Gonna be honest, if we take a look at the Boston Tea Party from an objective point of view, it was a dumb idea with terrible repercussions for Massachusetts. Great Britain shut down Boston Harbour, disbanded the civil government and put Massachusetts into martial law. If you’re gonna rebel, then rebel instead of doing this halfway shit that only makes the enemy aware of your intentions.
I know I’m going to get downvoted because I’m attacking an American founding myth, but really—what did the Boston Tea Party really accomplish?
It helped spread the word of rebellion and reinforced how tyrannical the Brits were being by their reaction.
Sometimes people need motivation and the motivating act itself does not need to be successful. This can be necessary even when everyone knows that the problems are, because someone has to take the first (or second or third) steps to motive the rest to act.
Doesn’t work everytime, look at tank man
It worked that time though. 250 years later we’re still talking about it being a inflection point. Shit even Tank Man is used as an anti-Chinese government symbol of resistance.
Nah you’re good. It’s part of the myth because of all you just mentioned, not because it was a genius move. It ratcheted up the issues and violence, but as you say was not individually a bright idea.
Great Britain shut down Boston Harbour, disbanded the civil government and put Massachusetts into martial law.
That seems like perfect conditions for getting people who were previously on the fence about rebellion, right on to your side.
Just a side note: it’s more accurate to say it was England because the UK was not formed until a few decades later.
I changed UK to Great Britain. I’m pretty sure the Acts of Union were in 1707.
Of course it’s many people collaborating. So intermediate steps actually matter, even if in hindsight they seem unnecessary.
Well I think jumping to shooting representatives of the crown would have just ended with the execution of the handful of conspirators down for that. I see the value in taking steps between the starting point and your goal. You can build a larger network as your less radical actions gain notoriety. When your tyrant incites war, as they do, you’ll have a bunch of supporters that wouldn’t have otherwise picked up arms from the outset
The trick is to dress as Native Americans when you spill all the tea, then blame the raid on Antifa.
What happened was England was turning a blind eye towards smuggling into and out of the American colonies because it cost more to try and enforce taxes.
Eventually England did seize a bunch of smuggled tea, diverted it to England to be taxed as a matter of principle, which made smuggled tea more expensive than legal tea.
So the smugglers dumped the legal tea into the harbor, driving it’s price up and allowing the smugglers to sell at a high enough price they could stay in operation.
They 100% knew they were driving up the price of tea and negatively effecting their communities…
They just liked money more.
It wasn’t a protest, it was economical warfare that only helped the rich smugglers and fucked everyone else over.
It makes sense the average American didn’t know better back then, but it’s 2024, there’s zero excuse not to know this shit.
Do you have a source for that?
On 10 June 1768, customs officials seized the Liberty, a sloop owned by leading Boston merchant John Hancock, on allegations that the ship had been involved in smuggling. Bostonians, already angry because the captain of the Romney had been impressing local sailors, began to riot. Customs officials fled to Castle William for protection. With John Adams serving as his lawyer, Hancock was prosecuted in a highly publicized trial by a vice-admiralty court, but the charges were eventually dropped.[92][93]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Townshend_Acts
Now, my first comment did make it sound like all of this happened in short order, but the back and forth over the Townshend acts went on for a very long time.
But due to those taxes and the efficiency of British naval shipping, smugglers just couldn’t compete. They could only beat legal prices if they shipped straight to/from America instead of physically routing all goods thru England.
It wasn’t just about taxes, it was merchants in England getting their cut. First crack at goods out of America, and a chance to beat prices on what was going into America.
I’m not sure if that’s the part you wanted me to source though. I touched on a bunch of things in a summary from memory, it would take a lot of effort to go back and cite a source for every piece of information I just spit out.
So I’m not doubling down and saying I remembered it perfectly, just that it helps to be specific what you want a source for. Otherwise the other person just guesses.
