James Otis made this claim in 1764. What he really said was 'the (English) Parliament had no right to tax unrepresented subject....no more right to make 2 and 2, 5. ' He was wrong but he gained a lot of American support.
What he was angry about was the British taxation system of the time: This came about because of what Americans perceived as the unfair amount of taxes levied upon them by the British government. Britain still owned the thirteen states and subjected them to the same taxes as those in Britain - and more.
In October 1763, the British government decided that they wanted to stabilize their western boundaries and so no colonial settlements should be made westwards of the Alleghanies.. and to police this boundary, taxes would be raised from both American and British subjects. At the same time they tightened the rules of the Navigation Act, which controlled imports and exports; thereby taxing goods such as wheat, flax, hemp, cattle, horses, timber and furs. Then the British imposed the Sugar Act, collecting extra duties on sugar. The following year came the Stamp Act - a tax on newspapers, legal documents, cargo clearances and licquor or 'pub' licences.
Opposition to the taxes in the form of protests, headed by the group Sons of Liberty caused the British government to repeal the Stamp Act in 1776, but they came back with a new Act, which confirmed Parliament's right to tax any of its colonies however it deemed fit.
Americans, in less than ten years would deliberately choose the path of revolution rather than accept this.
no one invented it. it was uttered by a famous patriot
the England people taxed the colonist this made the colonist mad they came up with the saying no taxation without repersentation and that is where it came from
The American colonies. Most of the colonies were represented, but not North Carolina, by the Parliment. That's why us North Carlinoians went around "No Taxation without representation!"
Taxation without representation was a huge complaint by the colonists because they believed it violated their rights as English citizens. They argued that since they had no elected representatives in the British Parliament, they had no say in decisions regarding taxation. This lack of representation was seen as unfair and oppressive, leading to increasing tensions between the colonists and the British government.
The Stamp Act, among others, increased taxes on the colonists without them having any say over it. "Taxation without representation" was a major grievance of the colonists.
"taxation without representation " the colonist where mad because they didn't have a say in what to do in parliament they just chose for them.
The colonists were being taxed and they felt they had no say in their tax ammounts, this was one of the main reasons the revoulutionary war began. I know this because I just finsished that part in Soicial Studies.
We didn't want to pay our taxes anymore. Actually,the objection wasn't to being taxed, but to be taxed without a say: no taxation without representation!
No
Taxation without representation is tyranny means that it is unfair to have to pay taxes if uyou dont have a say in it............ Taxation without representation is tyranny means that it is unfair to have to pay taxes if uyou dont have a say in it............
No taxation without representation.
No. Jonathan Mayhew did
taxation without representation
i dont get what u are trying to say
"No taxation without representation!"
"No taxation without representation".
No taxation without representation occurred in 2012
It means England can't tax them without someone to represent them.
"no taxation without representation" means that they dont want taxes without somebody to speak for them (the colonists)
"Taxation WITHOUT representation".