The event known as the Boston Tea Party occurred on the evening of December 16, 1773. In that action, Massachusetts colonists protested against government policies enacted by the British government. The British Parliament enacted policies and imposed taxes which they did not have the legal authority to impose. The event drew attention to the illegal encroaching of Parliament into the affairs of the colonies.The cry of "No taxation without representation" was not a cry to have a voice in Parliament, it was a cry to say Parliament did not have the authority to tax the colonies, since they (the colonies) were subject ONLY to the King and NOT to the Parliament.

The event was seen as a trigger point that began a series of actions which resulted in the American colonies seceding from the authority of King George and declaring their independence. Even in the years after the War of American Independence ended, the events and the reasons behind it were still a matter of debate for Americans and their British counterparts.

What were those policies?

The British government under the leadership of Charles Townshend and William Pitt attempted finding ways to pay for recent military campaigns.Although William Pitt, the Prime Minister stated publicly that he believed that Parliament had no right to tax the colonies, Charles Townshend, his rival thought otherwise. Once William Pitt was out of the way, Townshend took charge of Parliament. Under his leadership, the legislative body assumed the authority to tax the colonies. This assumption of power was an encroachment into the affairs of the colonies, which they did not legally have. Despite not having the legal authority to tax the colonies, Townshed led Parliament in levying several taxes. He managed to push through Parliament a series of revenue generating measures to pay for recent military campaigns. They had hoped to lower the British Land Tax by shifting the tax burden to the colonies. By encroaching on the colonies, they hoped to increase their tax base and increase their power as well. It was also hoped that by instituting these taxes, that the local governors and administrative staff would become less dependent on colonial legislatures and more dependent on the central government in London. 

The colonies were responsible for their own laws and were accountable only to the king. The intervention of Parliament in tax matters, while the king willingly went along with it was seen as a usurping of government authority. The colonists believed that the government was overstepping its lawful authority to tax a people they had no authority to tax. Since the colonists believed the government was overstepping its authority, they responded by refusing to give their consent and obedience to that government.

To coerce the colonists into paying the tax, many of the lawmakers in Britain used the excuse that since the French and Indian Wars benefited the colonists, that those residing in the colonies should pay for the military actions taken in that war. When the Parliament attempted direct taxation through the Stamp Acts, the colonists erupted in strong reaction.The colonist persisted in resisting the authority of Parliament to tax them.

The Parliament then thought that indirect taxation would be the way to go. The Townshend Acts were passed in an effort to generate revenue to pay for those expenses. In true British Parliamentary style, the act included many other measures besides the tea tax. They wanted to use force in order to 'make' the colonist respect their usurped authority.

The Townshend Acts raised tax on items that colonists already paid taxes on. The assumption was that through indirect taxation, the colonist would accept the taxation. The Townshend act also included “Writs of Assistance”. The writs of assistance allowed the British government officials (e.g. tax collectors) to search homes and businesses without a search warrant in an effort to find any smuggled goods.

Part of the Townshend Acts included a 26% tax on tea. Many of the colonists were upset with this action. There were several reasons that they were upset. First was the idea of being taxed on products without having any say in the matter. Some colonists saw the tax as unfair since the Dutch paid no tax on tea purchased from the English whereas they were required to pay tax. These colonists saw the matter as an unfair tax policy.

Some of the colonists reacted to the “writs of assistance” since they often resorted to smuggling to avoid paying taxes. In New York, the colonists responded to the writs of assistance by refusing to obey the British government when they were ordered to quarter soldiers. Besides the ‘writs of assistance’ there was a provision stating that any colonist guilty of a capitol crime would be tried either in England or another colony other than where the crime was reported to occur.

In order to enforce the new acts, Britain sent troops to Boston and other cities with the intention of enforcing the new taxes. In one of the first acts, they seize John Hancock's ship for tax evasion and begin searching homes without warrants looking for contraband.

