" No taxes without representation " is a slogan dating back to the 1700s that summarizes the major complaints of American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies, which is one of the major causes of the American Revolution. In short, many in the colonies believe that, since they are not directly represented in the farther British Parliament, any legislation it authorizes affects colonists (such as the Sugar Act and the Stamp Act) is illegal under the Bill of Rights 1689, and is a rejection of their right as an Englishman.
Jonathan Mayhew, pastor of the Western Church's Older Congregation, used the phrase, "no taxation without representation" in a sermon in 1750. The phrase evoked the sentiments that became the center of the British Civil War following the refusal of John Hampden of parliament to pay for the ship. tax money. "No taxes without representation," in the context of British Colonial American taxation, appeared for the first time in the London Magazine headline in February 1768, on page 89, in Lord Camden's printing "Speech on the Bill of the Declarator of the British sovereignty over the Colonies. "
Video No taxation without representation
Sebelum Revolusi Amerika
The British parliament has controlled colonial trade and imposed import and export taxes since 1660. In the 1760s, Americans were deprived of historical rights. The English Bill of Rights 1689 prohibits taxation without the approval of Parliament. Since the colonists have no representation in Parliament, the tax infringes on the rights of the guaranteed British. Parliament initially argued that the colonists had virtual representation, but the idea of ​​"finding little support on both sides of the Atlantic". John Dunmore Lang wrote in 1852, "The man who first suggested the idea of ​​[Parliamentary representation for the colonies] seems to have been Oldmixon, an American annalist in Queen Anne or George I. Afterwards it was submitted with the consent of Dr. Adam Smith famous, and advocating for a while, but then rejected and strongly opposed by Dr. Benjamin Franklin. "
The 1768 Petitions, Warnings, and Remonstrance eloquently objected to taxation, written by the Virginia House of Burgesses and backed by every other Colony, were sent to the British Government, who seemed to have ignored it.
Maps No taxation without representation
American Revolution
The phrase has been used for more than a generation in Ireland. In 1765, the term was used in Boston, and the most famous local politician James Otis related to the phrase, "taxation without representation is tyranny." In the course of the Revolutionary era (1750-1783), many arguments were pursued that sought to resolve disputes over the sovereignty of Parliament, taxation, self-government and representation.
Proposal representation before 1776
During the 1760s and 1770s, William Pitt the Elder, Sir William Pulteney, and George Grenville, among other prominent British and colonial people, such as Joseph Galloway, James Otis Jr., Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, London Quaker Thomas Crowley, Royal Governors such as Thomas Pownall MP, William Franklin, Sir Francis Bernard, and Quebec Attorney General Francis Maseres debated and circulated the plans for making a colonial seats in London, imperial unity with Great Britain, or federal representatives of the British Parliament with the power of taxation consisting of Members of the American Parliament, West India, Ireland and England. Despite the fact that these ideas were considered and discussed seriously on both sides of the Atlantic, it seems that neither the American Congress nor the colonial Assembly nor the British Government in Westminster, at least before the Commission of Peace of Carlisle 1778, formally proposed such constitutional progression. It should be noted, however, that Governor Thomas Hutchinson seems to be referring to a colonial representation proposal when he wrote it,
The Massachusetts Bay... Assembly was the first to ever exclude the right of Parliament to impose the Duty or Tax on the Colonies, while they had no representation in the House of Commons. This they did in a letter to their Agent in the summer of 1764... And in this letter they recommended him a pamphlet, written by one of their members, where there was a proposal to receive representation from the colony to fit the House of Commons... the American representation was discarded as an act which might negate the objection against the Tax on the Colonies, but... it was rejected... by the Assembly of the Colonies who first proposed it, because it was utterly impractical.
Jared Ingersoll Snr., The colonial agent for Connecticut, wrote to his American colleague, Connecticut Kingdom Governor Thomas Fitch, that after the famous Parliamentary speech of Isaac Barre against the Stamp Act in 1764, Richard Jackson, MP, supported Barre and pro- Other Americans. MPs by producing before a copy of the previous House of Acts of Parliament have recognized Durham and Chester seats over their petition for representation. The argument was put forward in Parliament that America should have representation on this basis as well. Richard Jackson thought that Parliament had the right to pay taxes to America, but he strongly doubted the wisdom of the Stamps. He said if necessary, as stated minister, to impose a tax on the colony, the latter should be allowed to vote some parts of Parliament, "otherwise, American freedom, I do not say will be lost, but will be in danger."
The Knox-Burke Debate
William Knox, an aide to George Grenville, a pamphlet and Irish Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, accepted the rapture in 1756 to the American provinces, and upon returning to London in 1761, he recommended the formation of colonial aristocracy and colonial representation in the British Parliament. He was soon appointed as agent for Georgia and East Florida, a post he returned with writing in support of the Stamp Act. In his pamphlet supported by Grenville in 1769, The Controversy between the United Kingdom and his colonial review, Knox suggested that colonial representatives may have been offered seats in the British Parliament if they sought such representation. Knox handed it over,
while [radical colonists] cry out against Parliament for taxing them when they are not represented, they are honestly stating that they will not have representation [in Parliament] so they are not taxed... The truth... is that they are determined to get rid of the jurisdiction of Parliament... and therefore they refuse to send members to the assembly so that they do not preclude themselves from legislative acts [of the DPR]]... done without their consent; which, admittedly, applies equally well to all laws, such as to taxes... The colonists... informed us that by refusing to accept our representatives' offer, they... intend not to give Parliament a pretense for burdening them.
Edmund Burke responds to Knox, who has compiled the Controversy between Great Britain and the Colonies and the Present State of the Nation (1768) under the supervision of George Grenville, giving opinions in his political treaty Observations in the State of the End of the Nations (1769),
NOW comes the American representative [Knox]... Is not the reader a little surprised by the American representation proposal of that quarter [of Grenville]? This is proposed only as a speculative improvement project; not from the necessity of the case, not to add anything to the parliamentary authority: but that we can give greater attention to the concerns of Americans, and give them a better chance to express their grievances, and get compensation. I am glad to know that the author has long known that we have not paid sufficient attention to their concerns, or due compensation for their grievances. His good friend [Grenville] will never be very unhappy with anyone, who should tell him, that he is not attending enough for the matter. He thinks he does it, when he organizes the colony over and over: he thinks he does it, when he forms two general systems of income; one of the port duties, and the other from internal taxation. This system should, or should have thought, the greatest attention, and the most detailed information of, all of their affairs. However, by fighting for American representation, it seems ultimately driven to recognize that great caution must be used in the exercise of all our legislative rights to an object so far from our eyes, and so little to do with our immediate feelings; that with caution we should not be so ready with our taxes, until we can secure the desired representation in parliament. Perhaps it may be some time before this hope scheme can be brought into perfect maturity; although the author seems unwise to know any obstacles that block his path.
Although Knox, Grenville and Burke are essentially opposed to directing colonial representation in Parliament, Grenville maintains that Parliament maintains a constitutional right to virtually represent colonial subjects.
On American Taxation
Burke supports the doctrine of virtual representation in Britain. But in his 1774 parliamentary address, entitled On American Taxation, Burke responded to the suggestion that America was almost represented in Parliament by commenting,
What! does the electrical power of a virtual representation more easily pass through the Atlantic than covering Wales, located in your neighborhood? or from Chester and Durham, surrounded by an abundance of actual and visible representations? But, sir, your ancestors considered this kind of virtual representation, however much, to be entirely inadequate for the liberty of the inhabitants of the regions so close, and comparatively insignificant. Then, how can I think enough for those who are much bigger, and much farther? You now, sir, may imagine that I will propose to you a scheme for the representation of the colony in Parliament. Perhaps I tend to entertain some such thoughts; but the great flood stopped me in my path. Opposuit Natura. I can not remove the lasting barriers of creation. The problem is, in that mode, I do not know to be possible. As I interfere without theory, I do not really affirm the impracticality of such representations; but I do not see the way to it; and those who are more confident have not been more successful... Therefore, my resolution means establishing justice and justice of American piracy by grant, and not by imposition; to mark the legal competence of the colony council for their government's support in peace, and for public assistance in times of war; to recognize that this legal competence has a useful and useful exercise, and that experience has shown the benefits of their grants, and the tax advantages of Parliament, as a method of supply.
