Forgot password? | Forgot username?




as shown the nato is like the pentagon 100% nwo tools for nwo INTERESTS






Boston Tea Party
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Boston Tea Party
Part of the American Revolution
Boston Tea Party w.jpg
Source: W.D. Cooper. Boston Tea Party in The History of North America. London: E. Newberry, 1789. Engraving. Plate opposite p. 58. Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (40)
Date    December 16, 1773
Location    Boston, Province of Massachusetts Bay
Caused by    Tea Act
Goals    To protest British Parliament's tax on tea. "No taxation without representation."
Methods    Throw the tea into Boston Harbor
Resulted in    Intolerable Acts
Parties to the civil conflict
Thirteen Colonies

Boston Sons of Liberty
Kingdom of Great Britain Great Britain

East India Company

Lead figures
Samuel Adams
Paul Revere
William Molineux
and other «Sons of Liberty»...    Thomas Hutchinson
This article is part of a series on the
American Revolution
Union Jack Grand Union Flag Betsy Ross flag
Declaration of Independence (Trumbull)
Signing of the Declaration of Independence
Timeline Military leaders Battles
American Revolutionary War
Declaration of Independence
United States Constitution
A New Republic
Flag of the United States.svg United States portal
The Boston Tea Party was an American political and mercantile protest by the Sons of Liberty in Boston, Massachusetts, on December 16, 1773.[1] The target was the Tea Act of May 10, 1773, which allowed the British East India Company to sell tea from China in American colonies without paying taxes apart from those imposed by the Townshend Acts. The Sons of Liberty strongly opposed the taxes in the Townshend Act as a violation of their rights. Protesters, some disguised as American Indians, destroyed an entire shipment of tea sent by the East India Company.

The demonstrators boarded the ships and threw the chests of tea into the Boston Harbor. The British government responded harshly, and the episode escalated into the American Revolution. The Tea Party became an iconic event of American history, and since then other political protests such as the Tea Party movement have referred to themselves as historical successors to the Boston protest of 1773.

The Tea Party was the culmination of a resistance movement throughout British America against the Tea Act, which had been passed by the British Parliament in 1773. Colonists objected to the Tea Act because they believed that it violated their rights as Englishmen to "no taxation without representation", that is, to be taxed only by their own elected representatives and not by a British parliament in which they were not represented. In addition, the well-connected East India Company had been granted competitive advantages over colonial tea importers, who resented the move and feared additional infringement on their business. Protesters had successfully prevented the unloading of tea in three other colonies, but in Boston, embattled Royal Governor Thomas Hutchinson refused to allow the tea to be returned to Britain.[2]

The Boston Tea Party was a significant event in the growth of the American Revolution. Parliament responded in 1774 with the Intolerable Acts, or Coercive Acts, which, among other provisions, ended local self-government in Massachusetts and closed Boston's commerce. Colonists up and down the Thirteen Colonies in turn responded to the Intolerable Acts with additional acts of protest, and by convening the First Continental Congress, which petitioned the British monarch for repeal of the acts and coordinated colonial resistance to them. The crisis escalated, and the American Revolutionary War began near Boston in 1775.

1    Background
1.1    Tea trade to 1767
1.2    Townshend duty crisis
2    Tea Act of 1773
3    Resisting the Tea Act
4    Standoff in Boston
5    Destruction of the Tea
6    Reaction
7    Legacy
7.1    Boston Tea Party Ships and Museum
7.2    Participants
7.3    Actual tea
8    See also
9    Notes
10    References
10.1    General Sources
11    Further reading
12    External links
The Boston Tea Party arose from two issues confronting the British Empire in 1765: the financial problems of the British East India Company; and an ongoing dispute about the extent of Parliament's authority, if any, over the British American colonies without seating any elected representation. The North Ministry's attempt to resolve these issues produced a showdown that would eventually result in revolution.[3]

Tea trade to 1767
As Europeans developed a taste for tea in the 17th century, rival companies were formed to import the product from China.[4] In England, Parliament gave the East India Company a monopoly on the importation of tea in 1698.[5] When tea became popular in the British colonies, Parliament sought to eliminate foreign competition by passing an act in 1721 that required colonists to import their tea only from Great Britain.[6] The East India Company did not export tea to the colonies; by law, the company was required to sell its tea wholesale at auctions in England. British firms bought this tea and exported it to the colonies, where they resold it to merchants in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston.[7]

Until 1767, the East India Company paid an ad valorem tax of about 25% on tea that it imported into Great Britain.[8] Parliament laid additional taxes on tea sold for consumption in Britain. These high taxes, combined with the fact that tea imported into the Dutch Republic was not taxed by the Dutch government, meant that Britons and British Americans could buy smuggled Dutch tea at much cheaper prices.[9] The biggest market for illicit tea was England—by the 1760s the East India Company was losing £400,000 per year to smugglers in Great Britain[10]—but Dutch tea was also smuggled into British America in significant quantities.[11]

In 1767, to help the East India Company compete with smuggled Dutch tea, Parliament passed the Indemnity Act, which lowered the tax on tea consumed in Great Britain and gave the East India Company a refund of the 25% duty on tea that was re-exported to the colonies.[12] To help offset this loss of government revenue, Parliament also passed the Townshend Revenue Act of 1767, which levied new taxes, including one on tea, in the colonies.[13] Instead of solving the smuggling problem, however, the Townshend duties renewed a controversy about Parliament's right to tax the colonies.

Townshend duty crisis
Further information: Townshend Acts
A controversy between Great Britain and the colonies arose in the 1760s when Parliament sought, for the first time, to impose a direct tax on the colonies for the purpose of raising revenue. Some colonists, known in the colonies as Whigs, objected to the new tax program, arguing that it was a violation of the British Constitution. Britons and British Americans agreed that, according to the constitution, British subjects could not be taxed without the consent of their elected representatives. In Great Britain, this meant that taxes could only be levied by Parliament. Colonists, however, did not elect members of Parliament, and so American Whigs argued that the colonies could not be taxed by that body. According to Whigs, colonists could only be taxed by their own colonial assemblies. Colonial protests resulted in the repeal of the Stamp Act in 1766, but in the 1766 Declaratory Act, Parliament continued to insist that it had the right to legislate for the colonies "in all cases whatsoever".

