document_title: Stamp Act 1765

question_text: most vocal colonist against the stamp act of 1765

question_tokens: most vocal colonist against the stamp act of 1765

text: Stamp Act 1765

text: Background[edit]

text: The British victory in the Seven Years' War (1756–1763), known in America as the French and Indian War, had been won only at a great financial cost. During the war, the British national debt nearly doubled, rising from £72,289,673 in 1755 to almost £129,586,789 by 1764.[7] Post-war expenses were expected to remain high because the Bute ministry decided in early 1763 to keep ten thousand British regular soldiers in the American colonies, which would cost about £225,000 per year, equal to £30 million today.[8] The primary reason for retaining such a large force was that demobilizing the army would put 1,500 officers out of work, many of whom were well-connected in Parliament.[9] This made it politically prudent to retain a large peacetime establishment, but Britons were averse to maintaining a standing army at home so it was necessary to garrison most of the troops elsewhere.[10]

text: Stationing 10,000 troops to separate American Indians and frontiersmen was one role. The outbreak of Pontiac's Rebellion in May 1763 apparently reinforced the logic of this decision, as it was an American Indian uprising against the British expansion.[11] The main reason to send 10,000 troops deep into the wilderness was to provide billets for the officers who were part of the British patronage system.[12] John Adams said, "Revenue is still demanded from America, and appropriated to the maintenance of swarms of officers and pensioners in idleness and luxury."[13]

text: George Grenville became prime minister in April 1763 after the failure of the short-lived Bute Ministry, and he had to find a way to pay for this large peacetime army. Raising taxes in Britain was out of the question, since there had been virulent protests in England against the Bute ministry's 1763 cider tax, with Bute being hanged in effigy.[14] The Grenville ministry therefore decided that Parliament would raise this revenue by taxing the American colonists without their consent. This was something new; Parliament had previously passed measures to regulate trade in the colonies, but it had never before directly taxed the colonies to raise revenue.[15]

text: Politicians in London had always expected American colonists to contribute to the cost of their own defense. So long as a French threat existed, there was little trouble convincing colonial legislatures to provide assistance. Such help was normally provided through the raising of colonial militias, which were funded by taxes raised by colonial legislatures. Also, the legislatures were sometimes willing to help maintain regular British units defending the colonies. So long as this sort of help was forthcoming, there was little reason for the British Parliament to impose its own taxes on the colonists. But after the peace of 1763, colonial militias were quickly stood down. Militia officers were tired of the disdain shown to them by regular British officers, and were frustrated by the near-impossibility of obtaining regular British commissions; they were unwilling to remain in service once the war was over. In any case, they had no military role, as the Indian threat was minimal and there was no foreign threat. Colonial legislators saw no need for the British troops.

text: The Sugar Act of 1764 was the first tax in Grenville's program to raise a revenue in America, which was a modification of the Molasses Act of 1733. The Molasses Act had imposed a tax of 6 pence per gallon (equal to £3.81 today) on foreign molasses imported into British colonies. The purpose of the Molasses Act was not actually to raise revenue, but instead to make foreign molasses so expensive that it effectively gave a monopoly to molasses imported from the British West Indies.[16] It did not work; colonial merchants avoided the tax by smuggling or, more often, bribing customs officials.[17] The Sugar Act reduced the tax to 3 pence per gallon (equal to £1.63 today) in the hope that the lower rate would increase compliance and thus increase the amount of tax collected.[18] The Act also taxed additional imports and included measures to make the customs service more effective.[19]

text: American colonists initially objected to the Sugar Act for economic reasons, but before long they recognized that there were constitutional issues involved.[20] The British Constitution guaranteed that British subjects could not be taxed without their consent, which came in the form of representation in Parliament. The colonists elected no members of Parliament, and so it was seen as a violation of the British Constitution for Parliament to tax them. There was little time to raise this issue in response to the Sugar Act, but it came to be a major objection to the Stamp Act the following year.

text: British decision-making[edit]

text: Parliament announced in April 1764 when the Sugar Act was passed that they would also consider a stamp tax in the colonies.[21] Opposition from the colonies was soon forthcoming to this possible tax, but neither members of Parliament nor American agents in Great Britain (such as Benjamin Franklin) anticipated the intensity of the protest that the tax generated.[22]

text: Stamp acts had been a very successful method of taxation within Great Britain; they generated over £100,000 in tax revenue with very little in collection expenses. By requiring an official stamp on most legal documents, the system was almost self-regulating; a document would be null and void under British law without the required stamp. Imposition of such a tax on the colonies had been considered twice before the Seven Years' War and once again in 1761. Grenville had actually been presented with drafts of colonial stamp acts in September and October 1763, but the proposals lacked the specific knowledge of colonial affairs to adequately describe the documents subject to the stamp. At the time of the passage of the Sugar Act in April 1764, Grenville made it clear that the right to tax the colonies was not in question, and that additional taxes might follow, including a stamp tax.[23]

text: The Glorious Revolution had established the principle of parliamentary supremacy. Control of colonial trade and manufactures extended this principle across the ocean. This belief had never been tested on the issue of colonial taxation, but the British assumed that the interests of the thirteen colonies were so disparate that a joint colonial action was unlikely to occur against such a tax–an assumption that had its genesis in the failure of the Albany Conference in 1754. By the end of December 1764, the first warnings of serious colonial opposition were provided by pamphlets and petitions from the colonies protesting both the Sugar Act and the proposed stamp tax.[24]

text: For Grenville, the first issue was the amount of the tax. Soon after his announcement of the possibility of a tax, he had told American agents that he was not opposed to the Americans suggesting an alternative way of raising the money themselves. However, the only other alternative would be to requisition each colony and allow them to determine how to raise their share. This had never worked before, even during the French and Indian War, and there was no political mechanism in place that would have ensured the success of such cooperation. On February 2, 1765, Grenville met to discuss the tax with Benjamin Franklin, Jared Ingersoll from New Haven, Richard Jackson, agent for Connecticut, and Charles Garth, the agent for South Carolina (Jackson and Garth were also members of Parliament). These colonial representatives had no specific alternative to present; they simply suggested that the determination be left to the colonies. Grenville replied that he wanted to raise the money "by means the most easy and least objectionable to the Colonies". Thomas Whately had drafted the Stamp Act, and he said that the delay in implementation had been "out of Tenderness to the colonies", and that the tax was judged as "the easiest, the most equal and the most certain."[25]

text: The debate in Parliament began soon after this meeting. Petitions submitted by the colonies were officially ignored by Parliament. In the debate, Charles Townshend said, "and now will these Americans, children planted by our care, nourished up by our Indulgence until they are grown to a degree of strength and opulence, and protected by our arms, will they grudge to contribute their mite to relieve us from heavy weight of the burden which we lie under?"[26] This led to Colonel Isaac Barré’s response:

text: They planted by your care? No! Your oppression planted ‘em in America. They fled from your tyranny to a then uncultivated and unhospitable country where they exposed themselves to almost all the hardships to which human nature is liable, and among others to the cruelties of a savage foe, the most subtle, and I take upon me to say, the most formidable of any people upon the face of God’s earth. …

text: They nourished by your indulgence? They grew by your neglect of ‘em. As soon as you began to care about ‘em, that care was exercised in sending persons to rule over 'em, in one department and another, who were perhaps the deputies of deputies to some member of this house, sent to spy out their liberty, to misrepresent their actions and to prey upon 'em; men whose behaviour on many occasions has caused the blood of those sons of liberty to recoil within them … .

text: They protected by your arms? They have nobly taken up arms in your defence, have exerted a valour amidst their constant and laborious industry for the defence of a country whose frontier while drenched in blood, its interior parts have yielded all its little savings to your emolument … The people I believe are as truly loyal as any subjects the king has, but a people jealous of their liberties and who will vindicate them if ever they should be violated; but the subject is too delicate and I will say no more."[27]

text: Details of tax[edit]

text: The Stamp Act was passed by Parliament on March 22, 1765 with an effective date of November 1, 1765. It passed 205–49 in the House of Commons and unanimously in the House of Lords.[28] Historians Edmund and Helen Morgan describe the specifics of the tax:

text: The highest tax, £10, was placed … on attorney licenses. Other papers relating to court proceedings were taxed in amounts varying from 3d. to 10s. Land grants under a hundred acres were taxed 1s. 6d., between 100 and 200 acres 2s., and from 200 to 320 acres 2s. 6d., with an additional 2s 6d. for every additional 320 acres (1.3 km2). Cards were taxed a shilling a pack, dice ten shillings, and newspapers and pamphlets at the rate of a penny for a single sheet and a shilling for every sheet in pamphlets or papers totaling more than one sheet and fewer than six sheets in octavo, fewer than twelve in quarto, or fewer than twenty in folio (in other words, the tax on pamphlets grew in proportion to their size but ceased altogether if they became large enough to qualify as a book).[29]

text: The high taxes on lawyers and college students were designed to limit the growth of a professional class in the colonies.[30] The stamps had to be purchased with hard currency, which was scarce, rather than the more plentiful colonial paper currency. To avoid draining currency out of the colonies, the revenues were to be expended in America, especially for supplies and salaries of British Army units who were stationed there.[31]

