During July 1765, the Virginia House of Burgesses let their displeasure about the Stamp Act be known, stating that only Virginia could tax Virginians. VA’s response was far beyond any from MA, with even James Otis, Jr. saying that the VA resolutions condemning the Stamp Act went too far. Then NY came out against the Stamp Act, after which MA followed suit, with the colony’s newspapers erupting in opposition to the upcoming revenue act. As the Summer of 1765 progressed, Boston in particular became very combustible.
14 August 1765: In the southern part of Boston stood a 120 year old elm tree (soon to be labeled the "Liberty Tree"), and hanging from a massive branch was an effigy of Andrew Oliver, who would be a Stamp Tax collector. Effigies were not a common site in Boston, and the effigy of Oliver seemed to be a brazen threat. Many Bostonians made sure they viewed the effigy that day. The sheriff refused to take down the effigy, saying it would be to dangerous to do so.
At that point, a problem presented itself to those in Boston that wanted British law to be followed to the letter, or else punishment - how to discourage insubordination and civil disobedience when authority had no way to enforce the laws? During the afternoon, Samuel Adams, whose house was only a five minute walk from the effigy, was asked what he thought, and Adams’ response was vague, saying he didn’t really know, but would inquire. Oliver’s effigy was cut down at dusk, covered with a sheet, and paraded past city government buildings. Word spread quickly that the next stop on the “parade” would be Oliver’s home; Hutchinson made sure his family was safely out of his mansion.
14 August 1765: In the southern part of Boston stood a 120 year old elm tree (soon to be labeled the "Liberty Tree"), and hanging from a massive branch was an effigy of Andrew Oliver, who would be a Stamp Tax collector. Effigies were not a common site in Boston, and the effigy of Oliver seemed to be a brazen threat. Many Bostonians made sure they viewed the effigy that day. The sheriff refused to take down the effigy, saying it would be to dangerous to do so.
At that point, a problem presented itself to those in Boston that wanted British law to be followed to the letter, or else punishment - how to discourage insubordination and civil disobedience when authority had no way to enforce the laws? During the afternoon, Samuel Adams, whose house was only a five minute walk from the effigy, was asked what he thought, and Adams’ response was vague, saying he didn’t really know, but would inquire. Oliver’s effigy was cut down at dusk, covered with a sheet, and paraded past city government buildings. Word spread quickly that the next stop on the “parade” would be Oliver’s home; Hutchinson made sure his family was safely out of his mansion.
By now the “parade” had started to behave as a mob, decapitating the effigy, throwing the head in Oliver’s front yard, and burning the rest of the dummy in a bonfire. While that was going on, the mob started to throw rocks at Oliver’s windows, breaking many, and then members of the mob entered Oliver’s house, surprised to see Hutchinson instead of Oliver. Hutchinson, among the other powers-that-be in Boston, secreted Oliver from his home, fearing his murder at the hands of the forming mob. At 11 pm, Hutchinson tried on his own to get the mob to go away, and the result was volleys of stones and bricks thrown at him; he escaped with minor injuries via a back room. The next day, Oliver was approached by at least several Bostonians, telling him it might be best if he resigned his position, otherwise his property and life would be in danger, and Oliver agreed to do so.
The next night, a mob of several hundred descended on Hutchinson’s mansion, and furiously knocked on the front door (Hutchinson hid in a back room). The mob shouted that they wanted Hutchinson’s assurance that he had never written Britain supporting the Stamp Act. Windows were smashed, and Hutchinson heard members of the mob ponder if they should search the stables or the coach house. Neighbors stepped in, swearing that Hutchinson was not home. An elderly neighbor, a respected tradesman, finally talked down the mob, to an incredibly relieved Hutchinson. Those riots of 14 and 15 August 1765 were the worst in Boston, going back at least a generation; the daytime mob of 15 August 1765 was estimated to have at last 3000 people.
