The Boston Tea Party

[lpetrich]

 Boston Tea Party

The Boston Tea Party was a political and mercantile protest by the Sons of Liberty in Boston, Massachusetts, on December 16, 1773.[1] The target was the Tea Act of May 10, 1773, which allowed the British East India company to sell tea from China in American colonies without paying taxes apart from those imposed by the Townshend Acts. American Patriots strongly opposed the taxes in the Townshend Act as a violation of their rights. Demonstrators, some disguised as Native Americans, destroyed an entire shipment of tea sent by the East India Company.

They boarded the ships and threw the chests of tea into the Boston Harbor. The British government responded harshly and the episode escalated into the American Revolution. The Tea Party became an iconic event of American history, and since then other political protests such as the Tea Party movement have referred to themselves as historical successors to the Boston protest of 1773.

Boston Tea Party - Definition, Dates & Facts - HISTORY

In the 1760s, Britain was deep in debt, so British Parliament imposed a series of taxes on American colonists to help pay those debts.

The Stamp Act of 1765 taxed colonists on virtually every piece of printed paper they used, from playing cards and business licenses to newspapers and legal documents. The Townshend Acts of 1767 went a step further, taxing essentials such as paint, paper, glass, lead and tea.

The British government felt the taxes were fair since much of its debt was earned fighting wars on the colonists’ behalf. The colonists, however, disagreed. They were furious at being taxed without having any representation in Parliament, and felt it was wrong for Britain to impose taxes on them to gain revenue.

So were the colonists a bunch of spoiled brats?

The Boston Massacre of 1770 Mar 5 started out with some discontented colonists throwing snowballs at some British troops. The troops responded with their guns, killing 5 and wounding 6.

The British eventually repealed their taxes on the colonists, except for a tea tax. What happened next is rather complicated, with some colonists wanting to import smuggled Dutch tea. But many colonists did not like the British government imposing that tax without the colonies being represented in Parliament.

"No taxation without representation!"

There were protests in several colonies, and tea-shipment buyers in New York City, Philadelphia, and Charleston SC all backed out of their deals. Customs officers in Charleston seized the unclaimed tea, while NYC and Philly shipments went to Britain.

But the Governor of Massachusetts would not back down, and three ships with shipments of tea stayed in Boston's harbor.

 

[J842P]

 Boston Tea Party

The Boston Tea Party was a political and mercantile protest by the Sons of Liberty in Boston, Massachusetts, on December 16, 1773.[1] The target was the Tea Act of May 10, 1773, which allowed the British East India company to sell tea from China in American colonies without paying taxes apart from those imposed by the Townshend Acts. American Patriots strongly opposed the taxes in the Townshend Act as a violation of their rights. Demonstrators, some disguised as Native Americans, destroyed an entire shipment of tea sent by the East India Company.

They boarded the ships and threw the chests of tea into the Boston Harbor. The British government responded harshly and the episode escalated into the American Revolution. The Tea Party became an iconic event of American history, and since then other political protests such as the Tea Party movement have referred to themselves as historical successors to the Boston protest of 1773.

Boston Tea Party - Definition, Dates & Facts - HISTORY

In the 1760s, Britain was deep in debt, so British Parliament imposed a series of taxes on American colonists to help pay those debts.

The Stamp Act of 1765 taxed colonists on virtually every piece of printed paper they used, from playing cards and business licenses to newspapers and legal documents. The Townshend Acts of 1767 went a step further, taxing essentials such as paint, paper, glass, lead and tea.

The British government felt the taxes were fair since much of its debt was earned fighting wars on the colonists’ behalf. The colonists, however, disagreed. They were furious at being taxed without having any representation in Parliament, and felt it was wrong for Britain to impose taxes on them to gain revenue.

So were the colonists a bunch of spoiled brats?

The Boston Massacre of 1770 Mar 5 started out with some discontented colonists throwing snowballs at some British troops. The troops responded with their guns, killing 5 and wounding 6.

