No Taxation Without Representation Meaning & Definition 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. 16 responses to “No Taxation Without Representation” Joseph It’s a good article. But I think the date is wrong. It is not 1960, but It should be 1660. *The British Parliament controlled colonial trade and implemented the taxing of imports and exports since *1960. →1660.

How The British Gun Control Program Precipitated The American Revolution | Oath Keepers How The British Gun Control Program Precipitated The American Revolution This article comes from the Tenth Amendment Center. When people think of the causes of the American War for Independence, they think of slogans like “no taxation without representation” or cause célèbre like the Boston Tea Party. In reality, however, what finally forced the colonials into a shooting war with the British Army in April 1775 was not taxes or even warrant-less searches of homes and their occupation by soldiers, but one of many attempts by the British to disarm Americans as part of an overall gun control program, according to David B. Kopel. Furthermore, had the American colonies lost their war for independence, the British government intended to strip them of all their guns and place them under the thumb of a permanent standing army. In his paper titled “ How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution ,” Kopel claims that various gun control policies by the British following the Boston Tea Party, including a ban on firearm and gunpowder importation, tells us not only the purpose of the Second Amendment, but its relevance within the context of today’s gun control debate.

“The ideology underlying all forms of American resistance to British usurpations and infringements was explicitly premised on the right of self-defense of all inalienable rights,” Kopel writes. “From the self-defense foundation was constructed a political theory in which the people were the masters and government the servant, so that the people have the right to remove a disobedient servant. The philosophy was not novel, but was directly derived from political and legal philosophers such as John Locke, Hugo Grotius, and Edward Coke.” Kopel writes that two important things underlined the American response to the British policies. One was the practical concept of self-defense, which British disarmament measures was making more difficult. The other, and more relevant concept, was that “Americans made no distinction between self-defense against a lone criminal or against a criminal government.” Following the Boston Tea Party in December 1773, in which the Sons of Liberty boarded three ships carrying East India Company cargo and dumped forty-six tons of tea ships of tea to prevent its landing, the British government introduced a series of retaliatory measures known as the Intolerable Acts. Among the actions was the closure of Boston’s port, effectively cutting off all trade.

However, Kopel writes, “it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them (the Intolerable Acts) that primed many colonists for armed resistance.” An example of this is a South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia, that urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate (bold emphasis added). “When an Army is sent to enforce Laws, it is always an Evidence that either the Law makers are conscious that they had no clear and indisputable right to make those Laws, or that they are bad [and] oppressive. Wherever the People themselves have had a hand in making Laws, according to the first principles of our Constitution there is no danger of Nonsubmission, Nor can there be need of an Army to enforce them.” The British Army had already been occupying American cities like Boston since 1768, where the notorious Boston Massacre took place in 1770. Following the passage of the intolerable Acts, the Massachusetts Government Act dissolved the provincial government in the state, and General Thomas Gage was appointed royal governor, all which inflamed tensions and prompted backlash from Americans who saw it as the Crown attempted to force their colonies into submission.

Tensions were so great, in fact, that the shooting might have started much earlier than Lexington and Concord. In one incident, General Gage sent Redcoats to squash an “illegal” town meeting in Salem, only to retreat when, according to one of Gage’s aides, three thousand armed Americans arrived. It was clear to the British that gun control measures would be necessary if they were to maintain their rule. Gage had only 2,000 troops in Boston, while there were thousands of armed men in Boston and more in the surrounding area. One solution, Kopel writes, was to deprive the Americans of gunpowder. In September 1774, several hundred Redcoats raided a Charlestown powder house – where militias and merchants stored their gunpowder due to its volatile nature – and seized all but the powder belonging to the colonial government. “Gage was within his legal rights to seize it,” Kopel concludes. “But the seizure still incensed the public.” Known as the Powder Alarm, this also nearly started the Revolution when rumors spread wildly that the Redcoats had started shooting.

In response, 20,000 militiamen were mobilized that same day and marched on Boston – they later turned around once they learned the truth. The Powder House (“Magazine”) is near the northern edge of this detail from a 1775 map of the Siege of Boston. Still, Kopel writes, the message was clear: “If the British used violence to seize arms or powder, the Americans would treat that seizure as an act of war, and the militia would fight,” he writes. “And that is exactly what happened several months later, on April 19, 1775.” Following the Powder Alarm, the militia of the towns of Worcester County assembled at the Worcester Common, where the Worcester Convention ordered the resignations of all militia officers who had received their commissions from the royal governor. The officers promptly resigned, and then received new commissions from the Worcester Convention, independent of the British administration. Governor Gage then tried another approach – warrantless searches of people for arms and ammunition without any provocation. The policy drew fierce criticism from the colonists. In fact, the Boston Gazette wrote that of all General Gage‘s offenses, it was this one that outraged people the most.

