# data[].attributes.body
required colonists to provide food for any British soldiers in the area.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Adam Fletcher Adventure Series by Sara Whitford

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When Parliament voted to thrust the burdensome Stamp Act upon American colonists, they also imposed passed along side it a piece of legislation called the Mutiny Act of 1765. (The first Mutiny Act was passed in 1689, but was renewed every year until 1879 as Britain's way around the Bill of Rights prohibition on the existence of a standing army during peace time.) The purpose of the Mutiny Act of 1765 was to boost discipline among British troops posted all over the empire. There was one particularly controversial tenet of the Mutiny Act, however, which was that it allowed for troops to be quartered in private houses.

You can imagine how well that went over in America. At first, the clever colonists thought they had found a loophole - the Mutiny Act didn't specifically apply to British colonies overseas. " Ha ha ha!" they thought, " You can't make us house your soldiers in our homes!"

Well, as it turned out, Parliament had the last laugh, at least for a short time. Almost immediately after the Mutiny Act of 1765 was passed, they whipped up some supplementary legislation known as the Quartering Act that eliminated that whole thing about requiring right off the bat that private homes serve as make-shift barracks, but instead, they required...
"constables, tithingmen, magistrates, and other civil officers of villages, towns, townships, cities, districts, and other places, within his Majesty's dominions in America, and in their default or absence, for any one justice of the peace inhabiting in or near any such village, township, city, district or place, and for no others; and such constables ... and other civil officers as aforesaid, are hereby required to billet and quarter the officers and soldiers, in his Majesty's service, in the barracks provided by the colonies; and if there shall not be sufficient room in the said barracks for the officers and soldiers, then and in such case only, to quarter and billet the residue of such officers and soldiers for whom there shall not be room in such barracks, in inns, livery stables, ale houses, victualling houses, and the houses of sellers of wine by retail to be drank in their own houses or places thereunto belonging, and all houses of persons selling of rum, brandy, strong water, cyder or metheglin, by retail, to be drank in houses; and in case there shall not be sufficient room for the officers and soldiers in such barracks, inns, victualling and other publick ale houses, that in such and no other case, and upon no other account, it shall and may be lawful for the governor and council of each respective province in his Majesty's dominions in America, to authorize and appoint, and they are hereby directed and impowered to authorize and appoint, such proper person or persons as they shall think fit, to take, hire and make fit, and, in default of the said governor and council appointing and authorizing such person or persons, or in default of such person or persons so appointed neglecting or refusing to do their duty, in that case it shall and may be lawful for any two or more of his Majesty's justices of the peace in or near the said villages, towns, townships, cities, districts, and other places, and they are hereby required to take, hire and make fit for the reception of his Majesty's forces, such and so many uninhabited houses, outhouses, barns, or other buildings, as shall be necessary, to quarter therein the residue of such officers and soldiers for whom there should not be room in such barracks and publick houses as aforesaid...."
All of that is just a really long way of saying, "American colonists, you are now responsible for ensuring fitting and proper barracks for His Majesty's soldiers, and if you don't have enough, it will be up to you to house them in taverns, inns, ale houses, etc., and feed and water them as needed, and provide for their maintenance, and if those places are too full, it's still going to come down to you providing them with adequate quarters one way or another."

It meant the financial responsibility was going to fall on the shoulders of the colonists, and that goes back to that whole "No taxation without representation" thing."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Quartering Act (1765) - The Smuggler's Gambit History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When Parliament voted to thrust the burdensome Stamp Act upon American colonists, they also imposed passed along side it a piece of legislation called the Mutiny Act of 1765. (The first Mutiny Act was passed in 1689, but was renewed every year until 1879 as Britain's way around the Bill of Rights prohibition on the existence of a ...

# data[].attributes.body
One of the major causes of the American Revolution.

# data[].attributes.body
Great Britain's acquisition of French territory in North America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Great Britain's victory over France in the Seven Years' War, also known as the French and Indian War, gave it control over all of eastern North America. Most native tribes had allied with the French during the conflict, and they soon found themselves dissatisfied by British rule. In May 1763, just a few months after the formal conclusion of the Seven Years' War, a pan-tribal confederacy led by Ottawa chief Pontiac rose up in rebellion. His warriors attacked a dozen British forts, capturing eight of them, and raided numerous frontier settlements. Hundreds died in the process. In response, the British handed out smallpox-infected blankets to Pontiac's followers. Moreover, a gang of whites known as the Paxton Boys massacred 20 defenseless Native Americans who had nothing to do with the fighting.

