Popular Politics in Early America – Page 11 – Just another My blog Sites site

September 24, 2013

The Whiskey Rebellion, and the Birth of Partisanship

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

By the end of 1791, the farmers of the frontier and the Washington administration were at each other’s throats. Earlier that year, Congress had passed an excise tax on domestically produced spirits, known colloquially as the Whiskey Tax. The tax was especially hard on western frontiersmen, who often ran stills with the grain they cultivated. This tax lay on top of an already contentious relationship between western counties and the federal government, mostly concerning the government’s failure to sufficiently protect frontier towns from Indian assaults. From the government’s perspective, however, the western counties sucked up undue resources without contributing back to the country. The attempted enforcement of the excise was met by firm violent and nonviolent opposition, with grandiose rhetoric on both sides: the western farmers proclaiming their defiance in the name of Revolutionary values, and the supporters of the government insisting their supremacy in the name of law and order. By emphasizing this political context and rhetoric concerning the Whiskey Tax’s enforcement, Thomas Slaughter reveals how the Whiskey Rebellion provided a significant impetus for the division of American politics into a multi-party system.

The Pennsylvanians’ response to the excise echoed that of colonial Boston. One group of objectors, with an interest in law and civility, organized an official assembly to petition against the tax at Redstone and Pittsburgh. Another group saw little need for niceties and decided to treat tax collectors like British tea agents. In many parts of the country, such as Kentucky and the Carolinas, tax collectors did not even attempt to enforce the excise, much to the chagrin of Washington and Hamilton. While swift reprisals against the tax scared off collectors for much of 1791 and 1792, the federal government was not ready to simply keel over. Hamilton saw the insurgency as not only an embarrassment, but a threat to the American ideals of federalism under a strong, capable federal government. The “spirit of disobedience” as portrayed by the Pennsylvanians would diminish national order and cause “the authority of the government to be prostrate” (121). However, in the opinion the frontiersmen, fighting the enforcement of a perceivably unjust tax was as American as apple pie. Neither side saw any reason, ideological or pragmatic, to step down. Max’s earlier analysis of the North Carolina Stamp Act riots can certainly be applied to the escalation of the excise conflict in 1791: “Each side raises the stakes further until the other one folds or a victor eventually emerges”. In this case, after three years of defiance, Washington was forced to utilize the threat of open military conflict, the highest stakes at his disposal. The rebels quickly, and wisely, folded.

Slaughter’s most effective chapter in Part II, Liberty, Order, and the Excise, emphasizes how the Whiskey Rebellion was a critical, if not defining, moment in the identity of the American political process. The argument of Hobbes versus Locke, Whig versus Tory, or order versus liberty, was hardly new; they just fought a war over it. The western frontiersmen viewed the question as definitively settled by the Revolution, while the Hamiltonians viewed governmental order as the prerequisite to freedom. The heroes of the Constitution, such as Madison, Hamilton, Jay, and Jefferson, had little common ground remaining. The opposing poles on the political spectrum of the early 1800s were developing at this time, and the conversion of these men from allies to rivals was only precipitated by the excise conflict. As Slaughter put it, “the excise produced a simultaneous challenge to (republican) ideology and (national) interest and thus created a truly volatile situation” (142). In other words, the Whiskey Rebellion was the very first grand, divisive partisan debate. The zero-party state’s veil of harmony could not endure any longer.

September 19, 2013

"The Whiskey Rebellion:" Irrational Fears

In The Whiskey Rebellion, Thomas Slaughter outlines the events that circulated around perhaps one of the most deadly civilian rebellions in America’s history. The central issue revolved around taxation and the role of the central government in enforcing such taxes on its citizens. Alex Salvatierra, in his blog post, mentioned that the response of farmers to the new tax was in some ways, an irrational fear as they believed if they were to accept these new taxes without objection, it would lead to the demise of the union they fought so hard to attain. In my post, I wish to examine the fears that Slaughter mentions, which he notes were not all rational, as they were the fuel behind the anxieties and tensions of the farmers.

On page 23, Slaughter explains, “Americans still differed about the ideological significance of internal taxes and about the localist description of divided sovereignty.” He goes on to mention that these differences were put aside, as in 1774, “Americans united to confront more pressing threats to their liberties.” (23) In many ways, the Revolution acted as a gause, through which all the different frustrations and anxieties that muddled the lives of the colonialists would be solved. But as the Revolution ended, these differences were not reconciled, and the focus transferred over to the issue of taxation, rather than revolution. So the fears that Salvatierra is referring to, for example of”the disbandment of the Union” are rooted in the central conflict of internal taxation. When the threat to the British waned, these tensions intensified. With the increasing isolation of westerners by the governing body, in 1786, George Mason had predicted that these anxieties would “occasion another war in less than six years.”(30) Through the perspective of the westerners, the new tax asked by the government, stood in conjunction with the other anxieties in their life such as the “widespread economic distress” in 1786 so while their fear that internal taxation would lead to the disbandment of the union is not entirely rational, it is key to examine the environment in which these fears formulated, as early Americans were “not purely rational men and women, immune to fears and tensions of social life.” (7) Ultimately the Whiskey Rebellion was an event that defined a crucial time of America’s young republic, as disputes between westerners and the governing body threatened to tear the nation apart.

