Talk:No taxation without representation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
News This article has been cited as a source by a media organisation. See the 2005 press source article for details.

The source is from the Orlando Sentinel, October 21, 2005.

Accurate[edit]

Is it accurate to say that teenagers, resident aliens, and felons are taxed without representation? They don't get to vote for their representatives, but they do have representatives. Representatives represent all of their constituents, not only those who vote, nor only those who pay taxes. At the least, I think that sentence should be modified to explain how those groups might and might not be considered to be taxed without representation. Triskaideka 20:25, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the statement is misleading and rather POV. older≠wiser 21:51, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I agree and disagree. Representation is only after age of 18 or 21 or whatever the constitution of the country says. So, teenagers are cannot be represneted directly - neither are they taxed - because they do not (should not) earn. However, I completely agree that resident aliens who pay all taxes and more, pay more for education than citizens should have good representation or they should not be taxed at all. doles 15:53, 2005 August 12 (UTC)
Err, that's not POV, that's pretty much the definition of taxation without representation. The phrase is talking about being taxed without having voting rights, not whether someone in an abstract sense might be representing your best interests. If illegal immigrants pay taxes without being able to vote, it's tax without representation. 203.18.39.103 — Preceding undated comment added 06:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plates[edit]

The link, "Taxation" License Plates (links to http://www.dcvote.org/involved/plates.cfm), at the bottom of the page doesn't work for me. Could someone else try it and see if it is a browser issue (I have Firefox) or if the link is really broken? Thanks. - Square pear 22:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It dosen't work for me ether (I have Internet Explorer) 67.169.212.172 03:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References unclear[edit]

There are references listed at the bottom of the article, but it's unclear as to which quotes and facts come from which sources. Also, "No taxation without representation!" continued to be a rallying cry of the period is not very encyclopedic or relevant, so I deleted it. Brjaga 20:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin[edit]

I inserted that origin bit (accidentally signed out). The reference I gave specifically said the phrase probably originated from Otis', and it is cited for that proposition by many other sources (do a lexis search). I think the sentence should be either reverted to what I had it at or the reference change, because the source isn't a reference for what's there currently. Psychobabble 23:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otis is still mentioned. Seems nobody has a solid source for Otis--it's only "attributed to him" Rjensen 23:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primary grievance[edit]

The article states that it was the exclusive cause for grievance against England, while fiscal matters only occupied one of over twenty grievances of the Declaration of Independence. I have edited it to read "a primary grievance." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.113.134 (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect statement[edit]

"...and in 1773 violently rejected the tax on tea at the Boston Tea Party. ". The Tea Act, which was what was being protested at the Boston Tea Party, was not a tax on tea, it was a tax cut for the East India Company. Neil916 (Talk) 22:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the tea act had a small tax on tea--the point was that it was a symbolic line in the sand that London dared Americans to cross. Rjensen 16:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the Tea Act article should be clarified to reflect that, since I had heard (and I am by no means a historian) that the Tea Act only served to attempt to give the East India Company a tax cut in order to increase their competitiveness against the colonial merchants and smugglers in the colonies, which is what angered the colonists and led to the Boston Tea Party. When I looked at the Tea Act article, and the Boston Tea Party article, it confirmed this, but then I came across this article which said the statement that I referred to above.
This can be a fine line and potentially contentious point. My curiosity in the subject originated after hearing a discussion in which it was pointed out that a majority of Americans hold the mistaken view that the BTP was a result of a tax increase, whereas it really was a protest against tax favoritism (it was a political discussion that went on to draw analogies to tax favoritism the current American government shows large multinational corporations like Wal-Mart, etc., but that part isn't relevant). Thought I'd bring up the problem here. Neil916 (Talk) 18:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue was NO taxation without representation. The Brits were smart enough to grasp that point. Rjensen 18:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is wrong from the start the cry of no taxation without representation was actually first raised in the Bahamas in the late 1600's, and was actually borrowed by the American founding fathers from them. This whole article needs to be rewritten, but of course the American significance needs to stay in, but over half of the article is unusable because it is false information. Justinmcl Justinmcl 03:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is correct however, and the link between taxation and representation dates back to the treaty of Magna Carta in 1215 (generally helding to be the first plank in Britain's 'unwritten constitution'), then the article's overwhelming focus on it's US usage might be in need of revision. Why concentrate on 12 years of an 800 year history? 81.154.28.228 19:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something is missing[edit]

Something is clearly missing in the first paragraph: "...without the consent of the colonists, which violated" (terminates there) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.183.104.212 (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

Thought this image might be good for this article. Might fall under public domain - requires a little research on publication or copyright renewal. Morphh (talk) 0:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for revolting...[edit]

One of the books I have here, "National Geographic Almanac of American History", says that the revolts were never OFFICIALLY over tax rates, although they were somewhat high. It does however say that rates were part of the reason, although never stated in any documents at the time. I have changed this to fix this error.

http://www.amazon.com/National-Geographic-Almanac-American-History/dp/1426200994/ref=pd_bbs_3/103-3549495-3971811?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189453466&sr=1-3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.255.130.104 (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I know the taxes were not high at all. This is juxtaposed to what has been stated. 124.179.105.73 07:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legality[edit]