In Massachusetts, colonists led by Samuel Adams encouraged other their residents and the other colonists to resist British rule and their government officials.Tax collectors were often assaulted, beaten, tarred and featherd. When the incidents went to court, the juries were sympathetic to the colonists who also disliked the tax collectors.Samuel Adams urged them to unite and resist. The colonists heeded the call of Samual Adams and united in refusing to purchase British goods both in Boston and across the other colonies. Adams and others encouraged those living in the other colonies to join with them with their prayers and actions. The colonies united in a common cause on both political and spiritual levels.

George Washington kept a tight inventory control over his plantation and refused to use any item which had a British tax associated with it. Washington expressed extreme displeasure when his wife accidently used some items which had been taxed by the British.

With so many colonists boycotting the purchase of tea, the prices dropped. The demand for the product did not justify having tea just sitting in port. The tea importers (East India Company) then lowered the prices of tea below the levels that existed below the prices when the taxes were attached. The East India Company also hoped to ship directly to the consumers and bypass any colonial middlemen. The East India Company wanted a monopoly on the tea trade in the colonies. They hoped that through cheap prices, they would obtain a monopoly on the consumer market of tea. The colonists surprised them by resorting to principle rather than pocketbook in responding to the situation.

The East India Company shipped their ‘cheap tea’ to various colonial ports looking for some takers. Out of principle, the colonists continued refusing to purchase the tea with the lower prices. They saw the action as a sneaky way to gain approval of the tax. It became ‘patriotic’ to drink coffee rather than tea. Those who drank tea, purchased the Dutch tea rather than English tea. The East India Company thought that if they achieved a monopoly of the tea market in the colonies, it could open the door for other businesses in Britain to do the same.

Boston was not the only location which colonists took action against oppressive British save policies. In Annapolis, Maryland, colonists boarded and burned a ship carrying tea to that location. The burning of the ship was accompanied by riots in some of the colonies. In Charleston, South Carolina, the colonists unloaded the tea, but in true passive aggressive manner, they stored it in damp warehouses which shortly rendered it useless. The East India Company then wanted to send all their cheap tea back to England. In Philadelphia and New York ships were turned around.

Although many British merchants moved on to other markets to sell their products, the Governor of Massachusetts, Thomas Hutchinson refused to allow the tea be shipped out of Boston. Hutchinson found himself in an on-going struggle with the liberty minded colonists. His home had been broken into by them and he was already blamed for the Boston Massacre. John Adams wrote that he was "..chargeble before God and man with our blood". Hutchinson remained staunch in his position. He demanded the tea be unloaded. Besides demannding that the tea be unloaded, he also demaded that the duties (tax) be paid on it. The colonists refused to unload the tea seeing it as a matter of conscience. They even went so far as to post an armed guard to make sure that the tea was not unloaded in secret.

During the day of December 16, the colonists held a mass meeting to address their opposition to the taxes and policies of the British government. During the course of the meeting, John Rowe asked the crowd, "Who knows how tea will mingle with salt water?"

On the night of December 16, 1773, a group of colonists met at the home of Nathaniel Bradlee. The wives of the men made them Mohawk Indian costumes along with war paint made from gravy. The men joined other patriots that night at Boston harbor. The men boarded the ship and tossed 342 cases of tea into the harbor. The 342 cases amounted to 10,000 pounds of tea. The tea party occurred without any deaths, injuries or massive destruction of people, homes or businesses.The purposeful use of dressing up like Mohawk Indians was intentional. During those times the Mohawk Indian and symbols (tomahawk, arrows) associated with them were seen as the antithesis of the British empire. The liberty and freedoms associated with the Mohawk Indians were seen as the goal of the resistance to the central control of the British government.

The British government was shocked at the events and responded by shutting down the port to any trade occurring there. The shutting down of the port of Boston led to other events which eventually culminated in the secession of the colonies from Britain. The Parliament of England was stunned by the actions. They did not understand "no taxation without representation" which was often said by the colonists. They were stunned at the response of the colonists. For years many Englishmen had little if any representation in Parliament, yet they paid their taxes. The colonists on the other hand, were resisting the taxes.

