <strong>The</strong> Britishgovernment was in dire need ofnew sources of revenue. <strong>The</strong> wa.rsof the eighteenth century had beenhighly expensive, and the indebtednessof the government wasmounting. <strong>The</strong> debt in 1755 - justprior to the Seven Year's War (orFrench and Indian War as it wasknown in America) - stood atabout £ 75,000,000. By 1766 ithad mounted to £ 133,000,000. 1<strong>The</strong> British people were heavilytaxed, and new taxes were beingadded. <strong>The</strong> reaction in the mothercountry to an added tax on do-1 Lawrence H. Gipson, <strong>The</strong> Coming ofthe Revolution (New York: Harper Torchbooks,1962), pp. 55-56.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!