The american colonists’ slogan “no taxation without representation” was a rejection of

England’s Seven Years’ War (1756–1763) and its counterpart waged in America, the French and Indian War (1754–1763), doubled Britain’s national debt. In order to recoup some of the losses Britain incurred defending its American colonies, Parliament decided for the first time to tax the colonists directly. One such tax, the 1765 Stamp Act required all printed documents used or created in the colonies to bear an embossed revenue stamp. Stamp Act violations were to be tried in vice-admiralty courts because such courts operated without a jury.

Colonial assemblies denounced the law, claiming the tax was illegal on the grounds that they had no representation in Parliament. Colonists were likewise furious at being denied the right to a trial by jury. Many viewed the tax as an infringement of the rights of Englishmen, which contemporary opinion held to be enshrined in Magna Carta. Protests throughout the colonies threatened tax collectors with violence. Parliament finally bowed to pressure and repealed the Stamp Act in March 1766, but the colonial reaction set the stage for the American independence movement.

The Stamp Act of 1765, which Parliament imposed on the American colonies, placed a tax on paper, legal documents, and other commodities; limited trial by jury; and extended the jurisdiction of the vice-admiralty courts. The act generated intense, widespread opposition in America with its critics labeling it “taxation without representation” and a step toward “despotism.” At the suggestion of the Massachusetts Assembly, delegates from nine of the thirteen American colonies met in New York in October 1765. Six delegates, including Williams Samuel Johnson (1727–1819) from Connecticut, agreed to draft a petition to the king based on this Declaration of Rights.

William Samuel Johnson (1727–1819). “Declaration of Rights and Grievances,” October 19, 1765. Page 2. William Samuel Johnson Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress (025)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/magna-carta-muse-and-mentor/no-taxation-without-representation.html#obj025

In the fall of 1765, American colonists convened a Stamp Act Congress in New York and called for a boycott of British imports. The congress was attended by twenty-seven delegates from nine states, whose mandate was to petition the king and Parliament for repeal of the tax without deepening the crisis. The congress emphasized the point that the colonists possessed all the “inherent rights and privileges of Englishmen.” It adopted thirteen points, the third of which stated that “it is inseparably essential to the freedom of the people, and the undoubted right of Englishmen, that no taxes should be imposed on them but with their own consent, given personally or by their representatives.”

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/magna-carta-muse-and-mentor/no-taxation-without-representation.html#obj026

John Dickinson (1732–1808), the influential Pennsylvania politician and author of Letters of a Pennsylvania Farmer, was one of the leading figures at the Stamp Act Congress of 1765. Dickinson was a chief contributor to the Declaration of Rights and Grievances that the congress sent to King George III and Parliament to petition for the repeal of the Stamp Act. In this engraving of Dickinson, his right arm rests on Magna Carta. Coke’s Institutes, whose interpretation of Magna Carta inspired American legal and political thought in the eighteenth century, can be seen on the bookshelf behind him.

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/magna-carta-muse-and-mentor/no-taxation-without-representation.html#obj028

This 1766 cartoon depicts a mock funeral procession along the Thames River in London for the American Stamp Act. The act, which encountered intense opposition in America, was believed by many Americans to violate central rights that were guaranteed to all Englishmen. Following widespread public protests, colonial leaders channeled popular opposition to the tax by way of petitions to the king and Parliament. Bowing to the pressure, Parliament repealed the Stamp Act in 1766. In this cartoon, a funeral procession to the tomb of the Stamp Act includes its principal proponent, Treasury Secretary George Grenville, carrying a child’s coffin, marked “Miss Ame-Stamp born 1765, died 1766.”

