Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Real Boston Tea Party was an Anti-Corporate Revolt
CNBC Correspondent Rick Santelli called for a "Chicago Tea Party" on Feb 19th in protesting President Obama's plan to help homeowners in trouble. Santelli's call was answered by the right-wing group FreedomWorks, which funds campaigns promoting big business interests, and is the opposite of what the real Boston Tea Party was. FreedomWorks was funded in 2004 by Dick Armey (former Republican House Majority leader & lobbyist); consolidated Citizens for a Sound Economy, funded by the Koch family; and Empower America, a lobbying firm, that had fought against healthcare and minimum-wage efforts while hailing deregulation.
Anti-tax "tea party" organizers are delivering one million tea bags to a Washington, D.C., park Wednesday morning - to promote protests across the country by people they say are fed up with high taxes and excess spending.
The real Boston Tea Party was a protest against huge corporate tax cuts for the British East India Company, the largest trans-national corporation then in existence. This corporate tax cut threatened to decimate small Colonial businesses by helping the BEIC pull a Wal-Mart against small entrepreneurial tea shops, and individuals began a revolt that kicked-off a series of events that ended in the creation of The United States of America.
They covered their faces, massed in the streets, and destroyed the property of a giant global corporation. Declaring an end to global trade run by the East India Company that was destroying local economies, this small, masked minority started a revolution with an act of rebellion later called the Boston Tea Party.
On a cold November day in 1773, activists gathered in a coastal town. The corporation had gone too far, and the two thousand people who'd jammed into the meeting hall were torn as to what to do about it. Unemployment was exploding and the economic crisis was deepening; corporate crime, governmental corruption spawned by corporate cash, and an ethos of greed were blamed. "Why do we wait?" demanded one at the meeting, a fisherman named George Hewes. "The more we delay, the more strength is acquired" by the company and its puppets in the government. "Now is the time to prove our courage," he said. Soon, the moment came when the crowd decided for direct action and rushed into the streets.
That is how I tell the story of the Boston Tea Party, now that I have read a first-person account of it. While striving to understand my nation's struggles against corporations, in a rare book store I came upon a first edition of "Retrospect of the Boston Tea Party with a Memoir of George R.T. Hewes, a Survivor of the Little Band of Patriots Who Drowned the Tea in Boston Harbor in 1773," and I jumped at the chance to buy it. Because the identities of the Boston Tea Party participants were hidden (other than Samuel Adams) and all were sworn to secrecy for the next 50 years, this account is the only first-person account of the event by a participant that exists. As I read, I began to understand the true causes of the American Revolution.
I learned that the Boston Tea Party resembled in many ways the growing modern-day protests against transnational corporations and small-town efforts to protect themselves from chain-store retailers or factory farms. The Tea Party's participants thought of themselves as protesters against the actions of the multinational East India Company.
Although schoolchildren are usually taught that the American Revolution was a rebellion against "taxation without representation," akin to modern day conservative taxpayer revolts, in fact what led to the revolution was rage against a transnational corporation that, by the 1760s, dominated trade from China to India to the Caribbean, and controlled nearly all commerce to and from North America, with subsidies and special dispensation from the British crown.
Hewes notes: "The [East India] Company received permission to transport tea, free of all duty, from Great Britain to America..." allowing it to wipe out New England-based tea wholesalers and mom-and-pop stores and take over the tea business in all of America. "Hence," wrote, "it was no longer the small vessels of private merchants, who went to vend tea for their own account in the ports of the colonies, but, on the contrary, ships of an enormous burthen, that transported immense quantities of this commodity ... The colonies were now arrived at the decisive moment when they must cast the dye, and determine their course ... "
A pamphlet was circulated through the colonies called The Alarm and signed by an enigmatic "Rusticus." One issue made clear the feelings of colonial Americans about England's largest transnational corporation and its behavior around the world: "Their Conduct in Asia, for some Years past, has given simple Proof, how little they regard the Laws of Nations, the Rights, Liberties, or Lives of Men. They have levied War, excited Rebellions, dethroned lawful Princes, and sacrificed Millions for the Sake of Gain. The Revenues of Mighty Kingdoms have entered their Coffers. And these not being sufficient to glut their Avarice, they have, by the most unparalleled Barbarities, Extortions, and Monopolies, stripped the miserable Inhabitants of their Property, and reduced whole Provinces to Indigence and Ruin. Fifteen hundred Thousands, it is said, perished by Famine in one Year, not because the Earth denied its Fruits; but [because] this Company and their Servants engulfed all the Necessaries of Life, and set them at so high a Price that the poor could not purchase them."
