The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism

[Dante]

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.

Good gawd...

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

https://www.masshist.org/revolution/teaparty.php

 

[Dante]

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?

They who? You keep talking about two separate groups. So Dante never commented upon your delusional claims -- inferring Dante did or didn't agree on people being terrorists.

Dante did say ANTIFA are anarchists. What do anarchists do? Three point if you know Italian-American history.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

History and genuine American patriotism is not the strong point of our mouthy Trump supporters like The Duke.

I have no problem at all with the actions taken during the original Boston Tea Party … but I know my history and would not denounce others who did have objections … for example Benjamin Franklyn and George Washington!

What some of our often big-mouthed “super-patriots” here perhaps don’t realize is that in December 1773 when the Tea Party occurred most English-speaking Americans still considered themselves part of the British Empire and entitled to the “rights of Englishmen.” Most then did not seek independence but just better and fairer colonial administration, with more local autonomy and representation in the British parliament.

Of course already by December of 1773, many others in Massachusetts and beyond were inspired by the Tea Party rebellion over “Taxation without Representation,” including the once very conservative John Adams.

Adams had himself — back in 1770 — bravely (and I suspect wisely) defended the nine common British soldiers who were imprisoned and on trial for their hapless roles during the infamous “Boston Massacre,” when they were harassed and cornered by a crowd of several hundred hostile Boston radicals and “trouble-makers.”

One of the great truths of revolutionary struggle is that the first fool to throw a rock, shoot a gun, break into a government building or raid a commercial property … is not always the truest patriot or wisest “revolutionary.”

Why Some Founding Fathers Disapproved of the Boston Tea Party | HISTORY

While many American patriots gushed about the effectiveness of the ‘Destruction of the Tea,’ others thought it went too far.

www.history.com

Why John Adams Defended British Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials | HISTORY

The future American president represented Redcoats accused of murdering American patriots in an incident that helped spark the Revolution.

www.history.com

 

[Winston]

Good gawd...

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

https://www.masshist.org/revolution/teaparty.php

LONDON, Feb. 2, 1774

Gentlemen: I received the Honour of your Letter dated Decr. 21, containing a distinct Account of the Proceedings at Boston relative to the Tea imported there, and of the Circumstances that occasioned its Destruction. I communicated the same to Lord Dartmouth, with some other Advices of the same import. It is yet unknown what Measures will be taken here on the Occasion; but the Clamour against the Proceedings is high and general. I am truly concern’d, as I believe all considerate Men are with you, that there should seem to any a Necessity for carrying Matters to such Extremity, as, in a Dispute about Publick Rights, to destroy private Property; This (notwithstanding the Blame justly due to those who obstructed the Return of the Tea) it is impossible to justify with People so prejudiced in favour of the Power of Parliament to tax America, as most are in this Country.

As the India Company however are not our Adversaries, and the offensive Measure of sending their Teas did not take its Rise with them, but was an Expedient of the Ministry to serve them and yet avoid a Repeal of the old Act, I cannot but wish & hope that before any compulsive Measures are thought of here, our General court will have shewn a Disposition to repair the Damage and make Compensation to the Company. This all our Friends here wish with me; and that if War is finally to be made upon us, which some threaten, an Act or violent injustice on our part, unrectified, may not give a colourable Pretence for it. A speedy Reparation will immediately set us right in the Opinion of all Europe. And tho’ the Mischief was the Act of Persons unknown, yet as probably they cannot be found or brought to answer for it, there seems to be some reasonable Claim on the Society at large in which it happened. Making voluntarily such Reparation can be no Dishonour to us or Prejudice to our Claim or Rights, since Parliament here has frequently considered in the same Light similar Cases; and only a few Years since, when a valuable Saw-mill, which had been destroyed by a Number of Persons supposed to be Sawyers, but unknown, a Grant was made out of the Publick Treasury of Two Thousand Pounds to the Owner as a Compensation—I hope in thus freely (and perhaps too forwardly) expressing my Sentiments & Wishes, I shall not give Offence to any. I am sure I mean well; being over with sincere Affection to my native Country, and great Respect to the Assembly and yourselves,

Gentlemen, Your most obedient and most humble Servant

B. FRANKLIN,

Benjamin Franklin's Views on The Boston Tea Party

Learn about Benjamin Franklin's views and thoughts on the Boston Tea Party. Visit the Boston Tea Party Ships & Museums to learn more.

www.bostonteapartyship.com

 

[Dante]

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.

Hell, it wasn't even about the taxes? - In the spring of 1773, the East India Company had a large amount of surplus tea on hand. To aid the failing company, thwart the smuggling of Dutch tea, and reassert its authority to levy taxes on the colonies, Parliament authorized the Tea Act on 10 May 1773. Tea sold in America would carry no duty for the East India Company; instead, the tea would be taxed at the point of entry in colonial ports. Consignees, or special agents, were appointed in Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, and Charleston to receive and sell the tea.

Nuance and technicalities: "The tea tax was kept in order to maintain Parliament’s right to tax the colonies. The Tea Act was not intended to anger American colonists, instead it was meant to be a bailout policy to get the British East India Company out of debt."

