James Otis, Jr.

The Sugar Act, passed by Parliament on April 5, 1764, arrives in the colonies at a time of economic depression.

It is an indirect tax, although the colonists are well informed of its presence.

A good part of the reason is that a significant portion of the colonial economy during the Seven Years' War is involved with supplying food and supplies to the British Army.

Colonials, however, especially those affected directly as merchants and shippers, assume that the highly visible new tax program is the major culprit.

As protests against the Sugar Act develop, it is the economic impact rather than the constitutional issue of taxation without representation that is the main focus for the colonists.

New England ports especially suffer economic losses from the Sugar Act as the stricter enforcement makes smuggling molasses more dangerous and risky.

Also they argue that the profit margin on rum is too small to support any tax on molasses.

Forced to increase their prices, many colonists fear being priced out of the market.

The British West Indies, on the other hand, now have undivided access to colonial exports.

With supply of molasses well exceeding demand, the islands prosper with their reduced expenses while New England ports see revenue from their rum exports decrease.

Also, the West Indies have been the primary colonial source for hard currency, or specie, and as the reserves of specie are depleted the soundness of colonial currency is threatened.

Two prime movers behind the protests against the Sugar Act are Samuel Adams and James Otis, both of Massachusetts.

In May, Samuel Adams draftss a report on the Sugar Act for the Massachusetts assembly, in which he denounces the act as an infringement of the rights of the colonists as British subjects:

    For if our Trade may be taxed why not our Lands? Why not the Produce of our Lands & every thing we possess or make use of? This we apprehend annihilates our Charter Right to govern & tax ourselves – It strikes our British Privileges, which as we have never forfeited them, we hold in common with our Fellow Subjects who are Natives of Britain: If Taxes are laid upon us in any shape without our having a legal Representation where they are laid, are we not reduced from the Character of free Subjects to the miserable State of tributary Slaves?

In August, fifty Boston merchants agree to stop purchasing British luxury imports, and in both Boston and New York City there are movements to increase colonial manufacturing.

There are sporadic outbreaks of violence, most notably in Rhode Island.

Overall, however, there is not an immediate high level of protest over the Sugar Act in either New England or the rest of the colonies.

That will begin in the later part of the next year when the Stamp Act is passed.

The Parliament at Westminster sees itself as the supreme lawmaking authority throughout all British possessions and thus entitled to levy any tax without colonial approval.

They argue that the colonies are legally British corporations that are completely subordinate to the British parliament and point to numerous instances where Parliament has made laws binding on the colonies in the past.

They do not see anything in the unwritten British constitution that makes taxes special and note that they have taxed American trade for decades.

Parliament insists that the colonies effectively enjoy a "virtual representation" as most British people do, as only a small minority of the British population elects representatives to Parliament.

Americans such as James Otis maintain that the Americans are not in fact virtually represented.

Governor Francis Bernard offers a £300 reward for information on the leaders of the mob, but no information is forthcoming.

MacIntosh and several others are arrested, but are either freed by pressure from the merchants or released by mob action.

The street demonstrations originate from the efforts of respectable public leaders such as James Otis, who commands the Boston Gazette, and Samuel Adams of the "Loyal Nine" of the Boston Caucus, an organization of Boston merchants.

They make efforts to control the people below them on the economic and social scale, but they are often unsuccessful in maintaining a delicate balance between mass demonstrations and riots.

These men need the support of the working class, but also have to establish the legitimacy of their actions to have their protests to England taken seriously.

At the time of these protests, the Loyal Nine is more of a social club with political interests but, by December 1765, it will begin issuing statements as the Sons of Liberty.

The Townshend Acts represent the continued efforts of Parliament to place a portion of the large debt incurred by French and Indian War on the American colonies where it had been fought.

However, the Acts provoke only further outrage among American colonists and help spark the Liberty seizure and riots of 1768, their opposition best stated by the phrase "No taxation without representation" originally spoken by James Otis.

Smugglers, who are negatively affected by the Acts, avoid the taxes by importing illegal goods and by organizing a boycott of the legitimate imports, of which Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty of Boston are notable supporters.

Women also contribute by producing their own goods or relying on domestic products, e.g., spinning their own yarn and cloth, as well as participating in their own organizations such as the Daughters of Liberty.

In response to the enactment of the Townshend Act of 1767, Adams had written an essay intended to serve as the official statement from the Massachusetts assembly.

In the essay, he discusses colonial power, liberties, freedoms, self-government and the suspension of the legislature, among other things.

The assembly carefully examines and revises the essay.

After much deliberation, the statement is approved on January 12, 1768 to be sent to the king and his ministry.

Adams now decides to write a circular letter expressing the American policy that he will send to each colony for approval.

He tries to rally support in the assembly for the motion on January 21, but growing concerns from other representatives ultimately doom the plan in a House vote.