After protesters had turned back the Company's ships in Philadelphia and New York, Hewes writes, "In Boston the general voice declared the time was come to face the storm."
The citizens of the colonies were preparing to throw off one of the corporations that for almost 200 years had determined nearly every aspect of their lives through its economic and political power. They were planning to destroy the goods of the world's largest multinational corporation, intimidate its employees, and face down the guns of the government that supported it.
The queen's corporation
The East India Company's influence had always been pervasive in the colonies. Indeed, it was not the Puritans but the East India Company that founded America. The Puritans traveled to America on ships owned by the East India Company, which had already established the first colony in North America, at Jamestown, in the Company-owned Commonwealth of Virginia, stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Mississippi. The commonwealth was named after the "Virgin Queen," Elizabeth, who had chartered the corporation.
Elizabeth was trying to make England a player in the new global trade sparked by the European "discovery" of the Americas. The wealth Spain began extracting from the New World caught the attention of the European powers. In many European countries, particularly Holland and France, consortiums were put together to finance ships to sail the seas. In 1580, Queen Elizabeth became the largest shareholder in The Golden Hind, a ship owned by Sir Francis Drake.
The investment worked out well for Queen Elizabeth. There's no record of exactly how much she made when Drake paid her share of the Hind's dividends to her, but it was undoubtedly vast, since Drake himself and the other minor shareholders all received a 5000 percent return on their investment. Plus, because the queen placed a maximum loss to the initial investors of their investment amount only, it was a low-risk investment (for the investors at least-creditors, such as suppliers of provisions for the voyages or wood for the ships, or employees, for example, would be left unpaid if the venture failed, just as in a modern-day corporation). She was endorsing an investment model that led to the modern limited-liability corporation.
After making a fortune on Drake's expeditions, Elizabeth started looking for a more permanent arrangement. She authorized a group of 218 London merchants and noblemen to form a corporation. The East India Company was born on December 31, 1600.
By the 1760s, the East India Company's power had grown massive and worldwide. However, this rapid expansion, trying to keep ahead of the Dutch trading companies, was a mixed blessing, as the company went deep in debt to support its growth, and by 1770 found itself nearly bankrupt.
The company turned to a strategy that multinational corporations follow to this day: They lobbied for laws that would make it easy for them to put their small-business competitors out of business.
Most of the members of the British government and royalty (including the king) were stockholders in the East India Company, so it was easy to get laws passed in its interests. Among the Company's biggest and most vexing problems were American colonial entrepreneurs, who ran their own small ships to bring tea and other goods directly into America without routing them through Britain or through the Company. Between 1681 and 1773, a series of laws were passed granting the Company monopoly on tea sold in the American colonies and exempting it from tea taxes. Thus, the Company was able to lower its tea prices to undercut the prices of the local importers and the small tea houses in every town in America. But the colonists were unappreciative of their colonies being used as a profit center for the multinational corporation.
Boston's million-dollar tea party
And so, Hewes says, on a cold November evening of 1773, the first of the East India Company's ships of tax-free tea arrived. The next morning, a pamphlet was widely circulated calling on patriots to meet at Faneuil Hall to discuss resistance to the East India Company and its tea. "Things thus appeared to be hastening to a disastrous issue. The people of the country arrived in great numbers, the inhabitants of the town assembled. This assembly, on the 16th of December 1773, was the most numerous ever known, there being more than 2000 from the country present," said Hewes.
The group called for a vote on whether to oppose the landing of the tea. The vote was unanimously affirmative, and it is related by one historian of that scene "that a person disguised after the manner of the Indians, who was in the gallery, shouted at this juncture, the cry of war; and that the meeting dissolved in the twinkling of an eye, and the multitude rushed in a mass to Griffin's wharf."
That night, Hewes dressed as an Indian, blackening his face with coal dust, and joined crowds of other men in hacking apart the chests of tea and throwing them into the harbor. In all, the 342 chests of tea-over 90,000 pounds-thrown overboard that night were enough to make 24 million cups of tea and were valued by the East India Company at 9,659 Pounds Sterling or, in today's currency, just over $1 million.