In October 1774 the Provincial Congress convened, with John Hancock acting as its president. The Congress adopted a resolution that condemned the military occupation of Boston and called on private citizens to arm themselves and engage in military drills. The Provincial Congress also appointed a Committee of Safety, giving it the power to call up the militia. This meant that the militia of Massachusetts “no longer answered to the British government,” Kopel writes. “It was now the instrument of what was becoming an independent government of Massachusetts.” Not surprisingly, British officials in England were eager to see outright gun confiscation in order to effectively suppress any resistance to their rule. Lord Dartmouth, the royal Secretary of State for America, articulated this sentiment in a letter to Governor Gage. “Amongst other things which have occurred on the present occasion as likely to prevent the fatal consequence of having recourse to the sword, that of disarming the Inhabitants of the Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut and Rhode Island, has been suggested.

Whether such a Measure was ever practicable, or whether it can be attempted in the present state of things you must be the best judge; but it certainly is a Measure of such a nature as ought not to be adopted without almost a certainty of success, and therefore I only throw it out for your consideration.” Gage warned that the only way to carry it out would be to use violence (bold emphasis added): “Your Lordship‘s Idea of disarming certain Provinces would doubtless be consistent with Prudence and Safety, but it neither is nor has been practicable without having Recourse to Force, and being Masters of the Country.” The gun confiscation proposal didn’t remain secret for long, as Gage‘s letter read in the British House of Commons and then publicized in America. Two days after Dartmouth’s letter was sent, King George III ordered the blocked importation of arms and ammunition to America, save those with governments permits. No permit, Kopel writes, was ever granted, and the ban would remain in effect until after the War of Independence ended and the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783. Having banned the import on all guns and ammunition, the British moved next to seize that which remained in colonial hands.

In anticipation of such a seizure at Fort William and Mary in December 1774, four hundred New Hampshire patriots preemptively captured all the material at the fort. Eventually, Kopel writes “Americans no longer recognized the royal governors as the legitimate commanders-in-chief of the militia. So without formal legal authorization, Americans began to form independent militia, outside the traditional chain of command of the royal governors.” It was such a militia that assembled at the Lexington Green and the Concord against Gage’s Redcoats in April 1775. Following the battle, the colonials lay siege to Boston. The British response in other colonies was a swift move to confiscate or destroy firearms. In Virginia, they seized twenty barrels of gunpowder from the public magazine in Williamsburg and removed the firing mechanisms in the guns, making them impossible to shoot. Meanwhile, in Boston, General Gage carried out his own gun confiscation policy against the remaining Bostonians, but having learned his lesson from Lexington and Concord, he tried a more furtive approach by offering them the opportunity to leave town if they gave up their arms. Within days, Kopel writes, 2,674 guns were handed over to the British.

Gage then promptly turned back on his promise and initially refused to allow anyone to leave. Only food shortages led him to permit more emigration from the city. Although there is room for speculation as to what would have happened had the American colonies lost the War of Independence, historical documents make some things very clear. When a British victory seemed likely in 1777, Colonial Undersecretary William Knox drafted a plan titled “What Is Fit to Be Done with America?” Intended to prevent any further rebellions in America, the plan called on the establishment of the Church of England in all the colonies, along with a hereditary aristocracy. But the most ominous measure it would have enacted would have been a permanent standing army, along with the following (emphasis added): The Militia Laws should be repealed and none suffered to be re-enacted, [and] the Arms of all the People should be taken away . . . nor should any Foundery or manufactuary of Arms, Gunpowder, or Warlike Stores, be ever suffered in America, nor should any Gunpowder, Lead, Arms or Ordnance be imported into it without Licence . . .” Many gun control policies in America today follow the British blueprint.

