Revolutionary War UnitBig Idea #2: Govern

GovernDefinition:

to officially control and lead (a group of people) to make decisions about laws, taxes, social programs, etc., for (a

country, state, etc.)

Build-a-WordAffix New Word Meaning

-ment

-or

-ment and -al

non- and –ment, -al

-able

-al and -ly

1

Revolutionary War UnitBig Idea #2: Govern

Challenge Take Apart:

Antigovernmentalism

Three biggest jobs of a government

1.

2.

3.

Choose one thing that your partner has on their list that you don’t have, and

one that you have that your partner doesn’t, and use them to complete the

following sentence.

“It is more important that a government than

because

.”

2

Revolutionary War UnitBig Idea #2: Govern

1. Vocabulary:a. Govern: to officially control and lead (a group of people), or to

make decisions about laws, taxes, social programs, etc., for (a country, state, etc.)

b. Salutary: Helpful or beneficial. (Salutary Neglect)

c. Legislate: To make an official rule or pass a law. (legislation, legislator)

Parts of Speech: Many vocabulary words in this reading can be both a noun, and a verb. Fill in the chart with the different definitions of the words based on the parts of speech.

WordNoun

(Person, Place, or Thing)

Verb(Action word)

Tax

Trade

3

Revolutionary War UnitBig Idea #2: Govern

House

Quarter

Station

The End of Salutary Neglect

England Passes Three Laws

Introduction: Salutary Neglect

The American colonists didn’t mind living under English law because, for the most part, England left them alone. Yeah, they had laws, but these English laws were rarely enforced, and the King didn’t see the need to get too

4

Reading #1

Revolutionary War UnitBig Idea #2: Govern

involved if the colonies were running smoothly. The name for this was “Salutary Neglect.” As England became more involved in the colonies, and the period of Salutary Neglect ended, the colonists began to question what England had the right to do, and what the role of the English government should be.

Law #1: The Sugar Act of 1764

The Molasses Act of 1733 was a good example of Salutary Neglect. Molasses was used in New England for making rum, and the trading molasses was very important for the colonies. The Caribbean has many islands that grow sugar (which molasses is made out of.) some of these islands are English colonies, and some are colonies of other countries. Sugar from the English islands was much more expensive than its competitors, and an many colonial merchants turned to Britain's enemies for the molasses they needed because it was cheaper. 

England wanted America to buy its molasses from English islands. However, rather than prohibiting the colonies from trading with the non-English islands, Parliament instead passed a high tax on the molasses imported from those islands. If actually collected, the tax would have effectively made it impossible for anyone to afford non-English molasses. Soon, smuggling, bribery, and intimidation of customs officials weakened the law by making it impossible to enforce.

During the French and Indian War, the British government substantially increased its national debt in order to pay for the war. As the war ended in February of 1763, England, decided to maintain a army of 10,000 British troops in the colonies to protect them, which would also increase post-war expenses. 

5

Revolutionary War UnitBig Idea #2: Govern

George Grenville—who became prime minister in April 1763—had to find a way to restore the nation's finances, address the large debt, and pay for this large peacetime army. Grenville decided Parliament would raise this revenue by taxing the American colonists. Grenville expected the colonists to pay a portion of the expenses for army’s protection, and so he wrote the Sugar Act of 1764 to raise those funds.

The Sugar Act was actually a tax cut! It was passed by the British Parliament in 1764. By reducing the rate by half and making more of an effort to enforce the tax, the British hoped that the new tax on sugar would actually be collected. When passed by Parliament, the new Sugar Act of 1764 halved the previous tax on molasses. In addition to promising stricter enforcement, the language of the bill made it clear that the purpose of the legislation was not to simply regulate trade but to actually raise revenue.

The colonies worried that this would be the start of the British becoming more involved in the colonies, and their period of Salutary Neglect would soon be over.

Law #2: The Stamp Act of 1765

Parliament announced with the passage of the Sugar Act in 1764 that they would also consider a stamp tax in the colonies. The Stamp Act required that many printed materials in the colonies be on stamped paper produced in London, carrying an embossed revenue stamp. Similar to the Sugar Act, the purpose of the tax was to help pay for troops stationed in North America after the British victory in the French and Indian War.

