"no taxation without representation"

colonists didn't want to be taxed unless they were equally represented in the house (they wanted representation based on population)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Taxation_Without_Representation

No, t wasn't in the House. The colonists wanted to be granted their "natural englishmen rights", as previously granted to them in the Virginia Co charter of 1608. When they weren't given even a small say in Parliament and British affairs, yet they were being taxed by Britain fro repayment of war debts during the FrenchIndian War, this made them mad, and they fought for representation in parliament if they were going to be taxed for a war that had virtually nothing to do with them. I think a war with briatin could have been avoided if only the colonists were seen as British citizens and given a say in British affairs. In fact, even after they declared war on Britain for their freedom, they sent the Olive Branch Petition to the king of England begging him to just give them their naturla rights. He refused, saying the damage had already been done and continued on his war. So actually, Britain lost a valuable asset, America, because of the King's stubbornness. Anyway, Im going off on a tangent now, so Ill stop.

olivia1 wrote:So actually, Britain lost a valuable asset, America, because of the King's stubbornness. Anyway, Im going off on a tangent now, so Ill stop.

Continuation of tangent: Have you ever heard of a King that wasn't stubborn?

The whole "taxation without representation" arguement is a lie, and a 10th grade U.S. History fallacy, according to my teacher. That was an arguement hard for the English to refute. The colonists simply did not want to pay taxes, there are many reasons for that. The truth is, if the colonists were granted representation in Parliament, it wouldnt have made a difference. The colonies would still have been taxed, and the colonists would not have had a reason to complain. As for the motives behind not wanting to be taxed, the main complain for the colonists was they were asked to pay for the French-Indian war, a war "they didn't ask for."

Basically the colonies would have been happy with the taxes imposed on them (remember they were paying a LOT LESS then the average British person) if they had any representative in the English Parliment. So yea.... u know the rest.

The person who said taxation withour representation is a lie is wrong. Government didnt support those except the white, aristocratic, landowning people. Prime Minister Grenville simply wanted for the colonists to pay back some of the huge debt left from the FI war. They didnt want to pay them because it didnt benefit them, and they taxed "necessities" such as sugar (which was soooo important because they needed it to distill rum) , the implimented the quartering act, the intolerable act the townshend act and the stamp act. They werent happy because they werent being represented by THEIR own government.
im done now.
-jo

As you may or may not know, the colonists boycotted most of those acts.

no.. sorry i just meant the "taxation without representation" being a fallacy... doesnt make sense.. at least to me... sorry for my outright saying you were wrong. :o i didnt mean for it to sound like that....

Good info guys but you're missing the colonist's motives. Had they gotten their representation, what good would it have done? they would still be outnumbered by the British in the house. Plus, even if they did win a vote, do you know how long it would be to tell everyone in the colonies? 3 months! the underlying motive was actually self-government.