Images of Old Hawaiʻi

by Leave a Comment

No Taxation Without Representation

The settlers who migrated to and/or resettled in the colonies of Plymouth, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Connecticut paid little to nothing in taxes during the first few decades of their establishment. The English government imposed almost no taxes.

The chartered companies that established the colonies initially collected only quitrents, a land tax originally paid by freemen to the Crown or to the company that held a charter from the Crown. The quitrent, an annual payment of a fixed rate of several shillings for each hundred acres of land, secured a freeman’s title to his land; it was paid in lieu of the services traditionally required by feudal custom.

The early colonies were sparsely settled and even more sparsely administered. The few officials who served did not receive official salaries until sometime in the 1640s. Their compensation came from fees for services rendered. These included issuing court papers, keeping records, arresting and punishing criminals, and issuing licenses.

In the early years, voluntary contributions supported spending on civic activities and church ministers. Too many free riders induced leaders to make contributions compulsory.

Taxpayers were recognized for their contributions; in Dedham, for example, the largest taxpayers received the best seats in church.  The small sums collected by colonial governments were spent largely on roads, churches, and schools.

Reflecting the values of the day, a prominent nineteenth-century historian, Richard T. Ely, wrote that “one of the things against which our forefathers in England and in the American colonies contended was not against oppressive taxation, but against the payment of any taxes at all” (emphasis added).

But taxes were not long in coming.

Growing populations in the colonies necessitated defensive measures against Indians and other European intruders, along with the need to build and maintain roads, schools, prisons, public buildings, and ports and to support poor relief. A variety of direct and indirect taxes was gradually imposed on the colonists.

In 1638, the General Court in Massachusetts required all freemen and non-freemen to support both the commonwealth and the church. Direct taxes took two forms: (1) a wealth tax and (2) a poll, or head tax, which in some instances evolved into or included an income tax.

Taxation from the British Parliament

Many authors credit the phrase “No Taxation without representation” to the Boston lawyer and legislator James Otis, Jr. (1725-1783), based on how John Adams recalled Otis’s argument in the writs of assistance case in 1761.

Adams wrote a letter to Otis’s biographer William Tudor, Jr., in 1818. After quoting that letter at length Tudor wrote in his book:

“From the navigation act the advocate [Otis] passed to the Acts of Trade, and these, he contended, imposed taxes, enormous, burthensome, intolerable taxes; and on this topic he gave full scope to his talent, for powerful declamation and invective, against the tyranny of taxation without representation.”  (Emphasis added)

(As noted, Otis did raise the issue of where legislatures could fairly tax subjects – but he didn’t use the memorable words “no taxation without representation.”)

This was followed up by declarations at the Stamp Tax Congress in New York in October 1865.  The Stamp Act Congress passed a ‘Declaration of Rights and Grievances.’  This claimed that American colonists were equal to all other British citizens, protested taxation without representation, and stated that, without colonial representation in Parliament, Parliament could not tax colonists. In addition, the colonists increased their nonimportation efforts.

In part, they declared,

“That it is inseparably essential to the freedom of a people, and the undoubted right of Englishmen, that no taxes be imposed on them, but with their own consent, given personally, or by their representatives.”  (Article III)

“That the people of these colonies are not, and from their local circumstances cannot be, represented in the House of Commons in Great-Britain.” (Article IV)

“That the only representatives of the people of these colonies, are persons chosen therein by themselves, and that no taxes ever have been, or can be constitutionally imposed on them, but by their respective legislatures.” (Article V)

“No Taxation Without Representation,” in the context of British American Colonial taxation, appears in  the February 1768 London Magazine’s headline, on page 89, in the printing of Lord  Camden’s “Speech on the Declaratory Bill of the Sovereignty of Great Britain over the Colonies.”

Taxation Without Representation Led to War

The American Revolutionary War (1775-1783) was sparked after American colonists chafed over issues like taxation without representation, embodied by laws like The Stamp Act and The Townshend Acts. Mounting tensions came to a head during the Battles of Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, when the “shot heard round the world” was fired.

It was not without warning; the Boston Massacre on March 5, 1770 and the Boston Tea Party on December 16, 1773 showed the colonists’ increasing dissatisfaction with British rule in the colonies.

The Declaration of Independence, issued on July 4, 1776, enumerated the reasons the Founding Fathers felt compelled to break from the rule of King George III and parliament to start a new nation. In September of that year, the Continental Congress declared the “United Colonies” of America to be the “United States of America.”

