Boston Tea Party--A Terrorist Act?

by GinnyTosken 40 Replies latest jw friends

  • GinnyTosken
    GinnyTosken

    I'm not sure what I think about this myself and am curious to hear your opinions.

    Here is an account from Paul Johnson's A History of the American People.

    Ginny

    The origins of the Boston Tea Party had nothing to do with America. The East India Company had got itself into a financial mess. To help it extricate itself, [Lord] North passed an Act which, among other things, would allow the company to send its tea direct to America, at a reduced price, thus encouraging the 'rebels' to consume it. Delighted, the harassed company quickly dispatched three ships, loaded with 298 chests of tea, worth £10,994, to Boston. At the same time, the authorities stepped up measures against smuggling. The American smuggling interest, which in one way or another included about 90 percent of import-export merchants, was outraged. John Hancock (1737-93), a prominent Boston merchant and political agitator, was a respectable large-scale smuggler and considered this maneuver a threat to his livelihood as well as a constitutional affront. He was one of many substantial citizens who encouraged the Boston mob to take exemplary action.

    When the ships docked on December 16, 1773, a crowd gathered to debate what to do at the Old South Meeting House. It is reported 7,000 people were jammed inside. Negotiations were held with the ship-masters. One rode to Governor Hutchinson at his mansion on Milton Hill to beg him to remit the duties. He refused. When this news was conveyed to the mob, a voice said: 'Who knows how tea will mingle with salt water?' Sam Adams, asked to sum up, said 'in a low voice,' 'This meeting can do nothing more to save the country.' The doors were then burst open and a thousand men marched to the docks. There had been preparations. An eyewitness, John Andrews, said that 'the patriots' were 'cloath'd in blankets with the heads muffled, and copper color'd countenances, being each arm'd with a hatchet or axe, and a pair of pistols.' The 'Red Indians' ran down Milk Street and onto Griffith's Wharf, climbed aboard the Dartmouth, chopped open its tea-chests, and then hurled the tea into the harbor, 'where it piled up in the low tide like haystacks.' They then attacked the Eleanor and the Beaver. By nine in the evening all three ships had been stripped of their cargo. Josiah Quincy (1744-75), one of the leading Boston pamphleteers and spokesman, said: 'No one in Boston will ever forget this night,' which will lead 'to the most trying and terrific struggle this country every saw.' John Adams, shrewdly noting that no one had been injured, let alone killed, saw the act, though one of force, as precisely the kind of dramatization of a constitutional point that was needed. As he put it: 'The people should never rise without doing something to be remembered, something notable and striking. This destruction to the tea is so bold, so daring, so firm, intrepid and inflexible, and it must have so important consequences, and so lasting, that I can't but consider it an epoch of history.'

    Adams was quite right. The episode had the effect of forcing everyone on both sides of the Atlantic to consider where they stood in the controversy. It polarized opinion. The Americans, or most of them, were exhilarated and proud. The English, or most of them, were outraged. Dr. Johnson saw the Tea Party as theft and hooliganism and produced his maxim: 'Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.' In March 1774, on the invitation of the government, parliament closed the port of Boston to all traffic and two months later passed the Coercive Acts. These punitive measures, paradoxically, were accompanied by the Quebec Act, a highly liberal measure which gave relief to the Canadian Catholics and set Upper and Lower Canada firmly on the road to self-government and dominion status. It was designed to keep the Canadians, especially the French-speaking ones, loyal to the crown, and succeeded; but it infuriated the American Protestants and made them suspicious that some long-plotted conspiracy was afoot to reimpose what John Adams called 'the hated despotism of the Stuarts.' In the current emotional atmosphere, anything could be believed. At all events, these legislative measures, which included the compulsory quartering of troops on American citizens in Boston and elsewhere, were lumped together by the American media under the term 'Intolerable Acts.' They mark the true beginning of the American War of Independence.

