• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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 [strike]national[/strike] *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:

Glock9mmOldStyle

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
2,038
Location
Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
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! :eek:
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Giving up civil rights for security is a certain way to lose both! :eek:

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?"
 

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
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!
 

The Wolfhound

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
728
Location
Henrico, Virginia, USA
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:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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:
Top