What was the whole point of the Boston Tea Party in 1753?
958972
The patriots were demonstration against taxation without representation, which starts again in earnest in January 2007!
66717
Revolutionary War\nDeclaration of Independence\nContintental Congress\nBoston Tea Party\nStamp Act\nTaxation without Representation
512038
I think it is high time for modern day Boston Tea Party.  The problem is that they don't even teach History very well anymore, so most kids today would think that the Boston Tea Party is a party at someones house serving a variation of a Long Island Ice Tea.
248359
how did sam adams promote the fear? or how did he end it/care for it.well the fact he jumped on their tea ship naked and dumped it all in the harbour could help. and the fact that he constantly was trying to push for freedom, and knew how to fight on their front.
73520
Well, there are lots of ideas in the Declaration, but the main idea is that the people of the 13 colonies (not yet the United States of America) were tired of not being treated equally as British citizens. They were unfairly taxed and had no representation in Parliment ("for imposing taxes on us without our consent").  Many of the specific ideas of the Declaration are jabs at the king, letting the world know why they felt the need to separate from the British thrown (for instance, "He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature"). Many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights are based on things that the king of England did to the colonists.
860001
Wellll, I have no idea what "salutary neglect" is, maybe something to do with health?  Anyway, here is a site that provides a good discussion of the grievances of the colonists leading up to the Declaration of Independence. \n\nhttp://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_decl.html\n\nIt notes that the English finally won the French/Indian War in 1763, which took a terrible toll on the colonists both in terms of soldiers and taxes.  It discusses that forced taxation was a big issue, as were English soldiers forcibly residing in colonists' residences.  Also, that year the Proclamation of 1763 was declared which prohibited the southern expansion of settlements.  Also, note that at that time there were no trials by jury; colonists were at the mercy of English judges.  You can formulate some questions around these issues.\n\nGood luck!
193649
The British were milking America for everything it could get, including high taxes on EVERYTHING, and ruling America like a dictatorship, so the Americans didnt have a say in their own government. \n\nThis led to calls for `no taxation without representation` (ie, some say in their own ruling) which the British rejected.  \n\nSo the colonists revolted.  Those who supported the English went to Canada and those who resisted the English won the war of independence and set up the US constitution.
305915
C.Widely by the English during the 1700s
810592
A meeting of delegates from the American colonies to discuss the Stamp Act.  They adopted a Declaration of Rights and Grievances that was sent to the King of England and Parliament.  They are seen by many as being the first American action that led to the Revolutionary War.
7358
"The American Revolution ended in 1783, but the young republic it created faced a difficult time. Nowhere was this more evident than to the farmers of Western Massachusetts. A severe economic depression forced people unable to pay their debts first into court, then into jail . . . The Rebellion started with petitions to the government for paper currency, lower taxes, and judicial reform. When this failed, the farmers took more drastic measures. The first target of the Rebellion was the Court of Common Pleas at Northampton, which an armed body of farmers kept from sitting on August 29th. Similar groups of insurgents stormed the courts at Worcester, Concord, Taunton, and Great Barrington in the following weeks. They hoped to prevent further trials and imprisonment of debtors."\n\nRead more using the link below.
608051
The Brits drew up the Port Act as punishment. No vessels could enter Boston Harbor. They had to go to Plymouth instead. The British hoped this would destroy Boston as a political center. It didn't work.
787544
the question of "States rights" was one of the divisive issues facing this nation at that time. which one should be supreme, the States or the Federal government. the Whigs were AWOL on that issue, truth be told. the Republican Party was actually founded on a States rights platform
1083593
Oh!  LMAO!!!!--I say, All the above, But I think a Boston Tea Party would do nicely as well, heh heh!