In an attempt to prevent similar incidents from occurring, King George III issued a royal proclamation on October 7, 1763, which established three new mainland colonies (Quebec, West Florida and East Florida), extended Georgia's southern border and gave land to soldiers who had fought in the Seven Years' War. More notably, it banned colonial settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains, at least "for the present, and until our further pleasure be known." Those colonists already there were ordered to relocate. Acknowledging that "great frauds and abuses have been committed," the proclamation furthermore prohibited individuals from buying tribal territory. Instead, only the crown could now make such purchases. "We shall avoid many future quarrels with the savages by this salutary measure," said General Thomas Gage, who commanded all British forces in North America.

The British made a perfunctory effort to enforce the proclamation, periodically stopping settlers as they headed west and forcibly removing others. On one occasion, redcoats from Fort Pitt in present-day Pittsburgh even burned the huts of some nearby pioneers and escorted them back across the boundary. For the most part, though, colonists disregarded the proclamation without fear of punishment. Some wanted only enough land for themselves and their families, whereas others were speculators looking to make a hefty profit down the road. George Washington, for one, wrote to his agent in 1767 in support of illegally buying as much Native American land as possible. The Proclamation of 1763 will soon be revoked, Washington explained, because-"this I say between ourselves"-it was only meant "as a temporary expedient to quiet the minds of the Indians." Other famous speculators included Patrick Henry, best known for his "Give me liberty or give me death" speech, and Henry Laurens, who later served as president of the Continental Congress.

Washington's prediction proved prescient the following year, when the British moved the boundary line westward as part of the Treaty of Fort Stanwix. Under the deal, the Iroquois agreed to give up parts of present-day New York, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia in exchange for cash, gifts and the (soon-to-be-broken) promise of a permanent border. But although the Iroquois claimed those lands, they did not live there. The tribes that did, such as the Shawnee, were infuriated, and ended up going to war with the British in 1774. Meanwhile, further south, the Cherokee surrendered tens of thousands of square miles in a series of treaties. Also losing territory were the Creeks, who purportedly referred to the colonists as Ecunnaunuxulgee, or "People greedily grasping after the lands of the red people."

Ultimately, the new acquisitions failed to quiet colonial discontent with the Proclamation of 1763. And though it would be later overshadowed by other complaints against the British, such as the Sugar Act, the Stamp Act, the Townshend Acts, the so-called Intolerable Acts and the Boston Massacre, it remained enough of a concern that the Declaration of Independence criticized King George III for "raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands." By winning their freedom from the British in 1783, the Americans rendered the proclamation moot. But it has lived on to this day in Canada, where it forms the legal basis for native land rights. "We must recall the intent that brought all our ancestors together so many years ago," Shawn A-in-chut Atleo, national chief of Canada's Assembly of First Nations, said earlier today at a 250th anniversary event, "and ensure that [we live up] to the promises in the treaties and other agreements that stem from the foundation of the royal proclamation."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Great Britain's victory over France in the Seven Years' War, also known as the French and Indian War, gave it control over all of eastern North America. Most native tribes had allied with the French during the conflict, and they soon found themselves dissatisfied by British rule.

# data[].attributes.body
First Congress of the American Colonies was a meeting held between October 7 and 25

# data[].attributes.body
The first internal tax levied on american colonists

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Hoping to raise sufficient funds to defend the vast new American territories won from the French in the Seven Years' War, the British government passes the notorious Stamp Act on this day in 1765. The legislation levied a direct tax on all materials printed for commercial and legal use in the colonies, including everything from broadsides and insurance policies to playing cards and dice.

Though the Stamp Act employed a strategy that was a common fundraising vehicle in England, it stirred a storm of protest in the colonies. The colonists argued that, as British subjects, Parliament could not impose taxes upon them without their consent, as given through the various colonial representative assemblies. Believing this right to be in peril, the colonists rioted and intimidated all the stamp agents responsible for enforcing the act into resignation.

Not ready to put down the rioters with military force, Parliament eventually repealed the legislation. However, the fracas over the Stamp Act helped plant seeds for a far larger movement against the British government and the eventual battle for independence.

