4 Tea Party myths about the Founders

Outbackjack: The Tea Party is always raving on about the similarities between themselves and the Founding Fathers, which is interesting as in most ways they could not be any different. Below are 4 examples of how the Tea Party puts out false information in regards to the Founders and their intentions.

MYTH 1: The American Revolution was a rebellion against “Taxation without representation”, similar to the modern day Tea Party tax revolts.

THE TRUTH: Actually, the Boston Tea Party was ultimately a protest against a corporate tax cut, whereas the modern Tea Party movement is in favor of tax cuts.

The original Boston Tea Party was a protest against the British East India Company (BEIC) for receiving huge corporate tax cuts. By the 1760s BEIC was dominating trade from India to China as well as in the Caribbean. They controlled nearly all commerce to and from North America with the help of those tax cuts along with subsidies and special dispensation from the British crown.

Outbackjack: MYTH 2: The founding fathers wanted limited federal government

THE TRUTH: Actually the Founders were a diverse group, often times with opposing viewpoints. For instance Hamilton and his Federalist Party believed in a strong federal government and a powerful executive branch. George Washington supported this view as well.

At the same time Jefferson and his Republican Party (which bears no relation to the modern GOP) supported strong states’ rights and a weak federal government. Madison supported this viewpoint as well.

MYTH 3: The Constitution demands strict and literal interpretation

THE TRUTH: As was the case with the issue of federal government, there was much dispute over how to interpret and apply the Constitution and one cannot overlook the fact that the Constitution was only ratified in the first place with the understanding the Bill of Rights would be added later.

Jefferson and his Republicans promoted a strict interpretation of the Constitution while Hamilton and the Federalists endorsed a liberal reading of the Constitution.

Hamilton and his Federalist Party espoused a strong federal government, led by a powerful executive branch, and endorsed a liberal reading of the Constitution; although he resisted the label at first, Washington clearly belonged to this camp. Indeed Washington and Hamilton’s embrace an expansive view of the interpretation of the Constitution runs diametrically opposed to that of the Tea Party who tend to embrace the theory of originalism, the viewpoint that any interpretation of the Constitution must take into account and abide by the original intent of the Founders.

MYTH 4: created a “Christian Nation” founded upon “Christian Principles”.

THE TRUTH: One need look no further than to Thomas Jefferson to understand the false nature of this claim.

“Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. “

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

And one cannot forget that Jefferson strongly advocated the separation of church and state:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State. “

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

Another founder, John Adams, was a Congregationalist who later became a Unitarian. However, he deliberately avoided creed-based dogmatic religion.

The Treaty of Tripoli, introduced to the Senate by John Adams and ratified by unanimous decree, was signed by Adams in 1797 and includes the following passage for any doubters out there:

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

- The Treaty of Tripoli, signed Nov. 4, 1796, effective Jun. 10, 1797

chronology: Interesting Post Jack. Do you not think the 'Separation of Church and State' was more to secure the Rights and Freedoms of all Churches in America, rather than separate America from 'Christianity'? The American Founding Lawmakers took much of the Policies of Cromwell's Parliament in legislating order among Puritans and Baptists and Catholics when considering American Law. Cromwell was nothing like Jefferson in that Jefferson was a Classically educated American Aristocrat, while Cromwell was a Puritan from the Gentry. But they shared a view that people should be free to decide their own denomination. Rather than seeing America as founded with 'no religion at all' in mind, do you think Jefferson was really considering 'no Denomination' should have preeminence?

davidk14: .

Re: Myth 1

http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/Our_Country_vol_2/whatcause_db.html


Found this to be interesting especially since it was written during that time.

.
.

davidk14: .

Re: Outback's resource...

The post two days ago by outback comes from Samuel-Ward.com, an ultra liberal, ultra progressive web-site that HATES the current political Tea Party in the United States. When I use the word HATE, it is an understatement. Therefore, any reason to continue to discuss Outbacks post is a waste of time.

