Talk:Molasses Act

Expansion of the Article
As a result of a frivolous (IMO) dispute at the Sugar Act article, I expanded this article with an aim to providing additional verification, in the form of direct quotes from two historians that fully support the summary of this earlier act included in the other article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Great job! BradMajors (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the article would be improved by some contextulisation. My understanding is that before 1733, any trade with non-British colonies was illegal under the navigation acts.  Accordingly the Act was designed to legalise a trade so that it was not smuggling.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would seem so. In 1705, molasses was added to the list of "enumerated commodities".  But if the trade was already illegal why was there an attempt in 1731 to make the importation of molasses from the French West Indies illegal?  This act also placed a 9d duty on the import of foreign rum to protect New England rum manufacture. BradMajors (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it was perfectly legal for British-American colonists to import molasses from the French and Dutch West Indies, as long as (a) it was carried on British (including colonial) ships, (b) it was not done while Great Britain was at war with the producer, and (c) all duties were paid. American merchants fully supported the first restriction (they believed that their livelihoods depended on it), but did not always comply with the others, especially the third. Violations of the Trade and Navigation Acts (a and c) are sometimes confused with violations of trading-with-the-enemy laws (b).


 * When a product was "enumerated", this referred to a commodity produced in a British colony. An "enumerated" good could not be exported outside of the British Empire without being sent to England first. French molasses, not being a British product, was not "enumerated". The Molasses Act was passed because New Englanders were (legally) importing French molasses instead of British molasses, and Parliament wanted to discourage this by putting a prohibitively high tax on the non-British product. —Kevin Myers 16:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Original Research
Besides being largely irrelevant (the tax subject to the article is not on the finished product but the ingredients), the editor has drawn conclusions unsupported by any reliable secondary sources. Rather than his conclusion that analysizing the impact would be difficult, the sources cited elsewhere in the article note no such difficulty in their analysis. Dismissing the educated opinion of noted historians as mere speculation is, likewise, strictly the editor's own opinion.

Similarly, the listing of the prices of various alchoholic beverage taxes to support the editor's view appears to be contrary to WP:SYN which states:

"Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research."

Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No effort to provide sources made since article was tagged in February. I have now removed the material. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not certain this was the correct response. The contributor cites "Miller" (tough without a reference).  In reply to an earlier comment: the trade was probably illegal from 1705 to 1731, when it was legalised subject to the 9d tarriff.  The figure 539,000 gallons is a precise figure and likely to ahve a source; thus not WP:OR.  It is possible the synthesis constitutes WP:OR, but the facts on which it is based probably are not.  I would be happier with the use of the tags "source needed", rather than "fact" which tends to suggest that the veracity of the statemetn is doubtful.  Unfortunately, I do not have immediate access to suitable refernece works in order to resolve this.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The contributor (Brad Major) was not citing Miller but contradicting Miller with nothing but his own opinion. The figure 539,000 certainly may have a source somewhere, but it refers to the volume of imports in 1770 -- the Sugar and Molasses Act was repealed in 1764.  Why exactly is this information even relevant? Whether better tags could have been used on the article is irrelevant -- the tags have been there since February, and nobody had enough interest in the article to address them.  Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the Sugar and Mollasses Act was not repealed in 1764, it was amended and made perpetual. See the section below. James500 (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Date of repeal
According to the Chronological Table of the Statutes (HMSO), this Act was repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1867. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James500 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the text of the Sugar Act 1764 (4 Geo.3 c.15) that I have in front of me (Statutes at Large, volume 12) what section IV of that Act does is to make the Sugar and Mollasses Act 1733 (6 Geo.2 c.13) perpetual, subject to 'such Alterations and Amendments as are hereinafter contained'.

As far as I can see what the 1764 Act does is to amend this Act, not repeal it. Hope I've got this right. James500 (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

To clarify what I have said, what I refer to as section IV of the 1764 Act above is section V in the text of the Act in Wikisource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James500 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with you there. I was just coming to the talk page to say the same thing. I'll see if I can track down a copy of the Statute Law Revision Act 1867 and then amend the article. Road Wizard (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This Act is listed the schedule to the Statute Law Revision Act 1867.