I feel it’s also important to keep in mind that part of the reason the British decided to care about this was an attempt to recoup the costs of the French and Indian War, which the colonists started.
In the “Resisting the Tea Act” section of the Wikipedia article, it notes that the East India Company was allowed to import tea directly into the colonies without first passing it through wholesale markets in England. The tea was then sold at a price of 2/- per pound, undercutting the price of smuggled Dutch tea, then priced at 2/1 per pound. This is secondary to the fact that the tea still was taxed at -/3 per pound, meaning the price was really 1/9 plus thruppence tax, but this tax was included in the sale price and paid quietly by the consignment agents after it was sold.
Mercantile pressure in America tried to force all the consignment agents in America to resign and were partially successful, except in Massachusetts, where the colonial governor urged the agents to stand their ground. The Sons of Liberty, an organisation of such people, attempted to force the first shipment aboard the ship Dartmouth to return to England without unloading its cargo (and thus causing the tax to be paid).
Being unsuccessful, the Sons of Liberty snuck aboard the Dartmouth, which was anchored in Boston Harbour but had not unloaded its cargo yet, and destroyed the tea aboard.
The tea was then sold at a price of 2/- per pound, undercutting the price of smuggled Dutch tea, then priced at 2/1 per pound. This is secondary to the fact that the tea still was taxed at -/3 per pound, meaning the price was really 1/9 plus thruppence tax
Ahhh, it all makes sense now
First of all, the year before that England had massacred colonists in Boston with their military. The tea party wasn’t a random destructive impulse, it was a response to violence and destruction. Second, the Philadelphia Tea Party simply sent the tea back, and that’s where the continental congress was founded and several colonies sent delegates to in order to form a proper organized resistance.
Yeah, absolutely, fight the power, though.
6 people. 6 people died during the Boston massacre. I have a feeling that this is still talked about more than the Wounded Knee massacre.
Moreover, future president John Adams defended the men of the 29th regiment in a Boston court. Two of them were found guilty of manslaughter, and the rest were found not guilty.
His argument was super fucked up, too. He said a bunch of really racist stuff. Heard he got a lot more tolerant as he got older, one of the few presidents whose entire life was so completely documented via letters and journals.
The Boston Massacre likely was a legitimate case of the soldiers feeding for their lives and acting in self-defense in the middle of an angry mob that was attacking them.
And the person who successfully defended the British soldiers in Court was John Adams, who was no monarchist. He was later the leading figure in declaring independence and was the second President of the United States.
Eh, the Boston Massacre was blown way out of proportion specifically to rile up anti-British sentiment. Those troops had been surrounded by a mob of several hundred people and verbally and physically assaulted for hours beforehand despite several attempts to deescalate. Honestly, the whole thing wasn’t Ashley Babbitt levels of FAFO, but it was up there.
Murdering six civilians in the streets was blown out of proportion? What number of people do you believe it is acceptable to murder in the streets? I’d like a citation on surrounded by a mob of several hundred, if you have it. EDIT: I found it but I also found that this happened before all of that:
On February 22, a mob of patriots attacked a known loyalist’s store. Customs officer Ebenezer Richardson lived near the store and tried to break up the rock-pelting crowd by firing his gun through the window of his home. His gunfire struck and killed an 11-year-old boy named Christopher Seider and further enraged the patriots.
Boston held 2,000 British soldiers and 16,000 colonists, btw.
TBH a USA more like Canada would not be a bad thing.
Homie here war of 1812 posting
It’s an outrage that Wikipedia still shows the outcome as being “inconclusive” rather than “decisive American defeat”
America could be like this, but you’re playing
America is like this, but somehow worse.
The tea was the target issue. Destroying the tea was much more than just a statement.
Also I don’t think we want to start reflecting our behaviors on the patterns of 1773 right?
Ah yes. Who shit in a bucket today? Anyone? Anyone fearing the poison tomato plant? Y’know we’re the only planet in the Universe with life on it? Amazing.