Some work needs to be done to explain why the colonists believed British law prohibited taxation without representation. The Magna Carta did not prohibit taxation without representation. Many colonists did not believe the imposition of custom duties on the colonies was illegal under British law. BradMajors (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it does need to be explained. Hopefully someone will do a rewrite of the American Revolution section of the article, since there's little worth saving in it right now. I will redo it, eventually, unless someone beats me to it.
The short answer: The concept of "no taxation without representation" has roots in Article 12 of Magna Carta: "Neither scutage nor aid shall be imposed on our kingdom, unless by common counsel of our kingdom...." Colonists generally did not oppose custom duties that were levied for purpose of regulating trade, but they objected to taxes imposed on the colonies by Parliament for the purpose of raising revenue. There was little question, on either side of the Atlantic, that "taxation without representation" was a violation of British law in Britain (see John Phillip Reid, Constitutional History of the American Revolution: The Authority to Tax, p. 112). The real question was: did American colonists enjoy the same constitutional rights as Britons? The rest, as they say, is history. —Kevin Myers 10:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dog's breakfast[edit]

The intro few paragraphs is a nonsense. "Unconstitutional" in a British Empire which never had had a constitution or any form of constitutional law? "Illegal" on what grounds? It reads like the founding fathers were complete idiots. You cannot re-write history based on concepts which appeared much later. "Unfair" seems a much more accurate word. --BozMo talk 08:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Adams - Not James Otis, Wrote the Absolute Rights of the Colonists[edit]

See also Editors Note: http://www.constitution.org/bcp/right_col.htm 

Note from Wells, Life of Samuel Adams:

[425] Mr. Adams's motion, creating the Committee of Correspondence, had specified three distinct duties to be performed, -- to draw up a statement of the rights of the Colonists as men, as Christians, and as subjects; a declaration of the infringement and violation of those rights; and a letter to be sent to the several towns in the Province and to the world as the sense of the town. The drafting of the first was assigned to Samuel Adams, the second to Joseph Warren, and the last to Benjamin Church.

When the reports of the several committees were prepared, they were presented on the 20th of November to a town meeting at Faneuil Hall by James Otis, who now, as chairman, made his final appearance in public, -- the wreck of one of the most brilliant men of genius that America has produced, but yet sustained by the care and sympathy of some friends and the tender reverence of the people, whose cause he had ever ardently and sincerely supported.

"Samuel Adams," says Hutchinson, writing to a friend," had prepared a long report, but he let Otis appear in it"; and again, in another letter: "the Grand Incendiary of the Province prepared a long report for a committee appointed by the town, in which, after many principles inferring independence were laid down, many resolves followed, all of them tending to sedition and mutiny, and some of them expressly denying Parliamentary authority."

The report created a powerful sensation, both in America and in England, where it was for some time attributed to Franklin, by whom it was republished. It is divided into the three subjects specified in the original motion. The first, in three subdivisions, considering the rights of the Colonists as men, as Christians, and as subjects, was from the pen of Samuel Adams; his original draft, together with the preparatory rough notes or headings, being in perfect preservation. It is important, not only as a platform upon which were afterwards built many of the celebrated state papers of the Revolution, but as the first fruits of the Committee of Correspondence.

The error of John Adams, when, fifty years afterwards, he attributed this pamphlet to James Otis, gave rise to some interesting letters from both Jefferson and Adams a few years before their death. John Adams, while questioning the credit due to Jefferson, as the author of the Declaration of Independence, had called that document a "recapitulation" of the Declaration of Rights by the Congress of 1774; and, again, writing to Mr. Pickering, he says: "As you justly observe, there is not an idea in it [the Declaration of Independence] but what had been hackneyed in Congress two years before. The substance of it is contained in the Declaration of Rights, and the Violations of those Rights, in the journals of Congress in 1774. Indeed, the essence of it is contained in a pamphlet voted and printed by the town of Boston before the first Congress met, composed by James Otis, as I suppose, in one of his lucid intervals, and pruned and polished by Samuel Adams." (John Adams's Works, II. 514).

The fact that Otis was allowed to present the report as his final public act may have given John Adams this impression; for, at this time (1772), he himself took no part in public affairs, but devoted his time to professional pursuits. Otis, however, had nothing to do with preparing the paper, and, to the grief of his friends and his country, had long been incapable of any public service. Jefferson, adopting [427]the "supposition" of John Adams as to the authorship of the "Rights of the Colonists," wrote to Mr. Madison a year later that the "Otis pamphlet he never saw," and upon this his biographer, continuing the subject in defence of Jefferson's originality, refers repeatedly to the pamphlet in question as the production of Otis. (Randall's Jefferson, I. 189.) There certainly is a similarity between the "Rights of the Colonists" in 1772 and the "Declaration of Rights" in 1774, and between them both and the Declaration of Independence; but, as all are founded on the time-honored principles of Locke, Hooker, Sydney, and Harrington, some of whom are duly quoted by Samuel Adams in his treatise, the disputes as to the originality are needless.

