The Sugar Act of 1764, also known as the American Revenue Act, was legislation passed by the Parliament of Great Britain on 5 April 1764 to crack down on molasses smuggling in the American colonies and to raise revenue to pay for the colonies' defense. The act was unpopular and helped lead to the American Revolution (c. 1765-1789).

? ? ? ? ? 《1764年糖法》（Sugar Act of 1764），又稱《美洲稅收法》，是英國(guó)議會(huì)于1764年4月5日通過(guò)的一項(xiàng)立法，旨在打擊美洲殖民地的糖蜜走私活動(dòng)，并增加收入以支付殖民地的防御費(fèi)用。該法案在美洲很不受歡迎，間接導(dǎo)致了美國(guó)革命（約 1765-1789 年）。

In the aftermath of the French and Indian War (1754-1763), the British Empire found itself in possession of large swathes of new colonial territory it had to defend. To reduce conflicts between American colonists and Native Americans such as the recent Pontiac's Rebellion (1763-1764), Parliament decided to send an army of 10,000 soldiers to defend the colonies. However, the upkeep of such an army would be expensive, and Parliament was currently struggling with mountains of postwar debt. Since the army was being sent for the defense of the American colonies, British Prime Minister George Grenville decided that the colonists should help pay the bill and devised the Sugar Act for this purpose.

? ? ? ? ? 法印戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)（1754-1763年）結(jié)束后，大英帝國(guó)發(fā)現(xiàn)自己擁有大片新的殖民地領(lǐng)土，必須加以保衛(wèi)。為了減少美洲殖民者與美洲原住民之間的沖突，如龐蒂亞克叛亂（1763-1764年），議會(huì)決定派遣一支由10000名士兵組成的軍隊(duì)保衛(wèi)殖民地。然而，維持這樣一支軍隊(duì)的成本高昂，而議會(huì)目前正面臨巨額戰(zhàn)后債務(wù)的困擾。既然派遣軍隊(duì)是為了保衛(wèi)美洲殖民地，英國(guó)首相喬治·格倫維爾（George Grenville）決定讓殖民地幫助支付這筆費(fèi)用，并為此制定了《糖法》（1764年）。

The Sugar Act was an extension of the Molasses Act of 1733; it reduced the tax on molasses from 6 pence per gallon to 3 pence but restricted the trade of other valuable goods and placed harsh penalties on anyone convicted of smuggling molasses. Molasses was an important part of the colonial economy, especially in New England, and was a valuable commodity in the triangular trade; for these reasons, colonial merchants resisted the Sugar Act. Other colonists argued that the Sugar Act infringed on their liberties, such as the right of the American colonies to tax themselves, giving rise to the famous slogan 'no taxation without representation'. The Sugar Act was ultimately replaced in 1766, but Parliament continued to impose taxes on the colonies, inadvertently paving the way for the American Revolution.

? ? ? ? ? 《1764年糖法》是 1733 年《糖蜜法》的延伸；它將糖蜜稅從每加侖 6 便士降至 3 便士，但限制了其他貴重商品的貿(mào)易，并對(duì)走私糖蜜的罪犯處以嚴(yán)厲的懲罰。糖蜜是殖民地經(jīng)濟(jì)的重要組成部分，尤其是在新英格蘭，而且是三角貿(mào)易中的貴重商品；出于這些原因，殖民地商人很抵制《1764年糖法》。一些殖民者則認(rèn)為《1764年糖法》侵犯了他們的自由，如美洲殖民地自行征稅的權(quán)利，因此提出了著名的口號(hào)“無(wú)代表不納稅”。《1764年糖法》最終于 1766年被取代，但英國(guó)議會(huì)繼續(xù)向殖民地征稅，無(wú)意中為美國(guó)革命鋪平了道路。

防御問(wèn)題

In February 1763, as the long and hard-fought French and Indian War came to an end, the British Empire reaped the fruits of victory. The vanquished Kingdom of France was forced to cede control of Canada and all its colonial holdings east of the Mississippi River to Britain, greatly expanding Britain's territory in North America. However, this sudden increase in colonial possessions naturally produced a new set of problems that the British would have to deal with, particularly regarding defense. With the acquisition of Canada came tens of thousands of French-Canadians subjects whose loyalty was doubtful at best, seeing as they had all too recently been Britain's enemies. The presence of Spain in Louisiana and west of the Mississippi was also worrisome, as the Spanish were considered even more untrustworthy than the French.

