Why no taxation without representation was a slogan in the War of Independence

No taxation without representation.

Almost no American students start with big words such as "independence", "revolution" and "sovereignty", let alone "historical trend". After all, it’s this tax and that tax. When they are really pressed, they will say, "To pay taxes without representation is tyranny."

Why did the North American colonies demand independence? I remember that many years ago when I was in China, whether I was studying or teaching world history, there were a lot of theories: the country wanted independence, the nation wanted liberation, and the people wanted revolution. Specific to the situation in North America at that time, a concrete manifestation of the trends of these three eras was the dissatisfaction with the various new taxes (stamp duty, sugar tax, tea tax, etc.) imposed on North America by the British.

Full. In other words, those taxes are just a concrete manifestation of a deeper and larger historical contradiction. Without those taxes

this historical contradiction would also be reflected in other forms. It turns out that Americans actually believe that paying taxes is not bad. Even if they pay a little more, even if the government abuses them after paying, these are unavoidable and do not necessarily constitute a reason for revolution. The real problem is not paying a little more tax, but that the people have no right to participate in the decision to tax. The reason why the people have no right to participate is because the people do not have their elected representatives in Congress. Participate in discussions and votes on taxation issues

. Therefore, even if the tax is reasonable, it is illegal as long as the decision-making process of taxation does not have the indirect consent of voters.

The North American people's concept of "no taxation without representation" was not invented by them themselves, but was learned from the British.

The British basically abided by this rule. The reason why the British revolution occurred in the second half of the 17th century was because the king levied taxes at will. After the revolution, the constitutional monarchy replaced the absolute monarchy. One of its important systems was to transfer the power of taxation to the House of Commons. Members of the House of Commons are basically elected by each constituency. Thus, democratic institutions and taxation are linked.

But the problem is that North America, as a colony, is not represented in the British House of Commons, and the governance of the North American colonies is mainly carried out by

locally elected local assemblies in the colonies, and No drain on British government finances. The British government was well aware of this situation, so it did not levy burdensome taxes in the name of the empire in North America before 1756.

If a colony wants to tax, it will be decided by the parliament of each colony and used for the expenses of the colony. Britain's main source of income in the colonies was to control the import and export trade of North America. It stipulated that North American imports and exports could only pass through British ports, from which Britain collected tariffs. The people of the North American colonies were certainly dissatisfied with this, but the British reason was that the money was used to protect the colonies against external colonial powers (mainly France and Spain), which was tenable. In addition, the North American colonies could also evade taxes through smuggling, so both parties were in peace.

But from 1756 to 1763, Britain and France fought the famous "Seven Years' War", with the main battlefields in India and North America. The result of the war was that Britain won, established maritime hegemony, and began the so-called British Empire. But the war also emptied the British finances.

So after the war, the British broke the rules and imposed large taxes on North America in the form of bills passed by the British Parliament. From the British point of view,

the "Seven Years' War" protected the maritime commerce of the North American colonies and greatly expanded the territory of the colonies. A little extra tax paid by North American subjects was nothing.

But the people of North America said that they also participated in the war and contributed to Britain, so they were not just beneficiaries; more importantly, they said that they were different from the native British residents. There are no representatives in Parliament, and the taxing power of the British Empire lies in the hands of representatives elected by voters in the House of Commons of the British Parliament, so according to British law, they have no right to pay taxes to the UK. obligation. The people of the colonies only have tax obligations for their own colonies. This tax decision is made by the colonial parliaments, which are elected by the people of each colony.

So how does the UK answer the challenge of “no taxation without representation” raised under British law

? The British answer is "virtual representation". This means that the people of the colonies do not necessarily have to have their own elected representatives to participate in discussions and votes in the British House of Commons. The elected members of the British Empire have already put their interests

And wishes were represented. "Virtual" means "actually", or "can be said to be".

It is conceivable that the colonial people rejected this illusory honor of being represented. They pointed out the procedural and technical problems of democracy in plainer English: they said they wanted "actual representation", that is, representatives who live up to their name - —Representatives elected directly by the people of the colonies who sit in parliament and participate in discussions and votes.

This constitutional dispute before the American Revolution was actually the ultimate source of the legitimacy of the American Revolution. At that time, the people of North America did not

like the Chinese history textbooks say, they had deep hatred for the British Empire and must be independent. On the contrary, they do not

want to be independent. Their survival depends on international trade, but in a world surrounded by great powers, they don't even have a gunboat

It has always been the British who have protected them. They wanted to continue to rely on the world's number one maritime power, not to mention the unbreakable cultural ties and respect: the entire elite of the colonies regarded themselves as countrymen in front of the British Empire. Many American founding fathers had deep feelings for the British Empire. Franklin was stationed in Britain for a long time and tried to turn the tide until the last moment to avoid a war between the colonies and the mother country. People, under Chinese culture, would probably die without a burial place after independence). But

no matter what emotions and practical considerations, they lose weight in the face of the constitutional disputes of "virtual representation" and "actual representation". The colonial people knew that if they accepted "virtual represen

tation" and gave up "actual representation", it would mean that London could do whatever it wanted beyond its own elected colonial parliament. Although compared with other parts of the world, this kind of doing whatever one wants probably does not mean tyranny in the true sense, but more like an autocratic father.