While the Boston Tea Party of 1773 remains a legendary symbol of American defiance, many are unaware of the equally significant, though distinctly different, acts of protest that transpired in South Carolina. These pivotal moments, collectively known as the Charleston Tea Parties, played a crucial role in igniting the flames of revolution in the southern colonies, demonstrating early colonial resistance to British taxation policies. Far from being an isolated incident in New England, the opposition to Britain’s new tea policy was a widespread colonial sentiment, with Charleston leading the way in organized resistance.
December 1773: The First Charleston Tea Party
Just nine days prior to the celebrated Boston overboarding of tea, the astute artisans and influential planters of South Carolina’s Low Country initiated their own act of rebellion. This initial event, one of three significant Charleston Tea Parties, may have lacked the dramatic flair of its Bostonian counterpart, but it undeniably secured its place in history as the very first ‘tea party’ in America, setting a crucial precedent for colonial defiance.
On December 1, 1773, the East India Company ship, the London, gracefully sailed into Charleston Harbor, its cargo hold laden with 257 chests of tea. While such arrivals were routine for Charleston, one of the colonies’ busiest ports and the largest in the South, the weeks leading up to its arrival had been marked by fervent newspaper reports. The local press, including the South Carolina Gazette, vehemently condemned the latest taxes imposed by Parliament, labelling them “unconstitutional” and warning citizens that the British government sought “to raise a revenue, out of your pockets, against your consent – and to render assemblies of your representatives totally useless.”
Fueled by this growing opposition, the citizens of Charleston were resolute in their refusal to permit the tea to be brought ashore. For two tense days, the London lay anchored in the harbor as civic leaders deliberated their course of action. On December 3, a critical meeting, spearheaded by Christopher Gadsden, a prominent figure in South Carolina, and the local Sons of Liberty, convened at the Old Exchange building. During this assembly, Charlestonians passionately declared it “would be criminal tamely to give up any of our essential rights as British subjects and involve our posterity in a state better than slavery.” Although the irony of slaveholders issuing such a proclamation was seemingly overlooked, the meeting galvanized the townsfolk into decisive action.
The attendees unanimously resolved to boycott the importation of tea. However, Gadsden and other leaders faced the challenge of convincing Charleston’s powerful merchants, who stood to incur significant financial losses, to join their cause. After three weeks of persuasion, the Patriots ultimately prevailed, and a comprehensive tea boycott was enacted. Unlike the destructive events in Boston, this first act of defiance was less dramatic. Instead of jettisoning the tea into Charleston Harbor, the boycotters unloaded the tea and meticulously stored it within the hallowed confines of the Old Exchange building, a symbolic act of defiance rather than destruction.
July 1774: The Second Charleston Tea Party
While Charleston’s inaugural tea party unfolded with a measured, strategic approach, its second iteration escalated into a more confrontational and emotionally charged event. In late June 1774, news reached Charleston that the British merchant ship Magna Carta was bound for its port. Upon its arrival on July 18, Captain Richard Maitland diligently registered three crates of tea with the city’s royal customs office. The city’s representatives, organized as the General Committee, promptly summoned Maitland to account for his “conduct,” which they deemed “contrary to the sense of this Colony in particular, and of America in general.”
Maitland’s defense claimed he had been unaware of the tea’s presence aboard his ship until after setting sail and reviewing his cargo manifests. Whether this was a genuine oversight or a quick fabrication to pacify the increasingly agitated Charlestonians, the General Committee appeared to accept his explanation. Recognizing the precarious situation, Maitland astutely offered to throw the tea “into the river at his own cost,” a proposal that seemed to offer a swift resolution.
On July 19, the day after Maitland’s arrival, the General Committee and numerous Charlestonians gathered at the harbor, anticipating the promised destruction of the tea. However, Maitland’s efforts to placate the crowd were thwarted by imperial bureaucracy. When he attempted to pay the required duty for importing the tea at the customs office, royal officials inflexibly refused the transaction, adhering strictly to the new regulations.
Incensed by this bureaucratic obstruction, the Committee members quickly responded with their own administrative measures. They established a secondary committee tasked “to desire the merchants not to ship or receive any goods in any bottom, wherein Captain Maitland was, or should be concerned.” Meanwhile, the city’s broader populace adopted a far more volatile approach. Throughout the day, as news of Maitland’s inability to destroy his cargo spread, “the folks called Patriots” grew increasingly agitated. That night, a mob comprising “several hundred men” descended upon the Magna Carta, intent on confronting Maitland, carrying pitch tar and feathers, with clear intentions to inflict severe punishment. This marked a significant departure from Charleston’s previous peaceful demonstrations, as tar and feathering was a notoriously brutal, disfiguring, and often lethal form of retribution. An eyewitness starkly noted that “it is generally thought that if [Maitland] had fallen into their hands, it would have cost his life.”
Fortuitously for Captain Maitland, a large, angry mob is not easily concealed. Before his would-be assailants could apprehend him, he swiftly abandoned the Magna Carta, seeking refuge aboard another British vessel, the Britannia, anchored nearby. Although Maitland escaped the mob’s wrath, the furious Charlestonians discovered one full chest and two half-full chests of tea on the Magna Carta. With a surprising display of order amidst their anger, they transported the confiscated tea once again to the Exchange building.
November 1774: Charleston’s Third and Final Tea Party
It was not long before the Britannia, the very ship that had offered Captain Maitland safe haven, returned to Charleston’s waters. Four months after escorting the former captain of the Magna Carta back to London, it reappeared in Charleston Harbor, this time carrying seven crates of tea, much to the exasperation of the General Committee.
The Committee members were, once again, flabbergasted that their earlier message of defiance had seemingly failed to reach the shippers in London. Following established protocol, they summoned Captain Samuel Ball, Jr. of the Britannia to provide an explanation. Echoing Maitland’s earlier strategy, Ball attempted to deflect responsibility for the presence of the “mischievous Drug” on his vessel. According to reports in the South Carolina Gazette, Ball asserted that “he was an entire Stranger to [the tea] being on board his Ship, ‘till he was ready to clear out when he discovered that his Mate had received [the chests] in his Absence. …That, as soon as he made the Discovery, he did all in his power to get them relanded, but all his Endeavours, for two days together, proved ineffectual.”
Adding a perplexing layer to his defense, Ball produced a notarized document, dated prior to his departure from London, which explicitly stated he had no responsibility for the tea aboard his ship. Ball evidently hoped this would “acquit him from the Suspicion of having any Design to act contrary to the Sense of the People here, or the Voice of all America.” Despite the glaring contradictions – claiming ignorance of the tea’s presence until at sea, yet having notarized a disclaimer before leaving London – the Committee, perhaps weary of further confrontation, accepted his narrative, or at least chose to proceed with it.
The blame for this final shipment of unwanted tea ultimately fell upon three Charleston importers: Robert Lindsay, Zephaniah Kinsley, and Robert Mackenzie. Interestingly, and in stark contrast to the previous incident, there were no threats of mob violence from the local populace. Instead, these three merchants were tasked with carrying the crates to Charleston Harbor and personally emptying the tea into the water. As eloquently reported by the South Carolina Gazette:
“On Thursday at Noon, an Oblation was made to Neptune of the said seven chests of Tea by Messrs. Lindsay, Kinsley, and Mackenzie themselves, who going on board the Ship in Stream, with their own Hands respectively stove the Chests belong to each, and emptied their Contents into the River… in View of the whole General Committee on the Shore besides numerous Concourse of People, who gave three hearty Cheers after the emptying of each Chest, and immediately after separated as if nothing had happened.”
And with this orchestrated act of public defiance, the era of the Charleston Tea Parties came to a definitive end.
Conclusion
The series of events collectively known as the Charleston Tea Parties stands as a powerful testament to the widespread and varied colonial opposition to British imperial policies in the lead-up to the American Revolution. While often overshadowed by the dramatic exploits in Boston, Charleston’s distinct forms of protest—from peaceful storage and boycotts to intense mob actions and orchestrated public tea dumpings—demonstrated a deep-seated commitment to challenging parliamentary authority. These incidents showcased the resolve of South Carolinians to protect their perceived rights and resist “unconstitutional taxation.” The actions taken in Charleston Harbor between 1773 and 1774 were not merely echoes of other colonial protests; they were vital, independent expressions of dissent that fueled the revolutionary spirit across the American colonies, solidifying Charleston’s crucial role in the fight for independence.
