document_title: Stamp Act 1765

question_text: what form of protest was effective against the stamp act

question_tokens: what form of protest was effective against the stamp act

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] The 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 also spread through the colonies; 200 merchants had met in New York City 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 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 to support repeal of the Stamp Act by urging merchants throughout the country to contact their local representatives in Parliament. When Parliament reconvened on January 14, 1766, the Rockingham ministry formally proposed repeal. Amendments were considered that would have lessened the financial impact on the colonies by allowing colonists to pay the tax in their own scrip, but this was viewed to be too little and too late.[94]

text: William Pitt stated in the Parliamentary debate that everything done by the Grenville ministry "has been entirely wrong" with respect to the colonies. 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 complaining of the economic repercussions felt throughout the country. On February 7, the House of Commons rejected a resolution by 274–134, saying that it would back the King in enforcing the Act. 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 passed 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 and 13, the most important witness being Benjamin Franklin on the last day of the hearings. He responded to the question about how the colonists would react if the Act was not repealed: "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 observed Franklin's answers to Parliament and his affect on the repeal; he 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: A resolution was introduced on February 21 to repeal the Stamp Act, and it 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: God of War (2018 video game)

question_text: who plays kratos in new god of war

question_tokens: who plays kratos in new god of war

root

text: God of War (2018 video game)

text: Gameplay[edit]

text: The gameplay is vastly different from the previous installments, as it was rebuilt from the ground up.[6] Although the previous main installment, Ascension (2013), introduced multiplayer to the series, this installment is single-player-only.[4] The game features a third-person, over-the-shoulder free camera, a departure from the previous installments, which featured a third-person, fixed cinematic camera (with the exception of 2007's 2D side-scroller Betrayal).[7] Cinematographically, the game is presented in a continuous shot, with no camera cuts.[8] The game is open, but it is not open-world.[6] Due to it being open, players can fast travel to different locations through Mystic Gateways.[9] As the ability to swim was cut from the game,[10] players instead use a boat to traverse bodies of water.[9] Just like previous entries, there are puzzles for players to solve to progress through parts of the game. Enemies in the game stem from Norse mythology, such as variants of trolls, ogres, dark elves and their king, wolves, wulvers, nightmares, draugrs,[11] tatzelwurms, as well as Gullveig and the revenants, beings warped by seiðr magic, among other original creatures.[12] Valkyries appear as optional boss battles, and players can free the dragons Fáfnir, Otr, and Reginn—dwarfs that were turned into dragons—in addition to battling a dragon called Hræzlyr.[9]

tag: p

text: A major change is that Kratos no longer uses his signature double-chained blades, the Blades of Chaos, as his default weapon. Instead, he uses a magical battle axe, called the Leviathan Axe,[13] which is infused with ice elemental magic. The axe can be thrown at enemies and magically summoned back to his hand (similar to Thor's hammer Mjölnir). Larger enemies have precision targets and throwing the axe at those targets stuns the enemy. The weapon can also be thrown at environmental objects to trigger a damaging explosion and it can freeze objects and some enemies in place for puzzle solving until the axe is summoned back to Kratos' hand. The axe has standard light and heavy attacks, and over time, it can be upgraded with runes to allow for special runic attacks, with one slot being for a light runic attack and the other for heavy. This provides players with a variety of options to cater to their own play style. For example, one of the light runic attacks allows Kratos to charge the axe and let out a burst of energy and one of the heavy runic attacks allows Kratos to summon a swirling ice storm.[14] Another new weapon that Kratos utilizes is the Guardian Shield. When not in use, it folds up and appears like armor on Kratos' left forearm. When summoned, the shield can be used offensively and defensively, similar to the Golden Fleece in previous games.[15] Kratos also utilizes hand-to-hand combat, a feature originally introduced in Ascension.[7] The Blades of Chaos are acquired late into the game via a plot device and perform similarly as they did in previous installments, but can also be upgraded with light and heavy runic attacks.

