The Boston Tea Party and Historical Memory
Abstract
The American Tea Parties that were formed in Colonial New England have their roots in the Boston Tea Party. The Tea Party was regarded as a constitutional movement. In particular, the Boston Tea Party was established as a result of two issues that the British Empire was confronted with in the year 1765. The first issue was related to the financial challenges that were in line with the British East India Company.
The second factor was a result of a dispute on the extent to which the parliament had authority over its colonies. Attempts were made by the North ministry to resolve the above-mentioned issues as the fomenting of a revolution became a distinct possibility. The Boston Tea Party holds historical relevance in the United States based on its significance in launching a movement that would eventually gain the Colony's independence.
Introduction
The year 1773 was characterized by a raising of tensions that had for several years existed between the British Empire and its colonies in America (Allison, 2007). Britain had the objective of maintaining strong control over the Colonies. Meanwhile, influential Colonial leaders were demanding more autonomy over its affairs. In this regard, the Tea Act was passed by the British with a view of forcing the Colonies to import their tea exclusively from the East India Company. It is worth noting that the tea was sold by the British at cheaper prices. In this case, the Colonies were taxed for the tea. Ships that contained tea were sent to America by the British (Pollard & McVickar, 2014). When three ships full of tea docked at the Boston Harbor, a demand was made by the colonists that the leader that was concerned with the colony ensure that the ships had left the colony. Colonialists took it upon themselves to guard the ships themselves. In the early hours of the night, men who dressed up as Native Americans boarded the ships (Burgan, 2016). The tea that was contained in the ships was thrown into the water while a crowd gathered around the shores of the water and cheered them on. From a historical perspective, this event came to be known as the Boston Tea Party.
Use code first15 and get 15% OFF your 1st order!
This act of defiance infuriated King George III. Consequently, he played a major role in Parliament's passing of the Coercive Acts to punish the instigators of the Boston Tea Party (Malaspina, 2013). The law aggravated tension between Britain and the Colonies. The British sought to exert more control over the Colonies while the Colonies increasingly sought to subvert Britain's authority. The Boston Tea Party was among the significant events that eventually led to the Revolutionary War.
From a historical point of view, the Boston Tea Party is viewed as a catalyst for change based on the fact that the British could not ignore its meaning and what is implicated. The Tea Act that was initiated by the British government had major significance as a result of various factors. To begin with, the East India Tea Company was experiencing financial difficulties that could be resolved by the act as it would rid them of competition (Burgan, 2016). Moreover, the act was a representation of the dominance of England over the colonies. The act provided the implication that the King of England had the authority to tax the colonies. However, the tea was not utilized as a device in forcing taxation upon the Colonials; rather, the British forbid the Colonialists from buying the tea at cheaper prices. The act also had various impacts on Britain as it came up with various reactions as it was angry with the actions of the colonialists (Carp, 2010). The English then enacted a wide variety of laws that were aimed at punishing Boston. These laws were known as the Intolerable Acts. The first law was the closure of the port of Boston until the cost of the tea was repaid to the tea company. The second law involved banning elections and giving the King the sole authority to appoint the officials of the government. The third law was that the British officials accused of an offense were allowed to be tried specifically in England rather than by the colonial courts.
The last law permitted British soldiers to be housed privately if there was a lack of availability in other quarters. In tandem with the Colonies' counterreaction in 1774, the Continental Congress was organized to publicly air their grievances (Allison, 2007). A second Continental Congress was organized in 1775 (Pollard & McVickar, 2014). During this gathering, they decided to authorize the army and hire the first general in addition to creating its currency and ultimately seeking independence from Britain. Modern Tea Parties have been formed in the United States to fight for the Constitutional rights of Americans. They have continued the efforts established by the Boston Tea Party (Burgan, 2016). The Boston Tea Party has a historical memory of the formation of the Tea Party in America which has a major implication in laying the cornerstone of the American Constitution. The wide varieties of appropriations that are affiliated with the Boston Tea Party provide an indication of the power of rhetoric in the interpretation and appropriation of history for a wide range of partisan purposes. These appropriations provide a reminder that history is not just a chronicle of events.
