sugar act by Anna Gowan

Links(please add your links in your box) and your name.

s632 — 2013-02-21 19:54:06 UTC

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/sugaract.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_Act

Just some facts...

s632 — 2013-02-21 19:57:45 UTC

On April 5, 1764, Parliament passed a modified version of the Sugar and Molasses Act (1733). Under the Molasses Act colonial merchants had been required to pay a tax of six pence per gallon on the importation of foreign molasses. But because of corruption, they mostly evaded the taxes and undercut the intention of the tax — that the English product would be cheaper than that from the French West Indies. This hurt the British West Indies market in molasses and sugar and the market for rum, which the colonies had been producing in quantity with the cheaper French molasses.The First Lord of the Treasury, and Chancellor of the Exchequer Lord Grenville was trying to bring the colonies in line with regard to payment of taxes. He had beefed up the Navy presence and instructed them to become more active in customs enforcement. Parliament decided it would be wise to make a few adjustments to the trade regulations. The Sugar Act reduced the rate of tax on molasses from six pence to three pence per gallon, while Grenville took measures that the duty be strictly enforced. The act also listed more foreign goods to be taxed including sugar, certain wines, coffee, pimiento, cambric and printed calico, and further, regulated the export of lumber and iron. The enforced tax on molasses caused the almost immediate decline in the rum industry in the colonies. The combined effect of the new duties was to sharply reduce the trade with Madeira, the Azores, the Canary Islands, and the French West Indies (Guadelupe, Martinique and Santo Domingo (now Haiti)), all important destination ports for lumber, flour, cheese, and assorted farm products. The situation disrupted the colonial economy by reducing the markets to which the colonies could sell, and the amount of currency available to them for the purchase of British manufactured goods. This act, and the Currency Act, set the stage for the revolt at the imposition of the Stamp Act.

What was it for?

s632 — 2013-02-21 20:08:26 UTC

An act for granting certain duties in the British colonies and plantations in America,; for continuing, amending, and making perpetual, anact passed in the sixth year of the reign of his late majesty King George the Second, (initituled, An act for the better securing and encouraging the trade of his Majesty’s sugar colonies in America;) for applying the produce of such duties, and of the duties to arise by virtue of the said act, towards defraying the expences ofdefending, protecting, and securing the said colonies and plantations; for explaining an act made in the twenty fifth year of the reign of King Charles the Second, (intituled, An act for the encouragement of the Greenland and Eastland trades, and for the better securing the plantation trade;) and for altering and disallowing several drawbacks on exports from this kingdom, and more effectually preventing the clandestine conveyance of goods to and from the said colonies and plantation, and improving and securing the trade between the same and Great Britain

Effect

s632 — 2013-02-21 20:10:27 UTC

The Sugar Act was passed by Parliament on April 5, 1764,^[1] and it arrived in the colonies at a time of economic depression. It was an indirect tax, although the colonists were well informed of its presence. A good part of the reason was that a significant portion of the colonial economy during the Seven Years War was involved with supplying food and supplies to the British Army. Colonials, however, especially those affected directly as merchants and shippers, assumed that the highly visible new tax program was the major culprit. As protests against the Sugar Act developed, it was the economic impact rather than the constitutional issue of taxation without representation that was the main focus for the colonists.^[10]

New England ports especially suffered economic losses from the Sugar Act as the stricter enforcement made smuggling molasses more dangerous and risky. Also they argued that the profit margin on rum was too small to support any tax on molasses. Forced to increase their prices, many colonists feared being priced out of the market. The British West Indies, on the other hand, now had undivided access to colonial exports. With supply of molasses well exceeding demand, the islands prospered with their reduced expenses while New England ports saw revenue from their rum exports decrease. Also the West Indies had been the primary colonial source for hard currency, or specie, and as the reserves of specie were depleted the soundness of colonial currency was threatened.^[11]

Two prime movers behind the protests against the Sugar Act were Samuel Adams and James Otis, both of Massachusetts. In August 1764, fifty Boston merchants agreed to stop purchasing British luxury imports, and in both Boston and New York there were movements to increase colonial manufacturing. There were sporadic outbreaks of violence, most notably in Rhode Island.^[12]Overall, however, there was not an immediate high level of protest over the Sugar Act in either New England or the rest of the colonies. That would begin in the later part of the next year when theStamp Act was passed.^[13]

The Sugar Act was repealed in 1766 and replaced with the Revenue Act of 1766, which reduced the tax to one penny per gallon on molasses imports, British or foreign. This occurred around the same time that the Stamp Act of 1765 was repealed.^[14]

More fatcs

s632 — 2013-02-27 19:56:14 UTC

The Sugar Act was passed in 1764. The British placed a tax on sugar, wine, and other important things. The British did this because they wanted more money; the British wanted this money to help provide more security for the colonies. The security was expensive because of the Indians and fights with foreign powers. The British also hoped that the act would force colonists to sell their goods to Britain as opposed to selling to other countries.

The Sugar Act made the people in the colonies very upset. If they only traded with Britain, they would not be able to sell their goods for as much. In addition, they lost money if they bought they same amount of sugar, wine and other important things that they did before the Sugar Act started. The people in the colonies were worried that Britain would start making them spend more and more money for their goods through taxes.

Some leaders in the colonies started to boycott, or to quite buying, British goods. They told everybody to boycott them as well. They did that because they thought that the British would make the prices lower. The colonists became more united because they opposed the Sugar Act.

More fatcs

s632 — 2013-02-27 19:56:16 UTC