Please post your affirmative (need, workability, solvency and advantages) positions and evidence here as well as the negative (need, workability, solvency and disadvantages) attacks and evidence.
My group consists of Felicity, Sarah, Brina, and myself.
*I would first like to start out my position for this debate on the issue of taxation and representation. Two issues that I believe closely tie in with each other. I believe the best way to begin to talk about this issue is by issuing an excerpt from England's Constitution, the Magna Carta which was signed by King John II after a rebellion by the nobles of England. This excerpt states: "No tax may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent" Based on what the affirmative team has posted in their thread, we are given it seems one of two options: Either keep taxes the same or raise them, or tax the colonists on items they "don't use as much. Let's start out here with the reason as to why England needs this money. After the Seven Years War ended in 1763, our textbook states that England's debt jumped from 75 million pounds, to 145 million pounds. So how did the debt increase so substantially? The obvious cost of troops, ammunition, shipping troops, supplies (i.e. food, clothing). It is obvious that Britain needs to pay off its outrageous debt in order to prevail its fiscal supremacy as one of the world's most powerful empires. First let's tackle the idea of taxing colonists on items they don't use as often. The immediate question is have is, How will this subside the debt? If the colonists barely buy these products how is that going to subside the 145 million pound debt? It simply can't, and the affirmatives have no evidence that it in fact will. In fact, if the product is not a necessity to the colonists, it will make that product(s) much easier to boycott, therefore leaving the British with no revenue what so ever. Now to the other taxation plan. An affirmative proposes to keep taxes "on imports and exports" and "will allow the colonists to sell a fraction (50%) of their goods to where ever they want while the rest was sold to Britain at a price determined my Parliament." There are a few problems with this plan already. Let us look back at the failure of the Townshend Duties of 1767 which imposed taxes on glass, paper, paints, and the highly coveted colonial product, tea! In fact the Townshend Duties actually hurt the British, raising a dismal 21,000 pounds compared to the cost of 700,000 pounds to the British businesses through the colonial nonimportation movement. Also, the colonists have also shown that they are resentful to taxation without representation. Through such protests as the Stamp Act riots and Boston Tea Party, the colonists have already shown great disapproval of this colonial plan. Will Britain continue to allow its taxation officials to be "tarred and feathered"? This plan sure makes it seem that way. The one difference in this plan is to allow 50% of American Goods to be shipped to foreign markets while the other 50% will sell at a price to Britain set by Parliament. Benjamin Franklin in 1763 while in London, makes a quote concerning mercantilist laws, stating, "A colonist cannot make a button, a horse shoe, nor a hobnail but some sooty iron monger or respectable button maker of Britain shall brawl...that his worship is injured, cheated and robed by the rascally Americans" This quote voiced at the time. They wanted to be able to sell their products to any foreign markets including Britain, but with competitiveness, not regulation. This plan only opens up 50% of that market and the other half is controlled by Parliament. To conclude the taxation segment of my position, I will use a quote from Fmr. Prime Minister William Pitt in his address to Parliament in 1767. He stated, "The Americans have not acted in all things with prudence and temper. They have been driven to madness by injustice. Will you punish for the madness you have caused? My opinion is that the Stamp Act must be repealed absolutely, totally and immediately. This quote along with the excerpt from the Magna Carta, lead me into my next segment: Representation: And my question for the affirmatives is the same that Prime Minister Pitt asked Parliament: Will you punish for the madness you have caused? Will you tax the colonies for a debt you created by declaring war on France when the colonies had no say in this declaration of War? On the affirmative thread there have been proposals of a "Sub-branch of Parliament will be created that deals only with affairs of the colonies and how they relate to the motherland." Then the affirmatives go on to say that the colonists with "think they are governing themselves while the British will still have political control over the colonies." So it seems to me that this sub branch will just be a place to voice colonial concerns and that is it? This basically means that Parliament can still do whatever they want with the colonies. This is a foolish excuse for representation because the colonists still won't have say over laws passed. This will therefore not solve the lack of representation for the colonies.
The last segment I will be touching upon here is the issue of social order: Many affirmative comments are proposing that the colonists be trained by the British Army in order to be able to defend and quarter themselves. There are many issues with this idea though. In our textbook it states that Chief Minister George Grenville's greatest concern was "financing the 10,000 regulars left in North America after 1763 to police French speaking Canada and the Native Americans-and to remind unruly Americans that they were still subjects." It would quite obvious that the concern of these 10,000 regulars being left was the cost considering as I stated before, Britain had a 145 million pound debt. The issue with this idea is that, the British Government will still have to pay colonists the wages of a British soldier; otherwise the colonists would feel they are being under paid for doing the same job a British soldier would make. This therefore would mean that this plan would not save Britain any money and in fact would increase the British deficit because the salaries would be annually and the cost of ammunition and supplies would still be needed by this new colonial militia. Remember, Grenville's greatest concern was the cost of the troops. Also, I have doubts as to how many colonists would even enlist and how long would it take to build an army strong enough to protect against the French in Canada and the Native Americans, who caused such violent rebellions such as Pontiac's rebellion against the colonies. Could it take years to train this army and can this army be effective enough to defend land that you still want to have diplomacy over. In fact, if we are going to still be paying taxes and being regulated under your policies, why must we defend ourselves? This plan will not solve the problem because it is not cost effective to the enormous deficit and there is not guarantee that enough troops will enlist and if the army will be able to defend its borders.
In conclusion I believe a quote in 1775 from David Hartley, a Member of Parliament commenting on the Intolerable Acts: "Whenever Great Britain has declared War, they have taken their part. What have we done for them [the colonists]? I believe precisely nothing at all.
I now stand open to rebuttal and/or cross examination.
