Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: 4th of July question for members -- why did the boston tea party occurr

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    4th of July question for members -- why did the boston tea party occurr

    The truth will amaze ! Reply with an answer -- if you don't mind be shown to have poor recollection of your history.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Because the incoming legal tea from the East India Co. was suddenly cheaper than the tea smuggled in by folks like John Hancock--yeah, that John Hancock, a ship owner.

    And, the incoming tea threatened to undermine the cost and profitability of the smugglers.

    It is an amazing story, but the deeper lesson is how much hype and nobility we've been fed about more than few Founders and men like Lincoln.

    For example, when you clear away all the adulation, you find that many of the Framers of the constitution at the constitutional convention were politicians and lawyers. And, very many of them ended up in the new national *ahem* federal government. Oh, like maybe now we can start to understand why the constitution has a few loopholes in it, such as why the door wasn't closed on implied powers.

    And, wipe away the adulation and suddenly you can understand why the Federalists were oh-so willing to violate the First Amendment of the constitution they argued and toiled so strenuously for--the Alien and Sedition Acts. Its because plenty of them were politicians.

    And, wipe away the parchment idolatry, and you can see that there were sneaky dealings at the constitutional convention. A glaring example is that the pro-constitution crowd called themselves Federalists. Ha! That was public-relations image genius! Why? Because the states already had a federal union under the Articles of Confederation. At that time, the words federation and confederation were synonymous. But, by calling themselves Federalists, they forced the anti-constitution crowd to be called Anti-federalists, giving the connotation that they were opposed to a genuine federation of independent states.

    The real lessons are not in our typical grade-school history books. It all comes down to power and money. Money gets and supports the power. Power needs money. Power is what too many of them want.
    Last edited by Citizen; 07-04-2012 at 07:11 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran Glock9mmOldStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,047
    I think Citizen nailed it. What we need in my honest opinion is a government ran by common people, not just the rich, or career politicians. Will we ever have that? That is a question only time will answer.

    Giving up civil rights for security is a certain way to lose both!

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Glock9mmOldStyle View Post
    Giving up civil rights for security is a certain way to lose both!
    I think ol' Ben Franklin made a artificial distinction in order to make a point.

    Rights are security.

    "Oh, Mr. Government man? And, when I give up my rights so you can protect me from whatever, what is going to protect me from you?"
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    The truth will amaze ! Reply with an answer -- if you don't mind be shown to have poor recollection of your history.
    Because we were being forced to purchase and pay a tax on tea that only the King allowed. This was of course cost prohibitive to the colonists, and they were pissed!
    "I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

  6. #6
    Regular Member The Wolfhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Henrico, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697

    Essentially all of the above.

    Add in that the Colonial Charters did not allow Parliment to apply taxes to the colonies. This being about the sixth or seventh attempt at such in a few years, it was easy to rouse the rabble over it. Intersting side note is that the "Tea Partiers" paid for any damages to the ships. The target was the King's tea and they tossed so much over the side that they had to walk across the floating bales to throw more in to the harbor.
    Last edited by The Wolfhound; 07-19-2012 at 12:16 PM.
    Appleseed, Virginia State Coordinator
    Are you a Rifleman yet?
    http://appleseedinfo.org

  7. #7
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Why have a tea party? Uh, cuz they were thirsty? I dunno.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Fallon, NV
    Posts
    577
    This is a Hot Topic?
    Hoka hey

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by FallonJeeper View Post
    This is a Hot Topic?
    I prefer my tea hot, although sometimes I do drink it iced.
    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    It was a protest of taxation without representation, primarily against the British Parliament's 1773 Tea Act.

    Because the tax increased the price of tea, the colonists were rarely buying tea. Sales plummeted. Three ships loaded with tea were sitting in Boston Harbor because the local officials in Boston (primarily Gov Hutcheson) refused to return the unsold tea to Britain, and wanted the colonists to pay the import duty, even though none of the tea was purchased and all of it was to be returned! The Sons of Liberty used this as a political protest, dumping the tea into the Habor as a way of saying "hell no" to being taxed without being represented by elected representatives, the concept of which violated British law, specifically, Britain's Bill of Rights of 1689.
    Last edited by since9; 07-27-2012 at 01:12 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •