Why did the British "overreact" to the Boston Tea Party?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 лип 2024
- Get your bag of CommonSense coffee today & use code "brandonf" for 10% off!
commonsense.coffee/?ref=BrandonF
Thank you to Josh from Adventures in Historyland for helping me with this video! Find our earlier collab on the Boston Massacre here:
• Was the Boston Massacr...
Timestamps:
00:00 - 02:08 Intro
02:09 - 06:31 The Tea Act, 1773
06:32 - 17:30 Primary Accounts w/ Josh
17:31 - 18:44 Tea as a Catalyst for Reform
18:45 - 20:11 Advertisement
20:12 - 24:06 Social context & political inspiration
24:07 - 28:37 Why it mattered so much
You can learn more about my work at:
www.brandonf.org
Please send mail to:
Brandon Fisichella
PO Box 648
4 Martin St.
Essex, MA 01929
United States -
- -
This video was made in support of The Native Oak. Learn more about our educational mission here:
www.nativeoak.org/
If you'd like to support the channel, please consider giving on Patreon,
/ brandonf
You can follow me on social media too!
/ thenativeoak
/ brandonfisichella
The US: Dumps literally years worth of tea into the harbor
The Fish: This is some gourmet shit
I havent seen this format in a while....
Goddamn Man, I almost choked laughting
It’s not the US yet. It’s British colonies and subjects!
@@jiachengwu4185 nobody cares
@@jiachengwu4185 hmmmm? OK
"Over some hot leaf water"
Uncle Iroh would dissaprove of that phrasing.
Who is uncle iroh
@@poletooke4691 a character from Avatar: the last airbender. Super sweet old man who loves tea. And in a scene, he gets served bad tea, to which he says "this is not tea, its hot leave juice" and his nephew answers that "isnt hot leaf juice what all tea is?" And gets scolded by him for saying that.
Fred Latin Medic OH! HIM! The fat one that was super chill about the war and just gave out sage advice?
@@poletooke4691 yup.
@@poletooke4691 Also the single best character in the series.
Sam Adams: Support your country by buying good, smuggled tea. That East Indian tea is nothing more than hot leaf juice.
John Adams: Cousin, that's what all tea is.
Sam Adams: How could a member of my own family say something so horrible?!
I see you are a man of culture as well
nay, it is not JUST hot leaf juice. It is the hot leaf juice of PATRIOTISM AND LIBERTY!
"Man of culture" there's a tax for that...
People don't realize that Samuel Adams was born Iroh Samuel Adams :P
We didn't overreact, we responded completely appropriately to the sacred beverage being wasted in such a way. It's the answer to all life's problems, a cup of tea.
What if I were to switch your tea leaves from fresh ground coffee?
@@Darqshadow I would have each of your limbs tied to horses and then have each horse bolt in a separate direction
@trueblue23
As a Chinese,Yess he has.
Is it consecrated during British mass?
We Americans read the instructions wrong. Tried to steep it in the ocean and all 340 chests fell out. Complete accident.
Almost every pivotal historical event from school books can be described as "it's a lot more complicated then that". All according to Lindybeige. And he is right, as this video shows.
I think my favourite moment in recent history was when eating a certain brand of fried chicken became a political statement against gay rights.
Not because I agree with the stance, but because of the sheer insanity of background knowledge you need to have to make that make sense ^.^
As a Brit, the destruction of hot leaf water is an immediate declaration of war
Those damn colonists, wasting perfectly good tea, that’s why the British came to the colonies, to stop the horrible murders of tea
British were already in the colonies and that is the reason that they are colonies... Lol
@@thehistoadian
Incorrect. Britain is in Europe, the Colonies were in north America. Then one day the Europeans looked at north america, thought it looked sexy, and a long passionate night led to two very shitty court cases.
@@spiffygonzales5899 British and Britain mean different things, Britain refers to the Nation its self where as British refers to the People, culture etc
@@thehistoadian
I was referring to both
but....the British as a people were already there. The Culture as well though not an exact copy. By the time of the Boston Tea Party anyways
I hear Brits are still offended by the idea of throwing that much tea into the ocean.
I once told an American friend "Brits sold opium and went to war against china over tea. Twice." And his answer was "Sounds like a lot of effort to get something you just toss into the sea."
The East Indian company sold opium to China and went to war they had their own army
I believe they just wanted Neptune a taste.
Answer: First tea party that King George wasn’t invited to and that’s why the war began
😂😂European kings be petty
@@user-ky6tu5cj9c George was a bit...he had problems.
America: I'm the colony who destroyed a highly expensive commodity in the name of liberty!
Great Britain: You have no idea how little that narrows it down.
Well I know it narrowed 13 colonies right the heck out of the world's greatest empire.
Huzzah!
@Commie -Wasn’t that the French ?
@@Valencetheshireman927 *shudders* So, you have chosen war.
Yeah pretty much.
@@commiegobbledygook3138 i think we did better without their empire.
True fact: Your channel once had an article about it in a Swedish newspaper Brandon.
Really?
@@halcyonphoenixblues8458 Yeah the one about the caroleans had an article. Thats how I found this channel. I havw tried finding the article again but have failed so far but I am still looking.
@@bellman4366 Please do share.
Newspaper about Caroleans? Does that exist?
Are you talking of "Pennan och svärdet" ? ( "The Pen And The Sword")?
@@dirgniflesuoh7950 No it wasnt about the caroleans. It was about Brandons video about the caroleans. I think it was Nya tider or one of those conservative newspapers.
The British defeated the French and drove them from North America. They wanted to tax the Americans to help pay for the administration and defense of these newly conquered lands. The Americans stated we have always payed for our own defense and administration. Why should we pay for other parts of the British Empire? The British replied you benefit from being part of the British Empire and therefore should help pay for it. The Americans stated you control our trade for your benefit if you want more you need to ask us. Parliament replied we legislate for the entire Empire and we don't have to ask. This was unresolvable. Of note, after the American revolution the British never taxed the colonies except for local administration and defense. The Australians asked the British to take over New Guinea. The British asked them to help pay for it.
Don’t forget leaning on the only developed colony so the crown could repay the massive debts taken on by funding the Prussians.
@@topsmug3409 The British didn't 'only lean' on the colonies...the colonies made an absolutely tiny about of British revenue. The British spent years being generous with the colonists on taxation and only pressed the issue when the east India company was in trouble.
“As the ship lay anchored in Boston Harbor, a party of the colonists dressed as red Indians boarded the vessel, behaved very rudely, and threw all the tea overboard. This made the tea unsuitable for drinking. Even for Americans.” My favorite line from Mary Poppins
I’m British and I personally think the sea would be better if it was tea flavoured. Lol
At last, the end goal of the British empire has been revealed
@@bobsemple7660
I'm the American South, we drink our tea sweet and with a lot of sugar, so no harm done
@@big_slurp4603 Well yes, that and carving, 'fuck France' into the moon.
I think the Royal Navy thinks that the sea would be better if it were rum flavored.
(You can probably tell that I'm American, going by how I spelled "flavored.")
@@RadioactiveSherbet no, gin
Let's not forget that the Company, despite having a monopoly, was struggling. Bengal was conquered by the company in 1764. When the famine of 1768 hit, the EIC mismanaged the whole thing with its tax and relief policies, causing massive starvation and uprising. Social order broke down, and the company was heavily in debt. That's when the British government intervened, taking control of the company, enforcing it as a monopoly, bailing it out, and artificially lowering prices. Secure tea trade in the New World was going to help the company recover
The American Revolution could arguably be seen as the British sacrificing the 13 colonies for India: it's easier to get your way against conquered people rather than British citizens with literacy, arms and legal and philosophical ammunition, and India was proving much richer.
And then Britain lost India and its empire fell
@@NoNo-qj3ef they risked the Empire for both Britain and Europe. It appears most politicians were aware of the risks of commiting fully against the N*zis, and while morally I'd say they did the right thing, thinking solely about the Empire, one would be puzzled.
@@LukeSky2207 This explains it quite succinctly ua-cam.com/video/uXDWt_Yp9Nk/v-deo.html. Despite being comical it's quite accurate as a whole, with the idea of keeping Europe disunited as a means of keeping Britain safe.
Well the main reason the 13 colonies were sacrificed was India was an insanely profitable colony, when most colonies were being run at a loss. Every other colony was expendable if it meant keeping india. This is why even after WW 2 when India's indepenfamce was assured Winston Churchill among others were still protesting honouring this arrangment.
@@rileyernst9086 Exactly. The British comforted themselves that while they lost the 13 Colonies, they repelled attacks on Canada, India, the Caribbean and Gibraltar. It was worth the loss. British imperial strategy made sure there was always an ace in the hole to negate defeat. For example, there was a contemporary war with the Marathas. While the Marathas checked British invasion and defeated them thoroughly, the British managed to talk them out of their French alliance while preparing for the rematch where the British won (thanks to the future Duke of Wellington)
It was a big deal because they wasted precious tea
Taxation without representation is tyranny.
Taxation with representation ... still sucks.
Well, voter suppression is trying to get rid of that representation too.
Answer to title: Its *British. Tea.*
Emphasis on british..
So was the American colonies at the time ;)
Tea was American, until the British taxed it.
@@dirgniflesuoh7950 Tea was B̶r̶i̶t̶i̶s̶h̶ Dutch, until the British monopolized it. Most colonial smugglers got their tea from the Dutch East Indies.
Chris Meh Ehm, Americans drank a lot of tea, it was American to drink tea, before these events, it became unpatriotic to drink tea because of the tax.
These days tea would be German by the same reasoning. According to my tea man at least the big trading point for tea is Hamburg.
I once told an American friend "Brits sold opium and went to war against china over tea. Twice." And his answer was "Sounds like a lot of effort to get something you just toss into the sea."
that poor fellow got beaten up so badly, nobody deserves such barbaric treatment
Just because he dissented against the "patriots." So sad, indeed.
@@thekingshussar1808 yes
America: *dumps tea*
Britain: HEY! YOU’RE SUPPOSE TO PAY FOR THAT, NOT US!
American colonists: Yes, Great Britain, please spend your treasures to fight for us against the French!
Also American colonists: No! We are not repaying a penny. What are we, British subjects?!
Also British, 1763: Fine, here's the virtual representation you wanted. Please, can you just pay up now and then?
You do realize that the colonists also fought the French as well, right?
@@billmelater6470 They also started the Indian/French War for reasons of greed. The Colonists were far from clean handed. To put this into perspective, the persecution of the Native Americans did not happen until AFTER the USA became a Nation in its own right. The Natives actually had protections under the British Empire that the Colonists demanded, on multiple occasions, be removed, because they wanted the Natives lands.
The reason why the USA did not itself join the COlonisation game was literally because they had so much land left to Colonise in what is now the Continental US. They DID in fact colonise and conquer, just as the European powers did, it is simply that they never had to leave the Continent to do so. But I guess that almost total annihilation of the Native Americans and the theft of their land was not Imperialism right?
Of course it was, its just no American will ever call it that. Problem is, if it looks like Imperialism, smells like Imperialism, acts like Imperialism, then its Imperialism. You can call it 'Expansion', but its still Imperialism.
@@alganhar1 did the natives themselves have property right laws?
@@alganhar1 The Indians died from diseases brought over from Spain in their cattle, purely by accident (no one knew about germs, let alone multi species ones, at the time, so even if they wanted to be evil overlords they didn’t know enough to be so.).
Not only was settling the continent with farmers an American substitute for Imperialism, so was Russian wars against the “stans”.
That is one of the most honest ad breaks I have ever seen.
Sorry, couldn’t resist the pun, Brandon! Great job putting this together. Looking forward to working with you again and comparing collarless shirts. Josh.
Just a little critique: You made a lot of pauses, often without them adding rhetorical value. They made it harder for me to follow, especially in long sentences. The longer you take to make the final point, the longer I have to remember your reasoning. And I have the short term memory of a gold fish :)
Tim Tom Sorry Tim, everyone has their own style, and pauses allow me to think of what’s coming next. Hope you enjoyed the video despite my ineptitude.
@@adventuresinhistoryland5501 Of course I did, otherwise I wouldn't have givem feedback.
l am watching in the UK, in Northen Ireland. I have argued that this was a war caused by greed and not a desire for liberty. One grievance was that the colonists were asked to pay towards their own security bill afer the Seven Years War (that was started by George Washington may I add). The reality was that the people of the Americas were taxed less than in Britan, owned more land and had a higher standard of life than in the home country. If the Americas remained loyal to the Crown history would have been very different. Slavery would have been dealt with in more civilised manner for one. I argue that this was America's first Civil War. One of my main areas of study is the ACW. I would also argue that this was another ecomic war hidden behind morals and States Rights.
Had I found myself in the Americas during the C18, I most likely would have been wearing a red uniform and marching under a Union flag. The founding fathers used liberty and manifest destiny to line their pockets.
Rev. Mather Byles , Boston: "Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away ?" (qote plagiarised by Mel Gibson in the "Patriot", another very FARB movie!).
As oppression goes, it's probably the least impressive of all colonial liberation movements. India, say, only wishes it got taxation without representation. And yet, the whole thing could have been avoided if the UK had learned about and appreciated the future of America, and granted its initially very modest demands for power and representation, the way they did in Canada (too slowly, but that's another story).
How different the history of the world could have been if the UK and America had stayed united! You mention slavery. France would not have ruined itself funding the American revolution, so possibly no French revolution and no Napoleon. Together they would have been been the greatest empire in the world, and the power plays that resulted in WW I, and everything that flowed from it, would have been averted.
@@floraposteschild4184 I live in Northern Ireland. We are not permitted to vote in elections that influence which government rules over us. Therefore, we too have " taxation without representation". Our MPs tend to focus on NI issues when they can be bothered to turn up, or stay awake in the house. One NI MP was photographed shopping on his laptop while a crisis debate was being held about a response to covid....
I believe that Canada in the c19 was great example of federalism. Both the United Kingdom and the Americas could have been a hegemony that led the world in economics, industry and honourable restraint.
@@floraposteschild4184
> India, say, only wishes it got taxation without representation.
India wasnt oppressed. IN fact, we have Indian nationalists from the late 1800's saying the only thing they really want is an Indian-rule dominion government (essentially, asking Britain to make them a Dominion like Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa) which they did end up getting implemented in stages between the 1890's and 1930's.
Gandhi was a staunch supporter of the British Empire. The only reason he started the Quit India movement was due to Britain again denying India the status of Dominion in 1919 after WW1. That was when he decided that India should go its own way.
The biggest issue I think most colonists felt is that after the war their situation universally deteriorated. Sure the French were gone, but were they ever even a serious threat to their existence to begin with? France barely cared about Quebec and Louisiana to begin with, being barely inhabited by Frenchmen at all in 90% of the claimed territory. Basically glorified trading posts. Still, after the French are gone, surely the colonists would get to take all that juicy new territory and relieve population pressure and land shortages, right? Wrong, the government instantly cordons off all of it to the Indians and the Québécois, the people they had just *beaten*. Maybe the Americans would have been more willing to accept footing the bill for their security if the security forces were actually doing anything besides garrisoning the colonies AFTER any theoretical serious threat to their existence had just been crushed. From the perspective of a government in Britain it makes perfect sense to enforce new taxes after an expensive war and garrison more troops in the colonies to enforce these new taxes, but to a colonial this was a universal downgrade in their quality of life.
@Noah Pritchett I wonder if the British retook the US during the War of 1812 what would happen?
They weren't rebelling against the tea act, they were rebelling against the stamp act...
1773-- Tea. 1839-- Opium. The common factor-- the East India Company. Coincidence? I think not!
Yep the clue is in the name (company)
Interesting. For most of my life I just thought it was about having to pay taxes, but it's really more about social and political control: who gets to dictate commerce, who is really in control, government vs local , legal vs smuggled, and the use of violence when sovereignty is ignored.
I often discuss with my best friend: he argues that economy drives politics and war, but I argue that economics has its own politics, and like war itself, is an instrument of the state and the subject.
Yep!
Originally the 2008-era Tea Party was about government relationship to large companies...before it devolved into some weird thing about Obama.
@@armorsmith43 Ironically the bailouts wasn't their problem with Obama
Fascinating debate; I would say it all depends on the goals and form of government. A communist dictatorship would want to subdue the populace and maintain self-dependence. Economic interaction is few, and thus it is rare that such a government would go to war over trade. On the opposite, an capitalistic democracy does partake in extensive international exchange, thus it would be more interested to annex other countries. One is driven by control, the other is driven by economy.
@@parkersheahan5471 That's a VERY broad generalization and more about stereotypes than actual systems
A thing can be both a means and an ends.
Why would it be because a thing has its own politics that the possibility of other sorts of politics playing a part in manipulating/acquiring it is negated? That’d be like me saying- because I have my own motives- I can’t try to dictate another thing that has its own motives. Regardless of what it’s intended motive and purpose is, I can very well use my own motive and purpose to gain control over it (I use motive instead of politics here. I’ll expound later). If it initially refuses, I may enter into a sort of negotiations (diplomatic politics) or obtain it by force (war- which requires its own logic, which- when put into the context of being carried out by a multi-person organization- requires its own sort of politics to decide action).
Politics is just a vague word to describe the inner-workings of man-governed systems- which inherently require the acknowledgment of others’ motives/opinions- to whatever degree (various government types). An individual will tend to act upon others as selfishly as possible until awareness of the actual or theoretic discontent of others makes politics necessary.
So in summary: just because any system dictated by men has politics, this doesn’t mean that other man-governed systems can’t/won’t interact with them according to their own interests.
I love how you always speak so dramatically. You would be great at telling stories
man would steal my gf
What would you call what he's doing now
@@MajesticSkywhale Doing God's work and saving the world from idiocy one video at a time. /s 😂
I do believe that Brandon is telling stories. One should not draw an equivalence between stories and fiction.
I hate how he speaks so slow
"A 10% levy on baked goods.
You know the revolution started on a levy of less than 2%.
How is the public not flocking to the streets?
We must do something,"
Ichabod Crane on Sales Tax, Sleepy Hollow
Upon attaining their independence,the colonists suddenly found they had to pay out of pocket for all the things the British had been doing and/or subsidising for them. Taxes went way up to cover those expenses, and never really came back down. Certainly never to the low levels they paid under British rule. People just got used to it, same as they would have without the war.
@@laurencefraser Crisises of 1790s 😉
But the Federalists and Hamilton miraculously saved their economic endeavours... and hence, they gained a lot of power later on and lost after the War of 1812 as they warmongered
@@laurencefraser at least we aren’t forced to disarm ourselves and quarter soldiers inside our own homes… yet
This channel rocks. Brandon should be teaching history at a top university.
@si james tool
Because it was so damn expensive to buy, they kept it in tea chests and always had the key with them
As a true Brit, I was raised on "hot leaf water."
I was just trying to remember the other day what it was about the tax on tea that was so contrary to what one might expect (I believe you alluded to it in another video), and then this arrived to clarify that British tea actually cost less than smuggled tea. Perhaps that should have been obvious, but thank you for explaining the circumstances surrounding the matter.
And that account of Malcolm returning to England with some of the tar and feathers with which he had been attacked is really quite something...an incredibly potent testament to how such events affected individuals.
Fabulous thumbnail, too.
Tar and feathers? There's a tax for that
Showing the tar and feathers is almost like Jenkin keeping his severed ear to push one of the Anglo-Dutch wars (the War Of Jenkin’s Ear, of course), about a century earlier.
Thank you! This video was much enjoyed with a spot of fine tea !
"chairmen of the committee of tarring and feathering"
I think I might start putting that on my business cards
The fact they had people literally watching the sign meant they where not to be fucked with.
"The seed of slavery."
He said, in a slave owning society.
Humans can be really funny sometimes.
Was he pro slavery?
That was an irony that British abolitionists at the time often noted!
@@conservativedemocracyenjoyer I think so most landowners were.
Yet another excellent video Brandon. Couldn’t have put it better myself! Well done sir! Well done!
Your lighting is much better, I love those kinds of videos you make, please keep them up!
I'm Anglo Irish. Don't defile the sacred leaf water
It would seem that around 13:30 ‘loyalist’ might be conflating those who think British rule is just, with those who wish not to rebel. It might be semantics, but it seems like an important difference to mark.
Excellent episode. I much enjoy your videos. You are very well spoken and in this age of slang and abbreviations it is quite refreshing.
As an American born in the U.S. and a Christian, I've gone back and forth over whether the American Revolution was justified or not. I still lean towards that it wasn't, but some things give me pause. For example, when Brandon mentions that North addressed Parliament and said, "They have tarred and feathered YOUR subjects." The implication there is that "they" (Americans) are different from "our subjects" and therefore they considered America not a proper part of Britain nor Americans true British citizens.
The idea behind the Revolution from the American view, is that America had been functionally a separate sovereign state for some time. On paper it belong to Britain, but the Americans governed themselves, fed themselves, and defended themselves. To Americans, their Revolution to throw off the British yoke was no different than the efforts of India to do the same many years later.
But was it really? I'm still not sure. Sometimes the Founders just look like rebellious traitors who wanted their cake and eat it too. Who caused much bloodshed and strife without real cause. I just don't know.
An interesting take on things, Jason.
First I would only presume to say I know a small amount of history, produced by others and have no definitive truth, we can only really see a partial, in all senses, view of the past. So these are purely opinions based on a little reading.
I would say we should take a deep breath before using words like Sovereign State at a time when the very idea of nationhood was being crystalised into a political concept, one developed across Europe but foremost by the inhabitants of the British Isles after the English Civil War.
Indeed the English Parliament was at the time one of if not the most liberal and democratic of Parliaments worldwide, Ironically the founding fathers were largely political and religious extremists left over from the failure of the Puritan wing, whose initial successes led to a military authoritarian dictatorship under Cromwell.
When Charles II was welcomed back so overwhelmingly, and laws and religious statutes relaxed somewhat, it was the diehards who headed off to America to try to continue their social experiment.
The British State allowed these trouble makers to leave as it was a two bird solver.
The truth is most "Americans" in 1776 were as loyal as their Cousins north of the board in Canada, there was little real appetite to "get involved" either way, little self interest nor did any of it solve their day to day struggles, food, Indentured servitude, life day to day.
If anything truly fostered rebellion it was Indentured servitude, and as with the Slavery issue, guess who in the Americas were often among those who benefited?
The wealthy land owners and mercantile classes. Ironically it was many of these that justified their coming actions as throwing off the "Yoke of Oppression", the self interested in furthering their own power that more Devolution would bring.
It was mainly the intellectual, French radical politics influenced, merchant, middle classes in cities that were self interested in pushing things. Sounds very familiar today huh? They were the SJWs and Antifa of their times, cut with the extremes of the other side, bigotry, distortion , extreme self-interested Libertarian-ism.
It is funny how little American history discusses about the piracy up and down the east coast, into the Caribbean, even unto the shores of Europe itself that bedeviled the Century and a half around 1776. The main reason so much of the British Navy was tied up all across those areas, and the hub the nexus for a great deal of that piracy and "Smuggling" was ... Boston! And the Cities up and down the East Coast.
It was not a little bit of naughtiness here and there but a massive business, a mafia, at the time 2nd on the list of British Admiralty problems to the Barbary Corsairs, worse than the Norman and Brittany coasts, more immediately consequential than the South Asian Piracy, or East Coast African and Arab Piracy.
Non Nautical Americans did not appreciate how much the British Navy Protected and ensure their trade routes and at what coast, and many that did know were involved in the effort to by pass legality to maximise profit.
"Americans governed themselves, fed themselves, and defended themselves." The truth was far more complicated and in some cases this is untrue. Much Americans (even saying American assumes everyone thought that way but they didn't) need had to be imported, hence this issues touched on above. And may I point out that of course then even more than now there was no exclusivity on corruption, greed, self interest or bigotry, to any one "Nation", Culture or Group. Despite the vast differences of those times, people were people, just as today, only definitely far less "Informed" and perhaps simpler to "influence".
As others have pointed out, The "Red Coats" and British Navy were not an occupying force, many "Americans" served in the British army; (i.e. the Continental British Army which was as American as British because no such distinction existed, East Coast vs West Coast today?); people such as Washington, indeed they had helped protect the Colonies in the French and Indian Wars (Officially between 1688 and 1763) but the repercussions continued, sadly largely letting down the Tribes that helped, and the taxes at issue were in large part to pay for these past costs but the especially the continuing costs.
The American revolution was nothing like as "legitimate" as the "Indian Question" (Asia), India though never before a single entity had been composed of self ruling kingdoms, many Mughal "occupied" depending on one's point of view and is as in any complex history ... full of complexity.
American as such had never existed as any kind of state entity as such, before the 13 Colonies, but had of course been the home of an entirely different set of many Indigenous tribes with each differing cultures of their own. It is easy to forget that we are talking about just a couple of generations at the very most.
I would like to point out that these observations do not de-legitimate the struggle that ensued, and the cause of Independence. In the end, for what ever the motives of any single person or even a group of people, events and the dynamics of history turned sufficient inhabitants of the Americas towards self government and away from Britain that legitimated the "Revolution".
Without popular local support there was no chance of imposing government at that distance. Britain lost the war of Propaganda, there was no way to respond quickly enough. Remember the MSM of that time was almost all in the hands of those intellectuals and classes that saw things the same way they were the Revolutionaries, they read all the tripe along with the good stuff from Revolutionary France at that time, whose own was barely 4 years old.
1792 the First French Republic, led to the execution of Louis XVI in January 1793.
That's one Presidential term today!
Is it any wonder hearing such things repeated in the Streets of (British-)American Cities, and newspapers, the British might over react, or seem to?
Another French revolution, with all the blood but well over 3,000 nautical miles over an ocean with all the dangers any sailing voyage had to undertake at that time.
The 200 year old simple largely one sided stories of US high schools are like me taking the Ladybird books history of my childhood as full and gospel truth alone too.
No Nation's history is clean or pure, but I love the core ideals of both UK and US democracy, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, free speech and all the benefits both our nations histories have ultimately provided us all, myself and my children and the wider world at large.
I admire and love America much as a member of my family, sometimes thinking "what the heck are you doing or saying you morons" but I would charge to your aid or support at a moment, to help if needed; try to accept your criticisms with an open mind; appreciate our differences and our similarities; for but for the growing up ...for the revolution the big dumb ox I love today might not have come about, but it did and anything else is just what-ifs.
God bless America, from the UK
Please forgive any errors I wrote this off the cuff without references, it's just my own thoughts, and I suffer from a dyslexia so make odd mistakes that I miss when editing sometimes.
I'd say both were at fault: neither was willing to compromise and escalated the conflict needlessly. The taxes were a pittance, but they were a breach of the rights of British citizens. The Tories dug in their heels about their authority, and the Patriots turned to violence, and the government sent in the troops, which is a good way to get everyone scared and dead.
It was justified and moral. People have the right to their own self determination end of story. The colonists were NOT full British citizens and they were forced under a rule they did not consent too while being stripped of their resources by a government they did not vote for. Thus the phrase "no taxation without representation"
There's also probably something to be said here by someone who knows more than I do about the economic problems of the East India Company (which led to the passage of the Tea Act and the Regulating Act 1773), and the way that a bunch of British elites and important commercial interests held stock in the Company, that made the Government really sensitive to anything that might hurt the company's fortunes.
Especially given the bailout after the Bengal famine: the Company had a big boom in Bengal, the gov invested in it, but when the Company pretty much created the famine, the stocks went down, and the government had to bail them out.
One thing that confuses me is that if, at the time, there was no such country as the USA, then these 'Americans' were actually British, so this was a civil war.
The 13 colonies were basically a hodgepodge of all of Europe.
It was absolutely a civil war: state vs state, city vs city, even within a community. Families fought with each other, within each other.
