Benjamin Franklin, Testimony Against the Stamp Act (Links to an external site.) (Links to an external site.

)
Where does Franklin lay the blame should violence emerge from the Stamp Act controversy? Why?
According to Franklin, what kinds of action are the colonist ready to take to pretest the levying of
internal taxes by Parliament ?

The Stamp Act of 1765, just as the Sugar Act of 1764 were both passed by Parliament to generate
revenue from the colonies to pay off Englands debt from the recent Seven Years War. The ideology
behind both laws was that It is just and necessary that a revenue be raised in America for defraying the
expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the same(American Stories a History of the United
States pg. 118, paragraph 1).The nature of the Stamp Act caused it to be protested with much more
intensity than that of the Sugar Act. The Stamp Act was a tax on newspapers, printed documents, legal
documents and even playing cards. This tax affected nearly everyone and so had a much easier time
finding opposition amongst the colonists. So strong was the opposition that it resulted in a popular and
largely successful boycott of British goods. The Stamp Act proved ineffective with most stamp distributors
resigning by the end of the year. This strong sense of opposition along with the failure of the Stamp Act
to generate revenue is what prompted Benjamin Franklins testimony before Parliament in 1766.
During Franklins testimony he is asked many questions and is seen as a representative of all the
colonies. Through his testimony Parliament is hoping to answer several lines of questioning. Primarily
Parliament wants to know what colonists think of the right of English government to tax the colonies. Are
the colonies are able to pay these taxes? Whether popular opinion of Parliament has changed? If
changed would the colonists accept the Stamp Act? How would colonists react to future taxation? He is
also questioned about what would happen if military force were to be used in enforcing the Stamp Act.
Benjamin Franklin responded to this line of questioning masterfully and with authority. Parliaments line of
questioning was inconsistent. Some of the questions were more hidden statements of authority while the
others seemed to be sincere pleas and inquiries. One example of the more authoritative questions is
Have you not heard of the resolutions of this House, and of the House of Lords, asserting the right of
Parliament relating to America, including a power to tax the people there? This question is in sharp
contrast to other questions such as If the act is not repealed, what do you think will be the
consequences? It shows how insecure and out of depth Parliament was when it came to public opinion
of the colonists.
Mr. Franklin advises Parliament that the use of force would not be effective in enforcing the Stamp Act it
would only create a rebellion. By stating that military force is unnecessary he is creating a sense that
Invading armies would be seen as tyrannical, inciting a rebellion. This is an important moment because
up to this point in the testimony Mr. Franklin insists that the colonists fully respect the authority of
Parliament even if they feel that laws such as the Stamp Act are unfair. This answer can be considered a
thinly veiled threat against England. Parliament then asks what would happen if the law is not
repealed. Mr. Franklins response is that England will lose all respect, affection, and commerce. He is
basically unofficially declaring that England will be seen as an enemy by the colonists. He is not
suggesting military response in this instance but a commercial response. The threat of a boycott was very
real to England and its merchants. England depended on commerce with the colonies as a significant
source of income and Mr. Franklin was threatening that the colonists could easily due without English
goods. The necessary goods such as cloth they could make for themselves and the convenience or
luxury goods they could simply go without until they are able to produce them independently.

The transcript of the dialogue between Parliament and Benjamin Franklin was converted into pamphlet
form and began circulating later that year as The Examination of Doctor Franklin. Taking this into
account asks a question. Were Mr. Franklins answers really directed at English Parliament or were they
more directed to the American Colonists? As strong and defiant as his answers were I would choose the
latter. Mr. Franklin answers with such authority and confidence as to appear more a state diplomat of
equal position to Parliament than merely a representative summoned for questioning. Parliament
committed several errors with their interrogation. First they should not have made this an official recorded
testimony of Parliament. By doing this they gave Mr. Franklin the most prestigious venue to voice his
protests that he could have ever hoped to attain. Secondly the entire line of questioning should have
given one consistent tone. Either Parliament should have remained with their more authoritative and
lecturing line of questions, or their more cooperative and inquiring line of questioning. By mixing both
methods they showed a strong sense of insecurity which would be conveyed to the colonists as a sign of
weakness. Mr. Franklins answers are credited with helping to influence Parliaments repeal of the Stamp
Act on March 18
th
, 1766 just two months after his testimony.




Brands, H., Breen, T., Williams, R., & Gross, A. (2012). The American Revolution. In American Stories A
History of the United States (Second ed., Vol. 1, pp. 117-123). Boston: Pearson.

The Examination of Doctor Franklin, before an August Assembly, relating to the Repeal of the Stamp-Act,
&c. (2008, January 1). Retrieved September 18, 2014, from http://www.masshist.org/revolution/doc-
viewer.php?old=1&mode=nav&item_id=282