George the III Dies Before the American Revolution

[Socrates]

All of which is true but completely irrelevant to the your average "tea party" merchant. The reason why he is on that boat is that he can't compete with the government controlled trade in tea where the EIC get a tariff break.

Note that Tea is actually cheaper for the consumer so the "tax" has been reduced. Even with "representation" the colonists could not avoid this scenario unless they challenge the right of national governments to control their tariffs.

That doesn't mean that ending the Mercantile system wasn't a legitimate aim for an independence movement - just that its a little less clear cut to sell to the masses than "no taxation without representation" - particularly because none of the "tea party" merchants wanted free trade (as that would create more competition and lower profits) and some actually smuggled the stuff.

The tea is only cheaper for the consumer if the EIC doesn't start unilaterally putting up prices, which they would inevitably do once the system was in place.

And yes, I get that the Boston Tea Party/Sons of Liberty brigade were demagogues and rabble-rousers. I just think that the state and continental assemblies, who were the rightful centre of protest, were much more rational and had completely legitimate opposition to the Tea Act. People like Ben Franklin condemned the Tea Party, for what it's worth.

 

[Derek Pullem]

The tea is only cheaper for the consumer if the EIC doesn't start unilaterally putting up prices, which they would inevitably do once the system was in place.

No they wouldn't as it would remove one of the main issues that made the act necessary for EIC in the first place. They wanted a way to compete with the grey imports outside the Mercantile system so raising their prices above the existing prices would be self defeating. They wanted a subsidy to compete with the unregulated ("illegal") tea trade.

 

[Socrates]

No they wouldn't as it would remove one of the main issues that made the act necessary for EIC in the first place. They wanted a way to compete with the grey imports outside the Mercantile system so raising their prices above the existing prices would be self defeating. They wanted a subsidy to compete with the unregulated ("illegal") tea trade.

A fair point, but what one proclaims in a meeting with government might not be how one acts when in practice. They'd first put all the legal merchants out of business, and then raise prices. If smugglers started undercutting them again, the EIC would probably demand the right to police 'piracy' with military force, as was their practice in India. That would allow them to raise prices and keep smuggling at bay. Given that parliament would be even more in their pocket, and likely they'd start buying off colonial assemblymen too, I imagine they'd get it too.

 

[Elfwine]

A fair point, but what one proclaims in a meeting with government might not be how one acts when in practice. They'd first put all the legal merchants out of business, and then raise prices. If smugglers started undercutting them again, the EIC would probably demand the right to police 'piracy' with military force, as was their practice in India. That would allow them to raise prices and keep smuggling at bay. Given that parliament would be even more in their pocket, and likely they'd start buying off colonial assemblymen too, I imagine they'd get it too.

I'm not really sold on the idea that they had Parliament in their pocket, certainly not to the extent that they could do whatever they wanted.

 

[Tripwire]

I'm not really sold on the idea that they had Parliament in their pocket, certainly not to the extent that they could do whatever they wanted.

Agreed. In fact I know this wasn't the case, because the EIC actually wanted the British government to end the tea tax, and thus get their main sales product in the colonies out from the middle of a Parliament-Colonial dispute. The EIC had no reason to care whatsoever about Parliament's right to tax the colonies, that was purely a negative for them. The tax on tea had originally been put specifically on tea because it was a luxury good that American colonists apparently drank a lot of. The Tea Act was a bonus given to the EIC to make up for their product being boycotted as a result of the political dispute. The Act was clearly passed due in part to EIC influence over Parliament, but the fact that the tax was implemented on one of their products in the first place shows the limit of that power.