What was the consequences of the Boston Tea Party?

Question

&Did the people who dumped their tea regret their actions?

Answer 1

First, on the question of "did anyone regret doing it?" In one sense we can never know, because we do not know for sure the IDENTITY of many of those who participated. (Most went to the grave without leaving any indication of their involvement.) BUT, on the other side, I do not believe ANYONE ever came forward to say they had participated but now regretted doing so. Note that this was an activity of the "Sons of liberty", the MOST motivated 'radical' patriots. And since there was widespread support for this action among the general population -- and no later general expression of regret-- I very much doubt that members of this more committed group felt that way.

**Oh, wait! I believe there was ONE bit of regret. The "dumpers" were VERY careful that no one get hurt, and that no goods damaged except for the tea itself. But in the midst of the affair (if I recall correctly) some minor damage was done to one of the ships. The NEXT DAY someone was sent to make good on that inadvertent damage (repair it?) But regret for dumping the TEA... not a whisper of that!

Second, to clarify something many misunderstand (which another answer seems to assume). The action of the Boston Tea Party was NOT a "symbolic" action. As a matter of fact this act of destroying the tea was NOT their original plan. Rather ALL of the colonies were engaged in a BOYCOTT of the tea, similar to their earlier, successful boycotts (esp. in response to the Stamp Act, which led to its repeal). The point was simply to prevent the tea from ever being landed (unloaded) and taken to market. In the OTHER colonial ports this effort succeeded, mostly resulting the ships sailing away still loaded with tea

Unfortunately for the Bostonians, the GOVERNOR of Massachusetts would not ALLOW the ships to leave, and there was a quirk in the law that was about to FORCE the paying of the duty on the tea -- the very thing the colonists were objecting to -- as of midnight December 16, 1773. That's why on the Tea Party took place THAT evening...

Here's some more on exactly how the Boston Tea Party came to take place (including info about the GENERAL boycott):
http://www.boston-tea-party.org/economic-causes.html
and Thomas Fleming, *Liberty*, pp. 75-9.

Whole story of the Boston Tea Party itelf, and its aftermath -
http://www.boston-tea-party.org/in-depth.html


As for the RESULTS of the Tea Party -- it did NOT lead directly to the Revolution. The war came 16 months later. What happened instead was that the British REACTED strongly to PUNISH the colonists, and esp Boston, for this act. In the spring of 1774 they passed a series of "Coercive Acts" (dubbed "the Intolerable Acts" by the colonists), which included such things as the CLOSING of the Port of Boston, the shutting down of the Massachusetts Assembly, the provision that the governor would be paid directly by (and so answer only to) the King, not the colonial assembly, and the moving of certain types of trials from the colonial courts to BRITAIN.

Through all this, the British army was actively on guard in Boston, and the place became a virtual tinderbox, until April 1775 when British troops marched out to seize a local supply of gunpowder (to prevent colonists possibly using it) and to arrest John Hancock and Sam Adams (patriot 'ringleaders') which led to the confrontations at Lexington and Concord... that is, the beginning of the war.

On the other side -- BETWEEN the punitive acts of Parliament and the outbreak of hostilities, the colonies united in SUPPORT of Massachusetts. They began by convening the "First Continental Congress" in Sept-Oct 1774 to OPPOSE the Intolerable Acts and call on Parliament to repeal them. And they agreed on phasing in a two-stage trade embargo with the British goods until those acts were repealed. (They also called for a SECOND Continental Congress -- the famous one!-- to meet the following spring if their demands had not been met.) Before the embargo could even be put fully into place, the war had begun.

Thus it was not the Boston Tea Party that led to war but the RESPONSES to that event (first of all by the King and Parliament in the "Intolerable Acts") that set the stage for armed conflict.

Perhaps the best summary of how the colonists understood and responded to these Intolerable Acts is found in the First Continental Congress's "Declaration and Resolves", which you can view here:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/resolves.htm

Note how this document focuses on the "Intolerable Acts" .. and then how the Declaration of Independence later listed these various acts among the grievances justifying that final break
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence#Indictment


And here is the text of this Congress's "Articles of Association" in which they laid out the planned embargo:
http://www.constitution.org/bcp/art_assoc.htm

These documents together are better than any textbook I've seen at laying out the colonial understanding of what had happened between Britain and the colonies after the French and Indian War (AND

And if you want good quick summaries of the Congress's actions, try:
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/congress.htm
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h650.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Continental_Congress

Answer 2

The consequence of Boston Tea Party was war for American independence. I don't think that they regret to dumping tea, they knew what is the meaning of these action.

Answer 3

More taxes and no, it all worked out in the end. It made a statement and was sorta symbolic. Tea being such a British thing and they just dumped it. Foreshadowing the dumping of the British Empire. Some of the forefathers had to do some hiding but I don't think anyone got in bad trouble. I remember someone got married while he was hiding out and didn't have much of a honeymoon. I don't think the British were bad, it was just time to become our own country. Stronger than an army is an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

Answer 4

Because most Americans are not Libertarians. Libertarians are like hippie flower power children who live in an ivory tower, come down every four years to vote for some loser who can't win and make daisy chains, and then retreat back to their ivory tower while the rest of us do the heavy lifting. Libertarians don't believe in any sort of restraint on behavior, apparently, and all they do is yammer on endlessly about how they are the party of personal freedom; and yet they deliberately refuse to join with the rest of us to fight for those liberties. Watch what they do this November: they will vote for their fringe candidate, taking away votes needed to defeat Obama, and then in January sit around and complain because Obama has taken over the internet. I have no use for self-indulgent navel contemplaters.