text: Two features of the Stamp Act involving the courts attracted special attention. The tax on court documents specifically included courts "exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction." These type of courts did not currently exist in the colonies and no bishops were currently assigned to the colonies, who would preside over the courts. Many colonists or their ancestors had fled England specifically to escape the influence and power of such state-sanctioned religious institutions, and they feared that this was the first step to reinstating the old ways in the colonies. Some Anglicans in the northern colonies were already openly advocating the appointment of such bishops, but they were opposed by both southern Anglicans and the non-Anglicans who made up the majority in the northern colonies.[32]

text: The Stamp Act allowed admiralty courts to have jurisdiction for trying violators, following the example established by the Sugar Act. However, admiralty courts had traditionally been limited to cases involving the high seas. The Sugar Act seemed to fall within this precedent, but the Stamp Act did not, and the colonists saw this as a further attempt to replace their local courts with courts controlled by England.[33]

text: Colonial reaction[edit]

text: Political responses[edit]

text: Grenville started appointing Stamp Distributors almost immediately after the Act passed Parliament. Applicants were not hard to come by because of the anticipated income that the positions promised, and he appointed local colonists to the post. Benjamin Franklin even suggested the appointment of John Hughes as the agent for Pennsylvania, indicating that even Franklin was not aware of the turmoil and impact that the tax was going to generate on American-British relations or that these distributors would become the focus of colonial resistance.[34]

text: Debate in the colonies had actually begun in the spring of 1764 over the Stamp Act when Parliament passed a resolution that contained the assertion, "That, towards further defraying the said Expences, it may be proper to charge certain Stamp Duties in the said Colonies and Plantations." Both the Sugar Act and the proposed Stamp Act were designed principally to raise revenue from the colonists. The Sugar Act, to a large extent, was a continuation of past legislation related primarily to the regulation of trade (termed an external tax), but its stated purpose was entirely new: to collect revenue directly from the colonists for a specific purpose. The novelty of the Stamp Act was that it was the first internal tax (a tax based entirely on activities within the colonies) levied directly on the colonies by Parliament. It was judged by the colonists to be a more dangerous assault on their rights than the Sugar Act was, because of its potential wide application to the colonial economy.[35]

text: The theoretical issue that soon held center stage was the matter of taxation without representation. Benjamin Franklin had raised this as far back as 1754 at the Albany Congress when he wrote, "That it is suppos’d an undoubted Right of Englishmen not to be taxed but by their own Consent given thro’ their Representatives. That the Colonies have no Representatives in Parliament."[36] The counter to this argument was the theory of virtual representation. Thomas Whately enunciated this theory in a pamphlet that readily acknowledged that there could be no taxation without consent, but the facts were that at least 75% of British adult males were not represented in Parliament because of property qualifications or other factors. Members of Parliament were bound to represent the interests of all British citizens and subjects, so colonists were the recipients of virtual representation in Parliament, like those disenfranchised subjects in the British Isles.[37] This theory, however, ignored a crucial difference between the unrepresented in Britain and the colonists. The colonists enjoyed actual representation in their own legislative assemblies, and the issue was whether these legislatures, rather than Parliament, were in fact the sole recipients of the colonists' consent with regard to taxation.[38]

text: In May 1764, Samuel Adams of Boston drafted the following that stated the common American position:

text: For if our Trade may be taxed why not our Lands? Why not the Produce of our Lands & every thing we possess or make use of? This we apprehend annihilates our Charter Right to govern & tax ourselves – It strikes our British Privileges, which as we have never forfeited them, we hold in common with our Fellow Subjects who are Natives of Britain: If Taxes are laid upon us in any shape without our having a legal Representation where they are laid, are we not reduced from the Character of free Subjects to the miserable State of tributary Slaves.[39]

text: Massachusetts appointed a five-member Committee of Correspondence in June 1764 to coordinate action and exchange information regarding the Sugar Act, and Rhode Island formed a similar committee in October 1764. This attempt at unified action represented a significant step forward in colonial unity and cooperation. The Virginia House of Burgesses sent a protest of the taxes to London in December 1764, arguing that they did not have the specie required to pay the tax.[40] Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Connecticut also sent protest to England in 1764. The content of the messages varied, but they all emphasized that taxation of the colonies without colonial assent was a violation of their rights. By the end of 1765, all of the Thirteen Colonies except Georgia and North Carolina had sent some sort of protest passed by colonial legislative assemblies.[41]

text: The Virginia House of Burgesses reconvened in early May 1765 after news was received of the passage of the Act. By the end of May, it appeared that they would not consider the tax, and many legislators went home, including George Washington. Only 30 out of 116 Burgesses remained, but one of those remaining was Patrick Henry who was attending his first session. Henry led the opposition to the Stamp Act; he proposed his resolutions on May 30, 1765, and they were passed in the form of the Virginia Resolves.[42] The Resolves stated:

text: Resolved, That the first Adventurers and Settlers of this his majesty's colony and Dominion of Virginia brought with them, and transmitted to their Posterity, and all other his Majesty's subjects since inhabiting in this his Majesty's said Colony, all the Liberties, privileges, Franchises, and Immunities that have at any Time been held, enjoyed, and possessed, by the People of Great Britain.

text: Resolved, That by the two royal Charters, granted by King James the First, the Colonists aforesaid are declared entitled to all Liberties, Privileges, and Immunities of Denizens and natural Subjects, to all Intents and Purposes, as if they had been abiding and born within the Realm of England.

text: Resolved, That the Taxation of the People by themselves, or by Persons chosen by themselves to represent them, who could only know what Taxes the People are able to bear, or the easiest method of raising them, and must themselves be affected by every Tax laid on the People, is the only Security against a burdensome Taxation, and the distinguishing characteristick of British Freedom, without which the ancient Constitution cannot exist.

text: Resolved, That his majesty's liege people of this his most ancient and loyal Colony have without interruption enjoyed the inestimable Right of being governed by such Laws, respecting their internal Polity and Taxation, as are derived from their own Consent, with the Approbation of their Sovereign, or his Substitute; and that the same hath never been forfeited or yielded up, but hath been constantly recognized by the King and People of Great Britain.[43]

text: On June 6, 1765, the Massachusetts Lower House proposed a meeting for the 1st Tuesday of October in New York City:

text: That it is highly expedient there should be a Meeting as soon as may be, of Committees from the Houses of Representatives or Burgesses in the several Colonies on this Continent to consult together on the present Circumstances of the Colonies, and the difficulties to which they are and must be reduced by the operation of the late Acts of Parliament for levying Duties and Taxes on the Colonies, and to consider of a general and humble Address to his Majesty and the Parliament to implore Relief.[44]

text: There was no attempt to keep this meeting a secret; Massachusetts promptly notified Richard Jackson of the proposed meeting, their agent in England and a member of Parliament.[45]

text: Protests in the streets[edit]

text:
External video

 The Stamp Act: Troubling Their Neighbors, 58:01, Benjamin L. Carp, WGBH Forum[46]

 The Stamp Act: The Lowest Of The Mob, 49:35, Molly Fitzgerald Perry, WGBH Forum[47]

text: While the colonial legislatures were acting, the ordinary citizens of the colonies were also voicing their concerns outside of this formal political process. Historian Gary B. Nash wrote:

text: Whether stimulated externally or ignited internally, ferment during the years from 1761 to 1766 changed the dynamics of social and political relations in the colonies and set in motion currents of reformist sentiment with the force of a mountain wind. Critical to this half decade was the colonial response to England’s Stamp Act, more the reaction of common colonists than that of their presumed leaders.[48]

text: Both loyal supporters of English authority and well-established colonial protest leaders underestimated the self-activating capacity of ordinary colonists. By the end of 1765 … people in the streets had astounded, dismayed, and frightened their social superiors.[49]

text: Massachusetts[edit]

text: Early street protests were most notable in Boston. Andrew Oliver was a distributor of stamps for Massachusetts who was hanged in effigy on August 14, 1765 "from a giant elm tree at the crossing of Essex and Orange Streets in the city’s South End." Also hung was a Jack boot painted green on the bottom ("a Green-ville sole"), a pun on both Grenville and the Earl of Bute, the two people most blamed by the colonists. Lieutenant Governor Thomas Hutchinson ordered sheriff Stephen Greenleaf to take down the effigy, but he was opposed by a large crowd. All day the crowd detoured merchants on Orange Street to have their goods symbolically stamped under the elm tree, which later became known as the "Liberty Tree".

