Tea Party Politics From Colonial Boston to the Obama Bailouts

April 30, 2009 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (4)

William Martel is associate professor of international security studies at The Fletcher School, Tufts University, and author of Victory in War: Foundations of Modern Military Policy.

Two hundred and thirty-six years ago this week, Britain's Parliament passed the Tea Act. It lowered taxes on tea.

And the Colonies were furious.

Why? The act gave a monopoly to the British East India Company on trade to the Colonies, effectively scuttling colonial tea smugglers and angering locals who had been quite satisfied with their own arrangement. As one more sign of British arrogance and meddling, it eventually sparked a revolution.

Two hundred and thirty-six years later, the very idea of taxation is no more popular. And politics are just as complicated. So it's little surprise that April 2009's American tea parties denouncing congressional spending of taxpayer dollars took their cue from patriot Samuel Adams.

A conservative revolution? Not so fast. But it sure got people's attention, just as when, on Dec. 16, 1773, Adams's men, numbering between 50 and 100, dressed as Mohawk Indians and boarded three British ships in Boston Harbor. The Dartmouth, the Beaver, and the Eleanor had carried 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor. The colonists, organized by Adams, dumped all 90,000 pounds of tea, worth 10,000 British pounds ($1 million today), over the side. Observers said the harbor ran brown for days with "saltwater tea."

The Boston Tea Party was the opening salvo in the American Revolution—and events accelerated quickly afterward. In September 1774, 12 of 13 Colonies (all but Georgia) sent 56 representatives to the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia to organize resistance to British rule. In May 1775, the Second Continental Congress convened, naming George Washington commander in chief of the Continental Army. On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was signed.

And three months and two weeks shy of the 10th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party—on Sept. 3, 1783—the Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War.

The rest, as they say, is history.

So, if today's tea party organizers are to point to their own demonstrations as the beginning of something big, what exactly are they pointing toward? Why did the Boston Tea Party happen? What were the politics of the time? And what does this mean for today?

First, let's look at the original Tea Party.

Britain was hurting economically in the years preceding the American Revolution, and the king's native subjects were restless. Facing significant postwar debts from the French and Indian Wars in North America, British citizens believed the Colonies should pay for the cost of the British troops who defended them. Already heavily taxed, they believed the Colonies should share this economic burden. To meet those wishes, Britain's Parliament passed several acts to raise revenue.

The 1767 Townshend Act directly taxed glass, lead, paint, paper, and tea. Colonists protested, boycotted British tea in favor of a cheaper, smuggled blend, and popularized the slogan "No taxation without representation." In 1770, Parliament repealed the Townshend Act but kept the tea tax. The Tea Act—passed on April 27, 1773—lowered the high taxes on tea, but let British merchants set their own price, and they of course undercut the smugglers. Anger that had simmered for years finally boiled over.

When news of the Boston Tea Party reached London months later, Parliament responded by passing the 1774 Intolerable (or Coercive) Acts. Specifically designed to punish Massachusetts, these acts banned commercial traffic in Boston Harbor, protected British officials in Massachusetts from criminal prosecution, and permitted British troops to commandeer private homes.

Parliament clearly had little idea what punishment the Colonies would inflict upon the British in return. For beyond economics, Britain likely suffered from, to put matters euphemistically, a "failure of leadership." King George III, Lord North, and others pursued policies that only inflamed matters. Judging by the Intolerable Acts and tax policies, the British never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Tags:
politics

Reader Comments Read all comments (4)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

This sounds like something straight out of the CFR....

Hmmm....

Skeptical of NH 1:58PM May 02, 2009

This is indeed the start of a new Revolution.

I am not sure what the purpose of this article.

NH of NH 1:51PM May 02, 2009

We have no "free press." What we have is no better than a government-controlled press. It's yellow. It has an agenda and a bias. We have FOX on one side and all the others on the other. They couldn't contain their excitement for Obama and still can't. They wouldn't investigate elements of him and his voting that they would have had he been a republican. They slammed Bush for deficits, crooks in administrative positions, earmarks, pork, and making fat cats richer, but they are silent on Obama already surpassing Bush. The TEA PARTY lack of coverage or slanted coverage proves how we have no honest, professional press. We had over 1000 show in this very liberal town of Gainesville, FL yet the Sun (product of the NY Times) showed a photo of one person holding one sign, even though I watched as the photographer took many photos of the long line of protestors with car horns honking. Wake up, America. This is your life and the future of your children at stake. We are traveling down a slippery slope and the media is cheering along. Sit back and stay silent and you'll be sorry once it's too late to do anything. Email, call, and write the losers in both parties of Congress. I send all those in my address book the contact info on politicians plus updates on pending legislation. We need to be heard. We can at least do that!

FLNonny of FL 8:48AM May 01, 2009

advertisement

Latest Videos

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

IRS, AP and Benghazi Show the Failure of Obama's Big Government

Giving an inefficient organization like the IRS more responsibility makes it more likely to screw up, not better able to solve this nation’s problems.

Coburn Wants Oklahoma Tornado Aid Offset With Budget Cuts

Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn wants spending cuts before aid is sent to tornado victims in his own state.

Crowdfunding Zack Braff's Film And Robert Griffin's Gifts Is a Mistake

Rich people don't need donations from the public.

Poll Shows Americans Find Obama's IRS Story Barely Believable

There is still something fishy about the scandal at the IRS.

Do Benghazi, AP and IRS Scandals Reflect Obama’s Leadership Style?

It may be that a flawed leadership style is filtering down to the rest of the government.

In Marine Umbrella Incident, Republicans Still Deny Obama Is President

Umbrellagate is more proof that Obama's critics cannot acknowledge that he is, indeed, president.

Obama Isn't Nixon, but Needs More Friends in Washington

President Barack Obama needs to make more friends in Washington.

Republicans Can't Forget the Economy During Obama Scandals

Scandals provide good fodder for the GOP, but it can't forget about fixing unemployment.

advertisement