The Stamp Act was different from the Sugar Act because it was the first internal tax—that is, a tax based entirely on activities within the colonies and charged directly to the colonies by Parliament. All of their earlier taxes were on trade and importing goods into the colonies. This was the first time

6

Revolutionary War UnitBig Idea #2: Govern

England had taxed the colonists on what they were doing inside the colonies. Because of this, the Stamp Act was seen by the colonists to be a more dangerous assault on their rights than the Sugar Act. England was caught off guard, because they didn’t expect the colonists to care much about the Stamp Act, and certainly didn’t expect the protests that followed.

Law #3: The Quartering Act of 1765

During the French and Indian War, British military commanders in North America often found it difficult to persuade the colonies to pay for the costs of housing and provisioning the soldiers sent over to fight the French. Once the war had ended, the king’s advisors decided that some British troops should remain in North America, in theory to defend the colonies. Since the war had left Britain with a large national debt, it also was especially important that the colonies should pay their share of the costs of keeping these men in America.

Contrary to popular belief, the Quartering Act of 1765 did not require that colonists house soldiers in their private homes. The act did require colonial governments to provide and pay feed and house any troops stationed in their colony. If enough barracks were not made available, then soldiers could be housed in inns, stables, outbuildings, uninhabited houses, or private homes that sold wine or alcohol.

American colonists saw the Quartering Act as one more way Parliament was attempting to tax them without their consent. Others suspected that the real purpose of keeping a small standing army in America – stationed in coastal cities, not on the frontier – was not for defense, but to enforce new British policies and taxes. The Quartering Act did become a divisive issue in 1766, however, after 1,500 British soldiers disembarked at New York City. The New York Provincial Assembly refused to provide funds to cover the costs of feeding and housing these men as required by the law. In response, the

7

Revolutionary War UnitBig Idea #2: Govern

British Parliament voted to suspend the Provincial Assembly until it complied with the act. As it turned out, the suspension was never put into effect since the New York Assembly later agreed to allocate revenue to cover some of the costs of quartering these troops. The Quartering Act of 1765 was largely circumvented by most colonies during the years before the Revolution.

American colonists resented and opposed the Quartering Act of 1765, not because it meant they had to house British soldiers in their homes, but because they were being taxed to pay for food and barracks for the army – a standing army that they thought was unnecessary during peacetime and an army that they feared might be used against them.

https://www.boundless.com/u-s-history/textbooks/boundless-u-s-history-textbook/the-colonial-crisis-1750-1775-6/the-acts-of-parliament-60/the-sugar-and-stamp-acts-368-9432/

http://www.historyisfun.org/blog/quartering-act-of-1765/

2.Group Write: How do you think society would be different if the government still practiced Salutary Neglect? What would people do differently if rules and laws were not enforced? Would things be better or worse?

8

Revolutionary War UnitBig Idea #2: Govern

3. Think, Pair, Share:1. By yourself, make a Cause/Effect Brain Frame in the

space below about the causes and effects of one of the 3 laws that England passed.

2. Compare your frame with a partner. Look at how your frames are alike and different.

3. Present your frame to the class.

9

Revolutionary War UnitBig Idea #2: Govern

4. Main IdeaWhat is the main idea of this reading? (What is it trying to say about colonies?)

The main idea of the reading is that colonies

10

Revolutionary War UnitBig Idea #2: Govern

Based on this idea, what do you predict will happen next? How will the Colonists respond to these three laws?

The Colonists will

In 1765, Rebels Sacked the Boston Mansion of Thomas

HutchinsonThomas Hutchinson, the lieutenant governor of Massachusetts, had

one of the finest homes in Boston – until August 26, 1765. That was the night violence boiled over in response to the British plans to impose the Stamp Act on the colonies.

Protesters began gathering in King Street, around a bon fire, drinking and discussing what to do next. Their first move was to go to the home of Mr. [Charles] Paxton, marshal of the court of admiralty and surveyor of the port. Paxton calmed the crowd and invited them to a nearby tavern for a barrel of punch. While he saved his own home, he fueled the growing crowd for their next stop, the home of William Story, register of the court of admiralty,

11

Reading #2

Revolutionary War UnitBig Idea #2: Govern

where they broke in and destroyed his papers along with some of his belongings.

