Posted on 01/20/2010 6:17:02 AM PST by GOP_Lady
With 'tea parties' on the warpath, leadership could come from the bottom up
Special elections are often the harbingersof political change. As I watch the Senate race in Massachusetts, where an insurgent small-government conservative campaign has shocked the Democrat establishment, I am amazed at how similar the political climate today is to the early days of the Contract with America.
Back in May of 1994, the 2nd Congressional District of Kentucky held a special election to fill the seat following the passing of Democrat William Natcher. The district had not elected a Republican in 129 years, but Republican Ron Lewis won by a wide margin. Seven months later, Republicans won 54 more seats to take the majority for the first time since 1954.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Absolutely agree with your statement.
Armey has been an unsung hero of the tea party movement over the past year, and he’s right on just about everything in this piece, I think, except for it being a good idea to invoke the ‘Spirit of ‘94’. Though a high water mark for Republicans in Congress over the past 50 years, it is ancient history to a new generation and a wasteful distraction from the message itself.
That message is the scaling back of government—not just the slowing of its growth—and the greater economic and total liberty to come from handing previously centralized functions back to the people.
Does there need to be some official name for that message and promise or can candidates simply deliver it in their own markets themselves? I actually lean toward the latter this time.
Brown succeeded with his voters because he hammered home a 1) strong defense, including against domestic terrorists, 2) lower taxes AND spending, and 3) a more market-oriented approach to health care—plus a bonus position on holding the line on illegal immigration. He also kept a healthy distance from the Republican brand, and that was probably necessary in MA at this point. I say let Republicans welcome tea partiers and independent/moderates into their tent based on those 3-plus points and Congress will be restored in ‘10, a Republican presidency in ‘12.
His
No offense to Armey, but conservatism needs new faces. He had his turn at bat and needs to nurture new leaders.
As part of an effort to defray the burgeoning expense of running the empire, Parliament passed the Stamp Act in March 1765. The law was to become effective in the colonies on November 1 and was announced by Prime Minister George Grenville many months in advance; he expressed a willingness to substitute another revenue-raising measure if a more palatable one could be found.
The act required the use of stamped paper* for legal documents, diplomas, almanacs, broadsides, newspapers and playing cards. The presence of the stamp on these items was to be proof that the tax had been paid.
Funds accumulated from this tax were to be earmarked solely for the support of British soldiers protecting the American colonies.
Violators of the law were to be tried in the vice admiralty courts, a detail that would not be overlooked by its critics.
The British authorities were not trying to oppress the colonists and regarded the stamp tax as entirely reasonable; even Benjamin Franklin, then a colonial agent in London, gave his grudging acquiescence to the plan.
Despite parliamentary intentions, colonial reaction was adverse and immediate. The Sugar Act of the previous year had been a tax on trade, in effect an indirect and external tax. But in the Stamp Tax the Americans for the first time were faced with a direct, internal tax.
This distinction was argued effectively in the writings of John Dickinson, one of the early leaders of the opposition to British policies. However, these arguments seemed to be incomprehensible hair-splitting to Parliament and royal officials.
The effects of the Stamp Act were to unite some of the most powerful elements of colonial society — lawyers, clergymen, journalists and businessmen. Opposition came in a variety of forms. Some was reasoned and informal, such as James Otis’ The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved, a pamphlet that proclaimed the unconstitutionality of taxation by agencies in which the colonies were not represented.
A more formal response came in the meeting of the Stamp Act Congress in October 1765, an inter-colonial effort to orchestrate opposition to the British plan.
The greatest impact, however, came through the Stamp Act riots in which violence was used to intimidate potential tax agents and public demonstrations were employed to solidify radical opposition.
Shopkeepers agreed among themselves not to sell British manufactures (nonimportation agreements) and strong-arm Sons of Liberty made certain that the merchants maintained their resolve.
The general unpopularity of the Grenville program led to the failure of his government in June 1765; the Marquis of Rockingham replaced him and began the process of finding a way out of the chaos.
