The Tea Party of 1773 and the Tea Party of today

[pjohns]

In his recent book, America the Beautiful, Dr. Ben Carson draws a parallel between the Boston Tea Party of 1773 and the modern Tea Party movement that began in 2009:


In the days of the old [Boston] Tea Party, the British government and American Loyalists attempted to establish and maintain control of the colonies. When the Patriots first began to resist such efforts, those in power tended to deny that there was any real resistance from anyone except extremist, fringe individuals. Let's call this the denial phase. But as the protests became more prolific, denial was no longer tenable, and the powers that be decided to ignore the movement. Their hope was that if they paid no attention to the protestors, it would be less likely that others would join them and the movement would simply fade away. Let's call this the ignore phase. Unfortunately for those in control, ignoring the movement did nothing to lessen its intensity and, in fact, gave it time to grow even more powerful. The colonists ended up inflicting significant damage on those in power, forcing them to fight back, in many cases, with more force than necessary. Many of the regulations subsequently imposed were a part of this punative phase. The more the established powers resisted, however, the more determined the colonists were to overcome that resistance. [Italics in original]

I believe this makes for a very good (and fair) comparison; and especially the part about how the Tea Partiers of the late eighteenth century were portrayed by their detractors as mere "extremist, fringe individuals."

Comments?

[Codename Section]

Sam Adams was a badass. Rand's as close to badass as you can get out of this new Tea Party and he's not fit to shine Sam Adam's shoes.

[pjohns]

Sam Adams was a badass. Rand's as close to badass as you can get out of this new Tea Party and he's not fit to shine Sam Adam's shoes.

It is not the politicians but the general public who ultimately must determine the success or the failure of any movement in America.

[Green Arrow]

Unfortunately, Dr. Carson is wrong. There is no comparison between the two, except perhaps public perception.

[zelmo1234]

Unfortunately, Dr. Carson is wrong. There is no comparison between the two, except perhaps public perception.

Well I don't know they both are standing up to one who would be king!

[Mainecoons]

Ironically, the government the original tea party fought against was a great deal less oppressive than the one the current tea party is evolving to fight.

[Libhater]

Ironically, the government the original tea party fought against was a great deal less oppressive than the one the current tea party is evolving to fight.

Ain't that the truth, and the unfortunate thing about the fight of today's Tea Party along with perhaps 80% of Americans/Loyalists is that the fight will be and is being waged against home grown turncoats who are either too dumb or too ensconced in their progressive/leftist big government/anti Constitutional agenda to give a flying fuck.

[Mainecoons]

Back then, those were the Tories and they were the majority at first as well.

[pjohns]

Unfortunately, Dr. Carson is wrong. There is no comparison between the two, except perhaps public perception.

Please feel free to elaborate...

[Chris]

With the real Tea Partiers I think the comparison legitimate, by those I mean the participants at the grassroots level, not the politicians who tend to hijack the movement and give fodder to those who paint anything and everything they disagree with as extreme. But as Goldwater said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

The Boston Tea Partiers though did take it one step further than the current movement, in that they engage in civil disobedience and risked more.



I like Dr. Ben Carson.

[Bob]

Unfortunately, Dr. Carson is wrong. There is no comparison between the two, except perhaps public perception.

England was doing nothing to the colonists compared to what this government in DC is doing to the public today. Obama threatened change and the SOB kept that promise.

[Green Arrow]

Please feel free to elaborate...

The Tea Party of 1776 was a solitary event within a movement, it was not a movement unto itself. The colonists had very specific, targeted grievances with the Crown and wrote those grievances down. Then they put their lives and their livelihoods on the line to end those grievances, one way or another.

The modern "Tea Party," on the other hand, is a movement, not an event. No member of the Tea Party that I have seen or heard of has put their lives and livelihoods on the line for their cause. Rather than force the government to address their grievances, one way or another, they spend their time preaching to the choir at rallies or electing more corrupt politicians to serve in Congress. If the modern Tea Party were like the Tea Partiers of old, Mitt Romney never would have won the nomination, and if he had won the nomination, they would have put their own candidate up and that candidate would have gotten more votes than Romney could have ever hoped to get. The modern Tea Party has no singular, targeted grievances. They've just adopted fiscal and social conservatism. They are unorganized and chaotic, and as a result the government continues to get bigger and continues to strip us of our freedoms.

