The Myth Of The Boston Tea Party

Boston_Tea_Party_Currier_coloredBelow is my column in The Hill on the increasingly common rationalization that looting and property damage is a long-standing tradition first embraced by the Sons of Liberty in the Boston Tea Party.  That historical analogy was very popular in the days before the Fourth of July.  A professor made the comparison on CNN on the Fourth.  The view is widely raised in universities like the column in the University of Arizona’s Daily Wildcat newspaper declaring “The Boston Tea Party was when we first saw looting as a form of protest in America. White people acting out in anger is literally celebrated in our history books.”  Likewise, at the University of Dayton last week, a column stated “There is something to be said when our White founders destroying British property in the Boston Tea Party is glorified in every textbook, but burning down a Target for the rights of African Americans to simply breathe is damned in the media.”

It is a revisionist historical argument that is as convenient as it is wrong.  While the Framers would have supported the vast majority of protesters who engaged in peaceful demonstrations for reform and racial equality, the Sons of Liberty would have been the first to denounce the concept of wanton property destruction or looting as a means for social change.

Here is the column:

 

As the country celebrates Independence Day, many of us will view monuments that have been toppled, defaced or entombed in protective fencing. Businesses throughout the country have been vandalized or boarded up, creating a surreal landscape for many this holiday.

Most protesters did not engage in rioting or looting. Yet, the only thing more maddening than the random destruction is an increasingly common media rationalization that today’s rioters are the new Boston Tea Party patriots continuing a long tradition of property damage as a form of political speech. These rioters have as much in common with the Boston Tea Party as the Antifa movement has with the Anti-Federalists.

The rationalization is not new. After violence and looting in Ferguson, Mo., in 2014, leading Black Lives Matter figure DeRay McKesson was hired by Yale University to lecture on “Transformative Leadership.” McKesson’s lecture included reading about how looting is a “righteous tactic,” and he defended property damage as a tradition dating to the Boston Tea Party. Many in the media have raised the analogy, including CNN’s Don Lemon, who recently chastised anyone “judging” the looting and rioting because “our country was started because — this is how — the Boston Tea Party. Rioting… this is how this country started.”

Even some academics have given these crimes the imprimatur of history or patriotism. Journalism professor Steven W. Thrasher at Northwestern University wrote in Slate that “property destruction for social change is as American as the Boston Tea Party.”

Boston_Tea_Party_w

These and other statements misrepresent history. Consider just five glaring conflicts:

The Tea Party’s “Sons of Liberty” did not commit “property destruction for social change”

It is certainly true that the Sons of Liberty destroyed property but they did not do it for social change and some likely did not it for political change.  The embrace of the Sons of Liberty as a model by the left is as comical as it is incorrect. They were the ultimate capitalist movement. Some of these men were tea merchants or tea smugglers upset with the sale of huge amounts of tea by England’s East India Company under the Tea Act. Indeed, one would think today’s activists would be least likely to embrace a group of militant capitalists engaged in the most famous act of cultural appropriation in history.

The Sons — dressed as Mohawk Indians — wanted to destroy the tea itself. The taxation of tea was not, as commonly thought, the triggering of this confrontation; tea had been taxed, along with other items, since 1767 as part of the Townshend Revenue Act. In 1770, those taxes were lifted — except on tea, to enable the East India Co. to sell 544,000 excess pounds in storage by undercutting the market in the colonies.

The “tea party” was more like supporters of U.S.-made steel dumping Mexican steel into Houston’s port. The targeting of the tea had as much of an economic as a political purpose.  None embraced the concept of generally destroying property to change society.

The Sons of Liberty were not looters

Another problem with today’s rationalizations is that the Sons of Liberty were not looters in common meaning of that term.  More importantly, they actions were manifestly different from what we witnessed across the country.  They did not take the tea home. Conversely, today’s looters seen carrying flat-screen TVs out of Target stores were not desperately seeking a harbor to toss away cursed symbols of Sony’s tyranny. They were stealing TVs. While academics like Clifford Stott, professor of social psychology at Keele University, may assure CNN that “looting is an expression of power,” it is primarily a crime for personal gain.