After much debate in Parliament, the Stamp Act was repealed on March 17, 1766 due in no small part to the protests of merchants at home who felt the pinch of the nonimportation programs. The Stamp Act was repealed out of expediency, not because American arguments about taxation had been accepted in England.
As a face-savings gesture, however, Parliament approved the Declaratory Act (March 1766), which stated in part that Parliament:
had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever.
This statement of Parliamentary supremacy was wisely ignored by colonial opposition leaders, who were contented with their victory over the Stamp Act.
*The 18th century use of the word stamp is often confusing to modern readers, whose minds usually conjure images of postage stamps that were not used until the 19th century.
The word originally referred to what today is called embossing — the use of pressure on a “stamp” to imprint a raised design on paper, fabric or metal. The use of stamped paper for legal documents had been common for decades in England and, according to law, those agreements made on unstamped paper were not enforceable.
from the link Eyewitness to History
Victory in the French and Indian War was costly for the British.
At the war's conclusion in 1763, King George III and his government looked to taxing the American colonies as a way of recouping their war costs. They were also looking for ways to reestablish control over the colonial governments that had become increasingly independent while the Crown was distracted by the war.
Royal ineptitude compounded the problem. A series of actions including the Stamp Act (1765), the Townsend Acts (1767) and the Boston Massacre (1770) agitated the colonists, straining relations with the mother country. But it was the Crown's attempt to tax tea that spurred the colonists to action and laid the groundwork for the American Revolution.
The colonies refused to pay the levies required by the Townsend Acts claiming they had no obligation to pay taxes imposed by a Parliament in which they had no representation.
In response, Parliament retracted the taxes with the exception of a duty on tea - a demonstration of Parliament's ability and right to tax the colonies.
In May of 1773 Parliament concocted a clever plan. They gave the struggling East India Company a monopoly on the importation of tea to America. Additionally, Parliament reduced the duty the colonies would have to pay for the imported tea. The Americans would now get their tea at a cheaper price than ever before.
However, if the colonies paid the duty tax on the imported tea they would be acknowledging Parliament's right to tax them. Tea was a staple of colonial life - it was assumed that the colonists would rather pay the tax than deny themselves the pleasure of a cup of tea.
The colonists were not fooled by Parliament's ploy. When the East India Company sent shipments of tea to Philadelphia and New York the ships were not allowed to land.
In Charleston the tea-laden ships were permitted to dock but their cargo was consigned to a warehouse where it remained for three years until it was sold by patriots in order to help finance the revolution.
In Boston, the arrival of three tea ships ignited a furious reaction. The crisis came to a head on December 16, 1773 when as many as 7,000 agitated locals milled about the wharf where the ships were docked.
A mass meeting at the Old South Meeting House that morning resolved that the tea ships should leave the harbor without payment of any duty. A committee was selected to take this message to the Customs House to force release of the ships out of the harbor.
The Collector of Customs refused to allow the ships to leave without payment of the duty. Stalemate. The committee reported back to the mass meeting and a howl erupted from the meeting hall.
It was now early evening and a group of about 200 men, some disguised as Indians, assembled on a near-by hill. Whooping war chants, the crowd marched two-by-two to the wharf, descended upon the three ships and dumped their offending cargos of tea into the harbor waters.
Most colonists applauded the action while the reaction in London was swift and vehement.
In March 1774 Parliament passed the Intolerable Acts which among other measures closed the Port of Boston. The fuse that led directly to the explosion of American independence was lit.
George Hewes was a member of the band of "Indians" that boarded the tea ships that evening. His recollection of the event was published some years later. We join his story as the group makes its way to the tea-laden ships:
"It was now evening, and I immediately dressed myself in the costume of an Indian, equipped with a small hatchet, which I and my associates denominated the tomahawk, with which, and a club, after having painted my face and hands with coal dust in the shop of a blacksmith, I repaired to Griffin's wharf, where the ships lay that contained the tea.