? ? ? ? ? 1763 年 2 月，隨著曠日持久、艱苦卓絕的法印戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的結(jié)束，大英帝國(guó)收獲了勝利的果實(shí)。戰(zhàn)敗的法蘭西王國(guó)被迫將加拿大及其在密西西比河以東的所有殖民地割讓給英國(guó)，從而大大擴(kuò)展了英國(guó)在北美的領(lǐng)土。然而，殖民地的突然增加自然也給英國(guó)帶來(lái)了一系列新問(wèn)題，尤其是在防御方面。在獲得加拿大的同時(shí)，英國(guó)還獲得了數(shù)以萬(wàn)計(jì)的法裔加拿大臣民，這些臣民的忠誠(chéng)度令人懷疑，因?yàn)樗麄冏罱恢笔怯?guó)的敵人。西班牙在路易斯安那州和密西西比河以西的存在也令人擔(dān)憂，因?yàn)槲靼嘌廊吮徽J(rèn)為比法國(guó)人更不可信。

But what was more troubling to British officials was the conflicts between American settlers and displaced Native Americans. As more white colonists moved into the lands that Britain had won from France, they naturally began fighting with the Native peoples of North America that lived there. Hoping to limit this bloodshed, King George III of Great Britain (r. 1760-1820) issued a Royal Proclamation on 7 October 1763 that forbade American colonists from settling the lands between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River. But of course, this proclamation went largely ignored, as a steady stream of white settlers continued to file into these lands. In May 1763, the Native Americans rose in revolt; led by the Odawa Chief Pontiac, they raided settlements in Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania and captured all western British forts except for Detroit. Pontiac's Rebellion was quelled by the end of 1764 by British regular troops and American militia, but it served as a reminder to British officials that more of an effort would have to be made to keep the peace in the colonies.

? ? ? ? ? 但更讓英國(guó)官員感到不安的是美洲殖民者與流離失所的美洲原住民之間的沖突。隨著越來(lái)越多的白人殖民者遷入英國(guó)從法國(guó)手中贏得的土地，他們自然而然地開始與居住在那里的北美原住民發(fā)生沖突。為了限制這種流血沖突，英國(guó)國(guó)王喬治三世（1760-1820 年）于 1763 年 10 月 7 日發(fā)布了一項(xiàng)皇家公告，禁止美洲殖民者在阿巴拉契亞山脈和密西西比河之間的土地上定居。當(dāng)然，這一公告在很大程度上被忽視了，因?yàn)榘兹酥趁裾咴丛床粩嗟赜咳脒@些土地。1763 年 5 月，美洲原住民奮起反抗；在渥太華酋長(zhǎng)龐蒂亞克的率領(lǐng)下，他們襲擊了弗吉尼亞、馬里蘭和賓夕法尼亞的定居點(diǎn)，并占領(lǐng)了除底特律以外的所有英國(guó)西部要塞。龐蒂亞克叛亂于 1764 年底被英國(guó)正規(guī)軍和美洲殖民地民兵平息，但它提醒英國(guó)官員必須付出更多努力才能維持殖民地的和平。

So, the decision was made by British Prime Minister George Grenville (l. 1712-1770) to send a standing army to defend the American colonies and check the illegal westward expansion. But the upkeep of such an army would undoubtedly be costly, an uncomfortable fact for the British Parliament, which had accrued mountains of debt fighting the Seven Years' War. Since the troops were being sent to North America primarily to defend the colonies, Grenville and his supporters believed it only right that the American colonists footed part of the bill. Of course, Parliament would pay the majority of the annual ￡200,000 necessary to keep twenty battalions (or 10,000 men) in America, so it did not occur to many officials that there would be much of an issue.

? ? ? ? ? 因此，英國(guó)首相喬治·格倫維爾（George Grenville，1712-1770 年）決定派遣一支常備軍保衛(wèi)美洲殖民地，遏制非法的西進(jìn)擴(kuò)張。但是，維持這樣一支軍隊(duì)無(wú)疑將耗資巨大，這對(duì)于在七年戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中債臺(tái)高筑的英國(guó)議會(huì)來(lái)說(shuō)是一個(gè)令人不安的事實(shí)。由于派往北美的軍隊(duì)主要是為了保衛(wèi)殖民地，格倫維爾及其支持者認(rèn)為由美洲殖民者承擔(dān)部分費(fèi)用是理所應(yīng)當(dāng)?shù)?。?dāng)然，議會(huì)將支付在美洲駐扎二十個(gè)營(yíng)（或一萬(wàn)人）所需的每年 20 萬(wàn)英鎊的大部分費(fèi)用，因此許多官員并沒有意識(shí)到這會(huì)是一個(gè)大問(wèn)題。

恢復(fù)糖蜜法案

In order to raise this revenue, Grenville proposed to extend and modify the Molasses Act of 1733, which was set to expire in 1763. The Molasses Act was a tax imposed on molasses imports from non-British territories, set at six pence per gallon. This tax had, of course, been unpopular amongst colonial merchants; instead of paying the required duties, many merchants found it cheaper to simply bribe the British customs officials into turning a blind eye when smuggled shipments of molasses came in from the French and Dutch West Indies.

? ? ? ? ? 為了增加收入，格倫維爾提議延長(zhǎng)和修改 1733 年的《糖蜜法案》，該法將于 1763 年到期?！短敲鄯ò浮肥菍?duì)從非英國(guó)領(lǐng)土進(jìn)口的糖蜜征稅，稅率為每加侖 6 便士。當(dāng)然，這一稅收在殖民地商人中并不受歡迎；許多商人發(fā)現(xiàn)，與其支付所需的關(guān)稅，不如干脆賄賂英國(guó)海關(guān)官員，讓他們?cè)趶姆▏?guó)和荷蘭西印度群島走私糖蜜時(shí)睜一只眼閉一只眼。

At the time, molasses was an important commodity in the American colonies, particularly in the New England colonies of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Hampshire. The result of harvesting sugar cane and boiling it into a dark, thick syrup, molasses was purchased from Caribbean plantations by American merchants. Large quantities would then be sold to New English distilleries, where the molasses would be used to make rum. This rum would then be shipped off to Europe and to Africa; in the latter destination, the rum would often be exchanged for slaves, thereby facilitating the infamous triangular trade. In short, molasses was important to the colonial economy. Since the British West Indies did not produce enough of it to satisfy the demand, merchants were forced to turn to Dutch and French plantations, and, ultimately, to resort to smuggling to avoid the tax.

? ? ? ? ? 當(dāng)時(shí)，糖蜜是美洲殖民地的重要商品，尤其是在馬薩諸塞、羅德島、康涅狄格和新罕布什爾等新英格蘭殖民地。美洲商人從加勒比海的種植園購(gòu)買糖蜜，將甘蔗收割后熬煮成深色的粘稠糖漿。然后，大量糖蜜被賣給新英格蘭的蒸餾廠，用來(lái)釀造朗姆酒。這些朗姆酒隨后被運(yùn)往歐洲和非洲；在非洲，朗姆酒往往被用來(lái)交換奴隸，從而推動(dòng)了臭名昭著的三角貿(mào)易?？傊?，糖蜜對(duì)殖民地經(jīng)濟(jì)非常重要。由于英屬西印度群島生產(chǎn)的糖蜜不足以滿足需求，商人們被迫轉(zhuǎn)向荷蘭和法國(guó)的種植園，最終不得不通過(guò)走私來(lái)逃避稅收。

