DOCSLIB.ORG

States' Rights Apogee, 1760-1840

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
States' Rights Apogee, 1760-1840 “States’ Rights Apogee, 1776-1840” By Ryan M. Setliff A Thesis Submitted To The Faculty of the History Department and Graduate School At Liberty University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for a Masters of Arts in History December 2011 – Abstract – America’s states’ rights tradition has held much influence since the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1788. In late 1798, in response to the Federalist administration’s adoption of the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were formally adopted by the legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky respectively. These resolutions set a lasting precedent for state interposition and nullification. As well concurrence with these doctrines can be found in the Virginia Resolves of 1790, the constitutional debates of 1787-1790, and all throughout the colonial-revolutionary period of the 1760s to 1780s. In time, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions would gain stature and would define the American political culture of the nineteenth century. They became known as the Principles of 1798. The Tariff Crisis of 1828-1832 in South Carolina may be contextualized in light of the Principles of 1798. This inquiry endeavors to answer why those principles are integral to the American constitutional tradition. The continuity of the 1798 resolves with colonial-revolutionary practice reveals them as neither rash nor innovative, but in accord with the localism innate to American political tradition. -ii- – Acknowledgments – Special thanks to my thesis committee participants for their mentorship. In particular, my thesis advisor Dr. Samuel C. Smith, Professor of History, and committee reader, Dr. Roger Schultz, Professor of History and Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences, have my gratitude for their assistance and encouragement in this project. -iii- – Table of Contents – States' Rights Apogee, 1776-1840 ..................................................................................................1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................1 One – Antecedents..........................................................................................................................11 Two – The Principles of 1798 ........................................................................................................41 Three – The Northern States' Rights Tradition ..............................................................................60 Four – The Tariff Crisis and the Debate on the Union ..................................................................81 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................114 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................119 Appendix .....................................................................................................................................129 Virginia Resolutions of 1798 .......................................................................................................129 Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 .................................................................................131 Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 .....................................................................................................136 Kentucky Resolutions of 1799 .....................................................................................................141 Virginia Report of 1800 ...............................................................................................................143 © Ryan Setliff, 2011. All Rights Reserved. -iv- Setliff 1 Introduction “[C]onfidence is everywhere the parent of despotism—free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go… In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution . .” —Thomas Jefferson, Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions1 The Principles of 1798 The states‘ rights tradition reverberated through the political discourse following the adoption of the Constitution and was an outgrowth of the jealous solicitude for local rights and individual liberty embodied in the American Revolution. In late 1798, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were written and formally adopted by the respective state legislatures in response to the Federalist administration‘s adoption of the Alien and Sedition Acts which they perceived as unconstitutional. These resolutions set a powerful precedent for state interposition and nullification. In time, they would gain stature and define the American political culture of the early nineteenth century—and would become known as the Principles of 1798. This inquiry endeavors to answer why those principles are integral to the American constitutional tradition. Foreshadowing state interposition, Senator William Maclay of Pennsylvania remarked in his journal for 22 March 1790: ―Is it to be expected that a federal law passed directly against the sense of a whole State will ever be executed in that State?‖2 The Tenth Amendment to the 1 Thomas Jefferson, Declaration and Protest of Virginia, 1825, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition, Andrew Lipscomb and Albert Ellergy Bergh, eds. (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Mem. Assoc., 1905), 7:304. 