Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126
Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127
Pre-Revolutionary America was characterized by English control of the colonies, which fared well until the crown began to impose itself upon the colonists without their consent. The initial response to the various acts opposed by the colonists were to mob, using the threat of violence to make their opinions known and often find success, although at varying degrees. In analyzing colonial society at the time, it is no wonder that mob resistance was common practice for demonstrating opposition of policy; state militias often lacked much strength and armed men threatening violence was often more of an issue for local officials than their assigned duties regulated by a government across the Atlantic Ocean. These “mobs” were also not the pitchfork-carrying farmers that popular media so often portrays. They were organized with strategic moves, specific to their grievances, and did not frequently act on impulse. The treat of violence was often a greater tool than the violence itself.
It is also interesting to note that the British pastime of mob resistance was often a break in the order of society in order to protest what the “mobsters” considered an unjust break in the order of society. As an example, the Stamp Act was an imposition on the colonists that they saw as an unjust break in the order of society. As a result, they felt the right to create their own disturbances in society, in the form of a mob, in order to express their desire to re-establish what they believed to be a just society. It is under this progression of action that the chaos of the mob often developed as well. As one side imposed more, the other felt a right to escalate further, and a back-and-forth ensued that gradually increased the severity of the dispute. Surprisingly, this is a logical poker-like game. Each side raises the stakes further until the other one folds or a victor eventually emerges. Here we also see a contradiction in the traditional sense of the “mob.” It does not simply gather and begin burning homes, but rather plays strategic moves based on the actions of the opposition, with calculated risks taken in an attempt to best achieve their goals.
Although I agree with Ian Solcz’s assessment of the mob as a function of organization rather than a desire to create mass chaos, I disagree that it was “a last ditch effort to show their rulers the effects of unruly and unfair laws placed upon them.” Rather than a last ditch effort, it was another method for the colonists to demonstrate their political feelings towards the regulations placed upon them. Granted, it was more severe than a petition, but some occasions called for more significant action to be taken. These men had no say in the laws that were being imposed on them, and they had no choice but to make their voice heard. If it took armed threats, that that was what had to be done. Eventually, their actions were not convincing enough for their voices to be acted upon in Parliament, and so began the American Revolution.