Before we resume our history of sugar and the role it played in the American Revolution, it's interesting to note that even today sugar is at the forefront of political debate. On May 22, a lead editorial in the Washington Post said in part:

"The current federal sugar program was enacted in the early1980s to keep the price of sugar high but leave no fingerprints. Rather than try to buy up surplus production and have the cost appear in the budget, the architects used import quotas to seal off the U.S. market and create an artificial shortage. "The shortage kept prices high, which pleased the producers. Because the public paid the extra billions per year at the checkout counter rather than in taxes, politicians were able to escape blame. A perfect arrangement. The only losers apart from duped U.S. consumers were low-cost foreign producers in the Caribbean and other needy parts of the world, who, despite supposed U.S. fealty to free trade as a way of improving the lot of people in poor countries, were locked out. Why should the politicians, looked after so well by their domestic patrons, take time out to worry about a pesky detail such as that? "…Why does a Congress opposed to so many other taxes impose a sugar tax on the American people?"

As to this last statement, we will shortly find out about the original American sugar tax. And as for the treatment of the Caribbean producers, we should be ashamed.

But back to our story…In the 18th century, the French colonies in the Caribbean were more productive than those of England. Sugar flowed to France from Martinique, Guadeloupe, and Santo Domingo. After being refined, the sugar was sold throughout Europe.

[In Britain, one of the most dramatic changes in eating habits known to human history occurred. In 1700, on average, Britons used a mere four pounds of sugar each year to sweeten their drinks and food. By 1800, that total reached 18 pounds. By the 1960s, annual consumption had risen to 110 pounds of sugar per person!! Almost a third of a pound every day of the year. Did someone say tooth decay?!]

This British demand for sweets came in the face of high import duties on tropical products brought into the British Isles. But by 1739, the British government eliminated duties on sugar exported directly from the West Indies to Europe due to competition from French merchants. Nevertheless, French West Indian sugar remained cheaper than British products.

The French planters at this time had an abundance of molasses. Throughout the 18th century, British North American merchants purchased inexpensive rum from the French islands, as well as molasses for their rum distilleries. As a result, British planters lost the American market. So, to placate planter interests, the Parliament levied a sixpence-per-gallon duty on sugar, molasses, and rum imported from non-British islands. It was set prohibitively high not for revenues but to prevent trade with the French sugar islands. But "The Molasses Act of 1733" proved too costly to enforce and American merchants openly and brazenly violated it.

In 1763, the Treaty of Paris (or Peace of Paris) signaled the end of the Seven Years War, a conflict fought by the likes of Britain, Prussia, France, Austria, and Russia. In North America, the British and French fought the French and Indian Wars. Bottom line, the Treaty confirmed British supremacy in North America (and elsewhere).

Historian Paul Johnson calls the Peace of Paris "one of the greatest territorial carve-ups in history." Britain had seized St. Vincent, the Grenadines, Tobago, Dominica, St. Lucia, Guadeloupe and Martinique during the war that preceded the peace. The British sugar lobby, fearing overproduction, objected to keeping them all, so Britain graciously handed back Guadeloupe, Martinique and St. Lucia. In return, the French surrendered the whole of Canada, Nova Scotia, and their claims to the Ohio Valley - "Snow for Sugar," as the deal was called. [To complete the triangle, kind of, Britain handed Cuba back to the struggling Spaniards.]

Meanwhile, George Grenville, Britain's first lord of the treasury and later, Prime Minister, thought that the American colonists had benefited from the thorough elimination of French forces in Canada and the West. Back home, Britain was suffering from the large tax burden that had to be imposed in order to pay for the war. [The nation was now $130 million pounds in debt.] The colonies had a far smaller burden so Grenville reasoned that the Americans were obligated to share the cost of their own defense. [Seems reasonable, mused the editor.] Grenville was also learning that the American customs service was inefficient and corrupt.

So, Lord Grenville introduced the Sugar Act of 1764 which halved the duty on molasses (to 3 pence) while, at the same time, putting in place a large system from which it was hoped that the collection of revenue would be made easier (with large penalties for those who tried to avoid the tax). Grenville was also reasoning that with the reduced tariff, the temptation to smuggle or to bribe the customs officers would be reduced.

The Sugar Act also levied new duties on imports of foreign textiles, wines, coffee, and indigo. The estimated revenues would go "toward defraying the necessary expenses of defending, protecting, and securing, the said colonies and plantations."

But if Grenville was looking for a way to pay for defense, the Sugar Act wasn't the solution. It only accounted for a fraction of the cost of maintaining the 10,000 soldiers that were to be stationed along the western frontier. By some estimates the Sugar Act cost 8,000 pounds in administration costs for every 2,000 pounds raised in revenue.

And so it came to pass that the Sugar Act became a major grievance leading to the American Revolution. After passage, there was a movement to boycott British goods. On May 24, 1764, radical Samuel Adams denounced the duties as improper, proclaiming that Parliament had no right to use trade regulation as a means of raising revenue. Speaking after him, James Otis coined the phrase, "no taxation without representation."

In July 1765, King George III appointed a new minister, the Marquis of Rockingham, and he reduced the molasses tax from 3 pence to a penny a gallon.

But then Rockingham (with the blessing of the King as well as Prime Minister Grenville) introduced the Stamp Act, the first direct tax levied on the American colonies by the British government. This was to be another way of raising revenue for the defense of the colonies. The Act required a special stamp on all printed material, including newspapers and legal documents. Whereas the Sugar Act had been a tax on imports, the Stamp Act levied a tax within the colonies and thereby aroused widespread condemnation, touching off a violent three-pronged attack - an ideological assault on the nature of the British Constitution, an economic boycott of British goods, and civil disorder and disobedience.

On May 29, 1765 Patrick Henry attacked the Stamp Act in the Virginia House of Burgesses, declaring that only colonial legislatures could impose taxes on their respective colonies. Shouts of "Treason!" interrupted Henry's speech, to which he replied: "If this be treason, make the most of it."

On October 7-25, the Stamp Act Congress met at City Hall, New York City, to organize a united resistance to the Stamp Act. 28 delegates from 9 colonies resolved not to import any goods that required payment of duty.

On November 1, a Stamp Act riot in New York City took place.

By now debate back in London was fierce. Charles Pratt, English Lord Chancellor, proclaimed in a speech to the House of Lords in December, "The British parliament has no right to tax the Americans…Taxation and representation are inseparably united." Charles, my man!

On March 17, 1766, the Stamp Act was repealed by Parliament. However, the Sugar Act survived. Tensions simmered down for a spell but, as Sam Adams stressed, "Where there is a spark of patriotick (sic) fire, we will enkindle it."

So you see folks, it all started with a spoonful of sugar.

Next week, the U.S. vs. E.C. Knight Co. as our history of sugar continues.

Sources:
"The Pursuit of Wealth," Robert Sobel
"The Growth of the American Republic, Vol. 1," Morison, Commager, Leuchtenberg
"A History of the American People," Paul Johnson
"The Columbia History of the World," John Garraty
"A Brief History of the Caribbean," Jan Rogozinski

Brian Trumbore