text: Similar to previous games, there is a "Rage" ability called Spartan Rage. Like the previous versions, the Rage ability has a meter that gradually fills during combat. With this ability, Kratos uses powerful bare-handed attacks, as opposed to weapons, to greatly damage enemies. The game also features elements similar to role-playing video games (RPGs).[7][16] There are crafting resources for the player to find that allow them to create new or upgrade existing armor with better perks.[17] Players will also accumulate a currency called Hacksilver, a key component in crafting and purchasing new items. Experience points (XP) are used for learning new combat skills.[16] Throughout the game world, players find chests containing random items, such as Hacksilver and enchantments for improving armor and weapons, as well as two special items, Iðunn's Apples and Horns of Blood Mead, which increase the maximum length of the health and rage meters, respectively. Quick time events have changed from previous games.[6] Enemies display two meters above their heads, one for health and the other for stun. Filling up the stun meter helps to defeat more difficult enemies. When the stun meter is full, a grab-prompt will appear. Depending on the enemy, Kratos may rip it in half or grab them and throw them into other enemies, among other possible outcomes.[18]

text: Although the game is played entirely as Kratos,[19] there are times when the player may choose to passively control Kratos' son, Atreus. One button is dedicated to Atreus and its use depends on the context. For example, if the player needs assistance, they can look at an enemy, press the button, and Atreus will use his Talon Bow to shoot arrows at the enemy.[20] The arrows have little effect on an enemy's health, but do increase the stun meter.[18] Over the course of the game, Atreus helps in combat, traversal, exploration, and puzzle-solving. When facing a large number of enemies, he distracts the weaker ones as Kratos fights the stronger ones.[17] If too many enemies gang up on Atreus, he is knocked out for the remainder of that combat. Just like Kratos, Atreus acquires new skills, armor, special arrows, such as lightning arrows, as well as runic attacks for his Talon Bow, but it only has one slot instead of two. Atreus' runic attacks summon different spectral animals with different abilities. For example, one summons a wolf that attacks enemies, while another summons the squirrel Ratatoskr that will dig up orbs to replenish Kratos' health or rage meters.[21]

text: Synopsis[edit]

text: Setting[edit]

text: While the first seven games were loosely based on Greek mythology, this installment takes the series to Norse mythology,[22] but predates the Vikings.[20][23] Six of the nine realms of Norse mythology can be explored. The majority of the game takes place in the realm of Midgard, inhabited by humans and other creatures and is the same realm that the Greek world had existed in. As more creatures began appearing, many humans fled. Other realms visited as part of the story include Alfheim, the mystical home of the light and dark elves, Helheim, the icy land of the dead, and Jötunheim, the mountainous land of the giants. Other explorable realms include Niflheim, a realm of poisonous fog with a maze-like structure of rewards, and the fire realm Muspelheim, featuring the six Trials of Muspelheim; completing each trial grants rewards and advances Kratos and Atreus closer to the top of a large volcano. Access to the other three realms—Asgard, home of the Æsir gods, Vanaheim, home of the Vanir gods, and Svartalfheim, home of the dwarves—have been blocked by the ruler of Asgard and the Æsir gods, Odin.[24] At the center of the realms is the mythical tree Yggdrasil, which connects each realm together. Although each realm is a different world, they simultaneously exist in the same space. Travel to and from realms can be done by the use of the Bifröst from a root of Yggdrasil contained within a temple located at the center of the Lake of the Nine. The temple was created by the now dead Týr, a peaceful God of War who had traveled to other lands and learned about their mythologies; Odin had him killed as he believed Týr was secretly aiding the giants and would try to overthrow him.[22]

text: Characters[edit]

text: The protagonists of the game are Kratos (voiced by Christopher Judge) and his young son Atreus (Sunny Suljic). Kratos is a warrior originally from Sparta who became the Greek God of War and is the son of Zeus. After ending up in Midgard, he met his second and now deceased wife, Laufey (addressed as Faye), and they bore their son, Atreus, who does not know about Kratos' past or his divine nature, but can hear other beings' thoughts. The main antagonist is the Æsir god Baldur (Jeremy Davies), the brother of Thor, whose sons Modi and Magni (Nolan North and Troy Baker, respectively) assist Baldur. His parents are Odin and the Vanir god Freya (Danielle Bisutti). Freya tried leaving Odin, as she did not truly love him, and Odin had her banished to Midgard, after which she became known as the Witch of the Woods. To protect her son from a prophecy that foretold his death, Freya cast a spell of immortality on Baldur, which also caused him to not feel pain or any feeling of pleasure, which he resented her for. The only thing that she could not prevent from breaking the spell was mistletoe, which she kept secret. Other characters include Mímir (Alastair Duncan), who claims to be the smartest man alive, and the Huldra Brothers Brok (Roger Craighead) and Sindri (Adam J. Harrington), a pair of dwarves who appear at various points in the world and assist Kratos and Atreus with forging new gear. Their weapons, including Thor's hammer Mjölnir, were used by the Æsir gods and they also had forged Kratos' Leviathan Axe, which originally belonged to Faye, who also gifted Kratos his Guardian Shield.[13] The spirit of the Greek goddess Athena (Carole Ruggier) makes a cameo appearance, and Zeus (Corey Burton) appears as an illusion to Kratos in Helheim.

