A good reminder of the significance of this date…. from the Heritage Foundation.
On this day in 1773, a group of colonists disguised as Indians boarded British merchant ships and dumped into the Boston Harbor an estimated £10,000 worth of tea as a protest against British colonial policies.. John Adams declared this event, that we celebrate today as the Boston Tea Party, to be the “grandest event which has ever yet happened since the controversy with Britain opened.” What led once loyal colonists to protest the World’s leading power? How should we think about the Tea Party two hundred thirty-seven years later?
The American Revolution began as a tax revolt. After defeating France in the Seven Years’ War (which began in North America as the French and Indian War), Great Britain gained control over vast areas of land in the Americas, but also incurred massive debts. For the first time, Parliament looked to the American colonies as a source of revenue, and so began the long train of abuses against the American colonies. The American Revenue Act (sometimes called the Sugar Act) expanded import and export duties and created new government mechanisms to enforce trade laws. The Stamp Act was the first direct tax levied on America, requiring all newspapers, almanacs, pamphlets, and official documents—even decks of playing cards!—to have stamps as proof of payment of taxes.
These new policies outraged the colonists. The problem with the policies was not the amount of taxation—the taxes were actually quite low—but the process by which the British government imposed and enforced these taxes. As loyal colonists, the Americans recognized Parliament’s authority to legislate for the empire generally. But, the power to tax was a legislative power reserved to the colonists’ own assemblies rather than a distant legislature in London. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 had forbidden the imposition of taxes without legislative consent, and since the colonists had no representation in parliament they complained that the taxes violated their traditional rights. Thus the American’s rallying cry became: “No taxation without representation!”
The British rejected the Americans’ argument for self-government. The Declaratory Act of 1766, asserted Parliament’s absolute sovereignty over the Americans, including the power to make laws for the colonies “in all cases whatsoever.” “No taxation without representation” meant no taxation without the approval of the British Parliament. It never literally meant—not for the Americans or even for the overwhelming majority of British citizens—representation in that body. The colonists, like all British subjects, enjoyed “virtual representation” of their interests by the aristocrats that controlled Parliament.
After repealing the earlier taxes, the British government passed a new series of revenue measures (called the Townshend Acts) in 1767, which taxed goods such as paper, glass, lead, and tea—and once again affirmed the power of British courts to issue undefined and open-ended search warrants (called “writs of assistance”) to enforce the law. Asserting that the sole right of taxation was with the colonial legislature, Virginia proposed a formal agreement among the colonies banning the importation of British goods—a practice that quickly spread to the other local legislatures and cut the colonial import of British goods in half. So Parliament eventually repealed those duties, too, except for the tax on tea.
Our forefathers did not destroy the tea cargo because of a simple tax dispute. At issue were the principles of self-government, consent, and natural rights. These principles are enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and continue to define us as a nation and inspire us as a people.
In 2010, we have our own intolerable act—Obamacare, a massive bureaucratic expansion of government over one-sixth of the American economy and many aspects of our lives and medical decisions. But there is a key difference between the situation now and that of 1773. Those early patriots had to establish their independence and to start anew. But, our task is different. “It is not about fixed bayonets but fixed principles; not about bullets but ballots. Our task is not to overthrow; it is not revolution; it is renewal and restoration of those self-evident truths of constitutional government at the heart of America.”
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
So, let’s see.
1773: Parliament racked up massive debts; needed to pay them; levied new taxes; Americans revolted; history made.
2010: Congress/Obama racked up massive debts; want to rack up more; can’t levy new taxes and can’t borrow quite enough; have the central bank simply counterfeit trillions of new $ under euphemisms like “stabilizing the markets”, “QE” (or “QE1”) and “QE2”. What’s the rest of the story? Will Americans revolt again, as the dollar is made progressively worthless? They just voted in a Republican Congress, but will those Republicans stop the endless spending? And in time?
Hmmmm. There was no gay marriage in the colonies. Most colonists, being Christian, most likely considered homosexuality a sin. Such ignorant bigots! Those tea-dumping colonists had no clue they were fightining for a phantom freedom, only. They didn’t understand that real freedom exists only when gays can express their sexuality openly. Now gays can do just that. Oh, sweet freedom! Aren’t we moderns the fortunate ones!
Only one topic you care about, eh Seane-Anna?
On the 237th anniversary of the Tea Party, Harry Reid’s Omnipork legislation dies, and the Obama Tax increase is (mostly) defeated. Fitting.
Amen, V the K.
Seane-Anna,
1773 marked men choosing their destiny over the divine right of kings. You may not agree with the choices men make, but I believe the Founders would have agreed with Baker v. Nelson and left it to the states.
(insert obligatory Beam v Mote, casting stones etc.)
“Only one topic you care about, eh Seane-Anna?”
Not really, ILC. I was sarcastically making a point (or at least trying to). The gay party line pretty much is that freedom is nonexistent if gays can’t be openly gay AND have their libido given a stamp of approval by the state. Right? And anyone who disagrees with that is a rabid bigot, right? And, as American Elephant opined on another thread, even the gay “right-wing” is committed to that agenda, paying only lip service to conservatism. I was making fun of that “party line”, but gays do seem to take it very seriously. In their worldview liberty is a fantasy if homosexuality is illegal, gay marriage is illegal, gays can’t serve openly in the military, etc. So, from that perspective, American soldiers from Bunker Hill to Fallujah fought and died for a phantom freedom only. ILC, explain how you think I’m wrong, please.
Likewise. (That it isn’t a great point, yet you make it alot.)
Not by me. BTW, I’m gay, or I was the last time I checked.
See TL’s answer. You might have to think about it, though.
The original TP in ’73 wasn’t about taxation without representation –that issue had already been “won” by the colonists with the repeal of the Townsend Act, Stamp Act and recalculation of a lower tea tax on imported tea that was also greatly reduced in price for the colonists because of Brit govt subsidies to the tea companies & shippers and reduced duties on the tea itself. I say “won” because, like today, govt authorities in Britain didn’t comprehend the message and trumped the Boston TP with a series of Coercive Acts and Declaratory Acts intended to make the criminally-insane colony come to heel under the British boot. Not everyone in the colonies thought criminal acts were the right course for protest.
The taxes/duties were imposed to partially pay for the French-Indian war, a war that was greatly beneficial to the colonists’ security and prosperity. The TP in Boston occurred because colonists weren’t allowing the ships carrying tea to off-load in American ports until the reconfigured, lower Tea Tax was completely repealed… even if tea was now more affordable in the colonies.
Parliament, instead, tried to seduce American colonists into buying tea at the govt subsidized lower price with a smaller duty attached… making legit tea competitive with smuggled Dutch tea. It all fit with Parliament’s Declaratory Act which intended to preserve, in word form at least, the right of Parliament to tax the colonies in America just like any Brit colony or any Brit subject anywhere in the world, but provide for reduced tea prices and lower duties.
In glorious Charleston, the ’73 tea onboard East India Co merchant ships was seized by state port authorities and held in warehouses until 3 yrs later… when it was sold to pay for war debts of both the state govt and Continental Congress… in essence, using tea confiscated in opposition to paying Parliament’s war debt to pay off colonial war debt.
Sounds like a ploy that some politicians in Congress today would hold in high esteem, no?
American patriots Ben Franklin and Robt Murray (NYC) tried in vain to offset the illegal and impudent acts of the Sons of Liberty tea-tossers… they raised funds to repay the East India Co for the destroyed tea but the Brits wouldn’t have it.
Do you remember that on the 200th anniversary of the Boston TP, a group of American patriots met in Faneuil Hall & called for Nixon’s impeachment and hung and burned his effigy in Boston Sq? “TP” got highjacked by the farLeft that time… and it’s rarely mentioned today.
Michigan-Matt,
I come not to bury your history lesson, but to ignore it. As we learned in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance:
The Boston Tea Party has taken its place in legend and no amount of professorial hectoring can displace it.
For your information, here is the legend: “We’re Mad as Hell and We Are NOT Going to Take it Anymore.” (Forget the authentic source of this quote; we are talking legend here.)
The TEA Party of today is not the least bit tainted by the minutiae of history.
ILC and TL, on another thread Seane-Anna finally let slip what the bee in her bonnet really is.
She regards gay conservatives as rivals for a slice of what she views as a finite pie — that of favor from the conservative establishment. It is her shtick (and practically the whole of it, hence the one note so monotonously replayed) that she is more deserving of that slice, or of a bigger slice, because she is a “more worthy” minority.
The problem is that she totally misunderstands conservative thought on the matter of minorities. Conservatives don’t see us as members of special little groups that must compete with one another for attention or favor. They see us as people, period, and base their understanding of our value on the principles we all share.
Whether it’s because she was originally more Leftist than she is now, or because she simply developed in a social milieu that has been heavily influenced by Leftism, she has been infected with some very Leftist notions.
“She regards gay conservatives as rivals for a slice of what she views as a finite pie”
Lori Lunatic, please reveal where I supposedly let that bee slip from my bonnet. Please show where I said I was more worthy than gays of a slice of anybody’s pie. You can’t because I didn’t. You are so out there, so off the mark, so full of hate, and just so plain irrational in your assessment of me it’s almost not worth replying to you, but I’ll take the bait.