@@cavejohnson4306 not yet, most of the 13 colonies were more of a hodgepodge of British, and scotch Irish. Though was more of a euro admixture in places the brits took from other powers. IE New Amsterdam --> New York.
technically yes
Excellent information.
Many thanks. I learned a lot!
Brit "how do you take your tea."
Me: "thoroughly mixed with the waters of Boston Harbor!!!"
Just try not to pay your Direct Taxes and see how long your Freedom lasts. In the end they fought the British so their offspring could be enslaved a few generations later.
jefferson was right about everything.
You're one of the few channels where i can pay attention to a half an hour video
Given how some people react when they see a MAGA hat, this reaction doesn't seem overstated
Imagine if modern tea partyers dumped a year's worth of chinese steel into SF Bay.
Very interesting thank you
throwing a bunch of tea in the ocean was the best way to *TRIGGERµ the British
no one disrespect the tea
I wonder if you could use Sugar Maple tree leaves🍁 for tea...
Thank you for a wonderful explanation. As an Englishman, I visited Boston many years ago, determined to understand the incident.
All the information that I could find or was given as I trudged the red brick trail was about as informative as the rubric on a Noraid collection box in a Boston bar. It was much less of an education than my mate having all his kit stolen, or the evening spent in what we later learned was known as the Combat Zone ("Really? You went THERE? Wow!).
Still, I really enjoyed the helo tour and hospitality, courtesy of the US Army. At last an explanation! Terrorism! How embarrassing 😳. No wonder our hosts were reticent about the Tea Party.
Don't pay taxes to your king, pay taxes to us smugglers instead.
I love your channel keep up the great stuff
Great video man.
Who wastes tea? Americans!
Aren't there also issues with exclusivity and mercantilism? That is, if you buy the legal tea, there's not just a tax; all the profits go to Britain and British shipowners. Meanwhile if you buy the smuggled tea, a substantial amount of the money goes to your local Bostonian shipowners.
That was pretty much Adams' point; it was cheaper to by company tea, but it was hurting local businesses. It wasnt' about the tax itself; it was about economic power
The Brits don't fuck around when it comes to their tea
This has only served to provoke further disgust at those heinous acts and the swine behind them.
19:48 Brandon F. doesn't drink coffee. he drinks tea like a proper Brit
No, my friend... he's into Cocoa
I know.
@@pablojn4826 Oh yes. I forgot how boring he is irl
We already have proper Brits.....they call us Americans.
Fascinating that chinese Tea became so popular in the UK.
@@TorianTammas FWIW, while tea has Chinese origins, the black tea commonly consumed in the UK is a product of British colonialism in India and the British East India company.
I was kinda wondering why states north of Maine didn’t break away with the colonies from Great Britain. I asked my teacher and he kinda just said that they were new so they didn’t want to rebel.
its got more to do with the fact the leaders of the revolution denounced the Quebec Act of 1774. this had granted Quebec residents freedom of religion and language. So from their perspectives, the rebels were going to suppress their culture while the British were not. now combine this with the fact anyone who spoke infavour of britian were heavily harased (see how the revultion treated the tories, and how many fled north with horror stories) and you have a very reluctant population for joining a revolution. especially one likely to fail.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Interesting, I wonder why I was never taught this lol.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 The Quebec Act was a way for the British Parliament to placate the large French Colonists that still lived there. Besides allowing Roman Catholicism, the act sought to consolidate existing French and English law, and allow an entrenched seigneurial system. Ironically the act did little to win over the general French population but it was supported by the French ruling class. This infuriated the American colonies because they saw it as a measure of coercion. Many colonies still had official Protestant religions for their State at the time.
Nevermind the geographical, economical, and cultural difference, as well as war weariness of the general population from the previous French and Indian Wars.
One of these days, we'll get Brandon into tea. You cannot escape civilisation forever! :P
Thanks Brandon.
I came here to see who spilled the tea sis
this is amusing if not a bit hilarious. keep up the good work ...
Excellent video. The heart of the Revolution was definitely the ideological concepts of sovereignty, imperialism, individuality, collectivism,etc.
Thank you, Sir
Sorry to distract from the subject topic, but that was probably the most honest advertisement I've ever seen on the platform!
"mere property damage" seems to have new life today...
I like the idea that the British feel it was a consumer-friendly tax. The oppressors always feel they were in the right.
Better not tell Spiffing Brit about this...
Seriously though great video, I wanted to know more about this subject and you did a cracking job as always!
Storming onto someone's ship uninvited and without Authority, seizing another's property and committing vandalism is called ':piracy."
Tea? In *COLD* water?! There is no reaction too large for this heinous crime
Iced tea
@@abraham8310 ...isn't made with cold water
@@MrMonkeyhanger Well aware. It has to be brewed. You drink it cold.
9:14 that line woke me up from whatever i was doing while listening to this video
An interesting extra tid-bit is how this also ties into the previous 7 years war, known here as the French and Indian War. England having just fought a war with France and having had committed troops to defend the colonies felt that it was only right that the colonies should pay taxes to help recoup the costs. The initial taxes were so high they caused an immediate outrage, leading to the different riots/ tax acts/ and ultimately the Boston Tea Party. Which in turn led to revolution. So the whole thing was the French’s fault! 🤣
JustAsPlanned
Excellent lighting Brandon! is that new?
Founding fathers would be terrified to see what has come to be.
It was a million dollars of cargo in today's money and years worth of tea. I'd lose my monocle if I found out a shipment like that had been destroyed.
1 million isn't much for a shipment
To be fair, the arguments that the British would tax domestic American industry to oblivion to fill British coffers while building dependency on British import of manufactured goods & exporting raw resources from America is quite valid.
That's precisely what they did in India & Ireland.
> is quite valid.
Its not really. India's domestic production didnt fail because it was taxed, it failed because its handmade goods couldnt compete on the markets with mass produced goods produced in britain.
But even then, Britain invested huge amounts of money into industrialising India. By 1900 India was the 4th largest textile producer in the world, and the 6th largest steel producer as well.
Ireland also had plenty of industry as well, especially around Dublin and Belfast.
You can insult our mothers, kick our dogs, mock our bowler hats, BUT woe betide anyone who messes with our tea!
Makes you rethink the legitimacy of a Sales Tax.
A "sales tax" is called a "regressive tax" because everyone, rich or poor, pays the same amount on the taxed item. Like all other forms of taxation nobody likes paying it
6:30 "hot leaf water"! That's what I think of tea.
A point to make is that water was usually contaminated. boiled Tea or alcohol (beer) had to be used.
7:28 Those kind of edits are what I love
The reason it was a big deal was beause they did the one thing the British could never tolerate
Throwing away their tea
One wonders how much of a financial incentive the smugglers had to block legal tea...
Ironically, according to "Slave Nation", the Revolutionary War was fought to retain slavery.
YET, because the stated reason was high sounding, and appealed to our hearts,
the United States has been on a steady progress to deliver on that high promise of justice for all. Little by little, we deliver more on that promise.
Freeing the slaves.
Letting women vote.
Free public schools for everyone - no matter how poor.
Voting Rights Act - to ensure everyone's ability to participate in our democracy (now under threat)
I believe it was one of the reasons for the landowners and the East Indian company would have hurt their pockets
Wow, you are really a hard seller!
I wonder what the participants of the original tea party would think about the modern TEA Party.
Horrified
Compared to ofher poitical parties theres no doubt they would support them
"pussies"
NOT OUR TEA!!!🇬🇧🇬🇧
Tea IS a plague...now coffee on the other hand...if they had dumped coffee beans into the harbor...that would have warranted a declaration of war...🤔😁
It would have certainly caused an acceleration in the local fish...
11:35 "seeds of slavery"
Well, I'm glad that they wouldn't tolerate any kind of seeds of slavery in their country.
........hey wait a minute
Lovely video! I wonder if anyone has a link to a yankee antithesis to this British way of looking at things that is also sufficiently detailed?
The Americans destroyed perfectly good tea by not adding milk or at least some lemon, so no,not an overreaction at all.
I feel that you kinda skewed a bit in favor of the British position with your summary of "it was good for everyone economically". It really wasn't, it was, in point of fact, a form of Cronyism in that the East India Company had made a poor judgement on the demand for Tea and was facing bankruptcy if it couldn't move it's stock. Rather than compete in the market as it had been set up (which, well, would have ended up with the EITC declaring bankruptcy), instead the corporation was declared to big and important to be allowed to fail, and so the government effective set up special carveouts explicitly for the EITC and ONLY for the EITC, thus in effect granting them a monopoly on the tea trade to the colonies.
A single company being given a defacto monopoly by the government granting it special carveouts that give it a competitive advantage over its competitors is not "good for everyone" by any stretch. It was good for the EITC, it was good for the politicians who supported the EITC, but it was bad for EVERY OTHER BUSINESS involved in the Tea Trade, both Colonial and British, who were not granted the special favor the EITC was.
what are your opinions on the BBC podcasts called “in our time: History” they cover the American revolution in full talks and episodes and I really enjoyed listening.
thank you. Finally I understand the significance of this Boston Tea Party, after reading about it in a primary school picture book on the Founding of America way back in the 1980s.
GOD SAVE THE KING!
This is what they called "Tyranny"
Brandon: Common sense coffee, roasted for visionaries! Although you can order some too if you like.
Oof, guess I got roasted in a coffee commercial.