{"id":31689,"date":"2023-12-16T08:44:22","date_gmt":"2023-12-16T07:44:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.historyextra.com\/?p=253967"},"modified":"2023-12-16T16:11:41","modified_gmt":"2023-12-16T15:11:41","slug":"the-brutality-behind-the-boston-tea-party","status":"publish","type":"rss_feed","link":"https:\/\/c01.purpledshub.com\/bbchistory\/rss_feed\/the-brutality-behind-the-boston-tea-party\/","title":{"rendered":"The brutality behind the Boston Tea Party"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Boston Tea Party is often cited as a model of peaceful civil protest. But, as Elinor Evans reveals, on the 250th anniversary of this milestone in America\u2019s foundational story, it occurred against a backdrop of bloodshed <\/p>

By Elinor Evans\n \t\t<\/p>

Published: Saturday, 16 December 2023 at 07:44 AM<\/p>

\n\n

On a warm August evening in 1765, Thomas Hutchinson, lieutenant governor of the British colony of Massachusetts, sat down to supper in his mansion, one of the finest homes in the colonial city of Boston.<\/p>\n

As he prepared to eat, word reached Hutchinson that an angry mob was advancing. He swiftly \u201cdirected my children to fly to a secure place\u201d and withdrew to a nearby house, \u201cwhere I had been but a few minutes before the hellish crew fell upon my house with the rage of devils and in a moment with axes split down the door and entered\u201d.<\/p>\n

\"A\n<\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/picture>\n<\/div>
A mob incited by the Sons of Liberty destroy the Boston mansion of Thomas Hutchinson in August 1765 \u2013 one of a series of violent incidents after the British government passed the Stamp Act that March. (Image by Granger, NYC \/ TopFoto)<\/span><\/figcaption><\/div>\n

The horde tore apart Hutchinson\u2019s mansion, from room panelling to roof tiles, drinking his wine and stealing silverware and money. By the following day, he wrote, \u201cnothing remained but bare walls and floor\u201d.<\/p>\n

The rampage that wrecked Hutchinson\u2019s home on 26 August 1765 was the culmination of months of unrest among colonists protesting the wildly unpopular Stamp Act, passed by the British parliament in March 1765.<\/p>\n

This act, which would take effect the following November, imposed a tax on legal and official papers and publications circulating in Britain\u2019s 13 North American colonies. Heated opposition had flared in cities including New York, Boston and Newport, Rhode Island, with strident objections published in pamphlets and newspapers.<\/p>\n

And just 12 days before the attack on Hutchinson\u2019s mansion, an effigy of Boston\u2019s stamp tax agent had been hanged, stamped on, decapitated and burned.<\/p>\n

\"A\n<\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/picture>\n<\/div>
Thomas Hutchinson, later the controversial lieutenant governor of Massachusetts, painted in 1741. \u00a9 Massachusetts Historical Society<\/span><\/figcaption><\/div>\n

Hutchinson himself believed that the Stamp Act should be repealed; rather than condemning colonists\u2019 protests outright, he had merely advocated moderation. But, with his record of enforcing government levies, Hutchinson was branded a supporter of the tax, and became a focus of colonists\u2019 ire.<\/p>\n

So on that August night, a mob incited by a clandestine organisation called the Sons of Liberty surged into action. Having marched on the homes of court officials and customs controllers, the throng made Hutchinson\u2019s mansion its prime target.<\/p>\n

In the days that followed, those actions were widely condemned. The Boston Gazette<\/em> \u2013 which itself nurtured ideas that later fuelled the American Revolution<\/a> \u2013 declared that the attack was \u201cutterly inconsistent with the first principles of government, and subversive of the glorious cause\u201d.<\/p>\n

But for the group behind the attack, the destruction was a necessary means of sending a strong message to Britain\u2019s government: the colonies would not accept the tax. Days earlier, Samuel Adams \u2013 a Bostonian Son of Liberty and later a founding father of the US \u2013 had written that the group was \u201canimated with a zeal for their country then upon the brink of destruction, and resolved, at once to save her\u201d. Eight years later, in December 1773, the Sons of Liberty instigated one of the United States\u2019 foundational events: the Boston Tea Party<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Boston Tea Party: Igniting a Revolution<\/h4>\n

Don\u2019t miss our HistoryExtra<\/em> podcast series investigating the causes, tensions, and violent origins of the Boston Tea Party. Join leading experts as they explain the key players involved in the plan \u2013 and why tea was so important to the story.<\/p>\n

