taxation without representation is tyranny meaning in english

• Search Search Please fill out this field.
• Taxation Without Representation
• History of Opposition
• In Modern Times

The Bottom Line

• Personal Finance

Taxation Without Representation: What It Means and History

Julia Kagan is a financial/consumer journalist and former senior editor, personal finance, of Investopedia.

Lea Uradu, J.D. is a Maryland State Registered Tax Preparer, State Certified Notary Public, Certified VITA Tax Preparer, IRS Annual Filing Season Program Participant, and Tax Writer.

What Is Taxation Without Representation?

The phrase taxation without representation describes a populace that is required to pay taxes to a government authority without having any say in that government's policies. The term has its origin in a slogan of the American colonials against their British rulers: " Taxation without representation is tyranny."

Key Takeaways

• Taxation without representation was possibly the first slogan adopted by American colonists chafing under British rule.
• They objected to the imposition of taxes on colonists by a government that gave them no role in its policies.
• In the 21st century, the people of the District of Columbia are citizens who endure taxation without representation.

Investopedia / Candra Huff

History of Opposition to Taxation Without Representation

Although taxation without representation has been perpetrated in many cultures, the phrase came to the common lexicon during the 1700s in the American colonies. Opposition to taxation without representation was one of the primary causes of the American Revolution.

The Stamp Act Triggers Colonists

The British Parliament began taxing its American colonists directly in the 1760s, ostensibly to recoup losses incurred during the Seven Years’ War of 1754 to 1763.

One particularly despised tax, imposed by the Stamp Act of 1765 , required colonial printers to pay a tax on documents used or created in the colonies and to prove it by affixing an embossed revenue stamp to the documents.

Violators were tried in vice-admiralty courts without a jury. The denial of a trial by peers was a second injury in the minds of colonists.

Revolt Against the Stamp Act

Colonists considered the tax to be illegal because they had no representation in the Parliament that passed it and were denied the right to a trial by a jury of their peers. Delegates from nine of the 13 colonies met in New York in October 1765 to form the Stamp Act Congress.

William Samuel Johnson of Connecticut, John Dickinson of Pennsylvania, John Rutledge of South Carolina, and other prominent colonials met for 18 days.

They then approved a "Declaration of the Rights and Grievances of the Colonists," stating the delegates’ joint position for other colonists to read. Resolutions three, four, and five stressed the delegates’ loyalty to the crown while stating their objection to taxation without representation.

Trial Without a Jury

A later resolution disputed the use of admiralty courts that conducted trials without juries, citing a violation of the rights of all free Englishmen.

The Congress eventually drafted three petitions addressed to King George III, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons.

After the Stamp Act

The petitions were initially ignored, but boycotts of British imports and other financial pressures by the colonists finally led to the repeal of the Stamp Act in March 1766.

It was too late. After years of increasing tensions, the American Revolution began on April 19, 1775, with battles between American colonists and British soldiers in Lexington and Concord.  

On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee introduced a resolution to Congress declaring the 13 colonies free from British rule. Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson were among the representatives chosen to word the resolution.

A Statement of Intent

The first part was a simple statement of intent, including the declaration that all men were created equal and have unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A second section listed the colonists’ grievances and declared their determination to achieve independence. The final paragraph dissolved the colonists’ ties with Britain.

Following debate, the Second Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, with the signing occurring primarily on August 2, 1776.

Taxation Without Representation in Modern Times

Taxation without representation was by no means extinguished with the separation of the American colonies from Britain , not even in the U.S.

Residents of Puerto Rico, for example, are U.S. citizens but do not have the right to vote in presidential elections and have no voting representatives in the U.S. Congress (unless they move to one of the 50 states.)

In addition, the phrase taxation without representation appeared on license plates issued by the District of Columbia beginning in the year 2000. The addition of the slogan was meant to increase awareness of the fact that residents of the District pay federal taxes despite having no voting representation in Congress.

In 2017, the District's City Council added one word to the phrase. It now reads "End Taxation Without Representation."

Which Tax Triggered the Rebellion Against Great Britain?

The Stamp Act of 1765 angered many colonists as it taxed every paper document used in the colonies. It was the first tax that the crown had demanded specifically from American colonists.

Did Taxation Without Representation End After the American Revolution?

Yes and no. While the states in the newly formed country had representation, federal districts like Washington, D.C., and territories like Puerto Rico still lack the same representation on the federal level in the modern era.

Does Taxation Without Representation Refer to Local or Federal Government?

Today, the phrase refers to a lack of representation at the federal level. As an example, Puerto Rico has the same structure as a state, with mayors of cities and a governor, but instead of senators or representatives in Congress, they have a resident commissioner that represents the people in Washington, D.C. Puerto Ricans can only vote for president if they establish residency in the 50 states.

"Taxation without representation" refers to those taxes imposed on a population who doesn't have representation in the government. The slogan "No taxation without representation" was first adopted during the American Revolution by American colonists under British rule.

Today, the phrase refers to a lack of representation at the federal level, and only residents of D.C. and Puerto Rico are still taxed without representation.

National Constitution Center. " On This Day: 'No Taxation Without Representation!' "

Government of the District of Columbia. " Why Statehood for DC ."

United States Department of State, Office of the Historian. " French and Indian War/Seven Years’ War, 1754–63 ."

National Parks Service. " Britain Begins Taxing the Colonies: The Sugar & Stamp Acts ."

Library of Congress. " Magna Carta: Muse and Mentor - No Taxation Without Representation ."

University of Michigan Library. " Proceedings of the Congress at the New-York, Boston, 1765 ."

University of Michigan Library, Text Creation Partnership. " Proceedings of the Congress at New York - WEDNESDAY, October 23, 1765, A. M ."

University of Michigan Library, Text Creation Partnership. " Proceedings of the Congress at New York - TUESDAY, October 22, 1765, A. M ."

Yale Law School, The Avalon Project. " Great Britain: Parliament - An Act Repealing the Stamp Act; March 18, 1766 ."

American Battlefield Trust. " Lexington and Concord ."

National Archives. " Signers of the Declaration of Independence ."

Library of Congress. " Declaring Independence: Drafting the Documents ."

National Archives. " Declaration of Independence: A Transcription ."

National Park Service. " The Second Continental Congress and the Declaration of Independence ."

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. " Voting Rights in US Territories ." Page 4.

National Archives. " Unratified Amendments: DC Voting Rights ."

Department of Motor Vehicles, District of Columbia. " End Taxation Without Representation Tags ."

Council of the District of Columbia. " B21-0708 - End Taxation Without Representation Amendment Act of 2016 ."

Library of Congress. " The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and its Government Structure ."

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Your Privacy Choices

Explore the Constitution

• The Constitution
• Read the Full Text

Dive Deeper

Constitution 101 course.

• The Drafting Table
• Supreme Court Cases Library
• Founders' Library
• Constitutional Rights: Origins & Travels

Start your constitutional learning journey

• News & Debate Overview

Constitution Daily Blog

• America's Town Hall Programs
• Special Projects

Media Library

America’s Town Hall

Watch videos of recent programs.

• Education Overview

Constitution 101 Curriculum

• Classroom Resources by Topic
• Classroom Resources Library
• Live Online Events
• Professional Learning Opportunities
• Constitution Day Resources

Explore our new 15-unit high school curriculum.

• Explore the Museum
• Plan Your Visit
• Exhibits & Programs
• Field Trips & Group Visits
• Host Your Event
• Buy Tickets

New exhibit

The first amendment, on this day: “no taxation without representation”.

October 7, 2022 | by NCC Staff

The Stamp Act Congress met on this day in New York in 1765, a meeting that led nine Colonies to declare the English Crown had no right to tax Americans who lacked representation in British Parliament.

The Crown and British Parliament didn’t exactly agree with that idea, and within 10 years, the sides would be at war over some of the concepts endorsed by the 27 delegates in three documents sent by ship to England.

The turmoil started earlier in 1765, when Parliament approved a little-noticed measure in Britain called the Stamp Act. On March 22, 1765, Parliament required colonists to pay taxes on every page of printed paper they used. The tax also included fees for playing cards and dice.

