Bob Dylan once said “A hero is someone who understands the responsibility that comes with their freedom.” The patriots do not know the responsibility that comes along with their freedom. If the patriots were granted their freedom the responsibility would be too great for them to handle. “With Great power, comes great responsibility..” This quote seems to have been derived from a popular bible quote: “I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called.” And, in all fairness, this quote plays well to the question in which we ask, can the patriots really control a country without any experience. Who were they to say that they could handle being on their own when they had no experience against us the Loyalists that had been running a whole …show more content…
We simply, and without intention to harm anyone, had halted their supply of smuggling, and therefore they reacted irrationally. They organized a group and they threw all the tea overboard into the harbor. The Patriots did not act lucidly, judiciously, or intelligently. The question, and unbearable outcome is what we must ask... If the patriots were able to be free and rule their own country. How can we be sure that the rest of the loyalist citizens will be safe? The ones who traversed across the risky sea to help you settle? If the Government figures right now were staging irrational protests that use beastiality. How will the government figures make good decisions, that will truly, and undeniably benefit the new country, if the decisions they have previously made have only impaired their mother country? How can we be sure that this new country will succeed without it’s mother country? This was a tremendous risk, and benefits were almost outweighed by irrational, and possible chattels that could go astray. “Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing
In 1773, the Tea Act placed taxes on tea, threatening the power of the colonies. The colonies, however, fought back by pouring expensive tea into the Boston harbor in an event now known as the Boston Tea Party. The enraged Parliament quickly passed the Intolerable Acts, shutting down the port of Boston and taking control over the colonies.
Benjamin Franklin, one of the Founding Fathers to the United States, was not a patriot but a mere loyalist to England before the dissolution between England and the colonies occurred. Sheila L. Skemp's The Making of a Patriot explores how Benjamin Franklin tried to stay loyal to the crown while taking interest in the colonies perception and their own representation in Parliament. While Ms. Skemp alludes to Franklin's loyalty, her main illustration is how the attack by Alexander Wedderburn during the Privy Council led to Franklin's disillusionment with the British crown and the greater interest in making the Thirteen Colonies their own nation. Her analysis of Franklin's history in Parliament and what occurred on the night that the council convened proves the change behind Franklin's beliefs and what lead to his involvement in the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution.
It was obvious that the Colonists weren’t responding well to tighter control from the British, but they did not know how to handle it except to squeeze tighter. In an effort to bring back the East India Company from bankruptcy, the British Crown granted them a monopoly on tea sales to the American Colonies. Without competition, the East India Company had full control over the prices they set. This infuriated the colonists. Pamphlets and protests did not seem to be cutting it anymore, so some felt like action needed to be taken.
By this point, the colonists were beginning to question Britain’s motives towards them. They believed they were being treated like slaves and being used solely for the economic growth of Britain. One night, in 1773, the colonists rebelled against these taxes on their tea. A group of men dressed as Native Americans boarded a ship at Boston Harbor and unloaded three vessels of taxed tea (Boston Tea Party). This event, known a...
In the first few months of 1773 the British East India Company found it was sitting on large stocks of tea that it could not sell in England. It was on the verge of bankruptcy, and many members of Parliament owned stock in this company. (USA, 1) The Tea Act in 1773 was an effort to save it. The Tea Act gave the company the right to export its merchandise without paying taxes. Thus, the company could undersell American merchants and monopolize the colonial tea trade. By October, the Sons of Liberty in New York, Philadelphia, and Boston threatened tea imports and pledged a tea boycott.
On a cold December night, a group of townspeople stormed the ships in the Boston harbor and tossed 342 chests of tea into the ocean. This event is known by the Boston tea party, it was a protest of the colonists against the Tea Act which passed by the Parliament on May 10, 1773. This act granted the British East India Company Tea a monopoly on tea sales in the American colonies. Since the tea cargos were the only thing townspeople thrown overboard and they were really careful about the other things on the ship, they are sending a clear message: they are not going to pay the tax on tea. The colonists loved tea, they used it on daily basis. And it is
After a decade of political and social disputes between the American colonies and the British government, war seemed inevitable. The Continental Congress tried to reach a political compromise but British taxes along with a growing presence of British regulars (soldiers) in the colonies, were fueling colonists talks of rebellion and the greater need for Independence. Deteriorating relations between the two came to a head on the evening of December 16, 1773, when sixty men disguised as Indians boarded three ships in the Boston harbor and proceeded to destroy and toss overboard more than 300 chests of British te...
