Two Faces of a Movement: Part One

» BuckyRea - violent nonviolence

I would think another critical factor in the bloodless character of property violence among the Boston mobs in the 60s was the incredible level of control they were willing to grant to McIntosh (who took his directions from Adams). This was still a highly deferential society and Adams, thru his political machine, exercised great control over the mob's actions, as when they tore Hutchinson's house down to the ground but hurt no one who lived there. I find this mob-self-control fascinating for the level of discipline it must have required. This was no band of Cleveland football fans.

But the Boston story, as you point out, was no accident protests all up and down the coast avoided hurting their neighbors foolish enough to sign up as Stamp men. What to you attribute this to? Why and how were the early Americans able to abstain from bloodshed and avoid vicious clampdown from Parliament in the early stages of the protest movement?

-- posted by BuckyRea

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Brian Tubbs - Re: violent nonviolence

In response to message posted by BuckyRea:

Great question. You have a tendency to ask the tough ones. You and John "Let's see how obscure I can make this next trivia question!" Cooper.

I don't know is the short answer. :-) But knowing that you won't let me off with that, I'll give you my opinion.

I think it's a combination of two factors:

1. Opponents of the Stamp Act in the colonies built a formidable and impressive network of communication that helped serve as "command-and-control" for the protest movement. It wasn't a foolproof system. I really do believe that mobs are virtually impossible to control once a certain emotional peak is reached, but the Sons of Liberty and the likes of Sam Adams did a great job keeping the mob leaders (i.e., McIntosh) in check. But, again, I stress that I don't think that the riots were necessarily choreographed. My feeling is that the demonstrations were, but that they had a tendency to (at times) go a bit further than the organizers intended. The burning of Hutchinson's house is an example of this.

2. "Discretion is the better part of valor." That seemed to be the motto of most of the Loyalists and stamp masters in the colonies when faced with an angry mob or an intimidating party of "Sons of Liberty" ruffians. Who's to say, for instance, what would have happened to Hutchinson had he stayed at his house? Or, for that matter, what if he would've answered his door the night the mob first came knocking?

Your question raises a great point, though, one that I will explore in more depth as the years of tension continue between Britain and the colonies, and that is the impressive amount of coordination and communication the Patriots and Radicals were able to manage.

-- posted by Brian Tubbs

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions