Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Mecharonin t1_iuzcn6n wrote

Pretty sure he made beer first, being that was a family business and all.

Edit: This seems to be difficult for some people to comprehend, so I'll lay it out in more detail. Samuel Adams was making beer in the 1740s. This is before the 1776.

This means Samuel Adams the revolutionary came after Samuel Adams the Beer Guy.

In other words. He was known for beer first

111

Ok-disaster2022 t1_iuzfrho wrote

He was a smuggler. The tax reforms if the various tax acts lowered the effective tax rate, but actually rigidly enforced the taxes. The change cut into his business, not because smuggling was more difficult, but because the price of legal goods went down.

13

JDPowaHammer t1_iuzi4m0 wrote

Im sorry I only drink Samuel Jacksons. I don't know who that impostor is.

126

TimesThreeTheHighest t1_iv00qyr wrote

Are we sure about this? I kinda think he was a beer first. The beer to revolutionary transition makes more sense to me.

18

GetlostMaps t1_iv06en2 wrote

Replying to Ok-disaster2022 (#439,856)

The Boston Tea Party was not because taxes were too high - taxes had just been reduced, and illegally smuggled tea was therefore no longer commercial, making the smugglers AnGeRy. America's origins are simply the interests of organised crime.

7

SardonicSwan t1_iv0al6j wrote

Replying to GetlostMaps (#440,790)

That's a bit disingenuous. While the American Revolution is heavily romanticized, they really did believe in "no taxation without representation," mainly cause they hated tax in general, but it was salt in the wound. Additionally, this happened in response to the East India Company being exempt from the tax. They're taxing you and undercutting you, and actually only being able to sell the tea cheaper because they're making it so the tax doesn't apply to themselves.

29

Jump_Like_A_Willys t1_iv0eiq2 wrote

Many people of a certain age probably remember Samuel Adams from reading the book 'Johnny Tremain' in school.

21

VanillaBabies t1_iv0imld wrote

Replying to Mecharonin (#439,750)

They’re referring to Samuel Adams the beer, brewed by the Boston Beer Company since the 1980s.

Yes, Samuel Adams the revolutionary probably brewed beer, but in the context of pop culture and the article it’s not the point.

36

GoobyGrapes t1_iv0jsae wrote

Years ago I did a Duck Tour in Boston and our guide was hilarious. When we approached Granary Burying Ground, where Samuel Adams is buried, the guide pointed to the pub across the street and said this was the only place in Boston where you could order a cold Sam Adams while you look at a cold Sam Adams.

73

Riverrat423 t1_iv0uno2 wrote

I knew that, I watched a History channel special Sons of Liberty ( sponsored by Samuel Adam’s beer).

3

Unusuallyneat t1_iv0vybg wrote

Replying to SardonicSwan (#440,958)

Still drastically drop the price of tea for everyday people though. I'd buy a government phone play if it ment paying a third the price.

Pretty classic America to attack a policy that's helping everyday people because the 1% are losing profits - guess something's never change, right from the countries inception

−11

SardonicSwan t1_iv0zj38 wrote

Replying to Unusuallyneat (#442,184)

How do you define "everyday people"? Because they were just regular merchants who earned money from transporting tea and selling it, the smugglers just earned extra. The new policy made it so they earned a lot less while the price of tea per person didn't change much.

If you had to pay $5 for a box of tea that lasted you a month instead of, say, $7, you really wouldn't care that much (this example uses modern values of money).

But, if you just transported thousands of boxes of tea that you bought for $3, and the tax takes $1, then the profit of $3 just turned into $1. Meanwhile, the people who imposed those taxes and forced the prices to be lower are actually making even more profit than you for the same price. It makes sense that you'd be pissed.

5

LFCsota t1_iv12f1t wrote

Replying to SardonicSwan (#442,388)

You seem to miss the part where their profit margin was high because they were illegally transporting ( not paying import and export taxes on shipping) and selling it for cheaper then businesses who legally acquired it and followed the rules.

You really telling me I'm supposed to be upset the smugglers profit margins went down?

You even baked in a situation where the government gets more in taxes then the business owner did to make your point while ignoring the fact these people were making money because they weren't paying taxes at all.

What about the business owners who did things above board and finally could sell their product at a competitive rate instead of being undercut by smugglers? Shall we not feel for them? They are actually acting in a manner that is a part of society and the social contract.

−2

Demuus_Rex t1_iv151uh wrote

yeah, but he was an anti-revolutionary, after independence.

When Shay's rebellion happened, he was outraged that the peasantry were protesting the foreclosure of their farms.

So, fuck Sam Adams.

AND his beer.

10

ChrysMYO t1_iv15uoi wrote

Whats more American than becoming a drinking product? Truly?

2

TootsNYC t1_iv16i0o wrote

My cousin’s friend went to a Halloween party wearing a football-team t-shirt and a baseball team’s cap. When challenged about why he hadn’t come in costume, he said he was Sam Adams. He pointer to his head. “Brewer.” And to his chest. “Patriot.”

I’m actually related to John and Sam; we have a common ancestor.

3

NDaveT t1_iv1j8wh wrote

Replying to VanillaBabies (#441,318)

Samuel Adams the beer was named after Samuel Adams the revolutionary because Samuel Adams the revolutionary was a brewer. It's a big part of the Boston Beer Company's marketing.

17

nerd-gamer5912 t1_iv1kuv0 wrote

That’s not true. He brewed beer before he was involved in the sons of liberty

1

SardonicSwan t1_iv1nmem wrote

Replying to LFCsota (#442,549)

Okay, I read more about smugglers because I didn't think they were all that prevalent. They were. About 60% of tea drunk in Britain was smuggled, and about 80% in America. My bad.

While I could argue that it's basically the same except it's traders who smuggled tea, that would make my original point kind of irrelevant. So yes, the smugglers were pissed, but that is more of a side note.

The main outrage actually was the way they were being taxed. Smuggling tea meant smuggling it out of Britain and not paying taxes. With the Tea Act, they were now forced to pay taxes directly to Britain. This meant they recognized Britain's right to tax, which means all sorts of things that England could do to America, but in return, they got nothing.

Normally, taxes go to the government, which will, in turn, benefit the taxpayer (like protection, programs, and of course representation in government). But pretty much none of the benefit was in America (there was an ocean after all), so they were essentially just stealing money from them.

It was fine before because the tea was taxed in Britain when it was being exported, but now Britain was taxing Americans directly.

−1

LFCsota t1_iv1q9x0 wrote

Replying to SardonicSwan (#443,653)

Wow what a hard hitting factual defense of your bullshit comments trying to defend the rich.

Like OP said, it lowered the cost for most people but resulted in less profit to those who controlled the supply because merchants could legally aquire it for cheaper instead of using smugglers.

I really hate having discussions with folks like you because you even said OP was correct yet you have to go on and on to back track and make it look like your stupid statement was correct too.

We all know about no taxation without representation and we didn't need you to rephrase something we all get beat into us in school.

1

vagabondvisions t1_iv24cim wrote

He was also a smuggler who took part in a racist false flag attack on Boston Harbor all because the British had undercut smuggler prices on tea by lowering the taxes.

0

hellogriff t1_iv29bb3 wrote

I thought he was an NFL lineman.

1

artaig t1_iv2v2tl wrote

*revolter, traitor to the king, etc. Not much revolutionary else.

−1

PasswordisP4ssword t1_iv3a0ya wrote

Replying to Ok-disaster2022 (#439,856)

It's just like today, they talked about freedom and liberty but really it was about not wanting to pay taxes. When farmers didn't want to pay taxes to pay for the war and rebelled, Sam Adams said they should be put to death.

1