US History Encyclopedia: Boston Tea Party
Top
Home Library History, Politics & Society US History Encyclopedia

The British East India Company, facing severe financial reverses,
convinced Parliament to allow them to sell tea in the American colonies
at a price that would undercut even smuggled Dutch tea, and raise
revenue while clearing their warehouses of a huge surplus.
Unfortunately, this tea would still carry the despised three-pence per
pound tax, which had remained as a token duty, and would be sold through
only a handful of dealers in America. This high-handed policy united
small merchants, left out of the deal, with patriot organizations that
protested the tax. The arrival of the tea ships Eleanor, Dartmouth and
Beaver sparked public protest in Boston, including public meetings,
fliers and harassment of the consignees, who took shelter in Castle
William to avoid the crowds.

The Sons of Liberty, led by Samuel Adams, decided on 13 December 1773
that the tea must not be unloaded, nor could it remain onboard twenty
days and thus be seized for sale by customs officials. On 16 December,
the night the Sons of Liberty planned their raid, a public protest at
the Old South Meeting House turned rowdy after someone suggested dumping
the tea in the harbor. As protesters stormed out of the meeting house,
they met Sons of Liberty, costumed as Narragansett Indians, on their way
to do the same thing. With a crowd of perhaps 1,000 Bostonians
following, the "Indians" and volunteers stormed the three ships and in a
three-hour fracas, broke open all 342 of the tea chests and dumped them
into the harbor, which was at low tide.

The attackers were conscientious, and they damaged no ship or other
cargo. Only one man was injured, knocked unconscious by a collapsing
winch. However, they had ruined 18,000 pounds worth of tea and
infuriated the British government, particularly the king. Despite
arresting a barber named Francis Eckley, who had been caught bragging
about his participation, the Boston authorities were unable to find
anyone who could identify the protestors. Patriots tarred and feathered
Eckley's accuser in retaliation. George III specifically noted the Tea
Party in his address to Parliament, and he and Prime Minister Lord North
pushed through the Coercive Acts by April 1774. The Coercive Acts were
designed to punish Boston and the colony of Massachusetts. They sparked
further protests and eventually, war between Britain and her American
colonies.

Although usually considered by itself, the Boston Tea Party was a
natural growth of other protests against the British administration in
Boston, centered on royal governor Thomas Hutchinson and his
subordinates. Until the publication of Thomas Paine's Common Sense in
1776, these protests were notable in their careful avoidance of blaming
George III, instead focusing on his council or colonial administrators.
The costumes and violence of the Tea Party were also an outgrowth of
regular crowd demonstrations in Boston, including burning Catholic
figures in effigy, vandalizing administrator's homes or intimidating
customs and tax inspectors. Even when not politically motivated, the
apprentices and laborers of Boston also engaged in highly charged
territorial contests that often ended in injuries and rowdy outbursts,
and were led by men who took pains to hide their appearance using
symbolic disguises. In all these respects, it was not the Tea Party
itself that was unusual, but the British reaction to it.

Bibliography

Griswold, Wesley S. The Night the Revolution Began. Brattleboro, Vt.:
The Stephen Green Press, 1972.

Labarre, Benjamin Woods. The Boston Tea Party. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1964.

Shaw, Peter. American Patriots and the Rituals of Revolution. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1981.

—Margaret D. Sankey

http://www.answers.com/topic/boston-tea-party

Remember Dave, this is the new 'Tea Party', not to be confused with the old 'Tea
Party'. Though a good Marxist tool such as yourself is good at spreading Barry's
message.

dave wrote:

US History Encyclopedia: Boston Tea Party
Top
Home Library History, Politics & Society US History Encyclopedia

The British East India Company, facing severe financial reverses,
convinced Parliament to allow them to sell tea in the American colonies
at a price that would undercut even smuggled Dutch tea, and raise
revenue while clearing their warehouses of a huge surplus.
Unfortunately, this tea would still carry the despised three-pence per
pound tax, which had remained as a token duty, and would be sold through
only a handful of dealers in America. This high-handed policy united
small merchants, left out of the deal, with patriot organizations that
protested the tax. The arrival of the tea ships Eleanor, Dartmouth and
Beaver sparked public protest in Boston, including public meetings,
fliers and harassment of the consignees, who took shelter in Castle
William to avoid the crowds.