The mob proceeded to the house of Benjamin Hallowell, where they broke in and tore through his papers and this time expanded their activities, taking clothing, money and liquor from his cellars, which they proceeded to drink. This fueled the crowd for their final stop of the evening, the home of Lieutenant Governor Thomas Hutchinson.

By the time the crowd arrived, Hutchinson had already sent most of his children away and barred his doors and windows, having been warned that the mob was coming. But he was persuaded to leave by his daughter a few moments before they arrived.

The rioters smashed through his front door with an ax and entered his house through all available doors and windows. Once inside, they took everything that was movable: clothes, silver, paintings. Seeking shelter at one neighbor's house, he was forced to scamper through the gardens to a house more distant when he learned the mob was searching for him.

By four in the morning, "one of the best finished houses in the province has nothing remaining but bare walls and floors. Gentlemen of the army, who have seen towns sacked by an enemy, declare they never saw such fury," Gordon recorded.

Hutchinson would describe the event in a letter:

"Pictures, household furniture of every kind, my own my children and servants apparel, they carried off about £900 sterling in money and emptied the house of everything whatsoever except a part of the kitchen furniture not leaving a single book or paper in it and have scattered or destroyed all the manuscripts and other papers I had been collecting for 30 years together besides a great number of Public papers in my custody.

12

Revolutionary War UnitBig Idea #2: Govern

The evening being warm I had undressed me and slipped on a thin camlet surtout over my waistcoat, the next morning the weather being changed I had not clothes enough in my possession to defend me from the cold and was obliged to borrow from my host. Many articles of clothing and good part of my Plate have since been picked up in different quarters of the town but the furniture in general was cut to pieces before it was thrown out of the house and most of the beds cut open and the feathers thrown out of the windows.

“The next evening I intended with my children to Milton but meeting two or three small Parties of the Ruffians who I suppose had concealed themselves in the country and my coachman hearing one of them say there he is, my daughters were terrified and said they should never be safe and I was forced to shelter them that night at the castle.”

Many bore special dislike for Hutchinson. He had pushed a law that abolished local currency, requiring gold and silver as acceptable forms of payment.

In addition, as a judge he actively assisted the collection of the taxes by issuing writs of assistance, which gave the holder the legal right to search the property of people suspected of avoiding payments.

Hutchinson, actually, was something of a voice of reason on the British side. He would later record that he had tried to convince Britain to weigh carefully whether England wouldn’t be better off granting the colonies their independence, given that maintaining and protecting them cost far more than they were worth in terms of trade. Unfortunately, he saw the empire and its impudent colonies slowly locking themselves into intractable positions that would inevitably lead to revolution.

Later he would record: “I did not approve of the Stamp Act; but I never had seen an opportunity since the repeal of it when Government could

13

Revolutionary War UnitBig Idea #2: Govern

have conceded to the claims of America, without admitting their principle of total independence. . . . I ever thought the taxing of America by Parliament not advisable, but as a servant of the Crown, I thought myself bound to discountenance the violent opposition to the Act, as it led to the denial of its authority in all cases whatsoever, and in fact, had brought on the Rebellion.”

Still, the loss of his property embittered him and he was more distrustful of the residents of Massachusetts after this night and more supportive of oppressing the budding rebels.

Source: http://www.newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/1765-thomas-hutchinson-moves-milton-involuntarily/

5. Frame it!On the next page, make a sequencing frame for the events on the night of August 26, 1765.

14

Revolutionary War UnitBig Idea #2: Govern

6. Hutchinson’s Perspective

Identity

Values

Interests

15

Revolutionary War UnitBig Idea #2: Govern

Emotions

7. I think the mob [was/was not] justified in burning down Hutchinson’s house because…

1.

2.

3.

U.S. Attorney Lelling Finally Says He Will

Get

16

Reading #3

Revolutionary War UnitBig Idea #2: Govern

Out of Legal Marijuana’s Way

by SPENCER BUELL, Boston Globe· 7/11/2018, 11:04 a.m.

 

Photo via Sam Doran/SHNS

After inducing months of headaches for Massachusetts’ budding marijuana industry, U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling has signaled he will get out of the way, saying in a statement that although the drug remains illegal at the federal level his office would avoid prosecuting state-legal pot companies in most cases.