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/magna-carta-muse-and-mentor/no-taxation-without-representation.html#obj029

Back to top

Photo by: Magnus Manske Creative Commons

“No taxation without representation” refers to the slogan from 1750s and 1760s that encapsulates the prime grievance of the Thirteen Colonies. It is actually part of a sermon given by Jonathan Mayhew in 1750. It was also one of the causes of the American Revolution. The lack of representation in the British Parliament was a clearly a violation of the rights of the colonists. Thus, taxation and all other laws that affected the colonists directly and indirectly were not constitutional at all. During the American Revolution, there were only a few British citizens that were represented and they were not even a part of the colonies. The phrase summarizes the sentiments that caused the English Civil War, as told by John Hampden. He said in the ship money case who said that an “English King has no right to demand and an English subject has no right to refuse.”

Tax, tax, tax

The British Parliament controlled colonial trade and implemented the taxing of imports and exports since 1660. This historic right was deprived to the Americans by the time the 1760s came. Under the English Bill of rights, the imposition of taxes without consent of the Parliament was utterly forbidden. Since colonists were devoid of representation in the Parliament, this was in violation of the rights of the colonists. In the end, the British Parliament insisted on the fact that the colonists had virtual representation.

Pitt the Elder was a famous Briton and North American like Joseph Galloway who debated and spread plans to create imperial structure or federal representative of the British government. This involved taxation powers that included American, Irish, West Indian and British Members of Parliament. The ideas seriously underwent debates and discussions from different sides of the Atlantic. However, there was no formal demand that was sent to Westminster in the end.

Virtual Representation?

Representation was very limited in Britain with only 3% of men that were allowed with the utmost controlled being done by the local gentry. The British Government then said that colonist had virtual representation to their advantage. No taxation without representation meant that the government had to pass all taxes. This is according to English history. The representation used to be land until it became virtual representation. Samuel Johnson trashed the plea of colonists who had no vote to be unrepresented. According to him: “They are represented by the same virtual representation as the greater part of England.”

The virtual representation theory was lambasted in Britain by Charles Pratt, 1st Earl of Camden and William Pit, Earl of Chatham, his ally. The colonists also rejected it as a whole saying that it was hid political corruption and was unidentifiable with the beliefs of the republicans. There is not representation if a man is not allowed to vote.

In the Parliament’s first speeches, Lord Camden trashed the proposal to mollify the crown when the Stamp Act was repealed. When the “no taxation without representation” was first affirmed, Camden received the ire of PM Greenville, Chief Justice James Mansfield, 1st Earl of Northington and Robert Henley.

Essentially the British Parliament had no right to impose tax on the Americans.

"No taxation without representation" began as a logan in the period 176377–1887076 that summarized a pp grievance of the British colonists ded in the Thirteen Colonies. In short, many in those colonies believed the lack of direct representation in the distant British Parliament was an illegal denial of their rights as Englishmen, and therefore laws taxing the colonists (the kind of law that affects the most individuals directly), and other laws applying only to the colonies, were unconstitutional. In recent times, it has been used by several other groups in several different countries over similar disputes.

Usage in American Revolution[]

The phrase "No Taxation Without Representation!" was coined by Reverend Jonathan Mayhew in a sermon in Boston in 1750[citation needed]. 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]

Parliament had controlled colonial trade and taxed imports and exports since 1660.[2] By the 1760s the Americans were being deprived of a historic right.[3] The English Bill of Rights 1689 had forbidden the imposition of taxes without the consent of Parliament. Since the colonists had no representation in Parliament the taxes violated the guaranteed Rights of Englishmen. Parliament contended that the colonists had virtual representation.