The proceeds from the Act would “further defray… the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing” the Colonies from attacks; it was a measure to make the Colonies pay costs for hosting British troops on the continent.

The new tax amounted to a sales tax for the colonies, which didn’t sit well with many residents who considered themselves quite removed from such measures. The protests were based on a legal principle that the colonial legislatures only had the power to tax residents who had representatives in those legislatures. And even though some colonies had official agents to Parliament, like Benjamin Franklin, no colonies had sitting representatives in the British Parliament.

In May 1765, Virginia’s Patrick Henry wrote the Virginia Resolves, which clearly laid out the “taxation without representation” argument. The protests against the Stamp Act also were particularly strong in Massachusetts. That summer, Massachusetts called for a meeting of all the colonies – a Stamp Act Congress – to be held in New York in October 1765. Committees of Correspondence were also formed in the colonies to protest the Act.

On October 9, 1765, representatives from nine of the eighteen colonies showed up at New York City’s Federal Hall. The legislatures in Virginia and Georgia didn’t allow representatives to go to a meeting that some felt went against British constitutional law.

The 27 delegates included several men who would later sign the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, or play a role fighting for, or against, American independence. John Dickinson, William Samuel Johnson, and John Rutledge would have roles at the Constitutional Convention in 1787; Thomas McKean, Robert Livingston, Philip Livingston, Caesar Rodney, and John Morton were other prominent delegates.

But there was also conflict between two representatives from Massachusetts. James Otis, a firebrand lawyer, had popularized the phrase “taxation without representation is tyranny” in a series of public arguments. However, Timothy Ruggles, a moderate former Massachusetts House speaker, was chosen as Congress President, perceived by some delegates as a move intended to undermine the efficacy of the Congress.

In 1764, Otis wrote in “Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved” that “the very act of taxing, exercised over those who are not represented, appears to me to be depriving them of one of their most essential rights, as freemen; and if continued, seems to be in effect an entire disfranchisement of every civil right.”

The Stamp Act Congress met for 18 days. On October 19, the delegates approved the Declaration of Rights and Grievances , which stated the joint position of the delegates for other colonists to read.

Resolutions three, four and five made clear that while the delegates repeatedly stressed their loyalty to the Crown, the issue of taxes was at the forefront.

“That it is inseparably essential to the freedom of a people, and the undoubted right of Englishmen, that no taxes be imposed on them, but with their own consent, given personally, or by their representatives. That the people of these colonies are not, and from their local circumstances cannot be, represented in the House of Commons in Great-Britain. That the only representatives of the people of these colonies, are persons chosen therein by themselves, and that no taxes ever have been, or can be constitutionally imposed on them, but by their respective legislatures,” read the passage.

Another resolution complained about admiralty courts conducting direct trials. “Trial by jury is the inherent and invaluable right of every British subject in these colonies,” it read.

The Stamp Act Congress then ended on a controversial note, as the delegates drafted three petitions to send to the King, House of Lords and House of Commons. Ruggles opposed the petitions and left without signing them.

The petitions were ignored when they arrived in Britain, but boycotts and financial pressure exerted by the colonists led to the Stamp Act’s repeal the next year. Parliament then passed the Declaratory Act, which stated its right in principle to tax the colonies as it saw fit.

At that point, momentum had begun within the colonies for more economic independence, and many wanted guarantees from the Crown to protect colonists’ natural rights.

More from the National Constitution Center

Constitution 101

Explore our new 15-unit core curriculum with educational videos, primary texts, and more.

Search and browse videos, podcasts, and blog posts on constitutional topics.

Founders’ Library

Discover primary texts and historical documents that span American history and have shaped the American constitutional tradition.

Modal title

Modal body text goes here.

Share with Students

"No Taxation Without Representation"

Perhaps no phrase is used more to describe the grievances of the colonists in the lead up to the American Revolution than “No taxation without representation!” While the exact phrase did not appear until 1768, the principle of having consent from the people on issues of taxation can be traced all the way back to the Magna Carta in 1215.

The Magna Carta was one of the first steps in limiting the power of the king and transferring that power to the legislative body in England, the Parliament. Parliament had the power to levy taxes.  When King Charles I attempted to impose taxes by himself on the English people in 1627, the Parliament passed the Petition of Right the following year, which stated that the subjects of the king “should not be compelled to contribute to any tax, tallage, aid, or other like charge not set by common consent, in parliament.”

The Magna Carta, the Petition of Right and the English Bill of Rights from 1689 helped to form the basis of the British constitution (which is not a single document, but a combination of written and unwritten agreements). The British constitution protected the rights of Englishmen. English colonists in North America believed that they had the same rights of Englishmen. In North America, colonists formed their own colonial governments under charters from the king and regulated their own forms of taxation from their colonial legislatures. For many decades, these colonies enjoyed an extended period of benign neglect as the English parliament let them handle taxation on their own.

In Great Britain in the eighteenth century, there were no income taxes because it was viewed as too much of a government intrusion into the lives of the people. Instead, taxes were placed on property and on imported and exported goods. Money from these taxes helped to pay for public goods and services and supported the government’s military for defense.

In North America, the British colonies regulated their own tax system in each individual colony.  These taxes, though, were exceedingly low, and the colonies did not have a professional military to support. Instead, they used a volunteer militia system to defend their towns and homes from attacks along the frontier.

In 1754, the French and Indian War broke out in North America. During the war, the British sent their military to help defend the colonies. The war spread across the globe and became known as the Seven Years’ War. Following Britain’s victory in 1763, the British national debt greatly increased. They now had a larger empire now that needed to be defended. In light of this tenuous situation, and since the North American colonists benefitted directly from the British military during the war, Great Britain looked to levy taxes on the colonists to raise revenue for the Crown.

In Massachusetts in 1764, James Otis published a pamphlet titled “The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved,” which argued that man’s rights come from God and that governments should only exist to protect those natural rights. He believed that any attempt to tax the colonists without their consent violated the British constitution. Here, Otis made a compelling argument for the need for representation in any taxation on the colonies: “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.”

In 1764, the British Parliament passed the Sugar Act, which revised a 1733 tax on molasses being imported to the North American colonies from the West Indies. It improved the enforcement of this tax and explicitly stated that the reason was to raise revenue, a first of its kind. American colonists, especially in New England, responded furiously to this new tax. 

Samuel Adams said in response to the Sugar Act: “If taxes are laid upon us in any shape without ever having a legal representative where they are laid, are we not reduced from the character of free subjects to the miserable state of tributary slaves?”

While the colonists likened their situation to slaves of the British Empire, American colonists paid very little in taxes compared with their counterparts in Great Britain. In Great Britain, a person paid about 26 shillings a year in taxes, while in America, they still paid only 1 shilling a year in taxes. Despite this, the American colonists strongly opposed the tax and the lack of any power to influence the decisions of Parliament.

The following year, in 1765, Parliament passed the Stamp Act, which levied a tax on many paper goods (such as newspapers, pamphlets, and legal documents) within the colonies. American colonists met the Stamp Act with protests and outrage. Protests included violence against tax collectors, the formation of the Sons of Liberty, and the creation of numerous “Liberty Trees” where gatherings and demonstrations against British overreach were displayed. In October 1765, delegates from nine different colonies gathered in New York at the Stamp Act Congress. They passed a Declaration of Rights and Grievances in which they asserted in part “that it is inseparably essential to the freedom of a people, and the undoubted rights of Englishmen, that no taxes should be imposed on them, but with their own consent, given personally, or by their representatives.”

The Stamp Act became so unpopular that in 1766 Parliament repealed the act. However, they also passed a Declaratory Act that directly contradicted the colonists view on the authority to levy taxes. The Declaratory Act noted that Parliament “had hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever.”

In 1768, the catchphrase of “No taxation without representation” first appeared in a London newspaper. As debate continued throughout the 1760s and 1770s over whether the Crown had the right to tax the colonial subjects, the phrase grew more and more popular. It provided an ideological argument in a short and powerful way against many of the subsequent taxes, such as the Townshend Acts in 1767 and 1768 and the Tea Act in 1773. As the colonies grew more and more rebellious to these taxes, the Crown pushed back stronger and only further drove the two parties towards organized conflict. Conflict finally ignited in 1775, and by the following year, the colonies united and declared their independence from Great Britain.

In 1778, Parliament finally passed the Taxation of Colonies Act which repealed the taxes, but by that point it was too late. What had begun as an argument over the ability and right to levy taxes had expanded into a conflict over the right of self-determination and freedom.

Today, the phrase “No taxation without representation” continues to be used by people who want to have a say in how they are taxed. It remains a powerful phrase that provokes people to think about the consent of the governed.

The Other Tea Parties

The Colonial Responses to the Intolerable Acts

“Boston a Teapot Tonight!”

You may also like.

The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved

• July 30, 1764

No related resources

Introduction

Boston lawyer James Otis (1725–1783) made a name for himself as a leading critic of British imperial policy. In 1761, he had opposed as unjust and unconstitutional British officials’ searches and seizures of colonists’ property by declaring that “a man’s house is his castle.” In his 1764 pamphlet, Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved , he explained why taxation without representation amounted to tyranny. Making use of principles spelled out in Two Treatises of Government, written in 1689 by John Locke (1632––704), which helped to legitimize the Glorious Revolution of 1688–89 and a line of British monarchs stretching from William and Mary to George III, Otis reminded readers that individual rights were a gift from God and not governments, whose duty it was to acknowledge and protect them. He argued that the property of British Americans could only be taxed by Parliament if colonists enjoyed representation in London. His pamphlet helped to clarify Americans’ beliefs, positioning them to oppose the 1765 Stamp Act and 1767 Townshend Acts.

Source: Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved, in The Collected Political Writings of James Otis , ed. Richard A. Samuelson (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2015), 124–28, 141, 145–8, 152, 155–6, 158, 169–70. https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/2703#Otis_1644_573

… I affirm that government is founded on the necessity of our natures; and that an original supreme sovereign, absolute, and uncontrollable earthly power must exist in and preside over every society; from whose final decisions there can be no appeal but directly to Heaven. It is therefore originally and ultimately in the people. I say supreme absolute power is originally and ultimately in the people; and they never did in fact freely , nor can they rightfully make an absolute, unlimited renunciation of this divine right. It is ever in the nature of the thing given in trust , and on a condition, the performance of which no mortal can dispense with; namely, that the person or persons on whom the sovereignty is conferred by the people, shall incessantly consult their good. Tyranny of all kinds is to be abhorred, whether it be in the hands of one, or of the few, or of the many. And though “in the last age a generation of men sprung up that would flatter Princes with an opinion that they have a divine right to absolute power”; yet “slavery is so vile and miserable an estate of man, and so directly opposite to the generous temper and courage of our nation, that it is hard to be conceived that an Englishman , much less a gentleman , should plead for it”: especially at a time when the finest writers of the most polite nations on the continent of Europe , are enraptured with the beauties of the civil constitution of Great Britain; and envy her, no less for the freedom of her sons, than for her immense wealth and military glory.

But let the origin of government be placed where it may, the end of it is manifestly the good of the whole. Salus populi supreme lex esto , [1] is of the law of nature, and part of that grand charter given the human race (although too many of them are afraid to assert it), by the only monarch in the universe, who has a clear and indisputable right to absolute power; because he is the only One who is omniscient as well as omnipotent.

It is evidently contrary to the first principles of reason that supreme unlimited power should be in the hands of one man. It is the greatest “ idolatry, begotten by flattery, on the body of pride, ” that could induce one to think that single mortal should be able to hold so great a power, if ever so well inclined. Hence the origin of deifying princes: It was from the trick of gulling the vulgar into a belief that their tyrants were omniscient, and that it was therefore right, that they should be considered as omnipotent….

The end of government being the good  of mankind, points out its great duties: It is above all things to provide for the security, the quiet, and happy enjoyment of life, liberty, and property. There is no one act which a government can have a right to make, that does not tend to the advancement of the security, tranquility, and prosperity of the people….

The first principle and great end of government being to provide for the best good of all the people, this can be done only by a supreme legislative and executive ultimately in the people, or whole community, where God has placed it; but the inconveniencies, not to say impossibility, attending the consultations and operations of a large body of people have made it necessary to transfer the power of the whole to a few : This necessity gave rise to deputation, proxy, or a right of representation.

… There is nothing more evident, says Mr. Locke, than “that creatures of the same species and rank promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one among another, without subordination and subjection, unless the master of them all should by any manifest declaration of his will set one above another, and confer on him by an evident and clear appointment, and undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.” “The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.” [2] This is the liberty of independent states; this is the liberty of every man out of society, and who has a mind to live so; which liberty is only abridged in certain instances, not lost to those who are born in or voluntarily enter into society; this gift of God cannot be annihilated.

… Every British subject born on the continent of America, or in any other of the British dominions, is by the law of God and nature, by the common law, and by act of Parliament (exclusive of all charters from the crown), entitled to all the natural, essential, inherent, and inseparable rights of our fellow subjects in Great Britain. Among those rights are the following, which it is humbly conceived no man or body of men, not excepting the Parliament—justly, equitably, and consistently with their own rights and the constitution—can take away.

1st. That the supreme and subordinate powers of the legislation should be free and sacred in the hands where the community… rightfully placed them.

2dly. The supreme national legislative cannot be altered justly until the commonwealth is dissolved, nor a subordinate legislative taken away without forfeiture or other good cause. Nor then can the subjects in the subordinate government be reduced to a state of slavery, and subject to the despotic rule of others. A state has no right to make slaves of the conquered. Even when the subordinate right of legislature is forfeited, and so declared, this cannot affect the natural persons either of those who were invested with it, or the inhabitants, so far as to deprive them of the rights of subjects and of men. The colonists will have an equitable right notwithstanding any such forfeiture of charter, to be represented in Parliament, or to have some new subordinate legislature among themselves. It would be best if they had both. Deprived, however, of their common rights as subjects, they cannot lawfully be, while they remain such. A representation in Parliament from the several colonies, since they are become so large and numerous, as to be called on not to maintain provincial government, civil and military, among themselves, for this they have cheerfully done, but to contribute towards the support of a national standing army, by reason of the heavy national debt, when they themselves owe a large one, contracted in the common cause, can’t be thought an unreasonable thing, nor if asked, could it be called an immodest request. Qui sentis commodum sentire debet et onus, [3] has been thought a maxim of equity. But that a man should bear a burden for other people, as well as himself, without a return, never long found a place in any law book or decrees, but those of the most despotic princes. Besides the equity of an American representation in Parliament, a thousand advantages would result from it. It would be the most effectual means of giving those of both countries a thorough knowledge of each other’s interests; as well as that of the whole, which are inseparable.

… No representation of the colonies in Parliament alone, would, however, be equivalent to a subordinate legislature among themselves; nor so well answer the ends of increasing their prosperity and the commerce of Great Britain. It would be impossible for the Parliament to judge so well, of their abilities to bear taxes, impositions on trade, and other duties and burdens, or of the local laws that might be really needful, as a legislature here.

3dly. No legislature, supreme or subordinate, has a right to make itself arbitrary.

It would be a most manifest contradiction, for a free legislature, like that of Great Britain, to make itself arbitrary.

4thly. The supreme legislature cannot justly assume a power of ruling by extempore arbitrary decrees, but is bound to dispense justice by known settled rules, and by duly authorized independent judges.

5thly. The supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property, without his consent in person, or by representation.

6thly. The legislature cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands.

These are their bounds, which by God and nature are fixed, hitherto have they a right to come, and no further.

• To govern by stated laws.
• Those laws should have no other end ultimately, but the good of the people.
• Taxes are not to be laid on the people, but by their consent in person, or by deputation.
• Their whole power is not transferable.

These are the first principles of law and justice, and the great barriers of a free state, and of the British constitution in particular. I ask, I want no more. Now let it be shown how it is reconcilable with these principles, or to many other fundamental maxims of the British constitution, as well as the natural and civil rights, which by the laws of their country, all British subjects are entitled to, as their best inheritance and birthright, that all the northern colonies, who are without one representative in the House of Commons, should be taxed by the British Parliament.

That the colonists, black and white, born here, are freeborn British subjects, and entitled to all the essential civil rights of such, is a truth not only manifest from the provincial charters, from the principles of the common law, and acts of Parliament; but from the British constitution, which was reestablished at the revolution, [4] with a professed design to lecture the liberties of all the subjects to all generations.

… Now can there be any liberty, where property is taken away without consent? Can it with any color of truth, justice, or equity, be affirmed, that the northern colonies are represented in Parliament? Has this whole continent of near three thousand miles in length, and in which and his other American dominions, his majesty has, or very soon will have, some millions of as good, loyal, and useful subjects, white and black, as any in the three kingdoms, the election of one member of the House of Commons?

Is there the least difference, as to the consent of the colonists, whether taxes and impositions are laid on their trade, and other property, by the crown alone, or by the Parliament? As it is agreed on all hands, the crown alone cannot impost them. We should be justifiable in refusing to pay them, but must and ought to yield obedience to an act of Parliament, although erroneous, until repealed.

I can see no reason to doubt, but that the imposition of taxes, whether on trade, or on land, or houses, or ships, on real or personal, fixed or floating property, in the colonies, is absolutely irreconcilable with the rights of the colonists, as British subjects, and as men. I say men, for in a state of nature, no man can take my property from me, without my consent: If he does, he deprives me of my liberty, and makes me a slave. If such a proceeding is a breach of the law of nature, no law of society can make it just. The very act of taxing, exercised over those who are not represented, appears to me to be depriving them of one of their most essential rights, as freemen; and if continued, seems to be in effect an entire disfranchisement of every civil right. For what one civil right is worth a rush, after a man’s property is subject to be taken from him at pleasure, without his consent. If a man is not his own assessor in person, or by deputy, his liberty is gone, or lays entirely at the mercy of others.

… I am aware it will be objected, that the Parliament of England , and of Great Britain, since the union, have from early days to this time, made acts to bind if not to tax Ireland: I answer, Ireland is a conquered country. I do not, however, lay so much stress on this; for it is my opinion, that a conquered country has, upon submission and good behavior, the same right to be free, under a conqueror, as the rest of his subjects….

To say the Parliament is absolute and arbitrary, is a contradiction. The Parliament cannot make 2 and 2, 5; omnipotency cannot do it. The supreme power in a state, is jus dicere [5] only; jus dare , [6] strictly speaking, belongs alone to God. …There must be in every instance, a higher authority—that is, GOD. Should an act of Parliament be against any of his natural laws, which are immutably true, their declaration would be contrary to eternal truth, equity, and justice, and consequently void: and so it would be adjudged by the Parliament itself, when convinced of their mistake. Upon this great principle, parliaments repeal such acts, as soon as they find they have been mistaken, in having declared them to be for the public good, when in fact they were not so…. See here the grandeur of the British constitution! See the wisdom of our ancestors! The supreme legislative , and the supreme executive , are a perpetual check and balance to each other. If the supreme executive errs, it is informed by the supreme legislative in Parliament: If the supreme legislative errs, it is informed by the supreme executive in the king’s courts of law. Here, the king appears, as represented by his judges, in the highest luster and majesty, as supreme executor of the commonwealth; and he never shines brighter, but on his throne, at the head of the supreme legislative. This is government! This, is a constitution! To preserve which, either from foreign or domestic foes, has cost oceans of blood and treasure in every age; and the blood and the treasure have upon the whole been well spent. British America, has been bleeding in this cause from its settlement: We have spent all we could raise, and more; for notwithstanding the parliamentary reimbursement of part, we still remain much in debt….

We all think ourselves happy under Great Britain. We love, esteem, and reverence our mother country, and adore our king. And could the choice of independency be offered the colonies, or subjection to Great Britain upon any terms above absolute slavery, I am convinced they would accept the latter. The ministry, in all future generations may rely on it, that British America will never prove undutiful, until driven to it, as the last fatal resort against ministerial oppression, which will make the wisest mad, and the weakest strong….

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 thro’ 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 dominion 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 greatest peace and prosperity; and render it invulnerable and perpetual.

• 1. Latin: Let the highest law be the people’s well being.
• 2. The Works of John Locke, Esq., 3 vols. (London: D. Browne and others, 1759), 2:168, 173.
• 3. Latin: He who agrees to enjoy the benefit of something ought also to bear the cost of it.
• 4. The Glorious Revolution (1688–89), in which James II was deposed and William III and Mary II became king and queen.
• 5. Latin: to acknowledge a right.
• 6. Latin: to grant a right.

The Currency Act

New york petition to the house of commons, see our list of programs.

Conversation-based seminars for collegial PD, one-day and multi-day seminars, graduate credit seminars (MA degree), online and in-person.

Check out our collection of primary source readers

Our Core Document Collection allows students to read history in the words of those who made it. Available in hard copy and for download.

Taxation, Representation, and the American Revolution

In his day, James Otis was a prominent lawyer, legislator, and Patriot, but today his name is all but forgotten—but when all else fades from memory, words endure. His rallying cry of “taxation without representation is tyranny!” became the watchwords of the American Revolution and remain familiar to our ears. American independence, which we celebrate this week, was born of a tax A tax is a mandatory payment or charge collected by local, state, and national governments from individuals or businesses to cover the costs of general government services, goods, and activities. revolt.

That revolt had little to do with tax rates. Oppressive levels of taxation have fomented other rebellions, but not this one. The truth is, colonists paid very little in taxes, directly or (more frequently) indirectly. Tax burdens in the colonies were incredibly light, far lighter than in England, and woefully insufficient to cover the costs of colonial administration. Nor did the luminaries of the American Revolution operate under the misapprehension that taxes would go down if they won their independence.

Set aside, for a moment, the financing of a long and destructive war. A new nation would receive no subsidies from the mother country; it would likely face an even more punitive tariff Tariffs are taxes imposed by one country on goods or services imported from another country. Tariffs are trade barriers that raise prices and reduce available quantities of goods and services for U.S. businesses and consumers. regime than the restrictions under which the colonies already operated; it would have to fund its own administration; and it would have to take up the costs of national defense. Even under the shaky framework of the Articles of Confederation, it was clear from the start that victory in this tax revolt meant paying more in taxes, not less. So why did they do it?

Because, for champions of American independence, the problem was not that taxes were high, but that they were arbitrary, occasionally capricious and punitive, and most importantly, adopted without the consent of the governed.

Taxation and consent have long been entwined, even under relatively unrepresentative governments. There are many things that government can do against the wishes of the people, but taxation is too large an undertaking to be accomplished without at least tacit consent. Throughout history, tax compliance has been the exception rather than the rule. Champions of liberty, moreover, have recognized their power to resist taxation as a vital bargaining chip in securing other liberties.

The withholding Withholding is the income an employer takes out of an employee’s paycheck and remits to the federal, state, and/or local government. It is calculated based on the amount of income earned, the taxpayer’s filing status, the number of allowances claimed, and any additional amount of the employee requests. of revenues forced King John to parlay with his nobles at Runnymede, yielding Magna Carta. The fight over “ship money”–originally a requirement that coastal cities build and provision ships during time of war, ultimately morphing into a requirement that all communities contribute funds even in peacetime–helped predicate the English Civil War. And the need to impose taxes helped the English Parliament secure its own power.

Originally, parliament held little sway. Kings could ignore them, prorogue them, even arrest their members. What they couldn’t do, at least not easily, was fill their own coffers without the consent of parliament, which is to say, the wealthy landed elite. Parliament after parliament traded its agreement to taxes for increased power over the prerogatives of government.

The colonists knew their English history. Indeed, James Otis wasn’t entirely original; the earliest attested precursors to “taxation without representation is tyranny” came out of the ship money disputes. John Hampden, a future parliamentarian who rose to prominence when he stood trial for refusing to pay ship money, is memorialized in the names of towns in Connecticut , Maine , Maryland , and Massachusetts , and–with fellow parliamentarian Algernon Sydney (also spelled Sidney)–in Virginia ’s Hampden-Sydney College. By insisting that taxes only be imposed with the consent of the governed, America’s founders believed they were doing nothing more than vindicating their rights as Englishmen, the latest in a long line of patriots who zealously guarded their ancient liberties.

There can be little doubt that taxes hold pride of place in the causes of the American Revolution. Colonists protested the Stamp Act and the Navigation Acts; they rechristened one set of parliamentary enactments the Intolerable Acts, which left little room for interpretation; they boycotted dutiable goods; led by troublemakers like Samuel Adams and John Hancock, they turned to smuggling to evade tariffs ; and, of course, they brewed their tea in Boston Harbor. Clearly, the colonists did not care for British taxes. But mainly, they did not care for the fact that they weren’t consulted about them.

The system worked for a while. The era of “salutary neglect,” presided over by statesmen like Sir Robert Walpole, saw the colonies barely taxed at all. But as the mother country reeled from one European conflict to another–the War of the Spanish Succession, the War of the Quadruple Alliance, the Seven Years’ War, and others–it fell deeply into debt and increasingly saw the colonies as a way to replenish the Exchequer. The amounts demanded weren’t extreme; indeed, during and after the Seven Years’ War, the high-water mark of supposedly oppressive colonial taxation, the levies weren’t nearly enough to cover the cost of the military defense of the colonies in the North American theater, where the conflict took the form of the French and Indian War.

British debt ran to 140 percent of gross national product, and 45 percent of British tax revenues went to servicing the debt. Effective tax rates in England exceeded 11 percent of national income; in the colonies, they were but a fraction of a percent, and most of that local. Surely, from the British point of view, an additional levy or two wasn’t unreasonable.

But it was never about the money. Frequently, colonial assemblies refused to even remit sums necessary to pay the salaries of colonial governors. It was about a principle: the power of the purse belongs with the people. They saw this not as a new right, but as the rights of Englishmen, a hard-won battle stretching from Magna Carta through the Civil Wars, surviving the Stuart Restoration and coming to full blossom in the Glorious Revolution. It was a heritage, it was a right—and it was being denied them.

Parliament couldn’t see this. The king couldn’t understand. Weren’t the colonists heavily subsidized? This wasn’t how the mercantile system was supposed to work. Colonies were supposed to enrich the mother country, not the other way around, yet here were these colonists, a draw on the country’s finances, and they had the gall to protest–violently protest!–a few stamp duties?

There were solutions, surely. The colonies could elect their own members of parliament, perhaps. Their votes would have been drowned out by those of the English MPs, but there were nearly four times as many residents of the Isles as there were of British North America, and that’s how representative democracy works. If that did not suffice, in the far fringes of debate there were even discussions of a North American parliament.

To the colonists, though, these were sops; neither gave them a meaningful say over their own taxation. Taxation without representation was still tyranny, be those taxes ever so low. Whatever else taxation should be, it had to be by consent. That idea, at once steeped in British history and radically revolutionary, remains an animating principle not only in taxation, but for the whole of the American experiment. That’s something worth celebrating this Independence Day.

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Boston Tea Party

By: History.com Editors

Updated: December 6, 2023 | Original: October 27, 2009

The Boston Tea Party was a political protest that occurred on December 16, 1773, at Griffin’s Wharf in Boston, Massachusetts. American colonists, frustrated and angry at Britain for imposing “taxation without representation,” dumped 342 chests of tea, imported by the British East India Company into the harbor. The event was the first major act of defiance to British rule over the colonists. It showed Great Britain that Americans would not tolerate taxation and tyranny sitting down, and rallied American patriots across the 13 colonies to fight for independence.

Why Did the Boston Tea Party Happen?

In the 1760s, Britain was deep in debt, so British Parliament imposed a series of taxes on American colonists to help pay those debts.

The Stamp Act of 1765 taxed colonists on virtually every piece of printed paper they used, from playing cards and business licenses to newspapers and legal documents. The Townshend Acts of 1767 went a step further, taxing essentials such as paint, paper, glass, lead and tea.

The British government felt the taxes were fair since much of its debt was earned fighting wars on the colonists’ behalf.  The colonists, however, disagreed. They were furious at being taxed without having any representation in Parliament, and felt it was wrong for Britain to impose taxes on them to gain revenue.

Boston Massacre Enrages Colonists

On March 5, 1770, a street brawl happened in Boston between American colonists and British soldiers.

Later known as the Boston Massacre , the fight began after an unruly group of colonists—frustrated with the presence of British soldiers in their streets— flung snowballs , ice and oyster shells at a British sentinel guarding the Boston Customs House.

Reinforcements arrived and opened fire on the mob, killing five colonists and wounding six. The Boston Massacre and its fallout further incited the colonists’ rage towards Britain.

Tea Act Imposed

Britain eventually repealed the taxes it had imposed on the colonists except the tea tax. It wasn’t about to give up tax revenue on the nearly 1.2 million pounds of tea the colonists drank each year.

In protest, the colonists boycotted tea sold by British East India Company and smuggled in Dutch tea, leaving British East India Company with millions of pounds of surplus tea and facing bankruptcy.

In May 1773, British Parliament passed the Tea Act which allowed British East India Company to sell tea to the colonies duty-free and much cheaper than other tea companies—but still tax the tea when it reached colonial ports.

Tea smuggling in the colonies increased, although the cost of the smuggled tea soon surpassed that of tea from British East India Company with the added tea tax.

Still, with the help of prominent tea smugglers such as John Hancock and Samuel Adams —who protested taxation without representation but also wanted to protect their tea smuggling operations—colonists continued to rail against the tea tax and Britain’s control over their interests.

Sons of Liberty

The Sons of Liberty were a group of colonial merchants and tradesmen founded to protest the Stamp Act and other forms of taxation. The group of revolutionists included prominent patriots such as Benedict Arnold , Patrick Henry and Paul Revere , as well as Adams and Hancock.

Led by Adams, the Sons of Liberty held meetings rallying against British Parliament and protested the Griffin’s Wharf arrival of Dartmouth , a British East India Company ship carrying tea. By December 16, 1773, Dartmouth had been joined by her sister ships, Beaver and Eleanor ; all three ships loaded with tea from China.

That morning, as thousands of colonists convened at the wharf and its surrounding streets, a meeting was held at the Old South Meeting House where a large group of colonists voted to refuse to pay taxes on the tea or allow the tea to be unloaded, stored, sold or used. (Ironically, the ships were built in America and owned by Americans.)

Governor Thomas Hutchison refused to allow the ships to return to Britain and ordered the tea tariff be paid and the tea unloaded. The colonists refused, and Hutchison never offered a satisfactory compromise.

Facts: What Happened at the Boston Tea Party

That night, a large group of men—many reportedly members of the Sons of Liberty— disguised themselves in Native American garb, boarded the docked ships and threw 342 chests of tea into the water.

Said participant George Hewes, “We then were ordered by our commander to open the hatches and take out all the chests of tea and throw them overboard, and we immediately proceeded to execute his orders, first cutting and splitting the chests with our tomahawks, so as thoroughly to expose them to the effects of the water.”

Hewes also noted that “We were surrounded by British armed ships, but no attempt was made to resist us.”

Did you know? It took nearly three hours for more than 100 colonists to empty the tea into Boston Harbor. The chests held more than 90,000 lbs. (45 tons) of tea, which would cost nearly $1,000,000 dollars today.

Boston Tea Party Aftermath

While some important colonist leaders such as John Adams were thrilled to learn Boston Harbor was covered in tea leaves, others were not.

In June of 1774, George Washington wrote: “the cause of Boston…ever will be considered as the cause of America.” But his personal views of the event were far different. He voiced strong disapproval of “their conduct in destroying the Tea” and claimed Bostonians “were mad.” Washington, like many other elites, held private property to be sacrosanct. 

Benjamin Franklin insisted the British East India Company be reimbursed for the lost tea and even offered to pay for it himself.

No one was hurt, and aside from the destruction of the tea and a padlock, no property was damaged or looted during the Boston Tea Party. The participants reportedly swept the ships’ decks clean before they left.

Who Organized the Boston Tea Party?  

Though led by Samuel Adams and his Sons of Liberty and organized by John Hancock, the names of many of those involved in the Boston Tea Party remain unknown. Thanks to their Native American costumes, only one of the tea party culprits, Francis Akeley, was arrested and imprisoned.

Even after American independence, participants refused to reveal their identities, fearing they could still face civil and criminal charges as well as condemnation from elites for the destruction of private property. Most participants in the Boston Tea Party were under the age of 40 and 16 of them were teenagers . 

Coercive Acts

But despite the lack of violence, the Boston Tea Party didn’t go unanswered by King George III and British Parliament.

In retribution, they passed the Coercive Acts (later known as the Intolerable Acts) which:

• Closed Boston Harbor until the tea lost in the Boston Tea Party was paid for
• Ended the Massachusetts Constitution and ended free elections of town officials
• Moved judicial authority to Britain and British judges, basically creating martial law in Massachusetts
• Required colonists to quarter British troops on demand
• Extended freedom of worship to French-Canadian Catholics under British rule, which angered the mostly Protestant colonists

Britain hoped the Coercive Acts would squelch rebellion in New England and keep the remaining colonies from uniting, but the opposite happened: All the colonies viewed the punitive laws as further evidence of Britain’s tyranny and rallied to Massachusetts’ aid, sending supplies and plotting further resistance.

Second Boston Tea Party

A second Boston Tea Party took place in March 1774, when around 60 Bostonians boarded the ship Fortune and dumped nearly 30 chests of tea into the harbor.

The event didn’t earn nearly as much notoriety as the first Boston Tea Party, but it did encourage other tea-dumping demonstrations in Maryland , New York and South Carolina .

First Continental Congress Is Convened

Many colonists felt Britain’s Coercive Acts went too far. On September 5, 1774, elected delegates from all 13 American colonies except Georgia met in Carpenter’s Hall in Philadelphia for the First Continental Congress to figure out how to resist British oppression.

The delegates were divided on how to move forward but the Boston Tea Party had united them in their fervor to gain independence. By the time they adjourned in October 1774, they’d written The Declaration and Resolves which:

• Censured Britain for passing the Coercive Acts and called for their repeal
• Established a boycott of British goods
• Declared the colonies had the right to govern independently
• Rallied colonists to form and train a colonial militia

Britain didn’t capitulate and within months, the “ shot heard round the world ,” rang out in Concord, Massachusetts , sparking the start of the American Revolutionary War .

A Tea Party Timeline: 1773-1775. Old South Meeting House. The Boston Tea Party. The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. The Boston Tea Party. Massachusetts Historical Society. The Boston Tea Party, 1773. EyewitnesstoHistory.com. The Intolerable Acts. U.S.History.org.

HISTORY Vault: The American Revolution

Stream American Revolution documentaries and your favorite HISTORY series, commercial-free.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

• What Does "No Taxation Without Representation" Mean?

“No Taxation without Representation”' is a slogan that was developed in the 1700s by American revolutionists. It was popularized between 1763 and 1775 when American colonies protested against British taxes demanding representation in the British Parliament during the formulation of taxation laws.

During the British rule in the United States, the Parliament levied taxes on the colonies without consultation, consent or approval of the taxed parties. These laws formed the foundation of the American Revolution and were among the reasons for the havoc of the Boston Tea Party. The Stamp, Tea, and Sugar Acts were among the laws passed by the British Parliament based in the United Kingdom. The colonists complained that parliament was violating the right to representation, which was a tradition of the Englishman. The British Parliament claimed that America was an extension of Britain, but the Americans argued that parliamentarians knew nothing concerning America.

In 1765, the Americans rejected the Stamp Act , and in 1773, they rebelled against taxation of tea imports. An armed tussle ensued and quickly escalated into the American War of Independence. Although the taxes introduced by the British were low, much of the complaint was not about the amount but the decision-making process in which the taxes were decided.

Origin Of The Phrase

Reverend Jonathan Mayhew coined the slogan “No Taxation without Representation" during a sermon in Boston in 1750. By 1764, the phrase had become popular among American activists in the city. Political activist James Otis later revamped the phrase to "taxation without representation is tyranny." In the mid-1760s, Americans believed that the British were depriving them of a historical right prompting Virginia to pass resolutions declaring Americans equal to the Englishmen. The English constitution stipulated that there should not be taxation without representation, and therefore only Virginia could tax Virginians.

Modern Usage

The phrase "No Taxation without Representation” has been adopted as a global slogan to rally against exclusion from political decisions, unresponsive governments, and high taxes. It was used by women movements to decry the denial of voting rights. The TEA (Taxed Already Enough) movement continues to use the slogan to undermine Washington’s continued lack of fiscal restraint without considering public opinion. The phrase appears on the District of Columbia license plates because the citizens of the district pay federal taxes yet they are not represented by a voting member in Congress .

• World Facts

More in World Facts

The Largest Countries In Asia By Area

The World's Oldest Civilizations

Is England Part of Europe?

Olympic Games History

Southeast Asian Countries

How Many Countries Are There In Oceania?

Is Australia A Country Or A Continent?

Is Turkey In Europe Or Asia?

Everything you've ever wanted to know about the American Revolution

No Taxation Without Representation – Meaning, Origins & More

About the author.

Edward A. St. Germain created AmericanRevolution.org in 1996. He was an avid historian with a keen interest in the Revolutionary War and American culture and society in the 18th century. On this website, he created and collated a huge collection of articles, images, and other media pertaining to the American Revolution. Edward was also a Vietnam veteran, and his investigative skills led to a career as a private detective in later life.

“No taxation without representation” was a political slogan used by American Patriots in the Thirteen Colonies.

In this article, we’ve explained the meaning and origins of this slogan, and its historical context.

Historical context

After the French and Indian War (1754–1763) the British government was in a huge amount of debt.

To repay the debt, they began implementing new taxes on their American colonies. To the British, the whole purpose of having overseas colonies was to enrich their empire, and they saw it as their right to raise taxes at their discretion in the Thirteen Colonies.

In 1764, the British parliament passed the Sugar Act. The new law imposed tighter trade restrictions on sugar and molasses, and introduced new taxes on wine, coffee, and certain types of fabrics.

The colonists were upset by the introduction of the new tax. The British stated that they were raising revenue to fund the continued presence of the British Army on the continent. However, the colonies were in an economic depression, and most people did not see the continued need to station large numbers of British soldiers in America.

In 1765, the British went a step further, implementing the Stamp Act, which was even more disliked.

The Stamp Act created a new tax on nearly all printed material, including newspapers, books, and even playing cards. Printed media had to have a special revenue stamp from the British government, to signify that the tax had been paid.

Meaning of “No taxation without representation”

The colonists heavily protested the Stamp Act, labeling it unfair, and saying that the British government was being tyrannical.

The amount of tax was not the biggest issue. The colonists’ main argument against the tax was that it was implemented without their input.

Crucially, colonists argued that it was unfair that in return for the tax they paid, they had no representation in the British parliament. They had no say in how much tax they would pay, or how the money would be spent. They also had no ability to vote in elections.

“No taxation without representation” meant that the Patriots felt unjustly treated by the British, and wanted political representation, at the very least, in return for the taxes they paid.

Who said “no taxation without representation”?

The phrase “no taxation without representation” became a political slogan of Patriots who protested against the British government, as well as Patriot politicians, from 1765 onwards.

Sons of Liberty members in Boston for example used this phrase while protesting British taxation policy. They also organized efforts to boycott British goods, where possible, to hurt the British government economically.

James Otis Jr. , a lawyer and Patriot politician from Massachusetts, is most closely linked with this slogan, although he may not have been the first to use it. He campaigned heavily against taxation without representation.

In 1764, Otis wrote “…the very act of taxing, exercised over those who are not represented, appears to me to be depriving them of one of their most essential rights, as freemen; and if continued, seems to be in effect an entire disfranchisement of every civil right.”

After the Stamp Act was implemented, he famously stated in a speech at the 1765 Stamp Act Congress “taxation without representation is tyranny”.