text: Ebenezer MacIntosh was a veteran of the Seven Years' War and a shoemaker. One night, he led a crowd which cut down the effigy of Andrew Oliver and took it in a funeral procession to the Town House where the legislature met. From there, they went to Oliver's office—which they tore down and symbolically stamped the timbers. Next, they took the effigy to Oliver’s home at the foot of Fort Hill, where they beheaded it and then burned it—along with Oliver’s stable house and coach and chaise. Greenleaf and Hutchinson were stoned when they tried to stop the mob, which then looted and destroyed the contents of Oliver's house. Oliver asked to be relieved of his duties the next day.[50] This resignation, however, was not enough. Oliver was ultimately forced by MacIntosh to be paraded through the streets and to publicly resign under the Liberty Tree.[51]

text: As news spread of the reasons for Andrew Oliver's resignation, violence and threats of aggressive acts increased throughout the colonies, as did organized groups of resistance. Throughout the colonies, members of the middle and upper classes of society formed the foundation for these groups of resistance and soon called themselves the Sons of Liberty. These colonial groups of resistance burned effigies of royal officials, forced Stamp Act collectors to resign, and were able to get businessmen and judges to go about without using the proper stamps demanded by Parliament.[52]

text: On August 16, a mob damaged the home and official papers of William Story, the deputy register of the Vice-Admiralty, who then moved to Marblehead, Massachusetts. Benjamin Hallowell, the comptroller of customs, suffered the almost total loss of his home.[53]

text: On August 26, MacIntosh led an attack on Hutchinson's mansion. The mob evicted the family, destroyed the furniture, tore down the interior walls, emptied the wine cellar, scattered Hutchinson's collection of Massachusetts historical papers, and pulled down the building's cupola. Hutchinson had been in public office for three decades; he estimated his loss at £2,218[54] (in today's money, at nearly $250,000). Nash concludes that this attack was more than just a reaction to the Stamp Act:

text: But it is clear that the crowd was giving vent to years of resentment at the accumulation of wealth and power by the haughty prerogative faction led by Hutchinson. Behind every swing of the ax and every hurled stone, behind every shattered crystal goblet and splintered mahogany chair, lay the fury of a plain Bostonian who had read or heard the repeated references to impoverished people as "rable" and to Boston’s popular caucus, led by Samuel Adams, as a "herd of fools, tools, and synchophants."[55]

text: Governor Francis Bernard offered a £300 reward for information on the leaders of the mob, but no information was forthcoming. MacIntosh and several others were arrested, but were either freed by pressure from the merchants or released by mob action.[56]

text: The street demonstrations originated from the efforts of respectable public leaders such as James Otis, who commanded the Boston Gazette, and Samuel Adams of the "Loyal Nine" of the Boston Caucus, an organization of Boston merchants. They made efforts to control the people below them on the economic and social scale, but they were often unsuccessful in maintaining a delicate balance between mass demonstrations and riots. These men needed the support of the working class, but also had to establish the legitimacy of their actions to have their protests to England taken seriously.[57] At the time of these protests, the Loyal Nine was more of a social club with political interests but, by December 1765, it began issuing statements as the Sons of Liberty.[58]

text: Rhode Island[edit]

text: Rhode Island also experienced street violence. A crowd built a gallows near the Town House in Newport on August 27, where they carried effigies of three officials appointed as stamp distributors: Augustus Johnson, Dr. Thomas Moffat, and lawyer Martin Howard. The crowd at first was led by merchants William Ellery, Samuel Vernon, and Robert Crook, but they soon lost control. That night, the crowd was led by a poor man named John Weber, and they attacked the houses of Moffat and Howard, where they destroyed walls, fences, art, furniture, and wine. The local Sons of Liberty were publicly opposed to violence, and they refused at first to support Weber when he was arrested. They were persuaded to come to his assistance, however, when retaliation was threatened against their own homes. Weber was released and faded into obscurity.[59]

text: Howard became the only prominent American to publicly support the Stamp Act in his pamphlet "A Colonist's Defence of Taxation" (1765). After the riots, Howard had to leave the colony, but he was rewarded by the Crown with an appointment as Chief Justice of North Carolina at a salary of ₤1,000.[60]

text: New York[edit]

text: In New York, James McEvers resigned his distributorship four days after the attack on Hutchinson's house. The stamps arrived in New York Harbor on October 24 for several of the northern colonies. Placards appeared throughout the city warning that "the first man that either distributes or makes use of stamped paper let him take care of his house, person, and effects." New York merchants met on October 31 and agreed not to sell any English goods until the Act was repealed. Crowds took to the streets for four days of demonstrations, uncontrolled by the local leaders, culminating in an attack by two thousand people on Governor Cadwallader Colden's home and the burning of two sleighs and a coach. Unrest in New York City continued through the end of the year, and the local Sons of Liberty had difficulty in controlling crowd actions.[61]

text: Other Colonies[edit]

text: In Frederick, Maryland, a court of 12 magistrates ruled the Stamp Act invalid on November 23, 1765, and directed that businesses and colonial officials proceed in all matters without use of the stamps. A week later, a crowd conducted a mock funeral procession for the act in the streets of Frederick. The magistrates have been dubbed the "12 Immortal Justices," and November 23 has been designated "Repudiation Day" by the Maryland state legislature. On October 1, 2015, Senator Cardin (D-MD) read into the Congressional Record a statement noting 2015 as the 250th anniversary of the event. Among the 12 magistrates was William Luckett, who later served as lieutenant colonel in the Maryland Militia at the battle of Germantown.

text: Other popular demonstrations occurred in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Annapolis, Maryland, Wilmington and New Bern, North Carolina, and Charleston, South Carolina. In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, demonstrations were subdued but even targeted Benjamin Franklin's home, although it was not vandalized.[62] By November 16, twelve of the stamp distributors had resigned. The Georgia distributor did not arrive in America until January 1766, but his first and only official action was to resign.[63]

text: The overall effect of these protests was to both anger and unite the American people like never before. Opposition to the Act inspired both political and constitutional forms of literature throughout the colonies, strengthened the colonial political perception and involvement, and created new forms of organized resistance. These organized groups quickly learned that they could force royal officials to resign by employing violent measures and threats.[64]

text: Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and the Caribbean[edit]

text: The main issue was constitutional rights of Englishmen, so the French in Quebec did not react. Some English-speaking merchants were opposed, but were in a fairly small minority. The Quebec Gazette ceased publication until the act was repealed, apparently over the unwillingness to use stamped paper.[65] In neighboring Nova Scotia a number of former New England residents objected, but recent British immigrants and London-oriented business interests based in Halifax, the provincial capital were more influential. The only major public protest was the hanging in effigy of the stamp distributor and Lord Bute. The act was implemented in both provinces, but Nova Scotia's stamp distributor resigned in January 1766, beset by ungrounded fears for his safety. Authorities there were ordered to allow ships bearing unstamped papers to enter its ports, and business continued unabated after the distributors ran out of stamps.[66] The Act occasioned some protests in Newfoundland, and the drafting of petitions opposing not only the Stamp Act, but the existence of the customhouse at St. John's, based on legislation dating back to the reign of Edward VI forbidding any sort of duties on the importation of goods related to its fisheries.[67]

text: Violent protests were few in the Caribbean colonies. Political opposition was expressed in a number of colonies, including Barbados and Antigua, and by absentee landowners living in Britain. The worst political violence took place on St. Kitts and Nevis. Riots took place on October 31, 1765, and again on November 5, targeting the homes and offices of stamp distributors; the number of participants suggests that the percentage of St. Kitts' white population involved matched that of Bostonian involvement in its riots. The delivery of stamps to St. Kitts was successfully blocked, and they were never used there. Montserrat and Antigua also succeeded in avoiding the use of stamps; some correspondents thought that rioting was prevented in Antigua only by the large troop presence. Despite vocal political opposition, Barbados used the stamps, to the pleasure of King George. In Jamaica there was also vocal opposition, which included threats of violence. There was much evasion of the stamps, and ships arriving without stamped papers were allowed to enter port. Despite this, Jamaica produced more stamp revenue (£2,000) than any other colony.[68]

text: Sons of Liberty[edit]

text: It was during this time of street demonstrations that locally organized groups started to merge into an inter-colonial organization of a type not previously seen in the colonies. The term "sons of liberty" had been used in a generic fashion well before 1765, but it was only around February 1766 that its influence extended throughout the colonies as an organized group using the formal name "Sons of Liberty", leading to a pattern for future resistance to the British that carried the colonies towards 1776.[69] Historian John C. Miller noted that the name was adopted as a result of Barre's use of the term in his February 1765 speech.[70]

text: The organization spread month by month after independent starts in several different colonies. By November 6, a committee was set up in New York to correspond with other colonies, and in December an alliance was formed between groups in New York and Connecticut. In January, a correspondence link was established between Boston and Manhattan, and by March, Providence had initiated connections with New York, New Hampshire, and Newport. By March, Sons of Liberty organizations had been established in New Jersey, Maryland, and Norfolk, Virginia, and a local group established in North Carolina was attracting interest in South Carolina and Georgia.[71]

text: The officers and leaders of the Sons of Liberty "were drawn almost entirely from the middle and upper ranks of colonial society," but they recognized the need to expand their power base to include "the whole of political society, involving all of its social or economic subdivisions." To do this, the Sons of Liberty relied on large public demonstrations to expand their base.[72] They learned early on that controlling such crowds was problematical, although they strived to control "the possible violence of extra-legal gatherings." The organization professed its loyalty to both local and British established government, but possible military action as a defensive measure was always part of their considerations. Throughout the Stamp Act Crisis, the Sons of Liberty professed continued loyalty to the King because they maintained a "fundamental confidence" that Parliament would do the right thing and repeal the tax.[73]

text: Colonial newspapers[edit]

text: Colonial newspapers were a major source of public unrest after the passage of the Stamp Act. Some of the earliest forms of American propaganda appeared in these printings in response to the law. The articles written in colonial newspapers were particularly critical of the act because of the Stamp Act's disproportionate effect on printers. David Ramsay, a patriot and historian from South Carolina, wrote of this phenomenon shortly after the American Revolution:

text: It was fortunate for the liberties of America, that newspapers were the subject of a heavy stamp duty. Printers, when influenced by government, have genereally arranged themselves on the side of liberty, nor are they less remarkable for attention to the profits of their profession. A stamp duty, which openly invaded the first, and threatened a great diminution of the last, provoked their united zealous opposition.[74]