However, Burke seems to qualify the statement about America by stating in the same speech,
The Parliament of Great Britain... never intrudes on entering [the provincial legislature], while they are equivalent to the general objectives of their institutions. But to allow [Parliament]... superintendence, its power must be infinite. Gentlemen who think that the limited power of Parliament may please themselves to talk about the acquisition. But if the acquisition is not obeyed? What! there would be no power reserved in the empire, to supply the deficiencies that can weaken, divide, and dispose of it entirely? We are involved in the waar, - the Secretary of State calls on the colonies to contribute, - some will do it, I think most will be happy to give whatever is required - one or two, say, hang back, and, reduce themselves, let the pressure of the design lie on the other, - of course it is appropriate that some authorities may legitimately say, "Pay yourself for General Supply, or Parliament will do it for you." This backwardness, as I said, was actually a Pennsylvania case for a short time toward the start of the last war, due to some internal strife in the colony. But whether the facts are so or vice versa, the case must equally be provided by the competent power of sovereignty. But then this should not be an ordinary force, nor was it used in the first instance. This is what I mean, when I have said, at various times, that I regard the tax power in Parliament as an imperial instrument, and not as a means of supply.
William Pitt the Elder
The views of Knox, Grenville and Burke do not go unchallenged: William Pitt is among those who argue that Parliamentary or power rights exist to levy "internal" taxes for the purpose of increasing revenues "without the consent of the actual representatives of" Commons of America ". "It is my opinion," Pitt said, "that this kingdom has no right to tax the colonies."
Colonial spokesman
In 1764, Massachusetts politician James Otis, Jr., said that,
When the parliament would think fit to allow the colonists representation in the house of the common property, their taxable equity colony, will be as clear as their current forces do so without, if they please... But if it is It is estimated that the charter privilege should be taken by parliamentary action, is not more difficult to be part of, or as a whole, the conquered rights, which is always attributed to the English subject, that is, to be free of all taxes, but what does he personally approve, or by his deputy? This right, if it can be traced no higher than Magna Charta, is part of the general law, part of the subject's human rights, and as inherent and eternal, as a duty of loyalty; both have been brought to these colonies, and to this day are considered sacred and inviolable, and I hope and believe in ever. It is conceived humbly, that British colonists (except only conquered, if any), by Magna Charta, are also entitled to have a vote in their taxes, as subjects in the kingdom. Are we not really deprived of that right, by the parliament who judges us before we are represented in a common property, as if the King had to do it with his prerogative? Can it be said with the color of truth or justice, that we are represented in parliament?
Otis, Jr., attended the Continental Congress in 1765 along with other colonial delegates. The congress resolution states that the Stamp Act has "a real tendency to subvert the rights and freedoms of the colonists" and that "the only People's Representatives of these Colonies, are the People elected there by themselves, and that there is no Tax which has never existed, may have been imposed by the Constitution, but by the respective Legislature. "Further, it is stated that," it is unreasonable and inconsistent with the Principles and Spirit of the English Constitution, for the Great Britain, to be given to His Majesty the Colonists. "
Daniel Dulany, Jr., of Maryland, wrote in 1765 that, "Non-compliance by the British Parliament... [proved by] The fact that no resident in any Colony, or can be virtually or virtually, is represented by British House of Commons. "Dulany, Jr., denies that Parliament has the right" to impose an internal Tax on Colonies, without their consent to the sole Purpose of Revenue. "
In 1766, Benjamin Franklin told the House of Commons that "internal taxes are forced from people without their consent if not put by their own representatives." Stamp Act says that we will not have any trade, not exchange property with each other. , do not buy or give, or recover the debt, we will not marry or make our will unless we pay that amount and that, and thus it is meant to extort our money from us or destroy us with the consequences of refusing to pay it.
Republicanism
For those sympathetic to republicanism, such as James Burgh, Catherine Macauley, and Richard Price, any taxation measures imposed without direct representation from America are "unconstitutional" and "destructive". Burgh feels that virtual representatives are "subversive of freedom" and "unfair in its principles" and that the House of Representatives should include colonial representation when choosing on colonial issues, or operating under the approval of the colonial Assembly.
Increased tension
The Americans rejected the 1765 Stamps Act brought by British Prime Minister George Grenville, and rudely denied the remaining taxes on tea imports, under the Tea Act passed in May 1773, at the Boston Tea Party on December 16, 1773. Parliament it is considered illegal as they believe it undermines the authority of the Crown in Parliament. When the British then used the military to enforce colonial laws that believed the Parliament had passed illegally, the colonists responded by forming the militia and seizing control of each colony's politics, ousting the governor of the kingdom - with the exception of the Governor of Connecticut Kingdom of America born, John Trumbull, to remain as the new Patriot Governor.