It’s important to remember, at the time, most people in America held loyalties to the British Crown, and still considered themselves British.

The positions that Otis Jr. and other Patriots took were quite bold in 1765. However, people thought that it was important to stand up for their rights, given how unfairly they were being treated by the British.

The end of the Stamp Act

Due to the level of backlash faced, the British repealed the Stamp Act in 1766, less than a year after it was implemented.

However, the British did not stop attempting to implement unjust taxes in the colonies, leading to further political unrest.

“No taxation without representation” continued to be used as a political slogan as discontent grew from 1766 to 1775, when the American Revolution began with the Battles of Lexington and Concord.

Was taxation without representation illegal?

Some politicians in the Thirteen Colonies argued that taxation without representation was illegal.

They argued that under British common law, which applied to America at the time, taxes could not be levied without the people’s consent, through their political representatives.

The British on the other hand argued that the colonists had “virtual representation”, meaning that members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords could advocate on their behalf, despite not being elected by them.

Also, taxation without representation was not specifically labeled as illegal under British law, although there were common law provisions that emphasized the importance of consent for taxation.

Could the colonists have received representation?

In the late 1700s, very few people in Britain, less than 5% of the population, could vote in elections, thanks to land ownership requirements. Therefore, any representation the colonists received would have been reserved for rich, white male landowners, rather than offering true representation of everyone in the colonies.

In the 1760s, there were discussions in British parliament about colonial representation. However, these discussions never progressed very far – the British believed that virtual representation was good enough for the colonists, and it would have been unheard of for the British to allow a colony to have its own members of British parliament.

The colonists rejected this, demanding direct representation. Only once the Revolutionary War began did the British attempt reconciliation, and offer the prospect of political representation in return for steps towards peace – but the offer was seen as too little, too late. The colonies were already on the path to seeking full independence, making the prospect of representation in parliament no longer sufficient to halt the momentum of the war.

Related posts

Diary of charles herbert, american prisoner of war in britain.

Read the diary of Charles Herbet, a Continental soldier that was captured by the British Army and sent to a prison of war camp in the UK.

1781 Entries | James Thatcher’s Military Journal

Read entries from 1781 in the journal of James Thatcher, Continental Army surgeon during the American Revolution.

1780 Entries | James Thatcher’s Military Journal

Read entries from 1780 in the journal of James Thatcher, Continental Army surgeon during the American Revolution.

• Search Search Please fill out this field.
• Tax Planning

What Is Taxation Without Representation?

How Taxation Without Representation Works

Examples of taxation without representation, frequently asked questions.

miralex / Getty Images

“T axation without representation ” is a slogan used to describe being forced by a government to pay a tax without having a say—such as through an elected representative—in the actions of that government.

Key Takeaways

• “Taxation without representation” is a phrase used to describe being subjected to taxes without having a legislative say in the government imposing the tax.
• In the U.S., the phrase has its roots in the colonial period when colonists were angered by the British Parliament imposing taxes on them while the colonists themselves had no representatives in Parliament.
• Throughout the history of the U.S., other groups, such as free Black men, women, and residents of certain jurisdictions, have complained that they were and remain subject to taxation without representation.

In the U.S., the concept of taxation without representation has its origins in a 1754 letter from Benjamin Franklin to Governor William Shirley of Massachusetts.

In this letter, titled “On the Imposition of Direct Taxes Upon the Colonies Without Their Consent,”  Franklin wrote:

“...[E]xcluding the people of the colonies from all share in the choice of the grand council will give extreme dissatisfaction, as well as the taxing them by act of Parliament, where they have no representative. …It is supposed an undoubted right of Englishmen not to be taxed but by their own consent, given through their representatives.”

The phrase was widely used a decade later in the colonial response to Parliament’s imposition of the Stamp Act of 1765. The Stamp Act imposed a tax on paper, legal documents, and various commodities. It also reduced the rights of colonists, including limiting trial by jury. It was repealed in 1766.

The same day that the Stamp Act was repealed, the Declaratory Act was enacted by the British Parliament. That Act effectively stated that the British Parliament had absolute legislative power over the colonies.

The Stamp Act and other British tax acts, like the Townshend Acts of 1776, were a major catalyst for the American Revolution.

“Taxation without representation” is a phrase describing the situation of being subject to taxes imposed by a government without being represented in the decisions made by that government.

Washington, D.C.

Throughout the history of the U.S.—and even today—various disenfranchised groups and individuals have criticized the fact that they have been subjected to taxation without representation.

Washington, D.C. is an example of modern-day taxation without representation. The residents of the district pay federal taxes, but the District of Columbia has no voting power in Congress . Because the District of Columbia is not a state, it sends a non-voting delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives. While this delegate can draft legislation, they can’t vote. In addition, the District of Columbia can’t send anyone to the U.S. Senate, so it is effectively shut out of that congressional body.

In Washington, D.C. license plates with the phrase “End Taxation Without Representation” at the bottom are issued by default to newly registered vehicles.

While the residents of the District of Columbia are subject to new federal taxes or increases of existing federal taxes that are passed by Congress, they do not have someone representing them who can actually vote on this legislation. They are, therefore, taxed without representation.

Many believe this issue of taxation without representation is a strong argument in favor of D.C. statehood. Others believe, instead, that residents of Washington, D.C., should not be subject to the same federal income taxes as residents of represented states.

Residents of U.S. Territories

The U.S. has five permanently inhabited territories: American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Like Washington, D.C., the five U.S. territories only have non-voting delegates in the U.S. House and no members in the U.S. Senate.

While those residing in the territories are subject to different income tax rules than other residents of the U.S. and, in some cases, pay no federal income taxes, they are subject to other federal taxes, such as the Social Security tax and Medicare tax.

As with Washington, D.C., many have called for statehood for these U.S. territories, especially Puerto Rico.

Free Black Men

Throughout most of the 19th century, free Black men complained they were subject to taxation without representation, and petitioned their governments for tax exemptions , in some cases receiving them. Other states that were petitioned chose to not use race as a voting qualification.

It was not until the 15th Amendment was ratified in 1870 that it was made unconstitutional to prevent a citizen’s right to vote on the basis of race.

It was not until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920 that it was made unconstitutional in the U.S. to prevent a citizen’s right to vote on the basis of sex.

Before this amendment was ratified, many women appealed that they were subject to taxation without representation. For example, in 1872, American social reformer and women's rights activist Susan B. Anthony went on a speaking tour to deliver an address called “Is It a Crime for a Citizen of the United States to Vote?” In this address, she pointed out that it was taxation without representation to not allow women to vote:

“The women, dissatisfied as they are with this form of government, that enforces taxation without representation…are this half of the people left wholly at the mercy of the other half, in direct violation of the spirit and letter of the decorations of the framers of this government, every one of which was based on the immutable principle of equal rights to all.”

Is there still taxation without representation in the United States?

If you are a resident of Washington D.C. you have to pay federal income taxes, but you don't get a senator or voting congressperson to represent you. Minors are also subject to income taxes above a certain threshold, but they are not permitted to vote. In some states, felons lose the right to vote even after serving their prison sentence, but they are still required to pay taxes.

Why did colonists consider British taxes unjust?

American colonists were unable to vote for any of the legislators in London who determined how much they should pay in taxes, and how those taxes were used. That means they were forced to pay for and support a government that did not give them a voice or a vote.

Constitution.org. “ A Plan for Colonial Union by Benjamin Franklin .”

Library of Congress. “ Magna Carta: Muse and Mentor - No Taxation Without Representation .”

Library of Congress. “ Documents From the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774 to 1789 .”

Government Publishing Office - Ben’s Guide. “ Declaration of Independence - 1776 .”

Government of the District of Columbia. “ Why Statehood for DC .”

District of Columbia Department of Motor Vehicles. “ End Taxation Without Representation Tags .”

Office of Congressman Michael F.Q. San Nicolas. “ Senate Representation for the U.S. Territories .”

IRS. “ Individuals Living or Working in U.S. Territories/Possessions .”

IRS. “ Persons Employed in a U.S. Possession/Territory - FICA .”

