September 2013 – Page 2 – Popular Politics in Early America

September 18, 2013

Tension in an Unfree Society

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

In “Reading the Runaways,” David Waldstreicher shows us how early America was structured in a hierarchy based on what degree of freedom a person had. Obviously, a wealthy white male would be an example of someone who was completely free while an African slave would be at the other end of that spectrum. However, people like indentured servants or slaves of mixed race (who would therefore be lighter skinned and more able to “pass” as white should they escape) would fall somewhere in between the two. Waldstreicher discusses how some slaves, especially more skilled ones, were allowed to go out and seek their own work, giving them a certain degree of freedom, and also making the possibility of escape more likely.
Waldstreicher talks about how unfree people who escaped would try and pass themselves off as free by imitating a more free type of person by taking on the specific qualities of a more free person, such as different clothing, hairstyle, and emphasis on any valuable skills they may have possessed. Slave owners knew this, and therefore any ads for runaway slaves would point out what clothes they were thought to have, their skills, and a multitude of other things aside from their bare-bones physical appearance. Waldstreicher paints a picture, therefore, of an uneasy world in which Americans were constantly on the lookout of anyone suspicious who may be passing themselves off as a more “free” person than they really are. By observing those around them and looking for signs that a person may in fact be “unfree,” the free people exerted a certain kind of power over the unfree in their watchfulness. In his post for this week, Ian Solcz discusses that idea and does a great job of putting it in a modern perspective by comparing that watchfulness to the way people today observe and judge those with tattoos or other forms of body art.
While Waldstreicher focuses on people’s vigilence in their looking out for those less free than them, Thomas P. Slaughter in the first chapter of Whiskey Rebellion reverses that somewhat and focuses on how less free members of society were always on the lookout for any kind of abuse from people above them (or more “free” than them). In that chapter, Slaughter focuses on how upset people, generally those in poorer, more rural regions, would get about the idea of internal taxes, both in England and America. For example, he starts by discussing how the rural parts of England, along with Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, were always the ones most upset my Parliament’s attempts to tax internally. (12) On pages 17-20, he discusses how angry American colonists (who were themselves at the time a fringe part of the British Empire far removed from the true power center in London) became over internal taxes in the lead up to the Revolution in the 1760s. In his post this week, Ben Hartshorn discusses the language of that anger, specifically how colonists conflated internal taxes with a form of slavery being imposed on them.
Waldstreicher and Slaughter both show us that the political atmosphere in early America (and Britain) was one of hyper-awareness of both others’ and their own status in a society where each rung on the hierarchy meant a lesser degree of freedom. It makes sense that American colonists thought of themselves as slaves when they sensed a group of people above them in the British hierarchy (those in Parliament) treating them unfairly would call themselves slaves. After all, they would look at anyone below themselves on the ladder as somewhat of a slave, so what else would they call it when they were suffering from unfair taxation imposed by those above them on that same ladder? Both Waldstreicher’s article and the first chapter of Whiskey Rebellion give great insight into the role of freedom in the structure of early American society.

September 18, 2013

Enslavement by Visible Markings

In “Visible Bodies: Power, Subordination, and Identity in the Eighteenth- Century Atlantic World,” Gwenda Morgan and Peter Rushton comment on how many slaves and black slaves made efforts to change their appearance for the better. By wearing the “cast of clothing” of their masters, or changing their dialect in some manner, runaway slaves were able to better blend into society (45). Yet, there were many markings that slaves struggled to hide, which identified them for who they were. Things such as scars from whips, brands (even on the face), and early tattoos were all legitimate signifiers of a person’s status in colonial America.

These “mutilations” were unique to the person and therefore, easy to describe in runaway ads. Outside of brands being specific only to slaves, Morgan and Rushton point out that tattoos specifically were connected to troublesome individuals of the lower class (49). For instance, in one ad a tattoo is used as the main identifying characteristic of the fifteen year old thief in question (49). Morgan and Rushton also further elaborate on how inscriptions of various sorts (tattoos) were prevalent on the arms of runaway slaves, making them easier to identify. They were not very detailed but, they were the epitome of a sign that a person with one was an individual of suspicion.

