Amazon.com Widgets
  • We had no direct representation in parliament .“Taxation without representation “

    We had no direct representation in parliament .“Taxation without representation “
    Support : Britain just passed laws down and the colonists were mad because they had no say in this and they didn’t have any representation that was in the British parliament that spoke for them.
    Evidence- According to Jamestown-Yorktown foundation, “Many colonists felt that they should not pay these taxes, because they were passed in England by Parliament, not by their own colonial governments. They protested, saying that these taxes violated their rights as British citizens.”

  • The British Government refused to allow the colonists a say in their own government.

    One of the main causes for the American revolution was Britain's taxing of the Americas, and a lot of people argue that the taxes were more than fair, especially considering how the colonists actions in expanding westward and essentially doing everything Britain told them not to do resulted in what some consider to be the first world war. The taxes, after all, were just to pay for that extraordinarily costly battle, and they weren't all that much, especially when compared with the taxes Americans pay today. However, in the phrase "no taxation without representation", it wasn't the first half that caused issues, it was the second half; the fact that the colonists weren't receiving a fair representative in Britain's government. In fact, before any violence occurred the colonists sent a letter to Britain accepting the sovereignty of the king, but asking for a right to have a representative in parliament. Britain responded by basically saying "yeah, uh, no, you guys are all idiots and also each member of parliament represents all of Britain so you guys are covered". If Britain had simply accepted the colonists reasons and taken a few people--say, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and good ol' George--into parliament, the whole rebellion would have been avoided. Britain repeatedly refused to give consideration to the colonists wishes, and considered them as of a lower class, which rightly ticked the colonists off.

  • Colonists were right to break away

    The colonists were being treated unfairly, and it's unfair that British is taking advantage that no colonists are in the Parliament. British had no right to tax their own people. It's not their fault colonists couldn't do much in the French and Indian War. They probably didn't have guns or weapons to defend themselves against the French and Indian tribes. What British did was completely unacceptable and I would want to have my freedom from Britain if I was a colonists, even if they did protect my family and me.

  • The Britains were just jealous

    They had every right too because Americans are just so cool because if we didn't leave you wouldn't have a telephone or you wouldn't have Apple computers so we should have rebelled because apple is so great and you wouldn't have rich people or football or baseball or all sports or people that are good at sports

  • British are bitches

    Britain got fucked up the ass when America showed them who is boss so they should be paying taxes to us those filthy cunt bags need to learn some manners and drink their rich ass tea while America does the real man's work and actually win wars. Get Shreked Britain.

  • Gah annoying britains

    They think theyre better than us but no theyre not they just jealous we livin the cool life and theyre not haha people you though you was cool d f g gb g e rg g g f g g e g e g f g d g w fw ry t j

  • The Britain people are disriminaterzz

    Ugh these britain people think they so chill but nah they just jealous we livin the cool life d d d d d d d d ws s s sq rfw efwe fs ef rf f f wqed edq de dqe d qdfwe d qwdqeq e wef wef e fe f

  • Rebel america rebel

    Because if we didn't we would be British and we would have to pay a lot for tea and that would be really upset. So we should have rebelled because if we didn't we would be in a crappy land right now. And we would have a queen and we wouldn't have a chance to vote for Donald Trump he is a a great man i only speak words of wisdom

  • We all have the right to rebel against tyranny!

    Whether that tyranny is in the form of taxation, unjust laws, lack of freedoms, no ability to self govern or any other demeaning jurisdictions.
    We all have the right to choose our coarse in this world! It seems that
    American's are a lot more subjugated by our rulers today then the colonist's were by British rule! I do realize the taxation that the British
    Imposed were being used to reimburse the motherland for costs ensued by the French and Indian war! I believe the British could have went about recouping this money more diplomatically. No matter
    Which of us is right the colonies needed to be ruled by colonist's.