The British eventually repealed their taxes on the colonists, except for a tea tax. What happened next is rather complicated, with some colonists wanting to import smuggled Dutch tea. But many colonists did not like the British government imposing that tax without the colonies being represented in Parliament.

"No taxation without representation!"

There were protests in several colonies, and tea-shipment buyers in New York City, Philadelphia, and Charleston SC all backed out of their deals. Customs officers in Charleston seized the unclaimed tea, while NYC and Philly shipments went to Britain.

But the Governor of Massachusetts would not back down, and three ships with shipments of tea stayed in Boston's harbor.

Yes, essentially spoiled brats. The British dumped tons of money on colonial wars, and were spending tons of money trying to keep the peace between the colonists and the native populations.

It's ok, though, because monarchy is an affront to humanity, so it is a good thing that the colonies went independent and became a Republic.

 

[lpetrich]

When the ships were still in the harbor, Whig leader Samuel Adams organized a meeting on 1773 Nov 29. They agreed that the ships were to be sent back to Britain without paying the import duty, and also that 25 men would be assigned the task of keeping the tea from being unloaded.

At the deadline date, Samuel Adams organized another meeting, and he stated "This meeting can do nothing further to save the country." Some people left the meeting early, and some 30 to 130 men disguised themselves, boarded the three ships, and dumped all 342 of the ships' chests of tea into the harbor.

Samuel Adams then defended and publicized the action as the only remaining one for defending the colonists' rights. Some other colonial leaders agreed with the action, while others disagreed, like George Washington. Benjamin Franklin and some others offered to reimburse the British government for the destroyed tea.

British politicians turned against the colonies, and the British government responded by passing the "Intolerable Acts" or "Coercive Acts": shutting down Boston Harbor until the destroyed tea was paid for, putting the Massachusetts colony under the direct administration of the British authorities, permitting British officials in the colonies to be tried outside the colonies, etc.

The Tea Party was followed by similar destructions of tea shipments in harbors, including another one in Boston. Protests also included the tarring and feathering of disliked officials.

The colonists organized the First Continental Congress in 1774, with delegates from every colony but Georgia, and it demanded the repeal of the Intolerable Acts and demanded self-government for the colonies. Britain refused to agree, and by next year, the American Revolutionary War got started near Boston.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The colonists thought they were Britons. When Britain decided to charge them for the seven years war, they realized they weren't.

 

[lpetrich]

American historians were rather sheepish about "the destruction of the tea" for some decades after that event, and the first recorded use of "Boston Tea Party" for this event came in 1834.

Since then, the event has been referenced in several other political protests.

American activists from a variety of political viewpoints have invoked the Tea Party as a symbol of protest. In 1973, on the 200th anniversary of the Tea Party, a mass meeting at Faneuil Hall called for the impeachment of President Richard Nixon and protested oil companies in the ongoing oil crisis. Afterwards, protesters boarded a replica ship in Boston Harbor, hanged Nixon in effigy, and dumped several empty oil drums into the harbor.[84] In 1998, two conservative US Congressmen put the federal tax code into a chest marked "tea" and dumped it into the harbor.[85]

In 2006, a libertarian political party called the "Boston Tea Party" was founded. In 2007, the Ron Paul "Tea Party" money bomb, held on the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, broke the one-day fund-raising record by raising $6.04 million in 24 hours.[86] Subsequently, these fund-raising "Tea parties" grew into the Tea Party movement, which dominated politics for the next two years, culminating in a voter victory for the Republicans in 2010 who were widely elected to seats in the United States House of Representatives.

In that Tea Party movement, the "Tea" is often explained as "Taxed Enough Already", but the name is ultimately derived from that destruction of tea 246 years ago.

That movement turned "primary" into a verb, to defeat in a primary, and several Tea Party Republicans primaried several long-serving Republicans. This Tea Party's biggest success has been the defeat of Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor by economics professor Dave Brat.

