were able to pressure them to resign their commission, they were able to persuade the ship other thans to go back, and they were able to persuade local officials all the way up to the governor in to permitting this breach of the law to go through. but in boston they refused to resign their commissions, and the customs officers and governor thomas hutchinson in boston refused to look the other way and let those tea ship under the around. so this is where the problem is going to arise from. back to wyeth's statement. this is when he's 75 years old, so it's in about 18 -- this is in -- it's 1826 when he first tells the story, so it's actually not 15 years later. maybe this is his 1835 statement. anyway, wyeth continues: we agreed if tea was landed, the people could not withstand the temptation and would certainly buy it.

it's not that they don't want tea, they're obsessed with tea. they want to keep drinking it. and this was the fear. even though the tea act was to mean cheaper tea for the colonists, this is going to mean a reduction in the cost of the tea. but what the boston sons of liberty argue is this was just a way to seduce the colonists into paying taxes for which they had not given consent. even though they had taken the taxes off what the east india company paid in london, the american colonists were still going to have to pay tax on the tea that had arrived in america. it's not as if the sons of liberty are worried about higher taxes at that moment, but they are worried about the principle of taxation without consent because they were worried that might lead to higher taxes later on. meanwhile, writers in new york city and philadelphia were warning the americans what would -- the boss bostonians wht would happen if they allowed the tea to land, and the bostonians and americans in general.

a writer named hampton who may have been the new york city patriot alexander mcdougal, he argued that the east india company's monopoly on east india trade was corrupting britain's politics and constitution. he said, the purchase of the company's iniquities -- tea -- must be sent to colonies to support the tyranny of the east and enslave the west. so, in other words, by ceding parliament's rights to tax the colonies without their consent, the americans would wind up no better than, in his words, the helpless asiatics. other writers added, further monopolies would be sure to follow. john dickenson, the famous pennsylvania farmer, took up the pen name rusticus, and he agreed. he said, it is not the paltry sum of three pence -- it was a three penny per pound tax on

tea -- which is now demanded, but the principle upon which it is demanded that we are contending against. these principles were both the east india company monopoly and, also, this offensive notion of taxing the americans without their consent. the bostonians were also worried about taxation without consent, but also the merchants of boston whether they were smugglers or legitimate merchants both cared a great deal about this east india company monopoly. me of the b in turn the course of acts in the occupation were going to lead to more widespread resistance to british imperial policies, right we're going to see the first boycotts, the first continental congress, the formation of more committees of inspection and associations throughout the colonies, we're going to see the minutemen companies beginning to muster, and eventually all of this is going to culminate in the firing of the first shots at lexington and concord in

massachusetts. and then, you know, in turn a year later there's going to be the full separation from great britain and the declaration of independence. now, this is the story about the boston tea party that's been told up until now, a story that focuses on the imperial story and why parliament had made the decisions that it did, and also a story that focuses on the shared actions o american colonies and the kd of formation of the idea of amica being amersoppod to bngbr. but want to tl a dierthe rty th jloine -ea ur cusf thosto te