The Sons of Liberty did not advocate wanton property destruction

In fact, they would have been the first to condemn today’s destruction. We know that because they said so. Before boarding three tea ships, the Sons agreed they would not cause damage beyond destroying the tea. (The ships actually were owned by Americans). Samuel Adams, one of the leaders, insisted that the Sons carry out their mission “without the least Injury to the Vessels or any other property.” After the Sons broke a padlock to access one ship’s hold, they returned the next day to replace it.

That is in stark contrast to Greater New York Black Lives Matter president Hawk Newsome’s defense of the use of violence “because this country is built upon violence. What was the American Revolution, what’s our diplomacy across the globe?” He added “if this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it. All right?” The Sons of Liberty would say that is not right, as they did in 1773.

The Sons of Liberty did not start the revolution or receive wide support 

There is a popular misconception that the Sons of Liberty were widely praised for their actions and galvanized the nation to rebel against the British Crown. Many patriots, including George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, condemned their act. It was the Crown’s heavy-handed response to this and other acts that fueled the call for independence.

Indeed, if the British government had not stupidly ratcheted up oppressive measures, the Boston Tea Party could have worked to its advantage with many Americans who wanted to reconcile with England, including many of our Framers.

The Sons of Liberty lacked liberty

These were the “Sons of Liberty,” not the “Sons of Anarchy.” The biggest difference is that, putting aside economic interests, the Sons wanted liberty and representation.  We now have a Constitution that affords the self-determination and rights that were denied to them. Yet, looting, arson and vandalism are being committed today despite the legal and legislative options for reform. Indeed, soon after the killing of George Floyd, an array of reforms already were proposed. These criminal acts have made reforms more difficult, not more likely.

downloadAs a nation, we fought the Crown to free ourselves from arbitrary acts and injuries — not to empower such acts by our own citizens. Samuel Adams declared, “Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.” In other words, he would not have been in the mob shattering an auto-parts store’s windows. He and his compatriots more likely would be the guys in New England Patriots Jerseys standing in front protecting the store in Boston.

The vast majority of protesters have been peaceful. They have forced us all to think about racial inequities and personal prejudices. However, the destruction of property and monuments are the very type of capriciousness that patriots condemned. There are many contemporary causes for violence and anger; they are worth discussing — but leave the Sons of Liberty and the Boston Tea Party out of this.

 

212 thoughts on “The Myth Of The Boston Tea Party”

  1. I put the Tea Party into the context of the Revolution airy war. The protests today are not war. Yet.

    1. The McCloskeys in St. Louis should get a brown bear and arm him with an AK 47. Leave him on the porch.
      We have a Second Amendment Right To Arm Bears.

  2. “The vast majority of protesters have been peaceful. They have forced us all to think about racial inequities and personal prejudices. However, the destruction of property and monuments are the very type of capriciousness that patriots condemned. There are many contemporary causes for violence and anger; they are worth discussing — but leave the Sons of Liberty and the Boston Tea Party out of this.”

    Agreed. Now let’s just focus on the task of taking the trash out of the oval office and holding the next government to progressive governance.

    1. Yes, because police departments have been so much better in states and districts run by Democrats for eons.

    2. and holding the next government to progressive governance.

      Make your case on what progressive governance looks like and why that would be good for our country. Is there an example of progressive governance at the state or city level that you can point to that has proven effective?

  3. The vast majority of protesters have been peaceful.

    1. You didn’t count them

    2. You’re not defining your terms. (Is blocking a public highway ‘peaceful’?)

    3. You’re assuming the ‘peaceful protesters’ and rioters are not symbiotic.

    1. “ 2. You’re not defining your terms. (Is blocking a public highway ‘peaceful’?)

      It is if it’s blocked without violence as in deliberately destroying the road itself.

      Simply walking onto the highway intending to stop traffic is not violent. Running over protesters IS violence.

      1. I agree it’s not violence, only if you are in the ambulance and die for not getting to the hospital in time. Freedom of movement is a right in the Constitution. Only doofus nazi types who support criminality for not getting your way don’t know that.

      2. The framework of your argument is fallacious. Too many of the protests have led to violence and disorder where the protestors were aggressive to the police. BLM has proven itself to represent anything but black people. BLM doesn’t give a dam.n about black people.

      3. Laughable how you changed your terms. You switched from peaceful to violent as if they interchangeable opposites.

        Blocking a road may not be violent, but it is not peaceful.

        Please make a note of that because you continue to undermine your credibility with each post. I’d suggest doing better.

    2. “3. You’re assuming the ‘peaceful protesters’ and rioters are not symbiotic.”

      DSS, That is what the professor totally misses in all of his postings on this subject. There would be no deaths and no destruction but for that symbiosis. It sounds like he is almost mandated to emphasize ‘peaceful protestors’. Maybe that is the only way he is able to function and continue doing what he is doing.

  4. Could you please re-write this article with less “big” words and more illustration so that Don Lemon might be able understand the facts of this little history. Don, the Man of Scurvy is easily convinced by the speculative imaginations of leftists and needs help finding truth and facts to inject some variety into his mental meanderings on CNN.

  5. While the Framers would have supported the vast majority of protesters who engaged in peaceful demonstrations for reform and racial equality,

    I tend to doubt that ‘racial equality’ is a thought that ever crossed their minds except in the course of an intellectual exercise (and no one was agitating for it ca. 1773).

  6. What, exactly, does BLM want? Contrary to their claims, blacks are not oppressed in America and haven’t been since the early Twentieth Century. The 1950-60 “civil rights” movement was against voter suppression in Democratic-controlled states and segregation (which is just as prevalent today but not by government imposition. Any black kid who wants to can be successful. My next door neighbor is a black woman from Louisiana who became an Army nurse then retired from the VA. I was at a gathering of her family – my wife and I were the only whites there – and learned that every single one of them are successful, with most being college graduates. BLM, which was started by three lesbians, two of which are trained Marxists by their own proclamation, is a political movement designed to overthrow the United States as a country and establish a Marxist dictatorship with blacks in charge, as in South Africa where whites are a minority. No, the Founders would not have applauded them, they would have hung them.

    1. As to what BLM wants, I’ll leave to others. As to why the protests began and quickly became widespread, I have a pretty good idea for a good chunk of that. There is an over policing problem and an overcriminalization problem. Too much government and too little oversight. Disproportionately against the poor. And within that group disproportionately against minorities.

      Ever since the dixiecrats infected the Republican Party, that party hasn’t been of much use for solving these kinds of things. As for the liberal academics and politicians, I won’t hold my breath for much of a solution. They’re not adept at coming up with solutions for too much government with too little oversight. And the last time most of them said so much as hello to a poor person was when somebody came in to clean out their waste basket.

      1. So why can’t blacks form a successful community on their own? Lot’s of poor immigrants seem to be able to do it here and thrive.

        1. Jim22, I wish I could like your comment more than once.

          I personally believe the Blacks are kept in their victim status by liberals for the sole purpose of votes and power.

          1. Put me in the Rush Limbaugh column. His angle on the protests has implied a more systemic force at work by the Democrats in that the worst police departments are in areas run by Democrats.

              1. At least Rush is taking a look at law enforcement issues. I don’t recall you mentioning anything about it. It’s not clear to me you think there’s a problem.

                  1. In what way has he got it wrong here. With regard to systemic problems in our legal system, or in regards to the Democrats being to blame?

                    1. SteveJ, I don’t listen to Rush and there is no way I will invest time and effort discussing anything he says. If you wish to make a point, go ahead.

          2. Foxtrot, your theory denies black folks agency. Which is precisely the problem.

            Blacks need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, such like as the poor migrant communities do as Jim22 noted, and quit blaming Whitey for everything

            Blaming liberals is a way of letting them off the hook.

