(Fig. 8.)
Boycott or Bust
The boycotting of British goods before and after the Revolution (mostly centered in Boston) became a very widespread and accessible form of public participation. Some scholars consider the use of boycotts to be the most contemporary model of mass participation that was utilized by the colonists. The refusal to purchase or use public goods is a way the people in today’s world can easily demonstrate their distaste of something they do not agree with. Still, probably the most significant aspect of boycotting is the fact that it was so accessible. One did not need to be of an aristocratic status to understand and take part in this type of retaliation. No literacy skills were needed, just the burning desire to teach Britain a lesson. While some boycotts were more extreme than others and had more severe impacts, boycotts remained a significant source of the growing tensions between the colonists and Britain.
Non-Importation Movement
Boston seemed to be the center for widespread boycotting. Its geographic location as well as its growing economic structures made Boston the perfect place to import goods from Britain. In turn, this made Boston the perfect place to boycott goods from Britain, and to make it noticeable. Non-importation and non-consumption agreements began to come about as a result of the Townshend Acts of 1767 and “reached its peak with the Tea Acts of 1773.” [39] This tactic turned out to be “the most important weapon in the colonial campaign to alter British policy” and it “depended on mobilizing ordinary men and women.” [40] It began with the merchant led block on English trade and later turned into a tactic that all could utilize.
Primary sources from this period illustrate a push to encourage colonists to begin to consider their own skills in creating the goods that they relied upon Britain for. Convincing the colonists of this was a testament to their ability to be independent as a country. One contributor to the Boston Post-boy and Advertiser relayed to the community that when it comes to these British commodities, colonists are “indisputably capable of supplying [themselves],” and considers providing for their own country “a moral obligation to do.” [41] In the end, he exclaims “save your money, and save your country!” [41] Another source points out the colonists’ false need for luxuries and suggests that from these “immoralities and excesses [they] fall into necessity, and this leads [them] to a servile dependence upon power.” [42] In accordance with the former source, the author concludes that colonists should “resolve to pay attention to the manufacturers of our country, which alone can continue [them] a free and happy people.” [43] These sources hold in common the desire to wean the colonies off of their reliance on Britain. It seems that the underlying message in the boycotting of British goods was that the colonists did in fact desire some measure of independence, and not just the repeal of two oppressive pieces of legislation, which they were able to obtain. With the commission of the Boston Tea Party, which could be considered the boycott of all the boycotts, it is clear that the boycott was an effective means in not only obtaining a large amount of participation from all people, but in being incredibly impactful.
Women in Boycotts
Another significant characteristic of the boycotts as a form of participation was their ability to not only mobilize the common people, but their ability to mobilize women as well. Gary B. Nash in The Unknown American Revolution suggests that “thousands of women for the first time participated in a political process,” and that this involvement carried them beyond the walls of a house. [44] Both men and women were able to sign on to the non-importation and non-consumption agreements. One merchant even wrote that without the participation of women in the boycotts, “‘[it was] impossible to succeed.’” [45] Since women were accustomed to the market place where these goods were being sold, it was evident that their participation was essential to the boycott’s success. Not only did women play a pivotal role in participating in the boycotts, they also were able to take on making many of the goods that were consequently sacrificed by banning their consumption from Britain. Women demonstrated their skills as artisans by making clothes, furniture, etc.
The able participation of women makes boycotts a very unique form of participation. Any form of a mass uprising that can include a normally marginalized group in society has a great chance for success, as there is often more strength in numbers. Women as participants in this particular movement really paved the way for women to become more involved in the public sphere, because it demonstrated that women possessed skills that contributed to the public good, in the same way a man’s skills did.
Boycott or Bust
The boycotting of British goods before and after the Revolution (mostly centered in Boston) became a very widespread and accessible form of public participation. Some scholars consider the use of boycotts to be the most contemporary model of mass participation that was utilized by the colonists. The refusal to purchase or use public goods is a way the people in today’s world can easily demonstrate their distaste of something they do not agree with. Still, probably the most significant aspect of boycotting is the fact that it was so accessible. One did not need to be of an aristocratic status to understand and take part in this type of retaliation. No literacy skills were needed, just the burning desire to teach Britain a lesson. While some boycotts were more extreme than others and had more severe impacts, boycotts remained a significant source of the growing tensions between the colonists and Britain.
Non-Importation Movement
Boston seemed to be the center for widespread boycotting. Its geographic location as well as its growing economic structures made Boston the perfect place to import goods from Britain. In turn, this made Boston the perfect place to boycott goods from Britain, and to make it noticeable. Non-importation and non-consumption agreements began to come about as a result of the Townshend Acts of 1767 and “reached its peak with the Tea Acts of 1773.” [39] This tactic turned out to be “the most important weapon in the colonial campaign to alter British policy” and it “depended on mobilizing ordinary men and women.” [40] It began with the merchant led block on English trade and later turned into a tactic that all could utilize.
Primary sources from this period illustrate a push to encourage colonists to begin to consider their own skills in creating the goods that they relied upon Britain for. Convincing the colonists of this was a testament to their ability to be independent as a country. One contributor to the Boston Post-boy and Advertiser relayed to the community that when it comes to these British commodities, colonists are “indisputably capable of supplying [themselves],” and considers providing for their own country “a moral obligation to do.” [41] In the end, he exclaims “save your money, and save your country!” [41] Another source points out the colonists’ false need for luxuries and suggests that from these “immoralities and excesses [they] fall into necessity, and this leads [them] to a servile dependence upon power.” [42] In accordance with the former source, the author concludes that colonists should “resolve to pay attention to the manufacturers of our country, which alone can continue [them] a free and happy people.” [43] These sources hold in common the desire to wean the colonies off of their reliance on Britain. It seems that the underlying message in the boycotting of British goods was that the colonists did in fact desire some measure of independence, and not just the repeal of two oppressive pieces of legislation, which they were able to obtain. With the commission of the Boston Tea Party, which could be considered the boycott of all the boycotts, it is clear that the boycott was an effective means in not only obtaining a large amount of participation from all people, but in being incredibly impactful.
Women in Boycotts
Another significant characteristic of the boycotts as a form of participation was their ability to not only mobilize the common people, but their ability to mobilize women as well. Gary B. Nash in The Unknown American Revolution suggests that “thousands of women for the first time participated in a political process,” and that this involvement carried them beyond the walls of a house. [44] Both men and women were able to sign on to the non-importation and non-consumption agreements. One merchant even wrote that without the participation of women in the boycotts, “‘[it was] impossible to succeed.’” [45] Since women were accustomed to the market place where these goods were being sold, it was evident that their participation was essential to the boycott’s success. Not only did women play a pivotal role in participating in the boycotts, they also were able to take on making many of the goods that were consequently sacrificed by banning their consumption from Britain. Women demonstrated their skills as artisans by making clothes, furniture, etc.
The able participation of women makes boycotts a very unique form of participation. Any form of a mass uprising that can include a normally marginalized group in society has a great chance for success, as there is often more strength in numbers. Women as participants in this particular movement really paved the way for women to become more involved in the public sphere, because it demonstrated that women possessed skills that contributed to the public good, in the same way a man’s skills did.