Yesterday there were tea parties going on throughout most of the States across the continent. Crowds reached into the thousands, and it is suppose to harken back to the Boston tea party of 1773, which was in protest of the last of the townshend acts, the tea tax passed my parliament.
From watching the news and reading blogs I’ve heard alot from everyday folks and pundents alike that continually talk about the fact that the tea party and the revolution were over taxation without representation, and that now, unlike then, we as tax payers have representation.
But this is to confuse history. When the founders talked about taxation without representation, they did not mean that they wanted to be represented in parliament, in fact Benjamin Franklin, in efforts to keep the peace, suggested sending representatives from the various colonies to sit in the house of commons in London, an idea which was utterly rejected by the likes of George Mason and Thomas Jefferson. Thats because when they referred to taxation without representation, they meant within their own colonial assembly. To them it didn’t matter whether they had representatives in London, modern day D.C., they believed only their own assemblies could impose taxes on them, the equivalent of our states.
In short the mantra “taxation without representation” in more modern terms is no taxation from the central government, but only by the local political body.
From watching the news and reading blogs I’ve heard alot from everyday folks and pundents alike that continually talk about the fact that the tea party and the revolution were over taxation without representation, and that now, unlike then, we as tax payers have representation.
But this is to confuse history. When the founders talked about taxation without representation, they did not mean that they wanted to be represented in parliament, in fact Benjamin Franklin, in efforts to keep the peace, suggested sending representatives from the various colonies to sit in the house of commons in London, an idea which was utterly rejected by the likes of George Mason and Thomas Jefferson. Thats because when they referred to taxation without representation, they meant within their own colonial assembly. To them it didn’t matter whether they had representatives in London, modern day D.C., they believed only their own assemblies could impose taxes on them, the equivalent of our states.
In short the mantra “taxation without representation” in more modern terms is no taxation from the central government, but only by the local political body.
No comments:
Post a Comment