In the aftermath of the tea party, the government officials began looking for eyewitnesses. He wanted evidence against the protesters. Throughout the whole city, he was only able to locate one eyewitness (who would only testify if the case was tried in Britain). The colonists also sent Benjamin Franklin to England to settle matters regarding the tea. The colonists respected private property and compensated the businesses impacted by the tea party.

The colonists involved in the Boston Tea Party were protesting many things. Among them are the following:

1. Taxation without representation. The British Parliament wanted to spend monies and have the colonists pay for it. They ignored the needs and the wishes of the colonists in doing so. Further, the Parliament did not have the legitimate legal authority to tax the colonists.

2. Warrantless search and seizure by government officials

3. Being forced by the government to pay for their unwanted policies (e.g. quartering of soldiers, taxes)

4. Being forced by government to have to purchase products that are not wanted

5. Being forced by government to support business monopolies

6. Being forced by government to support non-American businesses

7. Having taxes raised on everyday items

8. Being forced to purchase government approved products

9. Harsh judicial policies where the accused were not before a jury of their peers.

10. Opposition to the economic policies used by the British government (mercantilism). The policies were not based on 'free trade' but rather government protected and subsidised trade monopolies. The colonists wanted to make thier own decisions regarding who they traded with.

In 2009, many Americans took to the streets again in protest of taxes and other concerns. Like the Boston Tea Parties, the reactions were strong on each side of the issues presented. The public figure Janeane Garofalo made some outlandish remarks concerning the 2009 tea parties. She claimed that those who were protesting had no idea what the Boston Tea Party was about. The modern tea parties, like their predecessors were used to protest many concerns.

Some of the concerns expressed in the 2009 tea parties include:

1. Excessive government spending (The stimulus package was seen as an outrageous expense and expansion of government which future generations are forced to pay for). The action raises questions about whether the Congress has the authority to raise taxes on generations that do not even exist and have no say in the matter. The authority to impose policy and spend in areas not allowed by the Constitution raises concerns about the legitimacy of the spending and the taxes.
   
2. Government support of banking monopolies (such as AIG) with the bailout funds given to them.
   
3. Excessive taxation of everyday items (e.g. the Obama administration raised the tax on cigarettes 13.3% per pack. The proposed cap and trade would increase energy fees, and self-employement taxes may increase as well).
   
4. Intrusive government searches and surveillance
5. Being forced to pay for unwanted government policies such as abortions, paying for abortions in China, paying the FED (which is a private company), etc.
6. Being forced to purchase government approved items (e.g. CFL light bulbs). Along with this is the government interfering in the free market by mandating certain fixtures, household appliances, etc. be the only ones allowed for purchase.
   
7. Being forced to pay for programs through unfunded mandates
8. Immigration related issues
   

Although Jeanne Garofalo and other talking heads do not see the parallels between modern tea parties and the 1763 tea parties, perhaps they need refresher courses in United States history. Even the senior White House advisor, David Axelrod reported being bewildered by the tea parties claiming that "The tea bags should be directed elsewhere". Later, he came out and labelled the tea parties as "unhealthy". The administration and its supporters viewed the tea parties as complaining only about the income taxes. Even though the administration reframed the "Tea Parties" as complaining about income tax, they considered the events serious enough to have the FBI spy on the participants.

So the administration, like the government of Britain did not fully grasp the significance of the events. Neither wanted to see the legitimacy of their authority being questioned. They both did not comprehend people voicing resistance to their policies and taxes, along with questioning their authority to impose such taxes. Both the 2009 government and the 1763 government wanted to have surveillance on those involved in the events. In each case, personal property was respected and there was no loss of life.

The actions indicate that the rhetoric has a particular direction to the spin, but the reality of the how the administration uses government resources in reacting to the Tea Parties sends a different message. The administration did not acknowledge that the modern tea party, like the one in 1763 addressed a myriad of issues.