Skip to Main Content

Video

Grievance #17 of the Declaration of Independence

Grade
8–12
Duration
2 min
Topics
American Revolution, Colonial America
Published
Jun 10, 2026
Portrait of Maj. Zachary Deibel, Assistant Professor at Virginia Military Institute, set against a constitutional backdrop.

Watch

About this video

Everyone knows the phrase “no taxation without representation.” But what did it actually mean?

In Grievance 17 of the Declaration of Independence, Zachary Deibel, Assistant Professor at Virginia Military Institute, explains why representation, not just taxes, was the real issue.

British officials argued that colonists were “virtually represented” in Parliament, meaning lawmakers acted in the best interest of the entire empire. But for Americans, that wasn’t enough. They were used to having a direct voice through their own colonial legislatures.

Colonists didn’t reject all taxes. What they rejected was being taxed by a government where they had no real representation or consent.

As thinkers like John Locke argued, legitimate government depends on the consent of the governed. Without that, political power loses its authority.

0:00 If you ask the average person to

0:01 identify the motto of the American

0:03 Revolution, they might be able to recite

0:05 that old classic, no taxation without

0:08 representation. We spend a lot of time

0:09 on that second word, taxation, and sure,

0:12 who likes taxes? But the fourth word of

0:14 the motto helps us understand why they

0:16 were so upset.

0:17 When they endorsed grievance 17, the

0:19 Continental Congress was expressing how

0:21 they were really upset over the issue of

0:23 representation. In the British Empire,

0:25 most people understood that Parliament

0:27 did not actually represent every one of

0:29 its subjects. In 1765, the English

0:32 politician Thomas Whately had explained

0:33 that all British subjects, in fact, were

0:35 virtually represented in Parliament

0:37 because every member of Parliament acted

0:39 in the best interest of the entire

0:41 empire, not on behalf of any individual

0:43 group of constituents. But this

0:45 explanation of virtual representation

0:47 just wasn’t good enough for Americans.

0:48 They were fine with taxes related to

0:50 trade because that was the accepted

0:52 responsibility of the Imperial

0:53 government, and they were fine with

0:55 paying taxes to their colonial

0:56 legislatures that had offered some form

0:58 of representation since the 17th

1:00 century. But when Parliament started

1:01 taxing them directly, they believed it

1:03 had gone too far.

1:05 Patriots like John Adams put it in stark

1:07 terms. Let it be known that British

1:09 liberties, like the right to

1:10 representation, were not the grants of

1:13 princes or parliaments, but original

1:15 rights to which all British subjects

1:17 were entitled. When Parliament imposed

1:19 taxes on colonists without their

1:20 approval, they went against a basic

1:22 enlightenment principle

1:24 that governed the English constitution.

1:27 As John Locke had put it, no one could

1:29 be subjected to the political power of

1:31 another without his own consent. No

1:33 taxation had been enough of a rallying

1:35 cry to get some people protesting in the

1:37 streets, but no representation in a

1:40 government supposedly built on English

1:41 liberty, that was enough of a

1:43 declaration to launch a revolution.

Standards


Related Resources