My Family's Experience in the Militia
It's become pretty easy to associate the Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin-driven Tax Day "Tea Parties" with the militia movement. While I don't relate to the "no taxation without representation" crowd today, I do understand the potential need for such a movement in theory. It just depends on what you consider "representation," I guess.
A lot of people don't know this about me, but my mom's side of the family has had some pretty healthy ties to the local militia movement in South Carolina. This occurred mostly in the mid to late '70s and the early '80s, but it's something we still talk about. And honestly, it's not something of which I'm ashamed.
I'm not ashamed because what drove my relatives into the arms of the militia movement were the same issues we hear Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin rail about today: Specifically, taxation without representation. Like their disgruntled, seemingly-disenfranchised followers today, my family members were concerned that their grievances were neither heard, nor listened to by a government which catered to the wealthy upper class.
At least that's how they saw it.
I can't blame them, either. While the taxes they were paying at the time in South Carolina were actually pretty low back then, it was really more about the fact that they felt betrayed by their own government.
Two of my relatives--they were brothers--Lance and Hancock Porter, joined the South Carolina militia in '79 and stuck with the movement until '83. They were joined by a neighbor--another relative of mine named Ed Denney--around the same time. This was when their group was under the direction of a pretty charismatic leader named Thomas Brandon.
Now, being young and stupid, these guys were all pretty hardcore into this stuff--and at one time or another, they all had run-ins with the government in South Carolina. But none of them took it to the level of another relative of mine named Will Bevill. Like the rest, Will tangled with the government a few times, but he was the only one who ever ended with up with a serious injury--sustained in a shootout in '81 when a bullet struck his arm between the elbow and shoulder. Oddly enough, Will eluded capture and had the wound treated by the locals in Union County. According to my family, he was never the same after that. Which, of course, I can understand.
Aside from the Porter brothers, Ed Denney, and Will Bevill, I only have one other relative who I'm sure was into this stuff as well. He was actually from Virginia--and even more serious about the resistance than my relatives who dabbled in the South Carolina militia. This guy, Ellis Palmer, went so far as to become one of the dreaded gun nuts who actually joined the Army in the late '70s to learn skills useful for opposing government authority.
I'll explain more about these guys in a minute, but first I want to make a point.
The one difference between my relatives back then and the Glenn Beck/Tea Party crowd of today is that when my relatives joined the militia--and the Army in Ellis' case--it was for a valid reason. They really were taxed, without representation. And what they believed they were fighting for was a state and country that could elect leaders who were actually accountable and responsive to the electorate; leaders who you could kick out with nothing more than a vote; and leaders who represented the views of the community in which they lived. Because they didn't have it.
It had nothing to do with the sour grapes we see today. In case you haven't caught on yet, when I say the '70s and '80s, I'm talking about the 1770s and 1780s.
Edward Denney is a great grandfather of mine who served under Colonel Thomas Brandon in the South Carolina State Militia during the Revolutionary War.My two g-g-g-g-great uncles, Hancock and Lancelot Porter, served alongside Edward in the South Carolina militia, where they fought the British under General Nathanael Greene of the Continental Army at the Battle of Eutaw Springs in September 1781.
William Bevill, also one of my great grandfathers, was wounded at the Battle of Cowpens in January 1781 by a British musket ball while serving in the South Carolina State Militia.
And Ellis Palmer--my great grandfather who actually joined the Army at the age of 47--nearly froze while serving as a regular in the Virginia Continental Line under General Washington at Valley Forge during the winter of 1777-1778.
Not to be too didactic or overbearing, but these guys--like so many other Americans' ancestors--were literally fighting so that Glenn Beck could have a representative government. So that his listeners could have the right to peaceably assemble in their "Tea Parties" in 2009. Because, see, the system they so disdain works. The system for which our great-grandparents fought--the system which has made Glenn Beck a very wealthy man--works. It's been 225 years and no citizen of any state is taxed without representation. And, perhaps more importantly, the rights of the minority--like those who agree with Glenn Beck--are still protected, despite their paranoia. The government can't do anything in this country without the consent of the governed--and if they do, we have recourse. We can vote them out of office or go to court. It's too bad all this is lost on people like Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin. This really is a great country. And it has a truly great form of governance. Of all the other forms of government around the world, ours is a thing of beauty. It's a shame they don't see that.
Nevertheless, they have that right. It's been given to them by a very successful system of governance that allows them to be as anti-American as they wish to be. So enjoy it this week, Tea Partiers. It costs you nothing. Your right to dismiss the American form of government has been paid in full by others--like the men above--who you clearly don't appreciate.
Michelle Malkin » Tea Party U.S.A.: The movement grows
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Wonderful spin.
As usual, we do not need a militia movement.
We need a COMMON SENSE movement.
Americans are ADDICTED TO EXTREMISM, sensationalism.
Americans are the WORLD'S BIGGEST IRRATIONAL DRAMA QUEENS!
Get over ourselves, already. Enough of the drama.
Bring in the reason and COMMON SENSE.
