Mediaboss Marketing

Paul Bugbee| Times Writers Group

On Dec.16, 1773, a group of about 60 men encouraged by a large crowd of Bostonians donned blankets and Indian headdresses, marched to Griffins wharf, boarded three cargo ships and dumped 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor.

These American colonistsand their advocateswere protesting both a tax on tea and the perceived monopoly granted to the British East India Company for the exclusive shipping and sales of tea. The tax was an effort by Parliament to demonstrate its presumed right to raise colonial revenue without colonial approval, i.e. taxation without representation.

The following year, 1774, in retaliation to colonial defiance, Britain enacted four punitive measures known as the Intolerable Acts or the Coercive Acts to assert its authority in America.

These were clearly attempts to reimpose strict British control over the American colonies who had enjoyed relative independence for 10years.By most accounts, however, their implementation had come too late. Now considered oppressive, they became the justification for convening the first Continental Congress later in 1774.

The rest is history.American history, that is!

Are there parallels between the Tea Party uprising on Dec. 16, 1773, and the insurgency at our nations Capitol on Jan.6, 2021?

Over the last several weeks, in light of its first anniversary, historians have been grappling with how the Jan. 6event should be recorded in our history books. Was this an insurrection, riot, breach, protest, an act of intolerance, or simply a frustrated and angry group of American patriots exercising their right of assembly indeed, their Second Amendment right to form a militia?

Without doubt, Britain recorded the events of 1773 with a far different perspective than America.How would history have recorded the events of Dec. 16, 1773, had the Tea Party activists failed? How would history record the events of Jan. 6, 2021, had the insurgentsprevailed?

The second amendment to the United States Constitution clearly states that a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, …shall not be infringed." The intention of including this in our countrys constitution is obvious, it was the peoples militia that got them there.The right of the people to keep and bear arms seems to be a sub-set not the principal reason for this constitutional amendment.

Most political observers and analysts consider the Jan. 6mob to be nothing short of a militia.Aside from the fact that they didnt appear to be well regulated," does the Second Amendment, in fact, protect their actions?

Our history books not only shed praise but glorify the actions of Tea Party revolutionaries who resorted to violence and vandalism over issues of taxation and government-granted shipping favors.The cumulative cost of their revolt, in todays dollars, was nearly $800,000.The subsequent costs associated with the American Revolution in terms of lives lost, dollars spent, and property destroyed was, of course, much higher.

The Jan.6, 2021, assault on the nations capitol claimed five lives with $30 million in damages for Trumped-up claims of election fraud.When, if ever, should violence be condoned, regardless of truth or fiction?

The parallels between the Boston Tea Party on Dec. 16, 1773, and the Capitol assault on Jan. 6, 2021, are too palpable to ignore. Both involved angry citizens protesting rules, laws or conditions that they believed were unfair or unjust.Both involved violence and destruction.Both were supported by some and abhorred by others.

Both were precursors to revolution.Let the record show, one succeeded and one did not!

This is the opinion of Times Writers Group member Paul Bugbee, a Central Minnesota resort owner. His column is published the third Thursday of the month.

Read the original post:
Precursors to a revolution, 248 years apart? - SC Times