The Long Term Effects
Obviously, one long term effect of the Boston Tea Party was that it was one of the sparks that led to the American Revolution, and therefore the creation of the United States of America. This clearly has changed the United States in many ways, especially in the freedoms that the people of the United States have, such as freedom of speech. Although this is an important effect, it was discussed above, so this section will address other long term effects of the Boston Tea Party. One major thing the Boston Tea Party was a rebellion against was the British East India Company for becoming a monopoly on tea.
The British East India company was struggling, and since it was important to the economy of Britain, Parliament passed the Tea Act, which gave the company the exclusive rights to import and sell tea to the colonies. Since the British East India company could sell the tea at a cheaper rate than local merchants could, this took business away from local merchants. This meant the British East India company had become a monopoly. Colonists did not like the fact that this act was taking business away from the local merchants. One of the main reasons the Boston Tea party even took place was to show the British government that the colonies would not stand to let this happen ("History," 1996). In doing so, it showed that monopolies were not okay. More than a century later, on July 2nd, 1890, the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed, which made it unlawful for any company to be a monopoly. It is not clear why it took so long for a law to be passed to ban monopolies, but when it was finally passed in 1890, of the fifty-two votes in the senate, fifty-one voted to ban monopolies, along with all 242 representatives in the house of representatives ("Ourdocuments.gov,"). Distaste for monopolies had been strong since the Boston Tea Party, and finally in 1890, the United States removed all monopolies from the picture.
Another long term effect of the Boston Tea Party was the effect it had on future rebellions. For instance, in March and April of 1930, Mohandas Gandhi led a Salt March as an “act of civil disobedience (Pletcher, 1994)” against Britain. The British were taxing salt in India, which they ruled at the time. Salt was a very important part of the India diet, and Britain maintained a monopoly over the salt and put high taxes on the salt. This act was not as rebellious as the Boston Tea Party because nothing was destroyed, however people thought back to the Boston Tea Party a lot because it was a very similar situation. The ideas shown through this march was also very similar to the ideas shown by the Boston Tea Party (Pletcher, 1994).
The British East India company was struggling, and since it was important to the economy of Britain, Parliament passed the Tea Act, which gave the company the exclusive rights to import and sell tea to the colonies. Since the British East India company could sell the tea at a cheaper rate than local merchants could, this took business away from local merchants. This meant the British East India company had become a monopoly. Colonists did not like the fact that this act was taking business away from the local merchants. One of the main reasons the Boston Tea party even took place was to show the British government that the colonies would not stand to let this happen ("History," 1996). In doing so, it showed that monopolies were not okay. More than a century later, on July 2nd, 1890, the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed, which made it unlawful for any company to be a monopoly. It is not clear why it took so long for a law to be passed to ban monopolies, but when it was finally passed in 1890, of the fifty-two votes in the senate, fifty-one voted to ban monopolies, along with all 242 representatives in the house of representatives ("Ourdocuments.gov,"). Distaste for monopolies had been strong since the Boston Tea Party, and finally in 1890, the United States removed all monopolies from the picture.
Another long term effect of the Boston Tea Party was the effect it had on future rebellions. For instance, in March and April of 1930, Mohandas Gandhi led a Salt March as an “act of civil disobedience (Pletcher, 1994)” against Britain. The British were taxing salt in India, which they ruled at the time. Salt was a very important part of the India diet, and Britain maintained a monopoly over the salt and put high taxes on the salt. This act was not as rebellious as the Boston Tea Party because nothing was destroyed, however people thought back to the Boston Tea Party a lot because it was a very similar situation. The ideas shown through this march was also very similar to the ideas shown by the Boston Tea Party (Pletcher, 1994).