The Tea Party has led to the introduction of public discussions on the U.S. Constitution with confinement on the libertarian fringes as well as on the conservative fringes. The Constitution has a major influence on the constitutional movement. As a result of the Tea Party, American citizens and their elected representatives engage in discussions on constitutional history (Burgan, 2016). More so, as a result of the Tea Party, the major focal point in the specified questions on the constitution has highly shifted in the Tea Party’s direction limited nature of reading the Constitution. It is however puzzling that even though the Tea Party is attached to a radical vision, the party is engaging in the mobilization of followers as well as attracting support in tandem with its constitutional claim in line with popular consciousness in addition to political practice.
Background of the Boston Tea Party
The Boston Tea Party was established as the primary result of two issues that the British Empire was confronted with in 1765 (Pollard & McVickar, 2014). The first issue was related to the financial challenges that were in tandem with the British East India Company. The second factor was a result of a dispute on the extent to which the parliament had authority over its colonies. The attempt by the North ministry in resolving the above-mentioned issues as issues reflected the possibility of the occurrence of a revolution. As the Europeans began to develop a taste for tea during the 17th century, rival companies formed with the aim of tea importation from China (Allison, 2007). In 1698, the British East India Company was given a monopoly by the British Parliament in importing tea (Burgan, 2016). As tea continued to gain popularity in the British colonies, the parliament worked at eliminating foreign competition through the enactment of an act in 1721 that mandated that Colonists could engage in importing tea only from Great Britain (Pollard & McVickar, 2014). Specifically, the East India Company failed in tea exportation, particularly to the other colonies. As required by the law, the company had to retail its tea at wholesale prices. The companies from Britain bought the tea and also facilitated exportation to the colonies where they ensured that it was sold back to the merchants in Charleston as well as in Boston and New York City.
Up to 1767, the East India Company was involved in paying the ad valorem tax estimated to be 25% on the tea that was exported to Great Britain (Carp, 2010). Additional taxes were laid on the tea that was sold by the government for consumption in Great Britain. The high taxes in the combination with the fact that the imported tea to the Dutch Republic did not face taxation by the Dutch government provided the implication that the Dutch smuggled tea could not be bought by the British citizens or the British government. Controversy arose between Great Britain in addition to the Colonies during the 1760s at the moment the parliament initially engaged in imposing a direct tax, particularly on the Colonies to raise revenue (Pollard & McVickar, 2014). Some of the Colonists known as Whigs objected to the initiated program of taxation while providing an argument that it was against Britain’s constitution. The British and Colonials agreed concerning the constitution that British citizens could not face taxation without first getting consent from their representatives. The U.S. Constitution is based on the protection of human rights which is now embraced by the Tea Party (Carp, 2010). There has been the creation of museums as a result of the activities that revolved around the Boston Tea Party from a historical perspective based on the fact that it was witnessed by the destruction of chests of tea. The Boston Tea Party activities exhibit diverse implications ranging from direct implications to indirect implications. This presents an opportunity for an in-depth understanding of the whole significance of the party at this time.
In 1767, with the view of aiding the East India Company in competing with the Dutch tea that was smuggled, the Indemnity Act was passed by the British Parliament to lower the rate of taxation on tea that was being used in Great Britain thus refunding the East India Company a 25% duty on the tea exported again to the Colonies (Burgan, 2016). To aid in offsetting this loss of the revenue accumulated by the government, the Townshend Revenue Act was passed by the Parliament in 1767. It provided new taxes with the inclusion of the tax on tea, particularly in the colonies (Pollard & McVickar, 2014). Rather than solving the problem of smuggling, the duties provided by the Townshend Revenue Act renewed the controversy on the right of the parliament in taxing the Colonies.
