Was The Boston Tea Party Justified?

“Great Britain protected America, rightly making the colonists contribute in taxes to pay for the debt of their protection. The colonist should not have rebelled in violence against the authority and the law.” This is the view that a citizen might have held who remained loyal to the king of Britain. Many respectable arguments stand against the revolution, including accusations against the violence of the colonists. True, both parties ought to have dealt with some situations in a more gentle manner, but the colonists handled Britain in the right way, considering the immoral acts passed without their consent. Because of the evidence from the Boston Massacre, the Boston Tea Party, and the Stamp Act, violating the rights of life, liberty, and property, the citizens revolted was justified. The first major revolt 1770 happened as a massacre when the colonists acted for an appropriate reason because of the unjust acts of the British soldiers. Although no one knows if one side proved guilty in the action of starting the massacre or and the killing of

Accounts from eyewitnesses, such as Robert Sessions, a young patriot during the time, support this judgment (B). He affirmed that the colonists acted in a respectable way, making a bold statement but completing the task in silence and order. The disguised colonists even cleaned up the ship after the end of the job. Other evidence comes from John Adams, a respected politician in Boston and later on, the second president of the United States. He says that the Tea Party revolt was justified because the destruction of the tea proved necessary because the colonists could not send it back, neither could they let it be landed because that would imply that they gave up on the principle of taxation by Parliamentary authority. Therefore, the revolt became the boldest strike against Britain, and a right strike also