Three critical political forces came into being during the Stamp Act crisis that would serve to advance the cause of rebellion ten years later. First, the Sons of Liberty-a group of tradesmen who led the riots in Boston and other seaboard cities-was established. Second, the formation of the Stamp Act Congress united politically active gentlemen across colonial boundaries, as the Continental Congress would again do in 1774. Finally, the non-importation agreements developed in response to the Stamp Act gave the colonial population a sense of power as consumers of British goods. Although Parliament repealed the act before they learned of the colonial non-importation pacts, the colonists believed that the Britons had acted out of fear of their own economic collapse. During the coming revolution, non-importation would again serve as a means by which average men and, in particular, women could express their patriotism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
British pass Stamp Act - Mar 22, 1765 - HISTORY.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hoping to raise sufficient funds to defend the vast new American territories won from the French in the Seven Years' War, the British government passes the notorious Stamp Act on this day in 1765. The legislation levied a direct tax on all materials printed for commercial and legal use in the colonies, including everything from broadsides and insurance policies to playing cards and dice.

# data[].attributes.body
also known as the American Revenue Act

# data[].attributes.body
Speech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Today, most Americans imagine Patrick Henry (1736-1799) as the bold and thunderous voice of their revolution. Schoolchildren learn of Patrick Henry's eloquence and heroism as he stood before the Virginian colonial assembly and bellowed defiant oaths against Britain and its king. Nationalist art depicts Henry in full voice, his audience enraptured, his body language assertive and commanding. In folklore, Henry is the man who spoke for America's revolutionaries before they had learned to speak for themselves. But as is often the case in history, there are two Patrick Henrys: one real and one constructed. Historians and history students have long struggled to reconcile the two. The story of Patrick Henry shows us that history is not always as it seems.

Patrick Henry was born into a moderately affluent family, not far from Richmond, Virginia. Like many revolutionaries Henry tried a number of unsuccessful ventures before turning his hand to law. He left school at 15 so had only a limited education. In 1760 Henry, then in his early 20s, bought a box of legal texts and set about studying law. After six weeks of self study he considered himself informed enough to start practising as a lawyer. A Hanover County judge issued Henry with a license and by the end of 1760 he was taking his first clients. As a lawyer, Henry first came to public attention in 1763 through his involvement in the 'Parson's Cause' case. Like many Anglo-American disputes of the time, this case was about money and whether the British parliament had authority to overrule colonial assemblies on monetary issues. Unlike some of Henry's later speeches, his remarks during this case are reliably recorded. They contained some hot headed comments about Virginia's Anglican clergy, the British parliament and the king. Henry's passion and his advocacy for local issues was noted by those present, and those who wrote about the case. His fellow lawyers were less impressed by his grandstanding and his unwillingness to follow the usual legal procedures.

In 1765 Henry was elected to fill a vacancy in the House of Burgesses, the Virginian colonial assembly. The Burgesses were in the midst of debating the Stamp Act, which had been thrust upon the colonies by London. After barely a week in the assembly, Henry introduced the Stamp Act Resolves into the floor of the House. It was a move of breathtaking impertinence. Henry had been an assembly for scarcely a week, and his first motion was a set of resolutions that directly confronted and challenged royal authority. Not only that, he had cunningly waited until the assembly's more conservative members were absent on personal business.

"There are many moments in Henry's life for which we might wish for better documentation... One of Patrick Henry's charms was an apparent lack of concern for his personal legacy. Unlike most of the major founders, he made almost no effort to preserve his papers or texts of his major speeches. For historians, this lack of attention to the record causes peculiar problems."
Thomas S. Kidd, historian

It is at this point that the mythical Patrick Henry begins to separate from the man himself. The first allegedly verbatim report of Henry's words came from his biographer, William Wirt, writing some 70 years later. According to Wirt, Henry had porteniously likened George III to murdered kings Julius Caesar and Charles I. In response to shouts of "Treason!", Henry then uttered the phrase, now immortalised: "If this be treason, make the most of it!" Wirt's account is grossly exaggerated, if not entirely fictitious. It was noted by many present that day that Henry spoke with an intemperate tone that bordered on sedition and treason. But nobody present, including Henry himself, recorded exactly what was said. Henry was visibly stunned by the hostile response from his fellow assemblymen. After speaking, he stood apologetically, begged the House's pardon and affirmed his loyalty to Britain and the king. This apology was not mentioned by Wirt and is often omitted from tales of Henry's speech.

