>> The Tea Party was over taxes?
Of course it was.
While it wasn't about HIGHER taxes (taxes had been cut), it was over whether Parliament had the RIGHT to tax them.
"The protestors who caffeinated Boston Harbor were railing against the Tea Act, which the British government enacted in the spring of 1773. Rather than inflicting new levies, however, the legislation actually reduced the total tax on tea sold in America by the East India Company and would have allowed colonists to purchase tea at half the price paid by British consumers. The Tea Act, though, did leave in place the hated three-pence-per-pound duty enacted by the Townshend Acts in 1767, and it irked colonists as another instance of taxation legislation being passed by Parliament without their input and consent. The principle of self-governance, not the burden of higher taxes, motivated political opposition to the Tea Act."
I believe the above is a pretty good summary.
It was NOT, as you have claimed, about "multinational corporations." It was about people wanting to be free. That's why it was an important historical event.
The liberal mantra these days is it was about "too big to fail", and that's bullshit. No one was thinking about that. They were pissed because they were not free.
You may remember, it became a catalyst for a war at the time. They weren't going to war because EIC was too big to fail or because it was a giant multinational corporation. They were fighting for our freedom.
History, indeed. |