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    Ginny,

    I visited the replica of the Tea Party boat in Boston about 8 years ago. It was right next to the five-story computer museum. After the tour, I took the tour guide aside and said, I know the real truth about the "Tea Party." Do you? He said, "sure I do, but I can't tell it on the tour. The history books are full of bulldust. Some of our "great patriots" had warehouses full of tea and made a handy profit from it. They created an artifical shortage under the guise of patriotism when they schemed the Tea Party, and guaranteed people would have to buy tea from them. It was all about money, and they were also able to use it to political advantage."

    Ginny, they also used the "Boston Massacre" to fuel up the folk's anger. Five people shot in a panic is hardly a "Massacre." The press pumped that incident to manipulate the people in exactly the same manner that William Randolph Hearst used the sinking of the "Maine" for his own selfish reasons.

    Selfish political manipulators and money-interests who benefit from war will always be with us. This includes a religious organization like the WTS who uses the "War of the Great Day of the God the Almighty" to their own selfish advantage. And financial gain.

    Farkel

    "When in doubt, duck!"

  • teejay
    teejay

    Ginny,

    Believe it or not, I almost posted something about the Boston Tea Party last week, not from the terrorist angle but how the public's attitude can be manipulated. The BTP was obviously a terrorist act.

    The driving force behind the Sons of Liberty was Samuel Adams, and there is little question that he was the primary fomenter of terror and rebellion against the King -- therefore England -- in the case of the BTP and at other times, the BTP being the spark that lit the fuse leading to the Revolution. For years England had been passing measures that were more and more oppressive, but America WAS a colony, and the colonists were traitorous in their refusal to submit to the will of the King.

    But then, terrorist acts against an oppressor is not always a bad thing, as the BTP was a step in the direction that led to independence. Also see John Brown, Nat Turner, et al.

    tj

  • Treborr Jones
    Treborr Jones

    Ginny
    Do you have a link to this story. If not could I use your post on my website?

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    I heard, though not confirmed, that Bin Laden's organization, using his money, had bought stock in various US airlines on a short position so that after the air attack on 9-11, when the stock dropped, they could sell short and make a bundle. So yes, I suppose even for Holy Hypocrit Bin Laden it is all about money. He has hundreds of millions, but will he lift a finger and help feed to poor in Afghanistan? It appears he is all about money and power, and not about doing what is right. - Amazing

  • Trilobite
    Trilobite

    Amazing,

    You can't buy stock short; you sell it, even though you don't own it. So, you have first to borrow the stock from your broker. When the stock drops (if it does) then you buy it back for less than you sold it for. That creates the profit. If it goes up then you lose money.

    The speculation, however, is that bin Laden bought put options in airlines and financial companies. This is equivalent to establishing a short position by the sale of actual stock. However, puts are options which, if one buys them, gives one the right, but not the obligation, to sell the stock at some predetremined price, called the strike price. As an example, if you buy a put with a strike price of $50.00, if the stock drops to $40.00 you make $10.00 per share, or $1000. per option contract. The advantage of options, as opposed to an outright position in stocks, is that a lot less capital is needed, or, equivalently much higher leverage is possible.

    T.

  • teejay
    teejay

    Trilobite,

    Absolutely fascinating. I don't understand a damn thing you said, but sure wish I did.

    Tell me... if the reports are true about bin Laden doing whatever he did, does it require a high level of sophistication? Does it require "genius" on bin Laden's part, or just inside information?

    thanks,
    tj

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    Trilobite:

    You said,

    "You can't buy stock short; you sell it, even though you don't own it. So, you have first to borrow the stock from your broker. When the stock drops (if it does) then you buy it back for less than you sold it for. That creates the profit. If it goes up then you lose money."

    I was thinking of Options and the similarity 'in effect' to Short trading. I understand that stock is sold short against the block. The reason I used the term 'short' was that is how it was stated in the news. And I made no attempt to try and clarify this. My error.

    You said,

    "The speculation, however, is that bin Laden bought put options in airlines and financial companies. This is equivalent to establishing a short position by the sale of actual stock. However, puts are options which, if one buys them, gives one the right, but not the obligation, to sell the stock at some predetremined price, called the strike price. As an example, if you buy a put with a strike price of $50.00, if the stock drops to $40.00 you make $10.00 per share, or $1000. per option contract. The advantage of options, as opposed to an outright position in stocks, is that a lot less capital is needed, or, equivalently much higher leverage is possible."