text: Most printers were critical of the Stamp Act, although a few Loyalist voices did exist. Some of the more subtle Loyalist sentiments can be seen in publications such as The Boston Evening Post, which was run by British sympathizers John and Thomas Fleet. The article detailed a violent protest that occurred in New York in December, 1765, then described the riot's participants as "imperfect" and labeled the group's ideas as "contrary to the general sense of the people."[75] These Loyalists beliefs can be seen in some of the early newspaper articles about the Stamp Act, but the anti-British writings were more prevalent and seem to have had a more powerful effect.[76]

text: Many papers assumed a relatively conservative tone before the act went into effect, implying that they might close if it wasn't repealed. However, as time passed and violent demonstrations ensued, the authors became more vitriolic. Several newspaper editors were involved with the Sons of Liberty, such as William Bradford of The Pennsylvania Journal and Benjamin Edes of The Boston Gazette, and they echoed the group's sentiments in their publications.[77] The Stamp Act went into effect that November, and many newspapers ran editions with imagery of tombstones and skeletons, emphasizing that their papers were "dead" and would no longer be able to print because of the Stamp Act.[78] However, most of them returned in the upcoming months, defiantly appearing without the stamp of approval that was deemed necessary by the Stamp Act. Printers were greatly relieved when the law was nullified in the following spring, and the repeal asserted their positions as a powerful voice (and compass) for public opinion.[79]

text: Stamp Act Congress[edit]

text: The Stamp Act Congress was held in New York in October 1765. Twenty-seven delegates from nine colonies were the members of the Congress, and their responsibility was to draft a set of formal petitions stating why Parliament had no right to tax them.[80] Among the delegates were many important men in the colonies. Historian John Miller observes, "The composition of this Stamp Act Congress ought to have been convincing proof to the British government that resistance to parliamentary taxation was by no means confined to the riffraff of colonial seaports."[81]

text: The youngest delegate was 26-year-old John Rutledge of South Carolina, and the oldest was 65-year-old Hendrick Fisher of New Jersey. Ten of the delegates were lawyers, ten were merchants, and seven were planters or land-owning farmers; all had served in some type of elective office, and all but three were born in the colonies. Four died before the colonies declared independence, and four signed the Declaration of Independence; nine attended the first and second Continental Congresses, and three were Loyalists during the Revolution.[82]

text: New Hampshire declined to send delegates, and North Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia were not represented because their governors did not call their legislatures into session, thus preventing the selection of delegates. Despite the composition of the congress, each of the Thirteen Colonies eventually affirmed its decisions.[83] Six of the nine colonies represented at the Congress agreed to sign the petitions to the King and Parliament produced by the Congress. The delegations from New York, Connecticut, and South Carolina were prohibited from signing any documents without first receiving approval from the colonial assemblies that had appointed them.[84]

text: Massachusetts governor Francis Bernard believed that his colony’s delegates to the Congress would be supportive of Parliament. Timothy Ruggles in particular was Bernard's man, and was elected chairman of the Congress. Ruggles' instructions from Bernard were to "recommend submission to the Stamp Act until Parliament could be persuaded to repeal it."[85] Many delegates felt that a final resolution of the Stamp Act would actually bring Britain and the colonies closer together. Robert Livingston of New York stressed the importance of removing the Stamp Act from the public debate, writing to his colony's agent in England, "If I really wished to see America in a state of independence I should desire as one of the most effectual means to that end that the stamp act should be enforced."[86]

text:
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Declaration of Rights and Grievances

text: The Congress met for 12 consecutive days, including Sundays. There was no audience at the meetings, and no information was released about the deliberations.[87] The meeting's final product was called "The Declaration of Rights and Grievances", and was drawn up by delegate John Dickinson of Pennsylvania. This Declaration raised fourteen points of colonial protest. It asserted that colonists possessed all the rights of Englishmen in addition to protesting the Stamp Act issue, and that Parliament could not represent the colonists since they had no voting rights over Parliament. Only the colonial assemblies had a right to tax the colonies. They also asserted that the extension of authority of the admiralty courts to non-naval matters represented an abuse of power.[88]

text: In addition to simply arguing for their rights as Englishmen, the congress also asserted that they had certain natural rights solely because they were human beings. Resolution 3 stated, "That it is inseparably essential to the freedom of a people, and the undoubted right of Englishmen, that no taxes be imposed on them, but with their own consent, given personally, or by their representatives." Both Massachusetts and Pennsylvania brought forth the issue in separate resolutions even more directly when they respectively referred to "the Natural rights of Mankind" and "the common rights of mankind".[89]

text: Christopher Gadsden of South Carolina had proposed that the Congress' petition should go only to the king, since the rights of the colonies did not originate with Parliament. This radical proposal went too far for most delegates and was rejected. The "Declaration of Rights and Grievances" was duly sent to the king, and petitions were also sent to both Houses of Parliament.[90]

text: Repeal[edit]

text: Grenville was replaced by Lord Rockingham as Prime Minister on July 10, 1765. News of the mob violence began to reach England in October. Conflicting sentiments were taking hold in Britain at the same time that resistance was building and accelerating in America. Some wanted to strictly enforce the Stamp Act over colonial resistance, wary of the precedent that would be set by backing down.[91] Others felt the economic effects of reduced trade with America after the Sugar Act and an inability to collect debts while the colonial economy suffered, and they began to lobby for a repeal of the Stamp Act.[92] A significant part of colonial protest had included various non-importation agreements among merchants who recognized that a significant portion of British industry and commerce was dependent on the colonial market. This movement had spread through the colonies with a significant base coming from New York City, where 200 merchants had met and agreed to import nothing from England until the Stamp Act was repealed.[93]

text: When Parliament met in December 1765, it rejected a resolution offered by Grenville, who remained in Parliament, that would have condemned colonial resistance to the enforcement of the Act. Outside of Parliament, Rockingham and his secretary Edmund Burke, a member of Parliament himself, organized London merchants who started a committee of correspondence itself to support repeal of the Stamp Act by urging merchants throughout the country to contact their local representatives in Parliament concerning repeal. When Parliament reconvened on January 14, 1766, the Rockingham ministry formally proposed repeal. Amendments that would have lessened the financial impact on the colonies by allowing colonists to pay the tax in their own scrip were considered to be too little and too late.[94]

text: William Pitt stated in the Parliamentary debate that everything done by the Grenville ministry with respect to the colonies "has been entirely wrong." He further stated, "It is my opinion that this Kingdom has no right to lay a tax upon the colonies." Pitt still maintained "the authority of this kingdom over the colonies, to be sovereign and supreme, in every circumstance of government and legislature whatsoever," but he made the distinction that taxes were not part of governing, but were "a voluntary gift and grant of the Commons alone." He rejected the notion of virtual representation, as "the most contemptible idea that ever entered into the head of man."[95]

text: Grenville responded to Pitt:

text: Protection and obedience are reciprocal. Great Britain protects America; America is bound to yield obedience. If, not, tell me when the Americans were emancipated? When they want the protection of this kingdom, they are always ready to ask for it. That protection has always been afforded them in the most full and ample manner. The nation has run itself into an immense debt to give them their protection; and now they are called upon to contribute a small share towards the public expence, and expence arising from themselves, they renounce your authority, insult your officers, and break out, I might also say, into open rebellion.[96]

text: Pitt’s response to Grenville included, "I rejoice that America has resisted. Three millions of people, so dead to all the feelings of liberty as voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would have been fit instruments to make slaves of the rest."[97]

text: Between January 17 and 27, Rockingham shifted the attention from constitutional arguments to economic by presenting petitions from all over the country complaining of the economic repercussions felt throughout the country. On February 7, the House of Commons rejected a resolution, saying that it would back the King in enforcing the Act by 274–134. Henry Seymour Conway, the government's leader in the House of Commons, introduced the Declaratory Act in an attempt to address both the constitutional and the economic issues, which affirmed the right of Parliament to legislate for the colonies "in all cases whatsoever", while admitting the inexpediency of attempting to enforce the Stamp Act. Only Pitt and three or four others voted against it. Other resolutions did pass which condemned the riots and demanded compensation from the colonies for those who suffered losses because of the actions of the mobs.[98]

text: The House of Commons heard testimony between February 11-13, the most important witness being Benjamin Franklin on the last day of the hearings. To the question about how the colonists would react if the Act was not repealed, Franklin responded that there would be "A total loss of the respect and affection the people of America bear to this country, and of all the commerce that depends on that respect and affection." A Scottish journalist who observed Franklin's answers to Parliament and his impactful affect on the repeal later wrote to Franklin, "To this very Examination, more than to any thing else, you are indebted to the speedy and total Repeal of this odious Law."[99]

text: On February 21, a resolution to repeal the Stamp Act was introduced and passed by a vote of 276–168. The King gave royal assent on March 18, 1766.[100][101]

text: Consequences[edit]

text: Some aspects of the resistance to the act provided a sort of rehearsal for similar acts of resistance to the 1767 Townshend Acts, particularly the activities of the Sons of Liberty and merchants in organizing opposition. The Stamp Act Congress was a predecessor to the later Continental Congresses, notably the Second Continental Congress which oversaw the establishment of American independence. The Committees of Correspondence used to coordinate activities were revived between 1772 and 1774 in response to a variety of controversial and unpopular affairs, and the colonies that met at the 1774 First Continental Congress established a non-importation agreement known as the Continental Association in response to Parliamentary passage of the Intolerable Acts.[citation needed]