The federal Gun Control Act of 1968, for example, prohibits the import of any firearm which is not deemed suitable for “sporting” purposes by federal regulators. Certain cities openly declare their gun fees are intended not to prevent the wrong people from owning guns, but to discourage all private citizens from owning them. “To the Americans of the Revolution and the Founding Era,” Kopel writes, “the late twentieth century claim that the Second Amendment is a collective right and not an individual right might have seemed incomprehensible. The Americans owned guns individually, in their homes. They owned guns collectively, in their town armories and powder houses. They would not allow the British to confiscate their individual arms, or their collective arms; and when the British tried to do both, the Revolution began.” Yet, Kopel believes “the most important lesson for today from the Revolution is about militaristic or violent search and seizure in the name of disarmament,” something that occurred in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Local law enforcement confiscated firearms, many times at gunpoint. A federal district judge properly issued an order finding the gun confiscation to be illegal. “Gun ownership simpliciter ought never be a pretext for government violence,” Kopel concludes.

“The Americans in 1775 fought a war because the king did not agree. Americans of the twenty-first century should not squander the heritage of constitutional liberty bequeathed by the Patriots.” It is easy to see, then, why modern gun control advocates are the spiritual successors of the British government our forefathers opposed, for while gun grabbers call for restrictions on the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms, they are all but silent on the dangers of having standing army in America or the blatant militarization of police departments. Their reason for disarming American citizens today is the same as that of the British in the 1770s.

Oath Keepers News Alerts Point to Another Area of Needed Member Awareness "A veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard, or reserve - is someone who, at one point in his or her life, wrote a blank check made payable to The ''United States of America'', for an amount of ''up to and including his life.''" – Author Unknown "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." – Thomas Paine "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” – Thomas Paine Veterans, you swore an Oath... Oath of Enlistment I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Officers Oath I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. Your Oath NEVER expires! 1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people. 2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people . 3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal. 4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state. 5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty. 6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps. 7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext. 8.

We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control." 9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies. 10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances. This site is dedicated to the memory of John William Adams (1925-2006), Marine and Oath Keeper extraordinaire. John Adams, at the age of 16, lied about his age to join the Marines so he could fight against Imperial Japan in the Pacific. His enlistment date was December 10, 1941, just three days after the attack on Pearl Harbor (see below). As a Marine rifleman, he fought the Japanese from island to island, across the pacific, including at Iwo Jima. We may have good men, but we never had better.

Until his death in 2006, he was a dedicated patriot who still took his oath to defend the Republic deadly serious. May God grant you the courage to do likewise. No Taxation without Representation More Info No Taxation without Representation A fundamental difference of opinion had developed between British authorities and the Americans on the related issues of taxing the colonists and their representation in Parliament. On the surface, the Americans held to the view of actual representation, meaning that in order to be taxed by Parliament, the Americans rightly should have actual legislators seated and voting in London. James Otis argued for this form of representation in the Stamp Act Congress in 1765, but few other delegates supported him. The British, on the other hand, supported the concept of virtual representation, which was based on the belief that a Member of Parliament virtually represented every person in the empire and there was no need for a specific representative from Virginia or Massachusetts, for example.

Soame Jenyns, a member of Parliament, displayed the contempt felt by many in that body towards the American arguments when he wrote, "As these are usually mixed up with several patriotic and favorite words, such as liberty, property, Englishmen, etc., which are apt to make strong impressions on that more numerous part of mankind who have ears but no understanding, it will not, I think, be improper to give them some answers." In fact, virtual representation was not unknown in America. Legislators in the Virginia House of Burgesses could live in one district while representing another one. It could also be argued that property-owning adult males in much of colonial America virtually represented non-voting women, slaves and men without property. Yet the differentiation between actual and virtual representation was really a convenient fiction from the American side. Most colonists realized the total impracticability of sending representatives across the Atlantic. London was too far away, too much time would be needed to issue instructions to colonial representatives, and any American representation would be so badly outnumbered as to make it totally ineffectual. If taxes were necessary, then the Americans wanted their own assemblies to impose them. Further, the colonists wanted Parliamentary recognition of this perceived right.

Essentially, "No taxation without representation" really meant, "No taxation by Parliament. No representation in Parliament. Let us run our own affairs." "No Taxation without Representation" (Part 1) - Journal of the American Revolution by J. L. Bell James Otis, Jr., by Joseph Blackburn (1755) The primary dispute between Britain and her North American mainland colonies in the 1760s and early 1770s has often been summed up in four words: “no taxation without representation.” American Whigs declared they were loyal to the British king and constitution, but that part of that unwritten constitution was that subjects (or at least wealthy white male subjects) had to be represented in any legislature that imposed taxes on them. The American Whigs’ campaign against “taxation without representation” benefited from that pithy rhyming phrase, which boiled the complex relationship between government and subject down into an easily remembered phrase. So who came up with that slogan? Many authors credit the phrase to the Boston lawyer and legislator James Otis, Jr.

