Boston Tea Party – How Poor Security Help Lead To An American Revolution

Boston Tea Party – How Poor Security Help Lead To An American Revolution

 

The Boston Tea Party, a pivotal event in American history, involved three British East India Company ships—the Dartmouth, Eleanor, and Beaver—docked at Griffin’s Wharf in Boston Harbor on December 16, 1773. Far from being “protected” in the modern sense by the British, these ships found themselves in a complex and increasingly volatile political standoff, where security was less about preventing theft or damage by common criminals and more about controlling the movement of the controversial tea and enforcing British authority against a defiant populace.

To understand the “security” around these ships, one must consider the various parties involved and their conflicting objectives:

1. British Authorities and the East India Company’s Interests:

• Governor Thomas Hutchinson: As the Royal Governor of Massachusetts, Hutchinson was a staunch Loyalist. His primary objective was to uphold British law, which mandated that the tea be landed and the duty paid. He expressly forbade the ships from leaving Boston Harbor with the tea still on board, essentially holding them hostage to British policy. He was counting on the legal process: after 20 days, customs officials could legally impound the tea and then disburse it, effectively forcing the issue.

  
• British Armed Ships: While not directly guarding the tea ships with boarding parties, British Admiral John Montagu had a squadron of warships in Boston Harbor. Their presence served as a general deterrent and a show of force, intended to prevent the colonists from forcing the tea ships back out to sea. However, Montagu did not directly intervene during the Tea Party itself, possibly due to the ships’ position next to the wharf, which would have made a direct naval assault on the shore a major escalation, or perhaps to avoid provoking an even larger confrontation with the crowds gathered on the wharf. The threat of naval action, however, hung in the air.
• Customs Officials: These officials were responsible for collecting the tea duty. Their “security” function was primarily administrative and legal: to ensure the tea was not unloaded without the duty being paid. They were not a physical security force in the military sense.
• Ship Captains and Crews: The captains of the Dartmouth, Eleanor, and Beaver were in an unenviable position. They were under orders from the East India Company to deliver the tea, but also faced immense pressure and threats from the colonists. Their “security” was largely confined to the ship’s internal discipline and the locking of hatches. An eyewitness account notes that the Sons of Liberty, upon boarding, politely requested the keys to the hatches and lights from the captains, which were promptly given. This suggests that the ship’s own crews offered little to no physical resistance.

2. The Colonists’ “Security” – A Counter-Security Measure:

Paradoxically, a significant “security” measure around the tea ships was implemented by the colonists themselves, specifically the Sons of Liberty. Their objective was the exact opposite of the British: to prevent the tea from being landed at all.

• Night Watch/Guard: The Sons of Liberty organized a continuous watch of the vessels at Griffin’s Wharf. This typically involved 25 men on each shift. Their purpose was to ensure that the tea was not secretly unloaded under the cover of darkness and to raise an alarm if any such attempt was made. They were not guarding the ships for the British, but against them. This “guard” was a form of political intimidation and surveillance, making it clear to the ship owners and British authorities that the colonists would not permit the tea to enter the market.

• 

• Public Pressure and Threats: The colonists’ “security” also extended to intense public pressure and veiled threats against anyone who might attempt to unload or sell the tea. Handbills were posted, warning captains and consignees of the consequences of landing the tea. For example, Captain Ayres of the Polly (a tea ship bound for Philadelphia) was warned by the Committee for Tarring and Feathering that he would face “ten Gallons of liquid Tar decanted on your Pate — with the Feathers of a dozen wild Geese laid over that” if he proceeded. This type of social and physical coercion was a powerful form of “security” against British efforts.
• Unity and Organization: The success of the Boston Tea Party itself speaks to a high degree of organization and internal “security” among the participating colonists. They disguised themselves to maintain anonymity, divided into coordinated groups for each ship, and operated under strict orders to destroy only the tea and no other property. This internal discipline prevented widespread looting or unnecessary damage that could have undermined their political message and provided the British with grounds for more severe retaliation. Accounts mention that attempts by a few citizens to carry off small quantities of tea for personal use were actively thwarted by the participants, further highlighting their commitment to the symbolic destruction of the tea, not its theft.

Why Was There No Effective British Intervention?

This is a crucial question when discussing “security.” Several factors contributed to the lack of direct British intervention during the Tea Party itself:

• Underestimation of Colonial Resolve: British authorities, particularly Governor Hutchinson, likely underestimated the depth of colonial resistance and the willingness of the Sons of Liberty to take such a drastic, direct action.
• Desire to Avoid Escalation (Initially): While there were British warships in the harbor, a direct military intervention against a large, organized group of colonists at the wharf could have sparked a far larger and more violent conflict, which the British may have sought to avoid at that precise moment. Admiral Montagu’s inaction, despite being nearby, suggests a strategic decision not to provoke open warfare.
• Political Gridlock: The situation was a stalemate. Governor Hutchinson would not allow the ships to leave with the tea, and the colonists would not allow it to be unloaded. This impasse created a vacuum where the Sons of Liberty could plan and execute their act.
• Disguise and Anonymity: The disguises worn by the participants (as Native Americans) were a crucial “security” measure for the colonists themselves, as they aimed to obscure their individual identities and avoid charges of treason. This made it difficult for British authorities to identify and prosecute those involved in the immediate aftermath.

The Aftermath: British “Security” Response

While “security” of the boats was largely ineffective in preventing the Tea Party, the British response to the Tea Party was a severe and punitive application of “security” measures, known as the Coercive Acts (or Intolerable Acts) in 1774:

• Boston Port Act: This act closed Boston Harbor until the tea was paid for, a direct economic “security” measure against the rebellious port.
• Massachusetts Government Act: This act severely curtailed self-governance in Massachusetts, placing more power in the hands of the royally appointed governor and effectively suspending elements of the colonial charter. This was a political “security” measure to bring the colony under tighter British control.
• Administration of Justice Act: This allowed British officials accused of crimes in the colonies to be tried in Britain or another colony, effectively removing them from potentially hostile colonial juries. This was a “security” measure for British personnel.
• Quartering Act: This renewed and expanded the act requiring colonists to house British troops, a direct military “security” measure to maintain a stronger military presence and control within the colonies.
• Increased Military Presence: In the wake of the Tea Party, approximately 3,000 British soldiers were sent to Boston, a significant military “security” deployment that amounted to about one-fifth of the town’s population.

Conclusion: A Tale of Competing “Securities”

The “security” that surrounded the boats of the Boston Tea Party was not a singular, unified concept. Instead, it was a dynamic and often contradictory interplay of forces:

• The formal British “security” was rooted in legal authority, customs enforcement, and the distant threat of naval power, but proved inadequate in the face of organized civil disobedience.
• The informal colonial “security” was a proactive, grassroots effort to prevent the landing of the tea, utilizing surveillance, public pressure, and ultimately, direct action.

The Boston Tea Party was less about overcoming traditional ship security (like armed guards on board to prevent theft) and more about the failure of British political and military “security” to enforce unpopular laws against a determined and united colonial population. The subsequent British “security” response, though severe, ultimately served to further inflame tensions and push the colonies closer to revolution. The enduring lesson is that in times of intense political conflict, the most robust forms of “security” are not always physical, but reside in the collective will and organized action of the people.

How Can I Hire Good  .

In blog “Marina Security in Massachusetts | Best Marina Protection with Hub Security and Investigative Group”  we discuss what is needed for optimal security for your harbor. To hire the best security in the Massachusetts contact Hub Security And Investigative Group.  With over 40 years of experanice H.S.&.I. can provide a solution to all of your security needs.