Otis grounded colonial rights in shared British subjecthood and consent

Evidence

“A plantation or colony is a settlement of subjects in a territory disjoined or remote from the mother country,” Otis explained in a polemic that wove together bits and pieces from natural-law tradition, English legal precedent, and contemporary facts. “Colonists are entitled to as ample rights, liberties, and privileges as subjects of the mother country are.” Because British colonists remain British subjects, he argued, “every British subject born on the continent of America … is by the law of God and nature, by the common law, and by act of Parliament … entitled to all the natural, essential, inherent, and inseparable rights of our fellow subjects in Great Britain.” For Otis, these rights included imposing taxes on British subjects only “by their consent in person or by deputation,” which barred Parliament from taxing unrepresented colonists. … Adding rhetorical force to this principle by making it personal, Otis concluded: “No man can take my property from me without my consent: if he does, he deprives me of my liberty and makes me a slave.” — Edward J. Larson, Declaring Independence, 32

A plantation or colony is a settlement of subjects in a territory disjoined or remote from the mother country,” Otis explained in a polemic that wove together bits and pieces from natural-law tradition, English legal precedent, and contemporary facts. “Colonists are entitled to as ample rights, liberties, and privileges as subjects of the mother country are.” Because British colonists remain British subjects, he argued, “every British subject born on the continent of America … is by the law of God and nature, by the common law, and by act of Parliament … entitled to all the natural, essential, inherent, and inseparable rights of our fellow subjects in Great Britain.” For Otis, these rights included imposing taxes on British subjects only “by their consent in person or by deputation,” which barred Parliament from taxing unrepresented colonists. By “depriving colonists of one of their most essential rights as freemen,” he charged, taxation without representation was “absolutely irreconcilable with the rights of the colonists as British subjects.” Adding rhetorical force to this principle by making it personal, Otis concluded: “No man can take my property from me without my consent: if he does, he deprives me of my liberty and makes me a slave.” — Edward J. Larson, Declaring Independence, 32

Categorization

• DEFINE: Establishes the founding-era meaning of ‘no taxation without representation’ — consent-based rights rooted in subjecthood, not abstract natural liberty.
• XREF: Connects to course theme of contested foundational values: consent and no-taxation-without-representation as a competing first principle of freedom. — connects to: Paine grounded American rights in natural society, not British subjecthood. — Edward J. Larson, Declaring Independence, 49; Colonial land appropriation was framed as consent with violence as alternative — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection: How Data Is…, 300; Colonial dominion was justified as the natural right of those capable of ruling
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Edward J. Larson, Declaring Independence, 32

Broader Connections

• Colonial land appropriation was framed as consent with violence as alternative #expands (0.75) — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection, 300
• Colonial dominion was justified as the natural right of those capable of ruling #expands (0.75)