Talk:Boston Tea Party

was the tea taxed

yes the colonists would have to pay a tax on the tea, at 3 pennies per pound, o be paid in silver coin. previously the same tea ALSO had to be taxed in England when it first landed, but now the tea would not be landed in England and not pay that other tax. Historian James M. Volo says: "Parliament passed the Tea Act in 1773 authorizing the immediate shipment of 5,000 chests of tea (250 tons) to the colonies and demanding that the tax (£1,750 sterling) be paid in coin by the importers when the cargo landed. The ostensible purpose of all this change was to grant the EIC an ironclad monopoly on the sale of tea that would drive the smugglers (free traders) out of business, but its hidden concurrent purpose was to maintain the effective tax of 3 silver pennies (3d.) on every pound of tea that had been in effect for almost six years under the Townshend duties." James M. Volo (2012). The Boston Tea Party: The Foundations of Revolution. ABC-CLIO. p. 29. ISBN 978-0-313-39875-9. Rjensen (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2018

</ref></ref></ref></ref></ref></ref></ref>

Boston tea party was a protest against the sell of tax-free tea. Rishikant1303 (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. LittlePuppers (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

no info on how many people were efffected — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:B056:1A00:2592:6FD5:1040:6CB7 (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Myth Busting

I'm glad the article does not perpetuate the schoolyard myth that the Tea Party was a revolt against England for raising taxes (aka: taxation without representation). It seems it may have been more a revolt against the East India Company, of which England could almost be called it's political arm, or similar to a "captured" regulatory body, or even to State capture or Corporatocracy. In this context; the East India Company and England act as two sides of the same coin. It seems that the schoolyard myth oversimplifies to the point of gross distortion regarding cause and purpose, particularly in context of say; "private Vs Government" and "capture" discussions. The founders rightfully had a huge distrust of corporations according to their writings and regulations that is often lost by certain historians. For example Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were fragile and were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws. Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose, which was usually to further the common good.

I hope these fears and understandings of our founders can be better articulated in the article.

the East India Company:

By 1803, at the height of its rule in India, the British East India Company had a private army of about 260,000—twice the size of the British Army,....[7][8] The company eventually came to rule large areas of India with its private armies, exercising military power and assuming administrative functions.[9] Company rule in India effectively began in 1757 and lasted until 1858, ...

Cheers!
--50.58.142.76 (talk) 06:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Mohawk costumes

While Samuel Adams tried to reassert control of the meeting, people poured out of the Old South Meeting House to prepare to take action. In some cases, this involved donning what may have been elaborately prepared Mohawk costumes. While disguising their individual faces was imperative, because of the illegality of their protest, dressing as Mohawk warriors was a specific and symbolic choice. It showed that the Sons of Liberty identified with America, over their official status as subjects of Great Britain.

A more cynical, but arguably more realistic interpretation is that the purpose of the disguise was to redirect the wrath of the British towards the Mohawks, and that the interpretation given by Wikipedia above (sourced to some biased website) is a self-serving excuse – it certainly shouldn't be stated as a proven fact in Wikipedia's voice. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The British army was in charge of dealing with the Mohawk warriors, and it knew that none lived anywhere near in Boston. Rjensen (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Why did any Mohawk have to live close nearby? People are mobile. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)