Was the Boston Tea Party an act of terrorism?

Great Debates
41

I also don’t remember covering the American Revolution in any detail. IIRC, we were having a lot of bother with the French around the same time. Rival Empires, Kings losing their marbles, and all that malarkey.

I do remember finally getting to the 20th century aged 15-16 but it was a long bloody time coming. I also agree that the curriculum has changed – and often – so it could well be different for others.
It’s quite interesting to see a discussion on the BTP - trying to work out who’s justifying the perspective they were taught as opposed to those looking at the facts coldly. That’s not intended to be judgemental, just interesting to see how our initial perspectives on historical events, as formed by teachers and text, mature.

42

Gotta agree with the common-sense contingent here: A terrorist act is an act intended to create terror. Terror is the feeling that one’s personal safety is not protected by governmental or other public institutions.

In Sua’s case, nobody has been terrified for their personal safety, nor is there even a real loss of confidence in the government’s efficacy. No terror = no terrorism.

The BTP itself didn’t make anyone seriously fear for their personal safety, although there were many acts on both sides of the Revolution that would qualify. Ulterior financial motives have also been hinted at. There were certainly a number of small-scale acts of terrorism committed by both Revolutionaries and Loyalists, but not this one.

43

I would call it vandalism, or perhaps, industrial sabotage.

IIRC, the Captain of the ship had his sailors help with tossing the tea overboard so that:

  1. He could leave godforsaken Boston.
  2. He didn’t have to pay for the tea out of his own pocket. It’s my understanding that if the tea was not disembarked within a certain time (which in this case, was rapidly running out), that the ship Captain had to purchase the tea himself. Since it was unlikely that he was going to be able to unload the tea, they helped throw it off the ship, leaving it to the insurers and the trading company to fight over.
  3. Was Opal on that ship?

Ergo, vandalism or willful destruction of private property or something. If they would have burned it, you would have called it arson.