That the Boston tea party was inspired by taxation is a historical fact. That this taxation was unfair is merely an opinion, although when linked to representation I suppose it’s quite a sound one…
Ever heard "No Taxation Without Representation"? That is why it was unfair taxation. The British was not giving the colonies representation for the taxes
Despite how this is taught in the USA today, the Boston Tea Party was came about when high taxation on tea imports saw the rise of tea smuggling, so the British government reduced the tax rate.
This undercut the smugglers' price and so the taxed shipments of tea on the ships in Boston harbour were cheaper than the smugglers'. Hence, they boarded the ships and turned all the tea into the harbour and so restored and probably increased the price of the tea they had to sell.
At the time, it was not a political protest, but a criminal act, but only later was it romantically linked to the rebellion.
And for those commenting on "no taxation without representation", a pivotal reason the vote was not given to the colonies was because they were only ever seen as trading posts. Britain had no interest in colonising America, despite what the comical Patriot film with Mel Gibson might suggest. The native Americans were better under Britain than the new USA, as history has shown.
The smuggling is absolutely true but was only a criminal act because Americans were simply buying tea from the Dutch. This didn't fit in with British mercantilist policies for their trading posts. Therefore, the Tea Party fits into the Revolutionary narrative as a heroic act because it was a part of a progression of rising tensions that began after the Seven Years War wherein the British started to take more unwanted direct control over the colonies. Rebel smugglers defied Britian to make money but also tapped into that rebellious, anti-interventionist spirit that was ignited by the Navigation Acts and indignation over the fact that while Britain continued to see America as a continent of trading posts, Americans felt they should receive equal standing or independence to govern themselves politically and economically freely. Britain gave Americans neither and therefore the tea -- symbolic of the British-- had to go!
Additionally, because now you've really got me thinking!
The men who boarded the ships weren't simply trying to improve their smuggling business. We know this because colonial law required that taxes on tea had to be paid in whole within 20 days of landing. By throwing the tea overboard, the taxes would not have to be collected.
Final thought. There were massive boycotts in America against British tea. Even if it did make it to American soil, the majority of Americans were drinking homemade teas or Dutch tea. Therefore, the impact of this cheap surplus tea from Britian would have been minimal as most understood the ruse of selling surplus tea as a trick to persuade Americans to pay taxes thereby proving that the British had the right to tax.
Boston Brahmin is such a funny turn of phrase for a group of people whose ancestors started out as fanatically anti-aristocrat and were so disgusted by medieval Christmas celebrations they banned the holiday altogether.
This undercut the smugglers' price and so the taxed shipments of tea on the ships in Boston harbour were cheaper than the smugglers'. Hence, they boarded the ships and turned all the tea into the harbour and so restored and probably increased the price of the tea they had to sell.
At the time, it was not a political protest, but a criminal act, but only later was it romantically linked to the rebellion.
And for those commenting on "no taxation without representation", a pivotal reason the vote was not given to the colonies was because they were only ever seen as trading posts. Britain had no interest in colonising America, despite what the comical Patriot film with Mel Gibson might suggest. The native Americans were better under Britain than the new USA, as history has shown.
The smuggling is absolutely true but was only a criminal act because Americans were simply buying tea from the Dutch. This didn't fit in with British mercantilist policies for their trading posts. Therefore, the Tea Party fits into the Revolutionary narrative as a heroic act because it was a part of a progression of rising tensions that began after the Seven Years War wherein the British started to take more unwanted direct control over the colonies. Rebel smugglers defied Britian to make money but also tapped into that rebellious, anti-interventionist spirit that was ignited by the Navigation Acts and indignation over the fact that while Britain continued to see America as a continent of trading posts, Americans felt they should receive equal standing or independence to govern themselves politically and economically freely. Britain gave Americans neither and therefore the tea -- symbolic of the British-- had to go!
The men who boarded the ships weren't simply trying to improve their smuggling business. We know this because colonial law required that taxes on tea had to be paid in whole within 20 days of landing. By throwing the tea overboard, the taxes would not have to be collected.
Final thought. There were massive boycotts in America against British tea. Even if it did make it to American soil, the majority of Americans were drinking homemade teas or Dutch tea. Therefore, the impact of this cheap surplus tea from Britian would have been minimal as most understood the ruse of selling surplus tea as a trick to persuade Americans to pay taxes thereby proving that the British had the right to tax.