Talk:Sugar Act

Needs a {{vprotected}}. 68.39.174.238 05:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Done Martinp23 20:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

destroyed much of the rum industry

Article states that the tax would have destroyed the run industry. Sources such as Unger's book on John Hancock state that the tax was sufficiently low that it would not affect the rum industry. BradMajors (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The section in question is fully supported by a footnote -- apparently from a book you have in your possesion since you referenced it earlier tonight. Do you deny that the book makes that claim? Exactly what page of the Unger book makes the claim that the 1733 tax was "sufficiently low" -- I would like to fact check that. Also, what are the other sources that you hint at that say the exact same thing --title, author, and page numbers would be nice?

If in fact Unger DOES say what you claim he says, then don't you think it would be more appropriate to enter that info into the article to show that historians disagree rather than simply throwing on a tag?

Documentation aside, are you sure you understand this subject? As the article clearly states, a reason why the rate was reduced in the 1764 act was because the British thought that the REDUCED RATES might be affordable and actually paid. Do you also question the accuracy of this section of the article?Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 05:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

To demonsrate that there is no error in interpretation of the sources on my part, I expanded, with direct quotes from two relevant historians, the article Sugar and Molasses Act. This expansion addresses the summary relating to this1733 Act whch was included in this article and has been called into question. The direct quotes from historians John C. Miller and Theodore Draper both show the ruinous effects that enforcement of the act would have produced. Miller and Draper cover the taxation issue in depth, while Unger devotes a single paragraph (supported by NO FOOTNOTES) in a biography intended for a popular audience relating to the 1733 Act. I have removed both tags -- this article is thoroughly suported throughout by footnotes and the direct quotes show that the sentence specifically challenged is more than supported by the source cited, as well as an addtional source. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Unger has done some relevant calculations. Here's some more calculations:

• average wholesale price of molasses per gallon in West Indies: 13d
• average wholesale price of molasses per gallon in Boston: 1s 6d
• average wholesale price of rum in New England: 1s 7d to 2s 5d
• average bribe paid to custom agents in per gallon of molasses: 2d
• 1Kg of molasses required to produce 5 US gallons of rum
• average specific gravity of molasses: 1.45

Eliminating boring calculations:

• Act will cause a projected increase in wholesale price of rum of: 0.07d
• Percentage increase in price of rum  : 0.3%

BradMajors (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Two problems with Unger's calculations. In the first place (I didn't originally have the book, but I now have a library copy), Unger does not footnote any of the calculations so it is impossible to verify any of his calculations. Second, Unger does not include any of the other expenses associated with distilling rum nor the costs of either transporting the molasses to New England or transporting the rum from New England. His analysis is simplistic and biased. He claims there was a "gross profit of 1,100 percent" -- sounds nice, but it's net profits or loss that is relevant. He further claims that resistance to the tax was based "only" on "greed". In fact, reading the two sources I've referred to shows that there were any number of factors at play that should be considered. Unger addresses none of these nuances, nor would I expect him to -- he was writing a popular biography, not a scholarly analysis of the historical and economic factor leading up to the Revolution. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The Article Lead

The lead section is intended to summarize the article. BradMajors added information not supported by the balance of the article (i.e. the claim that the Sugar Act was actually to promote rum production). The works cited in the body of the article make no such claim. While Majors footnotes his claim, the source, if quoted accurately, is a minority opinon -- it may be appropriate to present it as such in the body of the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You added to the lead of the article the claim that he act “was designed to regulate trade, raise revenue, reduce custom officer corruption, and to promote rum production in New England.” You attributed this information to Fred Anderson’s “Crucible of War”. I removed the material from the lead since it was inconsistent with the body of the article -- all of it covered by footnotes.

I have subsequently reviewed Anderson’s work and found that Anderson does offer a three point explanation of the intent of the article, but what he actually says is that the purpose was “to resolve the problems of finance and control that plagued the postwar empire” and that to do this “three kinds of measures” were implemented -- “those intended to make customs enforcement more effective, those that placed new duties on items widely consumed in America, and those that placed new duties on items widely consumed in America”.

Anderson’s interpretation is consistent with the the other sources cited in the article. Your interpretation of Anderson was misleading and taken out of the context provided by Anderson.

You clamed in a recent edit summary regarding the Anderson book that I had labled the work as "not mainstream". In fact, I said no such thing, did I? I said that if you had “quoted [it]accurately, [it] is a minority opinion. In fact, you did not quote it accurately. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hopelessly non-neutral POV

Through a selective use of sources, a selection of facts, out of context citations (some of dubious accuracy) this article is advocating a POV which is unbalanced and not supported by the facts. BradMajors (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you tag before you discuss -- and then still don't discuss specifics. Please state exactly;

1. What exactly is the POV that you claim to have found?

2. Which citations are out of context and why?

3. What facts are missing?

Nobody is stopping you from provding alternative theories to the article if you can back them up -- in fact you were actively encouraged to do that. Instead you decided to add a couple of tags to the article -- this contributes nothing to the discussion and only casts doubts for any readers on a fully documented article. if they turn to this discussion page to determine what the problem is, they won't find any specifics to support your claims, will they? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of tags

The material is fully sourced. The editor who placed the tags has made general accusations, but has failed to provide specific charges, making it impossible to respond. I have removed the tags as frivolous until such time as the other editor provides specific chages that can be discussed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the problem?