text: Plot[edit]

text: Many years have passed since Kratos took his vengeance against the Olympian gods,[b] and he now lives with his young son Atreus in Midgard. The game opens following the death of Kratos' second wife and Atreus' mother, Faye, whose last wish was for her ashes to be spread at the highest peak of the nine realms. Before beginning their journey, Kratos is confronted by a mysterious man with godlike powers. After seemingly killing him, Kratos and Atreus set out on their journey.

text: Reaching the Lake of the Nine, Kratos and Atreus encounter the friendly World Serpent, Jörmungandr. After running into impenetrable black mist which can only be extinguished with the Light of Alfheim, they receive aid from the Witch of the Woods to use the Bifröst in order to travel to Alfheim and secure the Light. Upon vanquishing the mist and reaching Midgard's peak, they overhear a conversation between the mysterious man, revealed to be Baldur, his nephews Modi and Magni, and the imprisoned Mímir. After they leave, Kratos and Atreus confront Mímir, who reveals that their goal is actually in Jötunheim, but travel there has been blocked to keep out Odin and Thor. Mímir, however, knows another passage. He instructs Kratos to cut off his head and have it revived by the Witch of the Woods, revealed to be Freya. Kratos immediately distrusts her, but both Freya and Mímir warn him that he must tell Atreus about his true nature.

text: Kratos, Atreus, and Mímir's head journey to collect needed components to open Jötunheim's portal when they are attacked by Modi and Magni. After Kratos kills Magni, Modi flees, but later returns and ambushes them. Atreus collapses ill, which Mímir and Freya explain is a mental contradiction of a god believing himself to be mortal. She tells Kratos that he must retrieve the heart of the Keeper of the Bridge of the Damned in Helheim, but his Leviathan Axe is useless there. Kratos then returns home to unearth his old weapons, the Blades of Chaos, and is haunted by Athena's spirit, who goads him about his past. After retrieving the heart, he has a haunting vision of Zeus. Atreus is cured and Kratos tells him that he is a god. Atreus then becomes increasingly arrogant on their journey, and he murders a weakened Modi, despite Kratos ordering not to. At Midgard's peak, they are ambushed by Baldur, resulting in Jötunheim's portal being destroyed and the group falling into Helheim.

text: Atreus makes amends with Kratos and they find out about Freya and Baldur's familial relationship. Returning to Midgard, Mímir realizes there is another way to reach Jötunheim, but it requires recovering his missing eye. After obtaining it from Jörmungandr's belly, who had inadvertently swallowed it when he ate a statue of Thor, they are attacked by Baldur again, but Freya intervenes in an attempt to protect her son. During the fight, Baldur is pierced by Atreus' mistletoe arrow, breaking Freya's spell on him. Baldur is defeated, and although Kratos gives him an opportunity to retreat, he instead attempts to strangle Freya, forcing Kratos to kill him. A grieving Freya swears revenge on Kratos and taunts him about hiding his true nature from Atreus. Kratos finally tells Atreus about his past and how he had killed his fellow Greek gods, including his father, Zeus. Atreus laments if patricide is all that gods are good for. Kratos tells Atreus that they should both learn from their experiences and not repeat the mistakes of their predecessors. A silent Freya leaves with Baldur's corpse and Mímir hopefully suggests that she will eventually move on from the tragedy and that Kratos did the right thing.

text: In Jötunheim, they find a temple with a mural depicting their adventures, showing that the giants had foreseen everything that would happen and vaguely foretold what was to come. In addition, they discover that Faye was a giant who decided to stay behind in Midgard, making Atreus part giant, part god, and part mortal. Their fight with Baldur was shown, revealing he was actually after Faye the whole time. It is also revealed that Atreus was named Loki by his mother. Wondering if Faye planned this in advance, Kratos and Atreus fulfill their promise and spread her ashes at the peak. Afterwards, Kratos reveals to Atreus that his given name was also the name of a compassionate Spartan comrade. When they return to Midgard, Mímir warns them that the three-year long Fimbulwinter has started, meaning Ragnarök is soon to follow, which was not supposed to occur for another hundred years.

text: In the game's secret ending, Kratos and Atreus return home and slumber. Atreus has a vision that at the end of Fimbulwinter, Thor will arrive at their home to confront them.

