Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The Boston Tea Party. We all think we know what caused it, it was a rebellion against the government and taxation without representation, right? Well, sort of.

According to most pre-revolutionary historians, the Boston Tea Party had 2 causes. Yes, taxation was one, but the main cause was a rebellion against the monopoly the British East India Company was allowed to hold. They were allowed un-regulated free reign across the globe, even protected by several acts of parliament.

The target of the Tea Party was the British East India Company as much as it was the British Government.

Ironic that a conservative movement picks an event where un-fettered, un-regulated big business was the "real" target as their rally cry.

Agreed. Tea Party against WALL STREET!

Correction, those were "tea partiers" todays group are "tea baggers".

Big Diff..

OSBF wrote:The Boston Tea Party. We all think we know what caused it, it was a rebellion against the government and taxation without representation, right? Well, sort of.

According to most pre-revolutionary historians, the Boston Tea Party had 2 causes. Yes, taxation was one, but the main cause was a rebellion against the monopoly the British East India Company was allowed to hold. They were allowed un-regulated free reign across the globe, even protected by several acts of parliament.

The target of the Tea Party was the British East India Company as much as it was the British Government.

Ironic that a conservative movement picks an event where un-fettered, un-regulated big business was the "real" target as their rally cry.

No offense man, and while I have no dog in this fight, being a fan of history such as I am I can't really let such a revising of history to just stand without being corrected (kinda like when citdog and the like try to tell us that secession and the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery). To say that the Boston Tea Party was against "unfettered, un-regulated big business" is just a twisted way of looking at the events. Heck, you could say that the Boston Tea Party was against the ultimate state of fettered, regulated big business - it was a government mandated monopoly. If anything, the British government was way, way too involved in the market of tea and that led to the response that was embodied in the Boston Tea Party. If people were allowed to buy their tea elsewhere at prices dictated by the market, you wonder if the Sons of Liberty would've even targetted tea and those ships. This was the case of regulation run amock. IMO of course.

GannonFan wrote:

OSBF wrote:The Boston Tea Party. We all think we know what caused it, it was a rebellion against the government and taxation without representation, right? Well, sort of.

According to most pre-revolutionary historians, the Boston Tea Party had 2 causes. Yes, taxation was one, but the main cause was a rebellion against the monopoly the British East India Company was allowed to hold. They were allowed un-regulated free reign across the globe, even protected by several acts of parliament.

The target of the Tea Party was the British East India Company as much as it was the British Government.

Ironic that a conservative movement picks an event where un-fettered, un-regulated big business was the "real" target as their rally cry.

No offense man, and while I have no dog in this fight, being a fan of history such as I am I can't really let such a revising of history to just stand without being corrected (kinda like when citdog and the like try to tell us that secession and the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery). To say that the Boston Tea Party was against "unfettered, un-regulated big business" is just a twisted way of looking at the events. Heck, you could say that the Boston Tea Party was against the ultimate state of fettered, regulated big business - it was a government mandated monopoly. If anything, the British government was way, way too involved in the market of tea and that led to the response that was embodied in the Boston Tea Party. If people were allowed to buy their tea elsewhere at prices dictated by the market, you wonder if the Sons of Liberty would've even targetted tea and those ships. This was the case of regulation run amock. IMO of course.

Spot on, GF...it was a protest against government sanctioned monopoly in the tea market...and taxes...

Col Hogan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
No offense man, and while I have no dog in this fight, being a fan of history such as I am I can't really let such a revising of history to just stand without being corrected (kinda like when citdog and the like try to tell us that secession and the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery). To say that the Boston Tea Party was against "unfettered, un-regulated big business" is just a twisted way of looking at the events. Heck, you could say that the Boston Tea Party was against the ultimate state of fettered, regulated big business - it was a government mandated monopoly. If anything, the British government was way, way too involved in the market of tea and that led to the response that was embodied in the Boston Tea Party. If people were allowed to buy their tea elsewhere at prices dictated by the market, you wonder if the Sons of Liberty would've even targetted tea and those ships. This was the case of regulation run amock. IMO of course.

Spot on, GF...it was a protest against government sanctioned monopoly in the tea market...and taxes...

AKA corporatism. (As dback and OSBF was trying to imply)

Wedgebuster wrote:Correction, those were "tea partiers" todays group are "tea baggers".

Big Diff..

I will piss in your beer again the next time I am in Missoula, Wedges.

GannonFan wrote:

OSBF wrote:The Boston Tea Party. We all think we know what caused it, it was a rebellion against the government and taxation without representation, right? Well, sort of.

According to most pre-revolutionary historians, the Boston Tea Party had 2 causes. Yes, taxation was one, but the main cause was a rebellion against the monopoly the British East India Company was allowed to hold. They were allowed un-regulated free reign across the globe, even protected by several acts of parliament.