The Sons of Liberty, led by Samuel Adams, decided on 13 December 1773
that the tea must not be unloaded, nor could it remain onboard twenty
days and thus be seized for sale by customs officials. On 16 December,
the night the Sons of Liberty planned their raid, a public protest at
the Old South Meeting House turned rowdy after someone suggested dumping
the tea in the harbor. As protesters stormed out of the meeting house,
they met Sons of Liberty, costumed as Narragansett Indians, on their way
to do the same thing. With a crowd of perhaps 1,000 Bostonians
following, the "Indians" and volunteers stormed the three ships and in a
three-hour fracas, broke open all 342 of the tea chests and dumped them
into the harbor, which was at low tide.

The attackers were conscientious, and they damaged no ship or other
cargo. Only one man was injured, knocked unconscious by a collapsing
winch. However, they had ruined 18,000 pounds worth of tea and
infuriated the British government, particularly the king. Despite
arresting a barber named Francis Eckley, who had been caught bragging
about his participation, the Boston authorities were unable to find
anyone who could identify the protestors. Patriots tarred and feathered
Eckley's accuser in retaliation. George III specifically noted the Tea
Party in his address to Parliament, and he and Prime Minister Lord North
pushed through the Coercive Acts by April 1774. The Coercive Acts were
designed to punish Boston and the colony of Massachusetts. They sparked
further protests and eventually, war between Britain and her American
colonies.

Although usually considered by itself, the Boston Tea Party was a
natural growth of other protests against the British administration in
Boston, centered on royal governor Thomas Hutchinson and his
subordinates. Until the publication of Thomas Paine's Common Sense in
1776, these protests were notable in their careful avoidance of blaming
George III, instead focusing on his council or colonial administrators.
The costumes and violence of the Tea Party were also an outgrowth of
regular crowd demonstrations in Boston, including burning Catholic
figures in effigy, vandalizing administrator's homes or intimidating
customs and tax inspectors. Even when not politically motivated, the
apprentices and laborers of Boston also engaged in highly charged
territorial contests that often ended in injuries and rowdy outbursts,
and were led by men who took pains to hide their appearance using
symbolic disguises. In all these respects, it was not the Tea Party
itself that was unusual, but the British reaction to it.

Bibliography

Griswold, Wesley S. The Night the Revolution Began. Brattleboro, Vt.:
The Stephen Green Press, 1972.

Labarre, Benjamin Woods. The Boston Tea Party. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1964.

Shaw, Peter. American Patriots and the Rituals of Revolution. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1981.

—Margaret D. Sankey

http://www.answers.com/topic/boston-tea-party

dxAce wrote:
Remember Dave, this is the new 'Tea Party', not to be confused with the old 'Tea
Party'. Though a good Marxist tool such as yourself is good at spreading Barry's
message.


If you don't want them to be confused with the original Tea Party, why
call them "tea parties"?

I am a libertarian socialist, not a Marxist. We don't believe in "the
state". Period.

U.S.Military Snipers.
www.cryptome.org/index.html
cuhulin

On Apr 15, 9:19*am, dave wrote:

I am a libertarian socialist, not a Marxist. *We don't believe in "the
state". *Period.


Leftist anarchist, right?

Michael W. Bryant, the embarrassment to LTI who once claimed to have a PhD,
wrote:

On Apr 15, 9:19 am, dave wrote:

I am a libertarian socialist, not a Marxist. We don't believe in "the
state". Period.

Leftist anarchist, right?

You're a dumbass lying dufus, right?

dxAce
Michigan
USA

The Obama Administration: A far better circus than the Ringling Brothers could
have ever conceived.

And, as always, don't let your children attend Louisville Technical Institute.
They've hired at least one dufus who once claimed to have a PhD, and who knows,
there may be more dufi there.

Mike wrote:
On Apr 15, 9:19 am, dave wrote:
I am a libertarian socialist, not a Marxist. We don't believe in "the
state". Period.


Leftist anarchist, right?

I support some programs that are identified with the left, I suppose.
But I certainly don't subscribe to all or even most of their philosophy.

Left Libertarian isn't a bad place to be as you'd be in the company of
Gandhi and Mandella.

dxAce wrote:

Michael W. Bryant, the embarrassment to LTI who once claimed to have a PhD,
wrote:

On Apr 15, 9:19 am, dave wrote:
I am a libertarian socialist, not a Marxist. We don't believe in "the
state". Period.
Leftist anarchist, right?

You're a dumbass lying dufus, right?

http://www.aboutsociology.com/sociol...rian_socialism