General History of Connecticut, from Its First Settlement Under George Fenwick to its Latest Period of Amity with Great BritainPeters, Samuel
History
General History of Connecticut, from Its First Settlement Under George Fenwick to its Latest Period of Amity with Great Britain
Peters, Samuel
Connecticut -- History -- Colonial period, ca. 1600-1775; Connecticut -- History -- Revolution, 1775-1783
That famous exploit afforded them an opportunity of clearing their
warehouses, which they prudently resolved to do as soon as possible,
lest the reception of the Company’s tea in other provinces, or other
possible circumstances, should afterwards put it out of their power.
An idea began to prevail that a non-importation of tea was an
advisable measure upon the present occasion; accordingly, they
advertised that, after disposing of their present stock, they would
not import or have any further dealings in tea for two years. This at
once tended to fill their pockets, and exalt their characters as
patriots.
The people, ignorant of the extent of such stock, and apprehensive of
being deprived of an article they were so passionately fond of,
eagerly furnished themselves with quantities sufficient for that time,
mostly of about thirty, forty, and fifty pounds, notwithstanding the
prices were advanced one shilling per pound, upon the pretence of
raising money to pay for the tea destroyed, in order to secure the
religion and liberty of America, which, under that idea, it was
generally acknowledged ought to be done. When the tea was mostly
disposed of, the people found that the extra price they had given for
it was designed for the venders, instead of for the East-India
Company, whose tea at the bottom of the harbour was not to be paid
for. They murmured; whereupon the smugglers voted that they would not
drink any more tea, but burn on the Common what they had left. Some
tea was disposed of, and the public-spirited transaction blazoned in
the newspapers. But this was not all: the smugglers sent letters to
the leaders of mobs in the country, enjoining them to wait upon the
purchasers of their tea, and compel them to burn it, as a proof of
their patriotism. Those honourable instructions were obeyed, to the
real grievance of the holders of the tea. “Let Mr. Handcock,” said
they, “and the other merchant-smugglers, return us our money, and then
you shall be welcome to burn the tea according to their orders.”
But it signified nothing to dispute the equity of the requisition; the
cry was, “Join, or die!” Nor would the Sons of Liberty be satisfied
with anything less than that each owner of tea should with his own
hands bring forth the same and burn it, and then sign a declaration
that he had acted in this affair voluntarily and without any
compulsion, and, moreover, pay the printer for inserting it in the
newspapers.
An act of Parliament for shutting up the port of Boston was the
immediate consequence of the destruction of the East-India Company’s
tea. It took place in June, 1774, and was considered by the Americans
as designed to reduce the Bostonians “to the most servile and mean
compliance ever attempted to be imposed on a free people, and allowed
to be infinitely more alarming and dangerous to their common liberties
than even the hydra, the Stamp Act.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account