Is it your assertion that the poor did not consume tea in late 1700's America? I always assumed the Sons of Liberty had both wealthy and more middle class members.
> Is it your assertion that the poor did not consume tea in late 1700's America?
The Tea Act was (among other things) intended to, and probably did, lower the price of tea in America. It hurt smugglers and tea importers.
> I always assumed the Sons of Liberty had both wealthy and more middle class members.
Any non-landowners who participated (were there many?) got had, then, since they couldn't vote under the original constitution and state laws at the time. They also didn't get a say in the drafting of the constitution or in ratifying it (I mean, obviously, who wants them stinking up the place?)
"But they got representation—just not the right to vote, or to run for many offices" Sure, but that's awfully close to an argument from the other side of the Atlantic, that rich British citizens in America didn't find convincing when it was applied to them:
[EDIT] All I'm saying is, we're a country the founding principle of which is basically "it's not who your parents are that make you worthwhile—it's having money". That was the fundamental disagreement between the Colonies (that is: the people who drove us to war, and who formed the government afterward) and Britain. Given our veneration of that founding, it's unsurprising that a country still operating under a constitution drafted by slavers and drug smugglers would tend, perhaps even more than other places, to be run by particularly scummy rich people with little shame about the shady ways they make their money.