The colonists of 1776 would have ousted Obama and every corrupt member of Congress by December 2009. Of course, the colonists of 1776 would never have allowed Obama the chance to take office, because they would have ousted Bush by 2002.

[Newpublius]

The Tea Party of 1776 was a solitary event within a movement, it was not a movement unto itself. The colonists had very specific, targeted grievances with the Crown and wrote those grievances down. Then they put their lives and their livelihoods on the line to end those grievances, one way or another.

That's not entirely accurate historically. Reading Common Sense, the case against separation was much more than specific grievances. Paine laid out the case that the colonies would simply be better off without Britain {period}.

"I HAVE never met with a man, either in England or America, who hath not confessed his opinion, that a separation between the countries would take place one time or other: And there is no instance in which we have shown less judgment, than in endeavoring to describe, what we call, the ripeness or fitness of the continent for independence." -- {Canada would bear this out eventually if you think about it}

[Green Arrow]

That's not entirely accurate historically. Reading Common Sense, the case against separation was much more than specific grievances. Paine laid out the case that the colonies would simply be better off without Britain {period}.

That was Paine's personal opinion. Paine was instrumental in keeping the fight alive, but the colonists didn't start that fight on his reasoning.

[Newpublius]

That was Paine's personal opinion. Paine was instrumental in keeping the fight alive, but the colonists didn't start that fight on his reasoning.

You know, its funny because the dollar sign - $ is derived from the Spanish peso and the Spanish pieces of eight were widely circulated in the colonies. That's funny because to a certain extent mercantalism should've prohibited much of that trade. Notwithstanding, the point is simple, the diverging tendencies of the colonies and Britain had begun and were eventually going to lead to separation in one form or another. The spark leading to armed revolt is surely an event, but the reasons for it are deep seeded back to the relative autonomy granted by the colonial charters and the actual reason for a fair amount of the emigration from Europe itself.

[Green Arrow]

You know, its funny because the dollar sign - $ is derived from the Spanish peso and the Spanish pieces of eight were widely circulated in the colonies. That's funny because to a certain extent mercantalism should've prohibited much of that trade. Notwithstanding, the point is simple, the diverging tendencies of the colonies and Britain had begun and were eventually going to lead to separation in one form or another. The spark leading to armed revolt is surely an event, but the reasons for it are deep seeded back to the relative autonomy granted by the colonial charters and the actual reason for a fair amount of the emigration from Europe itself.

All true, but doesn't really change the fact that the colonists still gave the Crown a specific, targeted list of grievances.

[The Sage of Main Street]

In his recent book, America the Beautiful, Dr. Ben Carson draws a parallel between the Boston Tea Party of 1773 and the modern Tea Party movement that began in 2009:



I believe this makes for a very good (and fair) comparison; and especially the part about how the Tea Partiers of the late eighteenth century were portrayed by their detractors as mere "extremist, fringe individuals."

Comments?

These Butt boys for the Bosses, who spread wide their glutes for the plutes, can't be compared to our tough and defiant pioneers. The original patriots all came out of the British lower classes and hated the conceited aristocrats with a passion. We beat the Redcoats because, as in today's America, they only developed the upper 1% of their people. We once developed a lot higher percentage of our talent pool until the worthless Heirhead scum took over here too.

[Mainecoons]

I don't think the TP claims to be like the TP of colonial times. They adopted that handle as symbolic of their general resistance to runaway government. The colonial TP was resistance to a specific policy of an overbearing, remote government. For many of us, the insular elitist and isolated government of Washington D.C. is pretty damn remote from the heartland these days.

It is precisely because the TP, a very new movement, has so little influence on the Republican Party that said party nominated Bush, McCain and then Romney who was actually by far the best of the lot and most assuredly would have been a better POTUS than Barack Obama. Having said that, however, Romney is still very much a traditional Republican and he would have not stopped the cancerous growth of the U.S. Federal government any more than Reagan did. And he would have continued spending far too much money on the overblown U.S. military as well.

The country has reached a crossroads where it either continues staggering along the path of progressivism and statism as it continues to decline, or regenerates itself with a rather drastic reversal of the concentration of power in D.C. History tells us that the latter is extremely unlikely at this point. Once a great nation goes into decline it keeps going that way until the roof falls in and some sort of new order emerges.

While I admire almost all the sentiments of the modern TP, the truth is that it is too little too late.