In response, the British Parliament immediately passed the Boston Port Act stating that the port of Boston would be closed until the citizens of Boston reimbursed the East India Company for the tea they had destroyed. The colonists refused. A year and a half later, the colonists would again state their defiance of the East India Company and Great Britain by taking on British troops in an armed conflict at Lexington and Concord (the "shots heard 'round the world") on April 19, 1775.
That war-finally triggered by a transnational corporation and its government patrons trying to deny American colonists a fair and competitive local marketplace-would end with independence for the colonies.
The revolutionaries had put the East India Company in its place with the Boston Tea Party, and that, they thought, was the end of that. Unfortunately, the Boston Tea Party was not the end; within 150 years, during the so-called Gilded Age, powerful rail, steel, and oil interests would rise up to begin a new form of oligarchy, capturing the newly-formed Republican Party in the 1880s, and have been working to establish a permanent wealthy and ruling class in this country ever since.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...




99 Comments so far
Show AllRight On! - - (Whoops, N0 RIGHT, Thank you) Excellent point, just keep it up!!
The neocons own the media and that allows them to redefine words like fascist, revise historical events like the Boston tea party, and create new words that make no sense like islamofascist.
Neocons have become expert revisionists during the past thirty years.
The original Tea Party still strikes me as anti-government because the monopoly of the East India Company was granted and backed by the force of the British Government. No government, no monopoly.
Modern day Tea Party participants are just as likely to take this position against the welfare/warfare state.
By Hartmann's own admission, the action in Boston hundreds of years ago was in favor of free markets. The actions yesterday were not that ideologically different -- just look at all the signs from the blogs covering it in detail (not one or two pics, either, try at least a few dozen, especially if you weren't there.)
As the movement grows, I think the protesters will continue to encompass more of the 90% of Americans opposed to TARP last fall, which both major parties rammed down the throats of the people. These are not neo-con/neo-lib apologists participating. These are people waking up to the disaster of the unsustainable Federal Reserve System and global fiat empire.
04.25.09
http://EndTheFed.us
I got the opposite message from this article. What it said to me was that the original Tea Party was anti-free market. The people who participated wanted protectionism. I also didn't get a sense that they were against government in general. The story debunks a lot of libertarian claims about US history. Did Thom say something on-air that contradicted this?
The actions of the crown on behalf of the East India Company were about as far from free market economics as one can get. You should read up on this. When a govt puts tariffs and restrictions upon competitors but allows a single company a virtual monopoly and free ride one should not conflate that with any sort of free market policies.
The Repubs tried to harness the "militia" movement back in the 1990s, but dropped them like a hot potato after the Oklahoma City atrocity (which the militias were not really involved with). I hope the "Tea-Party" movement tells the Repubs to go to the Devil; if they allow themselves to be co-opted by the Repubs, they'll just be betrayed in the end, the same way gun owners have always been betrayed by the GOP, no matter how they vote for them or fork over campaign contributions.
Personally, I despise both of the big parties, as part of the problem and not the solution. A plague on both their houses!
From the article:
"...schoolchildren are usually taught that the American Revolution was a rebellion against "taxation without representation..."
May the next one be against representation without taxation.
"May the next one be against representation without taxation."
Well said.
This is the crux of the matter.
The government no longer represents the people.
Lock up all the lobbyists until they learn a proper trade.
And even then they should not be allowed out without proper supervision.
!
The Republican party should now officially change its name to "The T-Bangers", for they are now, and have been for the past 30+ years, nothing more than a street gang of thugs heavily tattooed with dollar signs and skulls.
They should read "The Spirit Level" and start by taking in Johann Hari's excellent account of it on this site. A very different approach to the problem, and one that actually works in societies today.
Well put Mr. Hartmann. Today's "tea party" is completely unreal, funded by corporate lobbyist courtesy of the bailout funds from our taxdollars, and just another dumbshow. At least the one in the colonial times had a real purpose and was dynamic unlike today's fixed one.
Excellent article, Thom. Thank you for your work and research. And a salute to George Hewes, a hero of the Revolution. Who will be a hero of the next Revolution? For we must have one. We are in the grip of today's version of the East India Tea Company.
"Although schoolchildren are usually taught that the American Revolution was a rebellion against 'taxation without representation,' akin to modern day conservative taxpayer revolts, in fact what led to the revolution was rage against a transnational corporation...".
We aren't teaching our children anything, just brainwashing them to be obedient workers and compliant cannon fodder. I keep remembering Horace Greeley's response when asked if we should have public education: "By all means teach them to read. Then we can tell them what to think." It worked. The last thing the Masters of the Universe want is for people to become informed critical thinkers. Much more useful to be worms that jerk when poked. So Americans, get off your bellies and on your feet! Under dire circumstances Americans have reached deep for their power. So do it again!
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Just thought I'd share this...we're having a really fun day at MMFA today. Rush Limbaugh discovered on-air today what teabagging was, and read it from a dictionary. It was damned hilarious!
The term "Teabagging" was earlier applied to the protests by Rachel Maddow at MSNBC among others. She never indicated who among the protesters was using the term so I assume she went with it herself. Rush was specifically responding to that. And Rush didn't "just discover" it either Einstein. I watched Rachel's show Monday I thought it juvenile, she and Ana Marie Cox going on like adolecent boys might. Tuesday, she just did it again as though she just couldn't get enough. I thought you had to be out of junior high school to host a TV show. She's horrible. I'll keep watching a bit more to see if she ever has a guest with a view opposed to hers. *shrug*
Predictably, as I post, she is continuing with the childishness on tonight's show along with Ana Marie.
"Rachel Maddow"
She is just not very good.
She cited emails and websites calling on people to "teabag the White House" and Congress, as well as some news shot host calling for it to, but I have no idea who it was. And uh, she reportedly does several hours of research daily before her show airs, and I imagine she's far more intelligent than anyone on Fox News Channel.
"She cited emails and websites calling on people to "teabag the White House" and Congress, as well as some news shot host calling for it to, but I have no idea who it was."
Can you imagine that there are people from that side of things who don't know the alternate meaning of the verb "teabag"?
"she reportedly does several hours of research daily before her show airs,"
So with hours of research ahead of the show, why would she and her guest make *dozens upon dozens* of references to oral sex specifically, over several different airings? Blobbermann is doing the same thing now as I post. He said "well, *they* are the ones who chose a teabag as their symbol". Obviously, that is the noun form of the word Blobbermann. Utterly vapid.
For fun. If comedy was not an accepted way to air news and opinion, The Daily show and Colbert Report would likely not have the popularity it does.
I agree, but Comedy Central has decent writers that change the joke. They could have rerun Rachel's Monday show on Tuesday and Wednesday and given her those days off to do research or something.
I enjoyed her segment, it was refreshing. Unfortunately though I rarely get to watch her show, I'm usually busy with housework while it's on. Bleh.
Edit: And sure enough, Jon Stewart is covering them :-)
I guess left wing commentary is not Mr. Newton's thing. But then I never before knew that libertarians had no sense of humor, the things one learns!
Untrue. Stewart and Colbert and Trudaeu are actually funny. Maddow and Olbermann are "unfunny", and completely redundant. Harry Shearer, unfunny.
Thanks for your enlightened post. :-P
You are more than welcome, any time I can insert humor into curmudgeonry....
"any time I can insert humor"
Where exactly did you do that now? You funny guy!
"I enjoyed her segment, it was refreshing. "
To each their own. I can understand finding oral sex jokes funny, but three nights in a row? I'll bet anything she continues the immaturity tonight.
can anyone tell me why the colonials felt they needed to dress up like natives???
it's bugged me since grade school!
To disguise themselves, so the authorities wouldn't recognize and arrest them afterward.
I'll rephrase the question: why as natives?
No idea. Maybe there's a journal of one of the participants somewhere explaining?
Estimates put the number of men who dumped those 332 chests of tea as between 30-130 strong, only a very few of whom were "thinly disguised" as indians.
They remain some of my favorite activists.
I paid too much attention to WW2 history and not enough to everything else when I was younger haha.
perhaps they were of Scottish descent and had daubed themselves with woad.
My guess would be that Indians would be expected to demonstrate such "wild behavior." It is interesting to note that the "Sons of Liberty" evolved into the "International Order of Red Men."
"International Order of Red Men."
"International" as in the "World" Series, or the "World" Trade Center?
my guess would be that these guys changed their name again during the "Red Under the Bed" years.
