how did no taxatoin without representaton lead to the war?

Answer 1

That was the rallying cry, but there were many problems that led to the war itself. The colonies felt they were being unfairly taxed to extremes in order to pay for wars they got nothing out of way across the Atlantic. The effects were so remote and the taxes so outrageous (and universal... they covered everything from tea to stamps) that they finally said "enough!!"

Wayne

Answer 2

It didn't really.

The upper class colonists did not want to pay taxes to England for several reasons. The best of these reasons was that England had a monopoly on all products coming into America, which ticked off the colonists who could have gotten the products for cheaper elsewhere (if there were no tariffs) or made the products themselves if they would be allowed the facilities for it.

England's parliament also had no official seat for the colonists so their voices were not heard.

Lastly, it should be noted that the colonists just had their butts saved by British troops who kept them from becoming overrun by the French and Indian forces in the French and Indian/Seven Years war. The taxes were perfectly legitimate and should have been expected.

Answer 3

~Is this for homework or are you just curious? If the former, stop reading - if you write the truth you'll fail the assignment.

There was no such thing as 'taxation without representation'. You need to learn a little about the nature of representation in the 18th century Parliament. (Not that it differs much from representation today.) Unlike the 'enlightened' US Congress, MP's were charged with looking out for all British subjects wherever they may have been found and for the empire as a whole, rather than for the interests of a select group of constituents and PACs. No, there was no colonial serving in Parliament; none from the 13 rebellious colonies, none from the West Indies, none from the loyal Canadian colonies, none from the unauthorized colony in Connecticut, none from any other British territory. Little mentioned fact: such representation was never denied for the simple fact that no one EVER requested it.

The onerous taxes so vehemently opposed by a minority of North American colonials were actually lower than the taxes they replaced. They were imposed because of the economic turmoil Britain was in due to the Seven Years War (including the minor North American theater of operations you probably refer to as the 'French and Indian War'). Previously, Parliament, the Crown and the powers that were had turned a virtual blind eye to colonial smuggling and tax evasion. The homeland Brits provided the troops and paid for the troops that fought the French and Indians in the Western Hemisphere with little assistance or contribution from those who reaped the benefits of the British funds and British blood. The enemy having been forced from the threshold, the colonials took umbrage at being required to pay for it. The new (and look it up, they really were lower) taxes were going to collect a small portion of the cost. What was repugnant to the colonial rebels (the merchants and shippers mostly) was that the new taxes were collected and there was a concerted effort to control the smuggling.

The Townshend Acts were designed to establish trade regulations that would shore up the entire British economy. The taxes were intended to collect colonial contribution for the benefits the colonials had received since the founding of Roanoke. The expansion and settlement regulations were necessary to enforce the treaty obligations made with British/American Native American allies during the war and to confine the colonial empire within a geographic realm which could be defended by British arms, bearing in mind that the army had been downsized after the Treaty of Paris. The colonials wanted to kill Indians and steal their land. As loyal British subjects, they couldn't do it, at least not legally. It would take independence to trot down the path of the Great American Genocide and only free colonials could, with unfettered glee, make 'good Indians' out of live ones.

Trade restrictions against open trade with the French and the Spanish were also intended to preclude trade of war goods with avowed enemies of the Empire. The colonials cared naught about the security of the homeland - there was a buck to be made by sleeping with the enemy.

Rhetoric does wonders. History written by the victors distorts the facts beyond recognition. Tommy Paine, having failed at everything he did before moving to the New World after the war started, needed a buck and had a way with words. Relying on the 'facts' as presented to him by his rebellious terrorist benefactors and buddies like Ben Franklin churned out propaganda that must have made Joseph Goebbels jealous. Not having lived through it, he had no clue of the truth or falsity of that which he wrote. He didn't care - he desperately needed the money. No one knows for sure who coined the phrase 'taxation without representation', but it wasn't Paine. Paine did, however, milk it dry. And the folks who wanted to steal land, kill Indians, cheat on taxes, trade with the enemy, smuggle and otherwise thumb their noses at the rightful rule of government and law lapped it up. Any justification is good enough if you need to assuage your conscience when you know you are breaking the law and committing treason.

Saying the American Revolution (actually a civil war) was about 'taxation without representation' is as erroneous and false as saying the Civil War (actually a war for national independence) was about slavery. Only a misguided fool, blind or ignorant of the facts, could accept either statement as even remotely true.