(1725-1783), based on how John Adams recalled Otis’s argument in the writs of assistance case in 1761. Adams wrote a letter to Otis’s biographer William Tudor, Jr., in 1818. After quoting that letter at length Tudor wrote in his book: From the navigation act the advocate [Otis] passed to the Acts of Trade, and these, he contended, imposed taxes, enormous, burthensome, intolerable taxes; and on this topic he gave full scope to his talent, for powerful declamation and invective, against the tyranny of taxation without representation. From the energy with which he urged this position, that taxation without representation is tyranny, it came to be a common maxim in the mouth of every one. And with him it formed the basis of all his speeches and political writings; he builds all his opposition to arbitrary measures from this foundation, and perpetually recurs to it through his whole career, as the great constitutional theme of liberty, and as the fundamental principle of all opposition to arbitrary power.

However, neither Adams’s contemporaneous notes on what he’d heard in 1761 nor his letter contained the “taxation without representation” phrase or argument. There was only a little newspaper coverage of this legal case, and those articles did not raise that issue, instead focusing on the issue of “general writs” and proper searches. Tudor seems to have projected the famous phrase back onto Otis’s 1761 argument.

Otis did raise the issue of where legislatures could fairly tax subjects early in 1764—but he didn’t use the memorable words “no taxation without representation.” Instead, in his pamphlet The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved, Otis concluded: The sum of my argument is: that civil government is of God; that the administrators of it were originally the whole people; that they might have devolved it on whom they pleased; that this devolution is fiduciary, for the good of the whole; that by the British constitution this devolution is on the King, Lords and Commons, the supreme, sacred and uncontrollable legislative power not only in the realm but through the dominions; that by the abdication, the original compact was broken to pieces; that by the Revolution it was renewed and more firmly established, and the rights and liberties of the subject in all parts of the dominions more fully explained and confirmed; that in consequence of this establishment and the acts of succession and union, His Majesty GEORGE III is rightful King and sovereign, and, with his Parliament, the supreme legislative of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, and the dominions thereto belonging; that this constitution is the most free one

 and by far the best now existing on earth; that by this constitution every man in the dominions is a free man; that no parts of His Majesty’s dominions can be taxed without their consent; that every part has a right to be represented in the supreme or some subordinate legislature; that the refusal of this would seem to be a contradiction in practice to the theory of the constitution; that the colonies are subordinate dominions and are now in such a state as to make it best for the good of the whole that they should not only be continued in the enjoyment of subordinate legislation but be also represented in some proportion to their number and estates in the grand legislature of the nation; that this would firmly unite all parts of the British empire in the greater peace and prosperity, and render it invulnerable and perpetual.

In case you missed it within that magnificent 311-word sentence, Otis wrote: “that no parts of His Majesty’s dominions can be taxed without their consent; that every part has a right to be represented in the supreme or some subordinate legislature;…” Not as catchy as “no taxation without representation,” but Otis did establish that philosophical basis for his objections to Parliament’s taxes on the colonies. At the time, Parliament was considering whether to renew and revamp the Molasses Act of 1733, which was about to expire. In April 1764, that legislature passed what became known as the Sugar Act, though it covered several other imported goods as well. The new law cut the duty on imported molasses in half, but it put more teeth into actually collecting that tax and enforcing other Customs rules. Parliament also explicitly said that the new law was to raise revenue, in order to pay for troops in the colonies, rather than just to regulate trade within the British Empire. Under the leadership of James Otis’s ally Samuel Adams (1722-1803), the Boston town meeting took up the argument against taxation without representation.

In its instructions to the town’s representatives in the Massachusetts legislature, the town argued: If taxes are laid upon us in any shape without our having a legal representative where they are laid, are we not reduced from the character of free subjects to the miserable status of tributary slaves? But still, no one had coined the phrase “no taxation without representation.” New Page 1 The first permanent settlement in North America was the English colony at Jamestown, in 1607, in what is now Virginia. The Pilgrims followed, in 1620, and set up a colony at Plymouth, in what is now Massachusetts. Other English colonies sprang up all along the Atlantic coast, from Maine in the north to Georgia in the south. Swedish and Dutch colonies took shape in and around what is now New York. Here European settlement began on September 3, 1609 when Englishman Henry Hudson in the employ of the Dutch East India Company sailed the Half Moon through The Narrows into Upper New York Bay. Like Christopher Columbus, Hudson was looking for a westerly passage to Asia. He never found one, but he did make note of the abundant beaver population.

Beaver pelts were in fashion in Europe, fuelling a lucrative business. Hudson's report on the beaver population of the New York area served as the impetus for the founding of Dutch trading colonies in the New World, among them New Amsterdam, which would become New York City. The beaver's importance in New York City history is reflected by its use on the city's official seal. (http ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_New_York_City) Fort Orange on the Hudson River and was the center of the colonyï¿½s fur trade with the powerful Iroquois Native Americans. In 1664, England renamed the colony New York. New York City gained prominence in the 18th century as a major trading port in the Thirteen Colonies. 2. Print off, paste in and lightly colour this map of the 13 Colonies . On the map, mark in and label the the cities of Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Washington. Then write in the names of the 13 colonies that became the first 13 States of the United States of America.

The War For Independence - the Background Causes Since the founding of the first two colonies, the English holdings in America had grown in number, size and wealth, until in 1763 they stretched along the coast of the Atlantic. The majority of people who settled there were English. Many of the settlers had come to America to escape political or religious persecution, and class restrictions in Europe. They were freedom-loving people. Several things made the American colonists different from their forefathers, however. First, because of the 3,000 mile distance between them and their king, it was very difficult for England to control them. For ten years the American colonists resisted the efforts of their king to tax them or otherwise limit their freedom. It was at this time that the English government decided to tighten the reigns. In 1763, King George III forbade further emigration to the West ; in 1761, a tax was put on sugar from the West Indies and steps were taken to reduce smuggling of goods into the colonies with out paying import taxes; in 1765 came the stamp tax on newspapers and documents.

King George III in his coronation robes Opposition to the Stamp Act in 1765 was intense in the American colonies. The British needed to recoup the costs of the earlier French and Indian Wars, but the colonists argued Parliament failed to obtain their consent. Undoubtedly, many colonists were coming to regard themselves as free Americans and not subjects of a far-away King. Moreover, the Germans, Dutch, Scots and Irish felt no loyalty to England. Colonists galvanized around the position that the Stamp Act of 1765, imposed by Parliament of Great Britain, was unconstitutional. The British Parliament insisted it had the right to tax colonists. The colonists claimed that, as they were British subjects, taxation without representation was illegal. Why should they pay taxes passed by a Parliament, in which they had no politicians voted in to represent them? 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 unconstitutional. 3. A popular slogan in the colonies at the time was: "No Taxation Without Representation!" Explain what this slogan means, and why the tax laws being passed in Britain greatly angered many of the colonists.

In 1770, in the town of Boston, in Massachusetts , tensions caused by the Stamp Tax and the economic effects of the taxes in general caused a riot. This ended with British soldiers killing several of the colonists. News of this event, dubbed the 'Boston Massacre', spread through out the colonies strengthening anti British sentiments. In 1773 another tax known as the Tea Act sparked a further large protest against the British. Colonist organised a boycott against buying directly taxed British tea. This led to the Boston Tea Party, where colonists dressed up as native Americans, raided English ships in Boston harbour and threw the British owned tea into the ocean. News of the event and the punitive reaction by the British Parliament, further aggravated discontent in the colonies with British rule and stimulated the growing desire for American independence. Independence Hall, Philadelphia, where the Declaration of Independence was signed. The British government continued to pass laws that restricted the American Colonists, and imposed many taxes that the Colonists thought were unfair. The British adopted stern measures to enforce obedience to its authority, especially in Massachusetts. The American colonists formed a unifying Continental Congress and a shadow government in each colony, though ostensibly claiming loyalty to the monarch and a place in the British Empire.

In 1774, representatives of all the original colonies except Georgia attended a meeting in Philadelphia to consider united action against the British actions. This gathering, known as the first Continental Congress, adopted a declaration of rights and grievances and called for halting trade with England unless the grievances were redressed. The declaration did not mention independence. 4. Use the above information and any site like the following, to make brief notes on all of the background issues and events, that together caused the American war of Independence: (click full screen) Write your notes as a mind map or design a Glogster poster that explains the causes of the American War of Independence. What happened to tax rates after the American Revolution? - Quora Quora History What happened to tax rates after the American Revolution? We all know the issue of "No taxation without representation." I have heard that the "representation" part was most significant, and in fact tax levels after the revolution were significantly higher than under British rule. Is that correct? If so, by how much? Written Jul 30, 2011 This can be a difficult question to answer directly due to the structure of taxation prior to 1913 and the introduction of the federal income tax.

Especially before, during and after the Revolution there was not a direct tax on "individuals", their earnings or their property as we know those things today. Rather taxes came in the form of tariffs (taxes on imports) and excises (taxes on the sale of goods and services). If you never bought or sold anything, theoretically you might never have paid any taxes! In addition taxes were set amounts, rather than percentages. Given that context we can look at the duties (general tax category for buying, selling, importing and exporting goods) and approximate that those average rates might work for a rough estimate of what people felt they were having to pay in "taxes". However, the data does not reveal the pre-Revolution tax rates so we have incomplete data for long term comparison. The chart below (courtesy of ) and the Historical Abstract of the United States shows the average tariff rate up to the Civil War. We can plot the rates to get a visualization of the trends: One can see that the rate ebbs and flows but the general trend increases. One could interpret that the tax rate did increase to a much higher rate following the Revolution but only after an initial decrease and leveling.

The ideas around taxation that angered most colonials were not so much the rates, rather the fact that the Crown used the taxes as a means of control and regulation of trade and professions. The amount paid by colonials did not generate vast amounts of cash flow for the Crown. The various Acts passed up to the Revolution (Molasses-1733, Sugar-1763, Stamp Act-1765, Revenue-1766) effectively lowered taxes to the colonials especially when compared to British citizens (6 pence on colonials compared to ca. 150 pence for British citizens). "Taxation without representation" was a slogan and buzz phrase rather than a literal reflection of the situation. Until about the 1750's (Seven Years War era) the colonies had been left pretty much to govern their own affairs and culture. Only after the Crown once again took an interest in them and began to reassert control did the colonials start to get their proverbial "knickers in a twist" about taxation and other controls. 5.5k Views · View Upvotes · Answer requested by Written Jul 13, 2013 The posters here have discussed only federal taxation.

But in the north state taxation increased significantly. This was itself one of the main things that drove the emergence of industrialization in the north in the early 1800s. Rebellions of farmers in the 1700s were a reason the wealthy elite wanted a central federal state with the power to raise & pay for an army. Prior to the war for independence small farmers in North America were mainly engaged in peasant agriculture, that is, for the subsistence of their families. They may have traded produce for goods with merchants but they operated with little money. Growing taxation after the war for independence was a reason that forced farmers in the north increasingly to have to orient to cash crop production. Taxes plus the purchase of tools & increasingly consumer goods, instead of making things themselves (clothes, tools, furniture). Taxes grew especially in the north after the formation of the first public school systems in the 1830s. These were created exclusively in the north. In the south there was no land taxation. The planter class were sufficiently powerful to prevent it. They had no need for public education systems for their slaves. The plantations were to a large extent self-sufficient in many ways.

This reduced requirements for government action in the south. So among the poor white population in the south peasant agriculture survived until the civil war but was gone in the north earlier. In the north cash orientation of farmers led also to the growth of agriculturally related manufacturing industries...flour mills, breweries, meat packing plants, and firms making agricultural tools. This agro-industrial complex was key to the industrialization of the north before the civil war. Tenth Amendment Center | How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution You are here: American Revolution How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution When people think of the causes of the American War for Independence, they think of slogans like “no taxation without representation” or cause célèbre like the Boston Tea Party. In reality, however, what finally forced the colonials into a shooting war with the British Army in April 1775 was not taxes or even warrant-less searches of homes and their occupation by soldiers, but one of many attempts by the British to disarm Americans as part of an overall gun control program, according to David B. Kopel.

Furthermore, had the American colonies lost their war for independence, the British government intended to strip them of all their guns and place them under the thumb of a permanent standing army. In his paper titled “ How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution ,” Kopel claims that various gun control policies by the British following the Boston Tea Party, including a ban on firearm and gunpowder importation, tells us not only the purpose of the Second Amendment, but its relevance within the context of today’s gun control debate. “The ideology underlying all forms of American resistance to British usurpations and infringements was explicitly premised on the right of self-defense of all inalienable rights,” Kopel writes. “From the self-defense foundation was constructed a political theory in which the people were the masters and government the servant, so that the people have the right to remove a disobedient servant. The philosophy was not novel, but was directly derived from political and legal philosophers such as John Locke, Hugo Grotius, and Edward Coke.” Kopel writes that two important things underlined the American response to the British policies. One was the practical concept of self-defense, which British disarmament measures was making more difficult.

