Monday, October 6, 2014

Boston Tea Party and the Intolerable Acts

Argue whether the Boston Tea Party or the Intolerable Acts were justified. Provide evidence to support your arguments.

53 comments:

  1. I think that the Boston Tea Party was justifiable because though what they did hurt the British economy they were desperate and needed to show the British that they were still there and that they were mad. The Boston tea party happened in 1773 after the crown decided to tax tea. The sons of liberty dressed up as Indians and boarded the British ships that were in Boston harbor. They then dumped the tea that was on the ship into the harbor. The British reacted harshly when hearing about what had happened and enforced new Acts that took away the rights of the colonists in Massachusetts. The colonist called these new acts the intolerable acts. “On June 1, 1774 the port of Boston will be closed until payment is paid for the destroyed tea. The Government of Massachusetts will be re-organized as follows. Hence forth, the King will now appoint the governor’s council. The governor and not the assembly will appoint all judges to the colony’s courts. Only one town meeting may be held each year and that for the sole purpose of electing officials to run the town. Customs officers and other British officials accused of serious crimes will be brought to trial in England or in a colony other than where the alleged crime was committed.” There intolerable acts were made to take away the rights of the colonists in Boston and I think that that was wrong because they took away the main export and import station in Boston and most colonists there worked with some part of the harbor, most were merchants. These people depended on trade and the British took that away from them. Though what the colonists did was wrong what the British came back with was worse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you that the Boston Tea Party was justifiable for the colonists. However, I believe that the British government still had some right to retaliate against the colonists seeing that they are the mother country. The British helped fight a war that benefited the colonists and it was understandable for the colonists to be taxed in the first place and punished for their actions.

      Delete
    2. Mauve brought out the point the British after the Boston tea party put in to affect the intolerable acts. The Boston tea party may have been bad but the intolerable acts were even worse.

      Delete
    3. I do agree with you that the Boston Tea party was justifiable. I do believe though that both sides are justifiable. The British government had a right to fire against the colonists. I also believe it was right to tax the colonists because they need to be punished for their actions of breaking things.

      Delete
    4. I agree that the Boston Tea Party was justifiable. I also agree that by closing all the Boston ports, they really hurt the merchants in Boston. They took away all of the trade in Boston and for those merchants, that was their lively hood and how they provided for themselves.

      Delete
  2. In my opinion, the Boston Tea Party was justifiable for one reason; the colonists had no representation in parliament. When the British government began taxing the colonists, it caused uproars such as the Boston Tea Party, and rightfully so. The colonists did not believe that they were being treated as Englishmen, thus making their rebellions justifiable. However, as Englishmen, the colonists not only deserved the same rights, but deserved the same responsibilities as well. This means that it was justifiable for the British government to establish the “Intolerable Acts.” These acts were meant not only to punish the colonists for their rebellion, but to also acquire revenue to pay off the debt from the French and Indian War. As part of Britain, the colonists deserved the right of representation in parliament, but they also deserved the responsibility of helping to pay off debt for a war the British fought in the colonists’ favor. Therefore, both sides were justifiable in their actions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that the colonists actions were justifiable. They needed that representation in parliament before they had to succumb to the taxes enforced upon them by Great Britain. However, I feel that had they really gotten the land that they had been fighting for in the French and Indian War, then it would have been more necessary for the Americans to help pay off the debt.

      Delete
    2. I agree with you that what the colonists did was justifiable and that they were not treated fairly in parliament and just wanted to have some say in what was happening, but i also think that what the was in some ways wrong because by taking away the right for the colonist to export and import any goods they are harshly affecting the economy of the colonists.

      Delete
    3. I agree that the colonists were justified with their actions that they took. They didn't have representation in parliament and it was a law set by the British government that there would be no taxation without representation. The government officials and the King weren't even enforcing their own law.

      Delete
    4. I agree with your justification of why both sides were right in their actions. I believe that both sides were either justified or both very unjustified in their acts, but I think the colonists were more justified in the sense that they were very restricted in their abilities of a free person.

      Delete
    5. I agree with your argument, especially the fact that England had the right to punish the colonists for their revolt. I also agree that the colonists had a right to stand up for the rights that they weren't promised and weren't receiving from the mother country.

      Delete
    6. I agree with you because the colonists were not following the laws in England so as a punishment they got taxed

      Delete
    7. I completely agree with your reasoning for why the Boston Tea Party was justified. The colonists had no say in parliament, and took action for what the thought was right.

