Debate in the colonies had actually begun…

1765 CE

Debate in the colonies had actually begun in the spring of 1764 over the Stamp Act when Parliament passed a resolution that contained the assertion, "That, towards further defraying the said Expences, it may be proper to charge certain Stamp Duties in the said Colonies and Plantations."

Both the Sugar Act and the proposed Stamp Act have been designed principally to raise revenue from the colonists.

The Sugar Act, to a large extent, is a continuation of past legislation related primarily to the regulation of trade (termed an external tax), but its stated purpose is entirely new: to collect revenue directly from the colonists for a specific purpose.

The novelty of the Stamp Act is that it is the first internal tax (a tax based entirely on activities within the colonies) levied directly on the colonies by Parliament.

It is judged by the colonists to be a more dangerous assault on their rights than had been the Sugar Act , because of its potential wide application to the colonial economy.

The theoretical issue that soon held center stage was the matter of taxation without representation.

Benjamin Franklin had raised this as far back as 1754 at the Albany Congress when he wrote, "That it is suppos’d an undoubted Right of Englishmen not to be taxed but by their own Consent given thro’ their Representatives. That the Colonies have no Representatives in Parliament."

The counter to this argument was the theory of virtual representation.

Thomas Whately enunciates this theory in a pamphlet that readily acknowledges that there can be no taxation without consent, but the facts are that at least seventy-five percent of British adult males are not represented in Parliament because of property qualifications or other factors.

Members of Parliament are bound to represent the interests of all British citizens and subjects, so colonists are the recipients of virtual representation in Parliament, like those disenfranchised subjects in the British Isles.

This theory, however, ignores a crucial difference between the unrepresented in Britain and the colonists.

The colonists enjoy actual representation in their own legislative assemblies, and the issue is whether these legislatures, rather than Parliament, are in fact the sole recipients of the colonists' consent with regard to taxation.

In May 1764, Samuel Adams of Boston had drafted the following that stated the common American position:

For if our Trade may be taxed why not our Lands? Why not the Produce of our Lands & every thing we possess or make use of? This we apprehend annihilates our Charter Right to govern & tax ourselves – It strikes our British Privileges, which as we have never forfeited them, we hold in common with our Fellow Subjects who are Natives of Britain: If Taxes are laid upon us in any shape without our having a legal Representation where they are laid, are we not reduced from the Character of free Subjects to the miserable State of tributary Slaves.

Massachusetts had appointed a five-member Committee of Correspondence in June 1764 to coordinate action and exchange information regarding the Sugar Act, and Rhode Island had formed a similar committee in October 1764.

This attempt at unified action represents a significant step forward in colonial unity and cooperation.

The Virginia House of Burgesses had sent a protest of the taxes to London in December 1764, arguing that they did not have the specie required to pay the tax.

Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Connecticut had also sent protests to England in 1764.

The content of the messages varies, but they all emphasize that taxation of the colonies without colonial assent is a violation of their rights.

By the end of 1765, all of the Thirteen Colonies except Georgia and North Carolina will have sent some sort of protest passed by colonial legislative assemblies.