2 Richard Weaver, ―The South and the American Union,‖ The Southern Essays of Richard Weaver (Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Press, 1987), 234; Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869). Author‘s Note. What is a ‗State‘ in the American political parlance? Justice Salmon Chase offered this definition of state, ―A State, in the ordinary sense of the Constitution, is a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries, and organized under a government sanctioned and limited by a written Constitution, and established by the consent of Setliff 2 Constitution manifests the integral role of the states vis-à-vis the limited federal role evident in a delegation of express powers.3 The powers conferred upon the federal government, under the Constitution, including those of Congress, are delegated by the people, enumerated in express terms in that instrument, and are limited in scope.4 The people delegate to the government only so much power as they think prudent to exercise while they reserve to themselves all the rights and powers that are not delegated to the government, whether federal or state. The preamble to the Constitution reads, ―We the people… do ordain and establish this Constitution…,‖ which declares that power resides with the people. ―All [federal] legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in Congress….‖ This implies a limitation upon the federal power.5 As had been the case in the old Confederation, pursuant to its thirteenth article, all remaining authority belonged to the people, including the power to make and unmake government. All acts by the Congress, or any officer, beyond the limits of power delegated, were considered to be null and void ipso facto.6 To encapsulate this doctrine of delegation in the constitutional fabric, the Tenth Amendment was proposed and ratified in 1791. ―The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively, or to the governed.‖ 3 Frederick Drake and Lynn R. Nelson, eds., States’ Rights and American Federalism: A Documentary History (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999), 67-72. 4 Clarence Carson, The American Tradition (Irvington-on-Hudson, NY: Foundation for Economic Education, 1964), 73, 80-81; Wesley A. Riddle. The American Political Tradition (Irvington-on-Hudson, NY: Foundation for Economic Education, 1996), 17. 5 Russell Kirk,The American Cause (Wilmington, DE: ISI, 2002), 68; Roger Pilon, ―Madison‘s Constitutional Vision: The Legacy of Enumerated Powers,‖ James Madison and The Future of Limited Government (Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2002), 29. ―The most basic limit on power, however, could not have been simpler in its conception. In fact, it can be reduced to a short admonition: if you want to limit power, don‘t give it in the first place. Notice that is not simply an instruction for limiting government. It is a principle of legitimacy. It draws from the Declaration‘s claim that government‘s just powers are derived from the consent of the governed. Powers are legitimate if and only if they have been delegated by the people and enumerated in the document through which the people constitute themselves as a political entity, their constitution. Thus, the doctrine of enumerated powers.‖ 6 John R. Graham, Free, Sovereign, and Independent States: The Intended Meaning of the American Constitution (Gretna, LA: Pelican Pub., 2009), 181. Setliff 3 the people.‖7 Jefferson inferred that the Tenth Amendment was the ―foundation‖ of the Constitution. ―The states supposed that by their tenth amendment, they had secured themselves against constructive powers,‖ he remarked. ―To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • X001132127.Pdf
    ' ' ., ,�- NONIMPORTATION AND THE SEARCH FOR ECONOMIC INDEPENDENCE IN VIRGINIA, 1765-1775 BRUCE ALLAN RAGSDALE Charlottesville, Virginia B.A., University of Virginia, 1974 M.A., University of Virginia, 1980 A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Virginia in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Corcoran Department of History University of Virginia May 1985 © Copyright by Bruce Allan Ragsdale All Rights Reserved May 1985 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction: 1 Chapter 1: Trade and Economic Development in Virginia, 1730-1775 13 Chapter 2: The Dilemma of the Great Planters 55 Chapter 3: An Imperial Crisis and the Origins of Commercial Resistance in Virginia 84 Chapter 4: The Nonimportation Association of 1769 and 1770 117 Chapter 5: The Slave Trade and Economic Reform 180 Chapter 6: Commercial Development and the Credit Crisis of 1772 218 Chapter 7: The Revival Of Commercial Resistance 275 Chapter 8: The Continental Association in Virginia 340 Bibliography: 397 Key to Abbreviations used in Endnotes WMQ William and Mary Quarterly VMHB Virginia Magazine of History and Biography Hening William Waller Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large; Being� Collection of all the Laws Qf Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature in the year 1619, 13 vols. Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia Rev. Va. Revolutionary Virginia: The Road to Independence, 7 vols. LC Library of Congress PRO Public Record Office, London co Colonial Office UVA Manuscripts Department, Alderman Library, University of Virginia VHS Virginia Historical Society VSL Virginia State Library Introduction Three times in the decade before the Revolution. Vir­ ginians organized nonimportation associations as a protest against specific legislation from the British Parliament.
    [Show full text]
  • The Origins of a Free Press in Prerevolutionary Virginia: Creating
    Dedication To my late father, Curtis Gordon Mellen, who taught me that who we are is not decided by the advantages or tragedies that are thrown our way, but rather by how we deal with them. Table of Contents Foreword by David Waldstreicher....................................................................................i Acknowledgements .........................................................................................................iii Chapter 1 Prologue: Culture of Deference ...................................................................................1 Chapter 2 Print Culture in the Early Chesapeake Region...........................................................13 A Limited Print Culture.........................................................................................14 Print Culture Broadens ...........................................................................................28 Chapter 3 Chesapeake Newspapers and Expanding Civic Discourse, 1728-1764.......................57 Early Newspaper Form...........................................................................................58 Changes: Discourse Increases and Broadens ..............................................................76 Chapter 4 The Colonial Chesapeake Almanac: Revolutionary “Agent of Change” ...................97 The “Almanacks”.....................................................................................................99 Chapter 5 Women, Print, and Discourse .................................................................................133
    [Show full text]
  • Senators You Have to Know John C. Calhoun –
    Senators You Have To Know John C. Calhoun – South Carolina / serving terms in the United States House of Representatives, United States Senate and as the seventh Vice President of the United States (1825–1832), as well as secretary of war and state. Democrats After 1830, his views evolved and he became a greater proponent of states' rights, limited government, nullification and free trade; as he saw these means as the only way to preserve the Union. He is best known for his intense and original defense of slavery as something positive, his distrust of majoritarianism, and for pointing the South toward secession from the Union. Nullification is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld;[1] rather, the Supreme Court has rejected it. The theory of nullification is based on a view that the States formed the Union by an agreement (or "compact") among the States, and that as creators of the federal government, the States have the final authority to determine the limits of the power of that government. Under this, the compact theory, the States and not the federal courts are the ultimate interpreters of the extent of the federal government's power. The States therefore may reject, or nullify, federal laws that the States believe are beyond the federal government's constitutional powers. The related idea of interposition is a theory that a state has the right and the duty to "interpose" itself when the federal government enacts laws that the state believes to be unconstitutional.
    [Show full text]
  • UNION NOW with BRITAIN, by Clarence K. Streit. Harper & Brothers, Publishers, New York, 1941
    Louisiana Law Review Volume 4 | Number 1 November 1941 UNION NOW WITH BRITAIN, by Clarence K. Streit. Harper & Brothers, Publishers, New York, 1941. Pp. xv, 240. Jefferson B. Fordham Repository Citation Jefferson B. Fordham, UNION NOW WITH BRITAIN, by Clarence K. Streit. Harper & Brothers, Publishers, New York, 1941. Pp. xv, 240., 4 La. L. Rev. (1941) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol4/iss1/27 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Book Reviews UNION Now WITH BRITAIN, by Clarence K. Streit. Harper & Brothers, Publishers, New York, 1941. Pp. xv, 240. Mr. Streit developed his idea of a federal union of national states before the war broke out. In 1939 he articulated it in Union Now, wherein he proposed that initially the union should be composed of fifteen democracies, namely, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Eire, Finland, France, Holland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the Union of South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. Hitler has forced a revision of this scheme by overrunning five of the eight non-Englishspeaking countries in this group and isolating the remaining three. The present volume accordingly urges United States union now with the other Englishspeaking democracies. A common language, a predominantly common racial strain, and a common legal, political and cultural heritage are cohesive ele- ments that strongly favor the present lineup over the original plan.
