Pre-revolution British rule gave Americans no representation at any level

Evidence

The revolutionary significance of American independence becomes apparent by comparing the governing authorities that preceded and followed it. The hereditary British monarchs asserted a divine right to reign over the American colonies and rule them through the exercise of their direct authority. Further, by the Declaratory Act of 1766, the British Parliament claimed “full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever.” This Parliament had no American representatives. Its upper house consisted of hereditary and appointed lords. No one elected them. A highly restricted electorate that included less than one in ten adult British men and no women elected members of the lower house from grossly malapportioned districts. — Edward J. Larson, Declaring Independence, 6

Categorization

• XREF: Supplies the concrete institutional baseline (no representation, malapportionment, restriction to under 10 percent of men) that the course contrasts against founding-era legitimacy claims. — connects to: The British imagined their nation as trustee representing conquered peoples without real representation. — Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 361
• QUESTION: The malapportionment and restricted-electorate facts invite comparison with later American reapportionment doctrine (Baker v. Carr lineage) worth chasing.

Broader Connections

• The British imagined their nation as trustee representing conquered peoples without real representation. #corroborates (0.75) — Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 361