Lori, you just can’t handle anyone criticizing gays. You can’t handle anyone calling gays out when they’re being hypocritical, dishonest, or exhibiting any other moral failing. In Loriland gays must be the objects of sycophantic praise only, and anyone who doesn’t deliver is a vile, emotionally-infantile, closeted, right-wing socialist nut. Loony, hence the tag lunatic.
Seane-Anna poses some important points in her #6 comment:
Perhaps this broadbrush depiction is antagonistic, but the issues are salient.
Seane-Anna, it is hilarious that you…of all people…would call me, or anyone else, a lunatic. And then proceed to slobber all over your keyboard in yet another rant.
What the hell is wrong with you? As Helio noted, despite your antagonism you can occasionally manage to get around to a salient point. But the convulsions of rage you go through in the meantime hardly make them worth it.
You are one of the biggest basket-cases I have ever seen in blogosphere commentary — and I have seen a whole lot of them. You’re like a train-wreck…we want to look away but simoply can’t.
All along, I have basically been trying to figure out exactly what is the matter with you. You say you’re not stifling any homosexual instincts…you claim that you absolutely LURRRRRVE the gays…and yet — here you are. Screaming again.
I hope that at least eventually you go to see a doctor. In your more lucid moments, you can indeed be charming. With the right combination of meds, perhaps there’s hope for you. And incidentally, all your hyperventilation aside, I do think I’ve got your number now.
Give Seane-Anna her pie, people. And make sure she gets plenty of ice-cream on it.
“LURRRRRRVE”. Huh? Lori, can you stop insulting me long enough to spell correctly?
“Perhaps this broadbrush depiction is antagonistic, but the issues are salient.”
Heliotrope, exactly how was I being antagonistic in raising the issues that you call salient? Not being sarcastic or–dare I say it–antagonistic. I’d really like your opinion.
“Lori, can you stop insulting me long enough to spell correctly?”
I don’t know, Seane-Anna. Can you stop insulting other people long enough to make sense a bit more often?
I have repeatedly asked you a very simple question, which is, why — since you so clearly dislike gays and disapprove of even our most basic efforts to participate in democracy as anything other than Leftist shills — do you continue to come back so compulsively to post here? On a blog with which you have made clear you totally disagree?
You clearly won’t answer the question because you know you have no defensible answer.
People have made repeated efforts to be nice to you here. They praise you lavishly when your remarks meet even the most basic level of rationality. They even poke fun at you on occasion — hoping to discover that you possess even a minimal sense of humor about yourself. But all to no avail.
Of course this, too, will bring on a slobbering, Tasmanian-Devil response. And again, you will be indulgently humored. And again, you will learn nothing from the experience.
I do suggest you try going on a Leftist gay site sometime if you want an education as to the difference between them and the gay conservatives you so doggedly claim do not really exist.
Seane-Anna,
“The gay party line” is broad brush and stereotyping. I think it is possible to be gay and not push for gays in the military, gay marriage, acceptance of gay sex as a societal norm, etc.
When I am grouped as a knuckle dragging Neanderthal because I am a conservative Republican, I react defensively. Nor do I value being called homophobic because I challenge the ideals of some gays. Those charges are antagonistic and they are meant as such.
I do not know what is collective thought or specifically valued in the “gay community” any more than I know what “black people” think that separates them from people in general. I would have written your prose without the definitive ownership which appears to apply to all gays in your comment.
I have frequently stated that I do not see how repealing DA/DT enhances the military mission. Whether I see it or not is hardly the point. I am actually curious to learn how I am safer with gays serving openly in the military. In my heart, I think that if the military has to deal with gays serving openly as a distraction, then it is probably not worth the effort. I say this because I do not think the all volunteer military is the best place to experiment with social engineering. My uneducated guess is that the number of gays who want to serve openly in the military is a miniscule part of the military population and therefore not worth all the fuss and feathers.
I, too, question whether a gay conservative has his priorities straight in weighing DA/DT against the military mission. Some gays write that they want the weight of being drummed out for being gay lifted. I have no way of knowing if the military sets traps to catch gays or not. I have the general belief, that if gays don’t push the envelope, the military does not act on what it has no particular interest in acting upon.
We all have our own universes upon which we build our presumptions. Not being gay and not being military, I am operating well outside of my experience in this.
Heliotrope, tell you what: *you* state the issues that you find salient, and in a way that makes *me* care – i.e., less antagonism, more precision – and I’ll answer anything you want. (As I have in the past.)