      Delete
  3. The Boston tea party was completely acceptable. Colonists had been living in the states for almost 250 years when this happened. The British dug their own hole by losing the French and Indian war. So the British should have been the ones to get themselves out of it and not have had the Americans pay higher taxes. The Townshend acts angered the colonists to the point of rebellion. The British should have thought before they acted.
    If the royal crown would not have applied the Townshend acts on the colonists then they would most likely have kept the United States for just a little bit longer. Applying the Townshend acts made it to where the colonists got upset to the son of liberty threw several cases of teas into the harbor and as a result of that the crown shut down the port until they payed all of the tea back. That is the most redicuolous action the British could have done after the Boston tea party
    Marcus cantu

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Marcus brought out the point that the French and Indian war did allow the the English to spread;however, paraliment did not want them to. This caused issues that would cause any man to want to rebel.

      Delete
    2. I agree with the fact that the Boston Tea Party being acceptable. Although, the colonists were asking for the rights of Englishmen but they weren't receiving the benefits, just the responsibility. The colonists should have been taxed and punished for their revolts if they had representation in parliament. The colonists were revolting over the rights being robbed from them, not just the taxes and the money.

      Delete
  4. Before I present any sort of opinion, I feel I must outline a very defining factor in this sort of prompt. "Justifiable" is defined as capable of being shown as reasonable or merited according to accepted standards. This means that “justifiable” is more synonymous with “defensible” than any notions of right or wrong.
    The Boston Tea Party was justifiable because the entire event was based on principle. Many of the colonists had, at this point, thrown their lot in with the “no taxation without representation” bandwagon. Many colonists were resentful of the fact that Britain forced control over the colonies. Any form of taxation, even in the case of the Tea Act, resulted in displeasure. This is makes the cause justifiable. Additionally, although the Boston Tea Party destroyed property, it was not an act of outright violence. The protest was not meant merely to disrupt, but to prove a point. “…the town was very quiet during the whole evening and the night following. Those persons who were from the country returned with a merry heart; and the next day joy appeared in almost every face, some because of the destruction of the tea, others because the quietness with which it was done...” Such defiance naturally called for a response from Britain, which resulted in the Intolerable Acts. Although action was justifiable, the Intolerable Acts themselves caused only discontent. Unlike the actions of the colonists, this merely appeared to be an effort on Britain’s part to push weight around and served to accomplish little for anyone’s benefit. The Intolerable Acts affected the entire area, including those loyal to Britain, and angered those already in defiance. Although both sides are justifiable, neither the Intolerable Acts nor The Boston Tea Party brought exactly the desired effect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you are right and that the definition of justifiable needs to be clear in order to state which side was right in their actions. I also agree that the intolerable acts did little to benefit either side. The British should have thought through the consequences of their new laws and acts a little more. This might have saved them a lot of rebellion and outrage from the colonists.

      Delete
    2. I agree how the Intolerable Acts and the Boston Tea Party didn't really benefit either side but rather just made more tension. However, the colonists had to know that throwing away 18,000 pounds worth of tea in the harbor would result in some sort of violence, which it did.

      Delete
    3. I deffinatly disagree with everything in that post. The colonists did have common sense and were able to piece together that throwing a ton of tea into a harbor would raise taxes.

      Delete
    4. I agree that the Boston Tea Party by definition was justifiable, and that some sort of action to punish the colonists would have been justifiable but the Tolerable Acts themselves were not. The Intolerable Acts had a poor result for the colonists and the British, and something different very well could have been done that would have had a better outcome and still punished the colonists.

      Delete
  5. The Boston Tea Party was justified because the colonists didn’t want the tea that the British were forcing upon them. They realized that the British were trying to tax them, and they had already decided that tax in the colonies of any form wasn’t constitutional. Together, Bostonians rebelled against the unfair treatment of the British in order to stand up for their rights. They acted defensively but only because they thought it necessary for the British to understand that they weren’t going to be trampled on. The Intolerable Acts weren’t justifiable and only made matters worse in the colonies. Americans were already frustrated with Great Britain, so these new laws and enforcements made them even more outraged. England shouldn’t have placed these acts upon them because they were unfair and controlling. The Americans deserved at least a little more independence than Britain was giving.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely agree with you when you say that the Boston Tea party was justifiable because the colonists did not want the tea and even though the British knew they did not want the tea the British taxed them anyway. The colonists tried to send back the ships to England and when they would not return the colonists took the matter into their own hands and dumped all of the tea into the Boston harbor. Though it may sound wrong what they did was needed to inform the King that they did not want to be taxed and wanted to be listen to.

