It wasn’t until 16 May 1766 that confirmation of the repeal of the Stamp Act arrived in Boston, and there were celebrations throughout the city. Most of the celebrations were organized by the Sons of Liberty, including massive displays of fireworks and an obelisk in the center of town that symbolized patriotism.
Across the Atlantic, London was worried about Britain’s national and global honor after the repeal. Parliament’s solution was to pass a new act which did not use the word taxation, but made it clear that Britain had the authority to legislate the Colonies in any manner it wished. The Declaratory Act was passed in Parliament almost in the same breath as it repealed the Stamp Act.
News of the Declaratory Act caught the attention of some in Boston, but most were too busy celebrating the repeal of the Stamp Act. Hutchinson largely ignored the Declaratory Act, seeing it as a vague formality that didn’t mean very much. Ironically, Otis felt the same towards the Declaratory Act as did Hutchinson. However, Samuel Adams viewed the Declaratory Act for what it was: Britain insisting it had the right to continue with future revenue acts (or worse) as often as Britain desired. Few in Boston, or even in the Loyal Nine, the Monday Night Club, or the Sons of Liberty understood what Adams had correctly surmised.
Across the Atlantic, London was worried about Britain’s national and global honor after the repeal. Parliament’s solution was to pass a new act which did not use the word taxation, but made it clear that Britain had the authority to legislate the Colonies in any manner it wished. The Declaratory Act was passed in Parliament almost in the same breath as it repealed the Stamp Act.
News of the Declaratory Act caught the attention of some in Boston, but most were too busy celebrating the repeal of the Stamp Act. Hutchinson largely ignored the Declaratory Act, seeing it as a vague formality that didn’t mean very much. Ironically, Otis felt the same towards the Declaratory Act as did Hutchinson. However, Samuel Adams viewed the Declaratory Act for what it was: Britain insisting it had the right to continue with future revenue acts (or worse) as often as Britain desired. Few in Boston, or even in the Loyal Nine, the Monday Night Club, or the Sons of Liberty understood what Adams had correctly surmised.
The Stamp Act had been in effect for only five months, and was never enforced. The act united Colonial merchants, town and country, and the squabbling competitive Colonies. The Stamp Act created the Sons of Liberty, which by 1766 had branched out to virtually every town of size in the Colonies. The Stamp Act introduced Samuel Adams to Boston, MA, and the other Colonies, as well as such others as Patrick Henry in VA. Colonial newspapers became far more popular, and had far more impact due to the Stamp Act, with the press emerging as heroes to the rank-and-file Colonist, with Boston’s writers at the forefront, and Samuel Adams at the tip of the spear.
During May 1766, Boston had another chance to express itself, in that Adams and Otis published a blacklist of 32 men they identified as the “tools” of Bernard in the MA House, many having been in office for decades. Adams and Otis argued that they should be voted out of office in the spring elections, since they supported the Stamp Act. Of the 32, 19 lost their seat in the election, with Adams being reelected with the greatest number of votes. Among the newcomers in the MA House was 29 year old John Hancock, whom Adams had endorsed in his shadowy, mysterious methods. Also during May 1766, Otis was elected Speaker of the MA House, and Samuel Adams was elected clerk, which meant he was in charge of the chamber’s documents, where he would discover some very interesting information.
During May 1766, Boston had another chance to express itself, in that Adams and Otis published a blacklist of 32 men they identified as the “tools” of Bernard in the MA House, many having been in office for decades. Adams and Otis argued that they should be voted out of office in the spring elections, since they supported the Stamp Act. Of the 32, 19 lost their seat in the election, with Adams being reelected with the greatest number of votes. Among the newcomers in the MA House was 29 year old John Hancock, whom Adams had endorsed in his shadowy, mysterious methods. Also during May 1766, Otis was elected Speaker of the MA House, and Samuel Adams was elected clerk, which meant he was in charge of the chamber’s documents, where he would discover some very interesting information.
As clerk, Adams decided what was published by the MA House, what was read aloud on the floor, what information could be strategically delayed, what information could disappear, and he was also responsible for drafting petitions and resolutions. As the MA House Clerk, Adams reinvented and inflated the power of the position, wielding more power than any other fellow representative. Adams also earned 100 pounds/year as clerk, which obviously helped ease his financial situation.
