Breakdown+of+Political+Trust--No+Taxation+Without+Representation

Breakdown of Political Trust - Lauren:)
** UNHAPPY START ** - responsibility of preserving the empire fell to KING GEORGE III - George III was too young (22 years old) and had not received good education - had been raised in a loveless, sheltered life because his father, a playboy, died early in 1751 - even discouraged by his grandfather, who thought King George III as “dull-witted”. - grew up hating almost everyone related to the throne KING GEORGE III CORRUPTED(?) POLITICAL RULE -annoyed other people with his habit of correcting people for small faults +to hide his lack of intelligence (King George III) --> The new king was supposed to bring radical, aggressive change but King George III was not even close set policy and controlled patronage
 * WHIGS**= a powerful, though loosely associated, group of men

George II had allowed the Whigs to rule in the Parliament as long as they didn’t interfere with his army +a Scot whose chief qualification of office was his friendship with the king -Whigs were outraged -Whigs suspected King George III was trying to turn back the clock to the time before Glorious Revolution + a time when personal Stuart monarchy was established free from traditional constitutional restraints -Whigs blamed every wrong on Bute (real or not) <-(Earl of Bute)
 * Relationship broken when King George III selected his chief minister the //Earl of Bute//

- By 1763, Bute left office - But Whigs' power wasn't restored - Even until 1770, nobody seemed to please King George as the successor - everybody tried to please the fickle king

(Preview of the movie "The Madness of King George III") REASONS FOR FALL OF ENGLISH EMPIRE ** - But, King George shouldn't be blamed completely for the fall of England Empire (North America) +could be from sheer ignorance =not many English politicians visited America +lack of communication = takes to long to get to America =led to misunderstanding and lots of rumors - Parliamentary Sovereignty- Principle that emphasized power of Parliament to govern affairs as the preeminent authority +didn't understand why colonists wanted to separate or divide sovereignty.
 * media type="youtube" key="gCVHxguFzWQ&hl=ko&fs=1" height="344" width="425"
 * But also become two sides did not understand each other

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV1heFVXBR4 

No Taxation Without Representation: The American Perspective- Sarah:)
//__"No law can be made or abrogated without the consent of the people by their representatives." (Connecticut Assembly 1764)__//

As the question of parliamentary sovereignty and supremacy rose, problems with the Parliament also rose among the American colonies.

During the mid 1700s, Americans thought their colonial legislatures were similar to the British Parliament. Over the course of America's history, colonial assemblies had steadily increased their influence over affairs such as taxation and expenditure. Britain had not interfered with colonial legislature in the past, and therefore the provincial American assemblies took the role of policymaking and routine administration. Expanding its influence without British interference, American legislatures looked like America copies of the Parliament by the mid 18th century and were perceived by Americans as somewhat equal to the Parliament. For this reason, colonists took Britain's sudden emphasis of supremacy of Parliament seemed unreasonable.

The legislators of Massachusetts stated in 1770 that "This house has the same inherent rights in this province as the house of commons in Great Britain." This claim shows the colonist's resentment for the virtual representation, the notion of America being represented by the British Parliament despite the fact that colonists had neither elected members to Parliament nor a vote.

Colonists such as John Adams insisted that a representative assembly should actually mirror its constituents, and because the members of British Parliament did not think like Americans, the members of Parliament could not be a representative for America. And because the members of the Parliament were not the representatives of America, Parliament cannot tax the American people.

This idea of no taxation without representation spread, with the Connecticut Assembly declaring in 1764 that "NO LAW CAN BE MADE OR ABROGATED WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE BY THEIR REPRESENTATIVES."

(John Adams)

[|The American Revolution: Taxation and Representation] This is a very good video of the 18th century America on "No Taxation Without Representation" -American colonies were taxed by Britain, but had no representative in the Houses of Parliament. This situation was a major rallying point for revolutionary activists in the colonies. (From howstuffworks video center) It's not too long, but really detailed and easy to understand, so it's not a bad idea to watch it:)