636113
Place: On the Charlestown Peninsula on the North side of Boston Harbour.\n\nCombatants: British troops of the Boston garrison against troops of the American Continental Army.\n\nGenerals: Major General Howe against General Artemas Ward and General Israel Putnam\n\nSize of the armies: 2,400 British troops against 1,500 Americans.\n\nUniforms, arms and equipment: The British grenadiers, light infantry and battalion company men wore red coats, the headgear of the companies, bearskin fronted mitre caps, tricorne hats and caps, and were armed with muskets and bayonets. The British had light guns and were supported by the heavy guns of the fleet. The Americans were armed with muskets or whatever firearms they could obtain, a few bayonets and some light guns.\n\nWinner: While the British drove the Americans from the Charlestown peninsula it was with heavy loss. The battle was at the time considered to be an American defeat but has since been lifted to the ranks of a heroic stands against forces of oppression.\nBritish Regiments: \nThe flank companies (grenadiers and light companies) of the 4th, 10th, 18th, 22nd, 23rd, 35th, 59th, 63rd and 65th.\n\n5th Foot later Northumberland Fusiliers and now the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers\n38th Foot later the South Staffordshire Regiment and now the Staffordshire Regiment\n43rd Foot later 1st Battalion, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry and now 1st Bn Royal Green Jackets.\n47th Foot later the North Lancashire Regiment and now the Queen’s Royal Lancashire Regiment\n52nd Foot later 2nd Battalion, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry and now 1st Bn Royal Green Jackets\nMarines: now the Royal Marines\n\nAccount: \nWith the outbreak of the war General Gage, the British commander in chief, found himself blockaded in Boston by the American Continental Army, occupying the hills to the West of the city. Gage resolved to seize the Charlestown peninsula across the harbour. Before he could act, on the night of 16th June 1775 around 1,500 American troops of the Massachusetts regiments and Putnam’s Connecticut regiment occupied Breed’s Hill and Bunker Hill on the peninsula. The American troops began to build a redoubt on Breed’s Hill. The fortification was complete by the morning, after a night of frenzied work. The presence of the Americans on the peninsula was observed by His Majesty’s Ship Lively which opened fire on them.\n\nPlans were hurriedly put in motion by the British to attack the Americans and drive them from their position. Major General Howe, one of the three generals sent from Britain to assist General Gage, was given the command. While the preparations were in train the Americans extended their fortifications from the redoubt to the sea shore, to prevent a flank attack. More American troops gathered on Bunker Hill but few of them could be persuaded to move to the forward positions on Breed’s Hill.\n\nI know i got here to late but i have an excuse. Iam from the UK. lol.\nWell done to Parrotjohn2001
941532
I think there is a lot of historical revisionism going on here...well thats assuming that you have any actual knowledge of what you are talking about. Certainly your knowledge of British history is lamentable. Are you suggesting that the American Revolution has been the only 'pure' revolution in world history? I don't understand the reference to communism. The doctrine of Communism was a 19th century one, which really didn't get into full swing until the Russian Revolution of 1917. What about the Glorious Revolution of of 1688 when Britain kicked out King James II and the barons and nobles installed William of Orange and his wife Mary to the British throne? No one died, there were  no battles (at the time at least) and there was a smooth transition of power. Not bad for a country that "always gave in to the king". (oh and as an aside, we had beheaded another King earlier in the same century... but perhaps we were too busy "giving in" to him to notice.) History is never as clear cut as you may want it to be. There was a large Colonial army that fought on the British side against the Revolutionaries that tends to be forgotten about, as it is always the victors that write the history books. It is interesting that many black americans fought in the Colonial army as they saw the British as a better bet for their eventual freedom than Washington et al. Mmmm. I wonder if they saw their so called masters as enlightened revolutionaries, or brutal slave owners who maintained their grip over these poor people by terrorising them with chains, whips and torture. I think we all need to be very careful before holding ourselves up as paragons of virtue.
269422
Americans have not only the RIGHT but the OBLIGATION to criticize what they find wrong.  Only a BAD American abandons the country when he doesn't like what's going on.  A good American FIGHTS for what he feels is right.\n\nYour position is that if people involved in the Boston Tea Party didn't like being taxed then they should have left.  And innumerable examples in history.\n\nYour position essentially says the an American citizen should suck it up and not oppose what their government does, just like in the communist countries and Nazi Germany.  You are the one who doesn't show good American tendencies
831517
In the later 1700's, there were two separate ideologies and the 2 separate groups formed political parties. As Parties, it was easier to identify where candidates stood on issues. And of course, as a group, they coud band together for strength.Those parties have changed lots over the years-the Federalists don't exist anymore the idea that the executive branch's power shopuld be checked by the legislative branch continues in the Democratic party. Lots to learn about here-try doing some internet searches and read more about it. The search terms "political party" and "history" work nicely. \n\nBartering I believe is coming back. You see that category on Craigs List and I know people that trade services. And if you search online, you'll see a number of sites come up...