Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
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?
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)