The other, and more relevant concept, was that “Americans made no distinction between self-defense against a lone criminal or against a criminal government.” Following the Boston Tea Party in December 1773, in which the Sons of Liberty boarded three ships carrying East India Company cargo and dumped forty-six tons of tea ships of tea to prevent its landing, the British government introduced a series of retaliatory measures known as the Intolerable Acts. Among the actions was the closure of Boston’s port, effectively cutting off all trade. However, Kopel writes, “it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them (the Intolerable Acts) that primed many colonists for armed resistance.” An example of this is a South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia, that urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate (bold emphasis added). “When an Army is sent to enforce Laws, it is always an Evidence that either the Law makers are conscious that they had no clear and indisputable right to make those Laws, or that they are bad [and] oppressive.

Wherever the People themselves have had a hand in making Laws, according to the first principles of our Constitution there is no danger of Nonsubmission, Nor can there be need of an Army to enforce them.” The British Army had already been occupying American cities like Boston since 1768, where the notorious Boston Massacre took place in 1770. Following the passage of the intolerable Acts, the Massachusetts Government Act dissolved the provincial government in the state, and General Thomas Gage was appointed royal governor, all which inflamed tensions and prompted backlash from Americans who saw it as the Crown attempted to force their colonies into submission. Tensions were so great, in fact, that the shooting might have started much earlier than Lexington and Concord. In one incident, General Gage sent Redcoats to squash an “illegal” town meeting in Salem, only to retreat when, according to one of Gage’s aides, three thousand armed Americans arrived. It was clear to the British that gun control measures would be necessary if they were to maintain their rule. Gage had only 2,000 troops in Boston, while there were thousands of armed men in Boston and more in the surrounding area.

One solution, Kopel writes, was to deprive the Americans of gunpowder. In September 1774, several hundred Redcoats raided a Charlestown powder house – where militias and merchants stored their gunpowder due to its volatile nature – and seized all but the powder belonging to the colonial government. “Gage was within his legal rights to seize it,” Kopel concludes. “But the seizure still incensed the public.” Known as the Powder Alarm, this also nearly started the Revolution when rumors spread wildly that the Redcoats had started shooting. In response, 20,000 militiamen were mobilized that same day and marched on Boston – they later turned around once they learned the truth. The Powder House (“Magazine”) is near the northern edge of this detail from a 1775 map of the Siege of Boston. Still, Kopel writes, the message was clear: “If the British used violence to seize arms or powder, the Americans would treat that seizure as an act of war, and the militia would fight,” he writes.

“And that is exactly what happened several months later, on April 19, 1775.” Following the Powder Alarm, the militia of the towns of Worcester County assembled at the Worcester Common, where the Worcester Convention ordered the resignations of all militia officers who had received their commissions from the royal governor. The officers promptly resigned, and then received new commissions from the Worcester Convention, independent of the British administration. Governor Gage then tried another approach – warrantless searches of people for arms and ammunition without any provocation. The policy drew fierce criticism from the colonists. In fact, the Boston Gazette wrote that of all General Gage‘s offenses, it was this one that outraged people the most. In October 1774 the Provincial Congress convened, with John Hancock acting as its president. The Congress adopted a resolution that condemned the military occupation of Boston and called on private citizens to arm themselves and engage in military drills. The Provincial Congress also appointed a Committee of Safety, giving it the power to call up the militia. This meant that the militia of Massachusetts “no longer answered to the British government,” Kopel writes.

“It was now the instrument of what was becoming an independent government of Massachusetts.” Not surprisingly, British officials in England were eager to see outright gun confiscation in order to effectively suppress any resistance to their rule. Lord Dartmouth, the royal Secretary of State for America, articulated this sentiment in a letter to Governor Gage. “Amongst other things which have occurred on the present occasion as likely to prevent the fatal consequence of having recourse to the sword, that of disarming the Inhabitants of the Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut and Rhode Island, has been suggested.

Whether such a Measure was ever practicable, or whether it can be attempted in the present state of things you must be the best judge; but it certainly is a Measure of such a nature as ought not to be adopted without almost a certainty of success, and therefore I only throw it out for your consideration.” Gage warned that the only way to carry it out would be to use violence (bold emphasis added): “Your Lordship‘s Idea of disarming certain Provinces would doubtless be consistent with Prudence and Safety, but it neither is nor has been practicable without having Recourse to Force, and being Masters of the Country.” The gun confiscation proposal didn’t remain secret for long, as Gage‘s letter read in the British House of Commons and then publicized in America. Two days after Dartmouth’s letter was sent, King George III ordered the blocked importation of arms and ammunition to America, save those with governments permits. No permit, Kopel writes, was ever granted, and the ban would remain in effect until after the War of Independence ended and the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783. Having banned the import on all guns and ammunition, the British moved next to seize that which remained in colonial hands.

In anticipation of such a seizure at Fort William and Mary in December 1774, four hundred New Hampshire patriots preemptively captured all the material at the fort. Eventually, Kopel writes “Americans no longer recognized the royal governors as the legitimate commanders-in-chief of the militia. So without formal legal authorization, Americans began to form independent militia, outside the traditional chain of command of the royal governors.” It was such a militia that assembled at the Lexington Green and the Concord against Gage’s Redcoats in April 1775. Following the battle, the colonials lay siege to Boston. The British response in other colonies was a swift move to confiscate or destroy firearms. In Virginia, they seized twenty barrels of gunpowder from the public magazine in Williamsburg and removed the firing mechanisms in the guns, making them impossible to shoot. Meanwhile, in Boston, General Gage carried out his own gun confiscation policy against the remaining Bostonians, but having learned his lesson from Lexington and Concord, he tried a more furtive approach by offering them the opportunity to leave town if they gave up their arms. Within days, Kopel writes, 2,674 guns were handed over to the British.

Gage then promptly turned back on his promise and initially refused to allow anyone to leave. Only food shortages led him to permit more emigration from the city. Although there is room for speculation as to what would have happened had the American colonies lost the War of Independence, historical documents make some things very clear. When a British victory seemed likely in 1777, Colonial Undersecretary William Knox drafted a plan titled “What Is Fit to Be Done with America?” Intended to prevent any further rebellions in America, the plan called on the establishment of the Church of England in all the colonies, along with a hereditary aristocracy. But the most ominous measure it would have enacted would have been a permanent standing army, along with the following (emphasis added): The Militia Laws should be repealed and none suffered to be re-enacted, [and] the Arms of all the People should be taken away . . . nor should any Foundery or manufactuary of Arms, Gunpowder, or Warlike Stores, be ever suffered in America, nor should any Gunpowder, Lead, Arms or Ordnance be imported into it without Licence . . .” Many gun control policies in America today follow the British blueprint.

The federal Gun Control Act of 1968, for example, prohibits the import of any firearm which is not deemed suitable for “sporting” purposes by federal regulators. Certain cities openly declare their gun fees are intended not to prevent the wrong people from owning guns, but to discourage all private citizens from owning them. “To the Americans of the Revolution and the Founding Era,” Kopel writes, “the late twentieth century claim that the Second Amendment is a collective right and not an individual right might have seemed incomprehensible. The Americans owned guns individually, in their homes. They owned guns collectively, in their town armories and powder houses. They would not allow the British to confiscate their individual arms, or their collective arms; and when the British tried to do both, the Revolution began.” Yet, Kopel believes “the most important lesson for today from the Revolution is about militaristic or violent search and seizure in the name of disarmament,” something that occurred in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Local law enforcement confiscated firearms, many times at gunpoint. A federal district judge properly issued an order finding the gun confiscation to be illegal. “Gun ownership simpliciter ought never be a pretext for government violence,” Kopel concludes.

“The Americans in 1775 fought a war because the king did not agree. Americans of the twenty-first century should not squander the heritage of constitutional liberty bequeathed by the Patriots.” It is easy to see, then, why modern gun control advocates are the spiritual successors of the British government our forefathers opposed, for while gun grabbers call for restrictions on the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms, they are all but silent on the dangers of having standing army in America or the blatant militarization of police departments. Their reason for disarming American citizens today is the same as that of the British in the 1770s. NEXT STEPS

Question: The initial slogan for the American War of Independence was "No taxation without " what?
Answer: Representation