No taxation without representation

"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 The Americans rejected the Stamp Act 1765 (which was repealed), and in 1773 violently rejected the tax on imports at the Boston Tea Party.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.

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."

By the 1760s the Americans came to believe they were being deprived of a historic right.

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.

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. 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.Template:Fact

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."

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.

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. [1]

File:Dctaxation.jpg

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, immigrants most often must be permanent residents for a period of time (usually 5 years) [2]. 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.

Both Britain's and the United States' woman's suffrage movements used this to some extent.

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 the United States, the phrase is used in Washington, D.C. as part of the campaign for a vote in Congress. The phrase also appears on D.C. license plates.

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.Template:Fact 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 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 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

• 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