Christopher J. Bryant. “ Without Representation, No Taxation: Free Blacks, Taxes, and Tax Exemptions Between the Revolutionary and Civil Wars .” Page 108. Michigan Journal of Race & Law .

National Constitution Center. “ 15th Amendment - Right to Vote Not Denied by Race .”

National Constitution Center. “ 19th Amendment - Women’s Right To Vote .”

Famous Trials by Prof. Douglas O. Linder. “ Address of Susan B. Anthony .”

SMALL BUSINESS MONTH. 50% Off for 6 Months. BUY NOW & SAVE

50% Off for 6 Months Buy Now & Save

Wow clients with professional invoices that take seconds to create

Quick and easy online, recurring, and invoice-free payment options

Automated, to accurately track time and easily log billable hours

Reports and tools to track money in and out, so you know where you stand

Easily log expenses and receipts to ensure your books are always tax-time ready

Tax time and business health reports keep you informed and tax-time ready

Automatically track your mileage and never miss a mileage deduction again

Time-saving all-in-one bookkeeping that your business can count on

Track project status and collaborate with clients and team members

Organized and professional, helping you stand out and win new clients

Set clear expectations with clients and organize your plans for each project

Client management made easy, with client info all in one place

Pay your employees and keep accurate books with Payroll software integrations

• Team Management

FreshBooks integrates with over 100 partners to help you simplify your workflows

Send invoices, track time, manage payments, and more…from anywhere.

• Freelancers
• Self-Employed Professionals
• Businesses With Employees
• Businesses With Contractors
• Marketing & Agencies
• Construction & Trades
• IT & Technology
• Business & Prof. Services
• Accounting Partner Program
• Collaborative Accounting™
• Accountant Hub
• Reports Library
• FreshBooks vs QuickBooks
• FreshBooks vs HoneyBook
• FreshBooks vs Harvest
• FreshBooks vs Wave
• FreshBooks vs Xero
• Free Invoice Generator
• Invoice Templates
• Accounting Templates
• Business Name Generator
• Estimate Templates
• Help Center
• Business Loan Calculator
• Mark Up Calculator

Call Toll Free: 1.866.303.6061

1-888-674-3175

Types of Taxes

• Franchise Tax
• Cascade Tax
• Consumption Tax
• Tax Fairness
• Capital Tax
• Taxation Without Representation
• Pigouvian Tax
• Indirect Tax
• Tax Incidence

Save Time Billing and Get Paid 2x Faster With FreshBooks

• Beginning With t

Taxation Without Representation: Definition & Example

In today’s day and age, citizens have the opportunity to vote for elected officials. This can be at the local, state , or federal level . Voters vote for those that are going to have their best interest in mind. They elect a representative to make policies and create new laws. In essence, this means that you get to have a say in tax laws that are passed by the government . 

Taxation without representation is the opposite. You don’t get to provide your input for government policies. It means that you are required by law to pay taxes without being represented in the government that passed those laws . This used to be a normal practice. So what happened , and why did taxation without representation happen?

We wrote this article to highlight what taxation without representation is. We’ll cover how it works, and the criticisms that surround it. Keep reading to learn more!

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Taxation without representation is said to be one of the first political slogans used by American colonists living under British rule and government.
• The reason for the objection was that American colonists didn’t have a say in the policies or rules that were being created and implemented. This included tax laws that ranged from estate taxes to annual taxes.
• Because the District of Columbia is not recognized as a state, DC citizens are denied the full rights that the 50 states have, even though they pay federal taxes and serve in the military. They have voiced concerns over unfair taxation.

What Is Taxation Without Representation?

Taxation without representation refers to a situation where the public must pay taxes to a government authority without having any influence or say on the specific policies outlined by the government. 

“Taxation without representation is tyranny.” This was the catchphrase used by American colonists to protest the British government, and it is where the phrase first appeared. It was their objection to being taxed by the British government without being able to elect representatives to parliament in London.

How Taxation Without Representation Works 

During the colonial period, there was a lack of representation in the legislative body that approved the levy. Colonists were also denied rights to a jury trial. So the colonies believed any taxes being implemented on Americans were unconstitutional. The Stamp Act Congress was established in New York in October, 1765 by representatives from 9 of the 13 colonies. It was also known as the Continental Congress of 1756.

The “Declaration of the Rights and Grievances of the Colonists,” outlined delegates’ shared viewpoints with other colonists, and it was subsequently adopted. Resolutions 3, 4, and 5 expressed the delegates’ opposition to taxation without representation. There was also a large emphasis on their allegiance to the monarch.

Taxation Without Representation in Modern Times 

After the American colonies broke away from Britain, taxation without representation still existed. Puerto Ricans, for instance, are citizens of the United States, but they are unable to cast ballots in presidential elections, and have no voting representatives in Congress. However, they do not have to pay federal income taxes. It’s worth noting that this can change if they move to be one of the 50 states. 

In 2000, the District of Columbia started to print “taxation without representation” on license plates. The tagline was added to draw attention. This was due to the fact that residents paid federal taxes while not having any voting representation in Congress. The District’s City Council amended the term by adding a word in 2017. This turned into “End Taxation Without Representation” as the new slogan.

Example of Taxation Without Representation 

In the current era we live in, the District of Columbia serves as an example of taxation without representation. The District of Columbia does not have representation in Congress. This was agreed upon by the country’s founding fathers to preserve the district’s impartiality. 

However, Congress is still able to levy taxes on citizens of Washington, D.C. In the decision of Loughborough v. Blake in 1820, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld this privilege. The district’s residents have voiced their opposition to taxes.

Taxation without representation refers to a situation where citizens are required to pay taxes to a government without having any say in how those taxes or policies are developed. The term comes from American colonials disagreeing with British rulers and their policies. In today’s day and age, the District of Columbia is an example of taxation without representation.

Written by Sandra Habiger, CPA

Sandra Habiger is a Chartered Professional Accountant with a Bachelor’s Degree in Business Administration from the University of Washington. Sandra’s areas of focus include advising real estate agents, brokers, and investors. She supports small businesses in growing to their first six figures and beyond. Alongside her accounting practice, Sandra is a Money and Life Coach for women in business.

FAQs About Taxation Without Representation

Taxation without representation began when American colonists opposed the laws imposed by the British rulers. Colonies were subjected to different taxes and policies without being able to provide input.

Today, the phrase taxation without representation is used in the District of Columbia. They have since updated the phrase to say “end taxation without representation”.

There aren’t any laws today that prohibit taxation without representation.

Browse Glossary Term

WHY BUSINESS OWNERS LOVE FRESHBOOKS

SAVE UP TO 553 HOURS EACH YEAR BY USING FRESHBOOKS

SAVE UP TO $7000 IN BILLABLE HOURS EVERY YEAR

OVER 30 MILLION PEOPLE HAVE USED FRESHBOOKS WORLDWIDE

👋 Welcome to FreshBooks

To see our product designed specifically for your country, please visit the United States site.

Definition of 'taxation without representation'

Taxation without representation in american english, examples of 'taxation without representation' in a sentence taxation without representation.

Browse alphabetically taxation without representation

• taxation policy
• taxation reform
• taxation system
• taxation without representation
• All ENGLISH words that begin with 'T'

Quick word challenge

Quiz Review

Score: 0 / 5

Wordle Helper

Scrabble Tools

• Daily Crossword
• Word Puzzle
• Word Finder
• Word of the Day
• Synonym of the Day
• Word of the Year
• Language stories
• All featured
• Gender and sexuality
• All pop culture
• Writing hub
• Grammar essentials
• Commonly confused
• All writing tips
• Pop culture
• Writing tips

Advertisement

Taxation without representation is tyranny

• A slogan of the Revolutionary War and the years before. The colonists were not allowed to choose representatives to parliament in London , which passed the laws under which they were taxed. To be taxed only with the consent of one's representatives in Parliament was a particularly cherished right of the people under English law, a right dating back to Magna Carta in the thirteenth century. Each additional tax caused fresh resentment among the colonists. Taxation without representation is one of the principal offenses of Britain listed in the Declaration of Independence .