The TOP Tea Party vs. The Boston Tea Party

This week, The Fact Check is breaking down the statement of cause of the Illinois Patriot Alliance Tinley Orland Palos Tea Party.

I know. Way to stay out of the limelight, right?

I'm not going to debate the merits of what this local group preaches – this isn't "The Belief Check." But there are several statements or implications of fact mixed within the statements of creed.

Like every statement intent on guiding public policy, whether it came from a conservative political movement or a Democratic legislator, The Fact Check not only questions it, but questions it hard.

The modern-day "Tea Party" did take on burden beyond just what it says, however. The movement named itself after one of the most seminal, amazing and heroic moments in American history – the Boston Tea Party.

The movement drew the comparison between itself and the patriots of Dec. 16, 1773. Let's let the facts decide if that comparison stands up.

This, I Believe

The TOP tea party believes that governments at all levels in our lives – County, Illinois, and U.S. – have moved away from the ideals our Founding Fathers expressed. As a result, government has grown vastly too large, expensive, burdensome, and unresponsive while "unalienable rights" and the "Blessings of Liberty" have grown correspondingly less present in our everyday lives.

True; they do believe that.

I'm not being snarky here. Would that all political groups and candidates were as open and transparent as this. They stated as their belief what many other groups would have stated as fact. You can disagree with their beliefs, but you can't argue that they believe these things wholeheartedly.

That, They Didn't

The Illinois Patriot Alliance Tinley Orland Palos Tea Party as an organization believes in Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets.

Again, true. They believe that.

But did the people behind the actual Tea Party believe that?

"Men will always go to the cheapest markets," said Revolutionary era British Prime Minister Lord Frederick North, according to 19th century historian Benson J. Lossing.

While the quote is probably apocryphal (like many historians of that era, Lossing was always one for drama over accuracy), the sentiment isn't. And that's how North and the British government caused the Boston Tea Party, by giving the colonists a cheaper, less-taxed source of tea.

The Boston Tea Party was not a response to high tea taxes. It was in response to a tax break to a large corporation, namely the East India Company.

The colonists had been suffering under (and smuggling their way past) the tea tax, the last remaining Townshend Acts duty, for six years by 1773. According to the testimony of Boston Tea Party participant Samuel Cooper, some groups had been boycotting tea since 1770.

No one is saying the Americans liked the Townshend Acts. But, as some historians point out, the rallying cry wasn't "No Taxation!" It was "No Taxation Without Representation!"

The patriots weren't opposed to taxes because taxes were too high; the Boston Tea Party itself, a violent reaction to untaxed tea, is evidence of that.

The Tea Act of 1773 was "An act to allow a drawback of the duties of customs on the exportation of tea to any of his Majesty's colonies or plantations in America; to increase the deposit on bohea tea to be sold at the India Company's sales; and to impower the commissioners of the treasury to grant licences to the East India Company to export tea duty-free."

That's what ticked off the patriots – they could get cheap tea, but to buy it they would have to recognize the right of the British to tax them without representation.

Other colonists opposed to this were tea merchants whose businesses would be devastated by the new, cheaper tea and people just outraged the British government bent the rules for a monopoly that had the king as a shareholder.

Also, ever wonder why the Dartmouth, the Eleanor and the Beaver were just sitting there? Why these ships decided to bob in Boston Harbor night after darkened night, hulls full of valuable tea they could try to sell on shores not lined with angry mobs?

Other shipments of tea were turned away at Philadelphia and New York; they just went back to England. A shipment to Charleston was unloaded, but then locked in a warehouse for three years; it was later sold off to help pay for the American side of the Revolution.

The Massachusetts governor and Boston customs collector wouldn't let the three ships leave unless they paid the customs. The ships wanted to leave. The patriots demanded they leave. But the colonial powers wanted the British ships to pay the taxes.

The lesson of this is two-fold: First, history is complicated. Any attempt to reduce the motives of the actual Tea Party patriots to "taxes bad" is a disservice to them. If their goal had been "NO TAXATION," they would have ended the sentence there.

Second, when a group chooses to name itself after a historical event, it's your right to learn the history, our history, and decide for yourself if the comparison they're making is valid.

What of Button Gwinnett?

We are a non-partisan grassroots organization of individuals united by our core values derived from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill Of Rights as explained in the Federalist Papers.

I am actually quite impressed by this. Too often, people cite "The Founding Fathers," as if everyone from Thomas Jefferson to Lyman Hall thought and acted as one. The TOP tea party identifies specific documents and even specific interpretations of those documents. Well done.

Grass or Astroturf?

We recognize and support the strength of grassroots tea party organization powered by activism and civic responsibility at a local level.

Activism, civic responsibility and, it should be mentioned, billionaires.

Here is an excellent article outlining the links between two billionaire brothers and Americans for Prosperity, the group providing much of the training and support for small tea parties across the nation. The featured speaker at the TOP Tea Party's next event is Joe Calomino, Illinois chapter director for Americans for Prosperity.

Am I saying the Illinois Patriot Alliance TOP Tea Party was organized by or is funded by the brothers Koch? No.

The TOP Tea Party from absolutely all accounts is an authentic grassroots organization that came together because this is what the members believe. And they're still grassroots, even if they associate with a group with strong corporate ties.

But it's disingenuous to deny there are tea party groups with strong corporate ties.

Unless we're supposed to add the phrase "if it is" between "organization" and "powered," then it sounds like the members of the TOP Tea Party are equating everything tea party with grassroots. And the evidence says otherwise.

All that glitters is not gold. All that calls itself "tea party" isn't grassroots.

We Hold These Truths ...

We hold that the United States is a republic conceived by its architects as a nation whose people were granted "unalienable rights" by our Creator. Chiefly among these are the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." We stand with our founders, as heirs to the republic, to claim our rights and duties which preserve their legacy and our own.

Can't argue with that. It quotes one of the most beautiful passages in American history from one of the most important documents – the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

And it goes on from there.

On Natural Law

We hold, as did the founders, that there exists an inherent benefit to our country when private property and prosperity are secured by natural law and the rights of the individual.

Remember how I said the Declaration goes on from there? Here's the very next line:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but it seems the founders were saying governments, not natural law, secure the rights of the individual. Natural law, according to Black's Law Dictionary Revised Fourth Edition, means rules and principles that any rational person might discover "independently of enacted law or of the systems particular to any one people."

It seems to me that the TOP Tea Party is ignoring what the founders saw as the role of government. Natural law by its, pardon the repeat, nature is separate from governmental law. But enacted governmental law, not natural law, not the rights of the individual, is what the founders believed secured the unalienable rights.

Disagree with the founders if you will – as any slave could have told you, the founders weren't perfect – but that is what they wrote.

And Finally ...

We urge all citizens who value these stated principals, regardless of party affiliation or any other factor, to join with us as we unite to return to our governments to policies and ideals which founded and built our great nation.

Aside from being a truly rousing call to purpose, this is also nicely written. And agree or disagree with them, this is what they believe.

The media themselves have become wrapped in the debate tea parties are trying to bring to the forefront. While I personally chafe at what I consider name-calling ("lamestream media," "limp and impotent," etc.), I'm fine with the fact our role in public debate is being called into question. We should be scrutinized, just like anybody else.

Per Patch policy, I am open about my political and religious beliefs. Per my own policy, I was particularly careful to use the first person in this article so none of my statements could be construed as anything other than my personal interpretation of historical documents.

Maybe I'm just an MSM type trying to tear down a movement I don't understand. That's up for scrutiny, just like anything else. But I believe I have focused this article on checking the statements of fact this group made rather than judging the group's core beliefs.

If I have failed, the fault isn't "the media's." It's mine. Paul's.