The Stamp Act was a new rule and it was attempting to pay for order. During the Seven Years War, the colonies were in chaos. The French were attacking from their strongholds in New France (modern-day Quebec and the Ohio River Valley), and had more Native American allies than anyone was comfortable with.
In the wake of the war, order had to be re-established. The idea would be that a permanent force of redcoats would head off future hostilities before they got out of hand. The problem was: England had already spent that money to win the war. Hence, the Stamp Act. Those British really needed cash, ASAP.
Questions About Rules and Order
- With France defeated and largely expelled from the continent and the Native Americans not unified in resistance, did Britain really need to leave a force of redcoats? Did they think they did or was there an ulterior motive?
- How much of the Stamp Act was an attempt to raise money and how much of it was an attempt to assert authority? How do rules interact to impose both? Should they?
- Did the crown have a right to assert rules in the colony? Would representation really change that? How much representation would?
- What sorts of penalties would you reasonably expect from violating the Stamp Act? What's too much?
Chew on This
The Stamp Act was critical to fund Britain's foothold on the Americas. Without a standing army, they were in danger of being kicked off as soon as the Native Americans put aside their differences and united.
The Stamp Act was less about money and more about reminding the colonies who was in charge.