Writing in Time magazine this week (and linked to in Drudge), Darlena Cunha compares the Ferguson riots of today, as well as the Los Angeles riots of 1992, to the Boston Tea Party, arguing that such events are similar, well within the American tradition of social change, and should be viewed as such. In this case, Al Sharpton is simply a modern Sam Adams, while the rioting in the news right now are extensions of those undertaken by oppressed American colonists of yesteryear.
Such is the tortured logic reflecting the most simplistic, public-school understanding of events that lead to the American Revolution. The colonists opposing British rule, at least the good, non-mercantilist ones, had a firm understanding of negative natural rights and were very careful to aim their protests against the actual parties who aggressed against them, meaning representatives of the British government and their agents. Of this, Murray Rothbard wrote in his monumental Conceived in Liberty (Volume 3, Chapter 39),
Confronted with the oppression of customs and of Navigation Acts enforcement, the people of the colonies, especially in the northern seaports, were forced to turn one again to their most powerful weapon: rebellion in the streets. The armed rioting was directed against the oppression of the customs officials. First, ships and cargoes were recaptured from the clutches of the government, under cover of night; second, as a supplement, stern warnings were issued to customs officials and their hired informers. Throughout 1768 and 1769, stripping, tarring, and feathering by mobs proved to be highly useful devises for intimidating the enemies of the people. Informers quickly learned a valuable lesson and abandoned their underhanded profession, while customs officials promptly fled the colony. Despite arrogant demands by the governors, local sheriffs an magistrates happily refused to do anything to stop the people’s resistance. And even when officials were foolhardy enough to track down the mob leaders and bring suit, the sympathetic juries invariably freed the resistance leaders. Prosecution of rebel leaders could only take place in common-law courts, and here juries were eager to protect their heroes.
Later, on the Boston Tea Party, Rothbard wrote (Volume 3, Chapter 56):
The deadlock at the port could not continue indefinitely. The tea ships entry into the port made the vessels liable to seizure by the customs officers after 20 days of for nonpayment of duty. The rebels were afraid that once the customs officers had the tea, they could land it, sell it secretly to the people, and and use the money to pay the salaries of the appointed officials of the colony.
Meanwhile, the Boston Committee of Correspondence provided a military guard on the tea ships to make sure that the tea was not landed in secret. Clearly the tea must be destroyed before its confiscation by customs and the period of grace for the Dartmouth was up on December 17. The last chance for the colonists was therefore on December 16. That day, the 16th, a great mass meeting of the “body” of eight thousand people learned of Hutchinson’s refusal to allow the Dartmouth to sail home. The meeting heard the news with great restiveness and anger. Several angry speeches ensued. The prominent merchant John Rowe asked meaningfully, “Who knows how tea will mingle with salt water?” Finally, Sam Adams rose to give the signal that angry words must now give way to deeds: ”This meeting can do nothing more to save the country.” Thereupon, a remarkably disciplined ginger group of Sons of Liberty, disguised as Mohawk Indians, rushed to Griffin’s Wharf, boarded all three tea ships, an spent several hours of the night dumping every bit of East India tea into Boston harbor. No other property and no person was at all harmed. This was the famous and electrifying Boston Tea Party. The heroic band of “Mohawks” that defied British armed might numbered over a hundred and represented a cross section of the populace….
The “Mohawks” had done their work well, and Hutchinson soon found that no Americans, whether the councils, grand juries, justices of the peace, sheriffs, or the militia, would help track down the culprits. Only one witness to the Tea Party was willing to testify—but only if the trial took place in England. John Adams hailed the Tea Party as “an epoch in history” and as “the most magnificent movement” of all the actions of the “patriot” forces before the outbreak of the Revolution.
Many Massachusetts towns leaped to the support of the Tea Party. […]
We can assume that history would have turned out much differently if the “Mohawks” actually did harm other property and persons that night. That the colonists’ agitation and activities were narrowly directed at those individuals who threatened their rights was a major reason for the development of popular support necessary for the American Revolution to become successful a decade later. Had they not adopted this strategy, then a “divide and conquer” environment might have played into British hands, and what is known as the United States today would be a sort of lower Canada instead.
The people on the ground today, protesting in Ferguson, have legitimate grievances that long predated Michael Brown’s death. But if they actually want to earn the moral support of the public at large, they might learn a thing or two from the strategies adopted by the Sons of Liberty some 241 years ago. Threatening lives and property of innocent third parties creates enemies out of would-be friends and supporters, while plays into the hands of those who value the protestors as political tools, dependable votes, and nothing more.