document_title: Lift Every Voice and Sing

question_text: where was lift every voice and sing written

root

text: Lift Every Voice and Sing

text: "Lift Every Voice and Sing" – often referred to as the "Black/African-American National Anthem" – is a song written as a poem by James Weldon Johnson (1871–1938) in 1900 and set to music by his brother John Rosamond Johnson (1873–1954) in 1905.[1]

tag: p

text: History[edit]

text: "Lift Every Voice and Sing" was publicly performed first as a poem as part of a celebration of Abraham Lincoln's birthday on February 12, 1900, by 500 school children at the segregated Stanton School in Jacksonville, Florida. Its principal, James Weldon Johnson, wrote the words to introduce its honored guest Booker T. Washington. The poem was set to music in 1905 by Johnson's brother John. In 1919, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) dubbed it "The Negro National Anthem"[2] for its power in voicing the cry for liberation and affirmation for African-American people.[1]

text: In 1939, Augusta Savage received a commission from the New York World's Fair and created a 16-foot (5 m) plaster sculpture called Lift Every Voice and Sing which was destroyed by bulldozers at the close of the fair.[3]

text: In Maya Angelou's 1969 autobiography, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, the song is sung by the audience and students at Maya's eighth grade graduation, after a white school official dashes the educational aspirations of her class.[4]

text: In 1990, singer Melba Moore released a modern rendition of the song, which she recorded along with others including R&B artists Stephanie Mills, Freddie Jackson, Anita Baker, Dionne Warwick, Bobby Brown, Stevie Wonder, Jeffrey Osborne, and Howard Hewett; and gospel artists BeBe & CeCe Winans, Take 6, and The Clark Sisters, after which, "Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing" was entered into the Congressional Record by Del. Walter Fauntroy (D-DC).[5]

text: In 2008, jazz singer Rene Marie was asked to perform the national anthem at a civic event in Denver, Colorado, where she caused a controversy by substituting the words of "Lift Every Voice and Sing" into the song. This arrangement of the words of "Lift Every Voice and Sing" with the melody of "The Star Spangled Banner" became part of the titular suite on her 2011 CD release, The Voice of My Beautiful Country.[6]

text: On January 20, 2009, the Rev. Joseph Lowery, who was formerly president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, used a near-verbatim recitation of the song's third stanza to begin his benediction at the inauguration ceremony for President Barack Obama.

text: On September 24, 2016, this song was sung by mezzo-soprano Denyce Graves and chorus at the conclusion of the opening ceremonies of the National Museum of African American History and Culture, at which Obama delivered the keynote address.

text: On October 19, 2017, when white nationalist leader Richard Spencer spoke at the University of Florida, the university's carillon played "Lift Every Voice and Sing" to convey a message of unity.[7]

text: On April 14, 2018, Beyoncé included the song in the set list of her concert at the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival.


document_title: Rip Van Winkle

question_text: what is the setting of rip van winkle by washington irving

text: Rip Van Winkle

text: Summary[edit]

text: "Rip Van Winkle" is set in the years before and after the American Revolutionary War. In a pleasant village, at the foot of New York's Catskill Mountains, lives kindly Rip Van Winkle, a Dutch villager. Van Winkle enjoys solitary activities in the wilderness or hanging out at the inn with his friends. He is loved by all in the town, especially the children to whom he tells stories or for whom he repairs toys. However, he tends to shirk hard work, to his nagging wife's dismay, which has caused his home and farm to fall into disarray.

text: One autumn day, to escape his wife's nagging, Van Winkle wanders into the mountains with his dog, Wolf. Hearing his name called out, Van Winkle sees a man wearing antiquated Dutch clothing; he is carrying a keg up the mountain and requires help. Together, the men and Wolf proceed to a hollow in which Rip discovers the source of thunderous noises: a group of ornately dressed, silent, bearded men who are playing nine-pins.

text: Van Winkle does not ask who they are or how they know his name. Instead, he begins to drink some of their Jenever and soon falls asleep.

text: When he awakens on the mountain, Van Winkle discovers shocking changes: his musket is rotting and rusty, his beard is a foot long, and his dog is nowhere to be found. He returns to his village, where he recognizes no one.

text: Van Winkle returns just after an election, and people are asking how he voted. Never having cast a ballot in his life, Van Winkle proclaims himself a faithful subject of King George III, unaware that the American Revolution has taken place, and nearly gets himself into trouble with the townspeople until one elderly woman recognizes him as the long-lost Rip Van Winkle.

text: King George's portrait on the inn's sign has been replaced with one of George Washington. Van Winkle learns that most of his friends were killed fighting in the American Revolution. He is also disturbed to find another man called Rip Van Winkle; it is his son, now grown up. Van Winkle also discovers that his wife died some time ago but is not saddened by the news.

text: Van Winkle learns that the men he met in the mountains are rumored to be the ghosts of Hendrick (Henry) Hudson's crew, which had vanished long ago, and that he has been away from the village for at least 20 years. His grown daughter takes him in. He resumes his usual idleness, and his strange tale is solemnly taken to heart by the Dutch settlers, particularly by the children who say that whenever thunder is heard, the men in the mountains must be playing nine-pins. The henpecked husbands in the area often wish they could have a sip of Van Winkle's elixir to sleep through their own wives' nagging.

text: Characters[edit]

text:
Name
Description

Rip Van Winkle
A henpecked husband who loathes "profitable labor"; and a meek, easygoing, ne'er-do-well resident of the village who wanders off to the mountains and meets strange men playing nine-pins.

Dame Van Winkle
Rip Van Winkle's cantankerous and nagging wife.

Rip Van Winkle, Jr.
Rip Van Winkle's ne'er-do-well son.

Judith Gardenier
Rip Van Winkle's married daughter; she takes her father in after he returns from his sleep.

Derrick Van Bummel
The local schoolmaster who went on to serve in American Revolution as a flag officer and later a member of Congress.

Nicholas Vedder
Landlord of the local inn where menfolk congregate.

Van Schaick
The local parson.

Jonathan Doolittle
Owner of the Union Hotel, the establishment that replaced the village inn.

Wolf
Van Winkle's faithful dog, who does not recognize him when he wakes up.

Man carrying keg up the mountain
The ghost of one of Henry Hudson's crew members.

Ninepin bowlers
The ghosts of Henry Hudson's crewmen from his ship, the Half-Moon; they share purple magic liquor with Rip Van Winkle and play a game of nine-pins.

Brom Dutcher
Van Winkle's neighbor who went off to war while Van Winkle was sleeping.

Old woman
Woman who identifies Van Winkle when he returns to the village after his sleep.

Peter Vanderdonk
The oldest resident of the village, who confirms Van Winkle's identity and cites evidence indicating Van Winkle's strange tale is true.

Mr. Gardenier
Judith Gardenier's husband, a farmer and crabby villager.

Rip Van Winkle III
Rip Van Winkle's infant grandchild; his mother is Judith Gardenier.

tag: table

text: Composition and publication history[edit]

text: After a failed business venture with his brothers, Irving filed for bankruptcy in 1818.[2] Despondent, he turned to writing for possible financial support, although he had difficulty thinking of stories to write. He stayed in Birmingham, England with his brother-in-law Henry Van Wart.[3] The two were reminiscing in June 1818 when Irving was suddenly inspired by their nostalgic conversation.[4] Irving locked himself in his room and wrote non-stop all night. As he said, he felt like a man waking from a long sleep. He presented the first draft of "Rip Van Winkle" to the Van Wart family over breakfast.[5]

text: "Rip Van Winkle" was one of the first stories Irving proposed for his new book, The Sketch Book of Geoffrey Crayon, Gent. Irving asked his brother Ebeneezer to assist with publication in the United States. As Irving wrote, "I shall feel very anxious to hear of the success of this first re-appearance on the literary stage – Should it be successful, I trust I shall be able henceforth to keep up an occasional fire."[6] 2,000 copies of the first octavo-sized installment, which included "Rip Van Winkle", were released on June 23, 1819, in Baltimore, Boston, New York, and Philadelphia, published by Cornelius S. Van Winkle, and sold at a somewhat expensive 75 cents.[7] A British edition was published shortly afterward, by John Miller, who went out of business immediately thereafter. With help from his friend Walter Scott, Irving was able to convince John Murray to take over British publication of the Sketch Book.[8]

text: Themes and literary forerunners[edit]

text: This section relies too much on references to primary sources. Please improve this section by adding secondary or tertiary sources. (April 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: This section gives self-sourcing examples without describing their significance in the context of the article. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources that describe the examples' significance, and by removing less pertinent examples. Unsourced or poorly sourced material may be challenged or removed. (April 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: In the tenth chapter of his book Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, the third century AD Greek historian Diogenes Laertius relates the story of the legendary sage Epimenides of Knossos, who was said to have been a shepherd on the island of Krete. One day, Epimenides followed after a sheep that had wandered off and, after becoming tired, went into a cave under Mount Ida and fell asleep. When he woke back up, he continued searching for the sheep, but could not find it, so he returned to his father's farm, only to discover that it was under new ownership. He went home, only to discover that the people there did not know him. Finally, he encountered his younger brother, who had become an old man, and learned that he had been asleep in the cave for fifty-seven years. According to the different sources that Diogenes relates, Epimenides lived to be 154, 157, or 299 years old.[9] Multiple sources have identified the story of Epimenides as the earliest known variant of the "Rip Van Winkle" fairy tale.[10][11][12]

text: In Christian tradition, there is a similar, well-known story of "The Seven Sleepers of Ephesus", which recounts a group of early Christians who hid in a cave circa 250 AD, to escape the persecution of Christians during the reign of the Roman emperor Decius. They fell into a miraculous sleep and woke some 200 years later during the reign of Theodosius II, to discover that the city and the whole Empire had become Christian.[11] This Christian story is recounted by Islam and appears in a famous Sura of the Koran, Sura Al-Kahf. The version recalls a group of young monotheists escaping from persecution within a cave and emerging hundreds of years later.[13] Irving, who wrote a biography of Muhammad,[citation needed] may have been familiar with the story.

