Tag: Boston Tea Party

“War! war! war! was the cry” The 250th Anniversary of the Powder Alarm

On By Rob OrrisonIn 1774, Battlefields & Historic Places, Boston Tea Party, British Leadership, Civilian, Common Soldier, Continental Congress, Continental Leadership, First Continental Congress, Memory, Militia (Patriot) Leadership, Monuments, Preservation, Uncategorized1 Comment

On September 1, 1774 Massachusetts was on the brink of war. General Thomas Gage, now Governor of Massachusetts was growing more worried about Whig access to gunpowder and weapons. He made a fateful decision to send a small expedition to retrieve the provincial powder stored in Charlestown. This powder in Gages’ mind, was owned by the King. Local leaders felt otherwise and now this grab for powder by Gage nearly sparked war in 1774.

As word of the Boston Tea Party reached the other colonies, the response was mixed. Most colonists believed Bostonians should pay for the ruined tea, but they were also overwhelmingly shocked by the harshness of the Coercive Acts. Support from across the 13 colonies began to pour into Boston. Using an already established “Committee of Correspondence” network created in the early 1770s, colonial leaders began to discuss a proper reaction. Boycotts on imports of British goods and tea especially were accepted broadly. But most importantly, 12 colonies (Georgia abstained) sent representatives to a “Continental Congress” in Philadelphia in September 1774. Unlike the previous Stamp Act Congress, the First Continental Congress was attended by the majority of American colonies. The Congress encouraged boycotts and also petitioned the King and Parliament to rescind the Coercive Acts. In response to their planned attendance, Governor Gage dissolved the Massachusetts Provincial Assembly before the Continental Congress met and called for new elections. This did not deter them from sending representatives (John Adams, Samuel Adams, Thomas Cushing, and Robert Treat Paine) to Philadelphia.

Charlestown (now Somerville) Powder House, ca. 1935

Back in Massachusetts, Gage became wearier of his situation and the possibility of open conflict with colonists. He was active in paying informants and gaining information from local Tories (those loyal to the British government). These sources informed Gage that the people of the countryside were beginning to arm themselves. In an effort to deny them use of the official Royal arms and powder stored across the colony, he began to collect these government-owned supplies. In colonial America, most men served in the local militia. Local towns had powder magazines to store the powder that would be used for training the militia or if the militia was called to defend a portion of the colony. Many of these powder magazines also stored a portion of gunpowder that belonged to the colonial government—the King’s powder.

One such large powder magazine that stored a large quantity of British gunpowder was in nearby Charlestown, now known as Somerville. This powder magazine was the largest in the colony. William Brattle, the commander of the Middlesex County militia and a Royal appointee, notified Gage that he believed the local militia were making plans to steal the Royal gunpowder. Gage moved quickly; he ordered the Middlesex County sheriff to secure the keys. Then early on the morning of September 1, nearly 300 British Regulars made their way to the powder house and removed all of the gunpowder that rightfully belonged to the governor and his agents. By that afternoon, the British troops, powder, and two cannon were in Boston at Castle William (a fort on an island in Boston Harbor).

Word spread quickly that the British came and stole the powder and, in the process, had shot and killed colonials. Now Boston was on fire, and the British navy was bombarding the city. All of this of course was not true, but the word spread like wildfire just the same. Misinformation abounded, and now thousands of locals and militia were gathering in Cambridge looking for revenge. Many loyal to the colonial government were forced to flee to Boston for protection. As time went on, it was evident that the rumors of a battle and Boston burning were untrue. The incident, however, showed how quickly the countryside could mobilize against the governor. Word was quickly sent to Philadelphia where the delegates to the First Continental Congress was aghast at the news. They debated on what to do, and the Massachusetts delegation specifically were on edge for more information. Word eventually arrived that the situation that was first reported was not accurate and no fighting had broken out. John Adams wrote;

Carpenters Hall, Philadelphia where the First Continental Congress convened on September 5, 1774.

“When the horrid news was brought here of the bombardment of Boston, which made us completely miserable for two days, we saw proofs of both the sympathy and the resolution of the continent. War! war! war! was the cry, and it was pronounced in a tone which would have done honor to the oratory of a Briton or a Roman. If it had proved true, you would have heard the thunder of an American Congress.”

