Was the 'Boston Tea Party' a protest against duty on tea or actually the taking of the duty off?

Question

I was taught at school that the Boston Tea Party was about a bunch of colonists dressing up as native Americans and dumping a cargo of tea into the harbour in protest about duty on the import. More recently someone told me that actually the colonists were smugglers who were upset was a reduction in duty was damaging their livelihood.

Answer 1

Your original understanding is correct, at least in the main. But it probably is missing the larger picture.

Here's a couple of key things most people are unaware of:

1) The Tea Party was NOT part of the basic plan of the Sons of Liberty who ended up dumping it. It was a last minute makeshift.

a) What they were trying to do was to prevent its landing and force the ships to leave, WITH the tea. The ship owners were actually willing to do so, but Governor Hutchinson refused permission for him to leave.

b) The final decision to dump the tea was made because "the clock ran out". According to the law, once the ship had been there for 20 days, the DUTY on the tea HAD to be paid. The 20th day was about to end for the first of the ships (the Dartmouth) at midnight of the night of the tea party (December 16, 1763).

Since this tax/duty WAS precisely the thing that they were all unified in protest about (regardless of any additional economic motives some may have had), they believed they could not let this happen. This fact disproves the contention that "it was not about the duty".

c) Another evidence of the fact that neither theft nor destruction of property was the intent -- the participants took great care not to harm any individuals, nor to damage anything EXCEPT the tea. In fact, the made sure that some minor accidental damage was repaired. (They also returned to make sure that NONE of the tea was taken away.)


2) The protest going on in Boston was basically the same as that in ALL the major port cities. At the end of 1763 colonists in New York, Philadelphia and Charles Town were likewise seeking to prevent the landing of the tea, through scaring shipowners and esp. through convincing the merchants who were supposed to RECEIVE the tea ("consignees" --all of whom British authorities had chosen from those they regarded as loyal) NOT to take it.

Results: in New York and Philadelphia the tea was turned back; in Charles Town, the tea landed but was locked up in a storehouse (for a few years... until revolutionaries took it to sell to raise money for the war effort).

The difference in Boston was that Governor Hutchinson was more stubborn, and his FAMILY members, who were consignees, did not back down.

If you know something of the Stamp Act and how that was protested, you'll see that the colonists were attempting to do very much the same thing. The plan was NOT to destroy merchandise, but to BOYCOTT it.

And DO note that, as with the Stamp Act, there was WIDESPREAD agreement on this boycott effort. It was NOT the act of a handful of 'wealthy smugglers'.

Also - MANY American merchants felt threatened by the whole program, since it involved creating a MONOPOLY and an effort to "dump tea" [pun intended] on the American market, which would help the powerful British merchants of the East India Company, but could drive American merchants out business. What was to prevent the same thing happening for any OTHER goods? In other words, the struggle here was one piece of a larger one, that involved representation, authority to taxes, etc. but ALSO the issue of "free trade". Britain basically had complete say over American trade -- by law restricting them in many areas to trading ONLY with the mother country.

Answer 2

The story of the Boston Tea Party has quite been blown out of all proportion. Although it was a 'raid' and did result in tea being thrown overboard, the company who owned the tea had nothing what-so-ever to do with tea tax. The entire 'raid' had probably more to do with the theft of tea than it's destruction.

There are still a number of surviving tea chests taken during this unprovoked raid upon an innocent English merchant ship delivering tea to it's Boston warehouse at Boston Harbor.

The tea company which owned the chests and ship's cargo, is still in business here in England.

As for tea tax, it was a triffling amount of less than one English penny per pound of tea.

In c1776 a citizen of Boston might pay in all about £1 [One English pound] per year in tax. His counterpart living here in London would have been paying £26 a year in tax.

Neither the citizen of Boston nor is brother in London had any political means by which to alter the amount of tax they paid save by that of Revolution.

The American Revolution did not start in Boston Harbor or even the colonies. No sir, it started right here in London. Dr Benjamin Franklin FRS spent 16 years of his political career here in London trying to persuade a deaf English government of the efficacy [if that's the right word] of allowing a greater degree of freedom within the American Colonies for the colonists themselves to decide their taxes by a democratic voting system etc.

You can visit the only suriving house belonging to the late Dr Benejamin Franklin FRS, right here in London. It has been refurbished in the style of the 18th century. It is in Mayfair and there is a website.

"The best form of taxation is a lottery, since only the willing will pay."

Ben Franklin.

What happened to that? Seems the American colonists won a Revolution but lost the tax argument entirely. Americans should be paying no tax what-so-ever. They should have followed BFs advice and started a massive world lottery which would have brought funds into the colonies from all over the globe.

GO FOR IT!

Answer 3

The Boston Tea Party was indeed a group of smugglers who were upset that the low tariff on tea was reducing their income. Most of the wealthy families in America at the time dabbled in smuggling.
To say that this, and the basis of the Revolutionary war is entirely because of extortionate taxes placed on the colonists by the British is incorrect. The average person in Britain paid 26 shillings per year in tax. Other colonies were roughly the same. The average American colonist paid 1 shilling per year.
Since Britain had spent vast amounts of it's national wealth in defending the American colonies against the French whilst simultaneously fighting the Dutch,Spanish and French in other parts of the world, the colonials reaction to a single shilling seems a little excessive.

Answer 4

the British were selling the tea at such low prices in order to make a profit for the East India Comp. that they were undercutting American tea sellers and putting them out of business. Also, we were upset that it was being taxed without our consent. The British tea, even with the tax, was cheaper that American tea but the Tea Party took place because of an ideal not because of money

Answer 5

Wow you wre taught wrong. The Boston Tea Party was about protesting the High Taxes that England was putting on just aobut everything that they imported to America. Tea, at the time, had the highest tax so that is what they decided to destroy. Thats were the phrase "No taxation without representation comes from".

Answer 6

I was taught as you were - that it was a protest against taxes on the tea. Before I buy into a different story (my 6th great-grandfather was purportedly one of the people doing the dumping...), I'd have to hear where the person learned his story, and what evidence he has to back it up.

Answer 7

Americans were not used to paying taxes and they could buy tea much cheaper from the Dutch. The British were telling colonists that they HAD to buy from the British East India Company and they HAD to sell to the British East India Company.

Answer 8

Or because along with many other things .. They also wanted to place a TAX on this simple beverage !?! It's been a long while since I learned of this !! But I think it was just one way of protesting being overly taxed !!?!! Possibly without representation

Answer 9

Your recent information is correct. Niall Ferguson, Professor of History at Harvard University, blew that old myth out of the water. It was indeed a bunch of smugglers causing a rammy but do not expect any of your American friends to thank you for such information. Of course, all nations have their dodgy myths. I am part Scots and one part of our history which must not be mentioned is that the three great Scots folk heroes had one thing in common. None of them were Scots. Wallace was English, Bruce was French, and Bonnie Prince Charlie was Italian.

Answer 10

Protest on tax.from the King.