This article has been frequently attacked recently. I suspect the problem is that the editors have failed to appreciate the position from the point of view of the British government. The preceding 1733 Act was not a cunning ploy to do colonials out of a legitimate trade. Under the Navigation Acts, colonies were prohibited from engaging in trade with foreign countries without goods being landed in Britain and paying duty there. This meant that trade between French colonies and British colonies was illegal. However, it was hardly practicable to enforce this. Accordingly the 1733 Act was legalising (and regulating and taxing) what had been an illegal trade. The 1763 Act was largely changing the fiscal regime. Certainly it was unpopular, but it is necessary to be wary of believing everything contained in partisan political tracts of the period. Typically they express a POV, often an exaggeration of the truth, or at least the writers worst fears, which were often not realised.

The right course where there are conflicting POVs on a subject is to adopt the consensus (if there is one) or to set out all POVs and discuss their respective strengths. The difficulty may be that the discussion (useless based on an academic discussion of the point) will itslef be a POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is based on reliable secondary sources. I trust that the historians that wrote these works were able to properly weigh the significance of the appropriate primary documents that you reference. I have no problem with discussing specific differences between other reliable sources, nor do I have a problem with different opinions among reliable sources being added to the article. What specifcally do you feel is missing from the current explanation as to why the Sugar Act was passed, and what reliable secondary sources do you base your opinons on? This is how the article currently reads:

"During the Seven Years' War, known in America as the French and Indian War, the British government substantially increased the national debt to pay for the war. In February 1763, as the war ended, the ministry headed by John Stuart, the Earl of Bute, decided that continuing Indian problems in North America necessitated the maintenance of a standing army of ten thousand British regular troops in the colonies. Shortly thereafter, George Grenville replaced Bute. Grenville supported his predecessor's policy, even more so after the outbreak of Pontiac’s Rebellion in May 1763. Grenville faced the problem of not only paying for these troops but servicing the national debt. The debt grew from £75,000 before the war to £122,600,000 in January 1763, and over £800,000,000 by the beginning of 1764.[4]

Grenville did not expect the colonies to contribute to the interest or the retirement of the debt, but he did expect a portion of the expenses for colonial defense to be paid by the Americans. Estimating that the expenses of defending the continental colonies and the West Indies to be approximately £200,000 annually, Grenville’s goal was that the colonies would be taxed for £78,000 of this needed amount."

One contrary source that has been presented has been a popular biography of John Hancock by Harlow Unger -- and this was raised only with respect to a single point in the background relating to the 1733 Act. Where Unger discusses this he has no footnotes and draws the vastly simplistic conclusion that "only greed lay behind their [colonial] objections to duties."

There is also a dispute over what Fred Anderson actually says in the work "Crucible of War" -- I have responded with exact quotes to replace out of context claims made by the other editor. This is what I added:

"Historian Fred Anderson wrote that the purpose of the Act was “to resolve the problems of finance and control that plagued the postwar empire.” To do this “three kinds of measures” were implemented -- “those intended to make customs enforcement more effective, those that placed new duties on items widely consumed in America, and those that placed new duties on items widely consumed in America.”

In your opinion, is this an accurate statement of the British purposes? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I was not seeking to question the present content. I was actually trying to provide support for it against some of the recent POV edits, which may well be based on older historians or "school history", which often does not reflect the views of academic historians. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the comments above, the figure of 800 million pound sterling is incorrect. First off it is impossible for British debt to have grown from 122 million pounds to 800 million pounds in the span of 11 months. The war was over, spending was slowly being reduced, the figure presented by Nash is far to high. No other historian has ever presented a number as high as this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starfury483 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The Sugar Act

The Sugar Act (citation 4 Geo. III c. 15), officially called the American Duties Act, passed on April 5, 1764, was a revenue-raising Act passed by the Parliament of Great Britain. The preamble to the act stated that, "it is expedient that new provisions and regulations should be established for improving the revenue of this Kingdom ... and ... it is just and necessary that a revenue should be raised ... for defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the same."[1] The earlier Sugar and Molasses Act, which had imposed a tax of six pence per gallon on molasses, been had never been effectively collected due to colonial evasion. By reducing the rate in half and increasing measures to enforce the tax, the British hoped that the tax would actually be collected.[2] --Unsigned

The above text was removed, probably inadvertently in removing something irrelvant. I am therefore restoring this much. I express no view on it. British statutes did not usually have official short titles until the late 19th century. Accordingly, "American Duties Act" was not a name officially coined until long after the event. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

repetition in =Passage=

it seems that taxes on widely consumed items in america is repeated. I suspect a typo, like "America" instead of "England" Epl18 (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Historian Fred Anderson wrote that the purpose of the Act was “to resolve the problems of finance and control that plagued the postwar empire.” To do this “three kinds of measures” were implemented -- “those intended to make customs enforcement more effective, those that placed new duties on items widely consumed in America, and those that placed new duties on items widely consumed in America.”[8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.109.127 (talk) 06:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- I corrected the quote. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

plese be morre specific about what are u telling people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.1.226 (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Long title

While it is very nice to have the long title in the article, in this case it is so long that it does not comfortable fit in the infobox. Might I suggest that it be transferred to the text of the article? Peterkingiron (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)