            I know what they think– my comment is racist. Nonetheless; that is what they should do and plenty of black leaders with stiffer spines like Louis Farrakhan and other before him including Marcus Garvey said so too. They were wise, but today’s black “leadership” is merely cunning.

        2. Jim,
          If the system were as broken as they would like us to believe, then only privileged, affluent white men would succeed in it. We know that is not the case. The right path is to model what works and reject what doesn’t.

      2. There is an over policing problem and an overcriminalization problem.

        No one remotely familiar with crime statistics or the police census would make this remark. Libertarians are worthless.

    2. They have an ill-thought-out complaint against people of lower status (police officers) imposing standards on people of higher status (blacks). It’s a complaint shared by gentry liberals, who fancy they assign status.

  7. “the Framers would have supported the vast majority of protesters”

    This is correct. But your M.O. lately has been to devote entire articles to the yahoos while noting the vast majority in a single sentence. Nor have I seen much from you on reforms including legal reforms. Is fact, has there been anything from you on that?

  8. “ It is certainly true that the Sons of Liberty destroyed property but they did not do it for social change and some likely did not it for political change.“

    JT overlooks the simple truth about the Boston tea party and it’s use comparing it to today’s protests.

    The sons of liberty did destroy property, trespassed on property and deliberately entered a ship’s hold in order to take merchandise to dump in the river. Trespassing, breaking and entering and destroying property was made….as a form of protest. It was a protest against an injustice. Just because they were nice about it doesn’t detract from the fact that they still destroyed property as form of protest.

    1. “Taxation without representation” was the rallying cry, but there was a large part we didn’t want to pay for the debt the crown racked up defending our colonies. They were seriously in debt and largely over that effort.

      1. You mentioned it and then forgot about it. What about “Taxation without representation”?

        I forgot. You are a fascist with a faschist mind so forget my question.

    2. JT overlooks the simple truth about the Boston tea party and it’s use comparing it to today’s protests.

      Simple truths are often conveniently used to influence simple minds. JT did not overlook it, he put it in context with the complex truth of why and how they were protesting. Here’s a simple truth for you. The colonists had the right to bear arms because they were a necessary part of the militia. That right went away once the government put military forces in their communities. The complex truth is the colonists never were relieved of that right and it was because they maintained caches of arms that they were able to resist and ultimately defeat the British.

      1. Olly, there a lot of simple minds on this blog. It is doubtful that many go further and “get” complex truths.

        The argument in this article is about comparing the Boston tea party against current protests. Both were protests that involved destruction of property. One is glorified because they were “nice” about it. The other is denigrated as just wanton destruction. Would Turley find it acceptable if rioters were “nice” too by cleaning up the mess they made? Would they too be glorified because of their “nice” gesture?

        1. Would Turley find it acceptable if rioters were “nice” too by cleaning up the mess they made? Would they too be glorified because of their “nice” gesture?

          Get back to me when your rioters start rebuilding the businesses they destroyed. Then we can begin to address your hypothetical.

        2. Without being in agreement with the Tea Party which was looked down on by our major leaders there is a big difference with what happened and that can be described with one word. Restraint.

          Restraint:
          Were the ships burned?
          Was the city looted?
          Were people killed?
          Were parts of the city left burning?

          It is difficult for those who lack critical thinking skills to note all the differences.

  9. Jonathan, “The vast majority of protesters have been peaceful” is complete BS.

    24 people (allegedly “protestors” were shot in Atlanta Saturday night, and 4 of them are dead. One of them an 8 year old girl.

    All of the assailants and victims were black.

    Meanwhile (also Saturday night) Antifa (allegedly “protestors”) attacked the GA State Patrol headquarters in Atlanta. Did lots of damage, set it on fire, which injured 2 of the employees. When the Fireman show up they were also attacked.

    You have an extremely perverse definition of “peaceful”.

  10. JT has some funny lines in this post:

    “…one would think today’s activists would be least likely to embrace a group of militant capitalists engaged in the most famous act of cultural appropriation in history”

    “These were the “Sons of Liberty,” not the “Sons of Anarchy.””

  11. Ok, really excellent column, but this one was snicker-worthy: “Yet, looting, arson and vandalism are being committed today despite the legal and legislative options for reform.” There might be an opening for these options now, but I say this is only because of the rampant instability that is perceived would ensue otherwise. Politics is not a dinner party, maybe unfortunately. Regardless of whatever the Boston Tea Party signified, in our time, it very likely required a threat of some degree of widespread destabilization of regular norms of property and law to open the average legislature to some degree of actual public representation (certainly this is true of the federal legislature).

    Thus it has always been. There is an analogy to so-called poverty law, which as Frances Fox Piven maintained expands “the dole” when rioting looks too forbidding for prime time, whereas otherwise it keeps the dole at the most miserly possible level (and deplores the rage that ensues as a result).

    At any rate, Glenn Greenwald’s System Update (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgXDtMLuVSE&t=6s) and the Useful Idiots podcast of June 26, 2020 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foyP6tJPspw) have had productive conversations on this issue (that is, the efficacy, necessity, and morality of violence and property destruction to get the attention of supposed political representatives) with, respectively, Chloe Valdary & Benjamin Dixon, and Omar Wasow.

  12. Turley presents his argument in typical lawyer selective speak. Comparing looting and wanton spleen venting by individuals who attach themselves to a just protest to the highly edited ‘Tea Party’, is the quintessential example of legal mumbo jumbo.

    ‘It was the Crown’s heavy-handed response to this and other acts that fueled the call for independence.’

    The key and pivotal words here are ‘heavy handed’. The racial profiling of Blacks by Whites-who happen to be police these days-is the heavy handed response that produced another heavy handed response or revolution. That some police profile Blacks as more than White potential criminals is a fact. That Blacks and some Whites respond by demonstrating is a fact. That some degenerates attach themselves to these protests to explore their own perverse ends is also a fact. However, explaining the core response to racism by including this madness and perversity is of the same madness and perversity, that which needs to be addressed. Hopefully, Turley will separate out the evil from the good eventually and polish his legal mind thusly.

    The Boston Tea Party was an expression of a desire for economic autonomy made by merchants. That they were careful not to ‘break’ anything is irrelevant. They destroyed property. It can be said that the American Revolution itself was initiated by a larger desire for economic autonomy, and not so much oppression by Great Britain. Once the ‘We can do better on our own economically.’ seed was planted, heavy handed responses came from both sides. History is written by the victors and the victors of the American Revolution were and continue to be Americans. The reality of the causes for the American Revolution were primarily economic. Those few million colonialists were not suffering. There mercantile class was, in their minds, not gettin their fair share.

    The contradictions and hypocrisies that are a part of this noble experiment are still being addressed. By failing to address them honestly, the noble words resist being attained in deed. The noble words were noble goals.

    1. Isaac, you’re a foreigner still? Canadian? Then stick it in your pipe and smoke it.

      Or just let us know if you’ve been naturalized. Then I’ll bother to answer.

      Or quit attempting to exert foreign influence on our 202 campaign!

  13. The comical thing is thinking that the criminal thugs who did the rioting and looting have ever heard of the Boston Tea Party. Their knowledge of history would fit in a Mcspoon, with enough room left over for at least one solid hit.

  14. Your history is good, JT. Your assessment of the current mob isn’t. The only thing peaceful is the police response to violence and destruction like we suffer here in Richmond courtesy of the sympathetic Dim administration. When you breach the social contract by letting innocents die or be maimed you can expect a power source to fill the vacuum of leadership. Militias and ethno-tribalism seem the Dims path to power. I say we stop ’em with whatever means are available.

    1. Our path to power as the majority of Americans is winning the election. Mespos path to power is threatening violence.

        1. Mespo, you’re an officer of the court.That last statement will not win over a judge. You and honest lawyer can play army man on the internet all night long, but that’s all it is and you know it.

          1. bookless:

            Response in kind is a time-honored legal concept. The court approves it; uses it themselves; and understands its usefulness. You may think playing army is fun and games. About a million patriots in various militias disagree — hard. You don’t think a backlash is coming?

            1. Mespo– I have discounted comments that predict an armed, violent response to what is going on now, but I am beginning to think I am wrong to do so. Today, Governor Newsom banned all singing and chanting in California churches after tolerating and even supporting protests which had thousands of people shoulder-to-shoulder.

              History teaches that when there is serious unrest in a body politic things sometime happen that trigger a massive reaction. No one knows in advance what that trigger might be. Governor Newsom’s anti-American, anti-religion order is merely the most recent affront to people who love this country. This order follows on the heels of an attempted coup of President Trump by the media and democrats, democrats holding up the stimulus bill desperately needed by so many so the democrats could extort some extra pork for their friends, democrat office holders violating their oaths creating sanctuary cities to hide illegal immigrants, even those who have committed felonies, heaping honors on George Floyd as if he was something other than a violent felon with no redeeming qualities while supporting the firing of professors for daring not to fall in line behind BLM, and standing idly by as our history is being destroyed by people who do not deserve to be a part of it. Any one of these despicable acts could have been a trigger. Democrats and the media do not share this concern because they seem to be riding high in the polls and for them, all any of this is about is winning the election in November. On November 4, we may well be asking democrats if it was worth losing a country to win an election.

              1. HLM:

                “History teaches that when there is serious unrest in a body politic things sometime happen that trigger a massive reaction. No one knows in advance what that trigger might be.”
                ************************
                See Hard Hat Riot of 1970 and Hershey’s Chocolate Stike Busting of 1937. The counter-reaction is brewing.

                1. He’s long dead now but my great grandfather orchestrated “strike busting” of an illegal blockade of a radio manufacturing facility on Belmont avenue in Chicago in the 1930s. I wont say what specific means were used to disperse the trucks that been illegally parked so as to essentially lay siege for a few days to the facility; only that once a sufficient amount of force was applied to those trucks and their drivers, that lawful access to the facility was quickly restored.

                  While in the old days illegal strikes were often orchestrated with the help of organized crime figures who had certain law enforcement officials on their payroll. The reality on the ground for labor relations was often more important than whatever the socalled laws were. Likewise, management too was able to “play the game” in those days and “made friends” with well placed figures who helped squash any legal beefs coming out of management’s “Self help” measures to restore lawful production. it was cat and mouse; an equilibrium came once we had both the Wagner act and the Taft hartley act.

                  I’m pleased to note that my extended family went on to a more peaceful and orderly and profitable relationship with organized labor in the 40s and beyond; and today I applaud the right of workers to organize when they so chose. I’m particularly fond of the Teamsters Union which has been full of American patriots from its earliest days. I invite Teamsters to consider their votes very carefully in November and cast them wisely.

                  The point here however, is simply that for every mob which coalesces into a strike, there are those who are ready to break the strike. Only the order needs to be given. Make no mistake orders are given on both sides. To direct a protest into a riot; and to either break a riot, or not.

                  At this juncture in history, it’s almost guaranteed that we will see more strikes in the form of looting rioting and other disorderly conducts., which includes all these “peaceful protests” that should have been forbidden by the very same COVID restrictions that kept all the white folks home from church and their jobs.

                  If “equal protection of laws” means anything in this country, then COVID restrictions should have been applied fairly to black protests. But they were not; thus you can see white people are actually disfavored under laws, and urban black mobs as a tool of the Democrat leadership, are sinking this nation into an unfair condition of planned chaos and destabilization. Which is as history also tells us, is a liminal stage of civil war and “revolution”

              2. HLM, you can see by Book’s comment above that the answer to your question is a resounding “Yes! It was well worth it to lose the country in order to regain power!!”

          2. When law enforcement ceases anarchy and violence take over. If we don’t want that violence then we should demand law and order. The toppling of statues and creation of autonomous zones must end. There are many citizens who are willing to do the job if our Democratic mayors and Governors aren’t. I hope the authorities wake up before it comes to it.

      1. Because of the Commie/Nazis Democrat leadership/Never Trumpers trying to crash the US economy Trump was forced to send out checks.

        And because of that Team Trump found over a million Dead that the Commie/Nazis Democrat leadership/Never Trumpers were usinng as Voters that are now being purged from the voter roles.

        You Dims are going to need to up your game of Vote Fraud to even have a 1/2 a chance in hell against Trump in Nov.

      2. There is no “path to power” in winning the election.

        “Meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss”.

        Partisanship, and simplistic “us versus them” binary thinking, is what keeps the self-serving thieves in Washington on both sides of the aisle in power.

        You have no power, only the illusion of power.

        1. Rhodes, the EC is a obstacle to people having the power – the Democrats won the vote in 6 of the last 7 elections with the one GOP victory by an incumbent who shouldn’t have been an incumbent.. That dysfunction is unusual in out nation’s long history where only 2 other presidents before these elections were “unelected frauds”. I’ll take our chances – have no choice really – of Trump not pulling a royal flush twice in a row in the EC and celebrate the fact that we live in a country were the people do decide the president. If it was the power elite, neither Obama or Trump would have been president, and probably not Bill Clinton.

          1. Because he was so clueless upon entering office he had no choice but to take action on the repub power structure wish list of dirty goat impu

            Notice I don’t quarel with the ‘dim’ moniker. Relativity is an amazing thing, the Repubs being full on retarded and all.

            1. “Because he was so clueless upon entering office he had no choice but to take action”

              As usual Hellvis posts empty rhetoric. “Where’s the meat?”

              1. Tax breaks on upper class with the burden shifted to disappearing deductions, as well as outright raises, in the middle class structure. Streamlining the approval of young, conservative judges on the back of gerrymandered power in McConnell’s senate, deregulation of environmental law.

                Surprised you spelled “meat” correctly, Allan.

                1. Streamlining the approval of young, conservative judges on the back of gerrymandered power in McConnell’s senate,

                  How exactly do Republicans gerrymander a state-wide election?

                2. “Surprised you spelled “meat” correctly, Allan.”

                  Yes, I did Hellvis. Unfortuantely what you provided were soundbites that demonstrate your continuous lack of fact along with your inability to analyze. One has to wonder if you know anything about what you are writing about.

                    1. We hear a lot of noise from Hellvis but very little thought goes into the process of figuring out what to say. Maybe the noise is from his spell checker that has a loose gear.

                    1. “Sound bites that are based on factual reality.”

                      No Hellvis. Again you lack fact and the ability to analyze. Your soundbites are mostly based on half truths. However, though I occasionally note a spelling mistake or grammer mistake in what you write your soundbites are generally spelled appropriately.

  15. Prof Turley, please clarify: are you defending the “Sons” destruction of tea? Are you saying that it was a proper way for the Sons to make their point or accomplish their goals? If so, doesn’t this conflict with your “rule of law” approach to the correction of wrongs?

  16. Sorry prof, but I didn’t need children to ‘introduce’ me to racism. All it ‘introduced’ me to is an awareness that we need to defund our universities and spank every parent that had a child since 1990. I do not require kids discovering there exists a world outside of their safe space bubble to ‘teach’ me anything, particularly with the unprecedented levels of basic ignorance involved with these generations, thanks. The idea is ludicrous, and you bend far too easily.

  17. Nobody requires history and if they do, they are not taught it well. This is actually a great story of how they carefully made sure they did not damage the ships or any other cargo. They just went after the tea. And the ships had been offer the chance to sail back to England, however they were prevented by the provincial government.

    We can thank these Patriots for the fact we drink coffee and have better teeth than the British (there were a lot of comments about the tea stains on young women’s teeth in the colonies).

    1. What’s the true Story???

      Not to be argumentative…

      Were there some BK people in the colonies that needed an excuse to why they could not pay?

      The coffee better then tea argument I think a loser as I drink this coffee crap this morning. One of the worst things I’ve done in life was started drinking coffee around 23 yrs old. I’m down to just about a half a pot now.

      But, that’s just me & we all free in that respect to drink our favorite drink. Phk yea ‘Merica! 😉

      1. Oky1 – some colonists offered to pay the East India Company the cost of the tea, without the tax. They could not have been better “looters.” I am down to a pot and a half of coffee a day. I am personally keeping a couple of coffee companies afloat.

        1. ” some colonists offered to pay the East India Company the cost of the tea, without the tax. They could not have been better “looters.”

          I don’t believe I’ve heard that before. Thks.

          The one thing that caused me to be very interested in history when I was very young was writers out right lying or failure to disclose pertinent relevant facts about what was known about history.

          Hell with this internet it seems I’m finding out more about real history everyday or at the very least is the counter arguments.

  18. JT ends his column with:

    “The vast majority of protesters have been peaceful. They have forced us all to think about racial inequities and personal prejudices. However, the destruction of property and monuments are the very type of capriciousness that patriots condemned. There are many contemporary causes for violence and anger; they are worth discussing — but leave the Sons of Liberty and the Boston Tea Party out of this.”

    If he believes this, why has he been selling a narrative that the movement is mainly criminals and radicals. When that’s all you focus on, JT is smart enough to know he’s pushing Trump propaganda, not thinking “about racial inequities and personal prejudices. “

    1. If peaceful protesters actually broadly predominate, then blame the media for emphasizing the one-off act of destruction. However, enough destruction has happened, it seems, that peaceful protest is not the main focus. Blame the jerks (the reporters/editors or the violent) who are taking attention away from peaceful protesters and insinuating that these protests are an excuse for undemocratic destruction.

      1. Prairie, by media I assume you mean JT, since he focuses everyday on some outrageous BS from the extremes while ignoring “The vast majority of protesters (who) have been peaceful.” ………To quote him.

        1. No, I do not include Professor Turley in ‘the media’s. For one, he is not a reporter, and, he does not control the content of newspapers, news aggregate websites, or news channels.

          Also, in this column, he is calling out the deliberate misrepresentation of the Boston Tea Party by people who are trying to advance a despicable agenda, and, as fellow professors, they ought to know better. I am surprised you seem to be defending the misrepresentation of history, particularly when it is being done in defense of violence, destruction, and theft (or why dispute the Professor focusing on this problem?). There may be other times he has focused on outliers (though observing the absurd is sometimes of benefit). We could discuss that. The issue he discussed in this column does not fit that problem, though, due to the egregiousness of the misrepresentations and the potential for very far-reaching negative effects.

          The actions and comments by the aforementioned professors, media figures, and BLM leaders is detrimental to civil liberties and the rule of law–both of which Professor Turley cares deeply about.

          1. Sorry, bythebook. I reread your initial comment; I was unfair:

            “I am surprised you seem to be defending the misrepresentation of history, particularly when it is being done in defense of violence, destruction, and theft (or why dispute the Professor focusing on this problem?).”

    2. Hey! bythebook
      You seem incapable of reading an article and understanding what was written. Did you ever get educated??

    3. If the vast majority of protestors are peaceful but millions of dollars of property are destroyed along with over 15 lives one has to ask those peaceful protestors why they are sticking around with violent people and helping to inflict such terrible damage on their fellow citizens.

    4. 9/11 was mostly peaceful in the US that day.

      We can dispense with the ‘mostly peaceful’ trope since it has no real merit.

    5. I don’t approve of all the peaceful protests. The peaceful protests were actually illegal under the COVID restrictions in most of the places and times they happened.

      While white folks were expected to stay home from work and church, the angry black mobs and their freaky white fellow protesters, ran amuck.

      The peaceful yet illegal protests were apparently pretty not peaceful, too, as we saw and will never forget.

      Right now they say COVID restrictions are coming back. Well; then let them apply to the mobs as well. Or not at all. Let the disease run amuck if that’s the way they want it. I am betting it will sting them more than us.

Leave a Reply