When new taxes were levied in the Townshend Revenue Act of 1767, Whig colonists again responded with protests and boycotts. Merchants organized a non-importation agreement, and many colonists pledged to abstain from drinking British tea, with activists in New England promoting alternatives, such as domestic Labrador tea.[14] Smuggling continued apace, especially in New York and Philadelphia, where tea smuggling had always been more extensive than in Boston. Dutied British tea continued to be imported into Boston, however, especially by Richard Clarke and the sons of Massachusetts Governor Thomas Hutchinson, until pressure from Massachusetts Whigs compelled them to abide by the non-importation agreement.[15]

Parliament finally responded to the protests by repealing the Townshend taxes in 1770, except for the tea duty, which Prime Minister Lord North kept to assert "the right of taxing the Americans".[16] This partial repeal of the taxes was enough to bring an end to the non-importation movement by October 1770.[17] 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 in weight of tea.[18][19] Boston was the largest colonial importer of legal tea; smugglers still dominated the market in New York and Philadelphia.[20]

Tea Act of 1773
Main article: Tea Act
Two ships in a harbor, one in the distance. On board, men stripped to the waist and wearing feathers in their hair throw crates of tea overboard. A large crowd, mostly men, stands on the dock, waving hats and cheering. A few people wave their hats from windows in a nearby building.
This iconic 1846 lithograph by Nathaniel Currier was entitled The Destruction of Tea at Boston Harbor; the phrase "Boston Tea Party" had not yet become standard. Contrary to Currier's depiction, few of the men dumping the tea were actually disguised as Native Americans.[21]
The Indemnity Act of 1767, which gave the East India Company a refund of the duty on tea that was re-exported to the colonies, expired in 1772. Parliament passed a new act in 1772 that reduced this refund, effectively leaving a 10% duty on tea imported into Britain.[22] The act also restored the tea taxes within Britain that had been repealed in 1767, and left in place the three pence Townshend duty in the colonies, equal to £1.31 today. With this new tax burden driving up the price of British tea, sales plummeted. The company continued to import tea into Great Britain, however, amassing a huge surplus of product that no one would buy.[23] For these and other reasons, by late 1772 the East India Company, one of Britain's most important commercial institutions, was in a serious financial crisis.[24] The severe famine in Bengal from 1769 to 1773 had drastically reduced the revenue of the East India Company from India bringing the Company to the verge of bankruptcy and the Tea Act of 1773 was enacted to help the East India Company.

Eliminating some of the taxes was one obvious solution to the crisis. The East India Company initially sought to have the Townshend duty repealed, but the North ministry was unwilling because such an action might be interpreted as a retreat from Parliament's position that it had the right to tax the colonies.[25] More importantly, the tax collected from the Townshend duty was used to pay the salaries of some colonial governors and judges.[26] This was in fact the purpose of the Townshend tax: previously these officials had been paid by the colonial assemblies, but Parliament now paid their salaries to keep them dependent on the British government rather than allowing them to be accountable to the colonists.[27]

Another possible solution for reducing the growing mound of tea in the East India Company warehouses was to sell it cheaply in Europe. This possibility was investigated, but it was determined that the tea would simply be smuggled back into Great Britain, where it would undersell the taxed product.[28] The best market for the East India Company's surplus tea, so it seemed, was the American colonies, if a way could be found to make it cheaper than the smuggled Dutch tea.[29]

The North ministry's solution was the Tea Act, which received the assent of King George on May 10, 1773.[30] This act restored the East India Company's full refund on the duty for importing tea into Britain, and also permitted the company, for the first time, to export tea to the colonies on its own account. This would allow the company to reduce costs by eliminating the middlemen who bought the tea at wholesale auctions in London.[31] Instead of selling to middlemen, the company now appointed colonial merchants to receive the tea on consignment; the consignees would in turn sell the tea for a commission. In July 1773, tea consignees were selected in New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and Charleston.[32] The Tea Act in 1773 authorized the shipment of 5,000 chests of tea (250 tons) to the American colonies. There would be a tax of £1,750 (equal to £228,707 today) to be paid by the importers when the cargo landed. The act granted the EIC a monopoly on the sale of tea that was cheaper than smuggled tea; its hidden purpose was to force the colonists to pay a tax of 3 pennies on every pound of tea.[33]

The Tea Act thus retained the three pence Townshend duty on tea imported to the colonies. Some members of Parliament wanted to eliminate this tax, arguing that there was no reason to provoke another colonial controversy. Former Chancellor of the Exchequer William Dowdeswell, for example, warned Lord North that the Americans would not accept the tea if the Townshend duty remained.[34] But North did not want to give up the revenue from the Townshend tax, primarily because it was used to pay the salaries of colonial officials; maintaining the right of taxing the Americans was a secondary concern.[35] According to historian Benjamin Labaree, "A stubborn Lord North had unwittingly hammered a nail in the coffin of the old British Empire."[36]

Even with the Townshend duty in effect, the Tea Act would allow the East India Company to sell tea more cheaply than before, undercutting the prices offered by smugglers, but also undercutting colonial tea importers, who paid the tax and received no refund. In 1772, legally imported Bohea, the most common variety of tea, sold for about 3 shillings (3s) per pound, equal to £19.6 today.[37] After the Tea Act, colonial consignees would be able to sell it for 2 shillings per pound (2s), just under the smugglers' price of 2 shillings and 1 penny (2s 1d).[38] Realizing that the payment of the Townshend duty was politically sensitive, the company hoped to conceal the tax by making arrangements to have it paid either in London once the tea was landed in the colonies, or have the consignees quietly pay the duties after the tea was sold. This effort to hide the tax from the colonists was unsuccessful.[39]

