Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know the whole "no taxation without representation" and many back then were upset at just how bad it was, but can you explain, relatively speaking, just how bad it was?
I know the whole "no taxation without representation" and many back then were upset at just how bad it was, but can you explain, relatively speaking, just how bad it was?
Tell you the truth .... I don't know anything about it.
But I know that colonies were ripped off their wealth, meaning, that they were used as "cash cows".
The taxes were relatively low, the issue was never the colonials being driven into bankruptcy by high duties, rather the dispute was about who had the right to tax. The colonial position was that they were subjects of King George, but not subjects of Parliament. They all had their own assemblies, and they had a much higher percentage of voters than had Britain since property ownership was distributed much more widely. They felt that the King should request taxes from their local assemblies, and then they would vote on whether or not to accept the tax.
If they accepted any of the taxes from Parliament, despite how low they were, the precedent would have been set for acknowledging the supremacy of Parliament. They expected that the King would take their side on the matter and were badly stunned when he rejected their Olive Branch petition and canceled their royal charters, placing the colonies in an official state of rebellion which was to be crushed.
The taxes were relatively low, the issue was never the colonials being driven into bankruptcy by high duties, rather the dispute was about who had the right to tax. The colonial position was that they were subjects of King George, but not subjects of Parliament. They all had their own assemblies, and they had a much higher percentage of voters than had Britain since property ownership was distributed much more widely. They felt that the King should request taxes from their local assemblies, and then they would vote on whether or not to accept the tax.
If they accepted any of the taxes from Parliament, despite how low they were, the precedent would have been set for acknowledging the supremacy of Parliament. They expected that the King would take their side on the matter and were badly stunned when he rejected their Olive Branch petition and canceled their royal charters, placing the colonies in an official state of rebellion which was to be crushed.
This is pretty much the best answer. If the colonists revolted over the actual taxes being levied as being to high, they would have been in a constant state of revolt during the war and after it. The early Republic had insanely high taxes to pay down the Revolutionary War Debt. Some relief finally came when Hamilton was able to push through his economic plan, assuming state debts (thus lowering state taxation) and transitioning to an interest only debt payment scheme, lowering federal obligations and boosting economic growth, in turn allowing for the burden of taxation to be less harsh.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
