Tea Act 1773 Was Responsible

Tea Act 1773 was responsible for the inflammation of radicalism, however the Act was mainly promulgated to stabilize and lower the tea prices. The general interpretation with reference to the system was that the acceptance of such policy, which was people friendly, was on the other hand indication of the fact that the local Americans accepted the 'duties i.e. taxation without representation' (Ray, 1976), and on the other hand it also restricted the smuggling activities and business scope of the founding fathers.

During the colonial regime, the tea parties were often arranged on the arrival and departure of the men on voyage, although the event of tea party was never organized in Georgia. Prior to the enactment of the Tea Act, the political situation were extremely tense, the colonists communicated and expressed their concerns and grievances through different channels including 'local newspapers and committees of correspondence' (Ray, 1976). The locals refuted and condemned any taxation policy without representation, and expressed their frustration and discontent over the tyrant and corrupt practices of the British government, and therefore the significance of the nature of government, sovereignty, and constitutions were considered void, and such aspects were either highly ignored or refuted. Under such circumstances when the parliament of the Britain decided to offer relief to the local population reduction in tea prizes, the outcome was unexpected. The Tea Act was promulgated because the British Empire intended to eliminate the role and influence of the merchant middleman. The Act was also implemented because the Empire wanted to offer relief to the East India Company, the company was on the verge of financial collapse, and the Act was imposed to offer relief to the public, and increase the sales volume of the East India Company. The tea Act offered the East India Company 'a virtual monopoly on selling tea in the colonies' (Ray, 1976). The monopoly of he Act was responsible for the infuriating of violence, which was due to the offensive approach of the 'angered influential merchants' (Ray, 1976), the interests and gains of the merchants were at stake, and they expected that the monopoly of the East India company will adversely affect their business activities. The Tea Act offered a partial economic relief to the locals, but the local population was reluctant to appreciate such major, because that would have been the acceptance of the taxation policy of the British Empire without the representation of the locals. The colonies shared grievances and concerns with reference to the Tea Act, and mutually their agreed over the complete boycott of the Tea Act, which eventually 'mobilized a large segment of colonial society' (Ray, 1976). After the enactment, the influential figures of different colonies developed different plans to avoid the landing of tea shipments of East India Company. As the wave of opposition grew stronger, the locals allover the American territory sabotaged the activities and business operations of East India Company. The British parliament retaliated, and punished Boston, where the agitation was widespread, the ports of the Boston colony were sealed, and their autonomy was restricted. The British government justified its measures and actions, and termed those as coercive acts, which the colonials regarded as the Intolerable Acts, 'the new laws cast the city in the role of martyr and sparked new resistance throughout the colonies' (Ray, 1976). The general perception is that the Tea Act was mainly imposed not to offer relief to the local population, but to offer a business opportunity to the East India Company.