(so why are Republicans considered "red" when this is internationally the colour associated with the labour movement)
According to James W. Loewen ("Lies My Teacher Told Me"):
"For a hundred years after our Revolution, Americans credited Native Americans as a source of their democratic institutions. Revolutionary-era cartoonists used images of Indians to represent the colonies against Britain. Virginia's patriot rifle companies wore Indian clothes and moccasins as they fought the redcoats. When colonists took action to oppose unjust authority, as in the Boston Tea Party or the anti-rent protests against Dutch plantations in the Hudson River valley during the 1840s, they chose to dress as Indians, not to blame Indians for the demonstrations but to appropriate a symbol identified with liberty."
Thanks for the lesson.
Since when have corporations put the truth over their bottom line?
This article if read by everyone would easily teach people that the anxiety of uncertainty that people are experiencing today is not new, not by accident, is caused by corporations with the help of our government and is not more America bashing from the left.
A simple thing we could all do is write a brief letter to the editor about this first hand account of the Boston Tea Party and then end with the web address for this article. It will be a lot more educational than the astroturf tea party being financed by modern day American royalty.
A breakdown of bailout recipients:
http://bailout.propublica.org/main/list/index
If you do business with them, then stop doing business with them.
Your vote is your dollar. Your dollar is their blood. Stop the flow.
Since when did Obama take a stance against corporations? Apparently, Hartmann has not heard of TARP funding, Guethnier or Summers: who happen to work for Obama.
Seems to me Obama is headed straight for Corporatism in Government anyway.
By the way, British East India Company enslaved Indians to grow opium that it used to addict the Chinese for high profit. When the Chinese government drew the line, the British declared war to protect their pusher of this gargantuan mass addiction, the British East India Company.
The question is how many USans are ready to stand up to the modern day corpo-godzillas? Last I heard they were trying to keep GM alive to save the auto workers jobs.
"British East India Company enslaved Indians to grow opium that it used to addict the Chinese for high profit. When the Chinese government drew the line, the British declared war to protect their pusher of this gargantuan mass addiction, the British East India Company."
US schoolchildren are never taught the shocking details of the Opium Wars, or of other abominable British imperial actions. The British Empire through its history and its royalty, now obsolete, are mostly presented as champions of civilized values, and its East India Company as a model of enterprise and resourcefulness.
Excellent article. I would suggest though that no one make the mistake that this is just Right Wing Corporate funded demonstrations. There is some of that. There are also a lot of people that are quite unhappy with the course plotted by the present administration. How many folks agtually show up will be a real measure.
These folks are not take to the street types. but don't underestimate them for a minute.
Re: "There are also a lot of people that are quite unhappy with the course plotted by the present administration".
I will believe this when you can demonstrate just how many of the sham protesters were out marching when Goerge Bush/Dick Cheney lied this country into the invasion and destruction of Iraq and the deaths and displacement of millions of Iraqi citizens. Also, show me where these good people protested the deaths of American soldiers during the Bush/Cheney Folly.
And please include their protests when Bush/Cheney and the republicans were trying to destroy the United States Constitution, spying, torturing, using the Justice Department for political intimidation, outing a CIA operative, pillaging the treasury by dumping billions of tax dollars of no-bid contracts into the pockets of rich republicans.
The only reason these good citizens have joined the Freedom Works/Fox Noise/Republican/Reich-wingers in protesting is because the President of these United States is A BLACK man.
There is very little evidence that these protesters even understand just what they are protesting, especially since NONE of them make over $250,000 a year. I'm willing to bet that not many of these protesters include those who are unemployed because their previous job is now performed by someone in India? Not many are those who don't have any medical insurance? Or are about to lose their homes?
I am sure that there are oodles and oodles and oodles of links to data that show where these tea baggers did not just suddenly develop the need to protest.
I don't demonstrate anything to racists.
"The only reason these good citizens have joined the Freedom Works/Fox Noise/Republican/Reich-wingers in protesting is because the President of these United States is A BLACK man."
Shame on you.
His post in no way makes him a racist, he was just implying the real motivation for all the protesters was racist, which is of course false when applied to all, but I am sure there is a substantial amount of these protesters that are racist. And all his other points seem to be perfectly true.
Agreed. I'm not quite sure how Thomas Moore misinterpreted Sammy W's comment, either.
Mr. Moore, would you care to elaborate?
Peace...
end.corporate.personhood