Was the reason for independence really taxation without representation?

[Mushroom]

/———/ It’s something I read in one of the many books on the Revolution. If you’re going to be a dick about it, get your Google fixed and do your own research. Bozo

I am not being a dick. You made the claim, therefore it is up to you to do your own research and show that was the case.

Notice in my posts, I not only gave quotes from source documents, I even provided links to the source documents.

Don't expect us to do your research for you. And I did look, and found nothing. Therefore I am pretty much rejecting it, as you "can't prove a negative".

 

[Cellblock2429]

I am not being a dick. You made the claim, therefore it is up to you to do your own research and show that was the case.

Notice in my posts, I not only gave quotes from source documents, I even provided links to the source documents.

Don't expect us to do your research for you. And I did look, and found nothing. Therefore I am pretty much rejecting it, as you "can't prove a negative".

/——-/ I don’t give a rat’s ass what you believe or accept.

 

[DudleySmith]

Actually, from the founding they were taxed.

[/QUOTE]

Theoretically they were. What is relevant is they were not taxed on what was smuggled in, nor were they taxed when they were trading in the Caribbean, mostly illegally as well, but as I said they were largely ignored until the economic crisis that hit Britain during the French and Indian War, or as it was known in Europe the Seven Years War. In fact the Boston Tea party was provoked by the British lowering their tea tariff and ruining the smuggling business on the beleif that they would collect more taxes if they lowered them, and indeed it did..

Almost all of the English Colonies were set up as commercial enterprises. And as such, were expected to make a profit and return part of that to England. The earliest forms was a 5% import duty on all good sent from the Colonies to England. Then by the 1640s taxes were being collected locally in order to pay the Crown officials that were there. But those were not found to be objectionable, as the 5% duty was to repay the investment to found the colony, and the taxes for wages remained in the colonies and they were getting actual services for them.

And by the 1700s, there were more taxes, primarily for roads and ports. Mostly from wealth taxes, but also from poll taxes. And by the 1700s, import and export taxes were a way of life in the colonies. For example, taxes on tobacco was around 12%. And other items ranging from glass and wood to alcohol were also taxed.

However, the difference when the Stamp Act was forced onto them was that this time the money was not for improvements in the colonies, but going directly to England. And not on items they exported, but items they had to import. And there was no way to get around it, everything from legal documents and medicine to newspapers and bank drafts had to have a stamp on it. And more than that, all paper for such had to be purchased from England with the stamp already affixed. Which would have had the dual effect of driving out of business all of the Colonial companies producing paper.

Now this was done it was claimed to pay for the British troops stationed in the Colonies, but the problem was they should have just handled it as had been done in the past. Tell the Colonies that it was their responsibility to cover their expenses, and allow them to raise the money themselves. That had been the way taxes in the Colonies had been done for over a century by that point, and as they were done by local assemblies it was legal under British Law. The forcing of taxes by an assembly where they had no representation however was not, and is what started the problem.

Not a lot to dispute there other than the fact they didn't pay duties on a third to a half of what they owed, and in any case the colonies were getting huge rebates to compensate them for the trade imbalances, which were themselves fairly huge. We know the real imbalances were not that large, regardless of the official records claims, otherwise the issues of colonial paper money to make up for all the silver specie that was sucked out of the colonies would have caused a much higher inflation rate, but inflation was pretty modest, by wartime standards anyway.

in any case, you and the Peanut Gallery might like this pdf on the colonial currency and trade issues, which touch on the history of colonial money but also covers the 1757 to Revolutionary era. I'm not here that much any more, tired of having my posts deleted for no reason other than some mod playing Lord Of The Flies or something. It's a Google link that goes directly to a pdf download, so your security settings might not like it, but mine found it to be non-malicious.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwizsP-MsOH5AhWpkmoFHVgfDhIQFnoECBAQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.essaysinhistory.com%2Farticles%2F464%2Fgalley%2F407%2Fdownload%2F&usg=AOvVaw0P8KGsSWTYOIEanY2wiOTW

There used to be web pages for this and the charts but they all went dead, and I haven't tried the Wayback Machine yet, so if anybody wants those just alert me and I'll try to get to it if you have problems finding them yourselves, but most of what is on the defunct web pages is in the pdf. Leslie V. Brock is the historian's name if you want to look up his works; he died in 1985 while his book was being published, so I guess the University killed his web pages off their server when he passed away. When BEn FRanklin was telling PArliament Pennsylvania had paid over 60,000 pounds towrd the French and Indian war he neglected to state which currency he was using; if it were the Pennsylvania pound it was worth considerably less than par with the British pound sterling.