There was a rise of controversy between Great Britain and the Colonies during the 1760s at the moment when the Parliament sought to impose a direct tax specifically on the colonies to raise revenue (Allison, 2007). This new tax program was rejected and objected to by some Colonists based on the notion that they could not be subjected to taxes without their elected representatives’ permission. In the case of Great Britain, the implication was that the levying of the taxes could only be performed by the parliament colonists. On the other hand, the colonists did not participate in electing the members of parliament. Hence, an argument was made by the American Whigs that the Colonists were not in a position of being taxed other than being taxed only by their colonial assemblies. The Colonial protests resulted in the repealing of the Stamp Act of 1766 (Burgan, 2016). However, as a result of the Declaratory Act of 1766, the Parliament continued to hold the assertion that they had the right of legislating for the Colonies in all cases. Protests and boycotts were witnessed as a response to the renewed taxes that were spurred by the Townshend Revenue Act of 1767 (Pollard & McVickar, 2014). A non-importation agreement was organized by the merchants and a large number of the Colonists boycotted British tea. The parliament eventually responded to the protests by repealing the taxes provided by the Townshend Revenue Act in 1770 (Burgan, 2016). However, the repealing of this was witnessed by the exemption for the tea duty as the prime minister provided the assertion that the tea duty was a right to tax the American Colonialists. The taxes’ partial repeal ended the non-importation movement in October 1770. From 1771 to 1773, British tea was imported into the colonies in huge amounts while putting into consideration the fact that the Townshend duty that was comprised of three pence in tandem to each pound was paid by the merchants (Burgan, 2016). Boston, therefore, was recognized as the largest importer of legal tea with the dominance of smugglers in the markets of New York and Philadelphia.
The Resistance to the Tea Act
In September and October 1773, seven ships loaded with tea from the East India Company were sent by the company to the Colonies. Four of the ships were to be sent to Boston while the remaining three were to New York City, Philadelphia, and Charleston. The ships were loaded with over 2,000 chests that contained 600,000 pounds of tea (Burgan, 2016). The Colonialists became aware of the details of the Tea Act when the ships were on their way to America thus the rise of opposition. The Whigs also referred to as the “sons of liberty,” commenced a campaign to raise awareness and compel the consignees in resigning similarly the stamp distributors were forced to resign during the Stamp Act Crisis of 1765 (Pollard & McVickar, 2014).
The protest movement that arose as a result of the Boston Tea Party was not concerned with the dispute about high taxes. Rather, the protest movement was more concerned with a wide range of issues. To begin with, one of the issues of concern is related to the aspect of taxation without representation. The second issue was about the authority of the parliament in the colonies (Carp, 2010). Some of the protesters viewed the tea monopoly in tandem with the British as similar to tax and the issue of the lack of representation as a violation of their rights. On the other hand, some protesters considered the objective of the tax program as a severe infringement on Colonial rights. From a historical point of view, this was particularly applicable in Massachusetts, where there was the full implementation of the Townshend program.
The colonial merchants - among them smugglers - played a major role in the protests. Based on the fact that the Tea Act required the imported tea to be sold at lower prices, this was perceived by the Dutch smugglers as a threat to their business interests (Malaspina, 2013). The tea importers that were legitimately considered to be the consignees for the East India Company also faced the threat of being ruined financially by the act. The merchants were also very concerned about the possibility of the Tea Act leading to the creation of a monopoly on other goods apart from tea. This was based on the ability of the government the creation a monopoly.
The protesters in south Boston experienced success in compelling the tea consignees to resign. The consignees in Charleston were forced to resign and the tea that was not claimed was seized by the officials in the customs department. Mass meetings of protest were held in Philadelphia whereby the countrymen were urged to oppose tea landing in the area (Carp, 2010). This was followed by the resignation of the tea consignees in this region. Meanwhile, in New York City, the ship that was supposed to arrive in the city loaded with tea faced delays as a result of bad weather (Allison, 2007). Upon its eventual arrival, the consignees of tea had already resigned thus forcing the ships to return to England with all of its h tea cargo.
In Boston, Governor Hutchinson was not willing to force the resignation of the tea consignees even though they had resigned in other towns. Based on the fact that two of the tea consignees were his sons, he was able to convince them not to resign (Burgan, 2016). Upon the arrival of two ships loaded with tea in Boston, the governor forced the payment of duty alongside the fury of a large mass of individuals who were demanding the resignation of the tea consignees. The governor stood his ground despite the fierce protests from the crowd. A resolution was thus passed by the mass meeting naming Samuel Adams the leader who led the group against the entry of the ships into the harbor in Boston (Pollard & McVickar, 2014). The individuals that attended the mass meeting did not leave the meeting until the moment they received the signal from their leader.
