Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: Melani
Date: 07 Nov 03 - 09:52 PM

I like Earl Grey.

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: Guy Wolff
Date: 07 Nov 03 - 08:52 PM

On the Political versus economic question. My Great whatever grandfather and Uncle( They were twin brothers) John & Jonathan Glover had a shipping business in Boston well Marbelhead. The family story goes that one stayed home and ran the shipping ( or during the revolution Pirating ) and the other gave the first Sloop the the American Navy The Sloop Hannah and helped Washington and his troops get around. If you look at the picture of Washington crossing the Delaware the guy behind him looking nervous was my great GGGGG uncle Johnathan Glover. So I guess the answer is Political??? Economic ???? BOTH
                                 Again All the best , Guy

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: Guy Wolff
Date: 07 Nov 03 - 08:23 PM

Hello All .
                           I have a great little story to put into this thread.   When my wife first came down to Connecticut to marry me we met an old artist friend of mine who asked Erica what she did in Boston and she told him that among other things she had worked at Paul Reveres house in the north of Boston. A year or so later this guy gave Erica a small drawing that he said came out of a collection of books he had bought from Roger Sherman's house of Sherman Ct. It was a drawing of the Green Dragon Inn where the Masons gathered that night and on it were these words
                                        GREEN DRAGON TAVERN                          
                      WHERE WE MET TO PLAN THE COSINGNMENT
                        OF A FEW SHIPMENTS OF TEA DEC 16 th 1773
                      PAUL REVERE NORTH ?????? BOSTON MASS.      
                               JOHN JOHNSON 4 WATER ST.    1779
        
                       The Picture shows an old building with barrels on the roof or widows walk . Not a common practice in modern day New England.
        At any rate years latter I showed the paper to the curatorial department at the Wooster Museum who are interested in Revere and the masons of that period and she said that yes it was real but it was a remembrance of a get-together years later to remember what they had done . She showed me one they had in their collection that was very much like ours but with a horse and rider not in my copy and without the Barrels on the roof. Both drawings had the masonic logo on them in different places !
                          The point is the action was political in my take. Roger Sherman of Connecticut went very far out of his way (if he was involved ) to help tea smugglers. I think he went back to the reunion party because of its important place in the history of our separation from the mother country and it was defiantly a free mason action! .
                                    All the best to all here. Guy Wolff

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 Nov 03 - 02:39 PM

Also wondering about American broadside collections. The only large one on line is through American Memory, which includes broadsides at Duke and other Universities as well as those cataloged and put on line by American government repositories. Not sure how the indexing is done- I have searched by subject usually.

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Nov 03 - 01:14 PM

I'd missed that TEA, DESTROYED BY INDIANS posted by rich. Thanks, Ferrera for drawing my attentin to it.

Not in the Bodleian collection. Is there an American equivalent online collection?

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 07 Nov 03 - 12:45 PM

re tea in Western Canada: You can get Lapsang Souchong at Murchies, both in Vancouver and Victoria.
http://www.murchies.com

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Nov 03 - 04:12 PM

A brief look in American Memory found several songs. but they are all after the fact, some written on the centenary of the event. I also wonder why there are no songs.

An interesting article on the event from the Boston Gazette, Dec. 20, 1773, enlarging on posts above: "in less than four hours emptied every chest of tea on board the three ships commanded by the Captains Hall, Bruce and Coffin, amounting to 342 chests, into the sea! without the least damage done to the ships or other property. The masters and owners are well pleas'd that their ships are thus clear'd, and the people are almost universally congratulating each other on this happy event."
The bias of the paper toward the "Mohawks" (who were mostly Freemasons) is obvious.
A broadside by the "Tradesmen of Boston" protested the event and supported buying and selling freely, thus not everyone was happy about the dumping.

Tea was also dumped elsewhere. In the same Boston Gazette article: "Capt. Loring in a brig from London, having 58 chests of the detested tea on board, was cast ashore on the Back of Cape Cod last Friday fe'night: 'Tis expected the "Cape Indians" will give us a good Account of the tea against our next (issue)." Tea is called a "detestable herb" and "Poison."

In western Canada: the only Lapsang Souchong I can find that is readily available comes from a mail order site in Washington state. Very good quality, in bulk.

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: Ferrara
Date: 06 Nov 03 - 04:07 PM

McGrath -- I'm confused. I thought the song I mentioned was contemporary with the Tea Party (at least within a month or so?)

Obie, for tea the trick is to find loose tea that you can buy by the pound, so brand names aren't that relevant.

Beerwise (sorry! couldn't resist ...)we have MUCH better stuff than Sam Adams which isn't really a micro brewery IMHO although I do like their beer.

My favorite U.S. beer ever was Celis Grand Cru. The brewmaster at Celis was Belgian and produced wonderful ales. But Miller, damn them, bought Celis and stopped making the Grand Cru because it wasn't profitable enough. I think they finally let the whole Celis brewery die. Damn them again.

Well that's off topic, would have PM'd you but you're signed on as a guest.

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 06 Nov 03 - 03:48 PM

Glad that you found some good tea Ferrara!
There is also some good brew made there in micro breweries. Sam Adams comes to mind. The crap is from people like Miller and Busch. There is a lot of significance to those horses hauling the Bud!
The best brands of Canadian tea are Morse's, King Cole, and Red Rose. Earl Grey is really bad so you have to pick and choose.
My sister in law in the New York City area seems to find stuff that's not to bad, but I forget the brand.

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Nov 03 - 01:47 PM

But still no contemporary stuff?

I've been having a look through the Bodleian Library online catalogue of Ballads. No luck so far. Maybe it wasn';t sensational enough. But I'd have thought it would have been in Boston, if not back here. Surely they had broadsheet ballads in 18th Century Boston?

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: Ferrara
Date: 06 Nov 03 - 01:42 PM

McGrath, rich r posted a song called "TEA, DESTROYED BY INDIANS" which he say was published shortly after the event.

... And Obie, just ask my spouse Bill D whether we have any tea here fit to drink. Although admittedly right now Bill's trying out a supply of Yorkshire Tea that arrived with the Shellback chorus.... Our Shellback guests can testify to the quality of the coffee that Bill brews, as well. :-)

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: Melani
Date: 06 Nov 03 - 01:18 PM

This is all totally fascinating. Thanks for ressurecting the thread, guys. I have just joined an 18th century nautical re-enactors group, and never having done 18th century, I have a lot of research to do.

Next time I go to Boston, the Tea Party Museum will definitely be on the itinerary. Just a comment on kid programs--even if you leave out the nasty bits, getting a kid interested in a subject at an early age can lead to a lifetime of interest. They will find out the whole truth in good time.

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: JJ
Date: 06 Nov 03 - 08:51 AM

It wasn't John Adams who defended Cinque and his men at the Amistad trial, but his son, John Quincy Adams.

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 06 Nov 03 - 03:46 AM

Just a thought (as much of this is in various forms of unrecorded/ late recorded history) with various uncomfirmed views.
If (as Timehiker quoted) SKIP ITALICS if you've followed the thread:
I'd like to throw in my two cents worth on this subject. Just a few details to add to the Encyclopedia Brittanica post. The taxes on the tea in Boston harbor had already been paid by the East India Company, so it was the principle of taxation without representation that was the focus of the political protest. The tea was also less expensive than any other tea in town, smuggled or not. So a lot of local merchants had an economic stake in the game also.

The laws of Boston Harbor stated that, once a ship had docked, it had a certain amount of time to unload or the cargo would be confiscated and sold at auction (at prices so low, even rebels couldn't be trusted to resist). The Sons of Liberty had made it known that they wouldn't allow the tea to be unloaded. There had been violent protests in Boston before, so the owners didn't risk damage to their ships by trying to unload the tea. If the rebels waited until after the deadline to destroy the tea, they would be breaking laws passed by their own legislature. The Sons of Liberty waited until the night before the deadline, then boarded the ships and threw the tea into the harbor. Interestingly, this was one of the least violent of the "tea parties". In other colonies, tea merchants were harrassed, and at least one ship was burned.

It would appear that the ships owners/masters would also have an interest in discharging their cargoes with no damage to their vessels, and as they were likely to be selling at a great loss anyway and could have been behind this matter.
Did Lloyds of London feature in payouts at all?

Nigel (just muddying the water, as tea does!)

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: Peace
Date: 05 Nov 03 - 09:32 PM

The movie was "Amistad" and if you google    slave, cinque    Claymore, you'll find stuff.

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 05 Nov 03 - 07:20 PM

Kendall, thanks for the bit on John Adams and the Boston Massacre. I had recalled something similar about John Adams defending a slave named Cinque, when he took over a slave ship. I cannot recall the name of the ship, but I believe a movie was made about the incident.

The interesting fact I do seem to remember was that the Supreme Court decision on freeing Cinque, was written by a justice named Tanney, who later wrote the Dred Scott decision, to a much different result.

Somebody help an old man out here...

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: kendall
Date: 05 Nov 03 - 10:12 AM

A couple of interesting notes, I thought it was Patrick Henry who said "Give me liberty or give me death."

Paul Revere got caught smuggling, the British authorities took his ship, and he got revenge by creating the "Boston Massacre". The charges were bogus, and John Adams got the soldiers off free much to the chagrin of those who wanted to create an incident.

On the eve of the revolution, there was only one restrictive law in place, the Navigation Acts, and that guaranteed markets for American goods. Those whackos just wanted to fight the crown.It was all about the power of the purse strings. They wanted the protection of the British soldiers against the indians, but they didn't want to pay for it.
Sorta like certain conservatives today, they want all the government can give them, but no taxes to pay for it.

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Nov 03 - 06:21 AM

But to get back to the question in my opening post - are there any songs or broadsheet ballads or whatever about the Boston Tea Party dating from that period, rather than written long afterwards?

Either in the USA or back in England?

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Nov 03 - 06:18 AM

"Unfortunate for the British, but certainly not for the Americans"

I'm not too sure that was entirely true for the original inhabitants of what ultimately became the USA. And it's questionable if slavery would have lasted as long as it did.

But I'd think the article would have been primarily thinking about the impact on the tea trade.

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 01:22 PM

Tea (according to Chambers Encyclopaedia) was introduced to the British Isles at Thomas Garroway's Coffee House in London in the 1650s. Coffee remained a popular drink, along with tea, until a series of blights affected coffee production, the major blow coming with the destruction of the coffee crop in Ceylon in the 1870s. Thus, for many Britons, tea was a second choice.
Most English tea came from China, the first shipments arriving from India in 1839.

I prize one sentence in Chambers essay on tea: "It was a factor in the unfortunate chain of events which culminated in the American was of independence."

Unfortunate for the British, but certainly not for the Americans. Who knows, Obie and his compatriots may someday achieve full independence as well- no more royalty on stamps (dump the last printing in Hudsons Bay), no more Governors General spending fortunes on needless travel and receptions, abandonment of the fiction that British royals mean anything over here.
Just another viewpoint from a western Canadian, where tea is almost never seen in restaurants.

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: Santa
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 12:11 PM

Hey - where are all these people over here wanting to refight the American Revolutionary War? I don't think I've ever met one. Maybe I could recruit them to refight something important like Nechtansmere?

We all know that the Americans will one day come to their senses and return to the one true allegiance. No need to refight anything.

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 11:27 AM

Got out of bed on the wrong side today, M.Ted?

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: M.Ted
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 10:24 AM

Obie--Why not just stay home and drink your freakin' beer. Not like anyone will miss you--

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 05:10 PM

Most Americans are coffee drinkers. They dumped the last good shipment of tea that was sent there overboard. When I visit from Canada I always bring my own tea and beer as I find that the local stuff is horsepiss.
Did you folks dump the good beer over the side also? :-}
             Obie

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 04:38 PM

Interesting - here is a page with various versions of the East India Flag. It all looks rather plausible. That's just the way things happen in practice, often enough

I don't suppose the looted flag still survives somewhere does it, to settle the matter?