This depiction of body art as another identifying characteristic of slaves struck me as something that has continued into our culture. Though we do not have slaves, it is a common thought amongst many in our society that visible tattoos are associated with lower class individuals. For instance, many tattoos in inner city areas are used as identifiers for various gangs, just like they once were associated with slaves. As I myself have a piece of artwork on my back, I have a problem with scholars connecting tattoos to criminals in such a negative way. Yet, after thinking about it, I realized that my choice of placement for my piece was influenced by these societal conceptions of tattoos. I did not want my body art to negatively influence my image in any walk of life, which is why I hid it on my back. With my own decision in mind, I recognized that our culture has not changed much in terms of physical alterations. People still look down on tattoos, with many giving disgusted looks to individuals with visible artwork. It must be a demeaning feeling for these people, just like it was for the slaves of colonial America, with their skin color being their first “mark.”

In Mr. Benjamin Hartshorn’s response for this week, he comments on the idea of different degrees of freedom in reference to the enslavement the colonists and British felt under their government’s oppressive taxes. After giving this some thought, I realized how both these people’s feelings of enslavement is not too different from the feeling people with visible tattoos experience. Though at first glance, this may seem like a stretch but, if you look at it in a certain way, the idea is made clear. Both the British and American colonists were free people but, they suffered under the weight of excise taxes placed upon their goods. A restriction was placed upon what kind of goods they could buy “freely,” which dictated their choice of purchase. Though tattoos are a voluntary act, they also carry a similar weight of “unfreedom.” People with visible tattoos are discriminated against in office settings, primarily being forced to cover up their markings. Also, thanks to society’s idea of what these tattoos mean, the people with them are continually watched by the citizens around them. In both groups, the people themselves are “free,” in that they can make their own decisions. Yet, their amount of freedom is limited by the forces around them which they have little control over, creating a feeling of enslavement.

September 18, 2013

The Usage of the Word 'Slave'

After finishing our readings for Tuesday of this week and comparing them with the early chapters of Thomas Slaughter’s, The Whiskey Rebellion: Frontier Epilogue to the American Revolution, I noticed contrasts in the use of the word ‘slave’. In the first chapter of Slaughter’s book he states, “During the seventeenth century (in England), opponents denounced the excise tax as ‘the Devil’s remedy’ and the ‘high road to slavery’” (13). Later on when the American protests against the Stamp Act are being discussed Slaughter writes, “Some Americans believed that when Parliament sought ‘to establish stamp duties and other internal taxes’ for the colonies, it threatened to reduce Americans to ‘the miserable condition of slaves’” (21). These quotes, from both English and American men, are very interesting when put looked at next to the very real use of the word slavery in our previous readings.

Almost all of the runaway slave advertisements use the world slave. They are publishing reports of their missing property and referring to them as slaves. Therefore, it is striking that, presumably similar, men would describe their situation involving Parliament and internal taxes as a threat to “reduce them to the miserable condition of slaves”. My first thought is that the men who used slavery to describe tax conditions where simply using hyperbole. They were trying to drum up support against the oppressive government and using the word ‘slave’ was striking enough to grab attention. I figured that this was probably true for most of the situations where the slavery was used in Slaughter’s book.

Mr. Michael Lamoureux, in his blog, discusses how the slaves were described as property and objects. Slave masters described human beings just as I would if I lost a cell phone and described it as an ‘old, white, iPhone’. Michael does a good job discussing the ambiguity found in some of the ads. He makes an excellent point that with some of the ads, it seems very possible that any black man could be returned to an owner for a reward. This could, unfortunately, very well happen to a freed black man. Michael’s thoughtful and creative argument led me to think about the levels and degrees of freedom that we discussed in class on Tuesday.

As I continued to think about our talk in class about ‘unfreedom’ and the Gwenda Morgan and Peter Rushton article and David Waldstreicher’s piece, I realized that there may have been more to the usage of ‘slaves’ by white men than just hyperbole for effect. We discussed how there were people in America that were not just free or enslaved, instead there were degrees to people’s freedom. Most people were in a constant battle to protect whatever freedoms they had against an ever-infringing society. Using this rationale and line of thinking, it seems more plausible that some Americans truly did believe that losing the right to local internal tax levying could very well lead to a form of slavery. An American, Stephen Hopkins, argued that allowing Parliament all of the central authority would, “threaten the property and hence the freedom of the colonists. They who have no property, can have no freedom, but indeed are reduced to the most abject slavery” (22). It seems that some Americans were afraid to lose money unfairly to a government and in turn property and in turn their freedom. So while it seems ironic and self-centered for a white man to use the term slavery, it is very possible that they were truly afraid of becoming enslaved (to a certain degree) by British Parliament and excise taxes.

September 18, 2013

Runaways: An Expendable Workforce?

This week’s readings (especially the runaway ads) were quite entertaining. Seeing the numerous ways people tried to reclaim their “property” and seeing to what lengths that individuals would go getting their slaves back came across as ridiculous in some instances. What made this especially entertaining to me was seeing the differences and varying descriptions found in some of these runaway ads. By stating the descriptions of slaves in detail or perhaps stating that if someone finds a runaway slave they could kill them if they deemed necessary makes the role of a runaway very complicated, are they valued or expendable? This idea of killing a runaway slave if deemed necessary really struck me as interesting compared to the other ads as the narrative the ad tells goes much deeper than the script of the advertisement. This runaway in particular could have been a poor worker (meaning he was not valued on the plantation he worked on), by stating the runaway is expendable a message is sent to the slave community that you are only as good to the owner as what you have done for them recently, and that runaways are the scapegoats for the problems slave-owners have (the owner of the slave really has no idea if the slave is responsible for the numerous crimes that have been committed since he ran away). Another aspect of the ads that struck me was some of the ambiguity some of the ads had. I believe this ambiguity was intentional as it allowed any black person that was brought to a slave owner to be claimed as “their runaway.” This creates I believe a huge problem regarding the concept of runaways which was the enslavement of free blacks who were essentially kidnapped, a situation I believe that happened more than is reported.

These ads for runaways play into a statement made by Ian a couple weeks back regarding the importance of newspapers in American society. These ads (according to what Professor Shrout told us in class) appeared on the front page of newspapers making them perhaps the first thing an individual read when they picked up a newspaper. Taking this fact and making a bit of a stretch with this information I feel like the question “does seeing numerous ads regarding runaways shape the way that many view African Americans/slaves?” I think that it absolutely plays a role in the perception of slaves (especially for the uneducated or those who lack critical thinking skills) as it paints them as almost “evil” individuals who simply will do whatever they can to escape their role despite the “hospitality” they have been offered while working on a plantation. Furthermore it reaffirms a thought of domination over their property that many slaveholders or those who sympathized with slaveholders had.

Waldstreicher in his work “Reading the Runaways” brings up a valid point in his work regarding the changing “possibilities for black resistance in late-colonial America” (Waldstreicher 245). Blacks were gaining roles in northern society that threatened the way of life many in the mid-Atlantic and southern colonies enjoyed. If blacks were to realize what they could accomplish in the north after escaping slavery, or even realize what they could attain if they revolted against their slave owners, many plantation owners would not see the degree of profits of which they enjoyed or might be put out of business. More importantly without slave labor the argument can be made that the backbone of southern economy would no longer be present, essentially crippling financially an entire region of the colonies.

September 12, 2013

The "Careful" Mob?

In this week’s readings, I found it extremely interesting that both Pauline Maier and Wayne E. Lee argue for a historical reexamination, and eventual redefinition, of mob culture in the eighteenth century. There are several points where Maier and Lee overlap in their respective works, and collectively I think these commonalities only bolster the argument they strive to make. The first of these overlaps is found in claims that, by and large, mob action and riots were carefully planned and often used only as a last source of appeal to authority, both in Europe and Colonial America. Maier and Lee both state that mobs emerged only after all other legal options of airing political grievances had been shut down. With this in mind, each author emphasizes that this was very likely the case because each mobs seems to have practiced a “riot protocol” that almost all people seemed to follow (Lee 18). Lee continues to argue that the protocol was so specific that we can actually find patterns of mob action throughout early America. This provides us with a unique image of a riot as what was once a very formal, calculated affair, and mobs as groups of people who were “so domesticated and controlled” (Maier 17). Moreover, we can see through Lee and Maier that mobs in the eighteenth century were seen as legitimate political actors because their actions were often reinforced by the government in the form of “paternalistic” responses to the mobs’ grievances (Lee 17).

A second shared point between Maier and Lee that I agree with is the idea of the mob as a community affair. Maier states that there was indeed a community aspect to mobs and that the targets of mob attacks were those viewed as bad neighbors or citizens – mobs were often acting out of the best interest of the community (12). Lee also emphasizes the mob as a community, particularly when he discusses the festive nature of rioting. From these two works I gained the feeling that in the eighteenth century, riots were one of a few ways communities could unite behind a common cause and a means by which people could assure camaraderie amongst themselves.

With respect to my colleagues, I align myself with Ian’s comments about his skepticism toward “mob legitimacy.” I have a difficult time simply reconciling mobs as, according to Maier and Lee, “careful” and largely non-violent groups, especially with our contemporary perception of mobs as groups that exercise their influence through exclusively violent means (Lee 14). With that said, there is one point that I slightly disagree with in Ian’s post, and it is that the riots that ensued in colonial America were in response to an “oppressive government.” While I understand and fully agree with the broader point he is making about preserving colonists’ liberties, I would agree more with Max’s comments and argue that one point both Maier and Lee strive to assert is that these colonial governments were not oppressive as much as they were disconnected or aloof to colonists’ demands. I think this can be seen in Lee’s statement that oftentimes crowds would riot with the hope that the government “would react in a paternalistic way” (Lee 17). In this case, I do not think rioters’ problems were explicitly in response to government policy, but rather in simply getting authority to hear their political voices.

September 11, 2013

What is a Riot?

In The Culture of Riot and War, Wayne Lee attempts to illustrate the people of North Carolina, and on a much larger platform, the US, tended to riot. He also tries to explain the roots of these riots often stemming from previous traditions in England or politics. Lee begins his argument arguing that the culture and social norms of a society dictate how a riot will be conducted. The more common people intending to riot often enlisted the aid of political elites so as to decrease the likelihood of being prosecuted by the law. People’s reputation within the, usually small, communities at the time was important alas people made efforts to enact riots with a sense of politeness and decorum so they appeal “to a broader range of society.” The key prerequisite for a successful riot would be whether it indicated legitimacy or not. The inherent nature of a riot suggests violence however citizens to use violence if there riot was not legitimate or did not meet the standards of society.

Lee also makes a point of saying that rioters often followed a prescribed order of affairs so that they could be predictable and similar to movements enacted before. First, the rioters would make their grievances known, perhaps in the form of a petition, in the hope that some kind of authority figure would recognize their predicament and grant them some solution. The ideal authority figure would exercise “paternal tendencies” and empathize with the aggrieved citizens. As was sometimes the case, no authority figure or government would recognize the injustices that had been perpetrated so the rioters felt they had no productive option other than to force action. If enough people felt that their rights had been infringed upon people would unite against the authority figure to anger each other and in turn foster an even greater desire to upend the order of things.

As shown in the Enfield Riots, the common folk had been manipulated by Corbin and surveyors who had deigned to overcharge the colonists for land which eventually affected the more affluent citizens of town, strengthening their cause. As Max pointed out, “once new segments of the population begin to gain political power at an increasing rate, more of the population comes to desire their share as well.” This indicates how the divide between the social classes played a large part in the common folk’s motivation to establish themselves in a case consisting of land appropriation. Lee makes the point that in contrast to the normal riot in England, the American version rarely featured injuring or killing anybody. This habit of peaceful, “careful” rioting gave credence to the legitimate nature of a riot.

In the Sugar Creek war, a similar tale of colonials being taken advantage of by Brits revealed a peculiar link to the British. In order to get their message across, the Colonials chose to whip some of the surveyors which hearkened back to military procedures the Americans were clearly mirroring, perhaps in an effort to prove legitimacy. A similarly peculiar process was that of taking the word of a magistrate of the colony in order so that he would enforce the Stamp Acts, for example. Sometimes, however, they required these magistrates to sign a contract in the pursuit of legitimacy. In this way, Lee demonstrated how the cultural norms of North Carolina dictated how they would riot.

September 11, 2013

The Noble Mob

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.

September 11, 2013

Not So Riotous Riots

This week, “Uprisings and Civil Authority in Eighteen-Century America,” by Pauline Maier and “Crowds and soldiers in revolutionary North Carolina” by Wayne Lee worked together to paint a detailed picture in my mind of how violence functioned in early and pre-revolution America.

Ian Solcz correctly observed in his blog posting that both authors create sympathy for the rioters themselves, rather than those victims of riots. I think that they do this by attempting to move past weighted and often carelessly used terms like “riot” or “mob” in order to describe the actions of the mob specifically, and how it fit within the context in which they were working. As Lee points out, too often do historians describe in detail the events preceding an outbreak of violence, and then leave the violence itself with the frustratingly vague description of “riot” or “violence.”

The context in which both Maier and Lee place the rioters is, I believe, both more specific and intended to inspire sympathy. Lee specifically discusses how rioting was a method used to address problems that had been addressed through more formal, institutional means, that left those parties involved dissatisfied. They used the riot to address the specific issue in a manner that they found acceptable, with as little violence as possible, and then went on their way.

I argue, however, that these riotous citizens, though certainly more peaceful than, say, the rioters of Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict, were sending a clear message of their willingness to resort to violence. Though mild, the authors do mention occasions when they did use violence against people as part of their methodology. Furthermore, I question whether their actions are as praiseworthy as they might seem. What were the alternatives that citizens might have used, if they refused to follow a course of violence?

Some may say that violence itself was the language of difficult disputes in early America, and that could certainly be a possibility. As one of the authors (I forget which) makes clear, the mob itself could just as easily be the sheriff’s posse carrying out colonial justice in the absence of a military or formal police presence. Yet, the elite seemed surprisingly restrained in their use of force to address these riots. As Maier described, the governing officials often attempted to address the sources of a mob’s unhappiness, rather than their behavior itself. Not only is that response laudable, but surprising, since we might assume that a riotous society would be more inclined to violence from all individuals.

These observations raise the question of whether these officials were acting in self-interest, out of a desire to avoid being tossed into the sea or tarred and feathered, or if they simply and benevolently rose above the melee to address the root issues. The cynic in me says the former, and logical evidence seems to line up behind that side. For instance, elites are quick to use force to address mob violence today, when they have a professional and often militarized police force and, in extreme cases, the military, to draw upon. In cases Lee mentioned, militia members partook in the riots. It seems an intelligent strategic move on the part of elites to make their concessions seem voluntary and benevolent, rather than to allow the mob to realize their absolute power in a system where the state shared the power of violence with the people.

September 11, 2013

The Legality of a Riot

Before reading Pauline Maier’s “Popular Uprisings and Civil Authority in Eighteenth-Century America” I was a little skeptical about mob legitimacy in this era. From today’s perspective, mob’s carry too many negative connotations to be considered good in any sense. Yet, Maier does a magnificent job of portraying how mob action was an accepted and necessary social tool of the era. She goes even further, by shockingly breaking down the negatively viewed ideas of mobs and rebuilding the term in a way that grants sympathy for those involved. Maier does this by providing explicit details that exemplifies how North American Colonial mobs were truly not violent and uncontrolled like their British counterparts. Instead, they were the efforts of an abused people who fell to mob action as a last hope in their efforts to secure their liberties as a people.

One statement from Maier’s work that struck me was Thomas Jefferson’s statement regarding mob usage. His statement was; “What country can preserve it’s (sic) liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance” (Maier 26). After mulling over the idea of mob action for a little, I realized that this statement is the epitome of what a mob was for Colonial British America. It was not an effort to create mayhem or chaos, which are ideas that are normally associated with mobs. Rather, it was the colonist’s last ditch effort to show their rulers the effects of unruly and unfair laws placed upon them. When impressment reached the point of potentially crippling a society or acts like the sugar act could destroy an entire colony’s economy, the colonists fell to mob action. This was not their first course of action though, as colonists from the poorest of the poor to even the magistrates followed all legal steps before turning to extralegal actions.

In Wayne E. Lee’s “Crowds and Soldiers in Revolutionary North Carolina” the legal procedures that colonists tried before arriving at mob action are laid out in a clear cut manner. In elaborating on the Enfeild Riots, Lee does a great job of depicting how the colonists took every legal step from a petition, to speaking with the attorney general, and finally to the raising their notion with the Assembly before arriving at mob action (Lee 24). By reading these steps, it only legitimized the “legality” of the colonist’s actions. In my opinion, the colonists followed every step of the law and it was their fault they had to resort to this action, but their government which forced them into this desperation. Their only hope was preserving their liberties under an oppressive government, which any American citizen can sympathize with no matter their class in society.

After reading through Ben Hartshorn’s post regarding mob action I would have to agree with him on every point but one. He states that “the shape and rules of mob violence had not changed very much” in comparison to the mobs of England, Germany, and Scotland (Benjamin Hartshorn Philadelphia, PA). In this juncture, I would say based on both Maier’s and Lee’s pieces that we can see a clear cut difference between the mobs of the colonies and those of Western Europe. The clearest and most distinct difference rests with the organization and lack of violence between the groups. It is stated in Maier’s piece how the English at times were excessively violent and destroyed numerous pieces of property that had no relation to their target. Following that, Maier mentions how the colonists rarely destroyed anything that was not their target and rarely, if ever, turned to violence that was not ultimately necessary, which helped them avoid significant deaths. If anything, this difference alludes to the superior organization of the colonists compared to western Europeans when it comes to their extralegal activities. With this in mind, I would have to respectfully disagree with my friend on the similarities between the mobs of North America and Western Europe.

September 11, 2013

Riots Tell the Whole Story

Wayne Lee’s look into riots in pre-revolutionary North Carolina, in “Crowds and Soldiers in Revolutionary North Carolina”, is an excellent example of popular politics. Lee is able to use specific examples of rioting and mob violence to demonstrate a greater understanding for the world in which these North Carolinians lived. Lee begins by telling the reader the background and European makeup of the colony. Then he discusses what riots and mobs were like in England, Scotland, and Germany. This allows Lee to make the argument, after discussing specific North Carolina riots, that the shape and rules of mob violence had not changed very much. As Lee is going through the specific North Carolina riots though, the reader is able to extract information about this world that would not be found in ordinary history textbooks on formal politics.

During the Enfield Riots discussion, I was able to learn about how land was granted and distributed through the Privy Council in England to individual Lords who then sold or rented the land. They hired men to act as the landlords in their stead. The relationship between the squatters and Francis Corbin was also very interesting. Corbin’s dishonesty and corruption allowed his victims to act as if they had the law on their side. When they captured Corbin and walked him seventy miles, they made him sign formal documents to reimburse the people and correct his mistakes. They acted with a sense of legality and formality that I would not have expected from rural farmers in North Carolina in the 1750s. This helps Lee make the argument that North Carolina rioters behaved very similarly to Englanders. Yet, while making this point, I was able to learn more about how the average man lived, operated, and thought in North Carolina.

Furthermore, in the Sugar Creek War section there are many insights into the daily life of these men. Punishments such as being tied at the neck and heels and whipping were discussed. The North Carolina men who whipped their persecutors are described as innovative by Lee as whipping was not used during English or Scottish riots. It is interesting then, that Lee discusses how whipping was typically associated with slavery. Together, these ideas are an example of the growth of a unique American culture. Through Lee’s insights on the North Carolina riots, we are able to accumulate more knowledge of their society as a whole.

As Ian Solcz discussed in his blog, newspapers played a significant role in popular American politics. Similarly to riots, newspapers allow us now to understand more about the culture and society of early America. As Ian says, “Without the papers, the various drunken banquet toasts that were so important in terms of the stance of different parties would have been lost in the night’s events, rather than becoming a rallying point for members” (Solcz, Rochester, NY). Newspapers and stories about riots are two of the more effective ways that one can garner facts about how average Americans lived. Newspapers are effective because they are better preserved and widely distributed. Riot tales are effective because they are interesting stories. Moreover though, riots were one of the most common ways that average Americans could make noise and affect society as a whole. Therefore, by researching riots, one can learn a lot about the people. Overall, while Lee was making interesting points about riots, he was also able to use his research and findings to further the readers understanding of popular and common life in early North Carolina.