The pdf above also gives the war costs to the Empire for comparisons with what the colonials paid; it was far more than the colonies contributed to their own defense. The 100,000 pounds they hoped to raise from the Stamp Act was chicken feed. On the other hand as i mentioned earlier the colonies were hard pressed for real money, i.e. silver.

 

[Mushroom]

/——-/ Yes, my reference is Sister Mary Margaret, Blessed Sacrament School, American History class 1964.

That is not a reference.

 

[Mushroom]

Theoretically they were. What is relevant is they were not taxed on what was smuggled in, nor were they taxed when they were trading in the Caribbean, mostly illegally as well, but as I said they were largely ignored until the economic crisis that hit Britain during the French and Indian War, or as it was known in Europe the Seven Years War. In fact the Boston Tea party was provoked by the British lowering their tea tariff and ruining the smuggling business on the beleif that they would collect more taxes if they lowered them, and indeed it did.

But you are missing a huge point here. The Tea Act was not a tax at all. It was a mandate that all tea must be brought to and sold in the Colonies by the British East India Company. Essentially giving them a monopoly, and even mandating that all stored that sell tea can only purchase it from them directly. Preventing many smaller stores from getting tea at all legally, and completely cutting out the "middle men" who actually took goods like tea form the ports to the other communities. Not to mention that the tea had by then spoiled, and they were told there would be no more tea sent until they sold all of that on the ships.

The "Tea Party" was never about taxes, but the Crown giving a single company a monopoly. And by the way, also collusion between the two as the tax collected was not even to go to England, but kept by the almost bankrupt BEIC in an attempt to keep it solvent. That was not even a tax to the English Crown, but one to profit a private company.

To put it into comparison, it would be like if today the US mandated that all gasoline could only be sold by Chevron. Then putting on a $1 a gallon tax, that would not even go to the Government but that Chevron itself would keep. That is basically what the Tea Act and the British East India Company were doing. There had already been taxes on tea since the Colony was founded. But it was the increase of taxes that would entirely go to a private company that infuriated the Colonists.

And by the way, the BEIC did not even last a year after the Boston Tea Party. By 1774 the company went bankrupt and was dissolved. The Colonists simply stopped drinking tea, and largely started to change over to another hot beverage of choice. One that there was no monopoly on.

Coffee.

 

[Cellblock2429]

That is not a reference.

/——-/ Sorry my sarcasm is lost on you. I know what I read.

 

[DudleySmith]

But you are missing a huge point here. The Tea Act was not a tax at all. It was a mandate that all tea must be brought to and sold in the Colonies by the British East India Company. Essentially giving them a monopoly, and even mandating that all stored that sell tea can only purchase it from them directly. Preventing many smaller stores from getting tea at all legally, and completely cutting out the "middle men" who actually took goods like tea form the ports to the other communities. Not to mention that the tea had by then spoiled, and they were told there would be no more tea sent until they sold all of that on the ships.

The "Tea Party" was never about taxes, but the Crown giving a single company a monopoly. And by the way, also collusion between the two as the tax collected was not even to go to England, but kept by the almost bankrupt BEIC in an attempt to keep it solvent. That was not even a tax to the English Crown, but one to profit a private company.

To put it into comparison, it would be like if today the US mandated that all gasoline could only be sold by Chevron. Then putting on a $1 a gallon tax, that would not even go to the Government but that Chevron itself would keep. That is basically what the Tea Act and the British East India Company were doing. There had already been taxes on tea since the Colony was founded. But it was the increase of taxes that would entirely go to a private company that infuriated the Colonists.

