You see after the French and Indian War, also known as "The Seven Years War" in Europe, Great Britain fell into a extremely enormous debt. And so, they used the colonies to pay for their debts and raise revenues. Plus, there's this idea known as "virtual representation", which states that the colonies are "virtually represented" in the parliament. In other words, the magistrates in the Parliament apparently knows what's best for the colonies.
On a side note:
If the colonies had representation in the Parliament, it wouldn't matter because they were still outnumbered.
2006-12-29 09:25:04
·
answer #1
·
answered by DooodFromNowhere 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Britain clearly stated her intentions, with Grenville happily talking of "domination", and the Stamp Act was part of the same 1764 package. Passed in March 1765, to come into effect later that year, this was called by Whately, Secretary of the Treasury, "a great measure on account of the point it establishes, the right of Parliament to levy an internal tax upon the colonies."
“We are not yet recovered from a War undertaken solely for their [the American’s] protection… they should contribute to the Preservation of the advantages they have received…” (document one). Thomas Whately wrote the above statement to explain why Britain was taxing the American colonists. The French and Indian War was fought over the land in North America. The 13 colonies were an investment to Britain. The French and Indian War was fought over capital, not to protect the local colonists. After all, the people who were sent to the Americas were outcasts, banished because of religious differences. So how could Britain be justified in taxing the Americans if they didn’t care about them?
2006-12-29 09:25:53
·
answer #2
·
answered by The Answer Man 5
·
0⤊
0⤋