The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism

[expat500]

partially.

kudos

What do you mean, partially?

I went to Fort Necessity to research it.

 

[expat500]

I gather Dante is not interested in discussion and debate..

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What do you mean, partially?

I went to Fort Necessity to research it.

People who pretend the rebellion was about any one specific thing/cause? Ignorant of colonial politics and society. It's okay, most people are.

A few books by Bernard Bailyn might help you on your way. He may not be the last word on things, but man-oh-man is he influential, informed, and insightful.

 

[expat500]

People who pretend the rebellion was about any one specific thing/cause? Ignorant of colonial politics and society. It's okay, most people are.

A few books by Bernard Bailyn might help you on your way. He may not be the last word on things, but man-oh-man is he influential, informed, and insightful.

I prefer to travel around to do my ‘investigations’, than read versions in books.

It’s surprising how many shopkeepers and tradesmen are knowledgeable about the history of their local little towns.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I looked it up.

At first, life was hard and rough in the North American colonies. However, by the early 18th century people in the American colonies lived in houses as comfortable as those in Europe. Wealthy people had finely carved furniture, wallpaper, china, silver, and crystal and chairs were common. In 1742 Benjamin Franklin invented a kind of metal stove.

Daily Life in Colonial America - Local Histories

By Tim Lambert At first, life was hard and rough in the North American colonies. However, by the early 18th century people in the American colonies lived in houses as comfortable as those in Europe. Wealthy people had finely carved furniture, wallpaper, china, silver, and crystal and chairs were...

localhistories.org

However, many people in Britain at that time lived in unimaginable squalor, (and still do)

Mean streets full of depressing Dickension style back to back houses.

America had much more room to “spread out”.

The bolded part is false as a comparison and on facts. You're drawing a false comparison, pushed by an agenda you have, to make it seem like the colonies were more advanced, doing better than the old homeland.

Born: February 7, 1812, Landport, Portsmouth, United Kingdom

Poverty and Child Labor in the Gilded Age and Progressive Era in New York City

Poverty and Child Labor in the Gilded Age and Progressive Era New York City John Louis Recchiuti Why are people poor? What can be done to protect children who are growing up in impoverished househo…

teachingsocialstudies.org

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I prefer to travel around to do my ‘investigations’, than read versions in books.

It’s surprising how many shopkeepers and tradesmen are knowledgeable about the history of their local little towns.

Time travel?

btw, I've been a roamer most of my life, and for a brief period I was a full time nomad. So were you always a blowhard? Or did it come with age? I suspect the former.

 

[expat500]

the colonies were more advanced, doing better than the old homeland.

They were in many cases. They could escape the class system. Do you know about that?

Mel Gibson had a lovely house in that anti British film he made.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

They were in many cases. They could escape the class system. Do you know about that?

Mel Gibson had a lovely house in that anti British film he made.

So, you 'prefer to travel around to do my ‘investigations’, than read versions in books.' yet you seem to do your research by watching movies -- ones based of real life or completely made up?

now

 

[expat500]

Time travel?

btw, I've been a roamer most of my life, and for a brief period I was a full time nomad. So were you always a blowhard? Or did it come with age? I suspect the former.

Okay, we’re done.

When you get into the personal insults and name calling stuff, there’s no hope.

Bye bye.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A horde of White men disguised themselves as Native Americans — coppering their faces and donning headdresses in the same tradition that would lead to blackfaced minstrel shows decades later — to commit seditious conspiracy and destroy private property. The riotous mob trespassed on three ships and destroyed goods worth nearly $2 million in today’s money — all because they didn’t want to obey a duly passed law.
I love this article, if for nothing else that it speaks truths, while asking serious questions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/13/boston-tea-party-anniversary-crime-patriot/

Opinion | Was the Boston Tea Party an act of terrorism? It depends.

The Boston Tea Party took on the British 250 years ago. It pitted one American value against another.

web.archive.org

...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Okay, we’re done.

When you get into the personal insults and name calling stuff, there’s no hope.

Bye bye.

Your posts were as insulting as it gets.

bye bye

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

as subjects, not as citizens.

expat500 and Mushroom

took a ride on the Merry Go Around, clueless that the British Crown had subjects, not citizens. How does one discuss anything serious with people who fail to see such obvious errors?

 

[expat500]

expat500 and Mushroom

took a ride on the Merry Go Around, clueless that the British Crown had subjects, not citizens. How does one discuss anything serious with people who fail to see such obvious errors?

YOU are not serious.

End of!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

YOU are not serious.

End of!