The target of the Tea Party was the British East India Company as much as it was the British Government.

Ironic that a conservative movement picks an event where un-fettered, un-regulated big business was the "real" target as their rally cry.

No offense man, and while I have no dog in this fight, being a fan of history such as I am I can't really let such a revising of history to just stand without being corrected (kinda like when citdog and the like try to tell us that secession and the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery). To say that the Boston Tea Party was against "unfettered, un-regulated big business" is just a twisted way of looking at the events. Heck, you could say that the Boston Tea Party was against the ultimate state of fettered, regulated big business - it was a government mandated monopoly. If anything, the British government was way, way too involved in the market of tea and that led to the response that was embodied in the Boston Tea Party. If people were allowed to buy their tea elsewhere at prices dictated by the market, you wonder if the Sons of Liberty would've even targetted tea and those ships. This was the case of regulation run amock. IMO of course.

Unnecessary post Gannonfuck. OSBF is dead on.

OSBF wrote:The Boston Tea Party. We all think we know what caused it, it was a rebellion against the government and taxation without representation, right? Well, sort of.

According to most pre-revolutionary historians, the Boston Tea Party had 2 causes. Yes, taxation was one, but the main cause was a rebellion against the monopoly the British East India Company was allowed to hold. They were allowed un-regulated free reign across the globe, even protected by several acts of parliament.

The target of the Tea Party was the British East India Company as much as it was the British Government.

My little public school in North Dakota taught us that in Jr High History.

Gil Dobie wrote:

OSBF wrote:The Boston Tea Party. We all think we know what caused it, it was a rebellion against the government and taxation without representation, right? Well, sort of.

According to most pre-revolutionary historians, the Boston Tea Party had 2 causes. Yes, taxation was one, but the main cause was a rebellion against the monopoly the British East India Company was allowed to hold. They were allowed un-regulated free reign across the globe, even protected by several acts of parliament.

The target of the Tea Party was the British East India Company as much as it was the British Government.

My little public school in North Dakota taught us that in Jr High History.

Yeah Gil, I bet they also taught you that Darwin was an asshole and baby jesus created the universe.

GannonFan wrote:

OSBF wrote:The Boston Tea Party. We all think we know what caused it, it was a rebellion against the government and taxation without representation, right? Well, sort of.

According to most pre-revolutionary historians, the Boston Tea Party had 2 causes. Yes, taxation was one, but the main cause was a rebellion against the monopoly the British East India Company was allowed to hold. They were allowed un-regulated free reign across the globe, even protected by several acts of parliament.

The target of the Tea Party was the British East India Company as much as it was the British Government.

Ironic that a conservative movement picks an event where un-fettered, un-regulated big business was the "real" target as their rally cry.

No offense man, and while I have no dog in this fight, being a fan of history such as I am I can't really let such a revising of history to just stand without being corrected (kinda like when citdog and the like try to tell us that secession and the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery). To say that the Boston Tea Party was against "unfettered, un-regulated big business" is just a twisted way of looking at the events. Heck, you could say that the Boston Tea Party was against the ultimate state of fettered, regulated big business - it was a government mandated monopoly. If anything, the British government was way, way too involved in the market of tea and that led to the response that was embodied in the Boston Tea Party. If people were allowed to buy their tea elsewhere at prices dictated by the market, you wonder if the Sons of Liberty would've even targetted tea and those ships. This was the case of regulation run amock. IMO of course.

All history is revisionist. And largely based on opinion. About all historians can do is pour through the available written record and attempt conclusions about what was going on. Today, it is widely accepted by most credible historians that the British East India Company was as much if not more the driving force for the Sons of Liberty as was the British Government. Of course, it is also true that the British East India Company was little more than a puppet "state" of British Government, and protected by Parliament by a series of acts and laws.

Not all that different from protectionist policies for big business of conservative ideology.

Gil Dobie wrote:

OSBF wrote:The Boston Tea Party. We all think we know what caused it, it was a rebellion against the government and taxation without representation, right? Well, sort of.

According to most pre-revolutionary historians, the Boston Tea Party had 2 causes. Yes, taxation was one, but the main cause was a rebellion against the monopoly the British East India Company was allowed to hold. They were allowed un-regulated free reign across the globe, even protected by several acts of parliament.

The target of the Tea Party was the British East India Company as much as it was the British Government.

My little public school in North Dakota taught us that in Jr High History.

You went to a way better grade school than I did then. Lucky for you.

I didn't learn about the role of the British East India Company till taking US history in college.

The only thing we were taught in grade school up through high school is that the British Govt and Parliament were evil tyranical rulers that opressed the colonies. Nothing more than that.

So does this mean that the founders would have been just as likely to protest at a WTO rally as they would at a Tea Bag convention?

I don't think there is really a parallel here.