    [Show full text]
  • The SAR Colorguardsman
    The SAR Colorguardsman National Society, Sons of the American Revolution Vol. 5 No. 1 April 2016 Patriots Day Inside This Issue Commanders Message Reports from the Field - 11 Societies From the Vice-Commander Waxhaws and Machias Old Survivor of the Revolution Color Guard Commanders James Barham Jr Color Guard Events 2016 The SAR Colorguardsman Page 2 The purpose of this Commander’s Report Magazine is to o the National Color Guard members, my report for the half year starts provide in July 2015. My first act as Color Guard commander was at Point interesting TPleasant WVA. I had great time with the Color Guard from the near articles about the by states. My host for the 3 days was Steve Hart from WVA. Steve is from my Home town in Maryland. My second trip was to South Carolina to Kings Revolutionary War and Mountain. My host there was Mark Anthony we had members from North Car- information olina and South Carolina and from Georgia and Florida we had a great time at regarding the Kings Mountain. Went home for needed rest over 2000 miles on that trip. That activities of your chapter weekend was back in the car to VA and the Tomb of the Unknown. Went home to get with the MD Color Guard for a trip to Yorktown VA for Yorktown Day. and/or state color guards Went back home for events in MD for Nov. and Dec. Back to VA for the Battle of Great Bridge VA. In January I was back to SC for the Battle of Cowpens - again had a good time in SC.
    [Show full text]
  • The Stamp Act and Methods of Protest
    Page 33 Chapter 8 The Stamp Act and Methods of Protest espite the many arguments made against it, the Stamp Act was passed and scheduled to be enforced on November 1, 1765. The colonists found ever more vigorous and violent ways to D protest the Act. In Virginia, a tall backwoods lawyer, Patrick Henry, made a fiery speech and pushed five resolutions through the Virginia Assembly. In Boston, an angry mob inspired by Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty destroyed property belonging to a man rumored to be a Stamp agent and to Lt. Governor Thomas Hutchinson. In New York, delegates from nine colonies, sitting as the Stamp Act Congress, petitioned the King and Parliament for repeal. In Philadelphia, New York, and other seaport towns, merchants pledged not to buy or sell British goods until the hated stamp tax was repealed. This storm of resistance and protest eventually had the desired effect. Stamp sgents hastily resigned their Commissions and not a single stamp was ever sold in the colonies. Meanwhile, British merchants petitioned Parliament to repeal the Stamp Act. In 1766, the law was repealed but replaced with the Declaratory Act, which stated that Parliament had the right to make laws binding on the colonies "in all cases whatsoever." The methods used to protest the Stamp Act raised issues concerning the use of illegal and violent protest, which are considered in this chapter. May: Patrick Henry and the Virginia Resolutions Patrick Henry had been a member of Virginia's House of Burgess (Assembly) for exactly nine days as the May session was drawing to a close.
    [Show full text]
  • Colonial Flags 1775-1781
    THE AMERICAN FLAG IS BORN American Heritage Information Library and Museum about A Revolutionary Experience GRAND UNION BETSY ROSS The first flag of the colonists to have any During the Revolutionary War, several patriots made resemblance to the present Stars and Stripes. It was flags for our new Nation. Among them were Cornelia first flown by ships of the Colonial Fleet on the Bridges, Elizabeth (Betsy) Ross, and Rebecca Young, all Delaware River. On December 3, 1775 it was raised of Pennsylvania, and John Shaw of Annapolis, Maryland. aboard Capt. Esek Hopkin's flagship Alfred by John Although Betsy Ross, the best known of these persons, Paul Jones, then a navy lieutenant. Later the flag was made flags for 50 years, there is no proof that she raised on the liberty pole at Prospect Hill, which was made the first Stars and Stripes. It is known she made near George Washington's headquarters in flags for the Pennsylvania Navy in 1777. The flag Cambridge, MA. It was the unofficial national flag on popularly known as the "Betsy Ross Flag", which July 4, 1776, Independence Day; and it remained the arranged the stars in a circle, did not appear until the unofficial national flag and ensign of the Navy until early 1790's. June 14, 1777 when the Continental Congress Provided as a Public Service authorized the Stars and Stripes. for over 115 Years COLONIAL THIRD MOUNTAIN REGIMENT The necessity of a common national flag had not been thought of until the appointment of a committee composed of Benjamin Franklin, Messrs.