Good post, Brandon. I wanted to comment in more depth, but honestly, I can't read any more comments by these right wingers who think they have a "movement" going when what they really have is a bunch of low iq sheep, courtesy of the corp lobbyists who have duped them.
It's disturbing how quickly the democratic party has taken up the same mantras the republicans had the past 8 years, accusing any who disagree of being disloyal or ungrateful. Both parties are two sides of the same coin, neither has any high ground left, and both are simply trying to acquire power for themselves with no regard for the good of the country or its people. Yes, Obama is more charismatic and appears more intelligent than Bush, but what's he doing different? What's changed?
Decrease in taxes (as opposed to the Bush tax cuts which somehow increased taxes), actively pursuing means to simplify the tax code, trying everything he can to stop the bleeding of the economy, repairing international relations, dealing with his first of many international crises to come.
By the way, his first 100 days aren't even done. I wonder what the rest of his four years in office will be like if he's working this hard in the first 100.
Absolutely right. These folks are protesting what they see as a very dangerous course of action by our government. So, if those like you, who claim some divine right by virtue of your ancestors, think that you somehow deserve the last word, you are dead wrong. I suspect those ancestors you cite would defend the right of the rest to protest. They might be more proud of them, than of you, whose arrogance enables you to take their deeds and put them to your partisan cause. I suspect that is not what they fought for. You should be ashamed of yourself.
You claim "It costs you nothing. Your right to dismiss the American form of government has been paid in full by others. Yet that form of government is now over $11,000,000,000,000.00 in debt. But it costs me nothing.
The white house projects that debt will grow to over $17,000,000,000,000.00 in the next 10 years. Those numbers do NOT include the cost of underfunded social security and Medicare. But it costs me nothing. is not going to be repaid by me a taxpayer who will repay it? Who will repay the $800,000,000,000.00 PER YEAR in interest alone on that debt?
You are wrong. It will cost me plenty if it is not stopped.
A stronger economy will pay the interest and pay down the debt. The pie can get bigger. The republicans had eight years to build the economy. They failed.
Not by the White Houes estimates. The White House projects the debt to keep rising for at lease 10 years.
Money is one thing, life is another.
So you are willing to take on the bondage of unnecessary eternal government debt? Have your life controled by excessive taxes in the future to pay that debt? We are slowley becoming slaves to the government and its debt.
To me that too is life! Maybe not death but an eternal enslavement.
Same sort of slanderous garbage we heard from Republicans shouting down war protesters. If you don't support the government unconditionally when their party holds the reigns of power then you are anti-American and disrespectful of those who "fought for your freedoms." Apparently, all American soldiers fought for your right to complain but you are not actually supposed to utilize that right.
"Nevertheless, they have that right. It's been given to them by a very successful system of governance that allows them to be as anti-American as they wish to be. So enjoy it this week, Tea Partiers. It costs you nothing. Your right to dismiss the American form of government has been paid in full by others--like the men above--who you clearly don't appreciate."
I fail to see where this article states that "you are not actually supposed to utilize that right."
If your comment is any indication of tea-party sensibilities, it appears that they're not only unwilling to risk or sacrifice anything for their beliefs, but also unwilling to bear the terrible burden of being criticized for failing to appreciate the government that allows them this pain-free protest.
Are you kidding me? Your quote demonstrates it clearly. Using the right to speak out, marks you as anti-American and shows your lack of appreciation for those who "fought for your freedoms."
Criticize all you like. The argument that we have representation, though wrong, is at least a fair criticism.
But calling others anti-American and treating them as likely bomb throwers is meant to chill speech, plain and simple. That sort of rhetoric is disrespectful to free speech and it's lack of merit has nothing to do with your party affiliation.
Thanks for this article. It adds an unexpected dimension to what many of us already recognized as a major irony of this tea party protest, the fact that these people HAVE REPRESENTATION.
The government now in place was elected fair and square (certainly more fair than in 2000) and is working to accomplish what they said they would work to accomplish when more people voted for them than for the candidates who said much of what these tea-party-ers are saying. And whether they understand it or not, our duly elected representatives are working for the interests of the people who are protesting more than any administration has for a long time.
These people are protesting against their own best interests, and unlike your family members and neighbors, tea-party-ers are risking nothing, sacrificing nothing to rant about issues they don't appear to fully understand.
The prevailing mentality seems to be that the only taxes one should pay are for those services and programs that directly and immediately benefit one's own material interests. Anything else is apparently unrepresentative.
These people are apparently incapable of understanding that they have been duped by corp interests. Disgusting display of idiocy, imo.
Wow, a great article. Brandon, your family has a fantastic history of patriotism. And might I add, liberalism. The founding fathers of this country were rabidly liberal.
I wish I knew my family tree as well as you. My father's father emigrated from Germany in 1933 so beyond that I know little. My mother's father was Cherokee Indian and was adopted into white family, so I also know little beyond that. Oh well.
This was an excellent post, thank you for making it.
I think if these tea bagging parties had truly been about protesting the potential for a huge deficit, I wouldn't be so disdainful of them (even though, where were they all when Bush was racking up the debt?) But because of the many interviews I've heard, and signs I've seen proclaiming everything from doing away with the tax code all together, or calling Obama a socialist, communist, fascist, or claiming America is being *destroyed* - all I'm left thinking is, these people are afraid of the new Black President, and how popular he is, and how he could probably pass all sorts of legislation they find distasteful. And they're beside themselves.
Why is it wrong of one group to hold protest rallies,and ok for another group to hold protest rallies?The reports I have been reading would lead me to believe that Americans have never demonstrated in the streets.Is it that the reporter wants to pick and choose who has the right to demonstrate?America is a democracy.If you want to protest high government spending,go for it.If you want to protest a war in Iraq,go for it.Isn't that what it's all about?
I saw posters of the demonstrators saying stop putting my children in debt,how does that relate to taxation without representation?
I think the biggest problem with the whole thing has become - why now? After 8 years of huge spending (and not for the U.S. but for another country), huge deficits, all putting our children in debt - why now? Where was all this protest when George Bush was President? Why now after a tax cut has been given to 95% of Americans, why now after the measly 3% raise of taxes on the wealthiest among us? Why now, after you all sat around and played cheerleader for the Bushies while they looted our treasure and spilled our treasure and now, when we have to spend in order to save our country - NOW you all decide it's time to have a revolution. It looks like racism, it looks like partisan BS, it looks bad for the GOP. That's all. Why now?
"why now after the measly 3% raise of taxes on the wealthiest among us?"
I think you may have hit the nail on the head. What better way to protest a tax increase on the wealthiest Americans than to whip viewers of FOX News into a frenzy and get them out into the streets to protest...something? Well played, Murdoch. Well played.
Why after eight years of Clinton's foreign wars, including the bombing or Iraq, did the left finally find antiwar rhetoric to be of value?
When the government spends it "taxes" us all. Whether they pay for it through debt, printing money or direct taxes matters little.
nomoney:
Perhaps you read a different article than I did. The author didn't say that the protesters didn't have the right to do so, merely that they have misconstrued American history. It is instructive to note, however, that when liberals were protesting the Iraq war conservatives made the *explicit* argument that they should not be protesting. Here is the difference. As a liberal, I absolutely support your right, as whatever kind of libertarian or conservative, to protest the policies of our government that you disagree with. Long ago I gave up on the idea that conservatives would do the reciprocal.
Cheers
LF
While I am unconvinced as to the purity of motives behind many of these contemporary "patriots", I have seen a bit of a variety of persons from wide-ranging political viewpoints attending these assemblies for redress of grievances. And, while technically correct, the author does miss something when discussing how US citizens are represented within the confines of government. We may be a "more perfect union" but some groups have good arguments about under-representation. Perhaps there is more frustration about who might be exploiting a good many of our fellow citizens frustrations to advance a political agenda.
I wonder if the teabaggers are for DC statehood. Now there's a bunch of people who can make the 'taxation without representation' argument.
The US territories as well. They pay federal taxes and have US Reps, but aren't allowed to vote. Even on issues pertaining to them specifically.
Excellent post, Brandon. Quite a family history you have there! You had me wondering what I had missed in the '70's/ 80's, until you got to the "reveal" about your relative PATRIOTS..that word actually meant something in their day, fighting the Revolutionary War, eh? They actually were fighting for independence and a representative government, unlike the Tea-Party Patriots. I liken them to the early American colonists-patriots, who became British "loyalists", ie the British Whig Party/ Whig Patriots. Sure they wanted colonial rule, but they were loyal to the aristocratic monarchy/ British policies, without representation in parliament. These Patriot Tea Parties have more in common with that faction of the colonists, than those like your relatives..
If the "tea-baggers" truly cared about taxation, out-of-control spending, plutocracy, assaults on their civil liberties and rights as citizens, where were they for the last 8 years that has brought us to the brink of socio/economic collapse? No, they were OK with their failed-agenda, as well as being the biggest $pender$ since LBJ (at least he was creating needed social programs!)..along with huge tax-cut$ for the wealthy, even as they forced upon the average American, the financing of 2 illicit wars. And, NOW THEY WANT TO REVOLT? Today's "patriots" whine and lament for Republican rule/ agenda, a kleptocratic reign, really..that DID NOT during the Bush years and still DOES NOT represent the spirit of those early American-Patriots, in whose name they Tea-Party!
Taxation without representation? Do these idiots vote? When you vote, you're voting for representation! What a bunch of morons.
"Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin rail about today: Specifically, taxation without representation. "
2 points that really tick me off (1)Glenn Beck and his ilk have money and G-d forbid we raise their taxes or those of their corporate handlers, - so that when taxes are cut those cuts have continued to be squewed toward the wealthier end of the scale, (2)the very people that are protesting are the ones that continue to vote against their own interests - don't they see this, can they not connect the dots?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
