When the Boston Tea Party comes to mind, many people think of the ship and the tea and patriotism in the 18th century. No one seems to think of the many different viewpoints that were brought up from that moment to the viewpoints from numerous textbooks over the years. Some thought highly of the patriots and their actions; some, however; were against the acts of colonists. Although the Patriots of the colonies viewed the Boston Tea Party as a rude awakening to England, the English viewed it as an unnecessary action toward them.
The main three viewpoints in this story of rebellion are all different. First, the Patriot/Sons of Liberty viewpoint was that it was an acceptable action to represent thoughts of the taxation of tea and other goods. It wasn't like that for England, as they saw it as an unnecessary action toward England; they (colonists) needed obedience. And finally, the textbook was mostly neutral, seeing both sides having justified actions. The text saw it as a clumsy way of getting the colonists" points across. These viewpoints all had their justifiable reasons; who was the right one?.
All of the hassle began almost a decade before the historical event, when the Sugar Tax of 1764 was passed. What the Sugar Tax did was simple: it increased the West Indies import tax on sugar. Why would the English do this? The colonist view of the Sugar Tax was that it was trying to oppress them and to get money for England. The colonists objected this by boycotting as much English goods as they could. Their protest got them somewhere, as it was enough to lower the tax a little bit. But then came more oppressive actions of tyranny from across the Atlantic. The Stamp Act of 1765 was a horrible stab at the colonies. It was a direct tax that forced colonists to pay for letters and documents. It took their money. Obviously, the next logical step for the colonists was to protest. The colonists didn't like that it was only for revenue purposes (Chidsey 26).