Complaints never formally exceed the amount of taxes (taxes are low, though everywhere), but always on the political decision-making process in which taxes are decided in London, ie without representation to the colonists in the British Parliament.
Patrick Henry's resolution in Virginia's legislature implies that the Americans have all the rights of the British, that the principle of no tax without representation is an essential part of the British Constitution, and that Virginia itself has the right to impose a tax on the Virgin.
Attempts in conciliation
The offer of true imperial representation was also restated to the colony's delegation through a colonial agent in 1774, according to Connecticut-born Pastor Thomas Bradbury Chandler, in its publication A Friendly Address for All Americans Naturally . In February 1775, the British issued a Consiliative Resolution that ended the taxation for each colony which was satisfactorily provided for imperial defense and the maintenance of the imperial officials.
Proposal representation after 1776
James Macpherson, colonial secretary of British West Florida, defended the Northern government in an official sponsored polemic in 1776 called The Rights of Great Britain Asserted. This work answered the Continental Congress' July 6, 1775 Declaration of the Cause and the Need for Weapon Taking by proposing it,
If Americans, instead of flying to guns, filed the same complaint [as the Palatine area though not yet represented in Britain], in a peaceful and filial way to the Legislature, I can not see the reason why their request should be rejected.. Should they, like County and City of Chester, be represented, that "because of the lack of Knights and Burgesses to represent them in the High Court of Parliament, they are often touched and IMPLIED with Stories and Statutes made in Courts, insulting their most ancient jurisdictions, "This country [of England] will, I am persuaded, do not mind to be represented in its Parliament... If they are not infatuated with independence, let them propose the conditions in which they wish to continue as the subject... The legislature of this Kingdom can not possibly depart from the supremacy of the Colonies; but in the Colonial power to share that supremacy. If they complain they are taxed without the privilege of sending Members to Parliament, let them be represented. No, more: Let their representations increase in proportion to the Revenue they will give. If they want to prefer their QUOTA to the general supply, through their own General Courts and Assemblies, the Parliament's resolution is still open to their choice. But, as long as they assume the language of the Sovereign State, this Kingdom can not enter into negotiation [sic], can not compromise. "
Renowned economist Adam Smith supported this view in the well-known 1776 publication of Wealth of Nations when he recommended the United States "to send fifty or sixty new representatives to Parliament" on the basis of the amount of taxes they would contribute. to the Imperial coffers. Writing in October 1776 for Lord North in the recent Declaration of Independence on Strictures on the Declaration of the Congress, and in particular from James Otis, Jr. pamphlet. British Colony Rights and his support by the Massachusetts Assembly, Gov. Thomas Hutchinson said,
The Massachusetts Bay Assembly, therefore, was the first to take the publick of the [Sugar] Act, and the first to ever exclude the right of Parliament to impose the Duty or Tax on the Colony, while they have no representation in the House of Representatives. This they did in a letter to their Agent in the summer of 1764, which they did carefully to be printed and published before it was possible for him to accept it. And in this letter they recommended him a pamphlet, written by one of his members, where there was a proposal to receive representatives from the Colonies to fit the House of Commons. I have this particular reason, my lord, for looking at the Law of Massachusetts Assembly; that although American representation is thrown out as something wise that can negate an objection against the Tax on Colonies, it is only meant to entertain authority in England; and as soon as it was known to his supporters here [in London], he was abandoned by colonies, and even by the Council of Colon who first proposed it, utterly impractical. "
Indeed, the completion of the second Continental Congress of 1765 and 1774 stated that imperial representation was too impractical on the footing that "local circumstances and others, can not be properly represented in the British parliament". The British government, alike, apparently did not formally request discussions with America on the issue of Parliamentary seats until 1778. In that year "the king's commissioner of Great Britain," known as the Peace Commission Carlisle 1778, made an offer to Congress "mutual representation of agents or agents from various countries, who will have the privileges of seats and votes in the parliament of Great Britain ".