France joined the war on the side of the colonists in 1778, helping the Continental Army conquer the British at the Battle of Yorktown in 1781. The Treaty of Paris ending the American Revolution and granting the 13 original colonies independence was signed on September 3, 1783. (History-com)

Click the following link to a general summary about No Taxation Without Representation:

Click to access No-Taxation-Without-Representation.pdf

© 2023 Hoʻokuleana LLC

by Leave a Comment

Sons of Liberty

In 1765 the American Stamp Act was introduced into Parliament by Mr. Grenville; in support, Mr. Charles Townshend concluded an able speech in its support by exclaiming,

“And now will these Americans, children planted by our care, nourished by our indulgence until they are grown to a degree of strength and opulence; and protected by our arms; will they grudge to contribute their mite to relieve us from the heavy weight of that burthen which we lie under?”

On this colonel Barre rose, and, after explaining some passages in his speech, took up Mr. Townsend’s concluding words in a most spirited and inimitable manner, saying, “They planted by your care! No, your oppressions planted them in America.”

“They fled from your tyranny to a then uncultivated and inhospitable country, where they exposed themselves to almost all the hardships to which human nature is liable; and among others, to the cruelties of a savage foe, the most subtle, and I will take upon me to say, the most formidable of any people upon the face of God’s earth”.

“As soon as you began to care about them, that care was exercised in sending persons to rule them, who were, perhaps, the deputies of deputies to some members of this House, sent to spy out their liberties, to misrepresent their actions, and to prey upon them; men whose behaviour on many occasions has caused the blood of these Sons of Liberty to recoil within them …”

“And believe me,-remember I this day told you so, the same spirit of freedom which actuated that people at first will accompany them still, but prudence forbids me to explain myself further.  God knows I do not at this time speak from motives of party heat; what I deliever are the genuine sentiments of my heart.

“The people, I believe, are as truly loyal as any subjects the king has; but a people jealous of their liberties, and who will vindicate them if ever they should be violated. But the subject is too delicate. I will say no more.”

“These sentiments were thrown out so entirely without premeditation , so forcibly and so firmly, and the breaking off was so beautifully abrupt, that the whole house sat a while amazed, intently looking, without answering a word.”  (History of the Rise, Progress, and Establishment of the Independence of the United States of America, Gordon)

Sons of Liberty was an organization formed in the American colonies in the summer of 1765 to oppose the Stamp Act. The Sons of Liberty took their name from this speech given in the British Parliament by Isaac Barré (February 1765), in which he referred to the colonials who had opposed unjust British measures as the “sons of liberty.”

The origins of the Sons of Liberty are unclear, but some of the organization’s roots can be traced to the Loyal Nine, a secretive Boston political organization.  The Loyal Nine (“Loyall Nine”), a well-organized Patriot political organization shrouded in secrecy, was formed in 1765 by nine likeminded citizens of Boston to protest the passing of the Stamp Act.

The Loyal Nine evolved into the larger group Sons of Liberty and were arguably influential in that organization.

The Boston chapter of the Sons of Liberty often met under cover of darkness beneath the “Liberty Tree,” a stately elm tree in Hanover Square (at the corner of Essex Street and Orange Street (the latter of which was renamed Washington Street)).

On the night of January 14, 1766, John Adams stepped into a tiny room in a Boston distillery to meet with a radical secret society. “Spent the Evening with the Sons of Liberty, at their own Apartment in Hanover Square, near the Tree of Liberty,” Adams wrote.

After his visit, Adams assured his diary that he heard “No plotts, no Machinations” from the Loyal Nine, just gentlemanly chat about their plans to celebrate when the Stamp Act was repealed. “I wish they mayn’t be disappointed,” Adams wrote.

On August 14, 1765, violence broke out in colonial Boston. Over the course of that day and several ensuing days, rioters attacked several buildings in the city, including the homes of colonial officials.

The protest resulted from the Stamp Act, passed by the British Parliament on March 22, which would require the colonists to pay taxes on most circulating paper items-such as pamphlets, newspapers, almanacs, playing cards, and legal and insurance documents.

The August riot, which arose largely from the agitation of this group, contributed to the eventual repeal of the Stamp Act. The Sons of Liberty claimed as members many of the later leaders of the Revolution, including Paul Revere, John Adams, and Samuel Adams.

The Sons of Liberty rallied support for colonial resistance through the use of petitions, assemblies, and propaganda, and they sometimes resorted to violence against British officials. Instrumental in preventing the enforcement of the Stamp Act, they remained an active pre-Revolutionary force against the crown.  (Britannica)

For a number of years after the Stamp Act riot, the Sons of Liberty organized annual celebrations to commemorate the event.

Due to the increasing success of the Sons of Liberty, the British Parliament eased many of the duties in the colonies. However, the Parliament continued the high tax on tea, as the British Crown desperately needed money.