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: Mark Clark
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 02:19 PM

In his 1981 book Critical Path, R. Buckminster Fuller mentions the Boston Tea Party in his discussion of the world power structure as it related to North America. The temporary victory of the colonists is properly framed in the history of the world power structure. It also seems that Boston Tea Party may account for the origin of the U.S. flag. Fuller wrote:

    To better understand the coming of world power structure into North American affairs, we will switch back from the nineteenth to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, to the opening up of North America and the American socioeconomic scene. The European colonization occurred in several major ways.
    The Spanish way was accomplished with vast haciendas—grants from the king to powerful supporters. The hacienda development began in Central America and Mexico and expanded northward into California.
    The British king also gave vast plantation grants to royal favorites on the North American southeastern coast, below the freezing line.
    The French came to two parts of North America: (1) to the Gulf of Mexico-Mississippi delta, where exiled prisoners were dumped, and (2) to the St. Lawrence area of Canada, whence they moved westward via the Great Lakes, then southward on the Mississippi to join with these lower Mississippi colonists exploring northward and westward on the Mississippi.
    British sovereign grants were also being given on the northeastern coast, where it was much colder and where existence was much more difficult. Because it was much more difficult to colonize, the royal favorites who received large land grants from the British king in the north did everything they could to encourage colonization of any kind by others, who bought their land from their landlords. The Pilgrims and other people of religious conviction found the freedom of thought-and-act to warrant hazarding their lives in that cold-winter wilderness. On the northeast coast of North America the individuals who did the colonizing were not the landowners, who remained safely in Europe. In the south the royal-favorite landowners themselves occupied and personally operated many of the great plantations.
    Though motivated by distinctly different northern and southern reasons for doing so, we have the east-coast North American British-blood people breaking away from the Old World through the American Revolution.
    In our tracing of the now completely invisible world power structures it is important to note that, while the British Empire as a world government lost the American Revolution, the power structure behind it did not lose the war. The most visible of the power-structure identities was the East India Company, an entirely private enterprise whose flag as adopted by Queen Elizabeth in 1600 happened to have thirteen red and white horizontal stripes with a blue rectangle in its upper lefthand corner. The blue rectangle bore in red and white the superimposed crosses of St. Andrew and St. George. When the Boston Tea Party occurred, the colonists dressed as Indians boarded the East India Company’s three ships and threw overboard their entire cargoes of high-tax tea. They also took the flag from the masthead of the largest of the “East Indiamen“—the Dartmouth.
    George Washington took command of the U.S. Continental Army under an elm tree in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The flag used for that occasion was the East India Company’s flag, which by pure coincidence had the thirteen red and white stripes. Though it was only coincidence, most of those present thought the thirteen red and white stripes did represent the thirteen American colonies—ergo, was very appropriate—but they complained about the included British flag’s superimposed crosses in the blue rectangle in the top corner. George Washington conferred with Betsy Ross, after which came the thirteen white, five-pointed stars in the blue field with the thirteen red and white horizontal stripes. While the British government lost the 1776 war, the East India Company’s owners who constituted the invisible power structure behind the British government not only did not lose but moved right into the new U.S.A. economy along with the latter’s most powerful landowners.
    By pure chance I happened to uncover this popularly unknown episode of American history. Commissioned in 1970 by the Indian government to design new airports in Bombay, New Delhi, and Madras, I was visiting the grand palace of the British fortress in Madras, where the English first established themselves in India in 1600. There I saw a picture of Queen Elizabeth I and the flag of the East India Company of 1600 A.D., with its thirteen red and white horizontal stripes and its superimposed crosses in the upper corner. What astonished me was that this flag (which seemed to be the American flag) was apparently being used in 1600 A.D., 175 years before the American Revolution. Displayed on the stairway landing wall together with the portrait of Queen Elizabeth I painted on canvas, the flag was painted on the wall itself, as was the seal of the East India Company.
    The supreme leaders of the American Revolution were of the southern type—George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Both were great land-owners with direct royal grants for their lands, in contradistinction to the relatively meager individual landholdings of the individual northern Puritan colonists.
    With the Revolution over we have Alexander Hamilton arguing before the Congress that it was not the intention of the signers of the Declaration of Independence that the nation so formed should have any wealth. Wealth, Hamilton argued—as supported by Adam Smith—is the land, which is something that belonged entirely to private individuals, preponderantly the great landowners with king-granted deeds to hundreds and sometimes thousands of square miles, as contrasted to the ordinary colonists’ few hundreds of acres of homestead farms.
    Hamilton went on to argue that the United States government so formed would, of course, need money from time to time and must borrow that money from the rich landowners’ banks and must pay the banks back with interest. Assuming that the people would be benefited by what their representative government did with the money it borrowed, the people gladly would be taxed in order to pay the money back to the landowners with interest. This is where a century-and-a-half-long game of “wealth”-poker began—with the cards dealt only to the great landowners by the world power structure.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 19 Feb 00 - 01:27 PM

History and economics sit side by side. Revolutions are invariably about business whether it's Batista in Cuba or or religious supremacy in Ireland or the Middle East. It comes down to economics as to who gets to live well and who gets deposed. Smuggling is a profitable business and was employed successfully by the the Kennedy's in Massachusetts. Catholicism came about by an economic need to control the recalcitrant laity and Constantine knew which side his econmic bread was buttered on.

The Sons of Liberty were not above tarring, feathering, riding folks on rails and supporting landowner's interests. No point in deifying these details by exalting them to patriotic ideals. Slavery issue took a back seat at this time because it was unprofitable to oppose it. Abolitionists were attacked in Boston and elsewhere in the North by concerned businessmen.

Is history just about money and business? Probably not because there are ideals that come into play such as being free and equality and justice for all. As to parity in the States, there's this, some folks are more equal than others. So the ones that shout "God bless free enterprise" the loudest have their portfolios on the line. Or as Woody used to say, "Some will rob you with a six-gun and some with a fountain pen." Smuggling? What else is new? It was a way to make an idealistic point and make a buck.

British privateers probably made a bundle out of smuggling as well.

The point of all of this seems to me that there are some in Britain who would like to refight the Revolutionary War just as there are those in the U.S.South today who would like to resurrect the Civil War.

Whether there was smuggling or any illicit operations begs the question, were there valuable ideals that came out of the Boston Tea Party episode? I say yes. Taxation without representation is a pretty good one in my view.

Frank

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Feb 00 - 02:47 AM

Well, I suppose strictly speaking they didn't have slavery in Rhodesia at the time of UDI, unlike Revolutionary America. But I don't really think that was all too significant a difference. For Native Americans and black Americans the American Revolution probably made things worse rather than better, but not all that much.

History isn't bunk, but it is nasty mess. There are heroes from time to time, but they don't normally get into the potted history books.

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: GUEST,flattop
Date: 18 Feb 00 - 08:34 PM

Many of the principal Boston characters were Freemasons, including Otis, Hancock and Revere. Washington would probably have not had much to do with the Boston scene where the revolution started. He was in Virginia I believe. Washington had hurt feelings over the British not recognizing him as an equal gentleman and military officer because he was from the colonies. The Boston group seems to have supported Washington's leadership to get commitment from the southern states.

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: GUEST,flattop
Date: 18 Feb 00 - 08:28 PM

It's difficult, McGrath, to not read between the lines when you throw tea on the water and gas on the fire. This reminds me of the questions raised in the book Everyday Ethics. The book had better questions than answers in my opinion, like: 'Do you like your friends?' and 'If the saint is such a great guy, why doesn't anyone want to spend the afternoon with him?'

As far as historians can tell, Sam Adams organized the tea party and most of the aggressive acts that lead up to the revolution. He was not involved in smuggling. Long before tea party time, he seems to have lost interest in money and focused on his fight with the British.

Thomas Paine wrote to "Give me Liberty or Give Me Death" in 1776. During the tea party, in 1773, Paine was still working in England as an excise officer. The year after the tea party, Paine lost his job trying to get an increase in pay and then he emigrated to America.

> "But I remember at the time of the Rhodesian UDI the breakaway leader > Smith plaintively protesting that it was unfair the way his regime > was being ostracised by America, because, after all, his position > was pretty well the same as that of the American Founding Fathers. > Which was true enough.">

In what ways do you see this as true enough?

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: GUEST,flattop
Date: 18 Feb 00 - 08:26 PM

unfresh

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: GUEST,Sian in Wales
Date: 18 Feb 00 - 04:39 AM

And, as a Canadian humourist once observed: It explains how Americans make tea ...

Sian

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: GUEST,Gene
Date: 18 Feb 00 - 02:21 AM

REVOLUTIONARY TEA -

* IN DIGITRAD DATA BASE *

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 17 Feb 00 - 09:56 PM

I don't actually like tea, why am I reading this??

LTS - confused and insomniac....

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: kendall
Date: 17 Feb 00 - 02:12 PM

As Hebry Ford said "History is mostly bunk." My great Uncle Curt told me 50 years ago that it was one of his aunts who got thrown overboard. Banjer..could we be related?

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: Timehiker
Date: 16 Feb 00 - 11:10 PM

Greetings,

I'd like to throw in my two cents worth on this subject. Just a few details to add to the Encyclopedia Brittanica post. The taxes on the tea in Boston harbor had already been paid by the East India Company, so it was the principle of taxation without representation that was the focus of the political protest. The tea was also less expensive than any other tea in town, smuggled or not. So a lot of local merchants had an economic stake in the game also.

The laws of Boston Harbor stated that, once a ship had docked, it had a certain amount of time to unload or the cargo would be confiscated and sold at auction (at prices so low, even rebels couldn't be trusted to resist). The Sons of Liberty had made it known that they wouldn't allow the tea to be unloaded. There had been violent protests in Boston before, so the owners didn't risk damage to their ships by trying to unload the tea. If the rebels waited until after the deadline to destroy the tea, they would be breaking laws passed by their own legislature. The Sons of Liberty waited until the night before the deadline, then boarded the ships and threw the tea into the harbor. Interestingly, this was one of the least violent of the "tea parties". In other colonies, tea merchants were harrassed, and at least one ship was burned.

The tea party song I sing is "Rich Lady Over the Sea", and naturally, I can't find the origins of it. I've seen it in several old folk song books. The book I have now is called "The Ballad of America"

Take care, Timehiker

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Feb 00 - 05:17 PM

"Your original question, McGrath, implies that smuggling is inherently evil and that British imperial justice which set the smuggling rules was necessarily just. These may also be self-evident truths that don't stand up to scrutiny."

You read too much between the lines, my flat-topped friend. The distinction wouldn't be between evil and good, but between people engaged in a business enterprise, and people engaged in a political demonstration. Which is not to deny that the two categories overlap - if you reckon a change of regime is going to help you make a profit, or stop making a loss, that's a reason to get involved in politics. But it's a different kind of motivation to "Give me Liberty or Give Me Death."

But I remember at the time of the Rhodesian UDI the breakaway leader Smith plaintively protesting that it was unfair the way his regime was being ostracised by America, because, after all, his position was pretty well the same as that of the American Founding Fathers. Which was true enough. I suppose if there'd had a Salisbury Tea Party they'd have blacked up for the occasion.

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: MMario
Date: 16 Feb 00 - 04:40 PM

flashback -

Hotspur - according to everything I can research, Earl Grey teas is "normal tea", but flavored with Oil of Bergamot - which is NOT the essence of the Bell Balm plant also known as bergamot, but rather a CITRUS oil, from the mediterranean.

Granted - the herb bergamot was used for "tea" during dolonial times, and since, but Earl Grey it was not and is not.

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: Blackcat2
Date: 16 Feb 00 - 04:27 PM

Free masonry is certainly tied up in the founding of our country. Just look at the back of a dollar bill sometime.

Pax yall

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: GUEST,Allan S.
Date: 14 Feb 00 - 02:28 PM

Dare I get involved in this one. I t is part of Masonic lore that A lodge of Freemasons met at the tavern where the tea party started. THe lodge meeting came to a halt and the men dressed as indians went out and did the Tea Party bit. They returned to the tavern and continued the meeting. It is a known fact that most of the men involved were active Freemasons. Geo.Washington was master of one the lodges at that time. I may be able to do some research and get back but it will take some time.

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: Marymac90
Date: 14 Feb 00 - 02:10 PM

Ironic, isn't it, that the song listed above refers to the colonists disguised as Mohawks as better than Moors, and refers to their condition of having to buy taxed British tea as slavery. Slavery was legal in Massachusetts at the time, though probably never as widespread as in the south. A free Black man, Crispus Attucks, is regarded as the first to die in the Boston Massacre. Our vision is never so short-sighted as when we can't see the injustice under our noses.

Mary McCaffrey

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: Jigger
Date: 14 Feb 00 - 01:10 PM

From where I am sitting, in an office overlooking the Boston Harbor, I can see a replica of the HMS Beaver, part of the Boston Tea Party Museum. It's closed for the season, but when the weather warms up, the boat will be teeming with school groups and tourists. Never having been to the museum, I can't vouch for its validity. All I know is that when I walk by, there are usually groups of kids wearing yellow "Indian" feathers in their hair, and throwing roped tea crates over the side of the boat. I don't know about the Mohawks, but my Wampanoag friend gets insulted every time he hears the "war whoops." I wonder what version of history the museum is teaching. Somehow I doubt it's terribly accurate. As a fellow museum professional and self-styled historian, it bothers me when organizations water down history to make it palatable and entertaining to children. Frankly, I rather preferred learning the nasty truths behind so-called proper history.

I should go visit the Tea Party Museum one of these days to sow the seeds of dissent...

Jigger

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: Blackcat2
Date: 14 Feb 00 - 12:03 PM

this refers to a post a way back but,

Sam Adams was primarily an organizer of agitation against the British/pro-Brit colonists. This is unlike his brother John who worked mostly through political action and dimplomacy. By the way, bother were Unitarians.

Also - Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, but he borrowed heavily from a rough draft written by Thomas Paine. I don't have the evidece right in front of me, but I will get it later.

pax yall

by the way - in a letter to John Adams, Thomas Jefferson said that he would also be a Unitarian if there was a Unitarian church near his home.

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: GUEST,flattop
Date: 14 Feb 00 - 11:52 AM

Your original question, McGrath, implies that smuggling is inherently evil and that British imperial justice which set the smuggling rules was necessarily just. These may also be self-evident truths that don't stand up to scrutiny.

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 00 - 09:02 PM

"I think the "war whoops" reference in the Boston paper a week after the event makes the Indians from India idea improbable. Besides India is a mostly warm country, this was Boston in December."

Can't say I'd put too much weight on either of thse points - I used to work on newspapers at one time, and view anything in newsprint as open to question; and all the imaginative puictures I've ever seen of the Biostion Tea Party has the "Indians" dressed American Style, but in decidedly chilly attire.

And since I've written songs as well, I don't put too much trust in ballads as evidence of facts on the ground either. My guess is that the popular image of the "Indians" as American Style is probably correct - but it would be a laugh if it turned out that theree's been a misunderstanding all the time.

Mind you, I don't imagine the real Mohawks at the time would have seen it as anything other than insulting to them.

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 13 Feb 00 - 08:55 PM

We often do "Revolutionary Tea" as part of our American History program. Usually, this program is presented to fifth grade students. We always tell them that this song is an allegory and explain what that means. Once, when we asked the fifth grade if anyone knew what an allegory is, one of them said, "Isn't he the vice president?"

That's why we enjoy performing in schools so much!

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 13 Feb 00 - 08:51 PM

One of those "Mohawks" was a little known silversmith by the name of Paul Revere.

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: Hotspur
Date: 13 Feb 00 - 08:16 PM

Ickle Dorrit--sorry to burst your bubble, but Earl Grey is the descendant of a Native American concoction--once called Oswego tea, after the tribe that discovered it. Some colonists turned to this stuff after the Tea Party, since they couldn't drink the regular kind.

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: sophocleese
Date: 13 Feb 00 - 08:10 PM

No wonder I can never find Lapsang Souchong in the stores these days!

Subject: RE: Boston Tea Party - lie or myth?
From: Sourdough
Date: 13 Feb 00 - 08:02 PM

As late as the early seventies, and perhaps it has lasted tot he present, there was a once-a-year celebration in Boston at which tea from the tea party was actually served. (This is clearly ritual rather than a gustatory event).

Sourdough