Talk:Peggy Stewart (ship)

message: I removed the HMS designation because it would not be used on a privately owned and operated ship.  It was reserved for vessels of the Royal Navy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llleveque (talk • contribs) 
:Agreed -- an administrator should move this to Peggy Stewart, which is a redirect here. --Dhartung | Talk 03:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Stan 04:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps a move to Peggy Stewart (ship) would be better. There are 4 actresses known as "Peggy Stewart" at IMDb, the first of them has a very long career (still working?) and may get a wikiarticle (a borderline case when it comes to notability, but I get many hits on her by Googling). And then there's the Peggy Stewart House in the Colonial Annapolis Historic District in Annapolis, Maryland. Anthony Stewart built it, then Thomas Stone lived there. . -- 199.71.174.100 22:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be moved when those articles are created. --Rory096 23:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page moves

message: The article is a bit fuzzy. If Stewart did what the crowd wanted, why did he have to flee? Was he just a loyalist? If he were a loyalist, why did the burning become "an act of heroism" (strange passive voice)? Was Stewart heroic for avoiding the tax, or heroic for standing up to the crowd? Seems to early for a revisionist outlook; isn't it more likely that the city celebrated the burning itself, and only later came to add the "heroism"? The article perhaps unnecessarily raises these perhaps unanswerable questions. --Dhartung | Talk 04:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stewart fled because although he had complied with the crowd's wishes he was still afraid that he would suffer from further retribution.Cool3 13:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Stewart was never regarded as a hero, the city celebrated the burning and came to view the angry crowd who caused the burning as heroes.
If "the Peggy Stewart was a brig owned by Anthony Stewart and James Dick, two Annapolis merchants," how is it a "British ship"? British-built? --Wetman 12:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Prior to 1776, Maryland was a part of BritainCool3 13:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I did think that might have been the misconception behind the statement.--Wetman 00:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly do you mean by no?  No Maryland wasn't a part of the British Empire?  If so, that is not a misconception.  Maryland was most certainly a British possession.  Cool3 02:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The burning was considered heroic as it was an act of rebellion against the British Tea Act.  After the American Revolution, most people came to view any prior resistance against the British such as the Boston Tea Party or Peggy Stewart burning as heroic. Cool3 13:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hero or Zero? 

message: Given that the Tea Act abolished the tax on tea, are the statements here certain? The Boston Tea Party was a protest by smugglers that their prices were being undercut by legal tea. Was it the same in Maryland? --Henrygb 22:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Tea Act abolished taxes for the British East India Company, allowing undercutting.  The Boston and Maryland protestors were both fighting against what they saw as an illegal monopoly.  Second, exactly which statements do you wish do know the certainty of? Cool3 02:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Reading back over this, I feel the need to elaborate further.  At the Boston Tea Party, citizens fought to prevent the East India Company from distributing its tea.  After the tea party, anti-British sentiment ran high. This led citizens of Maryland to pass a non-importation agreement on a number of British goods, especially tea.  As a result of the agreement, most merchants refused to transport tea to Maryland.  However, Anthony Stewart agreed to transport over a ton of tea for Thomas C. Williams and Co., hoping to turn a large profit on the then scarce item.  When the tea arrived, had Stewart refused to pay the tax, he probably would not have met with resistance, having thereby rebelled against the British.  However, when he paid the tax, having already violated the no-imports agreement, the populace became enraged.  Those who wished to burn the tea wanted to punish Stewart for his supposedly "treacherous" behavior by destroying the tea and his ship.  Cool3 02:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tea Tax

message: The article as originally written was less NPOV (and less accurate) than a New York Times article written over 100 years ago. I've rewritten almost the whole thing, with additional references- including that NYT item, and many original sources from 1774-5. David Trochos 11:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2007 rewrite