Napoleon, the Bastile and the Pachyderm Part 1

Paris, 1812, Napoleon erected a plaster statue of elephant over the site of Bastile so people would forget the events there on the 14th of July 1789 and keep risk of revolution against his own tyranny low. Originally it was to be plated in bronze and be quite elaborate but because of budget reasons and Napoleon's defeat and surrender in the War of the Sixth Coalition it was left as only plaster.



















We just finished going over the American Revolution in my History 390r class in some detail and would like to share a brief overview in three Parts of the events that led up to the War and, more importantly, why. First I'll talk about the Tea Act, then the Boston Tea Party. Second will be the Intolerable Acts followed by the fighting at Lexington and Concord, MA. Finally I will summarise the why of the revolution, we must not be fooled by a plaster elephant.

The Tea Act of 1773, unlike so many other acts of Parliament that raised the ire of the colonists was not a tax and was not intended to raise money. In fact, it provided significantly cheaper tea to the colonists. The reason behind it was the East India Company, a royally sanctioned monopoly, was in deep trouble financially and had lots of low quality tea rotting in warehouses in England. Colonists were already forbidden to import from non-British sources so forbidding them to import tea from anyone but the East India Company seemed simple enough. Now the colonists would have cheap tea in abundance and would be paying the Townshend Duties on the tea, making good subjects out of the rebellious colonists in the process.

This was repugnant to the Patriots for several reasons. First, it was directly undermining the attempts at non-importation and non-consumption of English goods agreements that they had been trying to put in place to deal with the British Government, since they were ignored when they sent letters to Parliament and the Crown. Which leads me to the next point, no one consulted the colonists as to how they felt about the idea, the Tea Act was simply a fiat as far as the colonies were concerned. Third, it was really bad, rotting tea they couldn’t sell in England, America was simply a dumping ground for what wasn’t good enough for real Englishmen. Fourth, they were being used simply as an engine of wealth for the East India Company.

The above played into the sentiment that, in their own words, they were “risking enslavement” from the Crown. Funny words coming from slave owners but what they were getting at wasn’t being chained up to pick cotton but something more complicated. Slaves are merely engines of wealth to their owners, you don’t argue about vacation days with your slaves, you use them to best maximize profit. Feedback and appeal had already been cut off by the Crown, a first sign of slavery. Next the Government spent its time thinking how best to exploit the colonies and wouldn’t even take complaints! They responded like slaves would, first trying to degrade their value as engines of wealth by these non-importation and non-consumption agreements. Now they were being slapped in the face on several fronts and combine this, the Sons of Liberty, alcohol and Indian garb and you get-The Boston Tea Party.