Have you ever established rules for your children and then for whatever reason did not enforce them? After their first slipup was not met with negative consequences, what was their next move? In all likelihood, they tried to see how far they could push. What happened weeks later when you wanted to reestablish control? It certainly wasn’t easy. England did have a structure but didn’t enforce it (this is referred to as salutary neglect), and gave America wide latitude to run its own affairs. Now, when it was necessary to reimpose control, the colonists were resentful, for in a manner of speaking they had been living away from home for generations.
The first settlers to come to the New World came with the intention of creating a different environment for themselves, either religiously, politically, or economically. With the passage of generations, the difference in outlook between the descendants of these early settlers and the mother country was great. By not holding the reigns tight from the beginning, England permitted the colonists’ ambitions, goals, and values to come into fruition and be passed on to their children.
The colonists owed England a debt of gratitude. The British navy protected colonial shipping, the British army stood guard against the French, the Spanish, and the Indians, and it was mostly British soldiers and finances that won the French and Indian War. The colonists were happy that the French threat was gone. They were unhappy to have the western lands closed for the time being, but not upset that the British soldiers were acting as a buffer between them and hostile Indians.
In order to deal with the debt created by the war and the increased cost of administering the colonies, England turned to the colonists to shoulder their share of the burden. The colonists refused. This disagreement and its consequences would contribute to creating a new unity within the colonies.
The pressure from England helped create a situation which opened the possibility of independence. It is interesting to note that there are those who claim that the Jewish people have survived in exile because of pressure — or more accurately, persecution — from the gentiles. Is this true? There have been plenty of people who have been persecuted and conquered and then have disappeared. From the other side of the equation, though, when there isn’t any pressure the Jewish people should disappear. In fact, in present day America, where Jews enjoy a tremendous amount of freedom, we are losing many to assimilation. Yet Torah Judaism is growing and has never been as strong and vibrant — a contradiction to the theory, for we Jews are a unique phenomenon.
A major ingredient in imperial policy is that of economics. As the popular saying goes, “Money makes the world go round.” We know that Hashem determines our economic situation on Rosh HaShanah, aren’t we still willing to work overtime at the expense of learning and davening with a minyan?
England had colonies for its financial benefit. Even the king got involved when colonies wanted to limit the slave trade. The slave trade was a good business, and what was morally right made no difference. We see things differently. Since Hashem determines how much money we make, correct behavior plays a large part in how successful we will be.
Just as some colonies tried to deal with slavery as a moral issue, they did the same with taxation. All governments need money to operate. Most resort to taxes. Without the power of taxation it is almost impossible to rule.
In American, the cry of “no taxation without representation” was heard throughout the colonies. The Stamp Act Congress resolved “that it is inseparably essential to the freedom of a people, and the undoubted rights of Englishmen, that no taxes should be imposed on them, but with their consent....” No matter that throughout the centuries millions of Englishmen had paid their taxes without having the right to vote for members of Parliament. The idea of “virtual” representation — that the members of Parliament represented the entire British Empire — was disregarded completely, for in America, from the beginning, the members of the colonial assemblies had represented the people of their districts.
Many historians see the “rights of Englishmen” referred to by the resolution of the Stamp Act Congress as going back to the Magna Carta of 1215. It states, “No scutage [a payment exacted in lieu of military service] or aid, save the customary feudal ones, shall be levied except by the common consent of the realm.” When this was written it meant that King John would have to consult his council of barons and bishops before levying anything beyond “the customary feudal taxes.” Somehow it developed into the doctrine of no taxation without representation. Whether or not the king or his subordinates in 1215 would have interpreted it this way is immaterial. In the colonies it was used as an “asmachta” (citing a biblical text to support a Rabbinical enactment).
Once a document leaves itself open to interpretation it can be twisted to mean whatever the interpreter wants it to mean. The Torah itself is a prime example of this. A person who does not believe that God gave the Torah and that He gave it with complete knowledge of the past, present, and future can interpret it any way he wishes. Some took the fifty-third chapter of Yeshayah and used it as proof for a new religion. Some Jews see the Torah merely as a historical document that is no longer relevant. They may claim that the only reason the Torah forbids the eating of pig is because of trichinosis, and today, with government inspection of meat processing, it is now safe as well as permissible to eat pork.
Looking at Torah sources, it seems clear that not only can I be taxed without my consent or the consent of my representative, but I also have an obligation to pay various taxes: terumah gedolah to the kohein, ma’aser rishon to the Levite, ma’aser sheini in the first, second, fourth, and fifth years of the shemittah cycle, and ma’aser ani in the third and sixth years. I must give challah to the kohein and a half-shekel for communal sacrifices, as well.
The Rambam says, “If the king fixes a tax...and appoints to collect it on his behalf an Israelite known to be a trustworthy person...this collector is not presumed to be a robber, for the king’s decree has the force of law. Moreover, if one avoids paying such a tax, he is a transgressor, for he steals that king’s property, whether the king be a heathen or an Israelite” (Hilchos Geneivah 5:11). He sums up the general rules: “Any law promulgated by the king to apply to everyone and not to one person alone is not deemed robbery” (ibid., 14).
Let’s take a closer look. On June 7, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia proposed to the Continental Congress, “These United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States.” A committee was set up to draft a declaration supporting Lee’s resolution.
In a letter to his wife, Abigail, John Adams writes, “Yesterday the greatest question was decided which ever was debated in America.... I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival” (The Adams Papers: Adams Family Correspondence, vol. 2, edited by L. H. Butterfield [Belknap Press of Harvard University, 1963]). He wrote this letter on July 3, 1776. No, it’s not a typographical error. Congress approved the Lee resolution on July 2, 1776. On July 4, Congress adopted the written declaration upholding Lee’s resolution. By the way, the Liberty Bell was rung on July 8 when the public learned of the actual wording of the Declaration.
On the passuk, “A good name is better than precious oil, and the day of death than the day of one’s birth” (Koheles 7:1), the Midrash Rabbah compares these two phases of life to two ships, one leaving the harbor and the other entering. There is no need to rejoice over the ship leaving for there is no telling what will be its fate on the high seas; but when it returns from a safe and successful voyage, all should rejoice. So, too, with America. Leaving the harbor, the safety of mother England, there was no way of knowing how successful she would be in sailing the seas of world history and the rivers of domestic affairs.
The midrash continues to explain that a man is called by three names: one given to him by his father and mother, a second given to him by other people, and a third which he acquires through his good deeds and the fulfillment of his potential. At birth, the colonists called themselves “patriots.” Others, such as England, called them “traitors.” Only time would tell what their third and most important name would be.