No taxation without representation: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Richard Jensen
(import from Wikipedia)
 
mNo edit summary
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
"'''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 dating back from the [[Magna Carta]]. 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 The Americans rejected the [[Stamp Act 1765]] (which was repealed), and in 1773 violently rejected the tax on imports at the [[Boston Tea Party]].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 crack down 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 officially over the amount of taxation (although it was somewhat high), but always on the decision-making process by which taxes were decided in London, without representation for the colonists in [[British Parliament]].
{{subpages}}
"'''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 dating back centuries. 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 phrase "No Taxation Without Representation!" was coined by Reverend [[Jonathan Mayhew]] in a sermon in [[Boston, Massachusetts|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." <ref>Daniel A. Smith , Tax Crusaders and the Politics of Direct Democracy (1998), 21-23</ref>
The Americans strenuously rejected the [[Stamp Act 1765]] (which was repealed), and in 1773 violently rejected the tax on tea imports at the Boston Tea Party.  Britain retaliated against Boston in a chain of episodes that led to armed rebellion in 1775 and the [[American Revolution]]. The colonists formed militias and seized control of each colony, ousting the royal governors. The complaint was never officially over the amount of taxation (which was low), but always on the decision-making process by which taxes were decided in London, without representation for the colonists in British Parliament.
 
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." <ref>Daniel A. Smith , Tax Crusaders and the Politics of Direct Democracy (1998), 21-23</ref>


By the 1760s the Americans came to believe they were being deprived of a historic right.<ref> John C. Miller, ''Origins of the American Revolution.'' 1943. pp. 31, 99, 104</ref>
By the 1760s the Americans came to believe they were being deprived of a historic right.<ref> John C. Miller, ''Origins of the American Revolution.'' 1943. pp. 31, 99, 104</ref>


During 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. <ref> Miller p 122-25</ref>  
In the Virginia legislature [[Patrick Henry]] passed resolutions 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 English Constitution; and that Virginia alone enjoyed the right to tax Virginians. <ref> Miller p 122-25</ref>  
 
==British perspectives==
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.<ref> Miller p 212</ref>  Therefore the [[Her Majesty's Government|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."  
Many British leaders agreed with the Americans, but King [[George III]] (reigned 1760-1820) and his government took a hard-line position. The British could not accept Virginia's position because it would undermine the authority of Parliament, which it insisted in the "Declaratory Act" was always the final decision-making body. In Britain representation was highly limited; only 3% of the men could vote and they were controlled by local gentry.<ref> Miller p 212</ref>  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."<ref> See [http://books.google.com/books?id=M24FAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:taxation+inauthor:samuel+inauthor:johnson&num=30&as_brr=3#PPA4,M1]</ref>


The theory of virtual representation was attacked in Britain by [[Charles Clarence Pratt|Charles Pratt]], [[Earl of Camden]], and especially by [[William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham|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 [[Republicanism in the United States|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.{{Fact|date=February 2007}}
The theory of virtual representation was attacked in Britain by Charles Pratt, the Earl of Camden, and especially by William Pitt. It was wholly rejected in the colonies, who said the "virtual" was a cover for political corruption and was irreconcilable with their [[Republicanism, U.S.|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.


In an appearance before Parliament in January, 1766, Prime Minister [[William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham|William Pitt]] stated:<ref>Walford Davis Green, ''William Pitt, Earl of Chatham and the Growth and Division of the British Empire, 1708-1778.'' 1901. p. 255.</ref>
In an appearance before Parliament in January, 1766, Prime Minister [[William Pitt]] stated:<ref>Walford Davis Green, ''William Pitt, Earl of Chatham and the Growth and Division of the British Empire, 1708-1778.'' 1901. p. 255.</ref>
:"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."
:"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. <ref> Green p. 256</ref>
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. <ref> Green p. 256</ref>


==Other uses==
==Popular usage==
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. [http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/chronol/fin1995.htm]
The term has become common in popular usage to complain about exclusion from political participation, a distant and unreponsive government, or high taxes. It was used in the woman suffrage movement, for example, to decry the denial of the right to vote to females. In Washington DC, today, it is a powerful slogan that underscores the District's continuing lack of a vote in the US House, and any representation at all in the U.S. Senate.
 
[[Image:Dctaxation.jpg|thumb|153px|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.]]
To become citizens of the United States, [[Immigration to the United States|immigrants]] most often must be permanent residents for a period of time (usually 5 years)
[http://uscis.gov/graphics/services/factsheet/howdoi/B3.pdf].  Permanent residents must pay taxes and cannot [[Elections in the United States|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.


Both Britain's and the United States' [[woman's suffrage]] movements used this to some extent.
==Notes==
 
The phrase is also used by other groups in America who pay various types of taxes ([[Sales tax|sales]], [[income tax|income]], [[property tax|property]]) but lack the ability to vote, such as ex-[[Felony|felons]] (who are, in many states, barred from voting) or [[Minor (law)|people under 18]].
 
In the United States, the phrase is used in [[Washington, D.C.]] as part of the [[District of Columbia voting rights|campaign for a vote]] in [[United States Congress|Congress]]. The phrase also appears on D.C. [[license plates]].
 
[[United States|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.{{fact|date=June 2007}}  However, the [[US Supreme Court]] states that Antarctica ''is'' a foreign country in [[Smith v. United States]], 507 U.S. 197 (1993). Currently [[OSHA]] and Overtime rules do not apply on the ice, the 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."
 
===Usage 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 sovereignty movement|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 soveigntist movement have the right to be represented in the body (which they are), the [[Parliament of Canada|Canadian Parliament]], which levies taxes upon them.  He will usually cite the sentence in its original English, whether speaking English or French.
 
===Popular Culture===
 
In the film [[The Great Escape]], during a scene where the Americans are supplying the [[POW]] camp with [[moonshine]], Goff holds a canteen above his head and yells out: "No taxation without representation". Much to the astonished look of [[Steve McQueen]] who momentarily breaks character and gives him a puzzled look.
 
==References==
<references/>
<references/>
* William S. Carpenter, "Taxation Without Representation" in ''Dictionary of American History, Volume 7'' (1976)
==Bibliography==
* John C. Miller, ''Origins of the American Revolution.'' 1943.
* Carpenter, William S. "Taxation Without Representation" in ''Dictionary of American History, Volume 7'' (1976)
* Edmund Morgan. '' Inventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America'' (1989)
* Miller, John C. ''Origins of the American Revolution.'' (1943). [http://www.questia.com/library/book/origins-of-the-american-revolution-by-john-c-miller.jsp online edition]
* J. R. Pole; ''Political Representation in England and the Origins of the American Republic'' (1966)
* Morgan, Edmund. ''Inventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America'' (1989)
* 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
* Pole; J. R. ''Political Representation in England and the Origins of the American Republic'' (1966) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/political-representation-in-england-and-the-origins-of-the-american-republic-by-j-r-pole.jsp online edition]
 
* Slaughter, Thomas P. "The Tax Man Cometh: Ideological Opposition to Internal Taxes, 1760-1790." ''William and Mary Quarterly'' 1984 41(4): 566-591. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1919154 in Jstor][[Category:Suggestion Bot Tag]]
[[de:No taxation without representation]]
[[id:No taxation without representation]]
[[ja:代表なくして課税なし]]
 
[[Category:Home rule and voting rights of the District of Columbia|Voting rights]]
[[Category:History of voting rights in the United States]]

Latest revision as of 11:00, 26 September 2024

This article is developing and not approved.
 Main Article
 Discussion
Definition [?]
 Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
https://en.citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=No_taxation_without_representation&printable=yes
This editable Main Article is under development and subject to a disclaimer.

"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 dating back centuries. 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 strenuously rejected the Stamp Act 1765 (which was repealed), and in 1773 violently rejected the tax on tea imports at the Boston Tea Party. Britain retaliated against Boston in a chain of episodes that led to armed rebellion in 1775 and the American Revolution. The colonists formed militias and seized control of each colony, ousting the royal governors. The complaint was never officially over the amount of taxation (which was low), but always on the decision-making process by which taxes were decided in London, without representation for the colonists in British Parliament.

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]

In the Virginia legislature Patrick Henry passed resolutions 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 English Constitution; and that Virginia alone enjoyed the right to tax Virginians. [3]

British perspectives

Many British leaders agreed with the Americans, but King George III (reigned 1760-1820) and his government took a hard-line position. The British could not accept Virginia's position because it would undermine the authority of Parliament, which it insisted in the "Declaratory Act" was always the final decision-making body. 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."[5]

The theory of virtual representation was attacked in Britain by Charles Pratt, the Earl of Camden, and especially by William Pitt. 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.

In an appearance before Parliament in January, 1766, Prime Minister William Pitt stated:[6]

"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. [7]

Popular usage

The term has become common in popular usage to complain about exclusion from political participation, a distant and unreponsive government, or high taxes. It was used in the woman suffrage movement, for example, to decry the denial of the right to vote to females. In Washington DC, today, it is a powerful slogan that underscores the District's continuing lack of a vote in the US House, and any representation at all in the U.S. Senate.

Notes

  1. ↑ Daniel A. Smith , Tax Crusaders and the Politics of Direct Democracy (1998), 21-23
  2. ↑ John C. Miller, Origins of the American Revolution. 1943. pp. 31, 99, 104
  3. ↑ Miller p 122-25
  4. ↑ Miller p 212
  5. ↑ See [1]
  6. ↑ Walford Davis Green, William Pitt, Earl of Chatham and the Growth and Division of the British Empire, 1708-1778. 1901. p. 255.
  7. ↑ Green p. 256

Bibliography

  • Carpenter, William S. "Taxation Without Representation" in Dictionary of American History, Volume 7 (1976)
  • Miller, John C. Origins of the American Revolution. (1943). online edition
  • Morgan, Edmund. Inventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America (1989)
  • Pole; J. R. Political Representation in England and the Origins of the American Republic (1966) online edition
  • Slaughter, Thomas P. "The Tax Man Cometh: Ideological Opposition to Internal Taxes, 1760-1790." William and Mary Quarterly 1984 41(4): 566-591. in Jstor
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=No_taxation_without_representation&oldid=982890"