To make his new version of the molasses tax more acceptable to the colonists, Grenville halved the tax that would be imposed on foreign molasses from 6 pence to only 3 pence per gallon. This would produce an estimated annual revenue of ￡78,000, which would greatly help with the maintenance of the British army in America. But Grenville had to ensure that these taxes would actually be collected and decided to crack down on corruption amongst British customs officials. At this time, many tax collectors who were supposed to be on duty in the colonies were actually living in England, relying on their deputies to collect bribes from colonial merchants. To put an end to this practice, Grenville issued an ultimatum: all customs officers were to return to their posts in the colonies or resign their office. Many chose resignation, leaving Grenville to fill their posts with more reliable men.

? ? ? ? ? 為了讓殖民者更容易接受他的新版糖蜜稅，格倫維爾將對(duì)外國(guó)糖蜜征收的稅減半，從每加侖 6 便士降至 3 便士。據(jù)估計(jì)，這將帶來(lái)每年 7.8 萬(wàn)英鎊的收入，大大有助于維持英國(guó)在美洲的軍隊(duì)。但格倫維爾必須確保這些稅收能夠真正征收到，因此他決定打擊英國(guó)海關(guān)官員的腐敗行為。當(dāng)時(shí)，許多本應(yīng)在殖民地執(zhí)勤的收稅員實(shí)際上住在英國(guó)，依靠他們的副手向殖民地商人收取賄賂。為了制止這種做法，格倫維爾發(fā)出最后通牒：所有海關(guān)官員必須返回殖民地任職，否則就辭職。許多人選擇了辭職，迫使格倫維爾用更可靠的人來(lái)填補(bǔ)他們的職位。

After whipping Britain's tax collectors into shape, Grenville set about presenting his new Sugar Act to Parliament. It passed with barely any opposition and became law on 5 April 1764. Alongside reducing the tax on non-British molasses to 3 pence per gallon, the Sugar Act also mandated that certain goods could only be shipped to Britain from the colonies, and nowhere else; this included lumber, one of the most valuable colonial exports, as well as iron and whalebone. American merchants and ship captains were now required to keep detailed lists of ship cargo, and these papers had to be verified before anything could be unloaded from their ships. If a captain was caught smuggling illicit goods, customs officials were authorized to try him by vice-admiralty courts rather than by jury in local colonial courts. This was because colonial judges and juries tended to be sympathetic to smugglers, while vice-admiralty courts did not use juries and were overseen by a royal appointee. Once convicted, the offenders were obligated to pay substantial fines.

? ? ? ? ? 在對(duì)英國(guó)的收稅員進(jìn)行了一番鞭策后，格倫維爾開始向議會(huì)提交他的新糖蜜法。該法案在幾乎沒有反對(duì)意見的情況下獲得通過(guò)，并于 1764 年 4 月 5 日成為法律。除了將非英國(guó)糖蜜稅降至每加侖 3 便士外，《1764年糖法》還規(guī)定，某些商品只能從殖民地運(yùn)往英國(guó)，其他地方一律禁止；這包括最有價(jià)值的殖民地出口商品之一的木材，以及鐵和鯨魚骨?，F(xiàn)在，美洲商人和船長(zhǎng)必須保存詳細(xì)的貨物清單，在從船上卸下任何貨物之前，必須核實(shí)這些文件。如果船長(zhǎng)被發(fā)現(xiàn)走私非法貨物，海關(guān)官員有權(quán)通過(guò)海事法庭對(duì)其進(jìn)行審判，而不是由當(dāng)?shù)刂趁穹ㄔ旱呐銓張F(tuán)進(jìn)行審判。這是因?yàn)橹趁竦胤ü俸团銓張F(tuán)往往同情走私者，而副海事法庭不使用陪審團(tuán)，并由皇家任命的人員監(jiān)督。一旦被定罪，罪犯必須支付巨額罰款。 ?