Dante: While it's technically true that the Tea Act was in fact a policy meant to bail out the British East India Company vs a tax, that is a claim taken out of full context. Many writers and historians like to argue this as if the tea tax itself was not a part of the issue. Of course the monopoly is teh spark that lit the fuse, but the dynamite was the long history of the taxes.

You've lost me here: "Now, the going theory is that Hamilton, Samuel Adams, and the Sons of Liberty were worried that..." Seriously, Hamilton? Good gawd.

 

[Robert W]

A horde of White men disguised themselves as Native Americans — coppering their faces and donning headdresses in the same tradition that would lead to blackfaced minstrel shows decades later — to commit seditious conspiracy and destroy private property. The riotous mob trespassed on three ships and destroyed goods worth nearly $2 million in today’s money — all because they didn’t want to obey a duly passed law.
I love this article, if for nothing else that it speaks truths, while asking serious questions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/13/boston-tea-party-anniversary-crime-patriot/

Opinion | Was the Boston Tea Party an act of terrorism? It depends.

The Boston Tea Party took on the British 250 years ago. It pitted one American value against another.

web.archive.org

Remind us please of how many sailors were killed?
Wasn't it merely a product of plants?

 

[Dante]

Remind us please of how many sailors were killed?
Wasn't it merely a product of plants?

Sailors?

Are you just waking up?

 

[BackAgain]

History and genuine American patriotism is not the strong point of our mouthy Trump supporters like The Duke.

I have no problem at all with the actions taken during the original Boston Tea Party … but I know my history and would not denounce others who did have objections … for example Benjamin Franklyn and George Washington!
What some of our often big-mouthed “super-patriots” here perhaps don’t realize is that in December 1773 when the Tea Party occurred most English-speaking Americans still considered themselves part of the British Empire and entitled to the “rights of Englishmen.” Most then did not seek independence but just better and fairer colonial administration, with more local autonomy and representation in the British parliament.

Of course already by December of 1773, many others in Massachusetts and beyond were inspired by the Tea Party rebellion over “Taxation without Representation,” including the once very conservative John Adams. Adams had himself — back in 1770 — bravely (and I suspect wisely) defended the nine common British soldiers who were imprisoned and on trial for their hapless roles during the infamous “Boston Massacre,” when they were harassed and cornered by a crowd of several hundred hostile Boston radicals and “trouble-makers.”

One of the great truths of revolutionary struggle is that the first fool to throw a rock, shoot a gun, break into a government building or raid a commercial property … is not always the truest patriot or wisest “revolutionary.”

https://www.history.com/news/boston-tea-party-critics-ben-franklinr

Why John Adams Defended British Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials | HISTORY

The future American president represented Redcoats accused of murdering American patriots in an incident that helped spark the Revolution.

www.history.com

Generally, good post.

But not exactly on point. The Dainty’s thread topic (see its headline) is that the BTP somehow amounted to “terrorism.”

It didn’t then. It wouldn’t now, either.

The Dainty (typical of so many of our liberals) seems to assume that words have no actual meaning. But alas for him (and them), words do have meaning. “Terrorism” isn’t to be found in what happened at the Boston Tea Party.

 

[Robert W]

ANTIFA (Anarchists), and BLM different groups, different causes, different actions... you're still stuck on stupid. No cure for that. Sorry.

Antifa and BLM are plainly criminals. And of course both are stuck on stupid.

 

[Libby von H]

Try as one might, it's difficult to ignore the facts:

A horde of White men disguised themselves as Native Americans — coppering their faces and donning headdresses in the same tradition that would lead to blackfaced minstrel shows decades later —

to commit seditious conspiracy

destroy private property

The riotous mob trespassed on three ships and destroyed goods worth nearly $2 million in today’s money

all because they didn’t want to obey a duly passed law.

But they aren't the facts

" The tea in the harbor was a cog in the global empire's system of taxation and trade directed from London. The East India Company spanned the globe in its pursuit of profits- a veritable 18th century vampire squid. The sale of the tea would enhance their monopoly and the custom duties would pay the salary of the despised Governor of the Massachusetts colony. Interestingly, patriots in Philadelphia, New York and other cities had similar plans. But the always anxious Bostonians beat them to the punch. "

so1) wrong that is was just Boston and 2) wrong that it was unmotivated and 3) the law was not passed --- as many before had not---with deference to the almost 150 years of self-government,esp in Massachusetts

 

[Robert W]

Sailors?

Are you just waking up?

No, why ask me? It was on my part part of the rhetoric that is often on this forum. I did nothing unusual.

 

[BackAgain]

Sailors?

Are you just waking up?

Those British things that ran the waves between the Colonies and England were called “ships.” Merchant or otherwise, the folks who ran the ships were known as “sailors.” And the point was that the participants in the BTP didn’t kill any of them.

 

[Winston]

Generally, good post.

But not exactly on point. The Dainty’s thread topic (see its headline) is that the BTP somehow amounted to “terrorism.”

