The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism
- Thread starter Dante
- Start date
The Duke
Diamond Member
- Jul 30, 2022
- 43,061
- 55,984
- 3,488
Dante would have been a snitchy Loyalist and moved to Canada had he lived back then.
Dante
I have always been here
- Thread starter
- #23
Nah, what was coming was what happened with other British colonies. Colonists in America were not alone in their arguments against the Parliament and influencers in the Sovereign's Court. And the Boston Tea Party was not about breaking with the Sovereign.
Dante
I have always been here
- Thread starter
- #24
Those loyalist were here much longer than many rebels. They made the colony what it was at the time. Your views on colonial American and early USA history are stuck at the Junior High School level.
Snitchy?
Some of the most celebrated arguments came from Colonists who later broke with the rebels over going against the Sovereign. They were loyalists, yet the rebels incited groups using the arguments of those very loyalists.
Mushroom
Gold Member
Wow, alright.
Therefore ANTIFA and BLM are also acts of terrorism, if that is your definition. Care to comment on that?
Insurrectionist or Founding Father depends on who wins the ultimate war. IOW, J6 is not a slam dunk.A riotous mob trespassing, attempting seditious conspiracy, destroying private property, destroyed goods worth nearly $2 million in today’s money — all because they didn’t want to obey a duly passed law is considered - vandalism?
TNHarley
Diamond Member
- Sep 27, 2012
- 100,488
- 64,243
- 2,605
It was a precursor to the Revolution.
marvin martian
Diamond Member
Those loyalist were here much longer than many rebels. They made the colony what it was at the time. Your views on colonial American and early USA history are stuck at the Junior High School level.
Snitchy?
^^^This guy jerks off wearing a red coat, bowing to the king, and talking with a funny accent.
LOL
- Jun 22, 2020
- 23,178
- 26,374
- 2,288
You should really look up the definition of terrorism before posting an opinion piece that’s apparently done your thinking for you.
Mushroom
Gold Member
OK, now how do you have a single action both "sedition", which is inciting rebellion against the government, and destroying private property? You are aware that the two are pretty much mutually exclusive, right?
That action BTW was not against the government, but against the British East India Company, which had been given a tax free charter to be the only company to provide tea to the colonies. And the only taxes they were to pay were those collected against the Colonists by the Townshend Act. Which lifted all of the unconstitutional taxes against the colonies except for that on tea.
But not a single individual was harmed. And the value has long been debated, as that is the "insurance value". In reality, a lot of it had already spoiled and was undrinkable before it even arrived in Boston. A third of the cargo was green tea. Which not only was not popular in the colonies, it had a short shelf life and had most likely already spoiled in transit. The bulk of the black tea was also rather old, and unsellable in England.
In essence, it would be the equivalent of back in 1981 the US Government in order to try and bail out Chrysler decided to give them an exclusive contract to be the only car company allowed to sell vehicles in the United States. And that they could still collect the taxes charged for new car sales, but keep the money themselves. Oh, and the only car available in the US would be the 1981 Plymouth Reliant. And no other cars would be sold until those were all gone.
Mushroom
Gold Member
And that is the problem, what you have posted is no facts, all spin. And as you say, spin is not truth.
Thank you for admitting that.
Mushroom
Gold Member
What, nothing to say about that? Amazingly predictable.
Mushroom
Gold Member
Yet how are they not terrorism?
Or are you so obsessed on cherry picking that you refuse to recognize anything other than your very specific, demanding, and nonsensical definitions?
Winston
Platinum Member
Correct, the Boston Tea Party was not about breaking with the Sovereign. Hell, it wasn't even about the taxes. Matter of fact, the biggest driver of the Boston Tea Party was the loss of duties paid by the East India Tea Company. It was a direct response to the Tea Act of 1773.
The Tea Act did not raise any taxes. Prior to the Tea Act companies were required to route all trade goods going to the colonies through England, and that required them to pay duties, in England. People like John Hancock and Samual Adams, they were smugglers, and they made good money smuggling in merchandise, like tea and rum, directly into the colonies and avoiding the British duties.
But the East India Tea Company had a big stinkin problem, mostly 18 million pounds of tea rotting away in warehouses. And you know who owned stock in the East India Tea Company? The King, the Lords, and damn near every member of parliament. So, they passed the Tea Act and it gave the East India Tea Company a break on the British, duties. Actually, it just refunded them back the taxes they had to pay, which were about 25%.
Well now that shit pissed off Hancock, Adams, and damn near every tea merchant in the country something fierce. Now, that nasty ass rotting tea was cheaper than the smuggled Dutch tea. But the merchants were like, no way, we ain't buying that shit. All the consignees for the tea, in New York,
Philadelphia, and Charleston resigned before the tea arrived. Let's just say they were made an offer they couldn't refuse. But not Boston, two of the consignees were sons of the governor. The governor threatened to land the tea under cannon fire. The Boston Tea Party happened on the night before the deadline of Boston landing the tea without force.
Now, the going theory is that Hamilton, Samual Adams, and the Sons of Liberty were worried that, since the legally imported tax was no cheaper than the smuggled tea, well the colonists would get used to paying that tax, taxation without representation. Yeah, sure. And it had nothing to do with smugglers potentially losing their competitive advantage.
The Boston Tea Party was not about taxes. It was smugglers, corporate subsidies, and a corrupt legislature, period.
Dante
I have always been here
- Thread starter
- #40
Good gawd...https://www.masshist.org/revolution/teaparty.phpOK, now how do you have a single action both "sedition", which is inciting rebellion against the government, and destroying private property? You are aware that the two are pretty much mutually exclusive, right?
That action BTW was not against the government, but against the British East India Company, which had been given a tax free charter to be the only company to provide tea to the colonies. And the only taxes they were to pay were those collected against the Colonists by the Townshend Act. Which lifted all of the unconstitutional taxes against the colonies except for that on tea.
But not a single individual was harmed. And the value has long been debated, as that is the "insurance value". In reality, a lot of it had already spoiled and was undrinkable before it even arrived in Boston. A third of the cargo was green tea. Which not only was not popular in the colonies, it had a short shelf life and had most likely already spoiled in transit. The bulk of the black tea was also rather old, and unsellable in England.
In essence, it would be the equivalent of back in 1981 the US Government in order to try and bail out Chrysler decided to give them an exclusive contract to be the only car company allowed to sell vehicles in the United States. And that they could still collect the taxes charged for new car sales, but keep the money themselves. Oh, and the only car available in the US would be the 1981 Plymouth Reliant. And no other cars would be sold until those were all gone.
From the article, posted in the OP, Post #1: Two separate items listed, which are mutually exclusive?
to commit seditious conspiracy and destroy private property
From the article, posted in the OP, Post #1: Actions not against the government?
all because they didn’t want to obey a duly passed law
Facts: not like your distorted opinions "the tea would be taxed at the point of entry in colonial ports." The East India Company was not taxing anyone. The British Parliament was.
"Boston's consignees petition the governor to safeguard the tea once it arrives, but with British forces confined to Castle William since the unfortunate events of the Boston Massacre, Hutchinson is powerless to oblige. The streets belong to the opposition." (sounds like ANTIFA to me).
Governor Hutchinson is incensed, calling the dumping of the tea high treason
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
