In history, What was the boston tea party, what happen and why?

The were tired of the british taing them so they rebelled and disguised as indians and threw their tea on the boston harbor

The Boston Tea Party was actually a bunch of American colonists, dressed as Native Americans, who boarded British ships and dumped several shipments of tea into Boston Harbor. The colonists did this because the British Crown was taxing their tea (and their land) but did not allow the colonists to have representatives in their Parliament. That's called taxation without representatition, and it was one of the big reasons the colonists went to war to earn their independence from Great Britain.

bsoton people dressed up as indians and dumped tea into pearl harbor.they did this because they didnt want to pay taxes.

The British East India Company had put up the cost of their tea to accomdate a raise in taxes levied by the crown. The result was the evolution of a thriving black market in tea in the colonies. Enterprising Americans began importing contraband tea from the Netherlands and selling it well below the price of British tea. Supposedly, some of America's most revered patriots were involved in this illicit but profitable trade.

As more and more Americans refused to drink British tea, the East India company faced a financial crisis. It became so over-stocked with unsold tea, there was a seven-year supply sitting in warehouses in england.

To unload some of that stock and eliminate competition in the colonies, it was decided the company would slash its prices below black market costs. But when shiploads of cheap British tea arrived inthe colonies, Americans reacted in an unexpected way. Instead of being pleased, they were angry. colonial tea-drinkers felt they were being manipulated by the British; but little did they realize, they were also being manipulated by the black marketeers, who organized a series of "spontaneous" tea parties.

Although the British managed to unload tea at some ports, three ships laden with tea remained at anchor in Boston Harbour, threatened with sabotage if crews tried to bring their cargoes ashore.

A group of colonial leaders, led by Samuel Adams, urged Governor thomas Hutchinson of Massachussetts to avoid conflict by prhoibiting the Britsh from unloading the tea. Hutchinson refused, and on December 16, 1773, the day before the tea was due to come ashore, Adams staged an anti-tea rally. A crowd of 8,000 showed up, which was remarkable considering that was about half the population of Britain.

It was around 4 o'clock that same afternoon when another crowd gathered at the home of Boston businessman Benjamin Edes. The meeting was organized by the local committe of Correspondence, and present were some fifty carefully chosen men in addition to several leaders of the organization. They were there to lead an assault on the british ships.

To fortify their resolve, Edes placed a massive punch bowl on a table and filled it with a potent concoction. His son, Peter, was given the job of keeping the bowl filled. Years later, Peter Edes would write that the consumption rate that day was such that he was hard-pressed to fulfill his duty.

By 6pm, Samuel Adams had rallied a huge crowd at the docks at Griffin's Wharfs. Also at the docks, not knowing what to expect, were nervous British officials and representatives of the East India company.

As darkness descended on the waterfront, the men from the Edes party arrived, some dressed as Indians, some visibly staggering, and all in a festive mood. Joining them at the docsk were members of other patriotic organizations. To the cheers of the crowd and the horror of th ehelpless British onlookers, the raiders boarded the tea ships.

It required three hours fo rthe intruders to dump the cargoes overboard. The task might have been competed sooner, but a substantial number of the dumpers b ecame violently ill and had to retire from the proceedings.

Back in england, the government officials were outraged nd reacted by passing an act to close boston harbor. They vowed to keep it closed and limit self-rule in Massachusetts until the colonists paid for the tea they had destroyed. to enforce the act, additional troops were assinged to Boston.

Rather than suppress the colonial rebellion, the British reaction served only to intensify it and shove the Colonials and their mother country toward an inevitable armed conflict.

Louise has provided a nice summary (for more, see my links below). So I'll just try to highlight the things most often MIS-understood about this affair.

Some 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, 1773).

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 1773 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.