And by the way, the BEIC did not even last a year after the Boston Tea Party. By 1774 the company went bankrupt and was dissolved. The Colonists simply stopped drinking tea, and largely started to change over to another hot beverage of choice. One that there was no monopoly on.

Coffee.

The East India Company was never exempt from paying import duties or taxes, either in Britain nor in the colonies. The Act lowered the price of tea to less than the cost of smuggling it in, hence all the colonial smugglers getting angry over losing their cash cow. Those colonial smugglers operated all over European ports, not just the American ones. And, the tax was 3 pence per pound, and without having to land in England first it eliminated the tax there, hence lower taxes.

 

[Mushroom]

The East India Company was never exempt from paying import duties or taxes, either in Britain nor in the colonies. The Act lowered the price of tea to less than the cost of smuggling it in

I never said it was. But the fact was, they were allowed to keep any taxes collected for tea sold in the Colonies. Think of it as a kind of bailout, where they were allowed to keep the taxes collected.

And tell me, exactly how does an act and tax lower the price of something? That is the most bass ackwards thing I have ever heard of in my life.

Tell me, has the legalization of marijuana and the tax placed on it stopped the illegal street sales? Because once again there you have government control over it, and a tax. SO tell me, has pot vanished from street corners in the states that allow it to be sold?

Of course not, and that is a stupid thing to even claim. Yet, you are trying to claim that exact same thing here.

And now let's take it a step farther. And let's call it the "LA Pot Party", shall we? A little hypothetical scenario based on the facts of the Boston Tea Party.

Now, according to your claim, somehow including tax and the use of a Company Monopoly, the BEIC was selling tea for less than it cost to smuggle it in. And that somehow in LA based on those facts, the State is able to sell pot for less than it is sold for on the street even with the tax.

Sorry, don't believe it.

And now for another fact. The tea that was on the ships in Boston was spoiled. It has been picked in India in 1770, then arrived in London in 1771 where it sat in a warehouse for three years. You see, at that time there was actually a glut on tea, and prices had been falling for years. The BEIC was near bankrupt, and that was the plan to force the Colonials to buy spoiled tea, and use the money to hopefully bail itself out of financial trouble.

But in our fictional LA Pot Party, the state is forcing all pot stores to sell only their own pot from a single grower. And that pot was actually harvested in 2019, and has been sitting in a non-climate controlled warehouse near Wilmington for the last 3 years. It has mold, and has already started to dry rot. And then word comes out, no more pot will be sent to LA until after all the pot already there has been sold.

You keep trying to concentrate on the taxes, which as I said over and over was never the issue. Of course, I am still trying to figure out the logic that a tax and monopoly somehow makes it cheaper to import a good than to smuggle it. That really does defy all logic, and I would absolutely love to hear how that magic happened. Because it sure has hell has never stopped the smuggling of drugs, tobacco, or alcohol.

 

[DudleySmith]

I never said it was. But the fact was, they were allowed to keep any taxes collected for tea sold in the Colonies. Think of it as a kind of bailout, where they were allowed to keep the taxes collected.

And tell me, exactly how does an act and tax lower the price of something? That is the most bass ackwards thing I have ever heard of in my life.

Tell me, has the legalization of marijuana and the tax placed on it stopped the illegal street sales? Because once again there you have government control over it, and a tax. SO tell me, has pot vanished from street corners in the states that allow it to be sold?

Of course not, and that is a stupid thing to even claim. Yet, you are trying to claim that exact same thing here.

And now let's take it a step farther. And let's call it the "LA Pot Party", shall we? A little hypothetical scenario based on the facts of the Boston Tea Party.

Now, according to your claim, somehow including tax and the use of a Company Monopoly, the BEIC was selling tea for less than it cost to smuggle it in. And that somehow in LA based on those facts, the State is able to sell pot for less than it is sold for on the street even with the tax.

Sorry, don't believe it.

And now for another fact. The tea that was on the ships in Boston was spoiled. It has been picked in India in 1770, then arrived in London in 1771 where it sat in a warehouse for three years. You see, at that time there was actually a glut on tea, and prices had been falling for years. The BEIC was near bankrupt, and that was the plan to force the Colonials to buy spoiled tea, and use the money to hopefully bail itself out of financial trouble.

