Harvey, you really ought to stop geting your historical "knowldge" from Classic Comics and sound bites. We here in Boston know a thing or two about the issues that you mention.Harvester wrote: 230 years ago, you'd all be Loyalists despite increasing British oppression. Look at Harvester, he fancies himself a King! Not paying the Stamp Tax and tossing tea overboard, what ho, he'll be hanging from the gallows soon.
We objected to the Stamp tax because, like the Sugar tax which was imposed the year before, it was a tax directly levied on the colonies by Parliament, to raise revenue far in excess of the costs of maintaining security in North America, and to raise it from a source which did not pose the political risks that imposing taxes on the British people at home would carry. Not only that, but violations of the Stamp Act were to be tried in juryless Admiralty courts (history is silent on whether or not the flags in these courtrooms had gold fringes on them). We didn't object to being taxed; we just wanted to be the ones to do it, since our legislatures were answerable to the voters and citizens. We also wanted our criminal trials to be held in courts where juries of one's peers were available.
We held the Tea Party for much the same reason. The tax on tea was actually quite reasonable, and was set low enough to undercut the smugglers and allow favored agents to undersell the colonial merchants. The problem was with the fact that it too was imposed by Parliament, which wanted to help out the favored East India Company monopoly. We ended up dumping the tea in Boston harbor only because the British government woulden't give an inch on this issue; and they gave us no effective means to be heard (they ignored most of what we said, for one thing).
Oh, and finding one small area where we have greater freedom - socially (wow, now I can marry a white girl) - doesn't say much for your side.