Donald Trump's 2016 candidacy is essentially a Tea Party candidacy. He was an outsider who ran against several fellow Republicans with long political careers, and he defeated them. An outsider? He had never held any elected or appointed public office, and he had never worked for any politician. That is in stark contrast with every other President.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Donald Trump's 2016 candidacy is essentially a Tea Party candidacy. He was an outsider who ran against several fellow Republicans with long political careers, and he defeated them. An outsider? He had never held any elected or appointed public office, and he had never worked for any politician. That is in stark contrast with every other President.

Everything up to that paragraph was correct. The Tea Party movement was long dead by the time Trump secured the nomination.

 

[Elixir]

Donald Trump's 2016 candidacy is essentially a Tea Party candidacy. He was an outsider who ran against several fellow Republicans with long political careers, and he defeated them. An outsider? He had never held any elected or appointed public office, and he had never worked for any politician. That is in stark contrast with every other President.

Everything up to that paragraph was correct. The Tea Party movement was long dead by the time Trump secured the nomination.

Yah, it morphed into the "Freedom Caucus" - one of the biggest misnomers of all time.

 

[lpetrich]

Donald Trump's 2016 candidacy is essentially a Tea Party candidacy. He was an outsider who ran against several fellow Republicans with long political careers, and he defeated them. An outsider? He had never held any elected or appointed public office, and he had never worked for any politician. That is in stark contrast with every other President.

Everything up to that paragraph was correct. The Tea Party movement was long dead by the time Trump secured the nomination.

The Tea Party is all in for Donald Trump - Vox - 2018 May 5

Trumpian candidates are the new Tea Party candidates

FreedomWorks, which has funded Tea Party activities for nearly a decade, is supporting more than 25 candidates nationwide this fall. All of them fit the Trumpian mold, from Missouri’s Josh Hawley, who hosted President Trump at a fundraiser in March, to Wisconsin’s Kevin Nicholson, a onetime Democratic rising star who recrafted himself as a conservative Republican and major Trump supporter (and who said of veterans who vote for Democrats, “I question their cognitive thought process”), to Kentucky’s Thomas Massie, who told the Washington Examiner that Trump had saved the Republican Party.

From tricorn hats to Trump rallies

When Trump won the White House in 2016, many Tea Party activists were thrilled. Jenny Beth Martin, president of the Tea Party Patriots, wrote after the election in November, “Far from being dead, the tea party movement has much to celebrate and much to do. Our values prevailed in the 2016 general election.”

This was a big shift in tone for Martin from earlier in 2016, when she told a crowd at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, “Donald Trump loves himself first, last and everywhere in between. He loves himself more than our country, he loves himself more than the Constitution.”

The Tea Party’s transition from anti-big government to pro-Trump is a story of how a movement adapts to maintain its influence and power. The Tea Party rose to power by dragging mainstream Republicans further and further to the right, effectively shifting the center of the party. But Trump is the manifestation of opposition to mainstream Republicans, so the Tea Party has positioned itself next to him, where it can continue to influence conservative politics.

But Trump isn’t much of a Tea Partier

The Tea Party’s message was incredibly simple: shrink the federal government and federal spending. Trump’s messaging, and actions while in office are different. He had and has little interest in curtailing deficit spending; in fact, he loves debt (and has said so, repeatedly.)

 

[bilby]

 Boston Tea Party


Boston Tea Party - Definition, Dates & Facts - HISTORY

So were the colonists a bunch of spoiled brats?

The Boston Massacre of 1770 Mar 5 started out with some discontented colonists throwing snowballs at some British troops. The troops responded with their guns, killing 5 and wounding 6.

The British eventually repealed their taxes on the colonists, except for a tea tax. What happened next is rather complicated, with some colonists wanting to import smuggled Dutch tea. But many colonists did not like the British government imposing that tax without the colonies being represented in Parliament.

"No taxation without representation!"

There were protests in several colonies, and tea-shipment buyers in New York City, Philadelphia, and Charleston SC all backed out of their deals. Customs officers in Charleston seized the unclaimed tea, while NYC and Philly shipments went to Britain.

