Yes, they wanted to include slaves within their population because it would allow more representatives to be able to join Congress and speak the "voice" of the Southern states.
Taxation without representation.
I believe you are looking for "no taxation without representation"
Taxation I believe
The question above represents a common misunderstanding regarding the reason for the colonies resistance to taxation from Great Britain. Most Americans today believe that it was an issue of how high the tax was and the burden that it would have placed upon the people. This is incorrect. The colonies resistance to taxation is directly connected to the issue of internal vs. external taxation. Internal taxation is taxes placed upon the people by representatives of the people. External taxation is taxes imposed upon a people that has no representation in the body that makes the decision. James Otis is claimed to have stated that, "Taxation without representation is tyranny". The colonists believed that laws imposed on a people that have no voice is a form of tyranny. The issue wasn't with a percentage, the issue was with liberty.
The thing about the Stamp Act is that it was an internal tax, unlike the Sugar Act before it, and internal taxes were designed to raise revenue for the crown and had far wider effects. The colonists (well, Grenville and his supporters) felt that Parliament could not tax any British subjects unless they enjoyed representation. Many colonists also felt that the Stamp Act forced them to either confront the issue of parliamentary taxation head-on or to give up on any claim to rights of self-government. So, in answer to your question, I would assume that they felt it violated the idea of representation or perhaps self-government (both of which were important to patriots), and they would not accept virtual representation for themselves.
Taxation without representation.
Taxation without representation.
I believe you are looking for "no taxation without representation"
While The 16th Amendment addresses the levying of income tax among the state's populations, nowhere in the Constitution is "taxation without representation" mentioned. I believe the questioner may have the wording of the Declaration of Independence and the wording of the Constitution confused with one another.
colonists believed that since the government had no representative they had no right to tax them. Their rallying cry was "NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!"
by boycotting "no taxation without representation"
Many colonists thought taxation without representation was fundamentally wrong.
colonists believed that since the government had no representative they had no right to tax them. Their rallying cry was "NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!"
The colonists believed that since they had no representatives in the English government, That the government had no right to tax them. their rallying cry was" no taxation without representation".
James Otis Jr. (1725-1783) During a Boston town meeting in 1765 protesting the Sugar Act (1764), Otis stated that "taxation without representation is tyranny."
Taxation I believe
Enlightenment thinkers believe that individuals should have a say in the laws and policies that affect them. Taxation without representation denies people the ability to participate in the decision-making process, which goes against the principles of political equality and consent of the governed. This lack of representation was seen as unjust and oppressive by Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and Thomas Paine.