Resisting the Tea Act

This 1775 British cartoon, A Society of Patriotic Ladies at Edenton in North Carolina, satirizes the Edenton Tea Party, a group of women who organized a boycott of English tea.
In September and October 1773, seven ships carrying East India Company tea were sent to the colonies: four were bound for Boston, and one each for New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston.[40] In the ships were more than 2,000 chests containing nearly 600,000 pounds of tea.[41] Americans learned the details of the Tea Act while the ships were en route, and opposition began to mount.[42] Whigs, sometimes calling themselves Sons of Liberty, began a campaign to raise awareness and to convince or compel the consignees to resign, in the same way that stamp distributors had been forced to resign in the 1765 Stamp Act crisis.[43]

The protest movement that culminated with the Boston Tea Party was not a dispute about high taxes. The price of legally imported tea was actually reduced by the Tea Act of 1773. Protesters were instead concerned with a variety of other issues. The familiar "no taxation without representation" argument, along with the question of the extent of Parliament's authority in the colonies, remained prominent.[44] Samuel Adams considered the British tea monopoly to be "equal to a tax" and to raise the same representation issue whether or not a tax was applied to it.[45] Some regarded the purpose of the tax program—to make leading officials independent of colonial influence—as a dangerous infringement of colonial rights.[46] This was especially true in Massachusetts, the only colony where the Townshend program had been fully implemented.[47]

Colonial merchants, some of them smugglers, played a significant role in the protests. Because the Tea Act made legally imported tea cheaper, it threatened to put smugglers of Dutch tea out of business.[48] Legitimate tea importers who had not been named as consignees by the East India Company were also threatened with financial ruin by the Tea Act.[49] Another major concern for merchants was that the Tea Act gave the East India Company a monopoly on the tea trade, and it was feared that this government-created monopoly might be extended in the future to include other goods.[50]

In New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston, protesters successfully compelled the tea consignees to resign. In Charleston, the consignees had been forced to resign by early December, and the unclaimed tea was seized by customs officials.[51] There were mass protest meetings in Philadelphia. Benjamin Rush urged his fellow countrymen to oppose the landing of the tea, because the cargo contained "the seeds of slavery".[52][53] By early December, the Philadelphia consignees had resigned and the tea ship returned to England with its cargo following a confrontation with the ship's captain.[54] The tea ship bound for New York City was delayed by bad weather; by the time it arrived, the consignees had resigned, and the ship returned to England with the tea.[55]

Standoff in Boston
In every colony except Massachusetts, protesters were able to force the tea consignees to resign or to return the tea to England.[56] In Boston, however, Governor Hutchinson was determined to hold his ground. He convinced the tea consignees, two of whom were his sons, not to back down.[57]

This notice from the "Chairman of the Committee for Tarring and Feathering" in Boston denounced the tea consignees as "traitors to their country".
When the tea ship Dartmouth,[a] arrived in the Boston Harbor in late November, Whig leader Samuel Adams called for a mass meeting to be held at Faneuil Hall on November 29, 1773. Thousands of people arrived, so many that the meeting was moved to the larger Old South Meeting House.[58] British law required Dartmouth to unload and pay the duties within twenty days or customs officials could confiscate the cargo (i.e. unload it onto American soil).[59] The mass meeting passed a resolution, introduced by Adams and based on a similar set of resolutions promulgated earlier in Philadelphia, urging the captain of Dartmouth to send the ship back without paying the import duty. Meanwhile, the meeting assigned twenty-five men to watch the ship and prevent the tea – including a number of chests from Davison, Newman and Co. of London – from being unloaded.[60]

Governor Hutchinson refused to grant permission for Dartmouth to leave without paying the duty. Two more tea ships, Eleanor and Beaver, arrived in Boston Harbor. On December 16 – the last day of Dartmouth's deadline – roughly 5,000[61] to 7,000[62] people out of a population of roughly 16,000[61] had gathered around the Old South Meeting House. After receiving a report that Governor Hutchinson had again refused to let the ships leave, Adams announced that "This meeting can do nothing further to save the country." According to a popular story, Adams's statement was a prearranged signal for the "tea party" to begin. However, this claim did not appear in print until nearly a century after the event, in a biography of Adams written by his great-grandson, who apparently misinterpreted the evidence.[63] According to eyewitness accounts, people did not leave the meeting until ten or fifteen minutes after Adams's alleged "signal", and Adams in fact tried to stop people from leaving because the meeting was not yet over.[64]

Destruction of the Tea

1789 engraving of the destruction of the tea
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.[65] 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.[66]

That evening, a group of 30 to 130 men, some dressed in the Mohawk warrior disguises, boarded the three vessels and, over the course of three hours, dumped all 342 chests of tea into the water.[67] The precise location of the Griffin's Wharf site of the Tea Party has been subject to prolonged uncertainty; a comprehensive study[68] places it near the foot of Hutchinson Street (today's Pearl Street).[better source needed] The property damage amounted to the destruction of 92,000 pounds or 340 chests of tea, reported by the British East India Company worth £9,659, or $1,700,000 dollars in today's money.[69] The owner of two of the three ships was William Rotch, a Nantucket-born colonist and merchant.[70]

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.[71][72]

Whether or not Samuel Adams helped plan the Boston Tea Party is disputed, but he immediately worked to publicize and defend it.[73] He argued that the Tea Party was not the act of a lawless mob, but was instead a principled protest and the only remaining option the people had to defend their constitutional rights.[74]

Plaque affixed to side of the Independence Wharf building (2009)
In Britain, even those politicians considered friends of the colonies were appalled and this act united all parties there against the colonies. The Prime Minister Lord North said, "Whatever may be the consequence, we must risk something; if we do not, all is over".[75] The British government felt this action could not remain unpunished, and responded by closing the port of Boston and putting in place other laws known as the "Intolerable Acts." Benjamin Franklin stated that the East India Company should be paid for the destroyed tea,[76] all ninety thousand pounds (which, at two shillings per pound, came to £9,000, or £1.17 million [2014, approx. $1.7 million US]).[77] Robert Murray, a New York merchant, went to Lord North with three other merchants and offered to pay for the losses, but the offer was turned down.[78]

The incident resulted in a similar effect in America when news of the Boston Tea Party reached London in January and Parliament responded with a series of acts known collectively in the colonies as the Intolerable Acts. These were intended to punish Boston for the destruction of private property, restore British authority in Massachusetts, and otherwise reform colonial government in America. Although the first three, the Boston Port Act the Massachusetts Government Act and the Administration of Justice Act, applied only to Massachusetts, colonists outside that colony feared that their governments could now also be changed by legislative fiat in England. The Intolerable Acts were viewed as a violation of constitutional rights, natural rights, and colonial charters, and united many colonists throughout America,[79] exemplified by the calling of the First Continental Congress in September 1774.

A number of colonists were inspired by the Boston Tea Party to carry out similar acts, such as the burning of Peggy Stewart. The Boston Tea Party eventually proved to be one of the many reactions that led to the American Revolutionary War.[80] In his December 17, 1773, entry in his diary, John Adams wrote:

Last Night 3 Cargoes of Bohea Tea were emptied into the Sea. This Morning a Man of War sails. This is the most magnificent Movement of all. There is a Dignity, a Majesty, a Sublimity, in this last Effort of the Patriots, that I greatly admire. The People should never rise, without doing something to be remembered—something notable And striking. This Destruction of the Tea is so bold, so daring, so firm, intrepid and inflexible, and it must have so important Consequences, and so lasting, that I cant but consider it as an Epocha in History.[81]
In February 1775, Britain passed the Conciliatory Resolution, which ended taxation for any colony that satisfactorily provided for the imperial defense and the upkeep of imperial officers. The tax on tea was repealed with the Taxation of Colonies Act 1778, part of another Parliamentary attempt at conciliation that failed.


The Boston Tea Party Museum in Fort Point Channel

In 1973 the US Post Office issued a set of four stamps, together making one scene of the Boston Tea Party
External video
video icon Booknotes interview with Alfred Young on The Shoemaker and the Tea Party, November 21, 1999, C-SPAN[82]
John Adams and many other Americans considered tea drinking to be unpatriotic following the Boston Tea Party. Tea drinking declined during and after the Revolution, resulting in a shift to coffee as the preferred hot drink.[83]

According to historian Alfred Young, the term "Boston Tea Party" did not appear in print until 1834.[84] Before that time, the event was usually referred to as the "destruction of the tea". According to Young, American writers were for many years apparently reluctant to celebrate the destruction of property, and so the event was usually ignored in histories of the American Revolution. This began to change in the 1830s, however, especially with the publication of biographies of George Robert Twelves Hewes, one of the few still-living participants of the "tea party", as it then became known.[85]

The Boston Tea Party has often been referenced in other political protests. When Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi led a mass burning of Indian registration cards in South Africa in 1908, a British newspaper compared the event to the Boston Tea Party.[86] When Gandhi met with the Viceroy of India in 1930 after the Indian salt protest campaign, Gandhi took some duty-free salt from his shawl and said, with a smile, that the salt was "to remind us of the famous Boston Tea Party."[87]

American activists from a variety of political viewpoints have invoked the Tea Party as a symbol of protest. In 1973, on the 200th anniversary of the Tea Party, a mass meeting at Faneuil Hall called for the impeachment of President Richard Nixon and protested oil companies in the ongoing oil crisis. Afterwards, protesters boarded a replica ship in Boston Harbor, hanged Nixon in effigy, and dumped several empty oil drums into the harbor.[88] In 1998, two conservative US Congressmen put the federal tax code into a chest marked "tea" and dumped it into the harbor.[89]

In 2006, a libertarian political party called the "Boston Tea Party" was founded. In 2007, the Ron Paul "Tea Party" money bomb, held on the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, broke the one-day fund-raising record by raising $6.04 million in 24 hours.[90] Subsequently, these fund-raising "Tea parties" grew into the Tea Party movement, which dominated conservative American politics for the next two years, reaching its peak with a voter victory for the Republicans in 2010 who were widely elected to seats in the United States House of Representatives.

Boston Tea Party Ships and Museum

Replica of the Beaver in Boston
The Boston Tea Party Museum is located on the Congress Street Bridge in Boston. It features reenactments, a documentary, and a number of interactive exhibits. The museum features two replica ships of the period, Eleanor and Beaver. Additionally, the museum possesses one of two known tea chests from the original event, part of its permanent collection.[91]

Phineas Stearns[92]
Actual tea
The American Antiquarian Society holds in its collection a vial of actual tea-infused harbor water from 1773.[93]

See also
Timeline of United States revolutionary history (1760–1789)
Prelude to the American Revolution
Pine Tree Riot, 1772
Burning of the Peggy Stewart, 1774
^ Dartmouth had delivered whale oil to London and taken on the tea as return cargo
^ Smith, George (January 17, 2012). The Boston tea party. Th einstitute for humane studies and Retrieved April 20, 2018.
^ Mitchell, Stacy. The big box swindle. Retrieved April 20, 2018.
^ Benjamin L. Carp, Defiance of the Patriots: The Boston Tea Party and the Making of America (2010) ch. 1
^ Labaree, Tea Party, 3–4.
^ Knollenberg, Growth, 90.
^ Knollenberg, Growth, 90; Labaree, Tea Party, 7.
^ Labaree, Tea Party, 8–9.
^ Labaree, Tea Party, 6–8; Knollenberg, Growth, 91; Thomas, Townshend Duties, 18.
^ Labaree, Tea Party, 6.
^ Labaree, Tea Party, 59.
^ Labaree, Tea Party, 6–7.
^ Labaree, Tea Party, 13; Thomas, Townshend Duties, 26–27. This kind of refund or rebate is known as a "drawback".
^ Labaree, Tea Party, 21.
^ Labaree, Tea Party, 27–30.
^ Labaree, "Tea Party", 32–34.
^ Knollenberg, Growth, 71; Labaree, Tea Party, 46.
^ Labaree, Tea Party, 46–49.
^ Labaree, Tea Party, 50–51.
^ "Indemnity Act of 1767 - June 29, 1767". Indemnity Act of 1767. Revolutionary War and Beyond. Retrieved January 18, 2020.
^ Labaree, Tea Party, 52.
^ Young, Shoemaker, 183–85.
^ The 1772 tax act was 12 Geo. III c. 60 sec. 1; Knollenberg, Growth, 351n12.
^ Thomas, Townshend Duties, 248–49; Labaree, Tea Party, 334.
^ Labaree, Tea Party, 58, 60–62.
^ Knollenberg, Growth, 90–91.
^ Thomas, Townshend Duties, 252–54.
^ Knollenberg, Growth, 91.
^ Thomas, Townshend Duties, 250; Labaree, Tea Party, 69.
^ Labaree, Tea Party, 70, 75.
^ Knollenberg, Growth, 93.
^ Labaree, Tea Party, 67, 70.
^ Labaree, Tea Party, 75–76.
^ James M. Volo (2012). The Boston Tea Party: The Foundations of Revolution. ABC-CLIO. p. 29. ISBN 978-0-313-39875-9.
^ Labaree, Tea Party, 71; Thomas, Townshend Duties, 252.
^ Thomas, Townshend Duties, 252.
^ Labaree, Tea Party, 72–73.
^ Labaree, Tea Party, 51.
^ Thomas, Townshend Duties, 255; Labaree, Tea Party, 76–77.
^ Labaree, Tea Party, 76–77.
^ Labaree, Tea Party, 78–79.
^ Labaree, Tea Party, 77, 335.
^ Labaree, Tea Party, 89–90.
^ Knollenberg, Growth, 96.
^ Thomas, Townshend Duties, 246.
^ Gross, David M. (2014). 99 Tactics of Successful Tax Resistance Campaigns. Picket Line Press. p. 129. ISBN 978-1490572741.
^ Labaree, Tea Party, 106.
^ Thomas, Townshend Duties, 245.
^ Labaree, Tea Party, 102; see also John W. Tyler, Smugglers & Patriots: Boston Merchants and the Advent of the American Revolution (Boston, 1986).
^ Thomas, Townshend Duties, 256.
^ Knollenberg, Growth, 95–96.
^ Knollenberg, Growth, 101.
^ Labaree, Tea Party, 100. See also Alyn Brodsky, Benjamin Rush (Macmillan, 2004), 109.
^ Letters of Benjamin Rush: Volume I: 1761-1792, To His Fellow Countrymen, On Patriotism, October 20, 1773
^ Labaree, Tea Party, 97.
^ Labaree, Tea Party, 96; Knollenberg, Growth, 101–02.
^ Labaree, Tea Party, 96–100.
^ Labaree, Tea Party, 104–05.
^ This was not an official town meeting, but a gathering of "the body of the people" of greater Boston; Alexander, Revolutionary Politician, 123.
^ Alexander, Revolutionary Politician, 124.
^ Alexander, Revolutionary Politician, 123.
^ Jump up to: a b Raphael, Ray (2001), A people's history of the American Revolution: How common people shaped the fight for independence, The New Press, p. 18, ISBN 1-56584-653-2, On December 16, the day before customs officials were entitled to seize the cargo and land it themselves, an estimated 5,000 people traveled through a cold, steady rain to gather at the Old South Meeting House. (The entire population of Boston at the time was only about 16,000, children included.)
^ Alexander, Revolutionary Politician, 125.
^ Raphael, Founding Myths, 53.
^ Maier, Old Revolutionaries, 27–28n32; Raphael, Founding Myths, 53. For firsthand accounts that contradict the story that Adams gave the signal for the tea party, see L. F. S. Upton, ed., "Proceeding of Ye Body Respecting the Tea," William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, 22 (1965), 297–98; Francis S. Drake, Tea Leaves: Being a Collection of Letters and Documents, (Boston, 1884), LXX; Boston Evening-Post, December 20, 1773; Boston Gazette, December 20, 1773; Massachusetts Gazette and Boston Weekly News-Letter, December 23, 1773.
^ "Boston Tea Party Historical Society".
^ "Boston Tea Party Historical Society".
^ Alexander, Revolutionary Politician, 125–26; Labaree, Tea Party, 141–44.
^ "Where Was the Actual Boston Tea Party Site?". Archived from the original on December 13, 2010. Retrieved July 6, 2008.
^ "Boston Tea Party Damage". Boston Tea Party Ships. Retrieved May 29, 2020.
^ Karttunen, Frances. "What is the significance of the ships' names over the door of the Pacific Club at the foot of Main Street?". Nantucket Historical Association. Retrieved May 29, 2020.
^ Marissa Moss (2016). America's tea parties : not one but four! : Boston, Charleston, New York, Philadelphia. Abrams Books for Young Readers. p. 20. ISBN 978-1613129159.
^ Diary of John Adams, March 8, 1774; Boston Gazette, March 14, 1774
^ Alexander, Revolutionary Politician, 126.
^ Alexander, Revolutionary Politician, 129.
^ Cobbett, Parliamentary History of England, XVII, pg. 1280-1281
^ Richardson, Bruce. "Benjamin Franklin's Views on The Boston Tea Party". Retrieved July 11, 2020.
^ UK Retail Price Index inflation figures are based on data from Clark, Gregory (2017). "The Annual RPI and Average Earnings for Britain, 1209 to Present (New Series)". MeasuringWorth. Retrieved December 2, 2021.
^ Ketchum, Divided Loyalties, 262.
^ Ammerman, In the Common Cause, 15.
^ "Boston Tea Party - United States History". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved July 11, 2020.
^ Diary of John Adams, Volume 2 … =DJA02d100
^ "The Shoemaker and the Tea Party". C-SPAN. November 21, 1999. Retrieved March 29, 2017.
^ Adams, John (July 6, 1774). "John Adams to Abigail Adams". The Adams Papers: Digital Editions: Adams Family Correspondence, Volume 1. Massachusetts Historical Society. Archived from the original on March 4, 2014. Retrieved February 25, 2014. I believe I forgot to tell you one Anecdote: When I first came to this House it was late in the Afternoon, and I had ridden 35 miles at least. “Madam” said I to Mrs. Huston, “is it lawfull for a weary Traveller to refresh himself with a Dish of Tea provided it has been honestly smuggled, or paid no Duties?” “No sir, said she, we have renounced all Tea in this Place. I cant make Tea, but I'le make you Coffee.” Accordingly I have drank Coffee every Afternoon since, and have borne it very well. Tea must be universally renounced. I must be weaned, and the sooner, the better.
^ Young, Shoemaker, xv.
^ Young, Shoemaker.
^ Erik H. Erikson, Gandhi's Truth: On the Origins of Militant Nonviolence (New York: Norton, 1969), 204.
^ Erikson, Gandhi's Truth, 448.
^ Young, Shoemaker, 197.
^ Young, Shoemaker, 198.
^ "Ron Paul's "tea party" breaks fund-raising record". Archived from the original on March 28, 2010. Retrieved September 14, 2009.
^ "Boston Tea Party Ships & Museum". Retrieved June 20, 2013.
^ Denehy 1906, p. 226.
^ Tea thrown into Boston Harbor Dec. 16 1773. 1773.
General Sources
Alexander, John K. Samuel Adams: America's Revolutionary Politician. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002. ISBN 0-7425-2115-X.
Ammerman, David (1974). In the Common Cause: American Response to the Coercive Acts of 1774. New York: Norton.
Carp, Benjamin L. Defiance of the Patriots: The Boston Tea Party and the Making of America (Yale U.P., 2010) ISBN 978-0-300-11705-9 online
Denehy, John William (1906). A History of Brookline, Massachusetts, from the First Settlement of Muddy River Until the Present Time: 1630-1906; Commemorating the Two Hundredth Anniversary of the Town, Based on the Early Records and Other Authorities and Arranged by Leading Subjects. Containing Portraits and Sketches of the Town's Prominent Men Past and Present; Also Illustrations of Public Buildings and Residences. Brookline Press.
Ketchum, Richard. Divided Loyalties: How the American Revolution came to New York. 2002. ISBN 0-8050-6120-7.
Knollenberg, Bernhard. Growth of the American Revolution, 1766–1775. New York: Free Press, 1975. ISBN 0-02-917110-5.
Labaree, Benjamin Woods. The Boston Tea Party. Originally published 1964. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1979. ISBN 0-930350-05-7. online
Maier, Pauline. The Old Revolutionaries: Political Lives in the Age of Samuel Adams. New York: Knopf, 1980. ISBN 0-394-51096-8.
Raphael, Ray. Founding Myths: Stories That Hide Our Patriotic Past. New York: The New Press, 2004. ISBN 1-56584-921-3.
Thomas, Peter D. G. The Townshend Duties Crisis: The Second Phase of the American Revolution, 1767–1773. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. ISBN 0-19-822967-4.
Thomas, Peter D. G. Tea Party to Independence: The Third Phase of the American Revolution, 1773–1776. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991. ISBN 0-19-820142-7.
Young, Alfred F. The Shoemaker and the Tea Party: Memory and the American Revolution. Boston: Beacon Press, 1999. ISBN 0-8070-5405-4; ISBN 978-0-8070-5405-5.
Further reading
Norton, Mary Beth. 1774: The Long Year of Revolution (2020) online review by Gordon S. Wood
Tyler, John W. Smugglers and Patriots: Boston Merchants and the Advent of the American Revolution (2019) online
Unger, Harlow G. (2011). American Tempest: How the Boston Tea Party Sparked a Revolution. Boston, MA: Da Capo. ISBN 978-0306819629. OCLC 657595563. Retrieved March 7, 2015.

Edited by: SD_ECBS BEN - Dec-06-21 14:56:44

13379 Posts
Male  Website 
Administrator has disabled public posting. Please login or register in order to proceed.


The United States’ two main point men in dealing with the recent Ebola crisis, Ronald (Ron) A. Klain and Thomas (Tom) R. Frieden.RONALD KLAIN is the new so called "EBOLA CZAR".
Dr. Leonard Horowitz in his book, Emerging Viruses: Aids & Ebola reveals a very disturbing connection to Kissinger and the CIA-Military Industrial Genocidal Germ Warfare Program.
The following quote sets the stage perfectly:
“Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the third world, because the U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries.”Henry Kissinger
…Henry Kissinger In 1948, Henry Kissinger, a 23 year old American intelligence officer, recruited Nazi expatriates to serve in top positions in American military, aerospace, biological science and medicine. Twenty years later he quit his esteemed position on the faculty of Harvard, and resigned his lucrative position as Nelson Rockefeller’s foreign policy attaché to become President Nixon’s closest advisor as well as Director of the National Security Council.
Seeking alternatives to tactical nuclear weapons to bolster America’s “diplomacy” abroad, the paranoid and egomaniacal Zionist Kissinger quickly ordered the Army’s Chief of Staff to requisition $10,000,000 from Congress for the development and testing of Aids-like viruses. Within ten years, the Aids and Ebola epidemics erupted coincidently in the regions of Africa ravaged by CIA military covert operations also ordered by Kissinger.
In 1984, Dr. Robert Gallo, of the National Cancer Institute, claimed credit for discovering the AIDS virus. He announced that AIDS most likely originated from a monkey virus that spontaneously mutated and naturally jumped from one species (monkey) to another (human). Dr. Gallo was a biological weapons contractor for the CIA’s top secret “PROJECT: MK-NAOMI,” and was paid to produce and test AIDS-like viruses as early as 1970.Dr. Horowitz followed an incriminating paper trail leading from Kissinger to Dr. Gallo and his associates, to pharmaceutical giant, Merck-Sharp & Dohme, to the CIA, NATO, and OTRAG (a West German owned company in Zaire with ties to Litton Industries that was a leading American military contractor).A fact to examine is the constant presence of Jewish Zionist Vice-Presidential Chiefs of Staff throughout the terms of Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama:
Uber Jewish Zionist (and Iraq war drum beater extraordinaire) William Kristol, was the Chief of Staff to Vice President Dan Quayle from 1989 to 1993.Jewish Uber-Zionist, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, was Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff from 2001 until 2005 when he had to resign because of his indictment for obstruction of justice, perjury, leaking classified information, and lying to federal investigators. All the charges were related to the outing of CIA asset Valerie Plame Wilson. Libby was disbarred after his conviction. Non-Jew Uber-Neocon David Addington finished as Cheney’s Chief of Staff and was the legal mind behind much of the White House’s so called “war on terror.”
Joe Biden then dusted off Jewish Zionist Ronald Klain, who had been Gore’s VP-COS, and installed him as his own VP-COS. Klain served until 2011 when non-Jew Zionist stooge, Bruce Reed stepped in and is still there as of today (12/20/2013)… One of Reed’s accomplishments is having co-authored a very lame book with American political Mossad asset Rahm Emanuel titled: The Plan: Big ideas for America. I haven’t read their book and after reading the overwhelmingly negative reviews at Amazon I don’t think I will.

13379 Posts
Male  Website 
Administrator has disabled public posting. Please login or register in order to proceed.


. … totco.html

Dr Judy Mikovits -Dr. Simone Gold - Dr Madej - Dr. Northrup are are worlds leading experts and warners about mRNA injections. These are no vaccines





Edited by: SD_ECBS BEN - Dec-14-21 18:13:43

13379 Posts
Male  Website 
Administrator has disabled public posting. Please login or register in order to proceed.



#htotfia datapool #FREEINFORMATIONACT

Presented by the





#enlightenment2012 #earthoptimization


Edited by: SD_ECBS BEN - Dec-08-21 00:40:31

13379 Posts
Male  Website 
Administrator has disabled public posting. Please login or register in order to proceed.


There were two big announcements in the alternative technology space this week that solidified Gab’s place in the market as a multi-billion dollar business.

It’s being reported that the gang of grifters around former President Trump raised $1 billion dollars from a bunch of satanic hedge funds for a project that failed to even launch into beta testing as promised in November and was hacked within hours of being announced.

This is a project with currently no public product, no users, and no revenue that is now worth $4 billion dollars “just because.” Perhaps their business model will involve selling covid vaccines to kids or something, who knows.

The stock is currently trading on pure speculation. The vast majority of that trading is coming from President Trump’s main street supporters, the good and decent hardworking Americans who are buying the stock in anticipation of it going even higher if and when a service ever actually launches.

I truly hope and pray that the Wall Street short sellers and hedge funds don’t screw these good people over like they always do, but it appears that Trump Media itself is already doing so with this new billion dollar deal which is reportedly going to massively dilute existing investors. The SEC is now investigating all of this.

Trump Media is now looking to secure a so-called private investment in public equity (PIPE) that would value Digital World shares closer to their recent price, currently hovering around $40, the sources said. It is a departure from most PIPE deals, which are typically done at $10 per share, and would result in a much greater dilution of existing Digital World investors.

Let’s Get Ready To Rumble

The second big alternative tech grift story of the week comes from the anti-free speech Canadian video company Rumble, which is raising $400 million in a SPAC deal similar to the one that the grifters around President Trump put together a few weeks ago before their latest billion dollar hedge fund grift.

We already know from pervious reporting that Rumble changed their terms of service the day Trump joined the platform to ban “hate speech” and “anti-semitism.” In other words, their terms of service now not only mirror that of Big Tech platforms, but take it one step further by explicitly banning “anti-semitism” which means any criticism, humor, mockery, or critique of Jews and Israel.

Needless to say all of this market activity is great for Gab, the leading alternative technology platform and the only true free speech platform on the internet. Based on Truth Social’s market cap (no product, no users, no revenue) and Rumble’s market cap, Gab is now easily a multi-billion dollar company. Unlike both of these projects however; Gab remains the one place on the internet where first amendment-protected political speech is not only protected, it’s encouraged.

For those of you who have been following along: Gab refused to entertain the censorship demands from Trump’s team earlier this year. We also refused to sell any part of Gab or access to Gab’s data to Trump’s team.

Torba said Kushner and his cronies tried to get Torba to “sell out” and “compromise on Gab’s free speech policies,” suggesting that Gab “clean up [their] image,” before President Trump was allowed on. Witzke queried Torba into exactly what people Kushner wanted banned, and Torba revealed that he “specifically had problems with people criticizing Jewish people and Zionism and policies related to Israel”

Defending free speech at all costs, even at the cost of Trump joining Gab, is why Gab is the number one alternative technology platform on the internet and growing fast. While we have specialized in free speech for five years now, free markets inevitably develop anywhere that free speech is protected. That’s exactly what is happening on Gab right now with our vision for a Parallel Christian Economy.

Our advertising service is currently exploding in growth and thousands of businesses are joining the Parallel Economy on Gab. Our community is thriving and our vision is expanding to include the peaceful noncompliance and exit from the Oligarch systems of control over our lives. We are building something real, something authentic, something important. We’re not out to make a quick buck on Wall Street. We’re here change the world and bring glory to God.

