Reaction on The Stamp Act Crisis - Essay Example

The Empire needs to fulfill its resources and look for ways to increase revenue. Taking into account that the war and the win were happening in the inter-American region, William Pym’s claim seems quietly fair: “The benefits from the war were mutual, and consequently, the disadvantages should be mutual too” (Pym). It’s most unlikely for colonial opposition to argue Colonies’ duties to the Empire because there’s no discussion on a fact of taxation. Moreover, Benjamin Franklin stresses that Americans already pay “many and very heavy taxes” (Franklin). Instead, there’s a controversy about who should have the power to set needed taxation. In the light of the above, what William Pitt filmily defines due to The Stamp Act as “the errours of founding principle” appears to be a concern that taxation is set by authorities which don’t represent Colonies’ interests (Pitt).

From the American point of view, The Stamp Act is considered as an imposed issue, a higher hierarchical order which has in mind to tighten the control upon Colonies. To lighten the reasons for such a perception, a historic post-war look should be taken. Acts are coming out while the Great-Britain military is present on the American continent, and when setting new duties, military forces can be used for imposing, despite that Benjamin Franklin in his Testimony doubts such an outcome of the case (Franklin). What seems important, along with taxation The Stamp Act doubts the authority of American paper-based operations. By imposing a stamp paper as the only legitimate one it proclaims above the law any other American stamped operations. In this context Colonies’ concerns on their Rights and Liberties to be encroached reasonably lead to The Stamp Act crisis.

Yet, when reading William Pym’s article, no understanding of these concerns from a side of the Crown can be found. Then two most logical explanations can be proposed: either Great Britain’s not willing to understand a real current American concern or the Empire cannot possibly understand Colonies’ point of view. If the first explanation, then the Crown acts anticonstitutionally on purpose, and American colonial opposition concerns about their Rights and Liberties suppression are most reasonable. If the second explanation, then Daniel Dulany’s and William Pitt's argument on the legitimacy of Colonies’ virtual representation in Parliament is mostly fair.