National myths

[johnmacadam]

I recently read that the boston tea party was basically a group of rich merchants hiring thugs to destroy the imports of tea from the UK, because they didn't want to pay taxes from the british and had very little to do with the "no taxation without representation" story.

Of course that a massive simplification, but is it in essence correct?

 

[A Can of Man]

Possibly.
But also possibly one of those things you don't really question over here.

 

[Chukpike]

I recently read that the boston tea party was basically a group of rich merchants hiring thugs to destroy the imports of tea from the UK, because they didn't want to pay taxes from the british and had very little to do with the "no taxation without representation" story.

Of course that a massive simplification, but is it in essence correct?

While your statement is very simplified it is mostly correct. I just don't see from your statement how you missed the "no taxation without representation" part.

The tea coming to America was heavily taxed by the British Parliament, the colonists(being British subjects) had no representation in England and no say in Parliament about the the tax.

What is hard to understand about it? It is listed in The Declaration of Independence.

"For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:"

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

You should read the Declaration as it is considered worldwide as one of the finest political statements (For Democracies) ever written. Right up there with the Magna Carta.

It is not a George Washington Cherry Tree story.

 

[johnmacadam]

what I meant was that the merchants who ordered the tea destroyed weren't unhappy about the no representation, rather that they didn't want to pay increased taxes to Britain.

 

[Chukpike]

I recently read that the boston tea party was basically a group of rich merchants hiring thugs to destroy the imports of tea from the UK, because they didn't want to pay taxes from the british and had very little to do with the "no taxation without representation" story.

Of course that a massive simplification, but is it in essence correct?

"Of course that a massive simplification"

Guess you should go back and get deeper into the causes.

what I meant was that the merchants who ordered the tea destroyed weren't unhappy about the no representation, rather that they didn't want to pay increased taxes to Britain.

This forum is really not going to answer your question. As you will not get much in the way of verifiable, factual, material, other than what I supplied.

The signers of the Declaration of Independence were for the most part influential businessmen(Merchants). They stated in writing that they were unhappy with the lack of representation and the tax.

"For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:"

Thus signing their death warrants.

So the answer to your original statement;

"I recently read that the boston tea party was basically a group of rich merchants hiring thugs to destroy the imports of tea from the UK, because they didn't want to pay taxes from the british and had very little to do with the "no taxation without representation" story."

would be false.

Like I said, read the Declaration of Independence to see the reasons the colonists gave to the British Crown/government for declaring Independence.

P. S. I don't know whether it was Brittan, England, or the UK(United Kingdom) at the time.

 

[George]

what I meant was that the merchants who ordered the tea destroyed weren't unhappy about the no representation, rather that they didn't want to pay increased taxes to Britain.

Of course, businesses don't actually pay taxes. They are passed on to the customer, making the business the tax collector. a reason V.A.T. is popular with politicians, the victims don't actually see the tax as a seperate item.

 

[FULLMETALJACKET]

what if dnosaurs didnt exist? and the fossils were planted by Nixon?

 

[sky2979]

what if dnosaurs didnt exist? and the fossils were planted by Nixon?

Lol....hehehehehehhee.....