as a model for the more contentious 75 - stanback that would rile the converse north america, the 1760 tax was an early local instance of a far larger reform effort stimulated by the seven-year war. as imperial policymakers celebrated in north america, africa and the caribbean, they contemplated a threat to the most untrue most vital colony. on november 7, 1760, 2 weeks after the death of king george the second, the board of trade considered accounts of the jamaican traction which raised the urgent question of how expanding upon might contain the internal attacking me. in this moment it would take shape. british statements had worried over the government for over a decade with the previous word for 1748. the colonies demographic and strategic value had increased over the 18th century and the complexity had grown in tandem. partly by the behavior of north american colonists and the seven-year war. in the midst of the conflict they slaughtered the authority of governors, in violation of the navigation acts of trading with the enemy. colonists failed to supply enough local troops and reso

they were involved back in the opposition to the stanback in 1765 but they were involved in 1774. questions over here. just a minute. get to you in a minute. >> 1774, the year that you write about, how pivotal were the arguments in the association? >> are critical for the articles of association? they were in fact very critical. because basically, the association, which was adopted by the first continental congress just before they adjourned and october, association calls for the creation of local committees in every county, city and town. to enforce the association. it is the economic boycott against britain. those who locally elected committees become crucial in the next month because they become in effect, the government of the colonies, people obey what they say. people basically vote with their feet, they stop obeying the government and start upping the local committees. it's not just wentworth, off the governor's write letters saying i cannot get people to obey what i am saying. so therefore, i've decided to stop trying because it was only exposing the impotence of a governm

north america, their experience was encouraged to remain subject to imperial command, even passing stanback to help finance their own security. they did not like many imperial reforms but they had them. after the seventh year's work which jamaica had as a model imperial control, policymakers preferred the north american colony. unlike the submission, these are inspired by backlash that would split the british empire in 1776. they offered a rationale and reform of corneal slavery. the rebellion, concerned britons had a pragmatic plant for the security columnist by limiting the dependence on the slave trade in the condition of the slaves. ironically, perhaps perversely, edward pflaum had a significant impact on the antislavery discourse. an argument a principal that's upon for slavery were africans, especially cora monteith and the idea that a native born population was retractable. they could afford that and scatter them, establish better conditions in child rearing in christianity, they might be more secure in their possession. they can also save money on the ever rising prices of flavors.