殖民地的反應(yīng)

The Sugar Act went into effect at one of the worst possible times. The end of the French and Indian War had led to an economic depression in the colonies, partially because American businesses were no longer being patronized by the British military to procure war supplies. Since the passage of the Sugar Act coincided with the start of these financial troubles, many colonists erroneously blamed the depression on Grenville and the Sugar Act. Colonial merchants were also frustrated when they discovered that Grenville's new class of customs officials were more resistant to bribes than the old ones had been. Outrage over the Sugar Act quickly took hold amongst the colonial merchant class.

? ? ? ? ? 《1764年糖法》是在一個(gè)最糟糕的時(shí)期生效的。法印戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的結(jié)束導(dǎo)致殖民地經(jīng)濟(jì)蕭條，部分原因是英國(guó)軍方不再為采購(gòu)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)物資而光顧美洲企業(yè)。由于《1764年糖法》的通過(guò)恰逢這些金融問(wèn)題，許多殖民者錯(cuò)誤地將經(jīng)濟(jì)蕭條歸咎于格倫維爾和《1764年糖法》。當(dāng)殖民地商人發(fā)現(xiàn)格倫維爾的新海關(guān)官員比舊海關(guān)官員更能抵制賄賂時(shí)，他們也感到非常沮喪。對(duì)《1764年糖法》的憤怒情緒很快在殖民地商人階層中占據(jù)了上風(fēng)。

Although the merchants found it more difficult to bribe Grenville's tax collectors, this by no means put an end to molasses smuggling. Historian Robert Middlekauff offers the example of merchants from Providence, Rhode Island, who had their contraband molasses loaded into small boats and rowed to designated inlets near the city in the dead of night. Falsified ship's cargo papers could also be procured, for a hefty price. But these smuggling tactics were risky. Oftentimes, smugglers had to be wary of informants, who would alert customs officials to these illegal practices for a reward. Such informants who were found out were not treated kindly by their fellow colonists; one informant, George Spencer, was arrested on the orders of a New York City judge ostensibly for failing to pay his debts. He was then paraded through the city streets and pelted with mud from jeering crowds before being jailed. He was released only after promising to leave the city and never return (Middlekauff, 68). Examples like this illustrate just how seriously the colonial merchants felt about the molasses trade and how far they were willing to go to procure it at the lowest price.

? ? ? ? ? 盡管商人們發(fā)現(xiàn)賄賂格倫維爾的收稅員更加困難，但這并沒有終止糖蜜的走私。歷史學(xué)家羅伯特·米德爾考夫（Robert Middlekauff）舉例說(shuō)，羅德島普羅維登斯的商人將走私的糖蜜裝上小船，在夜深人靜時(shí)劃到城市附近的指定海灣。他們還可以花高價(jià)購(gòu)買偽造的船貨文件。但這些走私手段都有風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。很多時(shí)候，走私者必須提防線人，因?yàn)榫€人為了獲取報(bào)酬，會(huì)向海關(guān)官員舉報(bào)這些非法行為。這些被發(fā)現(xiàn)的線人不會(huì)受到殖民地同胞的善待；一位名叫喬治·斯賓塞（George Spencer）的線人被紐約市法官下令逮捕，表面上的理由是他沒有償還債務(wù)。隨后，他被游街示眾，被嘲笑的人群扔泥巴，然后被關(guān)進(jìn)監(jiān)獄。他承諾離開這座城市，再也不回來(lái)后才被釋放（Middlekauff, 68）。這樣的例子說(shuō)明了殖民地商人對(duì)糖蜜貿(mào)易的重視程度，以及他們?yōu)橐宰畹蛢r(jià)格購(gòu)買糖蜜而不惜一切代價(jià)的程度。

The most radical protests against British authority occurred in Rhode Island, one of the colonies most dependent on the molasses trade. In December 1764, the British Navy had detained a colonial ship suspected of smuggling molasses. During the heated argument that followed, an American crewman attacked the British naval lieutenant with a broadaxe, leading to a brawl; several men were thrown overboard, and one American sailor was run through by the lieutenant's sword. A more dramatic affair took place when an argument over molasses smuggling caused colonial officials to order cannons to fire on a Royal Navy schooner, St. John, as it sailed out of the Newport harbor. While violent fights between American and British sailors had broken out before, the St. John affair was rather unprecedented.