The tea was destroyed later on by mobs despite the attempts by Samuel Adams to control them. The mobs disguised themselves as Mohawk warriors since the protest was not legal (Allison, 2007). This particularly created the impression that they were sons of liberty, identifying themselves with the American nation. The men dumped the chests of tea into the water while still disguised as Mohawk warriors.
The Tea Act of 1773
The Indemnity Act of 1767, which provided a refund particularly on the duty on tea to the East India Company, expired in1772 (Pollard & McVickar, 2014). A new act was passed by the parliament in 1772 that was characterized by a reduction in the refund thus efficiently leaving duty of 10% on the tea that was imported to Great Britain (Carp, 2010). The Act also resulted in the restoration of the taxes on tea within Great Britain, the taxes that had been repealed in 1767 (Burgan, 2016). As a consequence, the Townshend duty was left in place in the Colonies. In tandem with the British Tea, the prices of this tea went up. The activity of importing tea continued in the company going into Great Britain while collecting significant surplus tea that could not be bought by any individual. As a result of this factor, by the end of 1772, a financial crisis was experienced by the East India Company, the most significant business institution in Britain (Allison, 2007). The elimination of some taxes was one of the significant solutions to the financial crisis that was faced by the East India Company. The company initially worked at repealing the Townshend Duty. However, the North ministry was not willing to repeal it as the act could potentially be interpreted as a retreat from the position of the parliament about its right in taxing the colonies (Allison, 2007). In essence, the tax that was collected from the duty that was to be repealed was utilized in paying the salaries of some of the colonial governors as well as the colonial judges. From a critical point of view, the main purpose of the tax was to pay these salaries. Initially, the colonial governors and colonial judges received their salaries from the colonial assemblies (Allison, 2007). However, their salaries were being paid by the parliament to keep them dependent on the government of the British rather than give them the opportunity of being accountable specifically to the Colonists.
Another solution to the reduction of the increased rate of the mold of tea in the warehouse of the company was selling the tea cheaply in Europe. Upon the investigation of this solution, it was found that there was the possibility of the tea being smuggled back into Great Britain whereby the tea could be undersold as compared to it being a tax product (Pollard & McVickar, 2014). The most appropriate market for the surplus tea of the East India Company was the American Colonies as the tea could be made cheaper by the use of another alternative rather than the smuggling of tea. The solution that was provided by the North ministry was the Tea Act which received consent from King George in1773 (Carp, 2010). The act led to the restoration of the full refund of the East India Company in the importation of tea into Great Britain besides permitting the company in exporting tea to the American colonies based on its account. This provided an opportunity for the company to engage in the reduction of costs through the elimination of the middlemen that brought the tea wholesale to London (Allison, 2007). Rather than selling the tea to the middlemen, the company preferred the appointment of local merchants for them to receive tea based on consignment whereby the consignees would then engage in selling the tea with the element of a commission.
The Reaction after the Destruction of the Tea in Boston
Samuel Adams worked at publicizing and defending the Boston Tea Act. He provided an argument that the Tea Party could not be viewed as a lawless job but rather a principled protest and an option of the people of America in the defense of their rights as provided by the Constitution. In tandem with the aspect of the Constitution, he asserted that each government was characterized by a constitution whether written or unwritten. In this regard, the interpretation of Great Britain’s constitution could be that of banning taxation without representation. For instance, the Bill of Rights of 1689 established that the parliament could not levy taxes for a long period in addition to the right of the people to be represented by the parliament (Allison, 2007). Apart from Samuel Adams, Great Britain responded to the destruction of the tea in Boston by closing Boston. On the other hand, the British Parliament introduced the Intolerable Acts as a way of punishing those who had participated in the Boston Tea Party and destruction of the tea, termed private property. The series of events that followed the destruction of tea in Boston pioneered the American Revolution as it was followed by the enactment of acts such as the Boston Port Act as well as the Massachusetts Government Act that were not applicable in all the regions of America. However, in February 1775, the Conciliatory Resolution was passed by Great Britain which brought an end to taxation for every colony to take part in the satisfactory provision of imperial defense in addition to up-keeping imperial officers (Pollard & McVickar, 2014). This was followed by the amendment of the tax on tea and thus the tea act was replaced by the Taxation of Colonies Act in 1778 (Allison, 2007).