text: Development[edit]

text: At the first annual PlayStation Experience on December 6, 2014, Santa Monica Studios's creative director Cory Barlog confirmed that a new God of War was in very early development. He said that the game would not be a prequel, but it might be a reboot.[25] In April 2016, Polygon reported that concept art of the next installment had been leaked. The images showed Kratos in the world of Norse mythology; a concept originally considered by series creator David Jaffe after Kratos eliminated the Greek gods.[26] At the 2016 Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3), the next installment was officially announced with a gameplay demo and confirmed the concept art to be true. The demo showed a fully bearded Kratos with a son, and Kratos was teaching the boy how to hunt. The pair also battled a troll. The end of the demo showed the title God of War and confirmed it was in development for the PlayStation 4.[7][1] E3 also confirmed that Barlog had returned to the series as game director for the new installment. Barlog has been a major contributor in the development of the God of War series since the original installment in 2005, with his prior most notable role being game director of God of War II (2007). This new installment was his fifth God of War game.[20]

text: In naming the game, Barlog stated that it was deliberately titled God of War with no numeral or subtitle because although it is a continuation of the series, "we are reimagining everything."[22][19] Head of Santa Monica Studio Shannon Studstill and Barlog said that Sony Interactive Entertainment had to be convinced to do another God of War game as a lot of people at Sony wanted the series to "sleep and rest" due to the lackluster response of the previous game, Ascension.[27] In explaining why Barlog was brought back, Studstill said that he knew the series very well, "and bringing in someone that understands that history is the respect the franchise deserves."[10] Barlog followed up and said that "You gotta know the rules to break the rules."[10] Series creator David Jaffe was also considered, but was unavailable.[28]

text: In explaining the transition from Greek mythology to Norse mythology, Barlog said: "it's kind of this BC–AD change over kind of thing. We're moving and starting from zero and kind of moving forward on that."[22][19] Before settling on Norse mythology, Egyptian mythology was also considered. Barlog said that half of the team was for it, but since "there's a lot more about civilization - it's less isolated, less barren", he had to make the decision and decided on the Norse setting because they wanted the focus to stay on Kratos: "Having too much around distracts from that central theme of a stranger in a strange land."[23] In explaining why Kratos was now in the Norse world, Barlog said that different cultures' belief systems coexisted, but they were "separated by geography", suggesting that Kratos traveled from Greece to Norway (Scandinavia) after the conclusion of God of War III;[29] in clarifying the conclusion of that game, Barlog said that Kratos did not destroy what was believed to be the entire world, but only the portion that was ruled over by the Greeks.[9] Barlog said that the new game predates the Vikings; it is the time in which their gods walked the Earth.[20][23] It was also confirmed that this would not be Kratos' last game.[4] Barlog said that future games could see the series tackling Egyptian or Mayan mythology,[27] and that although this game focuses on Norse mythology, it alludes to the fact that there are other mythologies co-existing in the world.[30] Barlog also said that he liked the idea of having different directors for each game, seen throughout the first seven games, and although he may not direct another God of War, he would still be at Santa Monica to work on future games.[9]

text: Most of the development team that worked on the original God of War worked on the new installment.[22] They claimed that they matched the new gameplay with the same level of accessibility as the previous installments.[6] It was confirmed that the game would not feature any morality system or branching story; all players have the same story experience. The developers also confirmed that some of the more controversial mini-games found in previous entries (such as the sex mini-game) would not return.[22] Some gameplay characteristics found in the previous installments were cut, such as jumping, swimming, and instant-death platforming challenges; these were cut due to the camera being closer to Kratos.[10] Although the previous installment, Ascension, introduced multiplayer to the series, the team decided to drop the mode to focus on the single-player experience.[5] In changing the gameplay, Studstill said "I felt like, in order to reinvent, we really needed to turn a lot of things around."[31] In regards to the camera change, Barlog said "We wanted a much more intimate experience, a much more up close, and a much more player-controlled experience, so the camera really is a mechanic that [we leaned] into heavily for everything in the game."[6] Explaining Kratos' axe, lead gameplay designer Jason McDonald, who has worked on the series since the original game, said the axe was chosen because they wanted a more grounded direction for the game. Initially, they were unsure how to make it unique, like how the double-chained blades were. After they came up with the concept of throwing the axe and having it return to Kratos, "things started to fall into place."[32] McDonald said that combat with the axe is a little slower than what it was with the blades, "but it's just as fluid and just as brutal as it's ever been."[32] Barlog took inspiration from Dark Souls (2011), which influenced the game's combat system, particularly its gameplay loop and strategic decision-making,[33] as well as the game's approach to storytelling.[34] In addition, designers Anthony Dimento and Luis Sanchez revealed how God of War's level design and exploration was influenced by Bloodborne (2015), as they wanted to "just have the world breathe a little bit" and expand upon player discovery by including "micro-loops where you're unlocking paths, unlocking shortcuts..." that gave purpose.[35]

text: The entire game was done in a single shot, as in no camera cuts, meaning there are no loading screens or fade-to-black between gameplay and cutscenes.[17] The frame rate was confirmed as 30 frames per second,[4] and the enemy count was increased to up to 100 enemies on-screen; God of War III and Ascension could do up to 50.[22] Unlike the previous games, Santa Monica did not make a demo specifically for public release. Barlog explained that doing so would have delayed the game by a couple of months.[36] He also confirmed that the game was built for the standard PlayStation 4,[36] but the game would "benefit from the power" of the PlayStation 4 Pro; an updated version of the PlayStation 4 that can render games in 4K and was released a few months after God of War was announced.[37] In late December 2016, Barlog confirmed that the game was playable from start to finish.[38] At the 2017 PlayStation Experience, Barlog said that the game's story would take 25-35 hours to complete, which is significantly more than the previous four main installments, which each took an average of 10 hours to complete.[39]

text: At E3 2017, a new trailer was shown featuring new gameplay, cinematics, and characters. In the trailer, Kratos was shown using a shield that he could use offensively and defensively. At one point in the trailer, Kratos finds a Greek vase with himself on it, wielding his infamous double-chained blades. During the trailer, an unnamed woman warns Kratos about the Norse gods, as they know what he did to the Greek gods, while a pair of wolves were also shown. The trailer ends with Kratos and Atreus encountering the World Serpent. Atreus was able to translate what it said, which was that it wanted to help the pair. It was confirmed that the game would release in early 2018.[15] Since E3 2017 until the game's launch, Santa Monica included a section on the God of War website titled "The Lost Pages", detailing some of the lore of God of War's Nordic world.[13] In January 2018, the game's release date was confirmed for April 20, 2018. A trailer was also released that showed that the character Mímir from the mythology would have a role in the game.[40] On March 22, God of War went gold.[41]

text: Characterization[edit]

text: During early development, there was talk about having a different protagonist for the game, but it was decided to keep Kratos. Referencing the Nintendo character Mario and the Mario games, Barlog said that just like Mario, "Kratos is intrinsically tied" to the God of War series.[20] In regards to the new changes, Barlog said that:

text: I knew I didn’t want to simply reboot the franchise, starting over with a retelling of the origin story. I wanted to reimagine the gameplay, give players a fresh perspective and a new tactile experience while delving deeper into the emotional journey of Kratos to explore the compelling drama that unfolds when an immortal demigod makes a decision to change.[42]

text: Barlog explained that Kratos had to change his cycle of violence and learn how to control his rage. He said that Kratos had made many bad decisions, which led to the destruction of Olympus, and wanted to know what would happen if Kratos made a good decision. The birth of Barlog's own son influenced the idea of Kratos' character change.[42] The canceled live-action Star Wars television series was also an influence.[43] The bond between Kratos and his son is at the heart of the game and Barlog said "This game is about Kratos teaching his son how to be a god, and his son teaching Kratos how to be human again."[17] Referencing the Marvel Comics character Hulk, Barlog said that in regards to Kratos, "We've already told the story of The Hulk. We want to tell the story of [Bruce] Banner now."[17] One of their goals was to make Kratos "a more nuanced and interesting character."[44] In changing the narrative focus, Studstill said "I think we inherently knew the franchise needed to evolve in that emotional beat and be something meatier for the older generation of gamers."[44]

text: Christopher Judge, best known as Teal'c from Stargate SG-1, replaced T.C. Carson as the voice of Kratos; Carson had voiced Kratos since the original God of War. Commenting in response to the change, Carson said, "Sony went in a new direction."[45] Barlog explained that the way the previous games were made, they were able to have someone else do the motion capture instead of the voice actor. Although Carson had done the motion capture for Kratos in Ascension, Barlog said the actor change was made because of the type of camera work they wanted to do. For the new camera work, they needed someone who was closer to Kratos' size to do the motion capture along with a child. Carson was unsuitable for this because he was much shorter than Kratos, who is over 6-feet tall: "Offsetting [Carson's height] for the size of a child, it turned out it was going to be almost impossible to try and actually shoot them and go in and redo the animations."[46] Judge was chosen because he was 6-foot-3 and had the body of a professional football player. He was also chosen because of the chemistry with his then-10-year-old co-star, Sunny Suljic, who plays Kratos' son Atreus; Suljic's opinion was also sought in making the decision, and out of all the auditions, he liked Judge the most. The two bonded well, and Judge described his time with Suljic as time he had missed with his own children. In stepping into the role of Kratos, Judge took it as an opportunity to add something new to the character. He researched the character and Carson's performance, but decided not to imitate it. Since Santa Monica were going in a new direction, he decided to start fresh and go from there. Judge was thrown off when he first read the script, stating it "was a real script", and not just "a way to get into battles."[46] He said "it was really this great story of this relationship and this crazy mythology."[46] While Judge did all of Kratos' motion capture for the cinematic scenes, stuntman Eric Jacobus did all of Kratos' combat motion capture; Jacobus was found by God of War's animators on YouTube. Instead of going directly to Santa Monica to audition, Jacobus recorded an audition tape and they immediately hired him.[47]

text: During E3 2016, GameSpot mistakenly reported that Kratos' son's name was Charlie, which Barlog laughingly denied.[48] In January 2017, after a fan downloaded the God of War overture and saw the track's details that said "An introduction to Kratos and Atreus", Barlog confirmed on Twitter that Atreus was in fact the son's name.[49] Barlog said that Atreus was unaware that Kratos was a demigod, and did not know about his past.[4] They did not reveal details of Atreus' mother prior to release due to her being a critical part of the story.[22] Barlog stated that during gameplay, Atreus would be "like magic, an additional combat resource, and [the player is] training him and teaching him."[20] The developers stated that Atreus would not be a burden during gameplay.[13] The team experimented with several different approaches for Atreus to ensure that he was an empowering presence. Barlog said he did not want the game to be an escort-mission where the A.I. caused a problem for the player. Their goal was for Atreus to enhance Kratos' capabilities without Atreus becoming a liability. This resulted in the developers designating a command button for Atreus as well as for him to act freely.[18] During combat, Atreus was also designed to call out enemy locations, as due to the camera being closer to Kratos, some enemies may be difficult for the player to see. Jason McDonald said it took a lot of iterations with the enemies and Atreus to make it all work together.[32]

text: Early in development, it was suggested for Atreus to be cut or to significantly minimize his role due to the many developmental challenges and financial expense. Barlog stated that the game could have worked without Atreus, but it would have been completely different, likening it to that of the 2013 film All Is Lost. Barlog said that with just Kratos, it would have been "one character who talks to himself occasionally, but generally, it will be very silent and everyone will talk in old Norse, so that you won't understand anything anybody's saying."[50] After hearing Barlog's case, Sony gave him the freedom to incorporate Atreus. Lead level designer Rob Davis also noted that with Atreus, it allowed for "significant gameplay and storytelling opportunities that might not otherwise [been] possible."[50]

text: Soundtrack[edit]

text: Bear McCreary, best known for his work on television shows such as Battlestar Galactica and The Walking Dead, scored God of War and composed themes for the game.[51] McCreary said that he was called into Santa Monica Studio in November 2014 to meet with music producers Peter Scaturro and Keith Leary to discuss "a secret project"; McCreary had previously collaborated with Scaturro and Leary on 2011's SOCOM 4: U.S. Navy SEALs. Ideas of folk music, mythology, Nordic ethnic instruments, vocal writing, and classical thematic development were discussed, to which McCreary correctly guessed that the discussions were about a new God of War. He met with Barlog early on, and they discussed Barlog's narrative vision for the game. After meeting with Barlog, he felt that the franchise was in good hands because God of War II, which Barlog also directed, was his favorite installment.[52]

text: McCreary's initial efforts focused on writing the new main theme, or what he called the Kratos Theme. He spent several months working with Barlog, Scaturro, Leary, Sony music director Chuck Doud, and the rest of the development team in making this new theme. McCreary described the Kratos Theme as "arguably one of my most structurally satisfying and catchy melodies." The main theme features low orchestral instruments, Icelandic choir, deep male vocals, powerful female vocals (in particular Faroese singer Eivør Pálsdóttir), folk percussion, and Nordic stringed instruments, such as the nyckelharpa and hurdy gurdy. When it was decided that God of War would be revealed at E3 2016, Sony wanted McCreary to perform his original score with a live orchestra at the press conference. McCreary opened the show with the new main theme before the unveiling of God of War, and performed the gameplay demo's music live during the presentation.[52] On January 13, 2017, a live recording from E3 2016 of God of War's overture was released for free for a limited time. Barlog released the overture as a thank you to fans for God of War's E3 2016 trailer reaching fifteen million views on YouTube.[53]

text: Release[edit]

text: The game was released worldwide on April 20, 2018, for the PlayStation 4.[40] In addition to the standard base game, there were three special editions: the Stone Mason Edition, the Collector's Edition, and the Digital Deluxe Edition. Only available in the United States and Canada, the Stone Mason Edition came with several physical items, including the base game in a SteelBook case, a 9-inch (230 mm) statue of Kratos and Atreus that was created by Gentle Giant, 2-inch (51 mm) carvings of the Huldra Brothers, a horse, and a troll, an exclusive lithograph, a cloth map, a stone mason's ring, and a keychain of Mímir's head that talks. There was also various downloadable content (DLC), including an exclusive shield skin, in addition to an armor set and another shield skin for Kratos, a PlayStation 4 dynamic theme, a digital artbook, and God of War #0 by Dark Horse Comics.[54] The Collector's Edition came with many of the same items, minus the ring, the keychain, the 2-inch (51 mm) carvings of the horse and troll, and the exclusive shield skin. The Digital Deluxe Edition comes with all of the digital content, minus the exclusive shield skin. U.S. and Canadian customers also received a Kratos and Atreus pin for pre-ordering the Digital Deluxe Edition. Pre-orders at select retailers received three skins for Kratos' shield, while pre-orders from GameStop or EB Games also received a "Luck of Ages XP Talisman", granting increased XP gain, increased Hacksilver gain, and increased ability to trigger perks.[55]

text: In addition to the special editions of the game, a Limited Edition PlayStation 4 Pro bundle was also available the same day as the game's release. The bundle included the standard base game, a PlayStation 4 Pro console decorated with the runes as on Kratos' axe, and a similarly themed DualShock 4 controller with the God of War logo.[56] Game Director Cory Barlog confirmed that God of War would not have microtransactions post-launch, a feature that has become prominent with other recent games and negatively criticized.[57] Since launch, Santa Monica has supported the game via patch updates to address software bugs. Additionally, the developers added a Photo Mode in update patch 1.20, released on May 9, 2018. Photo Mode allows players to take customized in-game screenshots. Players can adjust the field of view, depth of view, filters, borders, the visibility of characters, and the ability to change the facial expressions of Kratos and Atreus.[58]

text: God of War: A Call from the Wilds[edit]

text: God of War: A Call from the Wilds is a text-based game playable through Facebook Messenger. To help further promote God of War, Sony partnered with Facebook to develop the play-by-web game, which released on February 1, 2018. Completing the game unlocks downloadable concept art. The short story follows Atreus on his first adventure in the Norse wilds. After archery training and learning runes with his mother, Atreus adventures into the wilderness after telepathically hearing the voice of a dying deer; he finds it covered in blood and stays with it during its final moments. A couple of draugrs appear and Atreus attempts to fight them, but is injured. He is saved by his father, Kratos, who was out hunting. The two then battle a revenant before returning home.[59][60][61]

text: Reception[edit]

text:
Reception

Aggregate score

Aggregator
Score

Metacritic
94/100[62]

Review scores

Publication
Score

Destructoid
10/10[63]

EGM
9.5/10[64]

Game Informer
9.75/10[65]

Game Revolution
[66]

GameSpot
9/10[67]

GamesRadar+
[68]

Giant Bomb
[69]

IGN
10/10[70]

Polygon
10/10[71]

The Guardian
[72]

USgamer
[73]

tag: table

text: God of War received "universal acclaim" according to review aggregator Metacritic,[62] tying it with the original God of War for the highest score in the franchise. It has the third highest score of all-time for a PlayStation 4 game, and the highest score for an original, non-remastered PlayStation 4 game.[74] It is the highest rated PlayStation 4 game of 2018,[75] and is tied with the Xbox One version of Celeste for the highest score of 2018, regardless of platform.[76] God of War received particular praise for its art direction, graphics, combat system, music, story, use of Norse mythology, characters, and cinematic feeling. Critics called the game a "technical achievement" and one of the most impressive-looking games developed for consoles. Many also felt that it had successfully revitalized the series without losing the core identity of its predecessors.[77]

text: Sales[edit]

text: During its release week in the UK, God of War became the fastest-selling entry in the franchise, selling 35% more physical copies than God of War III.[78] As of 21 May, 2018, the game had remained at the top of the all format sales chart for five consecutive weeks, setting a record for a PlayStation 4 exclusive having the most consecutive weeks at number one.[79] It sold 46,091 copies within its first week on sale in Japan, which placed it at number two on the sales chart.[80]

text: The game sold over 3 million copies in three days after its release, making it the fastest-selling PlayStation 4 exclusive.[81] The game was the fastest selling game of the month of its release and contributed to the PS4 being the best selling console of that month.[82] In total, the game sold over five million copies in its first month, with 2.1 million in digital sales.[83][84]

text: Accolades[edit]

text:
Year
Award
Category
Result
Ref

2016
Game Critics Awards 2016
Special Commendation for Graphics
Won
[85]

IGN's Best of E3 2016 Awards
Game of the Show
Nominated
[86]

