The Boston Non-Importation Agreement of 1768 and the subsequent repeal of Townshend Revenue Act taxes on all products except tea were a major cause that led to the Boston Tea Party on December 16, 1773. With the passage of the Tea Act in May 1773, the tea tax under the Townshend Revenue Act was still in effect. The tea tax, which was not repealed, like other taxes under the Townshend Revenue Act of 1767, repealed in 1770, was one of the main reasons why the Tea Act angered and mobilized settlers to protest and boycott tea supplies from the British East India Company. If the tea tax had been repealed in 1770 along with all other taxes, the Boston Tea Party would probably never have taken place and the Patriots would have manifested their protest in a different form. First, by participating in James Otis Jr. He advised the Massachusetts House of Representatives to ask the King of Great Britain. This led to the Massachusetts Circular Letter, written by Samuel Adams and James Otis Jr., which was sent to other colonies and recommended class action against the British Parliament and the Townshend Act. Such colonial initiatives sparked a debate about whether the British Parliament has the right to levy taxes for the sole purpose of increasing revenues. The colonial argument, also applied by Dickinson, was that they cannot be taxed without elected representatives (“no tax without representation”). Parliament`s counter-argument was the duty to protect its citizens and its subjects.
These colonial attempts to deny this British policy ended with the dissolution of the New York and Massachusetts assemblies. When the British government did not recognize the reason for the colonial objections, a conflict between the homeland and the colony became inevitable. In these complaints, Parliament saw a clear attempt to weaken its authority, navigation laws, the trading system and, consequently, the entire empire.  Probably the only peaceful means left for the American colonies to enforce their demands on the British government was through a boycott of British products. These intentions formed into an initiative of Boston merchants and merchants that led to the Boston No-Importation Agreement. The NON-IMPORT AGREEMENTS were a series of trade restrictions introduced by American settlers to protest British tax policies before the American Revolution. The British Stamp Act of 1765 triggered the first non-import agreements. In protest at unrepresented taxation, New York merchants collectively agreed to impose an embargo on British imports until Parliament repealed stamp duty, and they persuaded Boston and Philadelphia merchants to do the same. Under pressure from British exporters who lost business, Parliament repealed the Stamp Act within a year. During the 1760s, the British Parliament passed many laws that had a significant impact on the colonial economy and caused problems in industry, agriculture and commerce. This means that the Boston no-import agreement could not be the first such agreement to oppose Parliament`s behaviour. In response to the settlers` actions regarding the Boston Tea Party, Britain decided to adopt the so-called intolerable acts.
These laws were intended to bring the colonies back into line with the king`s wishes and included the prohibition of municipal assemblies. After Parliament imposed tariffs on imports in June-July 1767, the settlers proceeded with a second unequal set of non-import agreements. Boston immediately resumed its embargo on British imports, followed by New York in 1768. But Philadelphia did not sign the idea until 1769 after stockpiling imports. Southern merchants refused to cooperate and smuggling reportedly took place everywhere. Around 1770, the embargo began to put pressure on British exporters as international tensions in Europe mounted. Parliament has lifted tariffs on all products except tea. American settlers had much to celebrate in 1766. The Stamp Act was repealed and the Sons of Liberty demonstrated their ability to mobilize the colonies against parliament. Until 1767, the celebration gave way to renewed anxiety. Charles Townshend became Chancellor of the Exchequer, and rumours of new tax measures soon circulated in Britain and America. Although Sons of Liberty`s involvement in non-import agreements is undeniable, they were not the only ones to oppose British rule.
In the era without British luxury goods, tea or textiles, there seemed to be an opportunity for patriotic women to play a role in public affairs.  Although they did not join the public protest, they formed a strong group called Daughters of Liberty. Instead, they helped produce goods when non-import agreements came into effect and caused deficits in British products, especially textiles. They spun wool into thread, knitted the yarn into fabric.  They also decided to join the initiative to boycott English tea, using various herbs and plants such as mint or raspberry instead. Often, these women run a household or even a small shop. Thus, they could make a choice about which products to buy and which to boycott. Therefore, they have had a major impact on non-imports and their efficiency.
You have a good price for all your dead goods that have always been unprofitable. You will collect your debts and end your debts in England, so that this would bring balances in your favor that, without such a method, must be against you forever. These figures show how the situation has affected trade. A Great Depression can be seen in the 1760s, when the majority of non-import and tax struggles struggled. Nevertheless, it is believed that the non-importing and associated depression was not caused solely by unpopular actions. Meanwhile, creditors and investors demanded their money from colonial importers who were unable to pay their debts. To raise more money, they compensated for the non-import so they could sell their shares at higher prices. The parade of laws continued in June 1767 with the passage of the Townshend Revenue Act. It imposed new tariffs on products such as salt, glass, paper, tea, coal, oil and lead. The revenues from these offices would be used as salaries for governors, judges, and colonial troops. Coincidentally, unlike the Stamp Act, the Townshend Revenue Act attracted much less attention and elicited little criticism or objection when it was introduced in late November 1767.
This lack of resistance was caused by the fact that only a few (merchants and traders) were affected by this law. Boston merchants and traders cut their imports of British goods by almost half. Unfortunately, the other port cities and colonies themselves failed to adopt the non-import policies of Boston merchants, which consequently undermined their boycott efforts. This failure of cooperation meant that trade between England and the colonies was sufficient. British merchants had felt no threat in these feeble efforts and did not advocate the abandonment of the Townshend Act. The Sons of Freedom were determined to enforce the non-import agreements to raise awareness of colonial grievances against British rule. The actions and protests of the Sons of Liberty have shifted from peaceful assemblies, organizing smaller boycotts and covert actions to public demonstrations of unrest and violence. Liberty`s sons` intimidating message against merchant William Jackson clearly shows one of the methods they used to enforce non-import agreements while encouraging settlers to act. The merchant in question, William Jackson, may also have been publicly “tarred and feathered.” Non-import agreements have not only helped eliminate undesirable actions, but they have also helped to lower exchange rates and eliminate stocks filled by importers. As such, this is a short and relatively simple business statement. Nevertheless, the authors could not help but describe the economic situation and list the reasons that led to the signing of the agreement.
Merchants saw taxes as heavy, frustrating, and restrictive for colonial trade. In addition, some, led by John Dickinson, argued that the taxes were a violation of their rights. They also expressed a dilemma as to whether such taxes could pose a potential threat to American freedom. In addition to reflections and doubts, the document also contained statements on trade on which the undersigned merchants had agreed. Although patriots like to pretend otherwise, not everyone joins the non-import and non-consumption movements. . . .