Gab could very easily do exactly what Trump and Rumble are doing and go to Wall Street and raise billions. Many of the same investment bankers, venture capitalists, and hedge funds who are working with Truth Social and Rumble have already gotten wind of Gab’s recent growth and have been reaching out to us in droves. We politely reply telling them to go pound sand. I have no interest in dealing with these people or taking their money because when you raise billions from the Beast, the Beast owns and controls you for life. I am a free man and I intend to keep it that way.

Gab is the only platform on the internet where true free speech lives and no amount of money is worth giving that up. God has always provided more than enough for us to meet our needs and continue to grow. I have faith that He will continue to do so without the need for Wall Street blood money.

Money isn’t interesting to me, free speech is.

This isn’t about money, it’s about the future for my children and yours.

It’s about reclaiming our country and protecting our home.

It’s about getting access to information that the Regime doesn’t want you to access.

Most importantly it’s about the ability for Christians to authentically practice our faith in Jesus Christ without being attacked, smeared, censored, and systematically destroyed for doing so.

That all starts and is only made possible by protecting free speech for everyone.

All the money in the world won’t inspire people. It won’t create something worth fighting for. It won’t innovate. It will make a lot of grifters and hedge funds very rich, but it won’t make a dent in the very real problems facing our society.

Gab’s mission and vision are very clear and stand alone in the market. We are building technology that powers a parallel Christian economy and defends free speech online for all people at all costs. We don’t need Wall Street Hedge funds to make that happen. We don’t need a billion dollars to make that happen. We have The People and our faith in God to make that happen.

Gab is not for sale.

Andrew Torba
Jesus is King

Edited by: SD_ECBS BEN - Dec-09-21 14:32:58

13379 Posts
Male  Website 
Administrator has disabled public posting. Please login or register in order to proceed.


Never forget #President Donald J. Trump, illegally installed Biden-Harris, #Congress, and all #Americans => This criminal $5.5 Trillion then $3.5 Trillion then $1.75 Trillion and now $1.2 Trillion { is actually between $3.5 Trillion and $5.0 Trillion } (i.e., more wasteful spending - "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything."), so called infrastructure, garbage bill (i.e., Democrat slush fund) is/was Not bipartisan, because the treasonous 13 (in the House) and 19 (in the Senate) RINOs (aka: dishonest Democrats) who approved of/signed it have always been cowards and traitors. These Corporate puppets/whores should be kicked out of the Republican Party and recalled immediately. The Republicans, ? Democrats, and ? RINOs should reject this unconstitutional and criminal, so called Infrastructure bill (i.e., 2000+ pages of pure garbage) and vote it down. This "slush fund" infrastructure bill is very bad for the Country now and in the future. The American People and voters will not support and vote for anyone who votes for this callous, putrid, and treasonous bill. These stupid self-serving people and Uni-Party traitors (i.e., #FakeRepublicans and #FakeConservatives) do not represent We The People, Americans, and/or America. This infrastructure bill is a disgrace to America and a travesty. We The People reject this shit Uni-Party infrastructure (and everything else) bill. The weak and pathetic RINO ? McConnell and his GOP ? Establishment, Republican, and cowardly ? RINO losers must vote down and stop this fraudulent Green New Deal Infrastructure con job by the Communist/Socialist Democrats. The #FakeRepublicans, #FakeConservatives, RINO clowns, and traitors who promoted and signed off on this phony and fraudulent Infrastructure bill are RINO members of Congress: Katko, Bacon, Van Drew, Upton, Young, Reed, Smith, Garbarino, Malliotakis, Fitzpatrick, Gonzalez, McKinley, Romney, Burr, Cassidy, Collins, Graham, Murkowski, Portman, Rounds, Tillis, Moran, and others. These scumbag sellouts do not represent the interests, positions, deliverables, and requirements of the American People, #WeThePeople, real Conservatives, Constitutionalists, Independents, real Republicans, and/or real Americans. The American People reject all of these #NeverTrumper and anti-American Globalist shitheads. They should be recalled, impeached, and removed from #Congress asap. [ "You can't fix stupid. Stupid is as stupid does. Stupid is who stupid hangs around with." Democrats are Racists, Communists, Socialists, Fascists, Marxists, Globalists, and Traitors. A group of globalist, treasonous traitors is known as The Democrat Party. The Democrat Party are the enemies of the U.S. Constitution, American People, and America. A RINO? is a despicable, dishonest Democrat. ] #USA #WeThePeople #Americans @RealMarjorieGreene #Constitution #America #2A @LaurenBoebert #1A #9A #10A #MolonLabe #NRA #Congress @tedcruz @RandPaul #GOP #MAGA #AmericaFirst #SaveAmerica @realdonaldtrump

Edited by: SD_ECBS BEN - Dec-14-21 18:14:09

13379 Posts
Male  Website 
Administrator has disabled public posting. Please login or register in order to proceed.


#htotep datapool Epstein is alive … ells-61695


Edited by: SD_ECBS BEN - Dec-14-21 18:14:28

13379 Posts
Male  Website 
Administrator has disabled public posting. Please login or register in order to proceed.


#htottpfm datapool FRAUD
#2nd term
#htotchin … nist-party


Edited by: SD_ECBS BEN - Dec-14-21 18:14:50

13379 Posts
Male  Website 
Administrator has disabled public posting. Please login or register in order to proceed.


13379 Posts
Male  Website 
Administrator has disabled public posting. Please login or register in order to proceed.


#htotchin … vintv/?amp


Edited by: SD_ECBS BEN - Dec-14-21 18:15:11

13379 Posts
Male  Website 
Administrator has disabled public posting. Please login or register in order to proceed.

Board Info

Board Stats
Total Topics:
Total Polls:
Total Posts:
User Info
Total Users:
Newest User:
Members Online:
Guests Online: