0
What else can I help you with?
What happened on December 16 1773?
In 1773, the East India Company had a lot of tea it could not sell in England and was almost ready to close down its business. To help save the company, the British Parliament passed the Tea Act of 1773. This allowed the company to sell its goods to the colonies without paying taxes. This meant the East India Company could sell their tea cheaper than the American merchants.The Tea Act of 1773 did not impose any new tax on tea. It would still be taxed the three-penny per pound like it had been or the last six years. The British didn't think the colonists would be upset about the Act since by letting the East India Company not pay taxes, the price of tea would go down. But the colonists were angry because the Act would give the East India Company a monopoly on tea sales in the colonies.The colonists became angry again about being taxed without representation. They decided to restart the boycott of tea. This time even more people joined the boycott. The women who drank most of the tea joined the boycott. The colonies united in a way they hadn't before.Some of the colonies decided to stop the East India Company from docking their ships in colonial ports. In some ports East India Company agents were scared into resigning. Tea was returned to England or put in warehouses.In October 1773, colonists in Philadelphia meet to discuss what they are going to do to oppose the tax and the East India Company monopoly. A committee then forces British tea agents to leave their positions.In November the townspeople of Boston met and decided to follow what they did in Philadelphia. They try to get their British tea agents to resign, but they refused to leave their positions. Then three weeks later, three ships carrying tea from the East India Company sail into Boston harbor.On November 29 and 30, 1773, the townspeople met two times to try to decide what to do about tea on three East India Company ships docked in the harbor. They decided to send the tea on one ship, the Dartmouth, back to England without paying the taxes. The Royal Governor of Massachusetts, Hutchinson, doesn't agree and orders the customs officials not to let the ship sail from the harbor unless the taxes are paid.On December 16, 1773, Samuel Adams led three groups of fifty men dressed like Mohawk Indians and walked through the streets of Boston. Then someone blew a whistle. The men headed for the harbor and boarded the three ships with hatchets. They broke into 342 chests and threw all the tea overboard. (Most of the tea was a mixture of Ceylon and Darjeeling teas.) The amount of tea dumped into the harbor would make 24,000,000 cups of tea. Today, that much tea would cost about $1,000,000.00!When they finished they marched back through the city and headed for the Liberty Tree. Other colonists followed and together they sang "The Liberty Song."The tea washed up on the shore. The next morning the colonists went to the shore and crushed the tea leaves. Paul Revere rode through the cities telling everyone what had happened at the Boston Tea Party. As news traveled through the Colonies, other colonists decided to follow the example. Soon this became the destiny of most East India Company's ships that decided to force their way into harbors.The people of Boston refused to pay for the tea they had destroyed. This angered King George III. To punish the colonies, especially Massachusetts, the Parliament acted by creating the Coercive or Intolerable Acts. These acts only sparked
Bessemer developed a procedure that made it cheaper and easier to produce?
Steel
Why did the south build fewer railroads then the north and west?
because they are cheaper
What did Victory Gardens and Recycling have to do with World War 2?
Victory Gardens raised 40% of fresh vegatables and recycling helped make war materials quicker and cheaper
10000 pounds in 1812 currency what would be today's british equivalent?
For 1812 multiply by 80 or slightly more to get a modern equivalent, but please note that some things were much cheaper in real terms in 1812, for example, property. (One could buy a very substantial house (8 bedrooms plus) for £3,000 in 1812). Tea and coffee, on the other hand were very expensive. Postage was extremely expensive in real terms. In 1812 Britain was at war, and food prices were rather high. These comparisons are often tricky.
Why did Britain pass the Quartering Act?
The British were sending thousands of troops over to the colonies, and they needed somewhere to stay. It was cheaper to have the British live in the houses of the colonists, and King George could keep an eye on what they - the colonists - were doing.
What two acts were passed in 1764 that upset the colonists?
The Tea Act, which made tea cheaper by sending it straight to the colonies without going to Britain first. The Colonists weren't happy because they would have to buy the tea that was sent and at the fact that there were British officials running.
Why is it cheaper to make products overseas?
cheaper labor.
On the American Revolutionary War what did the colonists drink instead of tea?
Water, Coffee, various types of alcohol. I believe there might have also been tea grown in the colonies, But tea from the East India Company was cheaper, then heavily taxed by the British. That's why they threw it in the harbor
Why did overseas markets appeal to many Americans?
Overseas markets appeal to many Americans. One possible explanation for this is the fact that overseas markets can look a lot cheaper.
How did the results of the French and Indian war lead to conflict between the colonists and England?
New taxes were imposed by the king.
Why did Qantas start getting aircraft maintenance done overseas?
Cheaper labour
What did businesses in the 1950's do to benefit from a cheaper labor pool?
Expand overseas.
Why are so many American jobs going overseas?
Because it's cheaper labour.
Why studying MBA in overseas?
cheaper, get to see the world, employers may like seeing that,
How did inflation affect the cost of goods on the colonies?
they were cheaper
Did british mercantilism provide the colonies with substantial economic benefits such as military protection?
Military protection is not an economic benefit. While it does benefit the economy to have military protection, defense policy is usually considered separate from actual economic regulation, such as: international trade policy, local trade policy, taxation, employment, support for entrepreneurship, mobility of workers, worker's rights, etc.Given that economic benefits and military protection are two separate entities, there are really two questions here: Did British mercantilism provide the colonies with (1) substantial benefits like military protection or (2) substantial economic benefits?(1) Did British mercantilism provide the colonies with substantial benefits like military protection?YES. Part of British Mercantilism was to provide for the defense of the colonies both against threats from Native American Tribal Groups and other European Powers. The British were also responsible for the general security of the colonial administration. While colonists were responsible for managing the day-to-day police work and governance, the benefit conferred by the British maintaining a troop presence in the colonies helped secure the region immensely.(2) Did British mercantilism provide the colonies with substantial economic benefits?NO. According to mercantilism as imposed by the British, the colonies were required to engage in two general behaviors: (1) The colonies were locked into exclusive trade between the colonies and the metropole and were not allowed to trade with any other nation or colony. (2) No manufactures or complex goods could be made in the colonial territory. As a result the colonies would provide wealth to the metropole by trading their natural resources for less than they would be worth and by buying manufactures for much more money. These actions severely hampered the ability for colonists to trade with third parties for cheaper goods or create domestic industry. The colonists actually went out of their way to smuggle in goods from afar and create their own small domestic manufactures. If the British rules were actually followed it would have kept the colonies in a state of economic dependence on Britain.