Gage, somewhat shaken by the event, began to concentrate his military strength in the city of Boston and fortified the city against a possible attack. He sent word to England that he needed more men to enforce the Coercive Acts. The “Powder Alarm” proved that, within a day, thousands of armed colonials could assemble. The message he sent London shocked the King: “If you think ten thousand men sufficient, send twenty; if one million is thought enough, give two.” Soon after on September 9th, Whig (Patriot) leaders such as Dr. Joseph Warren and others passed the Suffolk Resolves. These strongly worded resolves called for a boycott of British goods and heavily impacted policies adopted by the First Continental Congress. Parliament badly miscalculated the colonial reaction to the Coercive Acts and the pendulum was beginning to swing to independence. The Powder Alarm quickly taught General Gage that the resistance to Royal authority was not just a small group of rebels, but a growing majority of the population.

You can still today visit the the famous Powder House today. It stands in Nathan Tufts Park at 850 Broadway, Somerville, Massachusetts (GPS: N 42.400675, W 71.116998). There is plenty of street parking available. Take the trails in the park to the Powder House located in the center of the park.

“Democracy is too prevalent in America” Thomas Gage Arrives in Boston

On By Rob OrrisonIn 1774, Boston Tea Party, British Leadership, Civilian, Personalities1 Comment

On May 13, 1774, the newly Royally appointed Governor of Massachusetts arrived in Boston. General (and now Governor) Thomas Gage was well known to the American colonists. Gage served as a Major in the 44th Regiment of Foot in the French and Indian War, most notably in the Battle of the Monongahela. When several of Gage’s officers fell, he took up temporary command of the 44th during the battle. During that time Gage got to know George Washington and both men respected each other. After the war, Gage received a promotion to Brigadier General and was appointed the military governor of Montreal.

Portrait of Thomas Gage by John Singleton Copley

Soon after, Gage became the commander in chief of all British forces in North America. He moved to New York city to administer the King’s forces in the American colonies. Gage’s popularity increased as he focused on creating peace with the Indian population along the new western border of the colonies through various treaties. Gage and his American born wife, Margaret, were well accepted into New York society. Gage always believed that the democratic spirit that pervaded the colonies were a threat to British rule. With many of the colonists accustomed to electing their own representation, he believed this created more division with the home country than making them British citizens. Gage had long believed that democracy was too rooted in colonial society. In 1772 he wrote “democracy is too prevalent in America.”

As tensions began to increase within the American colonies, Gage’s response exasperated the situation. He contracted many of the British military posts back to the colonial cities along the eastern seaboard (which in part led to the Boston Massacre in 1770). He believed a show of military strength would help put out the fires of discontent. Further, he concluded that the unrest was mostly pushed by a very small minority, not the vast majority of colonials. He underestimated how the masses would respond to his hard hand. Now Gage, who was in Great Britain when the news of the Boston Tea Party arrived, was seen as a great fit to handle the crisis in Boston. His military back ground and experience as a civil leader (and liked by many in the colonies) made him on paper an ideal candidate for Governor of Massachusetts in this unsettled time.

Many in Boston welcomed Gage when he arrived that May. Mostly because they had become so disenchanted with former Governor Thomas Hutchinson, who was completely not up to the task that faced him in 1773. The recently passed Boston Port Act (passed in March 1774, this act closed the port of Boston until the loss of the tea was paid for) grew tensions in Boston, but large segments of the population believed that those that destroyed the tea should pay for it. Soon, it was the next piece of news from Great Britain that shook the foundation of something the majority of Bay Staters took pride in, self-rule.

“The able doctor, or America swallowing the bitter draught,” 1774. This illustration depicts the British forcing a Native American woman (a symbol of the American colonies) to drink tea.

Word arrived of two new laws recently passed on May 20, 1774, Parliament passed the Massachusetts Government Act and Impartial Administration of Justice Act. These two acts were punitive in measure and sought to bring the colony under direct Royal control. The Government Act stated “Parliament passes this act turning the Massachusetts Council into a body of crown appointees“ (similar to other Royal colonies like Virginia) when up to then they were elected. Also, it restricted the traditional “town meeting” to just one a year. Town meetings were an essential local governing tool to not just govern localities but also to provide open communication across the colony. The Justice Act gave the governor the power to a trial to another colony or to Great Britain if he determined “that an indifferent trial cannot be had within the said province.” Judgment by one’s peers was a long-standing tradition in Massachusetts and in British law dating back to the Magna Carta. These measures essentially dissolved important aspects of the Massachusetts Charter of 1691.

Furthermore, Gage inflamed the situation more in Boston by bringing with him more British Regular troops. By the end of 1774, Gage had more than 4,000 soldiers in and around Boston.  Gage could see the situation worsening but was unable to determine how to best deal with what confronted him. Whig leaders such as Dr. Joseph Warren, Paul Revere and Samuel Adams used these newly passed acts as proof that Great Britain was infringing on their rights and liberties. Using groups like the Sons of Liberty, Whig leaders began to gain great influence as many of the colonists began to turn against Great Britian. Soon many of these community organizations began to arm themselves and coordinate with the other colonies via committees of correspondence. Gage, feeling the situation was becoming dangerous wrote back to authorities in Great Britain “Affairs here are worse than even in the Time of the Stamp Act, I don’t mean in Boston, for throughout the Country. The New England Provinces…are I may say in Arms.” Events were beginning to build towards armed revolution, not just in Massachusetts, but across a more unified American colonies.

William L. Clements Library at the University of Michigan is now digitizing Gate’s papers with help from a grant of the National Endowment for the Humanities. Over the next year or so, this great resource on the colonial America will become accessible via the library’s website.

Parliament Reacts to the Throwing of the Tea

On By Daniel WelchIn Uncategorized3 Comments

December 16, 1773, was deep into the rear-view mirror. A new year had begun, and February 1774 lay close to the horizon. Yet, for the British Parliament, the events of what later became known as the Boston Tea Party were still very much breaking news. Word had just reached London of what had happened in Boston. Now, how would the Crown and those in parliamentary power react to this shocking news?

Read more: Parliament Reacts to the Throwing of the Tea

Most contemporary sources of the period, as well as a litany of works in the historiography of the subject, contend that Britian’s reaction to what happened in December 1773, and thus their course in handling the situation in 1774, was done so prematurely and without much rational debate and discussion. Historian Jon Ferling suggests, “the myth arose that its government, under Prime Minister Frederick, Lord North, had acted in haste.” The myth had grown during the numerous setbacks the British later suffered during the war itself. And, in the wake of their ultimate defeat, many contemporaries across the pond argued that Britain’s leaders, “had failed to comprehend the gravity of the challenge,” i.e., using the military might of their nation to quell the rebellious colonies in 1774.

If one was to examine the proceedings of Parliament during this period 250 years ago, however, they would not find hasty decisions being made based on emotional reactions to the news out of Boston the previous month. This is especially so when the use of the country’s military resources was debated as an option to deal with the rowdy and disobedient Bostonians. Nothing could be farther for the truth contends Ferling, noting that the use of their military to enforce Crown law in the colonies began in the opening days of 1774, even before the throwing of the tea reached London. Not only was this thought discussed and debated in Parliament, but the reactions the colonists would have was also heavily considered. Some openly debated that such a strong application of Britain’s military in Boston, the Massachusetts Colony, and other coercive actions, may indeed spark yet another war in North America. These arguments were then quickly followed by questions of whether Britian could win in another conflict on this continent so soon after the French and Indian War; a conflict that had drained Britain’s finances and depleted her military ranks.  

As January 1774 concluded 250 years ago, and February was just days away, these larger questions on how Parliament and the Crown should react to the Boston Tea Party and course-correct those in colonies in open rebellion against Britain were continually debated. It was not until March 1774 that a decision was made. North, and thus Parliament, opted to avoid the potential for outright war by utilizing their military might first. Instead, they chose a route of punitive measures, the Coercive Acts (also known as the Intolerable Acts). As part of this legislation, certain parts would solely focus on Massachusetts as punishment for the events of December 16, 1773, in Boston. These acts also included closing Boston Harbor until the destroyed tea’s worth had been repaid, and Gen. Thomas Gage, commander of the British Army in America, installed as the colonial governor of Massachusetts. Gage contended that these refractory Bostonians would “be lions while we are lambs; but if we take the resolute part, they will prove very meek, I promise you.”

In the end, however, this course of action was not made in haste at all, but rather after nearly four full months after the throwing of the tea in Boston harbor. And, one could argue that North and Parliament initially sought to refrain from the sole use of  Britain’s military might, rather opting for legislative settlement to the issues that arose from Massachusetts. But, as history played out 250 years ago in 1774, as historian Ferling contends, “Britain, of course, miscalculated hugely.”

“Boston Harbor a Teapot this Night!”

On By Mark MaloyIn UncategorizedLeave a comment

With three ships sitting at Griffins Wharf in Boston Harbor laden with tea, the Sons of Liberty were quickly running out of time on December 16, 1773. At the stroke of midnight, twenty days would have past since the first ship arrived in the harbor. At that time, customs officials would seize the cargo, the tax would be paid, and the British government would have been successful in forcing the colonists to pay a tax they did not consent to. The British would have demonstrated their power over the colonists. The colonists’ rights as Englishmen were at stake. Whereas the tea cosignees had resigned in New York and Philadelphia, the ones in Boston refused to resign and the Governor was refusing to allow the ships to leave the harbor.

On December 16, the leaders of Boston held a meeting they referred to as the “Body of the People.” Because of the large amount of interest in the issue, more than 5,000 people attended this meeting at the Old South Meeting House in Boston (the largest venue in the city). At the meeting was William Rotch, the owner of the ship Dartmouth which was the first ship to enter the harbor and would be the first to be seized by the customs officials on December 17. Rotch wanted to protect his property and see if the Governor would allow him to sail out of the harbor. The meeting recessed to let him go to the Governor outside of Boston and request the ability to leave the Harbor. Governor Hutchinson said he could not allow the Dartmouth to leave. After the meeting had reconvened in the Old South Meeting House, Rotch returned to Boston at about 6 p.m. and told the crowd that the Governor would not let the tea return. This news was responded to with loud cries and shouting.

At that moment, Samuel Adams declared “This meeting can do nothing further to save the country.” After saying this, people heard Indian war whoops coming from the crowd and outside the building. Another person declared “Boston Harbor a teapot this night!” The people then began exiting the building and heading down to Griffins Wharf a few blocks away. Down at the wharf, men (some disguised as Mohawk Indians) began boarding the three ships. Approximately one hundred men boarded the ships and quickly got to work pulling up the large tea chests to the decks and dumping the tea into the cold water below. Crowds gathered and watched the men work for nearly two hours as they methodically worked to destroy all the tea on board the ships.

The men were careful to not destroy any other property except the tea. They also refused to steal any of the tea, punishing anyone who made an attempt. It was low tide and the tea started to pile up out of the water and needed to be mashed down into the water and mud.

British regulars were stationed at nearby Castle William, but they were not called down to the ships out of fear of insitigating a similar event as the Boston Massacre that occurred three years earlier. The British navy, posted in the harbor also made no attempt to stop the destruction. Some Royal Navy sailors watched the events on Griffins Wharf with some trepidation.

Once all 342 chests of tea had been tossed overboard, the destroyers left and the crowd dispersed. In all, they had destroyed 46 tons of tea on the ships.

The event would have major repurcussions as the British determined to repsond to the event with brute force and would ultimately result in the Revolutionary War less than two years later. John Adams wrote: “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.”

Learn more about the events happening to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party by visiting https://www.december16.org/.

You can learn more about Boston in the Revolutionary War by reading Rob Orrison and Phill Greenwalt’s book A Single Blow, part of the Emerging Revolutionary War book series.

Why Tea? Events Leading up to the Boston Tea Party

On By Rob OrrisonIn Boston Tea Party, British Leadership, Civilian, Memory, Personalities, Politics, Revolutionary War, Social History2 Comments

As we move towards to the 250th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, we at ERW have gotten a lot of questions with a central theme…” why was it tea that led to revolution?” Was tea so central to colonial life that it was worth risking war or was it something else? The answer is somewhere in the middle and as with most history, there is nuance to the story (and yes, tea WAS a big part of everyday live in British America).