The next night, a mob of several hundred descended on Hutchinson’s mansion, and furiously knocked on the front door (Hutchinson hid in a back room). The mob shouted that they wanted Hutchinson’s assurance that he had never written Britain supporting the Stamp Act. Windows were smashed, and Hutchinson heard members of the mob ponder if they should search the stables or the coach house. Neighbors stepped in, swearing that Hutchinson was not home. An elderly neighbor, a respected tradesman, finally talked down the mob, to an incredibly relieved Hutchinson. Those riots of 14 and 15 August 1765 were the worst in Boston, going back at least a generation; the daytime mob of 15 August 1765 was estimated to have at last 3000 people.
Several things were now clear: first off, that the Stamp Act could never be enforced, at least in Boston, and that harm would almost certainly come a person’s way if they sold the official paper that was pre-stamped for use. Hutchinson and the other authorities in Boston soon discovered that gentlemen of substance were involved in the riots, with even more respectable men hiding behind the scenes. Ironically, very few vented their rage at the MA governor, Francis Bernard, instead focusing on the much-titled Hutchinson.
On 26 August 1765, another mob formed, and it was now accurate to call these series of riots the Stamp Act Riots. Among other city officials, Hutchinson fled his mansion with his family, and just minutes after doing so, a mob stormed his estate. The mob spent eight hours looting the mansion, carrying off valuable family heirlooms, and the Hutchinson family clothing turned up all over Boston, and documents that Hutchinson had kept and stored were strewn all over the street. One of the most beautiful homes in Boston was reduced to bare walls, all of value stolen or destroyed.
The next morning, Hutchinson sat on the bench as Chief Justice (without his black robe), and defended himself, stating that he never encouraged or promoted the Stamp Act. While most condemned what happened to Hutchinson’s mansion, the opposition to the Stamp Act held steadfast. So, where was Samuel Adams during all of this scurrilous hoo-haw? Most likely, Adams didn’t participate with any mob, but he certainly had to know what could have and did occur. After the horrific riots of 26 August 1765, at the largest town meeting in Boston’s history to that point, Adams joined in the collective condemnation of what occurred.
On 26 August 1765, another mob formed, and it was now accurate to call these series of riots the Stamp Act Riots. Among other city officials, Hutchinson fled his mansion with his family, and just minutes after doing so, a mob stormed his estate. The mob spent eight hours looting the mansion, carrying off valuable family heirlooms, and the Hutchinson family clothing turned up all over Boston, and documents that Hutchinson had kept and stored were strewn all over the street. One of the most beautiful homes in Boston was reduced to bare walls, all of value stolen or destroyed.
The next morning, Hutchinson sat on the bench as Chief Justice (without his black robe), and defended himself, stating that he never encouraged or promoted the Stamp Act. While most condemned what happened to Hutchinson’s mansion, the opposition to the Stamp Act held steadfast. So, where was Samuel Adams during all of this scurrilous hoo-haw? Most likely, Adams didn’t participate with any mob, but he certainly had to know what could have and did occur. After the horrific riots of 26 August 1765, at the largest town meeting in Boston’s history to that point, Adams joined in the collective condemnation of what occurred.
When the MA House of Representatives reconvened, a fiery response to MA governor Francis Bernard was crafted, its primary author being Samuel Adams. The MA House denounced Bernard for not opposing the Stamp Act, and in effect asked him what side he was on. The MA House also pointed out that Bernard did nothing to stop the mob violence; others, almost all of them non-officials, did so. Adams argued that Parliament and King George III exceeded their authority in passing the Stamp Act, and the MA House wanted Parliament to repeal the act. Also, the MA House made it clear that no compensation for Hutchinson or any one else was forthcoming, but the violence of 26 August 1765 was condemned. The MA House moved to appoint a committee to issue a resolution, and when it met, Adams was ready with specific suggestions. Adams in essence had prepared a mini-Magna Carta, with 14 statements outlining MA rights.
By then, Adams and Otis had parted ways, with Otis still believing that Colonial representation could solve the problem. Adams viewed efforts to gain direct representation in Parliament as pure folly, given the geographic obstacles, as well as Britain’s absolute refusal to allow direct representation in any form from any colony in its empire. Otis acknowledged the supremacy of Parliament, while Adams refused to do so. Adams was probably aware of the rumors in London that the odds were high that Parliament would soon repeal the Stamp Act.
Adams’ reputation and profile rose in the MA House, and in the other colonies, and Adams’ prose and ideals were greatly admired. In Britain, Adams’ writings were dismissed as the ravings of a “wild enthusiast”. As 1 November 1765 approached, defiance and dread were mixed together in the Colonies. Even before the Stamp Act had become official, it had upended Colonial government, especially in Boston, while at the same time the act had drawn the Colonies closer together, at least in spirit.
By then, Adams and Otis had parted ways, with Otis still believing that Colonial representation could solve the problem. Adams viewed efforts to gain direct representation in Parliament as pure folly, given the geographic obstacles, as well as Britain’s absolute refusal to allow direct representation in any form from any colony in its empire. Otis acknowledged the supremacy of Parliament, while Adams refused to do so. Adams was probably aware of the rumors in London that the odds were high that Parliament would soon repeal the Stamp Act.
Adams’ reputation and profile rose in the MA House, and in the other colonies, and Adams’ prose and ideals were greatly admired. In Britain, Adams’ writings were dismissed as the ravings of a “wild enthusiast”. As 1 November 1765 approached, defiance and dread were mixed together in the Colonies. Even before the Stamp Act had become official, it had upended Colonial government, especially in Boston, while at the same time the act had drawn the Colonies closer together, at least in spirit.
The Colonies seemed to be in competition to see how far the resistance/violence against the Stamp Act and government officials would go. Adams wrote “nothing could have given greater disgust than the Stamp Act”; for the first time, the Colonies united (temporarily) against the Stamp Act. Hutchinson went so far as to write King George III about his grievances, wondering if British retribution in MA would be more tyranny than liberty.
Meanwhile, Adams minimized the violence from 14 August 1765, and especially on 26 August 1765, describing the chaos as idealism that had run amuck, rather than vandalism and large mobs. Adams denounced the plunder of 26 August 1765, but said that Boston itself had no hand in the destruction (in essence, Adams used the "Outsiders Invaded Our City and Did This Terrible Thing" ploy). Bernard braced for street warfare and anarchy (“Poor vs. Rich”) on 1 November 1765. To make matters worse, on 5 November every year, a “restyled” Guy Fawkes Day
("Remember, Remember the 5th of November . . .") had been, for lack of a better word, celebrated in Boston for many years. The revelry on 5 November was always combined with encouraged violence against Catholics; mobs formed every year and slugged it out with each other, with many injuries on both sides. For Bernard then, there were two days, 1 & 5 November, for which he had to contend. Bernard was told by the MA militia leader that he couldn’t summon so much as a drummer in response to any mob, and Bernard started to seriously consider departing for Britain. Adams and others had drawn the line, swearing that in MA and in the other Colonies, the Stamp Act would never be accepted or followed.
Meanwhile, Adams minimized the violence from 14 August 1765, and especially on 26 August 1765, describing the chaos as idealism that had run amuck, rather than vandalism and large mobs. Adams denounced the plunder of 26 August 1765, but said that Boston itself had no hand in the destruction (in essence, Adams used the "Outsiders Invaded Our City and Did This Terrible Thing" ploy). Bernard braced for street warfare and anarchy (“Poor vs. Rich”) on 1 November 1765. To make matters worse, on 5 November every year, a “restyled” Guy Fawkes Day
("Remember, Remember the 5th of November . . .") had been, for lack of a better word, celebrated in Boston for many years. The revelry on 5 November was always combined with encouraged violence against Catholics; mobs formed every year and slugged it out with each other, with many injuries on both sides. For Bernard then, there were two days, 1 & 5 November, for which he had to contend. Bernard was told by the MA militia leader that he couldn’t summon so much as a drummer in response to any mob, and Bernard started to seriously consider departing for Britain. Adams and others had drawn the line, swearing that in MA and in the other Colonies, the Stamp Act would never be accepted or followed.