However, the Americans argued against the constitutionality of the act because its purpose was to raise revenue and not regulate trade, so the colonists organized boycotts of British goods. One of the boycotts involved the circulation of a letter to other colonies urging them to coordinate a resistance. However, the government quickly dissolved this assembly to organize a resistance by reactivating a statute which permitted subjects outside the realm to face trials in England for treason. This caused an outrage and on March 5, 1770 a large mob gathered around a group of British soldiers. The mob grew more and more threatening, throwing snowballs, rocks and debris at the soldiers. One soldier was even clubbed and fell. As a result, the soldiers fired into the crowd killing five civilians, giving the event the name the Boston Massacre. As a result of this event, Parliament withdrew all taxes except the tax on tea, giving up its efforts to raise revenue. This temporarily resolved the crisis and the boycott of British goods largely ceased. However, this resolve was only temporary because in June of 1772 American patriots burned a British warship that had been vigorously enforcing unpopular trade regulations. These events eventually forced the thirteen colonies to create the Committee of
“But what is freedom? Freedom from what? There is nothing to take a man's freedom away from him, save other men. To be free, a man must be free of his brothers. That is freedom. That and nothing else.”
The Sons of Liberty were somewhat heroes too. They did help the Revolutionary War start. Without the Revolutionary War, America might still be under rule of Britain. Also, they believed in liberty and democracy. Liberty and democracy is what America is run on. However, the Sons of Liberty were still fanatics. Although the Sons of Liberty helped start the Revolutionary War, it hurt America. Americans were not ready or equipped to fight and after the war, Americans struggled with economics and government for a little while. Also, the Sons of Liberty didn’t come up with liberty and democracy themselves, the whole nation agreed to it. There are some downsides also to having a democracy, the people can pick the wrong person suited for the job because of popularity or age, not facts or what could help their country out. Therefore, the Sons of Liberty were more of fanatics than heroes.
The American Colonies were beyond frustrated. They were tired of the British Parliament not responding to the American colonists’ boycott. The Sons of Liberty took three ships full of tea at the Boston Harbor and dumped 342 crates of...
Most people have heard of The Boston tea party. When American patriots dressed as Mohawk Indians boarded the British ships in the Boston harbor and dumped all of the tea into the ocean. But what most people fail to realize is the great importance behind this protest. To fully understand a topic of history one must first acknowledge the actions behind it. The French and Indian war, the Stamp Act, the Townshend Revenue Act, as well as the Tea Act are all important catalysts of the legendary Boston tea party. Which is why we will discuss these topics before examining the events of the Boston tea party.
Simon Keller argues in his essay "Patriotism as Bad Faith" that patriotism is not a virtue but it is actually a vice. Keller begins by splitting the views on this philosophical debate into three different representations. The first being the "communitarian patriot", where patriotism is not only a valued virtue to someone's self but that it is actually an essential virtue. The second representation is a radical contradiction of the first, known as the "hard universalist. The hard Universalist sees patriotism as a vice instead of being any type of positive virtue. They think that everyone should be valued the same, and that there should be no favoritism. The third representation is the idea of the first two combined, to form what is called the "soft universalist." This view is understood as patriotism is allowed, and is not seen as a vice, but also that one has an obligation to the rest of the world, almost to try and treat them as a loyalty that you would have towards your own country. (p.112).
The Intolerable Acts of 1774 greatly fueled the First Continental Congress. In response to the Boston Tea party, the British Parliament decided that a series of laws were needed to calm the rising resistance in America. “One law closed Boston Harbor until Bostonians paid for the destroyed tea. Another law restricted the activities of the Massachusetts legislature and gave added powers to the post of governor of Massachusetts.” As one can imagine, the American colonist viewed this as the British attempt to curtail their quest for independence.
Why Nations Fail takes an in depth look into why some countries flourish and become rich powerful nations while other countries are left in or reduced to poverty. Throughout this book review I will discuss major arguments and theories used by the authors and how they directly impact international development, keeping in mind that nations are only as strong as their political and economical systems.