text: The story of "Rip Van Winkle" itself is widely thought to have been based off Johann Karl Christoph Nachtigal's German folktale "Peter Klaus",[11][4] which is a shorter story set in a German village. It tells of a goatherd named Peter Klaus who goes looking for a lost goat. He finds some men drinking in the woods and, after drinking some of their wine, he falls asleep. When he wakes back up, twenty years have passed.[4][14]

text: In many ways, the story is a classic European faerie tale of a man who is actually rewarded for helping the faeries move their barrel. They advance him to a time in life where he is free of his nagging wife and is now old enough for it be respectable for him to take it easy and play with children, working when he wants to instead of when he has to, supported by his loving, grown children.[citation needed] The theme of independence is also explored; the young Van Winkle lives in British America and is a subject of the King; the old Van Winkle awakes in a country independent of the Crown. On a personal level, the awakened Van Winkle has gained another form of "independence": being widowered from his shrewish wife.[citation needed]

text: In Orkney, there is a similar folktale linked to the burial mound of Salt Knowe, adjacent to the Ring of Brodgar. A drunken fiddler on his way home hears music from the mound. He finds a way in and finds the trowes (trolls) having a party. He stays and plays for two hours, then makes his way home to Stenness, where he discovers 50 years have passed. The Orkney Rangers believe this may be one source for Washington Irving's tale because his father was an Orcadian from the island of Shapinsay and would almost certainly have known the story.[citation needed]

text: In Ireland, the story of Niamh and Oisin has a similar theme. Oisin falls in love with the beautiful Niamh and leaves with her on her snow white horse, bound for Tir Na nOg – the land of the ever-young. Missing his family and friends, he asks to pay them a visit. Niamh lends him her horse, warning him never to dismount, and he travels back to Ireland. But 300 years have passed; his family and fellow warriors are all dead. When Oisin encounters some men trying to move a boulder, he reaches down to help them, the girth of the horse's saddle snaps, and he falls to the ground. Before the watching eyes of the men, he becomes a very, very old man.

text: Author Joe Gioia suggests the basic plot strongly resembles, and may have originated with, an upstate New York Seneca legend of a young squirrel hunter who encounters the mystic "Little People", and after a night with them returns to his village to find it overgrown by forest and everyone gone: that single night had lasted a year.[15]

text: The story is also similar to the ancient Jewish Talmudic[16] story about Honi the Circle-Maker (Honi M'agel), who falls asleep after asking a man why he is planting a carob tree which traditionally takes 70 years to mature, making it virtually impossible to ever benefit from the tree's fruit. After this exchange, Honi falls asleep on the ground, is miraculously covered by a rock, and remains out of sight for 70 years. When he awakens, he finds a fully mature tree and learns he has a grandson. When nobody believes that he is Honi, he prays to God, and God takes him from this world.

text: The story also bears some similarities to stories from east Asia, including the third century AD Chinese tale of "Ranka", as retold by Lionel Giles in A Gallery of Chinese Immortals, and the eighth-century Japanese tale "Urashima Tarō".[11] The Hindu story of Muchukunda from the Bhagavatam also displays many similarities to the story of "Rip Van Winkle".[17][18]

text: Adaptations[edit]

text: The story has been adapted for other media for the last two centuries, in cartoons, films, stage plays, music, and other media.

text: Theater[edit]

text: Actor Joseph Jefferson performed various dramatizations of the character on the 19th-century stage.[19] He and Dion Boucicault wrote an adaptation[20] which opened in London in 1865[19] and on Broadway in 1866.[19][20]

tag: ul

text: Film[edit]

text:
In 1896 Joseph Jefferson filmed a series of short films recreating scenes from his stage adaptations,[20] which are collectively in the U.S. National Film Registry.
Several other film adaptations have been produced.[20]

text: Music[edit]

text:
In 1882 Robert Planquette and H.B. Farnie premiered a romantic opera adaptation.[20]
The 1960s Tale Spinners For Children record series included a dramatization of the "Rip Van Winkle" story.[citation needed]
Numerous modern songs have been written whose lyrics retell the story, including the 1961 song "Rip Van Winkle" by The Devotions, the 2006 song "Rip Van Winkle" by Witch, and "Kaatskill Serenade" by David Bromberg. In the Belle and Sebastian song "I Could Be Dreaming" an extract from "Rip Van Winkle" is read.

text: Cartoons and animated films[edit]

text:
The cartoon, Have You Got Any Castles? (1938), depicts Rip Van Winkle trying to fall asleep in a cuckoo clock.
The animated short Popeye Meets Rip Van Winkle (1941) features a caricature of Harpo Marx playing the harp.[citation needed]
The story inspired an episode of The Flintstones entitled "Rip Van Flintstone", which originally aired on November 5, 1965.[21] In it, Fred falls asleep at the Slate Company picnic and dreams he has awakened 20 years in the future as an old man. He notices various changes to his town of Bedrock and to his friends. Fred remarks that, "Maybe I have fallen asleep for 20 years like in that Rip Van Winklestone story."
The story was parodied in an episode of the Laurel and Hardy cartoon series entitled "Flipped Van Winkles".
Rip Van Winkle (1978), a claymation version of the story produced and directed by Will Vinton, was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Animated Short Film.[22]
An episode of the HBO show Happily Ever After: Fairy Tales for Every Child gives a feminist retelling of the story as told from the point of view of Rip's wife Vanna. The adaptation, starring Tom Arnold and Calista Flockhart and co-narrated by Gloria Steinem, is set in the 1960s, where Rip is a heavy metal rocker who often neglects his wife and child.[20]

text: Comics[edit]

text:
Issue 12 of Classics Illustrated retold the "Rip Van Winkle" story with various twists.
In the Carl Barks comic Rip Van Donald (1950), Donald Duck's nephews trick him into believing that he has been sleeping for 40 years, and has supposedly awakened in the then-future year of 1990. Donald expects to see a fabulous "futuristic" world, and the nephews must use various tricks to keep their prank going. Eventually Donald falls asleep and "returns" to 1950.
Disney's "Rip van Goofy" (February 1, 1966)[23] is a parody of "Rip Van Winkle", with Goofy portraying the character who sleeps for 20 years. When he awakens, no one remembers him except Mickey Mouse, once a child to whom Rip van Goofy told fantasy stories.
In a 1988 issue of Boys' Life, the Dink & Duff comic strip has the African-American Cub Scout Dink pondering the meaning of Americanism, only to lapse into a coma and awaken in 2068. A boy who addresses him as "Rip van Dinkle" explains that during the past 80 years the United States has been replaced by an authoritarian monarchy. Dink eventually awakens back in 1988.

text: Television[edit]

text:
In the 16th episode of The Famous Adventures of Mr. Magoo (original airdate January 16, 1965), Mr. Magoo (voiced by Jim Backus) plays Rip Van Winkle.[20]
In the Faerie Tale Theatre children's television series, Francis Ford Coppola directed the 1987 episode "Rip Van Winkle" in which actor Harry Dean Stanton played the title role.[20]
Tales of Washington Irving, a one-hour animated television special from 1970, presented adaptations of "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" and "Rip Van Winkle".[20]
The TV show Wishbone showed the dog imagining himself as the title character, complete with the men playing nine-pins and his mistaking the George Washington Inn for his old hangout, the King George Inn.[24][25]

text: In popular culture[edit]

text: Architecture[edit]

text: The Rip Van Winkle Bridge spans the Hudson River near Catskill, New York.

text: Beverages[edit]

text:
Old Rip Van Winkle is a brand of Kentucky Straight Bourbon whiskey produced by the Sazerac Company.
Pappy Van Winkle's Family Reserve is the flagship brand of Bourbon whiskey owned by the "Old Rip Van Winkle Distillery" company, actually distilled and bottled by the Sazerac Company.

text: Literature[edit]

text: A character in the novel Darkness at Noon (1940) is nicknamed Rip Van Winkle because he spent 20 years imprisoned in solitary confinement.

text: Music[edit]

text:
The American composer George Whitefield Chadwick wrote a concert overture entitled Rip Van Winkle in 1879, when he was a student in Leipzig.
Composer Ferde Grofe spent 20 years working on a symphonic tone poem based on "Rip Van Winkle", eventually reworking the material into his Hudson River Suite. One of the movements is entitled "Rip Van Winkle".