      Delete
  6. I believe that the Boston Tea Party was more justified than the Intolerable Acts. I do not necessarily believe that the Boston Tea Party was completely justified given the events that preceded it. As the Intolerable Acts were released, it diminished the colonists’ rights of making their own governments and their own organized meetings. It also made the colonists boarders of soldiers and military men that they despised, which created even more tension within the colonies borders. I believe that the Boston Tea Party was also more justified because it did not limit or hurt Britain’s rights or liberty. The Boston Tea Party was only a message to express the impact of non-representation within congress. It did three things to impact the British society; reduce income by more than 4 million dollars, send a message stating the oppression felt by the colonists, and create a following for more American colonists to become influenced in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that the Boston tea party was more justifiable than the intolerable acts. The colonists were angry and the tea act did not limit Britain's rights. They were only standing up for what they believed in.

      Delete
  7. The Boston Tea party is a iconic part of the United States of America. It has been romanticized and glorified, but should it be iconic, romanticized, and glorified? The Boston Tea party was a detestable, vial act. It did not only lead to the destruction of a empire but only helped create violence, warfare, and destruction in its wake. The Boston Tea party was a terrorist act against their home country. The Tea was actually cheaper then it was in England. Principles do not allow radical acts. The intolerable acts that fallowed the Boston Tea party were justifiable. The colonies overreacted and only caused one thing, violence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I appreciate reading an opinion that differs from the majority. The Boston Tea Party was, after all, an indication of defiance towards England. Perhaps dumping property into the Boston Harbor was slightly more recalcitrant than revolutionary... Where would we be without that kind of action though?

      Delete
  8. I think that the Boston Tea Party was justifiable. The American colonists were taking a stand for what they believed at the time was right. The Boston tea Party was the American’s way of reacting to the Townshend Acts that were just put in place. They were losing rights quickly, and felt it to be necessary to do something about what was happening around them. I do not think the Intolerable Act can be justified completely; however, certain parts of it can. The Boston port being shut down, was just a punishment for the American’s dumping tea into the harbor. The port could be reopened as soon as the tea was paid for. The Charter of Massachusetts was revoked, the Quebec Act was put in place, and there were no longer juries in trials. “On June 1, 1774 the port of Boston will be closed until payment is paid for the destroyed tea… Customs officers and other British officials accused of serious crimes will be brought to trial in England or in a colony other than where the alleged crime was committed.” This shows the British were being selfish, and creating rules to support themselves and put Americans at a disadvantage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely agree with the subject of principle motivating the colonists. Faced with being treated unfairly, they took action towards what they thought was right. Additionally, where the British had justification in responding to the colonists, the manner in which they did so was neither productive nor fair.

      Delete
    2. I agree with you that the colonists were justified in their actions because they were standing up for their rights and beliefs. However, I feel as though Britain had some right to retaliate against the colonists seeing that 1) they were the mother country, and 2) they lost 4 million dollars worth of tea.

      Delete
    3. I agree with you and the fact that the Boston Port being shut down was just in response to the colonists' actions. The price of tea legally was lower than the price the colonists payed for smuggled tea. It seems as though the action they took hurt them more than helped them in the long run.

      Delete
    4. I personally agree with the statement you made about how the colonists were taking a stand because I also mentioned that, as well as how they represented the other colonists. It was smart for them to do something because of how they were losing rights.

      Delete
  9. The boston tea party was justifiable because the colonists had no representation in parliament. Once the British Government started taxing the colonists, the colonists freaked out and started riots. The colonists thought they were being treated unfairly. These riots led to the “Intolerable Acts,” because the British government thought the colonists should have to pay off the debt from the French and Indian War. However, the colonists do deserve to have representation in the parliament and they should also help with the debt that they had. With all this being said I believe that both sides are justifiable for their actions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with the statement you made about how it was justifiable because the colonists had no representation in parliament even thought they did deserve it. You also made it clear how the colonists thought that it was very unfair which I also agreed with.

      Delete
  10. In determining whether one side was more just than the other, one must look at the circumstances. The colonists were still in outrage due to the British attempting to tax them, without representation. The tea Act insured that the colonists could purchase cheaper tea than they could anywhere else, however the slight tax in place with the tea was not going to be taken by the colonists. King George was attempting to revitalize the East India Trading Company by shutting down all other sources of tea, such as smuggled tea from Holland, and the tax followed. However, the colonists saw through King Georges Scheme to add a slight tax and show his dominance. The Colonists Reaction, which was the Boston Tea Party, was a necessary and vital step toward the colonies assertion of independence. Had this event not have taken place, the revolution and fight for independence may have been slightly delayed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with your opinion that if the Boston Tea Party had never taken place that the revolution wouldn't have happened as soon as it did. I didn't consider this at all while I was typing my reply.

      Delete
    2. I do agree in your statement of the Boston Tea Party's affect on the future revolution. I still, though, believe that some of the colonists actions were not fully justified, but much more justified than the British.

      Delete
  11. I think that the Boston Tea Party was justifiable for the colonists to do. The British were passing laws without representing the colonists in parliament so they really didn't have a say in what they, the colonists, wanted. The British had sent tea to the colonists ports so that it could be sold to the colonists but with ships before they had make them take the tea back to England. On the night of the Boston Tea Party Captain Hall, Captain Bruce and Captain Coffin’s ships were all boarded and the tea in the brig was thrown into the Boston Harbor. This protest was horrifying to the British but they weren’t treating the colonists like they should have been. Once word got to England about what the colonists did, British officials decided to pass a series of acts against the colonists specifically Massachusetts. The colonists became rebellions and riots formed because of different reasons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lauren, I liked how you backed up your argument with many points and examples from the text.

      Delete
    2. I understand your argument on the colonists side and why they were upset about being taxed without representation. However, maybe Britain didn't think the colonists deserved representation with all the free benefits. The French and Indian War was also fought by for the colonists' benefit and yet they did not help pay off the debt. The colonists refused to pay the taxes, so why should they have representation in taxes they just rebel against?

      Delete
    3. I do agree with you, the British parliament provoked the colonists into their actions. They had sent there grievances officially, however it did not phase King George. Therefore he is to blame for the tea Party, due to his attempted enforcement of tyranny on the colonists.

      Delete
  12. I believe that the Intolerable Acts were justified due to the fact that Britain was on the brink of bankruptcy. The British East India Company was about to go under so to speak and Britain’s economy would have suffered greatly. In order to save their own country, the King and other British officials decided to take matters into their own hands by enforcing these acts. If England’s economy had faltered it would have had a snowball effect on America as well. I also don’t think that it was justified for the colonists to dump all of the tea in the harbor because the price at which the British East India Company was selling tea was actually lower than the price of the smuggled tea the colonists were currently drinking. Britain’s solution to the Boston Tea Party was to close the Boston Port until the damages were paid for which was a fair enough consequence. The Quebec Act was put into effect by the British to deal with the rest of the French in America. In no way was this Act meant to be a consequence to the colonists initially. The only the restriction this put on the colonists was their expansion because the British limited their boundaries to the Ohio River Valley. This action, however, proved to be miniscule later in American history as the colonists moved west.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lily, I liked how you brought in each of the different Intolerable Acts to say how they were good. I also like how you tied this in with later events in history with the settlers moving west.

      Delete
    2. I see what you mean that the British economy would have suffered had they not given the east India company control. I agree that the British didn't necessarily mean to be a negative for the colonists.

      Delete
    3. I do not agree with this. The British Parliament used a a dirty economic trick to completely monopolize the tea industry in the colonies. By turning the tea industry in the colonies into a privately run monopoly, set the stage for the tea party and later the war. They did this all for their own benefit and did not consider the consequences of their greed.

      Delete
  13. Neither the Boston Tea Party nor the Intolerable Acts were justified. The Boston Tea Party was destruction of personal property. The colonists destroyed 18,000 pounds of tea that was perfectly good and actually cheaper than tea purchased in England. This was a crime equivalent of stealing all that tea. It was also a waste of perfectly good tea. The Intolerable Acts were also unacceptable from Parliament. They were trying to punish the colonists for the colonists wanting representation before taxation. The colonists were not correct to damage goods to portray this view but Parliament had no right to punish them over the right. If neither side had done either event there would have been no revolutionary war. The Intolerable Acts forced the colonists over the edge to want to break free from Britain. These acts were crimes upon the rights of the people. The Boston Tea party was also a crime as it essentially stole tea. Due to this, neither of these acts were justified.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like how you defended both sides proving they were both not justifiable. However, if the colonists were not punished with the Intolerable Acts then they probably would have kept rebelling and damaging more property. I see how Britain could have gone a little too far but they were just trying to find a solution to their massive debt.