It didn’t then. It wouldn’t now, either.

The Dainty (typical of so many of our liberals) seems to assume that words have no actual meaning. But alas for him (and them), words do have meaning. “Terrorism” isn’t to be found in what happened at the Boston Tea Party.

And tho’ the Mischief was the Act of Persons unknown, yet as probably they cannot be found or brought to answer for it, there seems to be some reasonable Claim on the Society at large in which it happened.

Franklin disagrees

 

[BackAgain]

And tho’ the Mischief was the Act of Persons unknown, yet as probably they cannot be found or brought to answer for it, there seems to be some reasonable Claim on the Society at large in which it happened.

Franklin disagrees

No. He never suggested it was “terrorism,” you dishonest dildo.

 

[Winston]

Hell, it wasn't even about the taxes? - In the spring of 1773, the East India Company had a large amount of surplus tea on hand. To aid the failing company, thwart the smuggling of Dutch tea, and reassert its authority to levy taxes on the colonies, Parliament authorized the Tea Act on 10 May 1773. Tea sold in America would carry no duty for the East India Company; instead, the tea would be taxed at the point of entry in colonial ports. Consignees, or special agents, were appointed in Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, and Charleston to receive and sell the tea.

Nuance and technicalities: "The tea tax was kept in order to maintain Parliament’s right to tax the colonies. The Tea Act was not intended to anger American colonists, instead it was meant to be a bailout policy to get the British East India Company out of debt."

Dante: While it's technically true that the Tea Act was in fact a policy meant to bail out the British East India Company vs a tax, that is a claim taken out of full context. Many writers and historians like to argue this as if the tea tax itself was not a part of the issue. Of course the monopoly is teh spark that lit the fuse, but the dynamite was the long history of the taxes.

You've lost me here: "Now, the going theory is that Hamilton, Samuel Adams, and the Sons of Liberty were worried that..." Seriously, Hamilton? Good gawd.

History is written by the victors. That is most certainly the case when it comes to the American Revoution and the founders. Yes, they were real heroes, Ceasar Rodney tops my list. But it is comical to believe that smugglers like Hamilton and Samuel Adams were concerned about "taxation without representation". The Netherlands did not impose a duty on tea that moved through their ports, smuggling that Dutch tea provided a competitive advantage to the smugglers. That advantage went away when the East India Tea company got a rebate on the duties they paid via the Tea Act. The reality is they had no damn problem with the tax as long as it provided that competitive advantage, the claim otherwise is merely historical revisionism by the victors.

Alexander Hamilton was a snake in the grass. Sure, he was all about screwing the British, as long as it put money in his pocket. And he had no problem screwing the colonists, if it put money in his pocket. Take the whiskey tax, the whole reason behind it was to buyback the Continental scripts at full face value. Who owned those scripts at the time, while it was Hamilton, Washington, and other "patriots" and founders.

Continental scripts were merely IOU's issued by the state militias. They would roll up to some farmer, take his cows, take his crops, take his gunpowder, and stroke him an IOU. At the end of the war, those same farmers were in a world of hurt. FIelds in disrepair, needing seed, they needed cash, real hard currency, and people like Hamilton swooped in and bought those IOU's for pennies on the dollar. Then, one of the first act of the new Congress was to agree to purchase those IOU's at full face value. I mean the scoundrels in Congress, insider trading, don't hold a candle to the founders. The "commoners" of America have been getting screwed since day one.

 

[Winston]

No. He never suggested it was “terrorism,” you dishonest dildo.

You are delusional. First, was "terrorism" even a term back then? I mean precisely what do you think, "mischief" means? And note, Franklin said the culprits couldn't be found, so the "society" should pay the price, should make compensation. Can you say "Gaza"?

Yes, the Boston Tea Party was a bunch of terrorists, destroying private property, attacking a public company. I mean I don't see you defending animal rights activists and environmentalists that destroy private property as "patriots", and the federal government is prosecuting them as terrorists. Hell, you ain't got enough sense to come in out of the rain.

 

[whitehall]

I guess it's understandable that today's historically impaired, generally anti-American left would confuse a symbolic demonstration with terrorism. The Brits weren't exactly terrorized by a bunch of Colonists dressed as Indians throwing teabags into the harbor but the act tended to unite the colonies against unjust British taxation.

 

[K9Buck]

This is what you believe?

verb: sabotage;

1. deliberately destroy, damage, or obstruct (something), especially for political or military advantage.

Yes, the Boston Tea Party was an act of sabotage.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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?

Not even because the men paid for everything. It was a statement against unfair taxation. Taxes might not have been so bad if England had provided some benefit from the taxes paid. As explained in the Declaration of Independence, there was no return on the taxes.

 

[Robert W]

I guess it's understandable that today's historically impaired, generally anti-American left would confuse a symbolic demonstration with terrorism. The Brits weren't exactly terrorized by a bunch of Colonists dressed as Indians throwing teabags into the harbor but the act tended to unite the colonies against unjust British taxation.

The unjust taxation of this century by far surpasses any unjust tax paid by the Colonies.They had no clue what unjust stands for.