document_title: Rodney King

question_text: who said cant we all just get along

question_tokens: who said cant we all just get along

text: Rodney King

text: Early life[edit]

text: King was born in Sacramento, California in 1965, the son of Ronald and Odessa King. He and his four siblings grew up in Altadena, California.[2][3] King attended John Muir High School and often talked about being inspired by his Social Science teacher Robert E. Jones,[4]. King's father died in 1984[5] at the age of 42.[3]

text: On November 3, 1989, King robbed a store in Monterey Park, California. He threatened to hit the Korean store owner with an iron bar, and hit him with a wooden pole. King stole two hundred dollars in cash during the robbery. He was caught, convicted, and sentenced to two years imprisonment. He was released on December 27, 1990, after serving one year in prison.[3]

text: While still a teenager, King fathered a daughter with his girlfriend Carmen Simpson. He later married Danetta Lyles (cousin to rapper Mack 10) and fathered a daughter. King and Lyles were eventually divorced. He later married and fathered a daughter with a woman named Crystal Waters. This marriage also ended in divorce.[5][6]

text: Incident in Los Angeles[edit]

text: High-speed chase[edit]

text: Early on the morning of March 3, 1991, King, with his friends Bryant Allen and Freddie Helms, was driving a 1987 Hyundai Excel/Mitsubishi Precis west on the Foothill Freeway (Interstate 210) in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles. Prior to driving onto the freeway, the three men had spent the night watching a basketball game and drinking at a friend's house in Los Angeles.[7] At 12:30 a.m., officers Tim and Melanie Singer, husband-and-wife members of the California Highway Patrol, noticed King's car speeding on the freeway. The officers pursued King, and the pursuit reached high speeds, while King refused to pull over.[8][9] King would later admit he attempted to outrun the police at dangerously high speeds because a charge of driving under the influence would violate his parole for his previous robbery conviction.[10]

text: King exited the freeway near the Hansen Dam Recreation Center and the pursuit continued through residential surface streets, at speeds ranging from 55 to 80 miles per hour (89 to 129 km/h).[11][12] By this point, several police cars and a police helicopter had joined in the pursuit. After approximately 8 miles (13 km), officers cornered King in his car near the corner of Foothill Boulevard and Osborne Street (34°16′23″N 118°23′34″W / 34.273154°N 118.392762°W / 34.273154; -118.392762). The first five LAPD officers to arrive at the scene were Stacey Koon, Laurence Powell, Timothy Wind, Theodore Briseno, and Rolando Solano.[13]

text: Confrontation[edit]

text: Officer Tim Singer ordered King and his two passengers to exit the vehicle and to lie face down on the ground. Passenger Bryant Allen claims he was manhandled, kicked, stomped, taunted, and threatened.[14] Freddie Helms was hit in the head while lying on the ground. Helms was treated for a laceration on the top of his head.[15] His bloody baseball cap was turned over to police. King remained in the car. When he finally did emerge, he was reported to have been gagged, to have patted the ground, and waved to the police helicopter overhead.[12] King grabbed his buttocks, which Officer Melanie Singer took to mean King was reaching for a weapon,[16] though he was later found to be unarmed.[17] She drew her pistol and pointed it at King, ordering him to lie on the ground. Singer approached, gun drawn, preparing to effect an arrest.

text: At that point LAPD Sergeant Stacey Koon, the ranking officer at the scene, told Singer that the LAPD was taking tactical command of the situation. He ordered all officers to holster their weapons.[18]

text: LAPD officers are taught to approach a suspect without his/her gun drawn, as there is a risk that any suspect may gain control of it if an officer gets too close.[19] Koon ordered the four other LAPD officers at the scene—Briseno, Powell, Solano, and Wind—to subdue and handcuff King using a technique called a "swarm." This involves multiple officers grabbing a suspect with empty hands, in order to quickly overcome potential resistance. As four officers attempted to restrain King, King resisted by standing to remove Officers Powell and Briseno from his back. The officers later testified that they believed King was under the influence of the dissociative drug phencyclidine (PCP),[20] although King's toxicology tested negative for the drug.[21]

text: Beating with batons: the Holliday video[edit]

text: King was twice tasered by Koon. This marks the approximate start of the period that George Holliday videotaped of the incident. In the tape, King is seen on the ground. He rises and rushes toward Powell—as argued in court, either to attack Powell or to flee—but regardless, King and Powell collided in the rush.[22] Taser wire can be seen on King's body. Officer Powell strikes King with his baton, and King is knocked to the ground. Powell strikes King several more times with his baton. Briseno moves in, attempting to stop Powell from striking again, and Powell stands back. Koon reportedly said, "That's enough." King rises again, to his knees; Powell and Wind are seen hitting King with their batons.

text:
External video

 3/7/91: Video of Rodney King beaten by police.

text: Koon acknowledged ordering the continued use of batons, directing Powell and Wind to strike King with "power strokes." According to Koon, Powell and Wind used "bursts of power strokes, then backed off." The officers ruthlessly beat King, who was already subdued. While police procedure does authorize the use of baton "power strokes", the methods used by the officers in this situation were clearly outside of procedural norms. In the videotape, King continues to try to stand again. Koon orders the officers to "hit his joints, hit the wrists, hit his elbows, hit his knees, hit his ankles." Officers Wind, Briseno, and Powell attempted numerous baton strikes on King, resulting in some misses but with 33 blows hitting King, plus six kicks. The officers again "swarm" King, but this time a total of eight officers are involved in the swarm. King is placed in handcuffs and cordcuffs, restraining his arms and legs. King is dragged on his abdomen to the side of the road to await the arrival of emergency medical rescue.

text: George Holliday shot his videotape of the incident from his apartment near the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Osborne Street in Lake View Terrace. Two days later, Holliday called LAPD headquarters at Parker Center to let the police department know that he had a videotape of the incident, but he couldn't find anyone who was interested in seeing the video. He went to KTLA television with his videotape. The station cut ten seconds of the video, before the image was in focus, that showed an extremely blurry shot of King charging at the officers. Later members of the jury said that this cut footage was essential to their decision to acquit the officers.[23] The footage as a whole became an instant media sensation. Portions were aired numerous times, and it "turned what would otherwise have been a violent, but soon forgotten, encounter between the Los Angeles police and an uncooperative suspect into one of the most widely watched and discussed incidents of its kind."[24]

text: The Holliday video of the Rodney King arrest is a fairly early example of modern surveillance, wherein private citizens, assisted by increasingly sophisticated, affordable video equipment, record significant, sometimes historic events. Several "copwatch" organizations subsequently were started throughout the United States to safeguard against police abuse, including an umbrella group, October 22 Coalition to Stop Police Brutality.[25]

text: Post-arrest events[edit]

text: Aftermath[edit]

text: King was taken to Pacifica Hospital after his arrest, where he was found to have suffered a fractured facial bone, a broken right ankle, and multiple bruises and lacerations.[26] In a negligence claim filed with the city, King alleged he had suffered "11 skull fractures, permanent brain damage, broken [bones and teeth], kidney failure [and] emotional and physical trauma".[27] Blood and urine samples taken from King five hours after his arrest showed that he would have been intoxicated under California law at the time of his arrest. The tests also showed traces of marijuana (26 ng/ml).[27] Pacifica Hospital nurses reported that the officers who accompanied King (including Wind) openly joked and bragged about the number of times King had been hit.[28] Officers also obtained King's identification from his clothes pockets at that time. King sued the city and a jury awarded him $3.8 million as well as $1.7 million in attorney's fees.[29] The city did not pursue charges against King for driving while intoxicated and evading arrest. District Attorney Ira Reiner believed there was insufficient evidence for prosecution.[26] His successor Gil Garcetti thought that by December 1992, too much time had passed to charge King with evading arrest; he also noted that the statute of limitations on drunk driving had passed.[30]

text: Criminal charges against police officers[edit]

text: After four days of grand jury testimony, the Los Angeles district attorney charged officers Koon, Powell, Briseno and Wind with use of excessive force on March 14, 1991.[31] Sergeant Koon, whose only action was to deploy the Taser was, as the supervisory officer at the scene, was charged with "willfully permitting and failing to take action to stop the unlawful assault".

text: On August 22, 1991, the California Court of Appeal removed the initial judge, Bernard Kamins,[32] after it was proved Kamins told prosecutors, "You can trust me." The Court also later granted a change of venue to the city of Simi Valley in neighboring Ventura County, citing potential contamination due to saturated media coverage.[33]

text: Christopher Commission[edit]

text: Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley created the Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department, also known as the Christopher Commission, in April 1991. Led by attorney Warren Christopher, it was created to conduct "a full and fair examination of the structure and operation of the LAPD," including its recruitment and training practices, internal disciplinary system, and citizen complaint system.[34]

text: Los Angeles riots and the aftermath[edit]

text: Though few people at first considered race an important factor in the case, including Rodney King's attorney, Steven Lerman, the Holliday videotape was at the time stirring deep resentment in Los Angeles, as well as other major cities in the United States. The officers' jury consisted of Ventura County residents: ten white, one Latino, one Asian. Lead prosecutor Terry White was African American. On April 29, 1992, the jury acquitted three of the officers but could not agree on one of the charges against Powell.[7]

text: Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley said, "The jury's verdict will not blind us to what we saw on that videotape. The men who beat Rodney King do not deserve to wear the uniform of the LAPD."[35] President George H. W. Bush said, "Viewed from outside the trial, it was hard to understand how the verdict could possibly square with the video. Those civil rights leaders with whom I met were stunned. And so was I and so was Barbara and so were my kids."[36]

text: Within hours of the acquittals, the Los Angeles riots of 1992 began, lasting six days. African American communities were outraged by the verdicts. By the time the police, the U.S. Army, Marines and National Guard restored order, the riots had resulted in 53 deaths, 2,383 injuries, more than 7,000 fires, damage to 3,100 businesses, and nearly $1 billion in financial losses. Smaller riots occurred in other cities such as San Francisco, Las Vegas in neighboring Nevada, and as far east as Atlanta, Georgia. A minor riot erupted on Yonge Street in Toronto, Ontario, Canada as a result of the acquittals.

text: During the riots, on May 1, 1992,[37] King made a television appearance in which he said,

text: "I just want to say - you know - can we all get along? Can we, can we get along? Can we stop making it horrible for the older people and the kids? And... I mean we've got enough smog in Los Angeles let alone to deal with setting these fires and things... it's just not right - it's not right. And it's not going to change anything. We'll get our justice; they've won the battle, but they haven't won the war. We'll get our day in court and that's all we want. And, just, uh, I love - I'm neutral, I love every - I love people of color. I'm not like they're making me out to be. We've got to quit - we've got to quit; I mean after-all, I could understand the first - upset for the first two hours after the verdict, but to go on, to keep going on like this and to see the security guard shot on the ground - it's just not right; it's just not right, because those people will never go home to their families again. And uh, I mean please, we can, we can get along here. We all can get along - we just gotta, we gotta. I mean, we're all stuck here for a while, let's, you know let's try to work it out, let's try to beat it, you know, let's try to work it out." [37]

text: The widely quoted line has been often paraphrased as, "Can we all just get along?" or "Can't we all just get along?"

text: Federal trial of officers[edit]

text: This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: After the acquittals and the riots, the United States Department of Justice sought indictments of the police officers for violations of King's civil rights. On May 7, federal prosecutors began presenting evidence to a Los Angeles [federal] grand jury. On August 4, the grand jury returned indictments against the three officers for '...willfully and intentionally using unreasonable force...' and against Sergeant Koon for '...willfully permitting and failing to take action to stop the unlawful assault...' on King." Based on these indictments, a trial of the four officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California began on February 25, 1993.[38]

text: The federal trial focused more on the incident. On March 9 of the 1993 trial, King took the witness stand and described to the jury the events as he remembered them.[39] The jury found Officer Laurence Powell and Sergeant Stacey Koon guilty, and they were subsequently sentenced to 30 months in prison. Timothy Wind and Theodore Briseno were acquitted of all charges.[7][40]

text: During the three-hour sentencing hearing, the federal trial judge, John Davies, accepted much of the defense version of the beating. He strongly criticized King, who he said provoked the officers' initial actions. Judge Davies stated that only the final six or so baton blows by Powell were unlawful. The first 55 seconds of the videotaped portion of the incident, during which the vast majority of the blows were delivered, was within the law because the officers were attempting to subdue a suspect who was resisting efforts to take him into custody.

text: Davies found that King's provocative behavior began with his "remarkable consumption of alcoholic beverage" and continued through a high-speed chase, refusal to submit to police orders, and an aggressive charge toward Powell. Davies made several findings in support of the officers' version of events. He concluded that Officer Powell never intentionally struck King in the head, and "Powell's baton blow that broke King's leg was not illegal because King was still resisting and rolling around on the ground, and breaking bones in resistant suspects is permissible under police policy."

text: Mitigation cited by the judge in determining the length of the prison sentence included the suffering the officers had undergone because of the extensive publicity their case had received, high legal bills that were still unpaid, the impending loss of their careers as police officers, their higher risks of abuse while in prison, and their undergoing two trials. The judge acknowledged that the two trials did not legally constitute double jeopardy, but nonetheless "raised the specter of unfairness."

text: These mitigations were critical to the validity of the sentences imposed, because federal sentencing guidelines called for much longer prison terms in the range of 70 to 87 months. The low sentences were controversial, and were appealed by the prosecution. In a 1994 ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected all the grounds cited by Judge Davies and extended the terms. The case was appealed by the defense to the U.S. Supreme Court. Both Mr. Koon and Mr. Powell were released from prison while they appealed the Ninth Circuit's ruling, having served their original 30-month sentences with time off for good behavior. On June 14, 1996, the high court reversed the lower court in a ruling, unanimous in its most important aspects, which gave a strong endorsement to judicial discretion, even under sentencing guidelines intended to produce uniformity.[41]

text: Later life[edit]

text: Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley offered King $200,000 and a four-year college education funded by the city of Los Angeles.[42] King refused and sued the city, winning $3.8 million. King invested a portion of his settlement in a record label, Straight Alta-Pazz Records, which went out of business.[43] He later went on to write a book and make a movie about his life.

text: King was subject to further arrests and convictions for driving violations after the 1991 incident. On August 21, 1993, he crashed his car into a block wall in downtown Los Angeles.[44] He was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol, fined, and entered a rehabilitation program, after which he was placed on probation. In July 1995, he was arrested by Alhambra police after hitting his wife with his car and knocking her to the ground. He was sentenced to 90 days in jail after being convicted of hit and run.[45] On August 27, 2003, King was arrested again for speeding and running a red light while under the influence of alcohol. He failed to yield to police officers and slammed his vehicle into a house, breaking his pelvis.[46] On March 3, 2011, the 20th anniversary of the beating, the LAPD stopped King for driving erratically and issued him a citation for driving with an expired license.[47][48][49] This arrest led to his February 2012 misdemeanor conviction for reckless driving.[50]

text: On November 29, 2007, while riding home on his bicycle,[42] King was shot in the face, arms, and back with pellets from a shotgun. He reported that the attackers were a man and a woman who demanded his bicycle and shot him when he rode away.[45] Police described the wounds as looking as if they came from birdshot.[51][52]

text: In May 2008, King checked into the Pasadena Recovery Center in Pasadena, California, where he filmed as a cast member of season 2 of Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew, which premiered in October 2008. Dr. Drew Pinsky, who runs the facility, showed concern for King's lifestyle and said King would die unless his addiction was treated.[53] He also appeared on Sober House, a Celebrity Rehab spin-off focusing on a sober living environment,[54]

text: During his time on Celebrity Rehab and Sober House, King worked on his addiction and what he said was lingering trauma of the beating. He and Pinsky physically retraced King's path from the night of his beating, eventually reaching the spot where it happened, the site of the Children's Museum of Los Angeles.[55]

text: King won a celebrity boxing match against ex–Chester City (Delaware County, Pennsylvania) police officer Simon Aouad on Friday, September 11, 2009, at the Ramada Philadelphia Airport in Essington, Pennsylvania.[56]

text: In 2009, King and other Celebrity Rehab alumni appeared as panel speakers to a new group of addicts at the Pasadena Recovery Center, marking 11 months of sobriety for him. His appearance was aired in the third-season episode "Triggers".[57]

text: On September 9, 2010, it was confirmed that King was going to marry Cynthia Kelly, who had been a juror in the civil suit he brought against the City of Los Angeles.[1]

text: The BBC quoted King commenting on his legacy. "Some people feel like I'm some kind of hero. Others hate me. They say I deserved it. Other people, I can hear them mocking me for when I called for an end to the destruction, like I'm a fool for believing in peace."[58]

text: The Riot Within[edit]

text: In April 2012, King published his memoir, The Riot Within: My Journey from Rebellion to Redemption.[59] Co-authored by Lawrence J. Spagnola, the book describes King's turbulent youth as well as his personal account of the arrest, the trials, and the aftermath.[60]

text: Death[edit]

text: On June 17, 2012, King's fiancée Cynthia Kelly found him lying at the bottom of his swimming pool.[61][62] Police in Rialto received a 911 call from Kelly at about 5:25 a.m. (PDT).[63][64] Responding officers found King at the bottom of the pool, removed him, and attempted to revive him. He was transferred by ambulance to Arrowhead Regional Medical Center in Colton, California and was pronounced dead on arrival at 6:11 a.m. (PDT) The Rialto Police Department began a standard drowning investigation and stated there did not appear to be any foul play. On August 23, 2012, King's autopsy results were released, stating he died of accidental drowning, and that a combination of alcohol, cocaine, marijuana, and PCP found in his system were contributing factors. The conclusion of the report stated: "The effects of the drugs and alcohol, combined with the subject's heart condition, probably precipitated a cardiac arrhythmia, and the subject, incapacitated in the water, was unable to save himself."[65] King had been a user of PCP.[66] Rev. Al Sharpton delivered the eulogy at King's funeral. King is interred at Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Hollywood Hills), Los Angeles, California.[67][68][69]

text: Legacy[edit]

text: Rodney King has become a symbol of police brutality, but his family remembers him as a "human not a symbol”.[70] Despite being a victim of brutality, King never advocated for hatred or violence against the police, saying that we needed to “all get along”. King's message of “can we all just get along” became the foundation of what he stood for; since his death, his daughter Lori King has worked with the LAPD to build bridges between the police and the African-American community.[71]

text: In popular culture[edit]

text: The beating of Rodney King and its aftermath has been addressed frequently in art, including the 1997 film Riot, the 2014 one-man play Rodney King by Roger Guenveur Smith,[72] which has been produced by Spike Lee and released on Netflix in 2017; and the 2016 exhibit Viral: 25 Years from Rodney King.[73] Morgan Freeman and Lori McCreary will be producing a docuseries through their company Revelations Entertainment on the life of Rodney King, to be released in 2018.[74]

text: King is featured in a documentary titled LA 92 (2017). King's beating and the aftermath were also featured in the Emmy-winning television series American Crime Story: The People vs. O.J. Simpson in 2016. These events, including the riot, were portrayed as part of the context for residents' reaction after the officers had been acquitted, when many people believed they had abused King. In that period, the African-American community had suffered continued harassment and discrimination by the LAPD, and they remembered it in the O.J. Simpson criminal trial. They were ready to believe that the LAPD had framed Simpson.