? ? ? ? ? 羅得島州是最依賴糖蜜貿(mào)易的殖民地之一，該州發(fā)生了針對(duì)英國(guó)當(dāng)局的最激進(jìn)的抗議活動(dòng)。1764 年 12 月，英國(guó)海軍扣留了一艘涉嫌走私糖蜜的殖民地船只。在隨后發(fā)生的激烈爭(zhēng)吵中，一名美洲船員用寬斧襲擊了英國(guó)海軍中尉，引發(fā)了一場(chǎng)斗毆；數(shù)人被扔下船，一名美洲水手被中尉的劍刺穿。更戲劇性的事件是，殖民地官員因糖蜜走私發(fā)生爭(zhēng)執(zhí)，命令大炮向駛出紐波特港的英國(guó)皇家海軍雙桅縱帆船圣約翰號(hào)開火。雖然美洲和英國(guó)水手之間曾經(jīng)爆發(fā)過(guò)激烈的爭(zhēng)斗，但圣約翰號(hào)事件卻是史無(wú)前例的。

Another incident involved John Robinson, the customs collector of Newport, Rhode Island. After refusing a bribe from the Rhode Island merchants, Robinson found himself treated with disdain by the local courts. Whenever Robinson arrested a smuggler, the colonial judge would wait until Robinson was out of town before trying the case; since Robinson was absent, the accused would be released due to lack of evidence. Matters came to a head in 1765 when a Rhode Island sheriff went so far as to arrest Robinson for alleged damages done to a merchant sloop that Robinson had seized on suspicion of carrying molasses. Robinson languished in jail for two days, during which time he was mocked by local mobs.

? ? ? ? ? 另一起事件涉及羅德島州紐波特的海關(guān)征稅員約翰·羅賓遜。在拒絕了羅德島商人的賄賂后，羅賓遜發(fā)現(xiàn)自己受到了當(dāng)?shù)胤ㄔ旱拿镆暋Ｃ慨?dāng)羅賓遜逮捕一名走私犯時(shí)，殖民地法官都會(huì)等到羅賓遜出城后再審理案件；由于羅賓遜不在場(chǎng)，被告會(huì)因證據(jù)不足而被釋放。1765 年，羅德島州的一名治安官竟然逮捕了羅賓遜，理由是羅賓遜因涉嫌攜帶糖蜜而扣押了一艘商船，并指控該船造受了損害。羅賓遜在獄中被折磨了兩天，期間受到當(dāng)?shù)乇┟竦某芭?/strong>

Of course, these incidents were outliers, and many merchants resorted to more subtle means of protest, such as hiring sailors that the British Navy hoped to recruit or making sure no pilots were on hand when Royal Navy vessels entered port (Middlekauff, 70). Although these acts of protest were small-scale, and scenes of outright violence rare, they foreshadowed the much larger forms of protest that would break out in the colonies in the following years.

? ? ? ? ? 當(dāng)然，這些事件只是個(gè)例，許多商人采取了更隱蔽的抗議手段，比如雇傭英國(guó)海軍希望招募的水手，或者確?；始液＼姶贿M(jìn)港時(shí)沒有領(lǐng)航員（Middlekauff, 70）。雖然這些抗議行為規(guī)模較小，也很少出現(xiàn)直接的暴力場(chǎng)面，但它們預(yù)示著在接下來(lái)的幾年中，殖民地將爆發(fā)更大規(guī)模的抗議活動(dòng)。

稅收與代表權(quán)問(wèn)題

As most colonial merchants protested the Sugar Act only so far as it affected their coin purses, some other prominent colonists caught a glimpse of the larger picture and saw a more foreboding image. In Great Britain, the institution of Parliament had been formed around the idea that the people would tax themselves through representatives; taxation was, therefore, a gift given by the people to the government. However, the American colonies had no such representatives in Parliament; why, then, should a tax be forced upon them?

