Reborn777
Apr 5, 2009
Writing Feedback / Essay on England's Right to Tax [7]
Hello, I am greatly in need of help, being as I have a paper due in 24 hours, and am feeling quite unsure of my paper, can somone help me improve it? (I am curriently writing the conclusion right now)
Thank you so much!
-Bonnie
On the Right to Tax
Benjamin Franklin, one of America's most distinguished critics of the Stamp Act, started his campaign supporting England's new tax. Benjamin Franklin was staying in England when news of the Stamp act reached him, and there was nothing about this tax that seemed so extraordinary that he himself would complain about. Thus, when Franklin heard that the Colonists were protesting against the stamp act, he dismissed the problem thinking that they were simply upset over paying additional taxes. Franklin thus took the side of England, and advised the colonists to "Be reasonable" and accept the tax. The colonist's response to Franklin's actions was anything but what Franklin had anticipated, and Franklin was soon accused of issuing the stamp act himself. Once Benjamin Franklin was convinced that the colonists could not be persuaded to pay the new tax, Benjamin himself decided to join the colonists in protesting against the Stamp Act for; for better or for worse, Benjamin Franklin was determined to stand with his country men.
What were the colonists thinking to protest so vigorously against England for issuing a simple stamp tax? It was small enough and could be easily paid. But then, what gave a country that was on a different continent, the right to lay taxes on America, and what would stop them from laying additional taxes and creating more regulations if the colonists were to allow the stamp tax? I believe that England lost its right to tax the American settlers when it stopped supporting the colonies, allowed the Americans to establish their own, American government, and ceased looking out for the interests of the settlers. I also believe that the settlers had made an ingenious move to protest the Stamp act by boycotting England's goods but had, in their anger, against Parliament, overreacted by refusing to pay the new tax to England.
I believe that the English government had withdrew most of it support from the American Colonies, and had left the settlers to establish an American government that was functioning without English aid, and thus, had no right to tax America. Benjamin Franklin, on the behalf of the English settlers, informed parliament of the functioning government that had been set up in America:
Q. For what purposes are those taxes (paid to the states) laid?
A. For the support of the civil and military establishments of the country, and to discharge the heavy debt contracted in the last [Seven Years'] war. . .
Even though the English government had ceased to provide the American Colonists with an English order, it had still insisted that it had the "Supreme Authority" over the Colonists. This, of course, was absolutely absurd, for the very existence of a government's power is granted to it by the people so that it can organize and establish order in its nation. Thus, because England had allowed the American colonies to establish an American government that no longer depend on its support, England neither had the right to tax the colonists, or the authority to control them.
I believe that because England had closed communication with the Colonists, and refused to ask their opinion before issuing laws on the Americans, it forfeited any right that it could have possessed on taxing or holding authority over the people.
The lack of communication that was between England and the colonies was a constant occurrence. The chaos that erupted from this, was everywhere, and is thickly spread though the short document of Benjamin Franklin's trial before parliament:
Q. Where you not reimbursed by Parliament(for the cost in the Spanish War)?
A. We were only reimbursed what, in your opinion, we had advanced beyond our proportion, or beyond what might reasonably be expected from us; and it was a very small part of what we spent.
Without even knowing how much the colonists had paid in the war, and even less about the American affairs, it would be completely illogical for England to place a tax on the Americans being that they were so distant from American government and did not know what effect the tax would have on the America government, and or even if the settlers could afford it. England never listened to the voice of the settlers, and made decisions that were hardly in the American's favor. A classic example of this is shown in Benjamin Franklin's reply to the question if the Americans believed that England had right to tax them:
I never heard any objection to the right of laying duties to regulate commerce; but a right to lay internal taxes was never supposed to be in Parliament, as we are not represented there...
Even though England had viewed itself as the supreme government over the American colonies, they had been constantly rejecting the opinions of the people, and never sought to open any communication with the colonists on how England should "run" the colonies that they were supposedly "governing." This, I believe extracted any chance for them to ever have any authority over the American colonies, for in order for a government to exist, it is absolutely necessary for it's people to have a say in their own government.
Once it had been established that the colonists were set on repelling the stamp act without compromise, the question soon arouse as to how they could accomplish their goal by avoiding as much violence as possible for, most of the colonists still loved England. Thus, although there were a few outbursts from the settlers that were uncalled for, such as the mob that had killed John Hughes, the colonists displayed a surprisingly peaceful protest without being too hostile towards England.
The colonist's most peaceful protest against the Stamp Act was by far, the boycott that they issued on the English goods. Although the colonists suffered much from the sudden lack of English goods, this action was a brilliant move, and proved to England how serious they were in repelling the stamp act without resorting to the violence that most protests attract. The tone of Parliament when questioning Benjamin Franklin clearly spelled out that England did not have any idea what to do about boycotting, and almost sounded hopeful that the colonists would not be able to persist boycotting English goods.
Q. How can the commerce be affected?
A. You will find that, if the act is not repealed, they will take very little of your manufactures in a short time.
Q. Is it in their power to do without them?
A. I think they may very well do without them
Here, England was put in a difficult situation, for they could not force the Americans to trade with them and would loose more money from the lack of commerce then they would have gain from the Stamp Tax. This, I believe that was indeed an ingenuous move on the part of the colonists.
I do not believe that the colonists accomplished anything by not paying the stamp tax which had only given England an occasion to send troops to enforce the tax. The Question which Parliament presents Benjamin Franklin here, suggests that England was planned to sending troops to America only because settlers had not paid the tax.
Q. Can anything less than a military force carry the Stamp Act into execution?
Thus, if the colonists had simply boycotted English goods, while peacefully paying the new tax, England would not have sent troops to America, being that there was nothing England could do to force the colonists to trade with them. But because the Colonists were so set on repelling the Stamp act, and would not pay the tax, their protest gave England the impression that they were in rebellion and in need of punishment.
When Parliament had issued the stamp act, the colonists, who were no longer dependant on England for their support, and who opinions had long since been ignored, were beginning to questioning the authority that England held over them. Although they had made the unnecessary decision of not paying the new tax, a choice which had only made England threaten to send troops into America, the colonists had made an excellent decision by boycotting English goods. This move had hurt England more then the stamp act would have benefited it. Finally, in 1776, the colonist's efforts began to pay off as Parliament, who could no longer ignore the settler's protests, requested a colonial representative and organized a hearing to understand where the colonists were coming form; in which Parliament had even hinted that they were willing to compromise with the colonists: Do you think the people of America would submit to pay the stamp duty, if it was moderated? Although a compromise was not in the colonist's interests, and England was far from have its power over America restricted, England could no longer ignore the opinions of the Colonists and their cry against the Stamp Act; thus, England would now be forced to heed the voice of America.
Hello, I am greatly in need of help, being as I have a paper due in 24 hours, and am feeling quite unsure of my paper, can somone help me improve it? (I am curriently writing the conclusion right now)
Thank you so much!
-Bonnie
On the Right to Tax
Benjamin Franklin, one of America's most distinguished critics of the Stamp Act, started his campaign supporting England's new tax. Benjamin Franklin was staying in England when news of the Stamp act reached him, and there was nothing about this tax that seemed so extraordinary that he himself would complain about. Thus, when Franklin heard that the Colonists were protesting against the stamp act, he dismissed the problem thinking that they were simply upset over paying additional taxes. Franklin thus took the side of England, and advised the colonists to "Be reasonable" and accept the tax. The colonist's response to Franklin's actions was anything but what Franklin had anticipated, and Franklin was soon accused of issuing the stamp act himself. Once Benjamin Franklin was convinced that the colonists could not be persuaded to pay the new tax, Benjamin himself decided to join the colonists in protesting against the Stamp Act for; for better or for worse, Benjamin Franklin was determined to stand with his country men.
What were the colonists thinking to protest so vigorously against England for issuing a simple stamp tax? It was small enough and could be easily paid. But then, what gave a country that was on a different continent, the right to lay taxes on America, and what would stop them from laying additional taxes and creating more regulations if the colonists were to allow the stamp tax? I believe that England lost its right to tax the American settlers when it stopped supporting the colonies, allowed the Americans to establish their own, American government, and ceased looking out for the interests of the settlers. I also believe that the settlers had made an ingenious move to protest the Stamp act by boycotting England's goods but had, in their anger, against Parliament, overreacted by refusing to pay the new tax to England.
I believe that the English government had withdrew most of it support from the American Colonies, and had left the settlers to establish an American government that was functioning without English aid, and thus, had no right to tax America. Benjamin Franklin, on the behalf of the English settlers, informed parliament of the functioning government that had been set up in America:
Q. For what purposes are those taxes (paid to the states) laid?
A. For the support of the civil and military establishments of the country, and to discharge the heavy debt contracted in the last [Seven Years'] war. . .