There is a similar lack of evidence with regard to Henry's other famous catch-cry: "Give me liberty or give me death!" It was supposedly uttered in the assembly in March 1775, during a debate about whether Virginia should mobilise troops against the British. Henry undoubtedly supported a military response, and again he spoke with intemperate passion. But most historians now question whether Henry's "liberty or death" phrase were his own words, or the later construction of Wirt (who was two years old at the time). Some writers have gone further in their deconstruction of Patrick Henry. American author Bill Bryson, a much-noted debunker of myths, was particularly scathing of Henry in his book Made in America:

"His brave and eloquent challenge to monarchy appears to have been invented from whole cloth 41 years later, 17 years after Henry died, by a priggish biographer named William Wirt, who had never met, seen or heard him... Nor, while we are at it, is there any evidence that Henry ever said anything of substance or found space in his head for an original thought. He was a country bumpkin, unread, poorly educated and famously indolent. His turn of phrase was comically provincial and frequently ungrammatical... Thomas Jefferson once bemusedly recalled: "When he had spoken in opposition to my opinion, I have asked myself when it ceased, 'What the devil has he said?'"

There is no doubt that Henry was sharply critical of Britain and its government and in favour of independence. This fact is borne out by more credible historical sources. What is uncertain is exactly what he said and how much impact it had. The student of American history must weigh up these issues. A good deal of what we know - or think we know - about the American Revolution comes from a 19th century literary construct. Writing about the revolution was big business in the early 1800s, a time when Americans craved identity, nationalism and inspiration. But the writers of the early 19th century - men like William Wirt and George Washington's biographer, Parson Weems - were more novelists and biographers than historians. They wrote to glorify the revolution and its heroes, not scrutinise them. They felt only a passing obligation to truth, balance and standards of evidence. Our understanding of leading American revolutionaries, who they were, what they did and what impact they had has been coloured by these writers. The challenge for both the historian and the history student is to separate fact from fiction.

Content on this page is © Alpha History 2015. Content created by Alpha History may not be copied, republished or redistributed without our express permission. For more information please refer to our Terms of Use.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today, most Americans imagine Patrick Henry (1736-1799) as the bold and thunderous voice of their revolution. Schoolchildren learn of Patrick Henry's eloquence and heroism as he stood before the Virginian colonial assembly and bellowed defiant oaths against Britain and its king. Nationalist art depicts Henry in full voice, his audience enraptured, his body language assertive and commanding.

# data[].attributes.body
the Townshend Act imposed duties on glass, lead, paints, paper and tea imported into the colonies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Despite the repeal of the Stamp Act, Parliament still needed to recover the money required to finance the French and Indian War. Tension between the British and Americans grew even more intense when Parliament passed the 1767 Townshend Act. The Townshend Act authorized Parliament to issue a new set of taxes on in demand imports such as glass, lead, paint, paper and tea. Parliament also reduced the number of British troops in America, but shifted the financial burden of accommodating the soldiers to the colonies.

The Massachusetts General Court once again led opposition by promoting the nonimportation of British goods (boycott). Royal officials in America became enraged and ordered the Massachusetts General Court dissolved. The Royal Governor of Massachusetts, Francis Bernard, sent secret messages to Parliament to send troops to Boston from Halifax, Nova Scotia. In 1768, two regiments of General Thomas Gage's infantry were sent to Boston to restore order. 600 soldiers began patrolling the streets of Boston. Colonial militia groups united and an uprising seemed likely. Although nothing happened immediately, colonists continued to boycott British goods and British soldiers continued patrolling the streets of Boston.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Despite the repeal of the Stamp Act, Parliament still needed to recover the money required to finance the French and Indian War. Tension between the British and Americans grew even more intense when Parliament passed the 1767 Townshend Act.

# data[].attributes.body
The 7 years war

# data[].attributes.body
a political protest by the Sons of Liberty in Boston

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In Boston, a group of colonists board three British tea ships and dump 342 chests of tea into the harbor in protest of the Tea Act of 1773.

# data[].attributes.body
Mostly all all causes that led to the American Revolution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Revolutionary Thinking Maps: Causes of the American Revolution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I started a series this summer on using Thinking Maps to teach about the American Revolution. I use thinking maps all the time to help stud...

# data[].attributes.body
Drawing by Paul Revere

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mr. Nussbaum History Revolutionary War - Causes Activities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Parents and Teachers: In light of the COVID-19 crisis, and the many disruptions it has caused or will cause to our kids' education, I am offering subscriptions to (the upgraded site) MrN365.com at 50% off the normal price through JUNE. Please note the site you are on, mrnussbaum.com, is and always will be FREE!