? ? ? ? ? 大多數(shù)殖民地商人對(duì)《1764年糖法》的抗議只是因?yàn)樗绊懙搅怂麄兊腻X袋子，而其他一些杰出的殖民者卻窺見了更大的圖景，他們看到了一個(gè)更加不祥的景象。在英國(guó)，議會(huì)制度是圍繞著人民通過(guò)代表向自己征稅的理念而形成的；因此，稅收是人民送給政府的禮物。然而，美洲殖民地在議會(huì)中沒有這樣的代表；那么，為什么要向他們強(qiáng)行征稅呢？

This question was put forth by several prominent American figures such as James Otis, Jr. (1725-1783) of Boston, who argued in a 1764 pamphlet that anyone who took property without consent was depriving the individual of liberty: "If a shilling in the pound may be taken from me against my will, why may not twenty shillings? And if so, why not my liberty or my life?" (Schiff, 74). Otis' protégé, Samuel Adams (1722-1803), echoed this sentiment, asking that if Parliament began taxing American trade, surely it would soon begin taxing American lands. In May 1764, Adams inquired that, if the colonies were taxed without representation, were the colonists not then reduced from "the character of free subjects to the miserable state of tributary slaves?" (Schiff, 73). These sentiments initially put forth by Otis and Adams, such as taxation without representation and the idea of being enslaved to Parliament, would become recurring themes as the colonies hurtled toward revolution.

? ? ? ? ? 波士頓的小詹姆斯·奧蒂斯（1725-1783年）等幾位美洲知名人士提出了這一問(wèn)題， 他在 1764 年的小冊(cè)子中指出，未經(jīng)同意奪取財(cái)產(chǎn)的人就是在剝奪個(gè)人的自由：“如果可以違背我的意愿奪走我的一先令，為什么不能奪走二十先令呢？既然如此，為什么不能剝奪我的自由或生命呢？”(希夫，74）。奧蒂斯的門徒塞繆爾·亞當(dāng)斯（Samuel Adams，1722-1803年）也有同感，他問(wèn)道，如果議會(huì)開始對(duì)美洲貿(mào)易征稅，那么肯定很快就會(huì)開始對(duì)美洲土地征稅。1764年5月，亞當(dāng)斯問(wèn)道，如果殖民地在沒有代表權(quán)的情況下被征稅，那么殖民者豈不是從“自由臣民的身份淪落到朝貢奴隸的悲慘境地？”(Schiff, 73）。奧蒂斯和亞當(dāng)斯最初提出的這些觀點(diǎn)，如沒有代表權(quán)的征稅和被議會(huì)奴役的想法，將成為殖民地走向革命過(guò)程中反復(fù)出現(xiàn)的主題。 ??

For now, however, revolution and independence were the furthest thing from anyone's minds; in fact, in 1764, the ideas were unthinkable to even the most outraged colonial merchant. What was immediately important was the repealing of the Sugar Act, which several groups of colonial merchants petitioned Parliament to do. The Governor of Rhode Island, himself a merchant, drafted a remonstrance against the new molasses duties while merchants in New York City and Boston agreed to boycott luxury goods manufactured in Britain. By the winter of 1765, the legislatures of nine out of the thirteen colonies had sent official protests to Parliament; two colonies, New York and North Carolina, had gone so far as to forcefully deny the right of Parliament to impose a tax on the American colonies at all.