In 1773, the refusal to pay for British tea on behalf of the colonists fell upon deaf ears, and the East India Company’s trading ships were to enter Boston Harbor to sell the tea. However, rather than purchase the tea, on the night of December 16th, 1773 the Sons of Liberty boarded the trade ships docked in Griffin’s Wharf and threw the shipments of tea overboard in an event known as the Boston Tea Party.

Eventually, the patriotic resistance to British rule became too much to handle and revolution and war was inevitable. When lawmakers of Virginia gathered in 1775 to discuss negotiations with the British King, Sons of Liberty member, Patrick Henry exclaimed to the Second Virginia Convention “Give me liberty or give me death!”.

Thus, cementing the American stance for independence from British rule and initiating the American commitment to the Revolutionary War. (Battlefields)

Click to access Sons-of-Liberty.pdf

© 2023 Hoʻokuleana LLC

by Leave a Comment

Quartering Act

In 1763, the French and Indian War ended with two important outcomes: a British victory over their traditional enemy France and an equally tremendous British debt.

At the time, the British government decided to keep a standing (permanent) army in North America. Although the mission of the peacetime army was not clearly defined, it seemed to be a combination of defending newly acquired Canada and Florida and managing Indian affairs.

One of the major problems for the British in dealing with a far-flung, enormous empire wasn’t just the issues of defense (fighting off opposing armies, Native American raids, and so forth), but the administrative issues that defense brought up, such as housing soldiers.

Housing and feeding a group of several hundred or even a few thousand soldiers was a difficult and costly proposition.

General Thomas Gage, the new British commander-in-chief, recommended that Parliament pass a quartering law for the colonies.  The Quartering Act of 1765 directed colonial governors and their councils to hire inns and vacant buildings as quarters for soldiers when regular barracks were unavailable.

The law also required colonial governments to furnish the soldiers with firewood, bedding, candles, salt, vinegar, cooking utensils plus a daily ration of beer, cider, or rum. Furthermore, the Quartering Act authorized innkeepers to feed the soldiers at the colonies’ expense.

Contrary to popular belief, the Quartering Act of 1765 did not require that colonists shelter soldiers in their private homes.

The act did require colonial governments to provide and pay for feeding and sheltering any troops stationed in their colony.  If enough barracks were not made available, then soldiers could be housed in inns, stables, outbuildings, uninhabited houses, or private homes that sold wine or alcohol.

Nevertheless many American colonists saw the Quartering Act as one more way Parliament was attempting to tax them without their consent. Others suspected that the real purpose of keeping a small standing army in America – stationed in coastal cities, not on the frontier – was not for defense, but to enforce new British policies and taxes.

Americans saw the Quartering Act of 1765 as an attempt to force the colonists to pay for a standing army that they did not want. When Parliament was forced to repeal the hated Stamp Act in 1766, Massachusetts’ radical leader, Sam Adams, pointedly asked, “Is not [the Quartering Act] taxing the Colonies as effectively as the Stamp Act?”

The Quartering Act did become a divisive issue in 1766, after 1,500 British soldiers disembarked at New York City.

The New York Provincial Assembly refused to provide funds to cover the costs of feeding and housing these men as required by the law. In response, the British Parliament voted to suspend the Provincial Assembly until it complied with the act.

As it turned out, the suspension was never put into effect since the New York Assembly later agreed to allocate revenue to cover some of the costs of quartering these troops. The Quartering Act of 1765 was largely circumvented by most colonies during the years before the Revolution.

https://imagesofoldhawaii.com/wp-content/uploads/Quartering-Act.pdf

© 2023 Hoʻokuleana LLC

by Leave a Comment

Stamp Act

The French and Indian War had been enormously expensive and left Great Britain with a heavy debt.  And, the expense of protecting the English possessions in America seemed likely to increase rather than diminish.

The war and the British government’s attempts to impose taxes on colonists to help cover these expenses resulted in increasing colonial resentment of British attempts to expand imperial authority in the colonies.

One of the early taxes to be imposed was the Stamp Act.  Its title and text noted it was, An Act for granting and applying certain stamp duties, and other duties, in the British colonies and plantations in America, towards further defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the same …

Then, a long list of items related to “every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be ingrossed, written or printed  within such British Colonies .. [shall pay] a stamp duty …”

Effectively, the Act required the colonists to pay a tax, represented by a stamp.  Included under the act were bonds, licenses, certificates, and other official documents as well as more mundane items such as plain parchment and playing cards.  It imposed a tax on all papers and official documents in the American colonies, though not in England.

It was a direct tax imposed by the British government without the approval of the colonial legislatures and was payable in hard-to-obtain British sterling, rather than colonial currency.

Further, those accused of violating the Stamp Act could be prosecuted in Vice-Admiralty Courts, which had no juries and could be held anywhere in the British Empire. (Gilder-Lehrman Institute of American History)

With the passing of the Stamp Act, the colonists’ grumbling finally became an articulated response to what they saw as the mother country’s attempt to undermine their economic strength and independence.

