“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 Parliament got tired of fighting with colonists and repealed the ...