The Significance of the Boston Tea Party
There is a wide variety of opinions that surround the Boston Tea Party. Some consider it to be a total waste of time while others consider it a critical historical moment in the United States. The Boston Tea Party ought to be understood to appreciate the value of the event in America. From the end of the 1760s through the beginning of the following decade, the British government aimed at ensuring that the Thirteen Colonies remained committed to it with a lot of loyalty and submissiveness (Burgan, 2016). To achieve the above-mentioned power, the British parliament instigated a wide variety of taxes that needed to be paid by the citizens living in the colonies. However, the colonists objected to paying off the large number of debts that they believed ought to be the responsibility of the British mainland. The opposition to the taxes increased and the threat of the loss of control over the colonies became a real and serious concern for Britain.
Use code first15 and get 15% OFF your 1st order!
In particular, tea was loved by the colonists as it served as a demonstration of status and wealth. Moreover, tea was an essential commodity that was not only affordable but also needed to be used daily. Tea from the suppliers in Britain was expensive as most of the colonists engaged in smuggling tea to avoid the taxes that were charged for it (Carp, 2010). The British resented being undermined thus passing the Tea Act to give a monopoly to the East India Tea Company. In the minds of the British, this was the most effective and efficient way of forcing taxes to be paid by the Colonists. From an economical perspective, the parliament in Britain made sense. The colonists preferred spending less on their tea by buying it from sources in Britain (Malaspina, 2013). However, this was an issue of concern as it was deeper compared to the cost of tea. The Tea Act was considered by a large number of Colonialists as a problem of loyalties. The major question surrounded whether the cost of the small quantity was important or the opposition to the rule of the British was not fair. It is worth noting that advocates in the support of both sides existed, however, the opponents that were affiliated with the British had participated in the Tea Party (Allison, 2007). The colonists that were advocates of independence from Britain and their taxes wanted to prove a point to the parliament, being that they did not want to be ignored.
In this case, the Boston Tea Party was symbolic for a wide variety of reasons. To begin with, it was a clear demonstration of how the Colonialists were openly willing to air out their opinion on their dire need for freedom (Carp, 2010). The colonists were ready to lose whatever they had in their fight for their independence. From a general point of view, the act made the British parliament furious. As a consequence, tension existed between the Colonies and Britain until the moment when the Revolutionary War took place. During the American Revolution, a large number of Americans were willing to lose their lives for the sake of American freedom. In 1776, the signing of the Second Continental Congress led to the distribution of the U.S. Declaration of Independence (Burgan, 2016). The Declaration of Independence was a document that brought transformation to the face of America. The Boston Tea Party catalyzed regard to one of the major events of significance in founding America’s history. It was powerful besides sending a significant message to Great Britain to create awareness to the British that the American Colonies were undertaking anything with the major objective of gaining their independence.
The Legacy of the Boston Tea Party
Numerous Americans considered the drinking of tea to be an unpatriotic act after the Boston Tea Party. There was a significant decline in the consumption of tea in the course of the American Revolution and even after the Revolution hence a shift to the consumption of coffee instead. The phrase “the Boston Tea Party” did not enter the popular lexicon until 1834 (Burgan, 2016). Before that, this event had initially been referred to as the “destruction of the tea.” (Pollard & McVickar, 2014). The publication of some individuals that took part in the Boston Tea Party established the legacy of this incident. Thus, the event has been referenced on numerous occasions in political protests. For instance, in 1908 when Mohandas K. Gandhi engaged in leading the burning of the registration cards that belonged to the Indians in South Africa, one of the newspapers in Britain compared this action to the Boston Tea Party (Burgan, 2016). When meeting with the viceroy from Britain in 1930, Mohandas K. Gandhi used salt to reflect the Boston Tea Party in addition to a smile (Pollard & McVickar, 2014).
Apart from this, political activists in the U.S. invoke the Boston Tea Party from a wide range of political ideologies primarily as a demonstration of protest. In 1973, on the Tea Party’s 200th anniversary calls demanding the impeachment of President Nixon were made during a large meeting (Carp, 2010). After the mass meeting, the protesters boarded a similar ship as that was used in the Boston Harbor then hung a portrait of Nixon, and then dumped various drums of oil into the water. In 1998, two Congressmen marked the “federal tax code” as tea and threw it into the harbor (Pollard & McVickar, 2014).
The Boston Tea Party about the American Tea Party
The Boston Tea Party has a historical memory of the formation of the Tea Party in America which has a major implication in laying the cornerstone of the U.S. Constitution (Burgan, 2016). The wide varieties of appropriations that are affiliated with the Boston Tea Party serve as an indication of the power of rhetoric in the interpretation and appropriation of history for a wide range of partisan purposes. These appropriations provide a reminder that history is not just a chronicle of events.
The Tea Party has led to the introduction of public discussions on the Constitution with confinement on the libertarian fringes as well as on the conservative fringes. The Constitution has a major influence on the constitutional movement. As a result of the Tea Party, activists and their elected representatives engage in discussions on constitutional history. More so, as a result of the Tea Party, the major focal point in the specified questions on the constitution has highly shifted in Tea Party’s direction limited nature of reading the constitution (Burgan, 2016). It is however puzzling that even though the Tea Party is attached to a vision that is perceived as radical, the party is engaging in the mobilization of followers as well as the attraction of support in tandem with its constitutional claim in line with popular consciousness in addition to political practice.
The Tea Party has engaged in the creation of a constitutional movement that is centered on the efforts in the provision of grassroots education, the mobilization of the community, as well as political engagement while taking into consideration the Constitution as an aspect that plays a secondary role. The constitution of the Tea Party has the possibility of influencing how the Constitution is interpreted (Carp, 2010). The process of the reconstruction of the Constitution is the most preferred battleground of the Tea Project. This process is aimed at providing education and mobilizing citizens in addition to fueling the political process. To comprehend the constitutional project of the Tea Party, it is essential to take into consideration the content of the constitution of the Tea Party and the practical example in which the Tea Party has made its choices for the effective reading and the interpretation of the constitution.
The conception of this constitutional movement concerning the Constitution has provided evidence of the tactfulness of the party in making the most appropriate choices of constitutional mobilization. The party has been using a constitutional framework that goes hand in hand with activism in addition to the popular organization. Constitutionalism in the principles of the constitution is majorly self-evident besides being readily discoverable in the text of the document (Carp, 2010). From a general point of view, the provision of civic education is the most appropriate constitutional enlightenment to the public. In this regard, the part provides a clear example of this through the promotion of popular mobilization as a way of creating awareness of the principles of the constitution. The mission of the constitution of the party is more evidence of the success of the party in advocating for the effective and efficient interpretation of the constitution.
The basic claims concerning the constitution that are provided by the party are in most cases controversial, they represent the current happenings in America. The wide variety of mechanisms that are employed by the Tea Party while seeking the promulgation of these claims and besides making the constitutional claims compelling to American citizens as well as the elected representatives of these individuals are the most appropriate as far as American history is concerned (Pollard & McVickar, 2014). The function of the party as a constitutional movement is best seen in its mechanisms of the practice of the constitution such as the efforts in educational outreach, the mobilization of the state, and conducting national politics on elections. Conclusively, the Tea Party ought to be understood as a perfect example of popular constitutionalism all stemming from the Boston Tea Party whereby Americans were fighting for what they believed was their constitutional right (Allison, 2007). All the Tea Parties that have been formed in America since had their roots in the Boston Tea Party thus creating the impression that the Boston Tea Party had a major influence on the American Tea parties.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Boston Tea Party was a culmination of the tension that existed between the American colonies and Great Britain as a result of what was termed as the violation of the constitutional rights of the individuals in the colonies. The Tea Party was characterized by the destruction of tea that was destined for Boston. In particular, the citizens of the American Colonies complained about being taxed without representation. On the other hand, Great Britain viewed this lack of control over the colonies as well as an infringement of their right in taxing the colonies.