Chaos erupted when the MA House submitted its choices for the Council (the upper house, which the governor chaired), with none of the names a close associate of Bernard (Hutchinson was one of those that was excluded from the list). To the majority in the MA House, anyone associated with Bernard was an enemy of liberty. For the first time since the 1740s, the MA governor used the power of his office to reject six of the MA House’s choices, and among the six was Otis. Hutchinson compared the political uproar over Bernard’s vetoes to that of the land bank imbroglio during the 1740s, which Hutchinson knew full well was the event that led to Samuel Adams’ election to the MA House. Adams and Otis had successfully engineered a miniature political revolution in the MA government, creating a breach between the MA House and the MA Royal Governor that would never heal.
Chaos erupted when the MA House submitted its choices for the Council (the upper house, which the governor chaired), with none of the names a close associate of Bernard (Hutchinson was one of those that was excluded from the list). To the majority in the MA House, anyone associated with Bernard was an enemy of liberty. For the first time since the 1740s, the MA governor used the power of his office to reject six of the MA House’s choices, and among the six was Otis. Hutchinson compared the political uproar over Bernard’s vetoes to that of the land bank imbroglio during the 1740s, which Hutchinson knew full well was the event that led to Samuel Adams’ election to the MA House. Adams and Otis had successfully engineered a miniature political revolution in the MA government, creating a breach between the MA House and the MA Royal Governor that would never heal.
Hutchinson was voted out of office for the first time since 1742, leading Bernard to see the MA government as “totally unhinged”. In effect, MA voters sent the Hutchinson Gang packing, and the MA House was now dominated by a new radical regime. Bernard loudly proclaimed that the MA House had deprived the MA government of its most able people, and the governor’s diatribe in the MA House left even Bernard’s closest associates cringing.
Adams countered Bernard by writing that a change in government, or part of a government, should not be confused with an attack on the government. Adams wanted to know why Bernard was interfering with cheerful obedience from the Colonies towards Britain. Adams wanted a governor that was sympathetic to the concerns of MA and the Colonies, while Bernard wanted out of Boston, making inquiries of being appointed elsewhere, even to Halifax (Nova Scotia). Both parties (Adams et al vs. Bernard/Hutchinson et al) went out of their way to mangle and malign the intentions and meanings of the other.
Adams countered Bernard by writing that a change in government, or part of a government, should not be confused with an attack on the government. Adams wanted to know why Bernard was interfering with cheerful obedience from the Colonies towards Britain. Adams wanted a governor that was sympathetic to the concerns of MA and the Colonies, while Bernard wanted out of Boston, making inquiries of being appointed elsewhere, even to Halifax (Nova Scotia). Both parties (Adams et al vs. Bernard/Hutchinson et al) went out of their way to mangle and malign the intentions and meanings of the other.
On the other side of the Atlantic, the Crown concluded that each objection from the Colonies was some sort of path towards independence, and the predictable reaction was to reassert its authority over the Colonies. Adams kept hearing reports that in Parliament, while debating the repeal of the Stamp Act, many members stated that the Colonies were in open rebellion. Adams viewed the reports as rumors without any corroboration. But as far as Hutchinson was concerned, the endgame of Adams was separation, and Bernard made it clear that he wouldn’t turn Gage’s regiments away if they showed up in Boston; Bernard in no way was going to request Gage’s troops to come to MA, wisely so. Meanwhile, the leaders of the 26 August 1765 riots walked the streets knowing that they had the equivalent of diplomatic immunity, which further enraged Bernard and Hutchinson.
One thing on which the opposing parties agreed was that there had been a huge change in the thinking towards liberty and authority in the political landscape, at least in Boston, which had become extremely polarized. For example, it was a common belief in MA that any act of Parliament would further enslave not only MA, but the other Colonies. The repeal of the Stamp Act should have, according to Bernard, been the end of the matter, being swept into oblivion. However, the Stamp Act crisis was only the beginning, largely due to the actions of Samuel Adams. To Bernard, it was Adams, not Otis, that vexed him the most, with the MA governor referring to Adams as that “pernicious devil”.
One thing on which the opposing parties agreed was that there had been a huge change in the thinking towards liberty and authority in the political landscape, at least in Boston, which had become extremely polarized. For example, it was a common belief in MA that any act of Parliament would further enslave not only MA, but the other Colonies. The repeal of the Stamp Act should have, according to Bernard, been the end of the matter, being swept into oblivion. However, the Stamp Act crisis was only the beginning, largely due to the actions of Samuel Adams. To Bernard, it was Adams, not Otis, that vexed him the most, with the MA governor referring to Adams as that “pernicious devil”.