But John Adams's memory failed him in relation to the Declaration of Rights made by the first Congress, as well as in attributing the pamphlet now under consideration to James Otis. He implies that there were two Declarations, the one of Rights, and the other of Violations, which is manifestly incorrect. It would seem, too, that any attempt to lessen the credit of Jefferson, by showing that the essence of the Declaration of Independence was contained in Samuel Adams's pamphlet of 1772 and the Declaraton of Rights in 1774, must reflect upon whoever claims the authorship of the latter (since the sentiments are identical), unless it be conceded that Samuel Adams, as is more than probable, was largely engaged in composing the Declaration of Rights, and introduced into that paper the same principles he had advanced in 1772.

Here [in the paper of 1772] is embodied the whole philosophy of human rights, condensed from the doctrines of all time, and applied to the immediate circumstances of America. Upon this paper was based all that was written or spoken on human liberty in the Congress which declared independence; and the immortal instrument itself is, in many features, but a repetition of the principles here enunciated, and of Joseph Warren's list of grievances, which followed the Rights of the Colonists in the report. -- Wells, Life of Samuel Adams. ..." See Full: http://www.constitution.org/bcp/right_col.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:292E:9660:6D01:F66A:329F:943C (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on No taxation without representation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:No taxation without representation/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

What does this mean?

My 5th grade teacher once told me that it means that unless we see king george, we shouldn't have to pay him.

==WP Tax Class== Start class because indepth treatment but not divided into sections, at least the American part. It could also use more citations.EECavazos 06:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==WP Tax Priority==

Low priority because historical event without much present impact (not codified in tax code) and largely limited to one country even though the article provides for uses in other countries.EECavazos 06:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 23:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 01:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act 1986[edit]

Should this Act of Congress be mentioned in this article? It gave voting rights to Americans overseas. Americans overseas are still subject to U.S. taxation no matter where they live.
For more than 200 years after the revolution American overseas residents were denied voting rights that the colonists were demanding from the British. No Taxation without representation continued unto 1986. --87.92.170.237 (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on No taxation without representation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American pro-slavery vs. British anti-slavery around that time[edit]

This revolution appears to coincide, approximately, with the British push to ban slavery throughout its empire. The article needs to mention the argument that slave owners co-opted the revolution, to prevent British law making their slave ownership illegal. Was "no taxation without representation" used by American slave owners as a convenient figleaf?

This analysis and this other article would appear to be good sources, which mention both the British ban on slavery and the British treaties with native Americans, as reason why wealthy colonists may have supported the "no taxation without representation" movement for nefarious reasons. Andrew Oakley (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fringe view among historians. It's essentially on the level of a conspiracy theory. The anti-slavery movement was small at the time, and it was a trans-Atlantic movement. Anti-slavery sentiment was probably stronger in some parts of America (New England and Pennsylvania) than in England. Americans like Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush were in contact with the small number of anti-slavery campaigners in England, such as Granville Sharpe. As for British government policy at the time, there was no hint of anti-slavery measures yet. In fact, the British government blocked attempts by some colonies to restrict the slave trade in the lead-up to the revolution. But overall, slavery played essentially no role in motivating the revolution - on either side. In contrast, the issue of Parliament's right (or lack thereof) to tax the colonies was an absolutely massive issue that caused enormous political and societal convulsion in the colonies, and extremely heated debate in Parliament. To portray taxation as a fig leaf for the "real" issue of slavery is completely ahistorical. Note that Blumrosen & Blumrosen, the book reviewed in your first source, is not written by historians, and it's advancing a fringe view. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something wrong with a sentence[edit]

In this sub-section Colonial reactions,

Virtual representation was wholly rejected in the colonies also who said the "virtual" was a cover for political corruption and was irreconcilable with their belief that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.

There seems to be something wrong with the sentence structure at “...rejected in the colonies also who said the...”. I’m not sure how to fix it.
Link of revision at the time: [1]

Colathewikian (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A year and a half later, the ungrammatical sentence is still there. I believe the problem is "who said" doesn't go with "colonies", it should refer to people. Also the sentence is run-on. I will change it to "in the colonies also. The colonial position was that..." Vultur~enwiki (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

virtual representation: a contradiction and some issues[edit]

In the Virtual representation section:

"In the winter of 1764–65, George Grenville, and his secretary Thomas Whately, invented the doctrine of 'virtual representation'"

But in the next paragraph:

"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."

If the idea was around in 1700 then Grenville cannot have invented it in 1764-65. He could have formalized it, or promoted it, or something; but not invented it.

It's an important distinction: was the idea just made up after the fact to justify what Britain was doing *after* the tax controversy was already a crisis post-Seven Years' War/French and Indian War; or was it a long established policy that was appealed to?

The section also seems a bit POV, especially with the last reference - supporting an entire paragraph - being a Marxist one; is a Marxist perspective on a specifically early American political issue, with resonance/modern relevance primarily in the US (eg DC voting rights issue), *really* mainstream enough to get this much space? If it needs to be mentioned at all, it could just be a sentence that "[Marxist source] sees this as part of a successful bourgeois democratic revolution in America." Vultur~enwiki (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:No_taxation_without_representation&oldid=1204309151"