Virtual Representation
In the UK, representations are very limited due to uneven constituency of voters and property requirements; only 3% of the population can choose and they are often controlled by local nobles. This means that false arguments have been used in England to try to explain and cover up crime in their political life. Therefore the British government tries to argue that the colonists have a virtual representative for their interests. In the winter of 1764-65, George Grenville, and his secretary Thomas Whately, discovered the doctrine of 'virtual representation' in an effort to broaden the scope of such unjust arguments to America, and thus seek to legitimize the destructive policies of the Stamp Act.. In British history, "no taxation without representation" is an old principle and means that Parliament must endorse all taxes. At first, "representation" was regarded as one of the ground, but, in 1700, this has shifted to the idea that, in Parliament, all British subjects have "virtual representations." "We are virtually and implicitly allowing any government institutions we enjoy the benefits of and seeking protection," Samuel Johnson said in his political pamphlet Taxation No Tyranny . He rejected the request that the colonists, who had no voice, were not represented. "They are represented," he said, "by the same virtual representation as the largest part of Britain." However, the greater democratic tradition among Americans gives impetus to well-established content, voiced by Englishmen and colonists, that virtual representations are "sofistry" and "Cob-web alone, spread to capture the unwary, and entangling the weak [sic] . "The colonial insistence on direct representation contrary to the virtual representation has been seen by later commentators to have" the introduction [ed] in profound political and social revolution, which depriving most of the remnants of monarchic and feudal power inherited from the only complete partial British bourgeois revolution, America carrying a bourgeois democratic revolution on a scale never before seen in history. "
Colonial reactions
The virtual representation is completely rejected in the colonies which also say that the "virtual" is a cover for political corruption and can not be reconciled with their belief that government gets its power only from the governed consent. In 1765, American lawyer and politician James Otis, Jr., responded to Soame Jenyns' Objection of Taxation of Our American Colony, by the British Legislature, Briefly Considered . Otis's publication itself is titled Consideration on behalf of the Colony, in the Letter to Your Majesty . He wrote in it, "For what purpose to change the eternal change to the colonists in the cases of Manchester, Birmingham and Sheffield, which do not return members? If those who are now so many places are not represented, they should be." Writing in his 1763 publication of the British Colony's Rights Affirmed and Evidently, Otis stated that,
Any English subject born to the American continent, or in any other territory of British authority, is based on the law of God and nature, by common law, and by the act of parliament, (exclusive of all charter of the Kingdom) entitled to all natural, attached and inseparable from fellow subjects in England. Among those rights... which humbly understood no human or human body, not except parliament, just, fair and consistent with their own rights and constitution, can take... [is that] the highest and subordinate powers of the law must be free and sacred in the hands in which the society has ever placed them... [that] the highest national legislature can not be changed fairly 'until the commonwealth is dissolved, or the subordinate legislature is taken without seizure or other good cause. Nor can subjects in subordinate government be reduced to a state of slavery, and subject to the despotic rules of others... Even when the right of subordinates of the legislature is annulled, and so declared, this can not affect natural persons either of those who are invested with it, or residents, insofar as to deprive the rights of subjects and men - The colonists will have a fair right despite the seizure of the charter, to be represented in Parliament, or to have some new subordinate legislatures among themselves. It would be better if they had both... [Furthermore, the right of every British citizen is that supreme powers] can not take from any part of his property, without his personal consent, or by representation.
Otis is simultaneously denied, in the English Colony Rights Affirmed and Dedicated , a contemporary argument seeking to rationalize the virtual representation on the basis of the influence that colonial agents accuse of British policy. "As for the colonists represented by provincial agents," he wrote,
I know that no power has ever been given to them but appears before His Majesty, and his ministry. Sometimes they are directed to petition the parliament: But they have none of them, and I hope never, a force given them, by the colonists, to act as a representative, and to approve taxes; and if they have to make concessions to ministries, especially without order, the provinces can not be considered as represented in parliament.
The Colonist says no one is represented if he is not allowed to vote. In addition, even "If every American has the necessary rights," says Daniel Dulany, "no one can choose, but on the grounds that he has ceased to be a resident of the United States, and a resident of Great Britain." The same-minded colonists and like-minded British people insist that representation be achieved only through a meeting of the people actually chosen by the people they want to represent.
The argument between the colony and Parliament seeks to resolve how the British 'commoners' of various parts of the Empire are represented most constitutionally - such as Daniel Dulaney, a Loyalist and American lawyer, put it "constitutional authority [Parliamentary right to bind American subjects] depending on a single question , Is the Commons of Great-Britain almost a representative of the Commons of America, or not.
Pitt and Camden
The theory of virtual representation was attacked in England by Charles Pratt, 1 Earl Camden, and his ally William Pitt, Earl 1 Chatham. William Pitt argued in 1766 that the Commons of Britain should not impose a tax on "Commons of America" ​​without obtaining the consent of their representatives in declaring, "even under an arbitrary former administration, Parliaments are ashamed to tax people without approving them, and allowing "They are representatives. Why [Grenville] confines himself to Chester and Durham? He may have taken a higher example in Wales - Wales, which was never taxed by Parliament until it was entered. "He then said,
I am not an American retainer. I defend this kingdom. I maintain that Parliament has the right to bind, to hold America. Our legislative power over the colony is sovereign and powerful. When I stop sovereign and powerful, I would advise every man to sell his land, if he can, and start for the country. When two countries are connected together like Britain and its colonies, without being included, that must necessarily rule. The bigger ones have to master the less. But he must arrange it so as not to contradict the basic principles common to both... let the authority of the country's sovereignty over the colony be affirmed in strong terms as can be planned, and made to be extended to any point of law; that we can tie up their trade, limit their production, and use any power except to take their money out of their pockets without their consent. "
In his first speeches in Parliament, Lord Camden strongly attacked the proposed declaratory action to defuse the crown for the revocation of the Stamp Tax. After the first assertion "no tax without representation" Camden was attacked by British Prime Minister Grenville, Supreme Court Justice James Mansfield, Robert Henley, Earl 1 of Northington, and others. He replied:
[T] he British Parliament is not entitled to tax the Americans. I will not consider the current Declaration Bill lying on your desk; for what purpose, but to lose time, to consider the specific matters of a bill, its illegal existence, absolutely illegal, contrary to the basic law of nature, contrary to the basic law of this constitution? The Constitution is based on an immortal and eternal law of nature; a constitution whose foundation and center are freedoms, which sends freedom to every individual who may be in any part of its vastness. Also, my lord, is a new doctrine, it is as old as the constitution; grow with it; it is his support; taxation and representation can not be separated; God has joined them, no British parliament can separate them; to try to do it, is to pierce our vital.... My position is this - I repeat - I will keep it until my last hour, - taxation and representation can not be separated; this position is based on the laws of nature; more than that, itself is the eternal law of nature; for anything that man owns, is his own; no one shall be entitled to take it from him without his consent, whether expressed by himself or his representative; anyone who tries to do it, tries to get injured; anyone who does it, commits a robbery; he throws and destroys the distinction between freedom and slavery. Taxation and representation are the same and important to the constitution.... [T] here is not a grass growing at the most obscure corner of this kingdom, which is not, which has not existed, represented since the constitution began; no grass, which, when taxed, is not taxed on the consent of the owner.... I can never give my consent to any bills for taxing American colonies, while they remain unrepresented; because to distinguish a virtual representation, it is very unreasonable because it does not deserve an answer; I therefore passed with contempt. The ancestors of Americans do not leave their home country, and bow to every danger and tribulation, to be reduced to a state of slavery: they do not give up their rights; they seek refuge, and not for chains, from their mother country; by which they are expected to be retained in the possession of their property, and will not be deprived of it: for, if the present strength continues, there is nothing they can call their own; or, to use the words of Mr. Locke, 'What property is in it, which others can, appropriately, take, when he pleases, to himself?' "
In an appearance before Parliament in January, 1766, former Prime Minister William Pitt declared:
The idea of ​​American virtual representation in this House is the most abject that ever entered the head of a man. It does not deserve to be rejected. The Commons of America, represented in some of their assemblies, once had the right to exercise their constitutional right, give and give their own money. They will become slaves if they do not enjoy them.
Grenville responded to Pitt, saying disruption in America "borders on an open insurgency, and if the doctrine I hear today is confirmed, nothing can be more direct to produce revolution." External and internal taxes are the same, argued Grenville.
Modern usage in the United States
In the 1860s, suffragette Sarah E. Wall of Worcester, Massachusetts applied the principle of "no tax without representation", initiated an anti-tax protest in which she encouraged women not to pay taxes until they were given the right to vote. Soon after he started this movement, the city tax collector of Worcester sued Wall for refusing to pay taxes, and the case reached the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 1863. In "Waller v. Wall," the court ruled against Wall and stated that despite not having the right to vote , women are still obliged to meet their tax burden. Even so, Wall refused to cooperate with collectors, and as a result, the officers confiscated and sold his property to raise the money necessary to meet his tax obligations. After several years, Wall's uncertainty finally prevailed, as collectors began to ignore Wall and allow it to pay no taxes. In 1884, Susan B. Anthony cited Wall's courage and willingness to defend women's suffrage, stating, "over the past twenty-five years, [he] has refused the tax collector when he came in. I want you to look at him." dangerous, but he will not pay a tax dollar. He said when the Commonwealth of Massachusetts would give him the right of representation he would pay his taxes. "
This phrase is also used by other groups in America who pay different types of taxes (sales, income, property) but do not have the ability to vote, such as criminals (who, in many countries, are forbidden), people who work in one country and live in (thus having to pay income taxes to a country they do not live in), or people under the age of 18.