? ? ? ? ? 就目前而言，革命和獨(dú)立離任何人都很遙遠(yuǎn)；事實(shí)上，在 1764 年，即使是最憤怒的殖民地商人也沒有這些想法。當(dāng)務(wù)之急是廢除《1764年糖法》，幾個(gè)殖民地商人團(tuán)體向議會(huì)請(qǐng)?jiān)笍U除該法。羅德島總督本身就是一名商人，他起草了一份反對(duì)新糖蜜稅的諫書，而紐約市和波士頓的商人則同意抵制英國(guó)制造的奢侈品。到 1765 年冬天，13 個(gè)殖民地中有 9 個(gè)殖民地的立法機(jī)構(gòu)向議會(huì)提出了正式抗議；紐約和北卡羅來(lái)納這兩個(gè)殖民地甚至堅(jiān)決否認(rèn)議會(huì)有權(quán)向美洲殖民地征稅。

While the Sugar Act was vehemently protested by wealthier Americans, such as merchants and government officials, the level of overall protest generally remained low, and was mostly confined to New England and some of the Middle Colonies. Violence, as was previously noted, did occur but only on a sporadic basis. However, the passage of the Stamp Act in 1765 would lead to higher levels of protest across the thirteen colonies.

? ? ? ? ?雖然《1764年糖法》遭到了較富裕的美洲人（如商人和政府官員）的強(qiáng)烈抗議，但總體上抗議的程度仍然很低，而且主要局限于新英格蘭和一些中部殖民地。如前所述，暴力事件確實(shí)發(fā)生過(guò)，但只是個(gè)例。然而，1765 年《印花法令》的通過(guò)將導(dǎo)致 13 個(gè)殖民地的抗議活動(dòng)更加激烈。

結(jié)束語(yǔ)

Grenville's Sugar Act remained in force for two years until it was repealed and replaced by the Revenue Act of 1766. This reduced the tax on molasses even further, to only one penny per gallon for both British and foreign molasses, which effectively ended the issue of molasses smuggling, since it was now cheaper for colonial merchants to simply pay the tax. However, by this point, the genie was out of the bottle; the passage of the Stamp Act in 1765 had built upon the grievances the colonists had expressed over the Sugar Act. The call for 'no taxation without representation' became one of the building blocks of the American Revolution; the Sugar Act of 1764 was, therefore, one of the first direct sparks that would ultimately lead to the independence of the United States of America.

? ? ? ? ? 格倫維爾的《1764年糖法》一直持續(xù)了兩年，直到被廢除并被 1766年的新稅收法取代。這進(jìn)一步降低了糖蜜稅，英國(guó)和外國(guó)糖蜜的稅率都降到了每加侖一便士，這有效地終止了糖蜜走私問(wèn)題，因?yàn)楝F(xiàn)在殖民地商人只需支付稅款即可，成本更低。然而，潘多拉魔盒已經(jīng)開啟（the genie was out of the bottle，“有人把精靈從瓶子里放了出來(lái)”，意思是發(fā)生了一些事情，這使得一個(gè)偉大而永久的事情發(fā)生了）；1765 年《印花法令》的通過(guò)是基于殖民者對(duì)《1764年糖法》所表達(dá)的不滿之上。呼吁“無(wú)代表不納稅”成為美國(guó)革命的基石之一；因此，《1764年糖法》是最終導(dǎo)致美利堅(jiān)合眾國(guó)獨(dú)立的直接因素之一。

參考書目：

Anderson, Fred. Crucible of War. Vintage, 2001.

Brands, H. W. The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin. Anchor, 2002.

David McCullough. 1776. Simon & Schuster, 2006.

Middlekauff, Robert. The Glorious Cause. Oxford University Press, 2007.

Paxson, Frederic L. History of the American Frontier - 1763-1893. Independently published, 2022.

Schiff, Stacy. The Revolutionary: Samuel Adams. Little, Brown and Company, 2022.

Sugar Act, 1764, Summary, Significance, American RevolutionAccessed 20 Oct 2023.

What Was the Sugar Act? Definition and HistoryAccessed 20 Oct 2023.

原文作者：Harrison W. Mark

原文網(wǎng)址: https://www.worldhistory.org/Sugar_Act/

標(biāo)簽：