.

.

LiptonCambell: Since Jack didn't bother, heres a link to where he got this article;

http://samuel-warde.com/2012/07/4-tea-party-myths-about-the-founders/

It seems it comes from the website "Liberals Unite".....take what you will from that fact alone...

LiptonCambell: Rather than writing my own criticisms, i'll re-post some of the comments from the actual article;



These myths are humorous. The fact is, the reason for the Boston Tea Party was for numerous reasons, including the one cited here but that doesn’t mean the other reasons are invalid, which is what this author suggests. But like anything, you can twist any fact (especially 200 years later) to meet your political agenda. However, there is one incorrect assumption made by the author. The Tea Act did indeed give one company – the British East India Company a huge tax break so it could unload its tea. However, if this author really followed the modern tea party movement instead of just mocking or attacking it, he’d know almost all tea partiers today are against the idea of government picking “winners and losers” which is exactly what Britain was doing back then and still goes on today. Look at the billions lost on failed green companies today that have gone bankrupt. But either way, I hate articles like this because all they do is make us more partisan instead of taking a realistic honest look at the events of 1776 and today.

chronology: Lipton. Naturally many 'Green Companies' will prove impractical, but the Federal Government needs to respond to the concerns of American Voters. Most Americans are saying Gas prices are something that concern then every day. If some cheap synthetic fuel could have been found many Americans would be giving the 'thumbs up' to the discovery. It has not been discovered yet, but practically no American would discourage the Government from funding research into harnessing some alternative to Gasoline. Maybe the future is with electric automobiles, maybe with Gas/Ethanol mix, but if American consumers are to be served the best product at the best price, the research has to be done. Personally I see the days when 'all' U.S. cars run on the same fuel is almost over. The future seems to be one of Electric, Ethanol, Gasoline, Hydrogen, and goodness knows what ever els powered car. In the 1950s Ford planned to develop a number of Nuclear Powered Cars, The Nucleon and the Studebaker among them. Every American Home would have it's own scaled down Nuclear Power Generator it was thought back then. People had to research these proposals to see if they could work. Some folks still think you can build Nuclear Powered cars that will run for tens of thousands of miles between refueling.

dave3974: the original tea party group were misinformed trouble makers , the taxation was reasonable , you need to come back under british rule .

LiptonCambell: Lol I don't think they should go back to British rule, but i do agree- the taxation was reasonable, and they did have some level of representation.....

dave3974: if they return to british riule we promise a national haelth service , better than obama care , and overhauling their benifits system

Outbackjack: I find it pathetic that when people like McLipton and Davidk are confronted with a post from an opposing view point and which sites a source they dont like.Then they immediately right it off.

Its desperate.

Grow up.

davidk14: .

It's the same as when I diss a source that has been provided like from a Nazi web-site. No different Jack. I'm fairly positive...POSITIVE....you can find a web-site with proof that the world is flat....I'll diss that site as well. Just look at Lori and her postings.

.

LiptonCambell: I find it pathetic that when people like Outbackjack are confronted with a post from an opposing view point and which sites a source they dont like.Then they immediately write it off.

If I used McDonald's as a source, would you write it off?


Jack, IS THE SOURCE OF YOUR ARTICLE BIASED, OR NOT?

southern77: dave we told you brits years ago what to do with your crown...

we will be fine as soon as we get rid of obama and his two pals pelosi and reid...

jack seems to hate everyone other than himself

dave3974: there would be some advantages for us to if you returned to brit rule , we are a tiny country now and others like the french feel that they can bully us; the addition of the us forces [once re flagged ] would be very useful as we can no longer afford a navy , or aircraft for our aircraft carrirers, we are also making a lot of our soldiers redundant
Part of the return to brit rule would involve the arrest of obama and his two pals pelosi and reid..
-----would this make it more acceptable to you.
We have learnt a lot from last time and promise no high taxes on tea.
Once you return other parts of the world may follow-----i am sure kashmir would prefer brit rule and we could also review the agreements we made to let some of the oil states leave the empire.
With Canada we could arrange the mass expulsion of the disloyal french.
There could also be a great role for you in the US Monarchist party if you joined at an early stage.

southern77: well dave... thems the breaks... you brits dont like us ugly AMERICANS anyhow....so have fun defending yourself

southern77: brit rule... thats so very funny.... you guys should do well speaking french

lavendar_star: lol yes like when Americans will start speaking Spanish .

BTW why are people criticising the source if the facts are straight that should count, would your prefer him to get it from a right wing or conservative website which would be sooo objective. It would be better if rather then criticise the source criticise the facts and if they are true or not. To compare a liberal website with Nazis is ludicrous especially when those same people have no problem of getting their fact from very conservative websites. Actually the problem with internet sources is that they are always going to have a political sway or be subjective one way or another, a university professor told me and my fellow students that we should never use internet sources just good old fashion books ( which are not immune to have a sway either way).

LiptonCambell: >>>BTW why are people criticising the source if the facts are straight

Because the facts aren't straight- they are presenting a revisionist view of history, where their beliefs are empathized while opposing beliefs are either played down or pretended to not exist.

There was no -one- reason for the revolutionary war, and, thus, no one reason for the tea party. But the author, who isn't in this thread, and thus, it is pointless to debate the content of the message, is implying that only their political message is the valid reason- which is a ridiculous way to view history...

>>>would your prefer him to get it from a right wing or conservative website which would be sooo objective.

No, that would also be biased. I think you are misrepresented our comments. No one has said "This article is wrong because it isn't biased to our political leanings"- we simply said "this article is wrong because it is biased"

If an Objective source posted this article, that'd be different. But that's not the case. It's a liberal message from a website that is intent of pushing a liberal agenda.

>>>Actually the problem with internet sources is that they are always going to have a political sway or be subjective one way or another

No, that's the problem with POLITICAL SOURCES. There are plenty of places that uphold a standard for historical relevancy. This is not one of them.

And if you don't believe books have any objectivity either, than why mention it at all? It sounds like your professor is caught up in the past...

davidk14: .

Star,

Never use internet sources? Everything is on the net. I can find information, documents, and facts based information from anything, anywhere. I can find left, middle, center, political thoughts and ideas. I have even found the daily entries of General Douglas MacArthur and his plans for the final attack on Japan. Perhaps your professor was a bit shortsighted.

.

lavendar_star: Yes my professor was caught up in the past because I continued to use internet sources my point was that books at least go through a peer reviews compared to people blogs and articles on the net. You can also still get books and scholar articles on the net, its just that you guys seem to spend more time on his source rather then the article itself. You make a good point about the article Lipton but that same accusation of revisionist of the past could also be said about people who support or are members of the tea party and I guess that what the author of the article was getting at too.

dave3974: southern
i take it their is not a lot of support to return to brit rule then, how about you take us over then , you could get some of our idle royal family to work . The Uk would qualify for massive us aid , you would give us all new cars withe the steering wheel on the correct side and rebuilt our roads to us standrads , which would provide a lot of employment---it could work !! and we do like americans

southern77: dave we dont want britain... we could careless about that little island that still holds on so desperatly to that stupid notion that its called a "kingdom"...

if your so worried about france taking you guys over the might as well rush on down to the supermarket and get yourself a gun... thats in reference to that idiot kid star who thinks she knows everything when in fact shes just a pissed off spoiled lil child

lavendar_star: insult and name calling and you want to call me the child but hey if your reaching pension age then that's not surprising. But yes I do know more then you and that probably hurts like a bitch. Now let the adults get back to discussing the issues of the thread.

southern77: you dont have a clue lil pissed off girl... like i said a while back... damn glad your not AMERICAN... we dont need people like you here