From Southwest Ledger
“No taxation without representation” may be one of the most famous sayings in American history. Although the phrase had its roots in the Glorious Revolution and was an inspiration behind the American Revolution, and just about every elementary student can repeat it, with recent toll increases in Oklahoma, it seems to have lost its significance.
To understand why colonists were so upset about paying these taxes, we must understand that it was never about money. Coming off the French and Indian War, the British government had a bit of a debt issue, and its solution was to directly tax the colonists. The colonists had always been taxed, but they were taxed by their own colonial governments.
While no one likes paying taxes, colonists understood that taxes were part of living in society. However, they also knew that British law required they had a say in how they were taxed. In the colonies, they elected members of their own legislatures who, in turn, taxed them, giving them a say in taxation.
What changed in 1765 with the Stamp tax was that Parliament was now taxing them directly.
The problem was colonists did not elect any member of Parliament; in other words, they were not represented. Parliament disagreed, arguing that the colonies were virtually represented the way all British subjects were. When every member of Parliament passed a law it affected all British subjects, so every member of Parliament represented everyone in the empire virtually. So, the actual fight that led to the revolution was not really about money—it was about virtual versus actual representation. Why did this matter? Power.
Actual representation would give colonists more power; if virtual, they had none. When colonial legislatures passed new taxes, they had to consider reelection, but Parliament did not, at least from colonists. The legislatures could pass any act they wanted with no recourse. Parliament’s Stamp Act argument was challenged because it only affected the colonies. The virtual representation argument might have held if Parliament passed a law that affected everyone in the British Empire. But if they pass a law that affected only the colonies and not a single member was elected by the colonies, their argument of “no taxation without representation” held water.
The Stamp Act angered colonists enough that they began to boycott British goods and wrote angrily written letters to King George III. Their efforts worked. Parliament got tired of fighting with colonists and repealed the Stamp Act. The problem was Parliament thought colonists just hated using stamps; parliamentarians did not understand colonists’ real complaint of not having a say in taxation.
If Parliament had just asked each colony for a certain amount of money and the colonial legislatures raised the money, the revolution probably would have been avoided. Instead, Parliament, still needing money, badly, decided to tax in a different way. The problem with the Stamp Act was that it was an internal tax. The colonists produced the paper that needed the stamp. Instead, Parliament went with the Townsend Duties, which taxed products being brought into the colonies, an external tax.
The Townsend Duties put a tax on lead, glass, paint, and of course tea. The colonists were used to paying tariffs, so Parliament felt the colonists would have no issue with these taxes. They were wrong. Colonists boycotted again and took to their pens to write nasty reviews of the British government on websites like “Ye Olde Yelp.”
The problem for Parliament was that colonists were on the lookout for new taxes. Yes, it is the prerogative of Parliament to pass tariffs, but colonists saw it for what it was: a tax for which they were not represented. While legally it may have been a tariff, to the colonists it felt like another tax. And, to horribly paraphrase Shakespeare, “a tax by any other name doth smell just as bad.” Colonists went on another campaign and eventually the Townsend Duties were also repealed—well except for tea, so Parliament could save face.
How does this apply to today? Starting in January in Oklahoma the fees for toll roads went up by 15%. Who raised these fees? Not the elected members of the Legislature, but The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, whose members are not elected officials. If Founding Fathers James Otis and Sam Adams were around today, maybe once again we would hear the cry of “no taxation without representation.”
How can this be seen in any other way? Because the OTA is not elected, they do not have to worry about repercussions. I understand that turnpike tolls are not considered a tax and so officially do not need representation; however, I see it like the Townsend Duties. Yes, they have the right, and can call it whatever they want, but when a toll is required to travel on our main roads—which they are—it becomes a tax. No matter what we call it, as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. said, “a tax is a tax is a tax.” During a time when everything is on the rise except wages, this ‘fee’ makes a big difference.
Oklahoma needs to make a change. Our tax dollars should be used to maintain the roads and the Legislature must figure out how to budget that expense. Then, if taxes need to be raised to pay for roads, so be it. At least then it will be done by those elected to do so. Turning it over to the OTA is just an excuse for a nonelected government agency to raise taxes without our consent while the Legislature can claim they are trying to lower taxes. Our founders once thought “no taxation without representation” was a big deal. Maybe we should as well.
James Finck is a professor of American history at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma. He can be reached at HistoricallySpeaking1776@gmail.com.
Historically Speaking 