Analysis of "Were the Colonial Taxes Fair?
Being enrolled in American public schools all of my life it was known that the reason for American Independence was because of the unfair ruling from Great Britain. Looking closer into the matter as I became older I started to question this belief that is held by many Americans. I wanted to pose the question, were the taxes that Great Britain issued to the colonies fair? To answer this question I wanted to look at the American and British viewpoint of the situation. I also want to look at the specific taxes given to the colonists and the reasons why.
The first point of view I want to examine is the American side which I have learned my entire life. James Otis argues that the British Parliament strips away a basic human right of being free because they have no representation in the government that controls them (Otis). This is a very powerful argument for this colonist side because they have no representation in the British Parliament that is on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. The phrase no “taxation without representation” seems to be ingrained in student’s brains that are learning about the American Revolution. This phrase was very important to the people of the colonies because they were being bombarded with taxes to support Britain and they had no control over any of it. The tea act proposed by Britain didn’t add a tax for the colonists but it got rid of the tax for the East India Company’s tea, which created a monopoly on tea being imported into the colonies. Great Britain wanted to see the struggling East India Company become successful again and not taxing its product in the colonies would allow for tea prices that couldn’t be matched by competitors. The colonists were enraged by how Great Britain could allow this and the anti-British acts like the Boston Tea Party would follow (Parliamentary Taxation of Colonies).
The question I wanted to learn when studying about the American Revolution was why these taxes were being created? The reason was because Britain found themselves in debt thanks to the Seven Years War in North America. The king realized that there needed to be protection in the colonies meaning British armies had to be stationed there. To be able to fund this idea they needed to tax the colonies in order to finance the armies being stationed. It was also noted that the colonies were very under taxed compared to Great Britain and the colonies were the main beneficiary from the Seven Year War that drained Great Britain’s money (Wilde).
Soame Jenyns is able to refute Otis’s argument of no taxation without representation by stating how places in Great Britain like Manchester didn’t have representation in Parliament but followed the taxation laws. He also states that it is absurd to say an Englishmen can only be taxed at his own consent because nobody wants to be taxed (Jenyns). He makes great points by incorporating life in Great Britain by saying how no one likes to be taxed and how certain areas don’t have representation like the colonies.
After looking at both view points and all of the primary sources I have collected to answer my question I would say that the taxes the colonies were asked to pay were fair. The colonies had their one good argument of having to representation in Parliament but that shouldn’t have mattered because Great Britain treated the colonies pretty fair. They provided protection with professional armies and the money for this was expected to be paid by the colonists. The citizens of Great Britain actually paid higher taxes than the colonists themselves. In 1694 there was Great Britain’s stamp act that was very similar to the one the colonists stamp act that caused an uprising to get the act repealed. Soame Jenyns makes a great point saying, “Are they only Englishmen when they sollicit for protection, but not Englishmen when taxes are required to enable this country to protect them?”(Jenyns). If the colonists wanted the support of Britain when they were in need they also needed to pay for it after the fact. All of my life I have thought that Great Britain was cruel and exerted its power negatively over the colonies, but I now disagree and think that the taxes were fair but the colonists didn’t understand why they were paying these taxes.
The first point of view I want to examine is the American side which I have learned my entire life. James Otis argues that the British Parliament strips away a basic human right of being free because they have no representation in the government that controls them (Otis). This is a very powerful argument for this colonist side because they have no representation in the British Parliament that is on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. The phrase no “taxation without representation” seems to be ingrained in student’s brains that are learning about the American Revolution. This phrase was very important to the people of the colonies because they were being bombarded with taxes to support Britain and they had no control over any of it. The tea act proposed by Britain didn’t add a tax for the colonists but it got rid of the tax for the East India Company’s tea, which created a monopoly on tea being imported into the colonies. Great Britain wanted to see the struggling East India Company become successful again and not taxing its product in the colonies would allow for tea prices that couldn’t be matched by competitors. The colonists were enraged by how Great Britain could allow this and the anti-British acts like the Boston Tea Party would follow (Parliamentary Taxation of Colonies).
The question I wanted to learn when studying about the American Revolution was why these taxes were being created? The reason was because Britain found themselves in debt thanks to the Seven Years War in North America. The king realized that there needed to be protection in the colonies meaning British armies had to be stationed there. To be able to fund this idea they needed to tax the colonies in order to finance the armies being stationed. It was also noted that the colonies were very under taxed compared to Great Britain and the colonies were the main beneficiary from the Seven Year War that drained Great Britain’s money (Wilde).
Soame Jenyns is able to refute Otis’s argument of no taxation without representation by stating how places in Great Britain like Manchester didn’t have representation in Parliament but followed the taxation laws. He also states that it is absurd to say an Englishmen can only be taxed at his own consent because nobody wants to be taxed (Jenyns). He makes great points by incorporating life in Great Britain by saying how no one likes to be taxed and how certain areas don’t have representation like the colonies.
After looking at both view points and all of the primary sources I have collected to answer my question I would say that the taxes the colonies were asked to pay were fair. The colonies had their one good argument of having to representation in Parliament but that shouldn’t have mattered because Great Britain treated the colonies pretty fair. They provided protection with professional armies and the money for this was expected to be paid by the colonists. The citizens of Great Britain actually paid higher taxes than the colonists themselves. In 1694 there was Great Britain’s stamp act that was very similar to the one the colonists stamp act that caused an uprising to get the act repealed. Soame Jenyns makes a great point saying, “Are they only Englishmen when they sollicit for protection, but not Englishmen when taxes are required to enable this country to protect them?”(Jenyns). If the colonists wanted the support of Britain when they were in need they also needed to pay for it after the fact. All of my life I have thought that Great Britain was cruel and exerted its power negatively over the colonies, but I now disagree and think that the taxes were fair but the colonists didn’t understand why they were paying these taxes.