What Are the

Intentions of Today‟s
Tea Party Supporters?

“The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and
pigeons, and the money-changers at their business. And making a whip
of cords, he drove them all, with the sheep and oxen, out of the temple;
and he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their
tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, „Take these things away;
you shall not make my Father's house a house of trade.‟ His disciples
remembered that it was written, „Zeal for thy house will consume me‟”
John 2:13-17

W
hat are the intentions of today‟s Tea Party supporters? Are
they willing, if necessary, to go to the same lengths that the
participants in the original Boston Tea Party (and Christ) went
to: the destruction of property?
Many of the Tea Party movement‟s “leaders” and supporters are going
out of their way to say that the movement eschews violence, how then can
the modern day Tea Party movement possibly lay a legitimate claim to the
name “Tea Party” when the whole point of the original Boston Tea Party,
in 1773, was to participate in a violent act of (very costly) property
destruction?
At the Boston Tea Party, “A number of brave & resolute men,
determined to do all in their power to save their country from the ruin
which their enemies had plotted, in less than four hours, emptied every
chest of tea on board the three ships commanded by the captains Hall,
Bruce, and Coffin, amounting to 342 chests, into the sea!! without the least
damage done to the ships or any other property” Dec. 20, 1773 issue of the
Boston Gazette.
In fact, the morning after the Boston Tea Party, its participants
“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” George Hewes, Boston Tea Party
participant.
There have been times in the history of America when such actions were
deemed necessary, and there may again be such times in the near future.
Are the members of the modern day Tea Party prepared to go to such
lengths, if necessary, or is this group made up of mostly faux (phony)
patriots?
Personally, if the situation is dire enough, I have no problem with
careful, controlled (i.e., direct) methods of destroying property in order to
make a political point, but I eschew the less controlled (i.e., indirect) and
much more dangerous methods of property destruction, which could cause
grievous bodily harm (i.e., the loss of life or limb) to innocent persons
(e.g., bombs, fires).
During the Boston Tea Party, the tea was destroyed “. . . without the
least damage done to the ships or any other property.”
Christ did something very similar when he overturned the tables of the
money-changers in the temple at Jerusalem, and yet he remained sinless.
Think about that.
The participants of the original Tea Party were in fact very careful to
respect lives and property while at the same time destroying one, carefully
chosen kind of property: the tea . . .
“A group of up to sixty revolutionaries disguised as Mohawks stormed
Griffin's Wharf in Boston. They announced their intention to unload the
ships into the harbor, and enlisted the cooperation of the ship‟s crew. This
was no riot or act of terror, the party attempted to prevent damage to the
ships. They even replaced a padlock they had to break to get access to
cargo. Over the next two hours, they would unload 90,000 pounds of tea
[in today‟s money, over $1,000,000 worth] into the ocean and set in to
motion the events of America's revolution” Mass.gov
Herein lies a problem, today this sort of act would certainly be classified
an act of domestic terrorism:
“The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as „the
unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate
or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives‟” Office of Justice Programs
(DOJ).
Personally, I abhor acts of violence that destroy or injure the lives of
innocent people, especially those acts we commonly associate with acts of
terrorism or political violence. In fact, the U. S. criminal code defines
terrorism in exactly such a way, unlike the FBI, by specifically eliminating
any mention of terrorism as including violence against, or the destruction
of, property:
“Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f(d) (U.S. Department of State,
2007) defines terrorism as „premeditated, politically motivated violence
perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or
clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience‟” Office of
Justice Programs (DOJ).
Unfortunately, most researchers and law enforcement agencies focus on
the methods rather than the motives of terrorists; thereby defaulting to the
FBI‟s definition of terrorism which, you will recall, includes property
destruction:
“Both definitions of terrorism share a common theme: the use of force
intended to influence or instigate a course of action that furthers a political
or social goal. In most cases, NIJ researchers adopt the FBI definition,
which stresses methods over motivations and is generally accepted by law
enforcement communities” Office of Justice Programs (USDOJ).
By today‟s standards, the participants in the Boston Tea Party were
terrorists.
So I‟m back, now, to my original question: “What are the intentions of
today‟s Tea Party supporters? Are they willing, if necessary, to go to the
same lengths that the participants in the original Boston Tea Party went
to: careful, controlled, and direct-action methods of property destruction
in order to influence, politically, the population and the government?”
If they are not, then I would say they are faux (phony) patriots; if they
are, then I would say they can expect the federal government authorities to
label them: “terrorists”.