Mob Activity – Popular Politics in Early America

October 22, 2013

People should not be afraid of their governments; governments should be afraid of their people.

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

For me, it was easy to assume that banning the trans-Atlantic slave trade was a moral act, fought for by the noble abolitionists as a first step toward ending slavery. My assumption, though perhaps part of the reason for such an act, was not comprehensive: in “Slave Revolts in Hemispheric Perspective” from “From Rebellion to Revolution” by Eugene Genovese, he suggests that the end of the trans-Atlantic slave trade was, partially, a tactical move on the part of slaveholders to avoid more slave revolts. He points out that slave populations in the American south were already significant and were growing, so slaveholders felt no need for imported slaves. Significantly, however, he points out that imported slaves were more likely to incite rebellion than those that had been suppressed for a l0ng time.

The presence of imported African slaves, however, is not the only reason that slaves might revolt, as Genovese makes clear in his overview of slave revolts and the causes. Though likely not, it feels comprehensive; he mentions causes such as the presence of skilled laborers, slave’s knowledge of firearms, large and concentrated slave populations, real or expected political alliances with other groups or states, religion (especially Islam), and enlightenment ideologies as factors that might foment revolt. Furthermore, he discusses the ways in which white populations might affect the possibility of a slave revolt: the white populations familiarity with firearms, and their access to local and federal militias; the size of the white population compared with the black one; political rhetoric at the elite level, and the discussion of it around the slaves; black expectations about the duration of their enslavement.

CT mentions that he believes that slaves’ ability to use firearms was an insignificant element in determining whether or not slaves would revolt. I believe he is correct–many of these causes by themselves are insignificant. Furthermore, he is also correct in a practical sense: a few single-shot muskets would not turn the tide of battle. I believe, however, that there is a certain psychological element that accompanies the use of firearms, and–though insignificant in the course of battle itself–I believe this would potentially have a large impact on whether or not slaves revolted. Especially, I think, in the American south, since I believe there is a psychological value to meeting your enemy on the field of battle with a parity of technology, and southerners were often heavily armed and trained in the use of firearms.

I also appreciate Genovese’s placement of slave revolt within a broader context. As he writes, slave revolts “contributed toward the radical though still bourgeoisie movement for freedom, equality and democracy, while they foreshadowed the movement against capitalism itself” (2). It is logical that slavery would arise within a capitalistic mindset, as the owners of capital can avoid dealing with labor at all, and simply make labor part of their capital. Luckily, our consciences have pulled us beyond this abhorrent form of torture, and yet, make no mistake that every capitalists attempts to lower wages and shut out unions, reduce benefits and privatize education, are intended to push the working class back toward the dehumanization of slavery, in which the labor (barely) survives and the capitalists reap the benefits.

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

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.