“Because I have a constitutional obligation to enforce the laws passed by Congress, I will not effectively immunize the residents of the Commonwealth from federal marijuana enforcement,” he wrote. “My office’s resources, however, are primarily focused on combatting the opioid epidemic that claims thousands of lives in the Commonwealth each year.”

In what amounts to his most clear-eyed response yet to the conflict between state and federal law, Lelling identified a few areas of marijuana enforcement that his office would prioritize, including “overproduction” at grow facilities that might lead to the drug being diverted to organized crime or across state lines, and the the targeted sales of the drug to minors (state law prohibits pot shops from selling to anyone under 21). Lelling also said

17

Revolutionary War UnitBig Idea #2: Govern

that his office would prosecute legal marijuana businesses if their proceeds support gangs.

Overproduction: Despite regulatory efforts to address this problem, licensed outdoor marijuana cultivation still creates a significant risk of overproduction, which in turn creates the risk of illegal, and lucrative, marijuana sales to users in nearby states where recreational marijuana use remains illegal. These out-of-state sales are nearly always cash transactions and so often involve federal tax fraud designed to hide the illicit cash or its true source.

Targeted Sales to Minors: Advocates for state-level legalization fail to emphasize the risks marijuana use poses for minors. And, despite state-mandated age requirements, marijuana use among minors will surely now increase. Study after study confirms that regular marijuana use is dangerous to adolescent brain development, a process that appears to continue into a person’s early 20s. The targeted sale of marijuana to minors may warrant federal prosecution.

Organized Crime and Interstate Transportation of Drug Proceeds: Drug proceeds often finance organized criminal activities. My office will continue to prosecute organized criminal groups, like MS-13, that distribute drugs in violation of federal law, regardless of whether that distribution is legal under state laws. To that end, federal investigators will continue to police the Commonwealth for incoming or outgoing shipments of cash as well as use of the federal banking system.

Lelling, a Trump appointee, caused hubbub this year after he took the role. Attorney General Jeff Sessions had announced he would roll back an Obama-era edict that advised U.S. attorneys not to prosecute marijuana businesses in states that had legalized the drug, and Lelling did little to calm nerves in Massachusetts by refusing to rule out a crackdown, although he has said all along he would consider marijuana prosecutions on a case-by-case basis. He emphasized this week that the list was “not exclusive” and that he reserves the right to enforce the federal law on pot if he sees fit to do so.

He has made clear he is no fan of the drug. In his statement, he asserted that “marijuana use among minors will sure now increase” and chastised pot

18

Revolutionary War UnitBig Idea #2: Govern

activists for failing “to emphasize the risks marijuana use poses for minors.” He has said previously he believes the drug is “dangerous.”

Still, industry leaders tell the Boston Globe that they’re hopeful this is a sign that Lelling will leave them alone, although it’s not clear whether his sort-of blessing will inspire any local banks to start working with the pot industry. So far, none have come forward, in part because they worry about crossing the federal government. As a result, pot businesses have to deal entirely in cash.

There were some head-scratchers in his statement. Legalization activists blasted him for messing up the date it became legal to distribute the drug in the state, incorrectly writing that it began on July 1 (that was the date set as a benchmark for when recreational stores could open their doors; recreational marijuana has been legal since December of 2016). He also asserted that “marijuana use among minors will surely now increase,” although there is little evidence that’s true, and in fact the trend appears to be going the other way.

19Reading #4

Revolutionary War UnitBig Idea #2: Govern

Massachusetts needs safe injection sites

By The Boston Globe Editorial Board DECEMBER 27, 2015

FOUR PEOPLE WILL die today from an opioid overdose in Massachusetts. Tomorrow, if the average from 2015 remains unchanged, another four souls — who may at this very moment be reading this article — will also lose their lives with the push of a plunger.ADVERTISING

For the new year to look any different from the last, it has become clear that uncomfortable measures will need to be taken in order to end the overdose crisis. Gloucester Police Chief Leonard Campanello has shown a willingness to do just that by taking on Big Pharma and offering treatment instead of jail time, as has Governor Charlie Baker in his willingness to go up against the medical establishment to curb the overprescription of opioids.

