tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post1229707079040134300..comments2024-03-28T04:26:30.557-05:00Comments on Boston 1775: Woody Holton on the Stamp Act’s Origins Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-74398322642206114962015-09-22T23:04:19.720-05:002015-09-22T23:04:19.720-05:00Good point! There are already two prominent John T...Good point! There are already two prominent John Trumbulls to sort out, so mixing the Jonathan Trumbulls in with them makes life needlessly difficult. J. L. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405157000473731801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-7863466278587398102015-09-22T20:18:53.063-05:002015-09-22T20:18:53.063-05:00There's a major error in the first paragraph o...There's a major error in the first paragraph of Woody Holton's article. Jonathan Trumbull was not the artist who painted "The Declaration of Independence." The artist was JOHN Trumbull, son of Governor Jonathan Trumbull Senior and younger brother of Jonathan Trumbull Junior. This is a frequent confusion but it's disappointing to see it occur in a major magazine published by the Humanities Council. I could find no way to comment on the article, either following the article or in any of the links on the home page and no email addresses listed for staff. So, to the Boston 1775 followers, I'm passing on what is probably a minor correction to most of you but to those who live in Lebanon, Connecticut, hometown of Governor Trumbull's family and where JOHN grew up living in the midst of Revolutionary fervor, it becomes important to set the record straight. Cheers.<br /><br />Alicia Wayland<br />105 W. Town St.<br />Lebanon, CT 06249<br />aliciawayland@charter.net<br /><br />Alicia Waylandnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-76732070632911716582015-09-18T10:41:38.969-05:002015-09-18T10:41:38.969-05:00Yes, that's what the law says. There are two w...Yes, that's what the law says. There are two weaknesses in that argument, as I see it. One is that it assumes the politicians who wrote the Stamp Act were telling the unvarnished truth, and that's not what we usually assume of politicians. There's plenty of other political rhetoric from the 1760s and 1770s that references the national debt in regard to new taxes in America.<br /><br />Second is that money is fungible, meaning that if the Crown can pay for its military expenses in North America through the Stamp Act, that leaves more money from its other revenues to pay down the debt. In other words, the Stamp Act could address <i>both</i> problems, even if it nominally was aimed at only one. <br /><br />I think it's worthwhile remembering the Stamp Act's stated purpose not because that's necessarily the end of the argument but because it opens up other questions about British policy. The Crown wasn't just looking back at its debt. It was also looking ahead to how it would govern its expanded North American claims and deal with its North American allies. J. L. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405157000473731801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-40012173391398708512015-09-18T09:51:02.227-05:002015-09-18T09:51:02.227-05:00An interesting article by Prof. Holton, and I foun...An interesting article by Prof. Holton, and I found it rather convincing.<br /><br />The official title of the Stamp Act begins, "An Act for granting and applying certain Stamp Duties, and other Duties, in the British Colonies and Plantations in America, towards further defraying the Expences of defending, protecting, and securing the same;...." There is no specific reference in the Act's title, nor in its preamble, to paying off war debts, unless one assumes that those debts are part of the general "Expences of defending, protecting, and securing". Thus this language, from the Act itself, supports Prof. Holton's thesis.Charles Bahnenoreply@blogger.com