Talk:Boston Tea Party/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

British reaction

we should include more on how britian reacted to the boston tea party as well as how the people of america reacted in the reaction page. Britina was actaully trying to fix thing with america with tea not make things worse. they were upset first but then they were furious with the colonists they shut down the boston harbor. Smith, George F. "Forgotten Lessons from the Boston Tea Party." Boston Tea Party Historical Society. 2008. Web. 28 Mar. 2012. <http://www.boston-tea-party.org/essays/essay4.html>. (Adilos8589 (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC))

Influence of tides

Shouldn't there be some mention of the role of the extreme tide that night? For instance, Sky & Telescope once had an article about this. --Mortense (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

No Taxation without Representation

The second paragraph in concludes with this sentence:

"He apparently did not expect that the protestors would choose to destroy the tea rather than concede the authority of a legislature in which they were not directly represented."

The ending of the second sentence seems like a smug allusion to the old rallying cry of 'No Taxation without Representation'. 'Pay the tax' would be a more accurate description of events.

It is also something of a sourceless conjecture, but new as I am to this game I'm not sure on wiki policies regarding this.

Also my auto-correct is insisting the word is spelt protesters.

Rieper42 (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with a little smugness. I corrected the spelling of protesters however. Hot Stop (Edits) 23:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Mr. E says that is a slogan like a presidential slogan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.237.255 (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 October 2012

In the third paragraph, it is written, "...ended local self-government in massachusetts and closed Boston's commerce." "Massachusetts" is a proper noun in English and should begin with an upper-case M. Shoalcreek5 (talk) 03:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing it out! SQGibbon (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Hello, this is how the Boston Tea party started. People got angry and just got on board and dump the tea. The end. For more info contact this pages : oops no page! Sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.218.48.31 (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Problem with leading image caption

I have not made any edits to the leadoff image caption to the Currier & Ives engraving in the text which reads, "Contrary to Currier's depiction, few of the men dumping the tea were actually disguised as Indians.", however, this statement is wrong and should be revised. As Gordon and other contemporaneous sources wrote, the dumpers were all disguised as Indians. According to Gordon there were 17 men. The hundreds of citizens present were merely watching the proceedings and did not take part, just as the engraving shows. These men were waiting for the word from Rotch outside the meeting hall, and after Rotch came and announced that clearance had been refused, they all immediately ran to the docks and started dumping the tea. That all the men should be disguised was necessary, because they were English masters and seaman of the ships, and if any of them were recognized, the owners of the tea back in England could have had them prosecuted when they returned. John Chamberlain (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Various scholarship errors

In reviewing this article I notice there a bunch of serious scholarship errors in the text. For example, it says that the term "The Boston Tea Party" did not appear in print until 1834 according to historian Alfred Young. I have no idea who this Young character is, but he is completely wrong and obviously has not bothered to do even casual review of contemporaneous sources. For one thing, in Snow's history--a very derivative source--there is an entire chapter called "The Boston Tea Party" and this was published in 1826, so right off the bat Young has no idea what he is talking about. Furthermore, there are I am sure much earlier print notices, and in fact, I know of at least one newspaper "interview" dating around 1810 I think that uses the term. My own impression is that the term was a common usage among vulgar people and Boston regulars going back to the event itself and I am sure you could probably dig up print notices from around 1800 testifying to this. I do not have the time to correct this and other errors in the article, but I strongly suggest somebody get some better sources and go through this article again. John Chamberlain (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Changes to Destruction of the tea

I made a large revision to the section Destruction of the tea. The previous version of the section was based on late 19th century secondary or tertiary authors who in most cases were copying earlier authors and in some cases making up incorrect things and false facts. The authoritative source for the event is Gordon's 1784 text which I have cited and blockquoted in the article. This is the text on which virtually all subsequent authors based their information. For example, Gordon specifically says there were 17 "Indians". A later author, an Italian named Botta, changed this into "20". Then in 1828 Snow in his history of Boston, based his text on an English translation of Botta's Italian, and went further, changing this into "30" on no authority except his own imagination. Later authors then read Snow and made even further non-authoritative changes. The bottom line here is that Gordon is THE source.

The location of Griffin's Wharf is not in question. Whoever wrote the "study" previously mentioned in the article was an idiot and his claim that Griffin's Wharf was at the end of Pearl Street is just completely wrong. The well-known map of Boston in 1775 "A Plan of The Town of Boston with the Intrenchments of His Majesty's Forces in 1775, from the Observations of Lieut. Page of His Majesty's Corps of Engineers and from those of other Gentlemen." as I CITED in the text plainly shows the location of Griffin's Wharf with no doubt whatsoever as being at the end of Gridley Street. If you do a search on this map and view it you can convince yourself of this. John Chamberlain (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith before resorting to name calling. The site identified by the study's author, after examining various 1769–1800 maps and other material, is within about 100 feet of the end of Gridley Street, i.e., essentially identical. Because of the angle of the wharf shown on the cited map, the maximum difference is even less. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess you could consider the end of Pearl Street to be near the end of Gridley Street, so the study authors made an understandable error. However, if they had studied the literature and history of Boston thoroughly they would know that Gridley Street today is actually identical in both name and location to its position in 1753 and that the boardwalk of Griffin's Wharf was located right at the foot of Gridley Street. John Chamberlain (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This drastic revision violates WP:NOR and WP:RS. It relies on primary sources in violation of WP policy while completely ignoring the well-known eyewitness account by one of the participants, the shoemaker George Hewes. Moreover, the information in this revision is contradicted by essentially all modern secondary and tertiary reliable sources, including the most widely accepted account by the historian Labaree, who identified members of the Sons of Liberty, freemasons, and members of local Committees of Correspondence as the most likely “Indians”; the Old South Meeting House historical museum (“At that point members of the Sons of Liberty began to disguise themselves, some as Mohawk Indians, and made their way down to the harbor.”); the History Channel (“About midnight, watched by a large crowd, Adams and a small group of Sons of Liberty disguised as Mohawk Indians boarded the ships and jettisoned the tea.”), and the Encyclopedia Britannica (“342 chests of tea belonging to the British East India Company were thrown from ships into Boston Harbor by American patriots disguised as Mohawk Indians”). Thus, none of these truly reliable sources indicate that the participants were the masters of the ships themselves, and an account that makes that claim is clearly a fringe theory. Similarly, this revision overrides the previously cited source of incredibly detailed and comprehensive current research on the “precise” location of the Tea Party with some obviously original research on the topic. Specifically, merely providing a contemporaneous map of Boston showing Griffin’s Wharf does not in any way prove that it was at what is now Gridley Street, given the intervening dramatic changes in the Boston waterfront. The editor also removed an image depicting the event without explanation. For these reasons, I have revised the section to contain the info as it was before this revision except for the sentence sourced by WikiAnswers, which I don’t consider RS. Quark7 (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 April 2013

Near the beginning of the article the words "political protest" should be replaced by "act of terrorism" to keep the language used modern and in perspective. US Code defines terrorism: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode22/usc_sec_22_00002656---f000-.html#d_2 66.87.145.24 (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

well no, they didn't execute the governor or blow up the Royal Navy. they dumped some tea. read a 2013 paper and see how that compares to our "modern" perspective --say the versus the top 10 cases of terrorism in March 2013. Rjensen (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Please see WP:TERRORIST. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Caffeine detected

The last sentence, "Caffeine remains in Boston Harbor seawater at detectable levels.", which implies that the dumped tea has something to do with caffeine pollution, should probably be removed. Is it is someone's idea of a joke? Is there evidence that the caffeine pollution in the Boston Harbor has anything to do the with the tea dumped in 1773? The abstract of the referenced article does not mention it, though I have not read the full article. Caffeine has been detected recently in many waters, is more or less proportional to local coffee consumption, and is attributable to coffee and coffee grounds in sewage. 98.229.134.2 (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

good point--I deleted the misleading statement. Rjensen (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Claim to "nonviolence"

I have removed a single word from the lede, "nonviolent".

See "violence" at wiktionary:

1. Extreme force.

2. Action intended to cause destruction, pain, or suffering.

3. ...(etc.)

Given the overt intent, successfully undertaken, of the Sons of Liberty destroy the British East India Company's assets (and cause the English Crown to financially suffer accordingly), it is blatantly anti-conceptual to describe their act of destruction as "nonviolent".--Froglich (talk) 06:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Townshend Duty Crisis

The current Townshend duty crisis section doesn't read very well. I made a few changes to reflect the following:

• Stating that direct taxes were imposed for the purposes of raising revenue is pointless... that's what all taxes are for. My wording is is summarized from the American War for Independence article: American War for Independence#1764–1766: Taxes imposed and withdrawn
• Reference to the 1688 Bill of rights is from the Townshend act article: Townshend Acts#Background... Britain has no Constitution, and what is sometimes referred to as its "unwritten constitution" is simply a culmination of various laws, associated judgments and practices... in the particular case of opposition to the stamp act, the pertinent law being the 1688 Bill of Rights.

I'll revert the article back to reflect the changes I made... I'm more than happy to discuss appropriate wording, but the section certainly needs to be improved from where it currently stands. Aetylus (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

we are not allowed to use Wiki as a reliable source--those articles are wrong. The Bill of Rights 1689 was not the key document (it said the king needed approval of parliament) --the Magna Carta & other parts of the "ancient constitution" did. On the constitutional issue read how a leading expert explains it: Leonard W. Levy. Seasoned Judgments. Transaction Publishers. p. 303. Rjensen (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Change England to Great Britain in infobox

Boston Tea Party happened post act of union and so it should read Great Britain under 'Parties to the civil conflict' in infobox 86.26.218.131 (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

"unfair" in infobox

Would anyone object to the removal of the word "unfair" from the text in the Goals field of the infobox: "To protest British Parliament's unfair tax on tea. 'No taxation without representation.'"? Leaving aside that it's imprecise and possibly inaccurate (the Patriots didn't attack the tax for being unfair; they attacked it for being unconstitutional), the legitimacy of the tax was exactly what was at issue. Yes, the unconstitutionality of Parliament's taxes on the colonies was eventually decided on the field of battle, and I think most modernday readers would agree that taxation without representation is contradictory to how we now think of democracy (largely because that was the side that won the argument in 1783). But the inclusion of the slogan "No taxation without representation" sums up the Patriots' position quite clearly without the question-begging adjective "unfair" telling the reader whose POV to side with. Binabik80 (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Having received no pushback, I'm making the change. Binabik80 (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The real reason for the Boston Tea Party

Does anyone else have a problem that this article portrays the BTP as a protest against "taxation without representation" when it was actually a protest against the special tax status of the largest corporation of the day the East India Company and that the EIC lobbied Parliament to give them special tax privileges that the colonists were not given? The colonists were not protesting the tax itself, and instead were protesting that the EIC did not have to pay the tax as their small businesses had to pay. They were protesting the corporation's ability to get a special deal from parliament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Wonderwheel (talk • contribs) 15:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The BTP took place to protect the smuggling interests of the likes of Hancock. It was not a protest again new taxes, as this implies, but the reduction of taxes which made the East India tea cheaper than the smuggled Dutch tea. It had noth to do with No Taxation Without Representation--Godwhale (talk) 08:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Research shows that the crates of tea that weighed 360#'s each were not thrown into the harbor as stated in this article

Apparently the 360# chests of tea were broken open with axes and the tea itself (which was about 2 years old) was thrown into the harbor. Therefore the tightly compacted loose tea was thrown into the harbor from 3 ships, not the crates. Loose tea was thrown into shallow water at low tide and some of it had to be pushed into the water further; it could be later seen along the shoreline. Please check sources and reword the article after verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:AF2B:E700:2894:7C4B:5194:CC05 (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

off topic nonsense
Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2017 Cash money, son ~ Jack0300 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack0300 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

False flag? Why dress up as native americans?

Why did they dress up as native americans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.218.151.218 (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

From what I've heard somewhere, it was clear they weren't actual Indians, and some only "disguised" themselves pro forma as it were, by putting on one feather or the like. Seems to have been a rebellious sign, associating the idea of "freedom (from the British)" with the idea of Indianness, or, to put it into modern terms not used at the time, the settlers claimed what they perceived as their right saying "we are native Americans - not Britishmen" or the like. The idea to blame the Indians afterwards ("we had nothing to do with it - it was the Indians"), though that idea may come quickly to those reading today of the incident, was absent.--2001:A61:260D:6E01:B0EC:D0DC:FC65:2796 (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2019

i want to edit pls because it doesnt say what indians they disguised as in first paragraph

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.127.92.81 (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make; please make a precise request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2019

The following sentence in the Townshend Duty Crisis section is ambiguous: "From 1771 to 1773, British tea was once again imported into the colonies in significant amounts, with merchants paying the Townshend duty of three pence per pound.[18]"

Does phrase "three pence per pound" refers to weight ("per pound of tea") or British currency? The [18] source is not a hyperlink, so I was unable to quickly verify which "pound" is being referred to while reading.

The talk page discussion on "was the tea taxed" actually offers a direct source to confirm it referred to weight: '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)' Skeletontape (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

That is consistent with historical British English usage, where a tax levied at a certain rate in money terms (i.e on value in pounds sterling) would generally be described as "3d in the pound". FrankP (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Pound weight specified in original Indemnity Act. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2020

This line is incorrect:

(there was another tea ship headed for Boston, William, but it encountered a storm and put aground at Cape Cod – where the tea cargo was successfully landed – before it could reach its destination[61][62])

Citations 61 and 62 go to an incomplete account on two websites. In fact this tea was also destroyed. This is referenced below, but without context and unhelpfully:

There was a repeat performance on March 7, 1774, but it was much less destructive.[78]

Remove both of these lines, and add the following paragraph to the end of the Destruction of the Tea section.

Another tea ship intended for Boston, the William, had run aground at Cape Cod in December 1773, and its tea was taxed and sold to private parties. In March 1774, the Sons of Liberty received information that this tea was being held in a warehouse in Boston, entered the warehouse and destroyed all they could find. Some of it had already been sold to Davison, Newman and Co. and was being held in their shop. On March 7, Sons of Liberty once again dressed as Mohawks, broke into the shop, and dumped the last remaining tea into the harbor.

Hope this makes sense... NotBartEhrman (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Looks good to me! GoodCrossing (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

References