However, Pitt the Elder, amongst other prominent Britons and North Americans such as Joseph Galloway, debated and circulated plans for the creation of a federally representative British Parliament or imperial structure with powers of taxation that was to consist of American, West Indian, Irish and British M.P.s. Despite the fact that these ideas were debated and discussed seriously on both sides of the Atlantic,[1] it appears no Congressional demand for this constitutional development was sent to Westminster.[4]

The Americans rejected the Stamp Act 1765 (which was repealed), and in 1773 violently rejected the remaining tax on tea imports at the Boston Tea Party. The Parliament considered this an illegal act because they believed it undermined the authority of the Crown in Parliament. When the British then used the military to enforce laws the colonists believed Parliament had passed illegally, the colonists responded by forming militias and seized political control of each colony, ousting the royal governors. The complaint was never officially over the amount of taxation (the taxes were quite low, though ubiquitous), but always on the political decision-making process by which taxes were decided in London, i.e. without representation for the colonists in British Parliament. In February 1775, Britain passed the Conciliatory Resolution which ended taxation for any colony which satisfactorily provided for the imperial defense and the upkeep of imperial officers.

Patrick Henry's resolutions in the Virginia legislature implied 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.[5]

Virtual representation[]

In Britain representation was highly limited; only 3% of the men could vote and they were controlled by local gentry.[6] 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. Moreover, even "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:

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.[7]

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. The legal questions surrounding the constitutional nature of the Imperial Crown-in-Parliament's right to legislate and tax for the British Isles and Empire, and the colonies' chartered rights to legislate and tax themselves is dealt with sensitively and lucidly at the following link.[2] or google search 'declatory act imperial representation'.

Modern use in the United States[]

Template:Seealso

The words "Taxation Without Representation" were added to the bottom of the Washington, D.C. license plate to protest the District's lack of representation in Congress.

In the United States, the phrase is used in Washington, D.C. as part of the campaign for a vote in Congress. In November 2000, the D.C. Department of Motor Vehicles began issuing license plates bearing the slogan "Taxation without representation".[8] In a show of support for the city, President Bill Clinton used the "Taxation Without Representation" plates on the presidential limousine; however, President George W. Bush had the tags replaced to those without the motto shortly upon taking office.[9] In 2002, the city council authorized adding the slogan to the D.C. flag, but no new flag design has been approved.[10][11] In 2008, when the District was allowed to participate in the 50 State Quarters program, it submitted designs containing the slogan, but they were rejected by the U.S. Mint.[12] On February 27, 2009, the phrase, "No taxation without representation" was also used in the Tea Party protests, where protesters were upset over increased government spending and taxes.[13]

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 criticize the billion-dollar arrears of the United States' payments to the UN, echoing a statement made the previous month at the opening session of the UN General Assembly by UK Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind.[14]

To become citizens of the United States, immigrants most often must be permanent residents for a period of time (usually 5 years)[15]. Permanent residents must pay taxes on their worldwide income 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.[citation needed]

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 felons (who are, in many states, barred from voting) or people under 18.[citation needed]

Americans working in Antarctica are required to pay federal income tax per the United States Tax Code because it is written that Antarctica is not a foreign country, therefore it is exempt from the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion.[16] However, the US Supreme Court had previously stated that Antarctica was a foreign country in Smith v. United States, 507 U.S. 197 (1993). Currently OSHA and U.S. labor laws do not apply to U.S. citizens working in Antarctica. Also, things like cigarettes sold there bear the "for use outside of U.S." seal, and the mail system for American Antarctic stations is the A.P.O. military mail system. Furthermore the Antarctic Treaty System, signed by the United States, states "Article 4 - does not recognize, dispute, or establish territorial claims and no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force."

In Canada[]

In Canada, Québec 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 Québec sovereigntist party solely running candidates in Canadian Federal elections in the province of Québec. Duceppe's evocation of the phrase implies that the proponents of Quebec's sovereigntist movement have the right to be represented in the body (which they are), the Canadian Parliament, which levies taxes upon them. He will usually cite the sentence in its original English, whether speaking English or French.

Notes[]

References[]

• 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."
• Unger, Harlow, John Hancock, Merchant King and American Patroit, 2000, ISBN 0785820264
• William and Mary Quarterly 1984 41(4): 566-591. ISSN 0043–5597 Fulltext in Jstor

de:No taxation without representation id:Tolak pajak tanpa perwakilan rakyat ja:代表なくして課税なし