logo
Here's how the Revolutionary War started in Massachusetts 250 years ago

Here's how the Revolutionary War started in Massachusetts 250 years ago

CBS News14-04-2025

This Saturday, April 19, marks 250 years since the start of the Revolutionary War in Massachusetts.
It began with the "Shot heard 'round the world" on April 19, 1775 in Lexington and it marked the end of a decade of simmering tension between the colonies and Britain.
You could say it started in 1763 over a cup of coffee. Following the French and Indian War, the English monarchy was heavily in debt. King George III imposed the Sugar Act, which taxed foreign imports of sugar and molasses. It also levied taxes on other items, like coffee.
This riled colonists but the king wasn't done. In 1765 came the Stamp Act. This was a tax on any printed material in the form of a stamp. Newspapers, pamphlets even playing cards all had to have the stamp, and that cost money.
By this time, the colonists had had enough. They started organizing in places like the Green Dragon Tavern in downtown Boston.
"Sam Adams, John Hancock, Paul Revere. They all met in the Green Dragon, and they had a secret society, the Sons of Liberty," explains Noelle Somers, whose family now owns the cozy pub.
The original location was on Union Street, but the current Dragon on Marshall Street is a page from another century. It was in places like this where the idea of revolution took shape. It was also convenient for gathering intelligence on British troops.
"The bar was an English bar, a British bar and the redcoats would come and enjoy a pint and discuss what was coming," said Somers.
It was after this that the rallying cry "No taxation of representation" was adopted. Resistance was so strong, the king repealed the Stamp Act a year later. To reassert sovereignty, George III legislated the Declaratory Act in 1766, which affirmed England's absolute right to rule over the colonies and tax them as it wished. The Townshend Act followed, which was a series of taxes on all manner of items. It was meant to raise more revenue for England but also raised tensions.
On March 5, 1770, emotions bubbled over. Boston locals and English troops got into a confrontation, leading to the Boston Massacre.
"It's chaos. With the firing, the crowd calms down of course. There are three people dead in the street, a couple others mortally wounded," explained Dr. Robert Allison of Suffolk University, an expert on the Revolutionary War.
Five people were killed, six were wounded. The greatest impact, however, was how colonials used it as propaganda and a rallying cry against British rule.
"Samuel Adams always said, 'Putting your enemy in the wrong and keeping him in the wrong is a good lesson,'" said Allison.
The massacre was largely an organic event. Three years later, another watershed moment took place after weeks of planning.
"We look at it as the single most important event leading up to the American Revolution," said Evan O'Brien, the creative services director of the Tea Party Ships & Museum in Boston.
Between 100 and 150 people took part in what was the worst kept secret in town. More than 1,000 came to watch.
"A combination of regular townsfolk, the Sons of Liberty, people from of all different backgrounds and classes all came down, right to this location on Griffin's Wharf," said O'Brien.
Just like that, 92,000 pounds of tea went overboard and the Boston Tea Party became legend.
King George III was livid. In the spring of 1774, he passed the Intolerable Acts. It closed down Boston Harbor and limited self-governance in Massachusetts.
The colonists responded. In the fall of that year, the Continental Congress was formed. They outlined their grievances, organized resistance and prepared for the inevitability of conflict.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Private sector wages should not be the business of Government
Private sector wages should not be the business of Government

Yahoo

time37 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Private sector wages should not be the business of Government

For far too long, British politicians have created laws and systems that outsource decisions to the courts. All of this has been done with the best intentions, but too little consideration has been given to the unintended consequences, and the outcomes have been perverse. Thanks to a spate of absurd rulings, including the Albanian criminal allowed to stay in the UK partly because his son will not eat foreign chicken nuggets, many are aware of the impact on efforts to control our borders. But the problem is much broader, impacting everything from planning to energy. Increasingly, tribunal judgments are even telling businesses what they should pay their workers. If that sounds crazy, it's because it is. All jobs are different; all people are different too. In theory, setting pay is hard, because the pros and cons of different roles depend on individual preferences. In practice it's easy. You don't have to sit down and work out a weighted aggregate of a job's different pros and cons to different people; the market does that for you. You can start hiring, and you'll find out pretty quickly how much you need to pay to fill a role. This is so obvious that it almost isn't worth saying. But it's not what our laws say. The Equality Act, passed in 2010, mandates 'equal pay for equal work', doubling down on the Equal Pay Act of 1970. But what is 'equal work'? According to the Equality Act, it isn't where two people do the same job. It's not even where two people do similar jobs. In fact, the Equality Act says, the only way to tell if two jobs are 'equal' is to conduct a 'job evaluation study'. Rather than letting the job market determine fair pay, bureaucrats and judges use a host of arbitrary criteria to decide what a role is worth. What does that look like in practice? Last August, a six-year case concluded against the retailer Next. The company was sued by three women, current and former workers, who insisted that store staff (mostly women) should be paid as much as warehouse workers (slight majority male). Any of the store staff could have moved to the warehouse if they wanted more money. In fact, Next were desperate for them to – the company had a recruitment drive for the warehouse among store employees. But very few people wanted those roles because working on the shop floor was pleasant and working in the warehouse was not. One of the women who brought the case admitted that she would only have considered moving to the warehouse for 'a lot more money.' Incredibly, Next lost. The court decided the two roles should be paid the same. The same thing is happening to Asda. And Birmingham council was effectively bankrupted by an equal pay claim brought by (mostly female) cleaners complaining they weren't paid as much as the (mostly male) binmen. We should be grateful anyone is willing to do work that's backbreaking, dirty or dangerous. They deserve to be paid fairly; often more than people who don't want to do that. But now bureaucrats have come in to fix what isn't broken and insist that what is fair is actually unfair. This undermines our economy and it needs to stop. Katie Lam is the Conservative MP for Weald of Kent Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