Even though the English government had ceased to provide the American Colonists with an English order, it had still insisted that it had the "Supreme Authority" over the Colonists. This, of course, was absolutely absurd, for the very existence of a government's power is granted to it by the people so that it can organize and establish order in its nation. Thus, because England had allowed the American colonies to establish an American government that no longer depend on its support, England neither had the right to tax the colonists, or the authority to control them.
I believe that because England had closed communication with the Colonists, and refused to ask their opinion before issuing laws on the Americans, it forfeited any right that it could have possessed on taxing or holding authority over the people.
The lack of communication that was between England and the colonies was a constant occurrence. The chaos that erupted from this, was everywhere, and is thickly spread though the short document of Benjamin Franklin's trial before parliament:
Q. Where you not reimbursed by Parliament(for the cost in the Spanish War)?
A. We were only reimbursed what, in your opinion, we had advanced beyond our proportion, or beyond what might reasonably be expected from us; and it was a very small part of what we spent.
Without even knowing how much the colonists had paid in the war, and even less about the American affairs, it would be completely illogical for England to place a tax on the Americans being that they were so distant from American government and did not know what effect the tax would have on the America government, and or even if the settlers could afford it. England never listened to the voice of the settlers, and made decisions that were hardly in the American's favor. A classic example of this is shown in Benjamin Franklin's reply to the question if the Americans believed that England had right to tax them:
I never heard any objection to the right of laying duties to regulate commerce; but a right to lay internal taxes was never supposed to be in Parliament, as we are not represented there...
Even though England had viewed itself as the supreme government over the American colonies, they had been constantly rejecting the opinions of the people, and never sought to open any communication with the colonists on how England should "run" the colonies that they were supposedly "governing." This, I believe extracted any chance for them to ever have any authority over the American colonies, for in order for a government to exist, it is absolutely necessary for it's people to have a say in their own government.
Once it had been established that the colonists were set on repelling the stamp act without compromise, the question soon arouse as to how they could accomplish their goal by avoiding as much violence as possible for, most of the colonists still loved England. Thus, although there were a few outbursts from the settlers that were uncalled for, such as the mob that had killed John Hughes, the colonists displayed a surprisingly peaceful protest without being too hostile towards England.
The colonist's most peaceful protest against the Stamp Act was by far, the boycott that they issued on the English goods. Although the colonists suffered much from the sudden lack of English goods, this action was a brilliant move, and proved to England how serious they were in repelling the stamp act without resorting to the violence that most protests attract. The tone of Parliament when questioning Benjamin Franklin clearly spelled out that England did not have any idea what to do about boycotting, and almost sounded hopeful that the colonists would not be able to persist boycotting English goods.
Q. How can the commerce be affected?
A. You will find that, if the act is not repealed, they will take very little of your manufactures in a short time.
Q. Is it in their power to do without them?
A. I think they may very well do without them
Here, England was put in a difficult situation, for they could not force the Americans to trade with them and would loose more money from the lack of commerce then they would have gain from the Stamp Tax. This, I believe that was indeed an ingenuous move on the part of the colonists.
I do not believe that the colonists accomplished anything by not paying the stamp tax which had only given England an occasion to send troops to enforce the tax. The Question which Parliament presents Benjamin Franklin here, suggests that England was planned to sending troops to America only because settlers had not paid the tax.
Q. Can anything less than a military force carry the Stamp Act into execution?
Thus, if the colonists had simply boycotted English goods, while peacefully paying the new tax, England would not have sent troops to America, being that there was nothing England could do to force the colonists to trade with them. But because the Colonists were so set on repelling the Stamp act, and would not pay the tax, their protest gave England the impression that they were in rebellion and in need of punishment.
When Parliament had issued the stamp act, the colonists, who were no longer dependant on England for their support, and who opinions had long since been ignored, were beginning to questioning the authority that England held over them. Although they had made the unnecessary decision of not paying the new tax, a choice which had only made England threaten to send troops into America, the colonists had made an excellent decision by boycotting English goods. This move had hurt England more then the stamp act would have benefited it. Finally, in 1776, the colonist's efforts began to pay off as Parliament, who could no longer ignore the settler's protests, requested a colonial representative and organized a hearing to understand where the colonists were coming form; in which Parliament had even hinted that they were willing to compromise with the colonists: Do you think the people of America would submit to pay the stamp duty, if it was moderated? Although a compromise was not in the colonist's interests, and England was far from have its power over America restricted, England could no longer ignore the opinions of the Colonists and their cry against the Stamp Act; thus, England would now be forced to heed the voice of America.
