No taxation without representation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"No taxation without representation" was a slogan in the period 1763-1775 that summarized a primary grievance of the American colonists in the Thirteen colonies. The colonists complained that taxes were imposed by Parliament without the consent of the colonists, which violated the traditional rights of Englishmen. The point was that the colonies had no representation in Parliament; the British responded that they were "virtually" represented. The Americans said these "virtual representatives" knew nothing about America. The Americans rejected the Stamp Act 1765 (which was repealed), and in 1773 violently rejected the tax on imports at the Boston Tea Party. When Great Britain began to crackdown on the illegal activities performed by the colonists, the colonists formed militias and seized control of each colony, ousting the royal governors. The complaint was never over the amount of taxation (which was small), but always on the decision-making process by which taxes were decided in London, without representation for the colonists in British Parliament.
Contents |
[edit] Origin
The phrase "no taxation without representation" was coined by Reverend Jonathan Mayhew in a sermon in Boston in 1750. By 1765 the term "no taxation without representation" was in use in Boston, but no one is sure who first used it. Boston politician James Otis was most famously associated with the term, "taxation without representation is tyranny." [1]
By the 1760s the Americans came to believe they were being deprived of a historic right.[2]
During the Stamp Act crisis of 1765, colonist politician Patrick Henry called for a resolution in the Virginia legislature that would anathematize any Virginian who supported the British position: "Any person who shall, by speaking or writing, assert or maintain that any person or persons other than the General Assembly of this Colony, have any right or power to impose or lay any taxation on the people here, shall be deemed an enemy to His Majesty's Colony." It was not passed, but Henry's other resolutions did pass to the effect that Americans possessed all the rights of Englishmen; that the principle of no taxation without representation was an essential part of the British Constitution; and that Virginia alone enjoyed the right to tax Virginians. [3]
The British could not accept this illegal act because it would undermine the authority of the British throne. In Britain representation was highly limited; only 3% of the men could vote and they were controlled by local gentry.[4] Therefore the British government argued that the colonists had virtual representation in their interests. In English history "no taxation without representation" was an old principle and meant that Parliament had to pass all taxes. At first the "representation" was held to be one of land, but by 1700 this had shifted to the notion that in Parliament all British subjects had a "virtual representation." "We virtually and implicitly allow the institutions of any government of which we enjoy the benefit and solicit the protection," declared Samuel Johnson in his political pamphlet Taxation No Tyranny. He rejected the plea that the colonists, who had no vote, were unrepresented. "They are represented," he said, "by the same virtual representation as the greater part of England."
The theory of virtual representation was attacked in Britain by Charles Pratt, Earl of Camden, and especially by William Pitt, Earl of Chatham. It was wholly rejected in the colonies, who said the "virtual" was a cover for political corruption and was irreconcilable with their republican belief that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. Colonists said no man was represented if he were not allowed to vote. "If every inhabitant of America had the requisite freehold," said Daniel Dulany, "not one could vote, but upon the supposition of his ceasing to become an inhabitant of America, and becoming a resident of Great Britain." The colonists insisted that representation was achieved only through an assembly of men actually elected by the persons they were intended to represent.[citation needed]
In an appearance before Parliament in January, 1766, Prime Minister William Pitt stated:[5]
- "The idea of a virtual representation of America in this House is the most contemptible that ever entered into the head of a man. It does not deserve a serious refutation. The Commons of America, represented in their several assemblies, have ever been in possession of the exercise of this their constitutional right, of giving and granting their own money. They would have been slaves if they had not enjoyed it."
Grenville responded to Pitt, saying the disturbances in America "border on open rebellion; and if the doctrine I have heard this day be confirmed, nothing can tend more directly to produce a revolution." External and internal taxes are the same, argued Grenville. [6]
[edit] Modern Washington, D.C.
- See also: District of Columbia voting rights
In modern times, the phrase "Taxation Without Representation" appears on the automobile license plates of Washington, D.C., to protest that city's lack of representation in the United States House of Representatives and Senate (the district has only a non-voting delegate to the House of Representatives who can sit on committees and participate in debates). The slogan is intended to use irony to claim that a core value of the American Revolution is not being applied to the nation's capital. An effort to put the phrase on a redesigned D.C. flag has yet to come to fruition.[1]
[edit] Other uses
British Prime Minister John Major used a modified version of the quote, with the order reversed, in October 1995, when at the United Nations's 50th Anniversary celebrations he said, "It is not sustainable for states to enjoy representation without taxation," in order to criticise the billion-dollar arrears of the United States' payments to the UN. [2]
To become citizens of the United States, immigrants most often must be permanent residents for a period of time (usually 5 years) [3]. Permanent residents must pay taxes and cannot vote. In the late 19th century, however, some states allowed immigrants to vote after they had declared their intention to become citizens; that was an effort to attract immigrants. Immigration is largely a free, positive choice, and the inability to vote is of limited and known duration.
The phrase is also used by other groups in America who pay various types of taxes (sales, income, property) but lack the ability to vote, such as ex-felons (who are, in many states, barred from voting) or people under 18.
In Canada, Quebec politician Gilles Duceppe, leader of the Bloc Québécois, has repeatedly cited this phrase in defending the presence of his party in Ottawa. The Bloc is a Quebec sovereigntist party solely running in Quebec ridings. Duceppe's evocation of the phrase implies that the proponents of Quebec independence have the right to be represented in the body, the Canadian Parliament, which levies taxes upon them. He will usually cite the sentence in its original English, whether speaking English or French.
[edit] References
- ^ Daniel A. Smith , Tax Crusaders and the Politics of Direct Democracy (1998), 21-23
- ^ John C. Miller, Origins of the American Revolution. 1943. pp. 31, 99, 104
- ^ Miller p 122-25
- ^ Miller p 212
- ^ Walford Davis Green, William Pitt, Earl of Chatham and the Growth and Division of the British Empire, 1708-1778. 1901. p. 255.
- ^ Green p. 256
- William S. Carpenter, "Taxation Without Representation" in Dictionary of American History, Volume 7 (1976)
- John C. Miller, Origins of the American Revolution. 1943.
- Edmund Morgan. Inventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America (1989)
- J. R. Pole; Political Representation in England and the Origins of the American Republic (1966)
- Slaughter, Thomas P. "The Tax Man Cometh: Ideological Opposition to Internal Taxes, 1760-1790." William and Mary Quarterly 1984 41(4): 566-591. ISSN 0043-5597 Fulltext in Jstor