Listen now<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p><\/div>

\"Boston<\/div> <\/div> <\/div> <\/section>

That group\u2019s moniker was likely inspired by a quote from Irish MP Isaac Barr\u00e9, who in early 1765 had warned that taxation of the American colonies \u201ccaused the blood of these sons of liberty to recoil within them\u201d. Disparate protesters quickly united under the name, reciting a phrase that encapsulated colonial anger at Britain\u2019s attempts to enforce various taxes after the Seven Years\u2019 War<\/a>: \u201cNo taxation without representation.\u201d<\/p>\n

In the wake of that conflict, which ended in 1763, Britain\u2019s national debt had nearly doubled, from \u00a376.5m to \u00a3136m. In the eyes of many in Britain, taxation was a natural means of raising funds to support colonial subjects in North America. Charles Townshend, chancellor of the Exchequer, described Americans as \u201cChildren planted by our care, nourished up by our indulgence\u2026 and protected by our arms\u201d, who should be willing to \u201ccontribute their mite\u201d.<\/p>\n

Many American colonists, though, felt that their tax burden was not reflected in meaningful representation in parliament. The Stamp Act spurred the formal organisation of the Sons of Liberty, with branches in Boston, Philadelphia<\/a> and New York. The names of many early members are now familiar in the story of American independence, among them John Hancock, Benedict Arnold and Paul Revere.<\/p>\n

The Sons of Liberty quickly evolved from being a loose confederation of independent local outfits to a coordinated body organising intercolonial boycotts of all British goods.<\/p>\n

These were \u201cvery delicate arrangements\u201d, explains Benjamin Carp, professor of history at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center. \u201cIt required a lot of cooperation to make sure that the merchants of Boston, Newport, New York and Philadelphia were all working with one another to prevent British merchants from doing business.\u201d<\/p>\n

Those behind the boycotts sponsored pamphlets and adverts. One verse, published in a Boston newspaper, exhorted women to buy only locally produced linen: \u201cNo more ribbons wear, nor in rich dress appear; Love your country much better than fine things.\u201d The poet also suggested that young men would find women taking such a patriotic approach more attractive.<\/p>\n

But another, darker tactic was adopted by the Sons of Liberty to enforce the boycotts \u2013 the painful, humiliating punishment of tarring and feathering. This involved pouring or brushing hot pine tar, usually used for sealing sails and ships\u2019 hulls, over the subject\u2019s body.<\/p>\n

Then the victim \u2013 perhaps a customs official, or someone who had broken a boycott \u2013 would be covered with feathers and often paraded on a cart or tied to a rail. An unlucky few suffered further agony and indignation when the feathers stuck to them were set alight, searing their skin. Between 1766 and 1776, more than 70 incidents of tarring and feathering were recorded across the American colonies.<\/p>\n

\"A\n<\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/picture>\n<\/div>
A political cartoon depicts The Funeral Procession of Miss Americ-Stamp, satirising the repeal in 1766 of the Stamp Act \u2013 in part, thanks to the sometimes violent tactics employed by the Sons of Liberty. (Image from Stefano Bianchetti \/ Bridgeman Images)<\/span><\/figcaption><\/div>\n

Both boycotts and violent tactics seem to have had an effect: the Stamp Act was repealed in March 1766. New York\u2019s Sons of Liberty celebrated by erecting a Liberty Pole in City Hall Park.<\/p>\n

Battleground for liberty<\/h2>\n
\"A\n<\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/picture>\n<\/div>
A hand-coloured engraving of British soldiers quartered in an American colonial home 1770s. (Image from North Wind Picture Archives, via Alamy)<\/span><\/figcaption><\/div>\n

That victory proved short-lived. Further division was sown by the Quartering Act 1765, which required colonists to \u201cquarter and billet\u201d royal troops, and the Townshend Acts passed in 1767 and 1768, which levied indirect taxes on imported goods such as glass, lead and paint.<\/p>\n

In New York, the Liberty Pole became a focal point of tensions between colonists and government. Destroyed by British forces in the wake of the repeal of the Stamp Act, it was replaced and torn down four more times in rapid succession.<\/p>\n

\"A\n<\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/picture>\n<\/div>
A clash erupts around the Liberty Pole in New York\u2019s City Hall Park, as depicted in a hand-coloured woodcut of a 19th-century illustration. The pole, which had been erected to celebrate the repeal of the Stamp Act in 1766, became a focal point of tensions between colonists and British forces. (Image from AKG Images)<\/span><\/figcaption><\/div>\n