The governor’s opioid bill, however, concentrates on prevention and treatment of drug addiction. Much more pragmatic tools are needed immediately. A good start would be a dramatic increase in spending for the harm-reduction approaches that are shown to work but can be politically polarizing: making the anti-overdose drug Narcan more widely available; improving access to substitution treatments such as methadone and buprenorphine; and bolstering needle exchange programs. In fact, the Legislature should go one step further and be the first in the nation to legalize safe injection sites.

Many overdoses happen because people are taking drugs alone, out of stigma or fear of law enforcement. Public health officials in eight other countries have addressed this by establishing nearly 100 facilities worldwide where users can shoot drugs under the watch of health care providers. Doctors or nurses are available to intervene in the event of medical emergency, but staff also distribute clean syringes and other supplies and direct addicts to drug treatment.

20

Revolutionary War UnitBig Idea #2: Govern

Right now Vancouver, British Columbia, operates the only supervised injection facility in North America. That program, called Insite, opened in 2003. More than 30 peer-reviewed studies have found that Insite saves lives every day, thousands of lives altogether. It also saves millions of dollars in both health care and public safety costs, reduces transmission of diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C, and promotes entry into treatment. There is no evidence it promotes drug use or drug-related crime.

The legal hurdles for Massachusetts to follow in Insite’s footsteps are daunting. Organizations that want to open a supervised injection site would risk federal prosecution and 20 years in prison under what are known as “crack house statutes,” which make it a crime to “knowingly open, lease, rent, use, or maintain any place . . . for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substances.” State lawmakers would have to craft a carve-out, similar to Good Samaritan laws already enacted for Narcan distribution, to shield safe injection site operators from scrutiny by local and state law enforcement — and hope the feds choose not to interfere, which seems possible, considering the precedent set by the Obama administration’s hands-off stance on state marijuana laws. Given the current public health emergency, legal experts suggest the timing for such a gamble has never been better.

Two obvious locations for the Commonwealth’s first safe injection site would be Cambridge’s Central Square or the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue and Albany Street in Boston. Both are, in different ways, ground zero of the opioid crisis, but the latter, sometimes referred to as “Methadone Mile,” is already home to the venerable Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program. One doctor there reports now often being unable to walk from the parking lot to the clinic’s front door without encountering someone in the early stages of overdose.

In November, Dr. Jessie Gaeta, the program’s chief medical officer, suggested that it may open a “safe space” where people could come when they’re high on heroin. No actual drug use would take place, Gaeta told WBUR, but the program would instead offer “a safe place to be that’s not a street corner.”

21

Revolutionary War UnitBig Idea #2: Govern

Mayor Marty Walsh reacted positively to the idea. “I’m up for trying anything when it comes to addiction and active using,” he said at the time. “If we can help some folks, homeless folks in particular, we should try anything.”

If we take the mayor at his word, empowering Gaeta and her colleagues to open a true supervised injection site would have exponentially greater impact.

Experience teaches that breaking past stigma and fear on public health matters has wide-reaching consequences. In the 1980s, clean-syringe programs were also seen as political nonstarters, but HIV contraction among drug users has fallen by more than 90 percent in the state since exchanges were introduced. In 2001, there were only two official Narcan-distribution programs nationwide. Last year, first responders administered 11,000 doses of Narcan to people overdosing in Massachusetts alone. A safe injection site is today’s equivalent to those initiatives, a life-saving public health service to all those in the Commonwealth who need it.

Fatal opioid overdoses are preventable. In 2016, that should be the goal for Massachusetts’ political leadership. Anything else needlessly risks lives.

22

Revolutionary War UnitBig Idea #2: Govern

Point/Counterpoint Paragraph: What do these two articles have to do with Salutary neglect? Should the government enforce federal drug policy, even when local states vote against these policies? What does this have to do with the Stamp Act? Write a point/counterpoint paragraph answering the following question…

Should the national government stop enforcing federal drug policies when states vote against them? Use marijuana legalization and safe injection sites as examples in your argument,

Point: What do you believe? Give evidence.

Counterpoint: What is the other side of the issue? Why is this wrong?

Restate your position.

23

Revolutionary War UnitBig Idea #2: Govern

24

Revolutionary War UnitBig Idea #2: Govern

25