September 19, 2013

Clash of America

In Thomas P. Slaughter’s The Whiskey Rebellion, he recounts the context and progression which ultimately resulted in one of the most violent civilian events in the nation’s history, the Whiskey Rebellion. It is amazing to look back on the norms of the western frontier at this time. They were so far removed from the eastern city hubs that they never received consistent information regarding the revolution and endured intermittent raids from their hostile native American neighbors. It was this space, literally and figuratively speaking, which allowed the rural peoples of the frontier to distance themselves further from the alien peoples of the east who attempted to tax, manipulate and exile them.

Throughout the rise of the American state there became a divide, often present among large nations, between the rural westerners focusing on farming and the urban easterners benefiting from mercantile trade. There was a complete clash of interests which demonstrated itself on a micro-level of the problems the fledgling nation had previously endured with Britain. The Americans hoped to engage in British politics and have a greater say in how their country was administered while the frontiersmen did the same with the new state, hoping to have a local government to represent their own needs and grievances more appropriately. Wade brought up a good point last week in his post when he said, “these colonial governments were not oppressive as much as they were disconnected or aloof to colonists’ demands. It was this disconnectedness moreover which fostered such tensions-often going unnoticed-between the east and west. Slaughter then states how the crux of the problem was the implementation of an excise tax which effectively taxed anything and everything that was produced internally and through which the government hoped to raise the most revenue (and boy was it effective).

As one might expect, the wealthier urbanites and politicians advocated for the excise taxes because they catalyzed a powerful central government and boosted the potential for merchants. This group would of course soon call themselves Federalists. The Westerners would have none of it though, hoping that they could somehow break off and create their own state or at the very least conduct a governing body which could voice their specific concerns and not fall privy to the national politics. The frontiersmen felt completely detached from the body politic which levied taxes and controlled much of the land out west without actually having a personal stake in the community. The illogical conclusions of some people and the influence of group thought led many people to assume that being tied to a hypocritical nation (not following the virtues it set forth in it’s Declaration of Independence), would eventually result in the downfall of their way of life. Many melodramatically believed that their human liberties would be revoked and that they would be consigned to a life of slavery which is a bit hyperbolic for me. It all seems a bit irrational when you look at it now, but you must remember that these were real people with real problems. They experienced the oppressive presence of the easterners who wielded the vast majority of power and dictated the path of politics, and felt threatened. What would you do?

September 19, 2013

The Great Chasm: Disconnect on the Frontier

Through his frontier analysis The Whiskey Rebellion, Thomas Slaughter argues that the largest internal American conflict between 1780 and 1860 was more than just a scuffle about an alcohol excise; it was a culmination of years of turmoil between two distinctly different Pennsylvanian groups. The politically powerful “easterners” who occupied the halls of power in Philadelphia and the “westerners” who lived precariously on the fringes of American society had been at odds for decades, from the Paxton Boys to the Westsylvania movement. Even the Revolutionary War did little to ameliorate the political divide between the two groups, as they had entirely different views on what the new Republic should look like. After a decade of conflict and tension over land, Indian wars, and taxes, the westerners decided to take up arms and dare the federal government to challenge them. Rather than being an idealist uprising against despotic taxes and abuse, the Whiskey Rebellion was instead a manifestation of years of frontier frustration that reached its tipping point after the passing and attempted enforcement of a whiskey excise tax in 1791.

By the time of the American Revolution, the men of the frontier from North Carolina to New York had established themselves as a separate entity from the elite interests in state assemblies and landed commerce. Bacon’s Rebellion solidified this distinction and exemplified the power that the united frontier could display when aggravated. Many of the grievances expressed by the Westsylvanians in 1775 remained unchanged from those expressed by Bacon: little state support in defending against Indians, overrepresentation of the rich and corruption public offices, and unfair property laws. While viewed by many easterners, including George Washington, as unkempt, troublesome, and “as ignorant a set of people as the Indians,” the westerners viewed themselves as the defenders of American borders and the expansionists of civilization (79). The Paxton Boys exemplified this disparity, with some treating them as frontier saviors and others declaring them bloodthirsty outlaws. In reality, it’s all about perspective.

“By 1790, the chasm appeared…wider than ever before” (30). The chasm, of course, refers to the detachment in identity from the urban and frontier peoples of America. The majority of frontier concerns, even requests for greater autonomy and statehood, were generally ignored or denied by the state and federal legislature. While the east was concerned about the big picture (continental Indian peacekeeping, paying off war debts, and international diplomacy), the west was more concerned with daily survival. As their voice in legitimate politics dissipated further, the frontiersmen saw mass organization, or even illegitimate self-government, as their final option. As Wade pointed out on September 12, “Riots were one of a few ways communities could unite behind a common cause and…assure camaraderie amongst themselves”. The westerners found their only political allies to be themselves, and this united identity likely strengthened their resolve to openly challenge the state of Pennsylvania, as well as the federal government and George Washington himself. The uprising was the kind of popular political action that makes Occupy Wall Street look like kindergarten recess.

September 18, 2013

Tension in an Unfree Society

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.