The dispute escalated through mocking broadsides published by both sides, including one that attacked the Sons of Liberty for acting as though freedom depended upon \u201ca piece of wood\u201d.<\/p>\n

On 19 January 1770, Sons of Liberty protesters attempted to stop British soldiers distributing yet another broadside on Golden Hill, in what\u2019s now downtown Manhattan. Weapons were drawn, and injuries were sustained on both sides.<\/p>\n

A New York Gazette<\/em> report in February 1770 described how soldiers \u201cmadly attacked every person that they could reach, and their companions on Golden Hill were more inhuman, for, besides cutting a sailor\u2019s head and finger [who] was defending himself against them, they stabbed another with a bayonet, going about his Business, so badly that his life was thought in danger\u201d.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, following violent protests against the Townshend Acts, in October 1768 the British government sent troops to occupy Boston.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn New York, Philadelphia, Connecticut, the Sons of Liberty held their own,\u201d explains Carp. \u201cBut, for a variety of reasons, Boston got the reputation of being the ringleader of all violence. This is how the British regarded them.\u201d<\/p>\n

One reason is that, for the most part, the population of Boston was united in its resistance to the taxes. And there was also a higher number of customs officials in that trading hub. \u201cYou had officials such as Governor Francis Bernard and his successor, Thomas Hutchinson, writing constant complaints back to parliament,\u201d says Carp.<\/p>\n

By March 1770, some 2,000 British soldiers occupied Boston \u2013 at the time, a city with a colonial population of 16,000.<\/p>\n

\u201cOnce the British troops were quartered in Boston, that raised the temperature of the whole resistance movement,\u201d says Sarah Purcell, professor of history at Grinnell College, Iowa.<\/p>\n

Along with resentment at what was seen as imposition of the despotic will of the British parliament, labour disputes between locals and the army were rife. Off-duty soldiers \u2013 known derisively as \u201clobsterbacks\u201d for their red uniforms \u2013 were permitted to take odd jobs in the city, and did so at low wages. They were thus perceived as taking jobs from Bostonians.<\/p>\n

Blood on the streets<\/h2>\n

Episodes of violence \u2013 such as the fatal shooting in February 1770 of an 11-year-old boy, Christopher Seider, by customs official Ebenezer Richardson as he tried to disperse a crowd protesting outside the shop of someone loyal to the British government \u2013 set local resentment soaring further still.<\/p>\n

\"An\n<\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/picture>\n<\/div>
Noted American patriot Paul Revere\u2019s engraving of the violent scuffle outside Boston Custom House on 5 March 1770, which left five men dead. Representations of this clash as the \u2018Boston Massacre\u2019 helped amplify anger at British oppression, leading to the outbreak of full-scale conflict five years later. (Image by Barney Burstein\/Corbis\/VCG via Getty Images)<\/span><\/figcaption><\/div>\n

When rope workers and British soldiers started to scuffle outside Boston Custom House on 5 March 1770, the altercation quickly snowballed into a tragedy. Five men were killed when British soldiers fired on the crowd. The question of whether the British soldiers received an official order to fire before the first deadly shot remains in doubt.<\/p>\n

But in the eyes of many colonists, the Boston Massacre, as it became known, was clear evidence that British methods of enforcement were disproportionate and brutal. The event was immortalised in an engraving by silver- smith Paul Revere, depicting British redcoats gunning down innocent colonists.<\/p>\n

The Boston Massacre was clear evidence that British methods of enforcement were disproportionate and brutal <\/blockquote> <\/div> <\/div> <\/div>\n<\/div>

\u201cIt accelerated the vision of the violence being only on the part of the British soldiers,\u201d says Purcell. \u201cActually, there was violence on both sides in 1770. But in this case, Americans were the ones who were killed.\u201d<\/p>\n

In 1773, the resentments of many New England colonists \u2013 now well accustomed to mobilisation against taxes perceived as unfair \u2013 coalesced over the issue of tea.<\/p>\n

Among the colonies\u2019 growing population, tea had shifted from being \u201ca luxury good to something that even the middling sort and poor people could have access to\u201d, says Purcell. \u201cMen and women both built a lot of their sociability around tea. You can see this in the proliferation of tea tables, cups, teapots and all kinds of material culture that was extremely refined.\u201d<\/p>\n

Colonial discontent<\/h2>\n

In May 1773, the British parliament passed the Tea Act<\/a>, granting the financially ailing East India Company<\/a> an effective monopoly on tea sold directly to the colonies. This intensified colonial discontent at British control of access to consumer goods.<\/p>\n