The Corner

Tea-Partying Like It’s 1860

The New York Times has started “Disunion,” a Civil War blog for the sesquicentennial that is now upon us. Last week I contributed to it with a piece on the tea-party politics of the time. Here’s the lede:

On Nov. 8, 1860, the secessionists who published The Charleston Mercury greeted the news of Abraham Lincoln’s election as president with righteous defiance: “The tea has been thrown overboard, the revolution of 1860 has been initiated.”

Sound familiar? It turns out that tea-party revivalism is nothing new; it’s been in the public parlance for a long time. But not forever: in the decades after the Revolutionary War public figures aggressively avoided the “tea party” analogy, considering it an act of collective passion beneath the civility of the young republic. It took the clash over slavery and states’ rights to return the “tea party” to respectability and breathe lasting life into one of our country’s most potent political analogies.

Most of the article focuses on the past, though at the end I draw some connections to the tea partiers of today. The original version cited Gwen Ifill of PBS for her criticism of Sarah Palin and the line “party like it’s 1773.” Here’s what Ifill tweeted:

Sarah Palin: party like its 1773! ummm,

Like many liberals, Ifill thought she had caught Palin in a gaffe, believing that the proper reference was 1776. But Palin was talking about the Boston Tea Party, which took place in 1773. It’s Ifill and other Palin critics (such as Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas) who need the remedial history lesson.

In the version of the article now posted, however, there’s no reference to Ifill. Instead, there’s this:

Editors’ Note: A previous version of this article discussed a Twitter comment by the journalist Gwen Ifill that was interpreted as questioning Sarah Palin’s historical accuracy in referring to “partying like it’s 1773.” Ms. Ifill says her Twitter comment was mischaracterized and that she was simply transcribing the speech.

I find this hard to believe, especially when you listen to the speech. Palin doesn’t say “ummm” or anything like it. This is no transcription; it’s a sneer from someone who is too embarrassed to admit that Palin had it right and she had it wrong.

John J. Miller — John J. Miller is the national correspondent for National Review and the director of the Dow Journalism Program at Hillsdale College. His new book is Reading Around: Journalism on Authors, Artists, and Ideas.

Most Popular


The Gun-Control Debate Could Break America

Last night, the nation witnessed what looked a lot like an extended version of the famous “two minutes hate” from George Orwell’s novel 1984. During a CNN town hall on gun control, a furious crowd of Americans jeered at two conservatives, Marco Rubio and Dana Loesch, who stood in defense of the Second ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Obstruction Confusions

In his Lawfare critique of one of my several columns about the purported obstruction case against President Trump, Gabriel Schoenfeld loses me — as I suspect he will lose others — when he says of himself, “I do not think I am Trump-deranged.” Gabe graciously expresses fondness for me, and the feeling is ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Students’ Anti-Gun Views

Are children innocents or are they leaders? Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development? The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ... Read More
PC Culture

Kill Chic

We live in a society in which gratuitous violence is the trademark of video games, movies, and popular music. Kill this, shoot that in repugnant detail becomes a race to the visual and spoken bottom. We have gone from Sam Peckinpah’s realistic portrayal of violent death to a gory ritual of metal ripping ... Read More