Saifur Rahman

4/4/15

709

MS51

Colonists Should Have Protested Taxes

Taxes, people hate them, go to war for them, and commit fraud to not pay them. This was
the case for the American colonists, who protested and fought because of taxes. The colonists
started protesting their taxes after Britain bombarded the colonists with them such as the Stamp
Act, Sugar Act, and the Townshend Acts. These acts were supposed to pay off the debt of the
French and Indian War. The colonists started to protest about not being able to vote for
parliament or, Taxation without Representation as they called it. They also protested for their
rights. This made Britain furious and eventually led to the Revolutionary War. The colonists
deserved to protest.
The colonists were unhappy with how Britain had taxed them for household items, but
not the right to vote for parliament, or as they called it, Taxation without representation. This
led Britain into confusion because some British citizens paid higher taxes and still didnt get to
vote. The colonists answer from James Otis was, When the parliament shall think fit to allow
the colonists a representation in the house of commons, the equity of their taxing the colonies,
will be as clear as their power is at present of doing it without, if they please...But if it was
thought hard that charter privileges should be taken away by act of parliament, is it not much
harder to be in part, or in whole, disfranchised of rights, that have been always thought inherent
to a British subject, namely, to be free from all taxes, but what he consents to in person, or by his
representative? This right, if it could be traced no higher than Magna Charta, is part of the
common law, part of a British subjects birthright, and as inherent and perpetual, as the duty of
allegiance; both which have been brought to these colonies, and have been hitherto held sacred
and inviolable, and I hope and trust ever will. It is humbly conceived, that the British colonists
(except only the conquered, if any) are, by Magna Charta, as well entitled to have a voice in their
taxes, as the subjects within the realm. Are we not as really deprived of that right, by the
parliament assessing us before we are represented in the house of commons, as if the King
should do it by his prerogative? Can it be said with any colour of truth or justice, that we are
represented in parliament? This was meant to say that even though they didnt get to vote, they
could still run for Parliament which was not the case for the colonists. He also tried to say that
Parliament think they are strong but are not. The British response was that the colonists were the
biggest beggars in the world after they protected them from the French. This however started the
protesting for the American colonists. Taxation without representation was a big problem for the
British to impose new taxes on their colonies.

The colonists shouldve also protested their rights and safety. They protested the Boston
Massacre to show Britains protection was terrible and very prejudice towards the patriotic
colonists. They also protested their rights for the housing act for the colonies. It states that the
colonists have to house and take care of redcoats. They protested because they had to take care of
the people they hate. This is the reason why the colonists shouldve protested their rights.
On the other hand, the colonists shouldnt have protested their rights. They paid fewer
taxes than the English but they didnt get to be a part of parliament in England. People also argue
that the colonists shouldve paid taxes for all of the money to protect them but they started the
Boston Massacre. The opposition was wrong and the colonists should have protested their rights.
In conclusion, the colonists shouldve protested every part of their revolution.