    I agree, you are very correct. I have a level of understanding on these types of contracts. I have bought and sold Put and Call Options in years gone buy. My problem with Options trading is that the SEC rules limit the average trader from dealing in Options where the strike price is below a certain level where the leverage becomes fantastic. So, once I discovered this the hard way, I opted out of Options.

    Also, the best way to make money in Options is to buy the stock and sell the Options rather than buy them. That way, no matter which way the market goes, you make money.

    Thanks again for making a good correction. - Amazing

  • GinnyTosken
    GinnyTosken

    Teejay

    But then, terrorist acts against an oppressor is not always a bad thing, as the BTP was a step in the direction that led to independence. Also see John Brown, Nat Turner, et al.

    Do you share Bigboi's Machiavellian outlook? Do the ends justify the means?

    Does the designation "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" depend on one's perspective?

    Is bin Laden's reasoning sound when he says:

    Besides, terrorism can be commendable and it can be reprehensible. . . . Every state and every civilization and culture has to resort to terrorism under certain circumstances for the purpose of abolishing tyranny and corruption. . . . The terrorism we practice is of the commendable kind for it is directed at the tyrants and the aggressors and the enemies of Allah, the tyrants, the traitors who commit acts of treason against their own countries and their own faith and their own prophet and their own nation. Terrorizing those and punishing them are necessary measures to straighten things and to make them right.

    from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html

    Treborr Jones,

    Do you have a link to this story. If not could I use your post on my website?

    I typed the passage above from pages 141-143 of A History of the American People by Paul Johnson. You are welcome to copy it.

    I'm editing this to add that Paul Johnson also has several other books that might be of interest to folks here, A History of the Jews, A History of Christianity, and The Quest for God, to mention only a few. His work is not dry history, but is highly readable and engaging. I highly recommend his books.

    Trilobite, Amazing, et al.

    I heard on NPR that there were suspiciously high volumes of trades for United and American airlines, Morgan Stanley, and several insurance companies just before the attack. The commentator said that a link is unproven but at least plausible and is being investigated.

    Here is a link to an article called "Profiting From Terror?
    Worldwide probe of surge in trades days before attack"
    from Newsday:

    http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzsell192372611sep19.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

    Ginny

  • Trilobite
    Trilobite

    TJ,

    It's pretty straightforward really but a bit nonintuitive at first. Short selling is the exact opposite of buying stock low and selling it high. It's just that you are borrowing the stock, then selling it, while accepting the obligation that you will replace it at some time later (of your, or sometimes the lender's, choosing) at whatever price it happens to be trading at then. With luck you can buy it back for less than you sold it for. Options are another way of doing it but you get a lot more return, although with a lot more risk. It doesn't require much sophistication although I'm sure that, based on bin Laden's background in Saudi, he knows a fair bit about the markets. But if he knew that terrorists were very likely to succeed, as they did, it would be a no brainer to buy puts. The risk would be if the attacks failed. However, the markets were so weak prior to Sep. 11 that even a failed attempt would likely have led to some downside action in the markets. It almost seems like they waited to strike at a time that would do most damage to the financial markets. Unfortunately, as even the myopic YK has noticed, September/October is historically a bad time for the stock market, as it is for JW prophecies and speculations, including his own.

    Short selling of itself is often given a bad rap mainly because most investors don't understand it. Without it the markets could not survive. There are arguments that if more mutual funds could sell short as well as buy stock then bubbles and crashes wopuld be smoothed over somewhat. If you wanted to buy 1000 shares of XYZ then why is it that you can always do it; there is never a situation where there is "no stock available." It's because someone will sell you the stock short. Also, when prices collapse who would be there to buy if there were no short sellers who need to redeem the stock they sold at higher prices? Dumping on short sellers is often a convenient way of transferring blame when overblown analyst expectations cause people to lose tremendous amounts through a buy-and-hold, no matter what, philosophy.

    Of course to profit in any way from tragedy is disgusting.

    T.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit