I thought the colonies were against all personal direct taxes, e.g. income and otherwise. They were so enragedby the constant and escalating British tax terrorism that they had no consensus on leveling personaltaxes on the colonist. In fact if you read my "treatise" when it comes out today you will see the Whiskeytax near caused a succession of some states.The answer appears to be an escalating need for money by the colonies and a constant maneuvering for new sources. Sound familiar. This site below is great.Here is an interesting excerpt, I am attempting to answer my own question.
1777 On November 15, the Continental Congress passed the fledgling nationís first constitution, the Articles of Confederation [external link]. The Articles, like most republican state constitutions written around this time, shunned vigorous executive power in favor of a more decentralized form of government constructed around a powerful legislative body. The first national government consisted of a loose confederation of independent states that retained their sovereignty in most matters, with the exception of diplomacy and defense. Each state had one vote in Congress, regardless of population, and unanimous consent was required to enact measures of major import. This arrangement severely circumscribed Congressís fiscal capacity. The Articles did not grant Congress the power to tax; it could only request funds that states might eventually get around to remitting. Given the history of their past relationship with Britain, the states were understandably loathe to sacrifice their own autonomy and vest powerful fiscal authority in a distant centralized government.
State officials tended to print money rather than resort to increased taxation in order to raise war revenue. As a consequence, most state currencies depreciated quickly and severely. The Continental Congress relied on loans from the French, Dutch, and wealthy Americans at first, but soon turned to the printing press as well, with similar results.You can read it all here http://www.tax.org/Museum/1777-1815.htmThis is a great site although their may be a liberal bias I detected somewhere in my reading. I always beware when they say "Museum". Thatmeans they have a museum for hiding the truth or disguising the truth............Reader Beware.....This says a lot.
1787 The ratification of the Constitution shifted the locus of power from the individual states to an invigorated national government. Congress's authority over fiscal policy and taxation reflected this transformation. Under the requisition system of the Articles of Confederation, Congress had little recourse in revenue collection beyond the good faith of the individual states. The new Constitution, however, granted the national legislature exclusive power to impose tariffs and coin money, along with the flexibility to collect excises and levy taxes directly on individual citizens.These innovations, however, were hardly foregone conclusions. By the time the delegates met in Philadelphia, the specter of Shayís Rebellion in Massachusetts had convinced most of the necessity of fortifying the national government, if the Confederationís revenue problems had not done so already. But no consensus existed on the details or the scope of the necessary changes. And even if the convention managed to agree on a plan, there was no guarantee that the individual states would ratify a constitution designed to diminish their influence
Proponents of the new Constitution had their work cut out for them. Critics of the pending document, known as the Anti-federalists, were numerous and active in a number of states, such as New York, Virginia, and Massachusetts, where a vote against ratification could sink the proposed Federal system. In both the press and the ratifying conventions, Anti-federalists railed against what they perceived as an unlimited, unchecked taxation power vested in a distant, unaccountable central government. Virginia's George Mason argued that "the assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated government." He, like many Anti-federalists, feared that this arrangement was "calculated to annihilate entirely the state governments." They worried that national taxes would supersede state taxes, drawing limited funds away from a small local base. The Constitution also circumscribed the potential sources of state revenue; Article I, Section 10 prohibited individual states from turning to their favorite revenue source, coining money or emitting bills of credit, and declared import tariffs an exclusive instrument of the national government.
Anti-federalists insisted that control over direct taxes be retained by the states. Specifically, they preferred the requisition system employed under the Articles of Confederation. Patrick Henry argued passionately that "the oppression arising from taxation, is not from the amount but, from the mode ó a thorough acquaintance with the condition of the people, is necessary to a just distribution of taxes. The whole wisdom of the science of Government, with respect to taxation, consists in selecting the mode of collection which will best accommodate to the convenience of the people."
Bottom line in my opinion, Hamilton was wrong and the Anti-federalists were right. Although the States now are no less tyrannical that the Fed.
I am getting into my next email blast. All this freedom taking is so interlocking and almost has no beginning or end. It is the story of man and greed and power and the primitive nature to NOT MIND HIS OWN BUSINESS.
I am a conservative hawk but I can see myself waning as my research moves on and see the madness that drives all these wars which drives more taxes which drives more suffering, on and on.
Patriot at Large,