When I first appeared in the street after being thus disguised, I fell in with many who were dressed, equipped and painted as I was, and who fell in with me and marched in order to the place of our destination.
When we arrived at the wharf, there were three of our number who assumed an authority to direct our operations, to which we readily submitted. They divided us into three parties, for the purpose of boarding the three ships which contained the tea at the same time.
The name of him who commanded the division to which I was assigned was Leonard Pitt. The names of the other commanders I never knew. We were immediately ordered by the respective commanders to board all the ships at the same time, which we promptly obeyed.
The commander of the division to which I belonged, as soon as we were on board the ship, appointed me boatswain, and ordered me to go to the captain and demand of him the keys to the hatches and a dozen candles. I made the demand accordingly, and the captain promptly replied, and delivered the articles; but requested me at the same time to do no damage to the ship or rigging.
We then were ordered by our commander to open the hatches and take out all the chests of tea and throw them overboard, and we immediately proceeded to execute his orders, first cutting and splitting the chests with our tomahawks, so as thoroughly to expose them to the effects of the water.
In about three hours from the time we went on board, we had thus broken and thrown overboard every tea chest to be found in the ship, while those in the other ships were disposing of the tea in the same way, at the same time. We were surrounded by British armed ships, but no attempt was made to resist us.
...The next morning, after we had cleared the ships of the tea, it was discovered that very considerable quantities of it were floating upon the surface of the water; and to prevent the possibility of any of its being saved for use, a number of small boats were manned by sailors and citizens, who rowed them into those parts of the harbor wherever the tea was visible, and by beating it with oars and paddles so thoroughly drenched it as to render its entire destruction inevitable."
FROM THE MASSACHUSETTS GAZETTE (1773)
WHILE a public meeting was being held, to protest against the tea ships, a number of brave and resolute men, dressed in the Indian manner, approached near the door of the assembly. They gave a war whoop, which rang through the house and was answered by some in the galleries; but silence was commanded and a peaceable behaviour until the end of the meeting.
The Indians, as they were then called, repaired to the wharf, where the ships lay that had the tea on board. They were followed by hundreds of people to see the event of the transactions of those who made so grotesque an appearance. The Indians immediately repaired on board Captain Hall's ship, where they hoisted out the chests of tea. When on deck they stove them and emptied the tea overboard.
Having cleared this ship they proceeded to Captain Bruce's, and then to Captain Coffin's brig. They applied themselves so dexterously to the destruction of this commodity, that in the space of three hours they broke up three hundred and forty-two chests, which was the whole number of these vessels, and poured their contents into the harbor.
When the tide rose it floated the broken chests and the tea. The surface of the water was filled therewith a considerable way from the south part of the town to Dorchester Neck and lodged on the shores.
The greatest care was taken to prevent the tea from being purloined by the populace.
One or two who were detected trying to pocket a small quantity were stripped of their plunder and very roughly handled.
It is worthy of remark that although a considerable quantity of other goods were still remaining on board the vessel, no injury was sustained.
Such attention to private property was observed that when a small padlock belonging to the captain of one of the ships was broken, another was procured and sent to him. The town was very quiet during the whole evening and the night following.
Those who were from the country went home with a merry heart, and the next day joy appeared in almost every countenance, some on account of the destruction of the tea, others on account of the quietness with which it was done.
One of the Monday's papers says that the masters and owners are well pleased that their ships are thus cleared, without their being responsible.
Great Britain had laid a tax on tea, which the colonists thought unjust. When ships loaded with tea attempted to land their cargoes in Boston, the tea was used as described in this story
... "and an Angel in the whirlwind still directs this storm..."
You’re right, STARWISE. We’re going WAAAAAY back before ‘94!
If 10% was good enough for Jesus by Ray Stevens. Ray Stevens
It's as good as his We the People. Ray gets it.
I just have to wonder, how many idiots there voted for Kennedy, thinking it was a vote for The Swimmer?
What a wonderful gift you have given in this inspiring post!
Thank you ... ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.