    [Show full text]
  • How Libertarians Ought to Think About the U.S. Civil War
    How Libertarians Ought to Think about the U.S. Civil War Timothy Sandefur Pacific Legal Foundation 1. Introduction For decades, outspoken libertarians have seen the U.S. Civil War not only as a historical calamity, but as a political calamity as well. According to many libertarians, the Union victory in the Civil War and the presidency of Abraham Lincoln in general represented a betrayal of the U.S. Constitution and of the fundamental principles of American political philosophy. This interpretation rests on two major arguments as well as a variety of more minor concerns. The more minor concerns include specific critiques of the policies of the Lincoln Administration or of the conduct of the war by Union forces. For example, many libertarians condemn the Union for instituting a military draft or for suspending the writ of habeas corpus . There are many of these specific criticisms, which deserve detailed discussion that cannot be provided here. 1 Suffice it to say that some of these criticisms are well-founded; indeed, libertarians deplore war precisely because it tends to give rise to such evils. Understanding the Civil War as a matter of political philosophy, however, requires a systematic, two-step analysis: First, does a state have the legal authority under the U.S. Constitution, to secede unilaterally? If the answer to this question is yes, then the analysis is at an end; if states have the right to secede, then the Union was in the wrong to put down the Confederacy. If, however, the answer is no, then we must proceed to a second step: Even illegal acts, like the American Revolution, are justified by the right of revolution, so even if the Constitution does prohibit secession, the people of the southern states had the right to rebel against the Union, if their act was a legitimate act of revolution.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Here
    In 1798, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison penned the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, ​ ​ formally detailing the principles of nullification for the first time. Standing alone, the resolutions make a strong case for nullification. But they don’t reveal the whole story. The resolutions were actually just a first step in the strategy Madison and Jefferson developed for dealing with the unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts. Correspondence between the two ​ ​ men, and other players involved in the fight to block this early example of federal overreach, provide a much clearer picture of what they were trying to accomplish in the long run. During the summer of 1798, Congress passed four laws together known as the Alien and ​ Sedition Acts. These laws violated several constitutional provisions and represented a gross ​ federal usurpation of power. The first three laws dealt with the treatment of resident aliens. The Alien Friends Act gave the ​ ​ president sweeping power to deport “dangerous” aliens, in effect elevating the president to the role of judge, jury and “executioner.” The Alien Enemies Act allowed for the arrest, imprisonment ​ ​ and deportation of any male citizen of a nation at war with the U.S., even without any evidence that the individual was an actual threat. These laws unconstitutionally vested judicial powers in the executive branch and denied the accused due process. The most insidious of the laws was the Sedition Act. It essentially criminalized criticism of the ​ ​ federal government, a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Recognizing the Alien and Sedition Acts represented a serious threat to the constitutional ​ ​ system, and with few options for addressing the overreach due to Federalist Party control of the federal government, Jefferson and Madison turned to the states.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5 the Spirit of Independence
    Chapter 5 The Spirit of Independence Section 1: Taxation Without Representation Vocab. • Revenue • Resolution • Boycott • Repeal • Effigy • Prohibit • Violate Relations with Britain • Proclamation of 1763 – Prohibited colonists expansion west – Allowed Britain to control trade and commerce in the colonies • British Debt – King and Parliament tax colonists heavily – Strictly enforce tax laws Britain’s Trade Laws • George Grenville – Prime Minister in 1763 – Encouraged laws that allowed smugglers to be tried in vice-admiralty courts (without juries) • Writs of Assistance – 1767: Documents that allowed British officers to enter any location to search for smuggled goods The Sugar Act • Parliament Passes Sugar Act – 1764 – Lowered the tax on imported molasses to convince colonists to pay the tax – Gave officers ability to take smuggled good without going to court • Violated Rights of Colonists – New taxes and trade laws took away rights as English citizens New Taxes • Stamp Act – Passed by Parliament in 1765 – Placed a tax on almost all printed material • Newspapers, wills, playing cards, etc. • Sparked colonial resistance – Colonists opposed being taxed without their consent or approval Protesting the Stamp Act • Patrick Henry – Persuaded the Virginia House of Burgesses to pass a resolution – Declared that only the Virginia Assembly had the authority to tax its citizens • Samuel Adams – Helped start the Sons of Liberty – Protestors burnt effigies and destroyed houses belonging to royal officials Effigy • Rag doll figures that represented British tax collectors Protesting the Stamp Act (cont.) • Boycott – People in colonial cities refused to buy stamps – Refused to buy other European goods also • Nonimportation Agreements – Signed by colonial merchants – Promise not to buy imported goods from Britain The Townshend Acts • Colonists refused to pay internal taxes • Townshend Acts – New taxes only on imported goods from Britain • Glass, tea, paper, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Mangiaracina James Crisisinfluence.Pdf
    THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHREYER HONORS COLLEGE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY THE INFLUENCE OF THE 1830s NULLIFICATION CRISIS ON THE 1860s SECESSION CRISIS JAMES MANGIARACINA SPRING 2017 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a baccalaureate degree in History with honors in History Reviewed and approved* by the following: Amy Greenberg Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of History and Women’s Studies Thesis Supervisor Mike Milligan Senior Lecturer in History Honors Adviser * Signatures are on file in the Schreyer Honors College. i ABSTRACT This thesis aims to connect the constitutional arguments for and against secession during the Nullification Crisis of 1832 with the constitutional arguments for and against secession during the Secession Crisis of 1860-1861. Prior to the Nullification Crisis, Vice President John C. Calhoun, who has historically been considered to be a leading proponent of secession, outlined his doctrine of nullification in 1828. This thesis argues that Calhoun’s doctrine was initially intended to preserve the Union. However, after increasingly high protective tariffs, the state delegates of the South Carolina Nullification Convention radicalized his version of nullification as expressed in the Ordinance of Nullification of 1832. In response to the Ordinance, President Andrew Jackson issued his Proclamation Regarding Nullification. In this document, Jackson vehemently opposed the notion of nullification and secession through various constitutional arguments. Next, this thesis will look at the Bluffton Movement of 1844 and the Nashville Convention of 1850. In the former, Robert Barnwell Rhett pushed for immediate nullification of the new protective Tariff of 1842 or secession. In this way, Rhett further removed Calhoun’s original intention of nullification and radicalized it.
    [Show full text]
  • Sons of Liberty
    Sons of Liberty (Edited from Wikipedia) The Sons of Liberty was an organization of American colonists that was created in the Thirteen American Colonies. The secret society was formed to protect the rights of the colonists and to fight taxation by the British government. They played a major role in most colonies in battling the Stamp Act in 1765. Although the group officially disbanded after the Stamp Act was repealed, the name was applied to other local Patriot groups during the years preceding the American Revolution. In the popular imagination, the Sons of Liberty was a formal underground organization with recognized members and leaders. More likely, the name was an underground term for any men resisting new Crown taxes and laws. The well-known label allowed organizers to issue anonymous summons to a Liberty Tree, "Liberty Pole," or other public meeting-place. Furthermore, a unifying name helped to promote inter-Colonial efforts against Parliament and the Crown's actions. Their motto became "No taxation without representation." History In 1765 the British government needed money to afford the 10,000 officers and soldiers stationed in the colonies, and intended that the colonists living there should contribute. The British passed a series of taxes aimed at the colonists, and many of the colonists refused to pay certain taxes; they argued that they should not be held accountable for taxes which were decided upon without any form of their consent through a representative. This became commonly known as "No Taxation without Representation." Parliament insisted on its right to rule the colonies despite the fact that the colonists had no representative in Parliament.
    [Show full text]