Tea Parties

Many angry Americans spent the 4th of July at tea parties protesting massive increases in federal spending and taxes in the US. These Americans want change in America: change from a government that steals their earnings by taxation and devaluation of their money; change from a government that relieves investment bankers of $2 trillion in debt liabilities while everyday people lose their jobs and their homes; change from a government where US senators travel to Paris and stay in hotels at taxpayer expense with room rates starting at $460 a night, while everyday American taxpayers fall deeper into debt.

Tax protestors don't get a lot of media coverage. Their cause might seem hopeless considering most Americans wave a government flag to celebrate the July 4th holiday that commemorates secession from England after Americans closed down an oppressive government. One can hardly blame the flag wavers since four score and five years after the Declaration of Independence was written, the federal government provoked a bloody war to preserve the union. We've been conditioned ever since to believe that secession is a bad word.

The original December 16, 1773 Boston Tea Party, for which this year's July 4th tax protests were named, occurred when Americans took direct action to protest a tiny tax on tea of 3 pence per pound weight of tea: equivalent to less than 25 cents today for tea in the store.[1] The Boston Tea Party culminated a resistance movement throughout the colonies against the May 1773 Tea Act passed by the British Parliament. In Boston, Massachusetts Colony's Royal Governor, Thomas Hutchinson, refused to allow the tea to be returned to Britain. He didn't imagine that the protestors would destroy the tea rather than submit to the authority of the crown. Could any US government official today imagine Americans taking such direct action?

Mercy Otis Warren, who wrote a history of the American revolution that she had lived through, described the Boston Tea Party protesters calmly walking to the wharves in Boston as "innumerable spectators" watched the quiet parade. Most watching knew what they were about to do and supported them. The group boarded the ships and destroyed the tea, throwing it into Boston Harbor.[2] They did this because their government wasn't listening to them. Are the tea parties of today a first step to direct action by everyday Americans of the 21st century?

Warren described the polarized attitudes of her contemporaries towards the brewing dispute (pun intended) between citizens and their central government:

"Others, the true disciples of passive obedience, had real scruples of conscience with regard to any resistance to the powers that be; these, whether actuated by affection or fear, by principle or interest, formed a close combination with the colonial governors, custom-house officers, and all in subordinate departments, who hung on the court for subsistence. By the tenor of the writings of some of these, and the insolent behaviour of others, they became equally obnoxious in the eyes of the people, with the officers of the crown, and the danglers for place; who, disappointed of their prey by the repeal of the stamp-act, and restless for some new project that might enable them to rise into importance, on the spoils of America, were continually whispering malicious insinuations into the ears of the financiers and ministers of colonial departments."[3]

The "true disciples of passive obedience" of Warren's time are the same politicians, well-connected lobbyists, and government contractors of today who live off federal largesse at the expense of the American people. These "true disciples of passive obedience" can't imagine life without Uncle Sam--they have too much invested in the system. The continued existence of the federal government is vital to their way of life.

Warren also wrote of the initial reluctance of everyday people to oppose the powers that oppress them, and how gradually colonial Americans decided to oppose their rulers:

"...there is a certain supineness which generally overspreads the multitude, and disposes mankind to submit quietly to any form of government, rather than to be at the expense and hazard of resistance. They become attached to ancient modes by habits of obedience, though the reins of authority are sometimes held by the most rigorous hand. Thus we have seen in all ages the many become the slaves of the few; preferring the wretched tranquillity of inglorious ease, they patiently yield to despotic masters, until awakened by multiplied wrongs to the feelings of human nature; which when once aroused to a consciousness of the native freedom and equal rights of man, ever revolts at the idea of servitude."[4]

The British government tightened "the reins of authority" on Americans and responded to the Boston Tea Party with five even harsher measures the next year. For example, The Massachusetts Government Act of 1774:

• replaced the elected assembly with a council of clerks appointed by the Governor
• empowered the Governor to appoint/dismiss all law officers
• forbade Town Meetings without royal assent
• ended election of juries by the freeholders.

Colonists labeled the new British laws "The Intolerable Acts." And revolting "at the idea of servitude," everyday colonial Americans didn't tolerate them. So many protesters in Worcester, Massachusetts armed themselves that there were gunpowder shortages.[5] By September 1774, Worcester protesters had boarded up the courthouse and forced crown-approved officials to resign. Everyday Americans ended British authority in Worcester, Massachusetts.[6] No weapons were fired in the process; they didn't need George Washington to lead them in battle to do it.

By October 1774, protestors had seized all authority outside of Boston:

"In the late summer and early fall of 1774, patriots did not simply protest government, they overthrew it."[7]

On October 4, 1774, everyday people in Worcester declared their independence from Britain.[8] This came a full 21 months before the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776.

Today the federal government conditions us to believe its existence is crucial to our well-being. It insinuates itself into all aspects of our lives: regulating schools, healthcare, public transportation, the environment, welfare, retirement, and the money supply. And it taxes us to support its incursions. The talking head news media do their best to make sure everyday Americans are all sufficiently awed and cowed by the people "behind the Washington beltway" who thrive on the backs of those in the private sector. Most Americans today still "patiently yield to despotic masters" wondering:

• How would we ever survive without the federal government?
• How would we be free if federal soldiers hadn't died for our freedom to submit to federal authority?
• How can we guarantee a just society for all if the IRS, our present day "custom-house officers," didn't regularly tip us upside down and shake out money to give to modern day "danglers for place"?

Everyday colonial Americans initially submitted "quietly to any form of government," as Warren wrote. When they disagreed with their government, they tried to fix things through their local officials. Once everyday colonial Americans believed there was a systematic plan to enslave them, they wouldn't allow it. They took direct action: they armed themselves, they refused to pay the tea tax, and they refused to be subject to a government they no longer recognized.

British General Gage and former British Governor of Massachusetts called revolutionary war Americans, particularly Bostonians, "bullies" because they wouldn't tolerate being pushed around and stood up after their "habits of obedience" had failed. Everyday people do have the power to stop abuse by their government.

How much longer will everyday Americans of the 21st century tolerate being pushed around by their government before they take direct action?

Are the July 4th, 2009 tea parties a first step?

_____________________________________

[1] Mercy Otis Warren, History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution 2 vols 1805. p. 57 of online pdf version.

Warren states 3 pence per pound was a "small duty." For an estimate of 3 pence in 1774, compare the price of a commodity still in use today: a bushel of wheat. 12 pence made a shilling. A bushel of wheat has ranged in price from $7 to $20 since 2007. From a 1984 paper (pdf), "Money and Inflation in Colonial Massachusetts," by Bruce D. Smith, an Economist in the Research Department of Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, a bushel of wheat in 1770 cost 5.39s Massachusetts (shillings) with an exchange rate of 1.26 to 1 in favor of British shillings. 5.39s/1.26 = 4.27s British. So 4.27s British in 1770 purchased what $15 does today, if we assume a price of $15 for a bushel of wheat.

So 4.27s x (12d per s) = 51d bought what $15 does today.

$15/51d = 29 cents/d

The tea tax was 3d (pence) per pound of tea, so it was about the equivalent of slightly less than $1 per pound of tea ($0.87) or 5.5 cents/ounce.

[2] Warren, p. 61 of online pdf version.

[3] Warren, p.24. of online pdf version.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ray Raphael, Founders, N.Y., 2009, p.139.

[6] Raphael, p. 143-4.

[7] Raphael, p.150.

[8] Kenneth J. Moynihan, A History of Worcester 1674-1848, 2007, p.80.