They raised the issue of taxation without representation, and formed societies throughout the colonies to rally against the British government and nobles who sought to exploit the colonies as a source of revenue and raw materials.

In October 1765, delegates from the colonies convened in New York City at the Stamp Act Congress, where they drew up formal petitions to the British Parliament and to King George III to repeal the act. It was the first unified colonial response to British policy and it provided the British a taste of what would come soon thereafter.

The British had been receiving reports of mob violence in the colonies, and Prime Minister Grenville had been replaced by Lord Rockingham, who proved more sympathetic than his predecessor to the colonists’ demands. (Khan Academy)

The colonists also took exception with the provision denying offenders trials by jury. A vocal minority hinted at dark designs behind the Stamp Act. These radical voices warned that the tax was part of a gradual plot to deprive the colonists of their freedoms and to enslave them beneath a tyrannical regime.

By October of that year, nine of the 13 colonies sent representatives to the Stamp Act Congress, at which the colonists drafted the “Declaration of Rights and Grievances,” a document that railed against the autocratic policies of the mercantilist British empire.

Realizing that it actually cost more to enforce the Stamp Act in the protesting colonies than it did to abolish it, the British government repealed the tax the following year.   (History-com)

Click to access Stamp-Act.pdf

© 2023 Hoʻokuleana LLC

by Leave a Comment

Currency Act

The paper money issued by the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1690 was the first authorized by any government in the Western world.  The Massachusetts Bay Colony financed a military expedition to Canada in 1690 by issuing bills of credit.

Over time, each of the thirteen colonies’ governments had emitted their own currency issues, although Great Britain opposed and tried to suppress them.  Subsequent military campaigns and other expenses by other Colonies were funded with these bills.  In all cases, they were a financial expedient adopted to cover a lack of funds by promising to “pay later.” (American Numismatic Society)

The French and Indian War represented the decisive turning point in British-colonial relations. The Treaty of Paris in 1763 ratified Britain’s undisputed control of the seas and shipping trade, as well as its sovereignty over much of the North American continent east of the Mississippi River, including French Canada.

The British Government had borrowed heavily from British and Dutch bankers to finance the war, and as a consequence the national debt almost doubled from £75 million in 1754 to £133 million in 1763. In order to address this onerous liability, British officials turned to larger import duties on enumerated goods like sugar and tobacco, along with a series of high excise (sales) taxes on goods such as salt, beer, and spirits.

This taxation strategy tended to burden consumers disproportionately. In addition, government bureaucracy expanded in order to collect the needed revenue. As the number of royal officials more than doubled, Parliament delegated new legal and administrative authority to them. Thus, even as British subjects lauded their pre-eminent position in the world, they chafed under the weight of increased debts and tightened government controls.

In 1764, Parliament passed the Currency Act, which banned the use of paper money as legal tender in all colonies. (This effectively took the prohibition of issuance of new bills of credit that had been imposed on New England colonies: Rhode Island, Massachusetts Bay, New Hampshire and Connecticut and extended that prohibition to all of the colonies.)

British merchants had asked for relief from the depreciated currency brought about by deficit financing in Virginia.  It was argued that Parliament sought to control currency depreciation against silver and sterling and to ensure its value for payments of debt to British merchants.   The Act represented an effort to take control of monetary policy from colonial assemblies.

The colonies faced a chronic shortage of hard money, which was being sent across the Atlantic to pay debts in England. To meet the shortage, they resorted to issuing their own paper money. British creditors, however, feared payment in such a depreciated currency.  (JD Lewis)

To protect British merchants and creditors from depreciated colonial currency, this act regulated currency, abolishing the colonies’ paper currency in favor of a system based on the pound sterling.

Effect of the Currency Act

As a result, the colonies suffered a constant shortage of currency with which to conduct trade. There were no gold or silver mines and currency could only be obtained through trade as regulated by Great Britain.

  • The Act banned colonial paper money as legal tender in private transactions.
  • Colonial paper money was accepted for public debt payments such as provincial taxes.
  • It prohibited the extension of paper bills beyond its date of redemption.
  • The Currency Act did not place limits on the amount of paper money in circulation and on the period of redemption.

Opposition to the 1764 Currency Act started immediately. Colonial governments petitioned its repeal as the postwar economic slowdown was being felt in most colonies.

In 1770 Parliament revised the Act and allowed New York to issue bills as legal tender for all types of debt. In 1773 parliament allowed colonial legislatures to print bills to cover costs and to be used as legal tender.

Click to access Currency-Act.pdf

© 2023 Hoʻokuleana LLC