yes they all paied for the frenchand indian war
taxation without representation A+
No taxation without representation.
taxation without representation
James Otis Jr. (1725-1783) is the lawyer who argued that "taxation without representation is tyranny" during a Boston town meeting in 1765 protesting the Sugar Act (1764).
"No Taxation Without Representation!" and "Taxation Without Representation is Tyranny!" Both were essentially nonsense; if the colonies did get representation in Parliament, it would have been just a few seats (going by relative population), and they would have been consistently outvoted in colonial matters.
"No Taxation Without Representation!" and "Taxation Without Representation is Tyranny!" Both were essentially nonsense; if the colonies did get representation in Parliament, it would have been just a few seats (going by relative population), and they would have been consistently outvoted in colonial matters.
Because because of the Sugar Act, the colonists felt that taxation without representation wasn't fair. Does that help you with this question? Don't forget to give feedback:-)
The Sugar Act was hated by colonists because most of them were very poor. This act required taxes to be paid on many popular items.
Because because of the Sugar Act, the colonists felt that taxation without representation wasn't fair. Does that help you with the question? Don't forget to give feedback:-)
Colonists united in their anger against British taxation without representation.
no taxation without representation. Britain needs to pay off their own debts...ect just put slogans that they feature in many history books
The colonists opposed these acts because the colonists considered them to be unfair taxing (taxation without representation). Britain placed these taxes without their consent so they rebelled.