But in our fictional LA Pot Party, the state is forcing all pot stores to sell only their own pot from a single grower. And that pot was actually harvested in 2019, and has been sitting in a non-climate controlled warehouse near Wilmington for the last 3 years. It has mold, and has already started to dry rot. And then word comes out, no more pot will be sent to LA until after all the pot already there has been sold.

You keep trying to concentrate on the taxes, which as I said over and over was never the issue. Of course, I am still trying to figure out the logic that a tax and monopoly somehow makes it cheaper to import a good than to smuggle it. That really does defy all logic, and I would absolutely love to hear how that magic happened. Because it sure has hell has never stopped the smuggling of drugs, tobacco, or alcohol.

We get it, you can't admit you were wrong, as usual. lol keep hope alive, though.

 

[Mushroom]

We get it, you can't admit you were wrong, as usual. lol keep hope alive, though.

Right.

I think what you meant to say is that I refuse to believe nonsense and look at what actually happened. I notice you never do discuss the BEIC, or address the illogic of how taxes and a government orchestrated monopoly lowers prices, or how tea became so cheap that it was not profitable to smuggle it.

I bring up facts and huge gaps in your clams based on simple logic, and you simply insult me and do not address any of them.

Good job, pigeon. Nice game.

 

[DudleySmith]

Right.

I think what you meant to say is that I refuse to believe nonsense and look at what actually happened. I notice you never do discuss the BEIC, or address the illogic of how taxes and a government orchestrated monopoly lowers prices, or how tea became so cheap that it was not profitable to smuggle it.

I bring up facts and huge gaps in your clams based on simple logic, and you simply insult me and do not address any of them.

Good job, pigeon. Nice game.

I notice you don't know shit about American history outside of what you learned in 6th grade, and you have some bizarre belief you know something about the East Indi Company and its charters. Any rookie Google scholar can find the Townshend Acts, which ones were repealed while the Tea Act remained, the requirements attached to the monopolies, what tea cost the East India Company versus what it cost the indie smugglers, and of course nobody will ever be able to find where the East India Company was allowed to operate duty and tax free. You just bring up silly juvenile snark like some angry punk when you lose your ass.

 

[Mushroom]

I notice you don't know shit about American history outside of what you learned in 6th grade, and you have some bizarre belief you know something about the East Indi Company and its charters. Any rookie Google scholar can find the Townshend Acts

Which was years before the Tea Act. And once again broke with tradition of having the Colonies tax themselves and instead taxing them from "on high".

Funny, how we keep returning to this over and over again. You have no response, so just try to attack at yet a different angle.

The Tea Act of 1773 was one of several measures imposed on the American colonists by the heavily indebted British government in the decade leading up to the American Revolutionary War (1775-83). The act’s main purpose was not to raise revenue from the colonies but to bail out the floundering East India Company, a key actor in the British economy. The British government granted the company a monopoly on the importation and sale of tea in the colonies.

Tea Act ‑ Definition, Timeline & Facts | HISTORY

The Tea Act of 1773 was an act of Great Britain's Parliament to reduce the amount of tea held by the financially insecure British East India Company. It became a catalyst for the Boston Tea Party, which was a critical event in the lead‑up to the Revolutionary War.

www.history.com

Funny, that is pretty much exactly what I was saying, and what you have been saying is not true.

The Tea Act, passed by Parliament on May 10, 1773, granted the British East India Company Tea a monopoly on tea sales in the American colonies. This was what ultimately compelled a group of Sons of Liberty members on the night of December 16, 1773 to disguise themselves as Mohawk Indians, board three ships moored in Boston Harbor, and destroy over 92,000 pounds of tea. The Tea Act was the final straw in a series of unpopular policies and taxes imposed by Britain on her American colonies. The policy ignited a “powder keg” of opposition and resentment among American colonists and was the catalyst of the Boston Tea Party. The passing of the Tea Act imposed no new taxes on the American colonies. The tax on tea had existed since the passing of the 1767 Townshend Revenue Act. Along with tea, the Townshend Revenue Act also taxed glass, lead, oil, paint, and paper. Due to boycotts and protests, the Townshend Revenue Act’s taxes were repealed on all commodities except tea in 1770. The tea tax was kept in order to maintain Parliament’s right to tax the colonies. The Tea Act was not intended to anger American colonists, instead it was meant to be a bailout policy to get the British East India Company out of debt. The British East India Company was suffering from massive amounts of debts incurred primarily from annual contractual payments due to the British government totaling £400,000 per year. Additionally, the British East India Company was suffering financially as a result of unstable political and economic issues in India, and European markets were weak due to debts from the French and Indian War among other things. Besides the tax on tea which had been in place since 1767, what fundamentally angered the American colonists about the Tea Act was the British East India Company’s government sanctioned monopoly on tea.

The Tea Act | Boston Tea Party Facts | 1773

The Tea Act forced colonists to buy tea from the East India Tea Company.

www.bostonteapartyship.com

In an effort to help the financially troubled British East India Company sell 17,000,000 pounds of tea stored in England, the Tea Act rearranged excise regulations so that the company could pay the Townshend duty and still undersell its competitors.

Tea Act | Colonial Protest, Taxation & Monopoly | Britannica

Tea Act, (1773), in British American colonial history, legislative maneuver by the British ministry of Lord North to make English tea marketable in America. A previous crisis had been averted in 1770 when all the Townshend Acts duties had been lifted except that on tea, which had been mainly

www.britannica.com

Wow, even the Encyclopedia Britannica agrees with me. But please, continue to read the above articles and others. It is worth noting that nowhere do they discuss "American smugglers", that were somehow getting rich, but Dutch Smugglers. Gee, that actually makes a lot of sense as the Dutch could go to the "Dutch East Indies" to get and export their tea. Where exactly would those American smugglers have been getting their tea, without an increase in prices?

Once again, showing that you have it all wrong. And FYI, these are known as "references".

Oh, and I am still waiting on your references as to how giving a company an exclusive monopoly would actually lower prices and make the tea from the BEIC cheaper than that from smugglers. You have been claiming that for quite a while, but yet to see any references. Meanwhile, I find it gunny that I can provide several neutral references backing up what I am saying.

Not like people never using references themselves and claiming everybody else is lying is anything new in here.

Sitting back and waiting on your references.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yeah, "taxation without representation" was short, easily understood, and infuriating, so it was the best way for the Patriots to get people convinced and involved. Getting into trade inequities and political theory and a lot of terms ending in "-ism" isn't really relatable to the common man.

Ultimately, the biggest reason was because the Colonists started seeing themselves as Americans (or Virginians, or New Yorkers, or whatever) rather than the British. That led, quite predictably, to resentment over King George and the British treating the Colonists as second-class citizens, which they did, interfering with our God-given right to smuggle by giving breaks to the East India Company, which they also did, and by responding to our righteous tea protestin' with the super-restrictive and unfair Intolerable Acts. So a lot of it was that we didn't like being clamped down on but, yeah, taxing the hell out of us in several waves, ostensibly to make money to pay for the French and Indian War, didn't go over very well, either.

So the British closed the Port of Boston in 1774, all 13 Colonies got pissed on Massachusetts' behalf, we threw down in '75, adopted the DoI in '76, and here we are.

Here we are, surrendering in Spades to a government far more intrusive and oppressive than the Crown ever was

 

[DudleySmith]

Which was years before the Tea Act. And once again broke with tradition of having the Colonies tax themselves and instead taxing them from "on high".

Funny, how we keep returning to this over and over again. You have no response, so just try to attack at yet a different angle.

Tea Act ‑ Definition, Timeline & Facts | HISTORY

The Tea Act of 1773 was an act of Great Britain's Parliament to reduce the amount of tea held by the financially insecure British East India Company. It became a catalyst for the Boston Tea Party, which was a critical event in the lead‑up to the Revolutionary War.

www.history.com

Funny, that is pretty much exactly what I was saying, and what you have been saying is not true.