      Delete
    2. I agree with you Nathan that neither event was really necessary and people of both sides over reacted.

      Delete
  14. The Boston Tea Party was an act of rebellion to prove a point to their mother country, Great Britain. The colonists were not justifiable to do such an act. They were angry about being taxed without representation in Parliament, but for many years prior they received benefits free of charge. Citizens of Great Britain were paying taxes that paid for many benefits that the colonists took advantage of. Such as, protection from outside threats with the help of British soldiers. The tea being brought over from the West Indies was cheaper than the tea from England, but it was the idea of being taxes that upset the colonists. However, if the colonists expected to be treated like Englishmen, then they needed to take on the responsibilities; including paying taxes. The Intolerable Acts were justifiable because the colonists needed to be punished for their rebellious acts and help pay back some of the debt from the French and Indian War the British fought and won for the colonists.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The intolerable acts were justifiable. The British were trying to control the colonies that they had helped found and protect during the French Indian war. They didn’t find it acceptable that the colonist would vandalize the large amounts of tea. The British wished to help keep this company afloat because without the British east India Company the mother country would hit hard times. This is evident because they gave the company total monopoly of the American tea trade. Not only did this company support Britain but is also supported the colonies in India that exported tea and without a place to sell it would deteriorate the British Empire. The parliamentarians may have had a large stake in the company that may have swayed their decision. This however does not detract from the British idea that they were doing more good than bad by trying to support all of their colonies and imply taxes to help repay the funds they used to protect their people oversea. The acts of returning the British to positions of power in the colonies is also not that far out of reasonability. The colonies were all still under British control and were actually taxed less than their Motherland counterparts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you that the Intolerable Acts were justifiable. They were only doing what they thought was appropriate based on the actions that the colonists took. The colonists also forgot to remember that in that time the colonists were still part of England and were expected to help out their mother country.

      Delete
  16. I think that the Boston Tea Party was very much justifiable. The British were the cause of the war that put them in debt and they should have had to find their own way to get money rather than just pushing it off on the colonists. Also, during the time of the war, a period of salutary neglect, the colonies had gotten a taste of what it was like to be independent. After the British tried to control the colonies again, the colonists decided that they liked being independent. Britain practically set themselves up for war with the colonies. Then after the British decided to tax the colonists, the colonists had many reasons to rebel. The main reason being that they were being taxed without representation in Parliament. Also, the taxing of the colonists was unconstitutional. When the tiny tax was slipped into the forced buying of the tea, the colonists became outraged and dumped the tea into the harbor at the Boston Tea Party. The British in a sense overreacted when they placed the Intolerable Acts. Although some slight punishment would have been justifiable and expected, what Britain did was more of a power play on the colonies, “The issue was whether England possessed any authority in the colonies. In order to establish its authority and to punish both Massachusetts and Boston for their lawlessness, Parliament passed four separate laws known as the Intolerable or the Coercive Acts.” By closing all of Boston’s ports, they could have potentially ruined people’s lives. Some people made a living off of those ports, and after that act was placed they had to find a new way to provide for themselves and their families. For both parties, the results of the Boston Tea Party and the Intolerable Acts were not particularly desirable.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I personally think that the Boston Tea Party was justified mainly because the colonists proved a point by standing up for themselves while representing the other colonists as well. It was understandable that the colonists would have been furious and angry at the time because of the Tea Act. On 1773, around 150 Boston men dressed as Native American attacked three British ships carrying tea all valued at about 18,000 pounds. A total of 342 chests of tea had been emptied out into the Atlantic that night. The aftermath consisted of the British enforcing even more acts on the colonists now because of how upset they were. The colonists were not happy with the new acts known as the “Intolerable Acts.” “Boston Harbor would be closed until the colonists paid for the tea. Local government in Massachusetts was suspended.” were just some of the minor consequences because of the colonist’s actions. I do think that the colonists could’ve done something worse than dumping tea, but the British didn’t need to overreact.

    ReplyDelete