On May 10, 1773, Parliament passed the Tea Act, this act was a way for the British government to help bail out a major corporation, the British East India Company. The British East India Company was one of the largest global companies and faced immense debt and financial trouble. Furthering their troubles, they held a large amount of tea stored in warehouses in London. The British East India Company sought a way to offload this tea, which was considered some of the best tea in the world. The company’s success was directly tied to Great Britain’s international strategy, as the company spread British influence across the globe especially in India where they basically managed the British colony. The Tea Act reduced the cost on the tea (cutting out the “middleman” in Great Britain), and now the colonists could buy the tea directly from the British East India Company.

The British colonies in North America consumed on average of 1.2 million pounds of black tea annually. In 1773, about 1/3 of the population drank tea at least twice a day. It was a common luxury among most middle- and upper-class colonists. They preferred black tea but also drank green tea. Black tea varieties included Bohea, Congou and Souchong and common green tea varieties included Singlo and Hyson. All the tea that the British East India Company sold was grown and imported from China. Tea from China was preferred by most for better flavor, but it tended to be more expensive. The North American colonies consumed a lot of smuggled tea from the Dutch, the quality of the tea was not the same but much cheaper. A large market grew for smuggled tea with most British port officials looking the other way. All of this changed when the Tea Act was passed.

Nineteenthcentury lithograph depicting a tea plantation in Qing China 

Many in Parliament believed the colonists would have little opposition to this new act. They could now purchase their preferred tea for a cheaper price than the smuggled tea from the Netherlands. Unfortunately for Royal leaders, this was not the case. As word reached the colonies Whig leaders such as Samuel Adams called it nothing more than a British authorized monopoly of the tea market, cutting into the pockets of colonial merchants (though their tea smuggling business was illegal to begin with). The Tea Act also highlighted a British policy that the colonists opposed for many years, the Townshend Acts. The Townshend Acts imposed duties on imported lead, glass, paper, paint, and tea. This “tax” was payable at ports and funded the salaries of colonial judges, governors, and other government officials. This angered many colonial leaders for two reasons. First, it levied another tax on the colonists without having their own representation in Parliament. Secondly, it made the government officials more beholden to the British government (and the tax) than the colonial governments.

Whig groups like the Sons of Liberty used local taverns as places for their meetings. The most famous being the Green Dragon Tavern in Boston. It no longer stands today.

As the news of the Tea Act reached the colonies, the reaction was mixed. Whig leaders in major cities such as Charleston, New York, Philadelphia and Boston saw it as a way to reinvigorate their cause of opposing British rule. Recently things were mostly quiet with little interest by the public for protest. But now the Whig spin machine went into full affect. The Tea Act was a direct affront to colonial self-rule and economic interest. The taxes paid for the tea went to British officials in the colonies and the cheaper priced (and better quality) tea would put many American merchants out of business. Whigs were able to control the message that the Tea Act was just another way for Parliament to make money off the colonists, who did not have representation in Parliament.

As part of the Tea Act, consignees were appointed to oversee the sale of tea and the collection of the taxes on behalf of the British East India Company. As the tea began to arrive in colonial ports, public pressure was put on consignees to resign. This pressure was successful in New York, Philadelphia and in Charleston. Each of these cities were able to either stop the tea from being offloaded or, as in the case of Charleston, they confiscated the tea and didn’t allow any duties to be paid on it. All of these were direct affronts to the law but the events in Boston proved to be the most dramatic.

Ca, 1780 view of Charleston Harbor, and the Exchange Building where the confiscated tea was locked away by Whig leaders.

Unlike in other port cities, the consignees in Boston refused to resign. Richard Clarke, leading merchant in Boston and one of consignees faced a mob at his warehouse trying to pressure him and the other consignees to resign. Encouraged by the Massachusetts Governor Thomas Hutchinson (who had two sons serving as tea consignees) to stand their ground, the consignees refused to resign. Soon news arrived that the first ship carrying the tea, the Dartmouth, was arriving in Boston soon.

Hosting several town meetings, some hosting thousands of people, Whig leaders such as Samuel Adams, Dr. Joseph Warren and John Hancock were able to organize a strong opposition to the tea. Of course, Boston was already a tinderbox due to the “Boston Massacre” in 1770 and the large contingent of British regular troops stationed in Boston. Bostonians were reminded daily of Royal influence. The Whigs protested to the Governor to order the ships to return to England, but Hutchinson refused to do so and claimed he didn’t have that authority. Many historians believed Hutchinson, who recently had resigned as Governor and was awaiting his replacement, had grown tired and frustrated with the likes of the Whigs and Sons of Liberty in Boston and was trying to press the issue.

On November 28, the Dartmouth arrived in Boston Harbor. Captain James Hall was turned away at the first wharf he sailed too and was redirected to Griffins Wharf. Everyone knew that once a ship entered the harbor, the captain had twenty days to unload the cargo and pay the custom duties. Soon two more ships arrived at Griffins Wharf with more tea. With the Governor refusing to allow the ships to leave the harbor and local patrols watching the ships to make sure the tea was not offloaded, the stage was set for December 16th, the last day the ship’s captains had to unload their cargo.

Rev War Revelry: “Tea: Consumption, Politics, and Revolution, 1773-1776” with author and historian James R. Fichter

On By Kevin PawlakIn Emerging Revolutionary WarLeave a comment

Join us this Sunday night at 7pm as we welcome James R. Fichter to our popular Sunday night Rev War Revelry!

In Tea, James R. Fichter reveals that despite the so-called Boston Tea Party in 1773, two large shipments of tea from the East India Company survived and were ultimately drunk in North America. Their survival shaped the politics of the years ahead, impeded efforts to reimburse the company for the tea lost in Boston Harbor, and hinted at the enduring potency of consumerism in revolutionary politics.

Tea protests were widespread in 1774, but so were tea advertisements and tea sales, Fichter argues. The protests were noisy and sometimes misleading performances, not clear signs that tea consumption was unpopular. Revolutionaries vilified tea in their propaganda and prohibited the importation and consumption of tea and British goods. Yet merchant ledgers reveal these goods were still widely sold and consumed in 1775. Colonists supported Patriots more than they abided by non-consumption. When Congress ended its prohibition against tea in 1776, it reasoned that the ban was too widely violated to enforce. War was a more effective means than boycott for resisting Parliament, after all, and as rebel arms advanced, Patriots seized tea and other goods Britons left behind. By 1776, protesters sought tea and, objecting to its high price, redistributed rather than destroyed it. Yet as Fichter demonstrates in Tea, by then the commodity was not a symbol of the British state, but of American consumerism.

Grab your favorite drink and tune in. If you are not able to tune in on Sunday, the video will be placed on our YouTube and podcast channels.

Rev War Revelry: Old South Meeting House and the Boston Tea Party

On By erwpostIn 1776, Battlefields & Historic Places, Civilian, Common Soldier, Continental Leadership, Memory, Militia (Patriot) Leadership, Minute Men, Monuments, Northern Theater, Patriots Day, Personalities, Politics, Revolutionary WarLeave a comment

Join us this Sunday, October 15th at 7pm as we welcome Matthew Wilding, Director of Education and Interpretation at Revolutionary Spaces. Revolutionary Spaces manages the Old South Meeting House and the Old State House in historic Boston. We will discuss the history of the Old South Meeting House and its important role in the revolutionary movement in Boston (especially during the Boston Tea Party). We will also cover their plans for the 250th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, including their new exhibit on the destruction of property in public protests.

Grab a drink and follow along as we start to gear up for the 250th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party with Emerging Revolutionary War!

“Rev War Revelry” Book Chat with Benjamin Carp

On By erwpostIn 1776, Book Review, Civilian, Emerging Revolutionary War, Memory, Revolutionary WarLeave a comment

There are arguably many moments along the road towards war with England that greatly shaped that road’s trajectory. Perhaps among the top contenders on that list would be the Boston Tea Party. Join historian Benjamin Carp and ERW’s Dan Welch as we dig in with the author of one of the best books on that pivotal moment. Dr. Benjamin L. Carp is the author of The Great New York Fire of 1776: A Lost Story of the American Revolution, and Defiance of the Patriots: The Boston Tea Party and the Making of America (2010), which won the triennial Society of the Cincinnati Cox Book Prize in 2013; and Rebels Rising: Cities and the American Revolution (2007). His book, Defiance of the Patriots, will be the focus of Sunday’s book chat.

With Richard D. Brown, he co-edited Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791: Documents and Essays, 3rd ed. (2014). He has written about nationalism, firefighters, Benjamin Franklin, and Quaker merchants in Charleston. He has also written for Colonial Williamsburg, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. He previously taught at the University of Edinburgh and Tufts University. He was born and raised in New York State and each of his parents earned two CUNY degrees. See you Sunday at 7 p.m. EDT on Emerging Revolutionary War’s Facebook page!

“Rev War Revelry” Sails into Boston Harbor to talk Tea Party

On By erwpostIn Battlefields & Historic Places, Civilian, Emerging Revolutionary War, Revolutionary War, UncategorizedLeave a comment

On December 16, 1773, a protest orchestrated by the Sons of Liberty in Boston, Massachusetts turned words into action. Upset over recently passed legislation and the belief that “no taxation without representation” 116 people dumped 342 chests of tea owned by the British East India Company into Boston Harbor. The event was one of the milestones on the way to the American Revolution and American independence. As the Boston Tea Party, as it is known to history, closes in on its 250th anniversary, Emerging Revolutionary War will invite Evan O’Brien, the creative director for the Boston Tea Party Ships and Museum this Sunday, June 25, evening for the next “Rev War Revelry.”

We hope you can join us at 7 p.m. EDT on Emerging Revolutionary War’s Facebook page for a discussion of the history behind and on December 16, 1773 and the efforts to commemorate and interpret that time frame. If you are contemplating venturing up to Boston in December to be in the city for the 250th anniversary of this event, you will not want to miss this discussion, as Evan will share some of what the museum has been planning to commemorate when Boston Harbor became a “tea-pot.”

The Tea Act – 250th Anniversary (May 10, 1773)

On By Rob OrrisonIn Battlefields & Historic Places, Continental Leadership, Memory, Militia (Patriot) Leadership, Personalities, Revolutionary War, Uncategorized1 Comment

May 10, 2023 marks the 250th anniversary of the passing of the infamous Tea Act. Though a seemingly innocuous Parliamentary action, it had dire impacts in the British North American colonies. Parliament was known to enact various laws to provide guidance and management of her colonies across the globe. Some like the Stamp Act led to direct protest and eventual repeal. But the Tea Act was something totally different. It focused on the North American colonies and was meant to benefit a single entity, the East India Company. These two variables, plus the on going strife in North America over British influence led to various protests in the American colonies. This ultimately resulted in the Boston Tea Party on December 16, 1773 (and other lesser known “tea parties” in Charleston, Philadelphia and other port cities).

East India House in London, ca 1800

The East India Company was a joint stock company founded in 1600 and became one of the largest companies in the world. Tea was not their only commodity, however as they also traded spices, sugar, indigo, silk and much more. Parliament was heavily vested in the company’s success and began to enact laws that benefited the company. This included the Tea Act of 1773, passed to help the company divest itself of an over abundance of tea stored in its warehouses. The Crown and Parliament was worried that the prices of tea and the large supply would lead to serious financial strain on the company. The Tea Act also aimed to clamp down on the massive amounts of “illegal” tea that was being smuggled into the colonies. Some historians argued that men like John Hancock, who was deeply involved in smuggling, saw the Tea Act as his “rubicon” towards independence. He believed the act would impact his revenues via his smuggling. Now the American colonies were forced to purchase East India Company Tea (that could directly ship to the colonies) and which was taxed. Many colonial leaders saw this is as a backwards way to impose a tax without their consent and to force them to prop up a struggling East India Company

The road to revolution in the American colonies does not have a single starting point, but one could argue that 250 years ago the Tea Act was the last straw. It led to direct and open opposition (and destruction) of British rule and property in several ports along the Atlantic. These brazen “parties”, mainly the Boston Tea Party, led Parliament to pass the Coercive (Intolerable) Acts, which in turn united the various colonies like never before. Open armed conflict with Great Britain was just a year away.