Oh yes Dante is. English/British, North American, Colonial history and early American (USA) history are subjects Dante has researched for decades and it's also his family history. Get it? My family history. Unlike many like myself, I have no agenda outside of curiosity.

 

[expat500]

Oh yes Dante is. English/British, North American, Colonial history and early American (USA) history are subjects Dante has researched for decades and it's also his family history. Get it? My family history. Unlike many like myself, I have no agenda outside of curiosity.

All history books are subjective and inaccurate.

You should read the German version of English history, and the emotive language used. Rather like yours.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

All history books are subjective and inaccurate.

You should read the German version of English history, and the emotive language used. Rather like yours.

Not true. The academic historians I've followed (because of their research and writings) have rarely been accused of being subjective. Inaccurate? Facts are facts.

One German I'd like to read Is Adolf Bastian. But, he is no historian.

 

[expat500]

Not true. The academic historians I've followed (because of their research and writings) have rarely been accused of being subjective. Inaccurate? Facts are facts.

One German I'd like to read Is Adolf Bastian. But, he is no historian.

The history books read by children in German schools. With illustrations! The robber kings the English had.

 

[Mushroom]

I’ve often wondered how they managed to run the colonies from so far away.

Like one would in most situations as an occupied territory.

With a local Lord Governor, who had total control over the area he was responsible for. Where the Governor is a Noble Peer, and appointed by the Monarch and is their direct representative.

As opposed to a Governor-General, who is appointed by Parliament and is their representative as well as a member of Parliament.

In essence, it was just like an occupied territory. Where the Crown gave a direction to the Lord Governor, who then passed it down to the people. And they had no say in what was passed down onto them, no more than say Occupied Germany, Occupied Japan, or Occupied Italy after WWII.

However, that is where you get the issues. That is different, as it is a military occupation after those nations started and lost a war. And in the early days of the colonies they had no problem with the Lord Governors, as they were just starting out in a frontier and had little population and were making everything as they went.

But by that time, we were talking 100 year or more later. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded in 1628. Pennsylvania in 1681. Georgia in 1733. New York in 1644 (founded as New Netherlands in 1614).

So we are literally talking about in many areas 100 to 150 years after they were founded, and they were still being given no representation. Still ruled by a Lord Governor as if they were a hostile power. And that was what the decades between the French-Indian Wars and the Revolution itself were mostly about for the colonies. When do they get the right to determine at least some of their own affairs internally, or are they to be eternally given no rights, with no self-determination at all?

And it did not help matters at all that in the Quebec Act of 1774, that formerly hostile region was given more self-determination than their loyal colonists were given.

But in essence, for a century and more the American Colonies had been ruled by royal proclamation. Which after more than a century was increasingly an issue with those that lived there.

 

[expat500]

Like one would in most situations as an occupied territory.

With a local Lord Governor, who had total control over the area he was responsible for. Where the Governor is a Noble Peer, and appointed by the Monarch and is their direct representative.

As opposed to a Governor-General, who is appointed by Parliament and is their representative as well as a member of Parliament.

In essence, it was just like an occupied territory. Where the Crown gave a direction to the Lord Governor, who then passed it down to the people. And they had no say in what was passed down onto them, no more than say Occupied Germany, Occupied Japan, or Occupied Italy after WWII.

However, that is where you get the issues. That is different, as it is a military occupation after those nations started and lost a war. And in the early days of the colonies they had no problem with the Lord Governors, as they were just starting out in a frontier and had little population and were making everything as they went.

But by that time, we were talking 100 year or more later. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded in 1628. Pennsylvania in 1681. Georgia in 1733. New York in 1644 (founded as New Netherlands in 1614).

So we are literally talking about in many areas 100 to 150 years after they were founded, and they were still being given no representation. Still ruled by a Lord Governor as if they were a hostile power. And that was what the decades between the French-Indian Wars and the Revolution itself were mostly about for the colonies. When do they get the right to determine at least some of their own affairs internally, or are they to be eternally given no rights, with no self-determination at all?

And it did not help matters at all that in the Quebec Act of 1774, that formerly hostile region was given more self-determination than their loyal colonists were given.

But in essence, for a century and more the American Colonies had been ruled by royal proclamation. Which after more than a century was increasingly an issue with those that lived there.

My interests were the distances. And the time involved negotiating them . How did they manage it?

 

[Mushroom]

Uh, they were all subjects, not citizens.

Now there it was semantics.

Under British Law, they were denied the rights even guaranteed to subjects. Specifically, the Magna Carta, the English Constitution, and the English Bill of Rights.

Just because one is a "subject", does not mean that under British Law they do not have key rights.