If our government suddenly decided to shut down all US oil companies and importers except for just one... say, Exxon, and then the government decided to allow Exxon to jack the price of gas up to $9 per gallon.... then maybe there would be a true parallel. I am also fairly certain that most of the modern Tea Party people would be tarring people, as would many people who are not currently identified with the Tea Party movement.

Keep in mind that the original Boston Tea Party was a popular uprising. People of three distinctly different political slants forgot their differences, came together, and made a statement. There were very few Loyalists at that very moment in time in Boston.

That's another difference.... the concentration of modern day Loyalists is much greater, as is evidenced daily here.

CID1990 wrote:I don't think there is really a parallel here.

If our government suddenly decided to shut down all US oil companies and importers except for just one... say, Exxon, and then the government decided to allow Exxon to jack the price of gas up to $9 per gallon.... then maybe there would be a true parallel. I am also fairly certain that most of the modern Tea Party people would be tarring people, as would many people who are not currently identified with the Tea Party movement.

Keep in mind that the original Boston Tea Party was a popular uprising. People of three distinctly different political slants forgot their differences, came together, and made a statement. There were very few Loyalists at that very moment in time in Boston.

That's another difference.... the concentration of modern day Loyalists is much greater, as is evidenced daily here.

But wasn't the original tea party a tax revolt? Wasn't the British government creating a monopoly for the EITC by taxing the colonial tea producers out of competition? How much did Exxon pay in income taxes last year?

kalm wrote:
But wasn't the original tea party a tax revolt?

Right there is the most common mis-conception of the event. The revolt was more so about the ruthless business practices of global un-regulated big business as much as it was about taxes.

The Sons of Liberty were in a sense protesting the lack of regulation of a multi national corporation, perhaps more so than the actual tax on tea.

CID1990 wrote:I don't think there is really a parallel here.

If our government suddenly decided to shut down all US oil companies and importers except for just one... say, Exxon, and then the government decided to allow Exxon to jack the price of gas up to $9 per gallon.... then maybe there would be a true parallel. I am also fairly certain that most of the modern Tea Party people would be tarring people, as would many people who are not currently identified with the Tea Party movement.

Keep in mind that the original Boston Tea Party was a popular uprising. People of three distinctly different political slants forgot their differences, came together, and made a statement. There were very few Loyalists at that very moment in time in Boston.

That's another difference.... the concentration of modern day Loyalists is much greater, as is evidenced daily here.

Good post.

OSBF wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
No offense man, and while I have no dog in this fight, being a fan of history such as I am I can't really let such a revising of history to just stand without being corrected (kinda like when citdog and the like try to tell us that secession and the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery). To say that the Boston Tea Party was against "unfettered, un-regulated big business" is just a twisted way of looking at the events. Heck, you could say that the Boston Tea Party was against the ultimate state of fettered, regulated big business - it was a government mandated monopoly. If anything, the British government was way, way too involved in the market of tea and that led to the response that was embodied in the Boston Tea Party. If people were allowed to buy their tea elsewhere at prices dictated by the market, you wonder if the Sons of Liberty would've even targetted tea and those ships. This was the case of regulation run amock. IMO of course.

All history is revisionist. And largely based on opinion. About all historians can do is pour through the available written record and attempt conclusions about what was going on. Today, it is widely accepted by most credible historians that the British East India Company was as much if not more the driving force for the Sons of Liberty as was the British Government. Of course, it is also true that the British East India Company was little more than a puppet "state" of British Government, and protected by Parliament by a series of acts and laws.

Not all that different from protectionist policies for big business of conservative ideology.

I'm not arguing that the British East India Company wasn't much of the focus of the anger of the Sons of Liberty nor that the Company itself was basically a vassal of the government and the members of that government that had personal, vested interests in that company. That's pretty much a given. I'm simply disagreeing with your view that that represented un-regulated business and that the current Tea Party movement is ironical in it's adoption of their name.

Like I said, if anything, the East India Company was the poster child of regulation and government involvement gone bad - the government framed out the market, they determined the players (well, just the one player as they forced out anyone else), and they determined the pricing. How is that similar to what the Tea Party of today, generally, stands for or supports?

Considering that the Tea Party appears to be, at least partly, the product of Bush's and the Republicans coddling of business over the past decade and also the product of Obama's strong-armed government approach in some areas (health care for one, definitely in the area of college student loans as the ultimately sole source of borrowing), it would appear to be a pretty good parallel to the historic Tea Party event. This doesn't appear to be simply an anti-Democrat movement - if it was, then why is it just as targetted at Republicans as it is Democrats? The excesses of both parties appear to be what is being targetted here (at least as the Tea Party has a common goal, as it's apparently too disjointed at times to really tell). It does not appear to be anything close to the past conservative agenda that did indeed coddle business i.e. the corpratism that existed before.