Best PlayStation 4 Game
Nominated

Best Action Game
Nominated

The Game Awards 2016
Most Anticipated Game
Nominated
[87]

2017
The Game Awards 2017
Most Anticipated Game
Nominated
[88]

text: Notes[edit]

text:
Jump up ^ Colloquially referred to as God of War 4[1][2][3] and God of War PS4[4][5]
Jump up ^ As depicted in God of War III (2010)

tag: ol


document_title: United States in the Korean War

question_text: who did the us help in the korean war

question_tokens: who did the us help in the korean war

text: United States in the Korean War

text: Initial response[edit]

text: In response to North Korea's invasion into South Korea the United Nations convened to formulate a response. The U.N. demanded North Korea's immediate withdrawal and, when this was not met, United States Army General Douglas MacArthur was appointed supreme commander of U.N. forces. To halt the rapid progress of North Korean forces into the south Task Force Smith was deployed to the Korean front from Japan.[1] Task Force Smith consisted of U.S. Army officers and regiments of the Army's 24th Infantry Division that were stationed in Japan as occupational forces. Unfortunately the 24th were under trained, poorly supplied, and outnumbered. The 24th offered very little resistance against the North Korean advance.[1] American and South Korean troops were pushed south and in late July 1950 Task Force Smith was overrun in the city of Taejon. Troops from the Army's 25th Infantry Division were deployed to Taejon to establish a new line and pullout the decimated 24th I.D.[1] This addition of combat troops did not stop the North Korean advance and both American and South Korean troops were pushed further south.[1]

text: Battle of Osan[edit]

text: The first battle the Americans entered in the Korean War was the Battle of Osan, where about four hundred strong landed in Pusan airport on the first of July. The American troops were sent off to Taejon the next morning where Major General John H. Church the head of U.S. field headquarters was confident in the US troop's strengths to push back the North Koreans. On July fifth the troops were finally put to the test when North Korean tanks crept towards Osan. The four hundred infantryman of the U.S. also called Task Force Smith opened fire on the North Koreans at 8:16 am. Only four of the North Korean tanks were destroyed and twenty-nine kept moving forward breaking the US line. At the end of the battle only two more North Korean Tanks and two regiments of North Korean infantry were destroyed. The US had lost the battle, revealing that the mere sight of US troops would not reverse the military balance in Korea. By early August, the North Korean troops had pushed back the US and South Korean troops all the way to Naktong River, which is located about thirty miles from Pusan. The two weeks of fighting following this resulted in the most casualties of US troops than any other equivalent period of this war. However, during this time the US pushed supplies and personnel to Korea and by the end of July South Koreans and US troops outnumbered the North Koreans, although the North had pushed back the US and South by an amazing amount the North had suffered over fifty thousand casualties. Also because North Koreas supply lines were so lengthy and with the US in control of the water and air replenishing there losses were slow.[2]

text: Incheon[edit]

text: Although MacArthur clearly stated that it was a 5000 to 1 gamble, it was an important military move to make. Incheon is 25 miles from Seoul on the coast and only once during September is the water even deep enough to allow the 29 foot draft of American LSTs. It was a defenders' best place to allow troops into Korea, and to push the invaders back. On September 15 the 1st Marine Division landed at the port city, taking the defending North Koreans completely by surprise, and by the end of the night over a third of Incheon was taken back.[3]

text: Japan[edit]

text: During the mid 1950s, Germany and Japan were both at a desperate state caused by World War II. Germany received a sort of benefit from the U.S as a compensation of war and reconstruction. The Japanese on the other end were devastated by the aftermath. People were suffering, eating out of garbage, and many people starved. Meanwhile, the U.S troops in the Korean War were in great demand of uniforms and other equipment. The American government turned to Japan for the favor, which eventually stimulated the manufacturing factories that were in jeopardy due to damage caused by World War II. Japan accepted the offer and mainly supplied U.S troops in Korea with uniforms and other sorts of clothing. Bases were also erected in Japan for U.S. Air Force planes, such as B-29 Superfortress bombers.[citation needed]