To become a citizen of the United States, immigrants most often have to be permanent residents for a certain period of time (usually 5 years). Residents still have to pay taxes on their income worldwide and, in many cases, can not vote. However, throughout the 19th century, many countries allowed immigrants to vote after they declared their intention to become citizens. This is mainly because these new countries are largely populated by immigrants who have not yet reached citizenship. Throughout US history, non-citizens were allowed to vote in 40 US states and territories. In 2005, non-citizens were allowed to vote in seven jurisdictions in the United States: Chicago and six cities in Montgomery County, Maryland.
In 2009, the phrase "taxation without representation" was also used in Tea Party protests, in which protesters were angry at increased government spending and taxes, and in particular concerning growing among the group that the US government is increasingly reliant on taxation forms without representation through increased charges and regulatory costs allegedly passed through unelected government employees who have no direct responsibility to voters and can not be held accountable by the public through general elections.
The modified version of the phrase, "no unrepresented school tuition," is sometimes used in US higher education governance disputes to emphasize the right of students to vote in institutional decisions. The term first appeared in a 1977 dispute at Union County College in New Jersey. It has been used recently in disputes at Dartmouth College, UC Berkeley Law School, and elsewhere. Washington, DC, Washington Washington DC, Washington DC, Washington DC, Washington DC, Washington DC, Washington DC, Washington DC
In the United States, this phrase is used in Washington, D.C. as part of a campaign to vote in Congress, to publicize the fact that Washington residents pay Federal taxes, but have no representation in Congress. In November 2000, the Department of Motor Vehicles D.C. started issuing the license plate labeled "Taxation without representation". In order to support the city, President Bill Clinton used the "Taxation Without Representation" plates in the presidential limousine; however, President George W. Bush has a label replaced for those who have no long-standing motto after taking office. President Barack Obama announced his intention to use the plates with the motto that began in the second inauguration. President Donald Trump continued to use the plates with the motto of protest after he was elected, though he had stated that he was "unquestioned" on the issue of state grant D.C.
In 2002, the District of Columbia Council was authorized to add a slogan to the D.C. flag, but no new flag design was approved. In 2007, the programs of the District of Columbia and the United States Territories Quarters were made on the basis of the success of 50 State Quarterly programs. DC sends a design containing the slogan, but is rejected by the U.S. Mint.
Modern usage in Great Britain
British Prime Minister John Major used a modified version of the quote, in reverse order, in October 1995, when at the celebration of the 50th Anniversary of the United Nations he said, "It is not sustainable for countries to enjoy representation without taxation," to criticize arrears billions of dollars in US payments to the United Nations, echoing statements made the previous month at the opening session of the UN General Assembly by UK Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind.
Modern usage in Canada
In Canada, QuÃÆ' Â © bec politician Gilles Duceppe, former leader of Bloc QuÃÆ'Â © bÃÆ'Â © cois, has repeatedly quoted this phrase in defense of his party's presence in Ottawa. The Bloc is a qua © © bec sovereigntist party that runs only candidates in the Canadian Federal election in the province of QuÃÆ' Â © bec. Duceppe's opinion of the phrase implies that the proponents of the Quebec sovereign movement have the right to be represented in their (Canadian) body, the Canadian Parliament, who levies a tax on them. He will usually quote the original English sentence.
Use in Australia
The first government of South Australia is by the Legislative Council, whose members are elected by the Crown and from which the "Official Officials" of office officials are elected by the Governor. John Stephens and his List of South Australia are among those campaigning for democratic reform. A partial reform took place in 1851, when the majority of South Australian Legislative Council Members, 1851-1855 were elected.
See also
- Social contract
References
- Specific
- General William S. Carpenter, "Taxation Without Representation" in American History Dictionary, Volume 7 (1976)
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments