[masterofbabes]

Tea Act
1773 Act that gave a monopoly on tea sales to the East India Company. In other words, American colonists could buy no tea unless it came from that company. Why? Well, the East Indian Company wasn't doing so well, and the British wanted to give it some more business. The Tea Act lowered the price on this East India tea so much that it was way below tea from other suppliers. But the American colonists saw this law as yet another means of "taxation without representation" because it meant that they couldn't buy tea from anyone else (including other colonial merchants) without spending a lot more money. Their response was to refuse to unload the tea from the ships. This was the situation in Boston that led to the Boston Tea Party.

http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/www ... actdef.htm


this is very funny:

In other words, American colonists could buy no tea unless it came from that company.

Th website is wrong, the Americans were allowed to buy tea from any company, it's just that the tea from the East Indian Company is so much cheaper that the American will want to buy them.

stupid website

[Vigil of Reason]

I told you this! The website's "for kids" should be taken into account when you read about things.

[Potemkin]

Tea Act
1773 Act that gave a monopoly on tea sales to the East India Company. In other words, American colonists could buy no tea unless it came from that company. Why? Well, the East Indian Company wasn't doing so well, and the British wanted to give it some more business. The Tea Act lowered the price on this East India tea so much that it was way below tea from other suppliers. But the American colonists saw this law as yet another means of "taxation without representation" because it meant that they couldn't buy tea from anyone else (including other colonial merchants) without spending a lot more money. Their response was to refuse to unload the tea from the ships. This was the situation in Boston that led to the Boston Tea Party.

This is garbled nonsense. If this is what Americans are teaching their kids, then I fear for your nation's future.

[justice for all]

This is garbled nonsense. If this is what Americans are teaching their kids, then I fear for your nation's future.

Then what do you guys in England teach about the Tea Act or whatever it's called in Britain? Do teachers there in Edinburgh teach about the Independence War? which I don' think so.....

Also, yes, this website is not very clear. The East India Company guaranteed that after the tax had been added with the tea price, the total cost would still be lowered than others. And that was true.
In addition, what led to the Tea Party was not because the tea were expensive (tho that's a small part of it),; the main reason was the East India Company would put of the local tea business (since it was cheap).
That's what I learn 10 years ago...and..thats what I think

[Vigil of Reason]

the main reason was not the East India Company would put of the local tea business (since it was cheap).

The main reason was the Americans did not the tax in the first place, and jumping around in Mohawk disguise must have been quite fun.

[MB.]

The demonstrators dressed up as Indians to demonstrate their conviction to what they believed to be their own 'indigenous' American cause.


So the term 'disguise' is a total misnomer.

Mohawk disguise

[guzzipat]

Then what do you guys in England teach about the Tea Act or whatever it's called in Britain? Do teachers there in Edinburgh teach about the Independence War? which I don' think so.....

I was taught that the Tea act, was an excuse not the real issue. That the American war of Independence wasn't considered as that important at the time.

That the war by 1778, with France, Spain and the Dutch Republic, was considered a far greater priority and a more direct threat. The American war, strange as it may seem now, was just a sideshow to the main struggle for domination of Europe.

I was also taught that the argument was from the British point of view about getting the Colonies to partly pay for their own defence and also about whether or not there should be a standing army.
It was also made clear that Americans were by no means united and there were aspects for that war that could be classed as a civil war.

Since then I have found out that it is the usual case of each country producing it's own account stressing it's partisan view, none of which are totally accurate.

[jltiu94]

The site is correct.
David Kennedy and Thomas Bailey, who both taught history at Stanford, state in the The American Pageant:
"The powerful British East India Company, overburdened with 17 million pounds of unsold tea, was facing bankruptcy. If it collapsed, the London government would lose heavily
in tax revenue. The ministry therefore decided to assist the company by rewarding it with a monopoly of the American tea business" (131).