But the Governor of Massachusetts would not back down, and three ships with shipments of tea stayed in Boston's harbor.

Yes, essentially spoiled brats. The British dumped tons of money on colonial wars, and were spending tons of money trying to keep the peace between the colonists and the native populations.

It's ok, though, because monarchy is an affront to humanity, so it is a good thing that the colonies went independent and became a Republic.

Well, other than the fact that the British monarchy had been effectively reduced to a figurehead a century earlier, with parliament having established unequivocally that it is the sovereign power (by chopping the king's head off in public). The unimportance of the King in British politics of the time is underlined by the insanity of the incumbent and the utter uselessness of his regent - despite which Britain was able to seriously fuck over the French and establish what was to become the largest empire in world history.

The idea that the American Revolution was in any way about monarchy is pure propaganda. It was about a bunch of smugglers pissed off that John Company was muscling in on their turf, supplying the very lucrative black market for tea. These guys weren't unhappy about the existence of the taxes - their business model was to make a fortune by not paying those taxes. They were unhappy that a new player was undercutting their scam.

And the assumption, right up until Washington said he didn't want to do the job, was that they would appoint a king once they got rid of the mad one over the ocean.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The Tea Party is all in for Donald Trump - Vox - 2018 May 5

Vox? Not exactly the best source for unbiased information on the Tea Party.

Their proof that the Tea Party is 10 years old is a five year old article saying it is 5 years old. Think about that for a second.

There exist a few moribund organizations that bear the name. Vox thinks the movement started in November 2008 instead of November 2007. They don't know the subject above and beyond "this is scary", they aren't a reliable source.

 

[J842P]

 Boston Tea Party


Boston Tea Party - Definition, Dates & Facts - HISTORY

So were the colonists a bunch of spoiled brats?

The Boston Massacre of 1770 Mar 5 started out with some discontented colonists throwing snowballs at some British troops. The troops responded with their guns, killing 5 and wounding 6.

The British eventually repealed their taxes on the colonists, except for a tea tax. What happened next is rather complicated, with some colonists wanting to import smuggled Dutch tea. But many colonists did not like the British government imposing that tax without the colonies being represented in Parliament.

"No taxation without representation!"

There were protests in several colonies, and tea-shipment buyers in New York City, Philadelphia, and Charleston SC all backed out of their deals. Customs officers in Charleston seized the unclaimed tea, while NYC and Philly shipments went to Britain.

But the Governor of Massachusetts would not back down, and three ships with shipments of tea stayed in Boston's harbor.

Yes, essentially spoiled brats. The British dumped tons of money on colonial wars, and were spending tons of money trying to keep the peace between the colonists and the native populations.

It's ok, though, because monarchy is an affront to humanity, so it is a good thing that the colonies went independent and became a Republic.

Well, other than the fact that the British monarchy had been effectively reduced to a figurehead a century earlier, with parliament having established unequivocally that it is the sovereign power (by chopping the king's head off in public). The unimportance of the King in British politics of the time is underlined by the insanity of the incumbent and the utter uselessness of his regent - despite which Britain was able to seriously fuck over the French and establish what was to become the largest empire in world history.

The idea that the American Revolution was in any way about monarchy is pure propaganda. It was about a bunch of smugglers pissed off that John Company was muscling in on their turf, supplying the very lucrative black market for tea. These guys weren't unhappy about the existence of the taxes - their business model was to make a fortune by not paying those taxes. They were unhappy that a new player was undercutting their scam.

And the assumption, right up until Washington said he didn't want to do the job, was that they would appoint a king once they got rid of the mad one over the ocean.

I'm having a hard time figuring out how you extracted those sentiments from my post. I clearly called the colonists spoiled brats, and yes, you are correct, it was essentially the economically interested that pushed hardest for the revolution, particularly those in New England. Southerners overall (with the exception of a few, particular southerners) were generally not for a complete revolution in any way. Although I am unfamiliar with how the John company undercut colonial smugglers.

In any case, I agree it wasn't about monarchy, and I never said as much. Even only a semi-decent secondary education in the US would inform someone that it was never clear the resulting state after the revolution wouldn't simply be a new monarchy of some sort. Indeed, Washington refusing the job is sort of a big deal that gets mythologized, if anything.

I said that the resulting establishment of a republic makes it a good thing in my book in the end.

And even figure-head monarchies are an affront to humanity. Like the one currently in the UK.

 

[barbos]

I too, heard a theory that Boston Tea party happened because tea smuglers realized that tax rules change (reduction) would make them less competitive than legal tea trade. So it's true?

 

[Politesse]

I'm very confused as to how anyone literate on the subject could believe that the legitimacy of the monarchy was not in question during the Revolution. Is this supportable by any sort of actual documentation? There were monarchists on the Colonial side, yes, but for they held little sway over public opinion, which at the time was fiercely isolationist. The Articles of Confederation, drafted in the second year of the war, described a government with even less of an executive branch than what we have now, and there was no other governing document until 1789 when the present system was adopted. The colonies more or less self-governed throughout the war itself, as indeed they largely had before the war (hence a major part of the dispute) and were mostly content to continue doing so. Remember too that the office as defined in 1787-1789 was also much more limited in role and power than what we see now. I'm sure plenty of people expected an eventual re-negotiated return to Great Britain when the war first began, but there was never any serious possibility of a new King being put over the colonies. He'd have been tarred and feathered.

I mean, where would he have been from? Virginia? New York? It would have started the Civil War a century early. Washington was popular, but he was not all powerful nor ever offered absolute power.

 

[bilby]

I'm very confused as to how anyone literate on the subject could believe that the legitimacy of the monarchy was not in question during the Revolution. Is this supportable by any sort of actual documentation? There were monarchists on the Colonial side, yes, but for they held little sway over public opinion, which at the time was fiercely isolationist. The Articles of Confederation, drafted in the second year of the war, described a government with even less of an executive branch than what we have now, and there was no other governing document until 1789 when the present system was adopted. The colonies more or less self-governed throughout the war itself, as indeed they largely had before the war (hence a major part of the dispute) and were mostly content to continue doing so. Remember too that the office as defined in 1787-1789 was also much more limited in role and power than what we see now. I'm sure plenty of people expected an eventual re-negotiated return to Great Britain when the war first began, but there was never any serious possibility of a new King being put over the colonies. He'd have been tarred and feathered.

I mean, where would he have been from? Virginia? New York? It would have started the Civil War a century early. Washington was popular, but he was not all powerful nor ever offered absolute power.

British monarchs in the eighteenth century didn't have absolute power. Absolute power of monarchs was (brutally) eliminated by parliament in the middle of the seventeenth century, at the end of a long slow decline that began in the thirteenth century with Magna Carta, and hadn't existed in Britain within living memory by the time of the American Revolution.

 

[lpetrich]

In any case, I agree it wasn't about monarchy, and I never said as much. Even only a semi-decent secondary education in the US would inform someone that it was never clear the resulting state after the revolution wouldn't simply be a new monarchy of some sort. Indeed, Washington refusing the job is sort of a big deal that gets mythologized, if anything.

I said that the resulting establishment of a republic makes it a good thing in my book in the end.

And even figure-head monarchies are an affront to humanity. Like the one currently in the UK.

John Adams: Defence of the Constitutions, 1787 - he discusses republics both ancient and recent. It is evident that most past republics have not been very large, with the main exception, the Roman Republic, eventually becoming a monarchy, the Roman Empire. So the US was a daring political experiment -- and it succeeded.


As to Trump being a Tea Party sort of candidate, let's look at his opponents. I'll use Ranked Choice Poll of GOP Voters Yields Insights - FairVote

• Jeb Bush - Gov FL
• Ben Carson - brain surgeon
• Chris Christie - Gov NJ
• Ted Cruz - Sen TX
• Carly Fiorina - businesswoman
• Mike Huckabee - Gov AR
• John Kasich - Gov OH
• Rand Paul - Sen KY
• Marco Rubio - Sen FL
• Rick Santorum - Sen PA
• Donald Trump - businessman

In that poll, they dropped out in this order: Rick Santorum 0.93%, Mike Huckabee 2.39%, Carly Fiorina 3.22%, Chris Christie 3.53%, John Kasich 4.05%, Rand Paul 7.50%, Jeb Bush 8.66%, Ben Carson 12.46%, Marco Rubio 25.45%, Donald Trump 49.32%. TC was behind DT in every round but the last one, and he barely won.

Ben Carson did fairly well in that poll, and like Donald Trump, he also can plausibly call himself a political outsider.

 

[Elixir]

British monarchs in the eighteenth century didn't have absolute power. Absolute power of monarchs was (brutally) eliminated by parliament in the middle of the seventeenth century, at the end of a long slow decline that began in the thirteenth century with Magna Carta, and hadn't existed in Britain within living memory by the time of the American Revolution.

I suspect that Americans' of the image of British monarchs as absolute rulers is a cultural remnant, a holdover from colonial propaganda of the mid-late 18th century.

 

[Politesse]

British monarchs in the eighteenth century didn't have absolute power. Absolute power of monarchs was (brutally) eliminated by parliament in the middle of the seventeenth century, at the end of a long slow decline that began in the thirteenth century with Magna Carta, and hadn't existed in Britain within living memory by the time of the American Revolution.

I suspect that Americans' of the image of British monarchs as absolute rulers is a cultural remnant, a holdover from colonial propaganda of the mid-late 18th century.

You're overinterpreting what I wrote to an absurd degree.

 

[Elixir]

British monarchs in the eighteenth century didn't have absolute power. Absolute power of monarchs was (brutally) eliminated by parliament in the middle of the seventeenth century, at the end of a long slow decline that began in the thirteenth century with Magna Carta, and hadn't existed in Britain within living memory by the time of the American Revolution.

I suspect that Americans' of the image of British monarchs as absolute rulers is a cultural remnant, a holdover from colonial propaganda of the mid-late 18th century.

You're overinterpreting what I wrote to an absurd degree.

Really? It was a little bit tongue in cheek; most Americans are fully aware of the symbolic nature of the British monarchy today, and know it wasn't so radically different in the 18th century. That's the intellectual part. Nonetheless there's an emotional remnant that clings to the Alice in Wonderland "Off with their heads" image of a monarch.

 

[Politesse]

You're overinterpreting what I wrote to an absurd degree.

Really? It was a little bit tongue in cheek; most Americans are fully aware of the symbolic nature of the British monarchy today, and know it wasn't so radically different in the 18th century. That's the intellectual part. Nonetheless there's an emotional remnant that clings to the Alice in Wonderland "Off with their heads" image of a monarch.

Never mind the poor choice of words in the last sentence, the point is that there is zero chance that the United States were ever going to appoint a monarch over their new nation, unless it was George III himself.

 

[lpetrich]

Comparable efforts on the Left have been called the "Herbal Tea Party", but that name has not caught on. Comparable in the sense of wanting to primary long-serving politicians who are not considered good enough.

The first big triumph of the Herbal Tea Party was in 2016, when Ro Khanna defeated 8-term incumbent Mike Honda in CA-17. A like-minded politician, Pramila Jayapal, won that year in a retiring Representative's seat, WA-07.

The HTP had its most spectacular triumph in 2018, when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez defeated 10-term incumbent Joe Crowley in NY-14. He was a powerful politician who was nicknamed "King of Queens", and he was talked about as a successor of Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker. Also that year, Ayanna Pressley defeated 10-term incumbent Michael Capuano. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar both won in retiring Representatives' seats, MI-13 and MN-05.

Looking to 2020, the HTP has several candidates, and I've been discussing them in Democrats trying to unseat each other