I’m aware one of the main points of contention that caused the American revolution was the idea that taxation without representation was unjust, but why did the British prefer to fight wars than have its colonies represented in parliament?
In: Other
Taxation without representation is just a slogan, it doesn’t fully represent the issues.
There were among other things growing fears about anti-slavery movements in Britain. For example Somerset v Stewart case of 1772, which set free a slave of American owner who visited England with him, established the fact that any slave that sets foot on English soil is free man. This sent shockwaves through American colonies.
They already wanted more autonomy and this and other incidents made them take the steps necessary.
First of all the representation issue is relatively minor in the cause of the revolution. It’s a great slogan but really the colonists wanted their respective colonial legislatures to be their only authorities. Which is how it was for a long time under a period of time called benign neglect.
The colonies had been essentially self governing for generations in the mid 18th century. Making private fortunes for individuals on both sides of the Atlantic.
Post French and Indian War, after Britain annexed much of what was formerly French territory in North America Parliament started using its authority to implement policies like the various taxes and limit westward expansion into newly acquired lands.
The no “taxation without representation” is less about demanding representation and more about denying Parliaments authority.
Secondly Parliament was controlled by elite landed gentry and had been since its inception. Any change to who and how those seats were assigned was a massive change that those in power in Parliament didn’t want to face. Because then they would have to face the possibility of changing how their representation and who could vote for it would be managed back home too.
I’ve done a little research into Thomas Oliver.
Thomas Oliver was the last Massachusetts Lieutenant Governor and had sympathy with the request for a voice/autonomy from England.
He made representations in London to that effect, and had some confidence that change (albeit slow) was coming. There was a plan for another visit to London to flesh out the proposal.
Sadly for him there wasn’t that patience for that and as we know, it all kicked off.
He and his family got dragged out of their house, beaten and thrown out of the city by the rioters.
He took off to Canada, and then back to Bristol in the UK. His wife Anne Vassal died (we think) in Canada.
Most common Englishmen at the time had no representation either as a matter of fact. I can’t remember the numbers, but only 1/10 or less had any voting power.
I believe representation was tied to certain about of wealth or land ownership.
American colonialist actually had a higher rate of land ownership and if they were giving representation it would be at a far higher rate than mainland British had ever experienced.
That representation thing was just a slogan and not the main issue they fought over.
Representation in the British Parliament back in those days was quite different from today anyway. Many places in England didn’t have representation either and there were Rotten Burroughs were few or no people lived that did have representation.
Mostly Parliament was a place that represented wealthy landowners who had inherited their wealth and land and votes.
Your question is essentially about how the American Revolution started, and the most accurate answer is that there were multiple reasons – sometimes even contradictory ones. Some supporters thought it would lead to a more rapid end to slavery, while some slave holding plantation owners thought they might escape debts owed to British financiers. Some people believed that the colonies were ‘ripe fruit of the glorious British empire ‘ ready to become full fledged nations of their own. Some people wanted to press west into territory owned by native tribes but were held back by the British after the French and Indian War. And yeah, taxes were a reason too.
The whole thing got built up without anyone really planning on it. The founding fathers were mostly young hot heads who advocated autonomy within the Empire. They had their little tea party, and Benjamin Franklin went to London to try and settle things down; something he had done previously. He was an older Gentleman by then who was respected on both sides of the Atlantic. Parliament made him stand at attention for hours while they hurled abuse at him. They refused to allow him to speak before dismissing him. It’s claimed that as he left Westminster that day with his mind made up.
Once old Ben got back to the Colonies he informed the young hot heads (who he had previously told to settle down) that they had the wrong idea. The only thing that would do was full Independence. Given his status as the closest thing the Colonies had to an Elder Statesman, when he switched from advocating peace and accommodation to open revolt it caused lot of the moderate groups within the Colonies to go along with what now became a revolution.
They did NOT want to set the precedent of ANY of their colonies being given representation. They colonized most of the world, sooooo many colonies, and they simply could NOT give all of these colonies the option to have representation in England. They might “represent” themselves into independence! Most of the colonies did, anyway. I read that there are 176 nations in the world who share one thing: they managed to get out from under England’s boot-heel. Can’t set precedent, y’know. Might end up changing things.
Latest Answers