The benefits system is out of control
The benefits system is out of control

Yahoo

time37 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

The benefits system is out of control

The decision to axe the winter fuel payment for most pensioners must rank among the most ill-judged policies introduced by a Chancellor in recent times, and there is strong competition for that accolade. Rachel Reeves made the decision shortly after taking office because she said it was necessary to help plug a £22 billion 'black hole' she had discovered in the nation's finances. Her argument might have had some merit had she not then blown much of the savings on pay rises for train drivers and public sector workers. The juxtaposition of help for Labour's union allies while pensioners shivered rapidly became toxic for the Government, generating one of the fastest reversals of support for any new administration. In the end, with Reform advancing in the polls – and pledging to restore the payment – Sir Keir Starmer ordered a screeching U-turn which the Government maintains is possible because the economy is doing so well, as if anyone believes that. Now, instead of around 1.5 million older people on pensioner credit receiving the payment, it will be paid to about nine million OAPs with an income below £35,000. Why this figure has been chosen is as much a mystery as other 'cliff edge' sums that abound in our overly complex tax and benefit system. Indeed, this U-turn just makes it even more convoluted. Everyone will receive the payment but it will then be clawed back from an estimated two million people earning more than the £35,000 threshold via PAYE or a tax return. In other words, yet more red tape will be imposed to make a quarter of pensioners return an allowance that began life in 1997 as a universal benefit. Although many better-off pensioners often said they did not need the money, and many gave it to charity every Christmas, at least it was straightforward. To some extent so was limiting it to people on pensioner credit, since that is already linked to income. But what is now proposed is a dog's breakfast, with opt-outs and other implications still to be resolved. Tomorrow, Ms Reeves will unveil her spending plans for the next four years. She is being urged to get a grip on the rapidly expanding benefits budget; but if this experience is to be our guide, there is little chance that it will ever be reined in. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Thunberg, activists in Israeli custody after delivery attempt to Gaza
Thunberg, activists in Israeli custody after delivery attempt to Gaza

UPI

timean hour ago

  • UPI

Thunberg, activists in Israeli custody after delivery attempt to Gaza

Swedish activist Greta Thunberg is pictured purportedly receiving food and water from a member of the the Israeli Defense Forces Monday after the boat she was aboard was intercepted attempting to reach Gaza. Photo via Israel Foreign Ministry/UPI | License Photo June 9 (UPI) -- The Israeli government announced Monday that the boat crew of civilians that included Swedish activist Greta Thunberg it intercepted attempting to transport humanitarian supplies to Gaza will be returned to their home countries upon arrival in Israel. The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or MFA, reported across its social media platform that the vessel, identified as the "Madleen" by the nonprofit Freedom Flotilla Coalition organization, or FFC, that launched it, is being brought to an Israel port. The MFA refers to the craft as a "selfie yacht," and has confirmed that Thunberg is aboard, in addition to other "celebrities," but did not name them. The FFC listed all their names last week after the announcement that the boat was already on its way "with life-saving aid, to break Israel's illegal siege of Gaza and establish a people's sea corridor." The MFA also stated that the passengers aboard the Madleen have been supplied with sandwiches and water, and that the "tiny amount of aid that wasn't consumed by the 'celebrities' will be transferred to Gaza through real humanitarian channels." It also posted a photo of Thunberg Monday, apparently about to receive food and bottled water from someone dressed in military apparel. "Greta Thunberg is currently on her way to Israel, safe and in good spirits," the image was captioned. Another person who was aboard the Madleen European Parliament member Rima Hassan of France, who posted to X late Monday morning that "the crew of the Freedom Flotilla has been unlawfully detained by Israel for more than 14 hours" since Israel commandeered the vessel. Thunberg had released a video via her social media pages late Sunday that alleged "If you see this video, it means we have been intercepted and kidnapped in international waters by the Israeli occupational forces or forces that support Israel." German citizen Yasemin Acar, also aboard the Madleen, posted a video of herself Sunday night to Instagram in an unspecified situation, but was wearing a life jacket and apparently had at least one arm raised behind her head as sirens wailed in the background and an amplified voice that seemingly said "Don't be afraid" and "Stay where you are" in English could also be heard." The FFC posted a separate message to Instagram Sunday which purported that "drones dropped unidentified chemicals on the Madleen. Immediately after, our peaceful volunteers were rammed and intercepted before Israeli forces boarded the vessel. We lost all contact with them seconds later." An updated post from the FFC Monday called out what it has described as an "illegal attack" by Israel on the Madleen. It has been widely reported that the Madleen has been brought to Israel's Port of Ashdod, and that Sweden's foreign ministry has confirmed it is in touch with Israel over Thunberg, and will stand by should the need for consular assistance be required.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store