The Tea Act | Boston Tea Party Facts | 1773

The Tea Act forced colonists to buy tea from the East India Tea Company.

www.bostonteapartyship.com

Tea Act | Colonial Protest, Taxation & Monopoly | Britannica

Tea Act, (1773), in British American colonial history, legislative maneuver by the British ministry of Lord North to make English tea marketable in America. A previous crisis had been averted in 1770 when all the Townshend Acts duties had been lifted except that on tea, which had been mainly

www.britannica.com

Wow, even the Encyclopedia Britannica agrees with me. But please, continue to read the above articles and others. It is worth noting that nowhere do they discuss "American smugglers", that were somehow getting rich, but Dutch Smugglers. Gee, that actually makes a lot of sense as the Dutch could go to the "Dutch East Indies" to get and export their tea. Where exactly would those American smugglers have been getting their tea, without an increase in prices?

Once again, showing that you have it all wrong. And FYI, these are known as "references".

Oh, and I am still waiting on your references as to how giving a company an exclusive monopoly would actually lower prices and make the tea from the BEIC cheaper than that from smugglers. You have been claiming that for quite a while, but yet to see any references. Meanwhile, I find it gunny that I can provide several neutral references backing up what I am saying.

Not like people never using references themselves and claiming everybody else is lying is anything new in here.

Sitting back and waiting on your references.

You're just babbling now, trying to cover up your dumb claims. Maybe you can find some drunks on another board to wow with your Reader's Digest collection.

 

[Mushroom]

You're just babbling now, trying to cover up your dumb claims.

Claims backed up by neutral references. In other words, commonly called "facts".

And funny, how I give a lot of actual information, and quote references. Yet most of your posts are just one or two sentences. Yet you call mine "Readers Digest".

Come back whenever you are able to actually prove how the BEIC was able to with taxes sell tea for less, and drive the smugglers out of business. One of a great many fantasies you have claimed repeatedly and have yet to provide a single reference to. The very fact you have never done so pretty much screams that you have been making things up all along but don't want to admit it.

 

[DudleySmith]

Claims backed up by neutral references. In other words, commonly called "facts".

And funny, how I give a lot of actual information, and quote references. Yet most of your posts are just one or two sentences. Yet you call mine "Readers Digest".

Come back whenever you are able to actually prove how the BEIC was able to with taxes sell tea for less, and drive the smugglers out of business. One of a great many fantasies you have claimed repeatedly and have yet to provide a single reference to. The very fact you have never done so pretty much screams that you have been making things up all along but don't want to admit it.

Keep Hope Alive! lol

 

[cnm]

Have you read the Declaration of Independence? It tells you why.

Where does it say the nation wanted Indian lands and didn't want to contribute to the cost of wars that had protected them from the French?

 

[Mushroom]

Keep Hope Alive! lol

And I notice, still no reference to any of your claims.

Is this normally what you do? Ignore multiple references, and then insult others?

As you give no references of your own?

Why am I even asking, of course it is. A legend in your own mind.

 

[DudleySmith]

And I notice, still no reference to any of your claims.

Is this normally what you do? Ignore multiple references, and then insult others?

As you give no references of your own?

Why am I even asking, of course it is. A legend in your own mind.

And you are of course concrete evidence of why nobody bothers with serious discussions on the internet any more.

 

[Mushroom]

And you are of course concrete evidence of why nobody bothers with serious discussions on the internet any more.

Look in the mirror.

YOU only say that because I refuse to accept what you are shoveling without evidence. Even when challenged to provide it, you refuse.

And meanwhile, I ask you over and over again to provide evidence, and you never do.

Of course, this is not the first time I have seen your nonsensical claims without proof. You are one of the more bigoted and arrogant people I have seen in here, and always seem to take great offense if somebody does not just accept anything you say as gospel. Of course, you are also a racist and bigot, so am not really surprised there.

The problem here is that you think that everybody thinks like you and believes whatever you say. Actually, it is quite the opposite. Me, I want proof of what others say, and offer it myself. You want blind sheep that simply follow anything said that you agree with.