  • They had no other choice and the British government was being oppressive

    They were being treated very poorly, so I believe that it was 100% fine for them to rebel. Plus by this point in time the British government was being very oppressive with the stamp act, and after the Boston massacre the British had head enough and started treating the colonists like prisoners. The colonists at this point had no other choice unless they wanted to be treated like that for the rest of their lives.

  • No it wasn't right

    I think that the colinst were protected so in return they should have paid the taxes instead of resisting. In my option if you do something for someone they should pay you back with a favor. So I think that if the colonist just paid their taxes they would of been OK.

  • No taxation without representation.

    The representation part is quite clear, for protection. After the war, Britain imposed taxes on the colonist because they needed some form of payment to recover, the colonist did really little in the war,yet they complain about equality and taxes. If the colonist wanted equality then they should know that the colonist pays taxes ten times lower than the people living in england at the time, and world wide, paid the lowest taxes. They just dont know how to be grateful.

  • This wasn't right.

    The British government was paying a ton of money to keep the soldiers guarding the Proclamation Line. Although the thought of a tax seemed quite threatening because they weren't paying very many taxes, they still should have realized that these taxes were only for their safety. Britain was in the hole so they (the colonists) could live their luxurious life in America. You might say that this rebellion eventually brought about the American Revolution, and it did. But the United States of America would have happened a different way, not with selfish people wanting all the money for themselves.

  • Not really, no.

    The British specifically told the colonists not to expand westward until they were ready to, but the colonists decided to go and butt heads with the native people and try to take their land. This in turn caused the British to reluctantly send soldiers and supplies to America, which wasn't cheap, to go and bail the colonists out. And then, in turn, the Americans were outraged when Britain made the ridiculous motion to actually make the colonists pay for their wrongdoings (Sarcasm). No, the colonists really probably should not have rebelled, since the British were actually being quite fair, in my opinion.

  • Take this under consideration

    The Colonists were being unjust in terms of taxation. The British told them not to expand west of the Appalachian Mountains. However, they ignored this and just ventured fourth. They got into fight with the indigenous people of that land and the British had to come help them. Its because of this taxes were released. It was only to pay for the many times the British had to come help the colonists. They could have let them die on their own. Also, the taxes weren't much and in the French and Indian War it was only to support the troops so that they can keep the colonists and their land under their control. Plus, the revolution wouldn't be preventing due to the colonists revolt it would only be delayed. As more signs of Democracy appear the more colonists will get a taste of freedom and crave it even more which causes another revolution.

  • Think about it

    The colonists were being really stupid because they said that taxing was overrated, but it payed for the government that gave THEM protection. They gave LITTLE help in the French and Indian war, so it seems only fair they pay for the army that saves them from moving back to a dirty,smoggy England!

  • I said no

    I said no and that is finally I just can't understand why people think it was right for the colonist to rebel it's just does make any sense like just why would you think that it was a good think I am so done right now I just can't why!!!

  • NO they should have not rebbeled

    In my opinion the American Colonist did a bad choice on rebellion and fighting against British. As we know there is more peaceful and political way of solving problems and the colonist ruined the peace and the harmony by declaring war. "Anger is the enemy of non-violence and pride is a monster that swallows it up” said by Mahatma Gandhi. This quote is directed to the colonists due to them starting to protest and rebel against the British Government. Britain was paying a lot of money to protect and secure colonist. It cost the British a lot of money which made them to put taxes on the colonists. For example “Tea Act/Tax” and the “Stamp Act”. “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.” As I mentioned before it helped the british to control the colonists and gain more money to protect them. Similar to the “Stamp Act” where colonists needed to pay for the british so they could stamp their documents, files and etc. The taxes were put on the colonists so british could pay their debts and support and develop the America. Colonists also ruined the relations with british and made the situation worth. A great example could be when the Americans wanted the lands and they pushed and expanded west to the Appalachian Mountains which wasn't even American territory in that time. This action led to the Indian French War which led British also to participate in war because in that time the colonists were accepted as British citizens. However British also needed to consider that the Americans wanted to gain independence and, they could have done it without bloody and cruel protests and rebellions. American colonist could protests, ignore, and boycott the Britain or they could be allies and help each other to develop and grow. Furthermore colonist could just get their independence but follow the rules and the tax systems of Britain, because both of the countries could benefit and be secured.

  • NO they should have not rebbeled

    In my opinion the American Colonist did a bad choice on rebellion and fighting against British. As we know there is more peaceful and political way of solving problems and the colonist ruined the peace and the harmony by declaring war. "Anger is the enemy of non-violence and pride is a monster that swallows it up” said by Mahatma Gandhi. This quote is directed to the colonists due to them starting to protest and rebel against the British Government. Britain was paying a lot of money to protect and secure colonist. It cost the British a lot of money which made them to put taxes on the colonists. For example “Tea Act/Tax” and the “Stamp Act”. “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.” As I mentioned before it helped the british to control the colonists and gain more money to protect them. Similar to the “Stamp Act” where colonists needed to pay for the british so they could stamp their documents, files and etc. The taxes were put on the colonists so british could pay their debts and support and develop the America. Colonists also ruined the relations with british and made the situation worth. A great example could be when the Americans wanted the lands and they pushed and expanded west to the Appalachian Mountains which wasn't even American territory in that time. This action led to the Indian French War which led British also to participate in war because in that time the colonists were accepted as British citizens. However British also needed to consider that the Americans wanted to gain independence and, they could have done it without bloody and cruel protests and rebellions. American colonist could protests, ignore, and boycott the Britain or they could be allies and help each other to develop and grow. Furthermore colonist could just get their independence but follow the rules and the tax systems of Britain, because both of the countries could benefit and be secured.

  • Why go to war???!!!

    No because the British never intended to harm the Patriots. They only reacted properly to the colonies’ unacceptable behavior.
    One of the most significant examples of this would be the Boston Massacre. Yes, five colonists died as a result of this but that was only AFTER they provoked the soldiers. It was reported that the mob of colonists were throwing snowballs and rocks at the soldiers. It was only after one of the soldiers was hit that they opened fire. They had first been given orders to hold their ground and to not shoot. The Boston Massacre only left five people dead and was only titled a “massacre” as a result from Paul Revere’s propaganda and biased depiction of the scene. In his picture, he shows colonists running away and soldiers firing. The soldiers never had any intent to harm them. The colonists however were looking to start a fight.
    A second example would be the Boston Tea Party, later leading the Coercive Acts (also labeled the “Intolerable Acts” by the Patriots). The Boston Tea Party was not a party at all. It was a planned vandalism British import by the Sons of Liberty. On December 16, 1773, the Sons of Liberty dressed as Mohawk Indians and boarded three ships in the Boston Harbor. They dumped 342 chests of tea in to the water; over one million dollars in U.S. currency today. Once the news of the destruction reached the Crown Parliament retaliated with the Coercive Acts. They stated that the Boston Harbor was closed until the price was paid. The colonists looked at this as a cruel punishment but this was necessary to make sure they did not just get away with their actions. The Crown acted with the proper attitude to make sure the colonies knew they couldn’t do something so severe with no consequences. It just doesn’t make sense that the colonists disagreed with these acts if they were the cause of them. Why destroy this tea in the first place if you know that this is how the British will act against it? That’s like knowing and understanding that the consequences of vandalism are fines and possibly jail but still committing the crime. It just does not make sense to do this kind of thing.
    Another key point that is crucial to this argument would be that the colonies would not have been there in the first place if it was not for Britain. You must understand that this also means that they owe their loyalty to the British Crown and England. The argument that they were taxed heavily is not strong. It was not in fact an unfair tax, but money that they owed to Britain. You have to remember that these taxes were the result of the Seven Years War. During this time, Britain protected the colonies. After, they expected the colonies to share the burden of the debt.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.