Nope, I don't think so...

I agree, it isn't a perfect analogy at all... nothing ever is, since history never fully repeats itself... but the facet I wanted to compare between Coxey's Army and "Occupy" was the dissent itself, not the worst of the bunch.

Historically speaking, there have been many "occupy-type" protests... The Bonus Army of the early 30's, Cox's Army (another pro-public works march from PA led by a Catholic priest named Cox), the March from Selma to Montgomery... and all have had less-then-savory elements associated with them. However, I was trying to keep the protest intent separate from the protest in actuality.

Whenever America has been in a time of crisis, people have sought a reason along with a solution. Most here (and indeed, across the country) think the current fiscal crisis is due to unsustainable spending and over-blown credit extensions in both the public and private sectors... but not everyone is agreed on how to fix it. The more radical elements in the Occupy movement seem to think that corporate greed is the cause... and that violence and disdain are acceptable means of protest against this. This stems more from the ideology of their views than the validity of the protest itself, and certainly factors in to how people view the protesters and their causes.

Successful group action relies on a higher ethical and/or moral fiber... MLK's non-violence in the 60s, the Tea Party movement today... and while I agree 100% that the Occupy movement lacks that fiber, my main point was that it shouldn't be seen as "unprecedented" or a new facet to our society.