No, not this one, but the original one after which it is named.
The political party salutes the event after which it was named thus:
Happy 235th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. On this day in 1773, the Sons of Liberty destroyed 90,000 pounds of tea to prevent any tax being collected on it. As a direct result of this act of rebellion, Britain sent thousands of troops to “pacify” Boston, and opened the American Revolutionary War.
You could call Hamilton’s tax on whiskey and excise, and it was still a tax. Duty or “douane” as the French have it, is a bad word. Didja know there is no Dutch word for duty? They use the French word because Napoleon conquered them. Duty is a four-letter word with two syllables for which we have a monosyllabic three letter word, tax.
The tea tax was an act of parliament, but it was not an act of any colonial legislature. You might want to review the extent to which the despicable English scum provided representation in parliament for the American colonists.
The notion that the duties were paid exclusively to cover the war costs and the other functions of government is nonsense. It all went to the exchequer and it was all one big slush fund. Where the f#ck is the marmalade for the king’s toast?
You know, it has been a few years. Do you suppose the blood shed in either of the World Wars by American soldiers has adequately reimbursed the filthy English slime? Or is something else still wanted.
Because the queen can lick my pucker if she wants anything from me.
Jim is right to an extent but Duty was being collected on tea as opposed to a tax. As for the idea that someone was brainwashed with that the tea was dumped to prevent any tax being imposed on it, you should revist the Tea Act of 1773. This Act by Parliment was a typical political favor due to a company that was involved in the colonization of America. When the 7 years war virtually bankrupted the British, the Company as well as the colonists all paid Duty on imports to pay for the cost of the war and for colonial governance.
You will find in the 1773 Act that the Company was actually being exempted from having to pay the Duty on the tea and recieved a rebate on the Duty it had already paid on the tea warehoused in Britain. What is significant was that this political favor was extended only to the Company and not the Colonists. When the colonists, many whom were direct competitors (small business) found out about it, the die was cast. The small businesses did not like being undercut by the company. The act of rebellion with three ships being offloaded into the harbor of thier tea resulted in the British shutting the port of boston and demanding that the corporation be repaid.
Actually, LJ, the period from December 1773 until about October 1774 in Boston is widely regarded by historians as a case study in anarchy in operation. You might like to read some of the primary source materials on the period. There was no functioning government, no tax collections, no magistrates, no legislature – and yet people continued to behave decently toward each other.
If I were around, I would have been an anarchist opposed to both factions.
If I were around at that time, I probably would have been a neutralist, not supporting the British or the patriots, but trying to be active with the more moderate sides of both.