(Fig. 6.)
The Mob Mentality
Out of all of these forms of participation, mob violence is certainly the most unique and the least civic form of participation, that contributed to the inception of the American Revolution. In what is a less-frequently utilized act of participation in America today, crowd violence against Britain, some would argue, was one of the most impactful citizen pursuits before the war began. One of the earlier examples that first demonstrated the ability of the crowd to thwart distinguishable authority was in the jailbreaks at Newark. About 150 New Jersey farmers banned together on more than one occasion to free one of their own, were they to be arrested. “‘Armed with clubs, axes, and crowbars,’” the farmers would march upon the jails in Newark and demand the freedom of their comrade. [31] If the Sheriff refused, then those clubs, axes, and crowbars were put to use. While this incident did not directly contribute to the start of the Revolution, it did provide a lucid example of the strength of a group of regular people and their ability to “[shatter] established authority.” [32]
With the slogan “taxation without representation” on the tongue of nearly every colonist, it is no surprise that the popularly abhorred Stamp Act would result in the fiercest of violent retaliations before the war. Mobs in many colonies chose to express their distaste with the Crown by means of physical harm, especially to property. Heavily targeted by these mobs were stamp collectors, or wealthier authoritative figures who acted in accordance with the Crown. One stamp collector named Andrew Oliver, the brother-in-law of Thomas Hutchinson who was also famously a target of mob retaliation, had a crowd “[tear] through [his] house, breaking windows and looking glass…demolishing elegant furniture, emptying the contents of the well-stocked wine cellar, and tearing up the gardens.” [33] Andrew Oliver resigned from his post as a stamp collector. An account from Josiah Quincy about Thomas Hutchinson’s ransacked mansion described a “rage-intoxicated rabble” in which the mob “destroyed every thing of value.” [34] Governor Bernard of Massachusetts even wrote that these violent uprisings were “‘so supported that all civil power ceased in an instant, and [he] had not the least authority to oppose or quiet the mob.” [35]
As illustrated by the former examples, mob violence had a discerning impact on the beginnings of a nascent revolution. These instances certainly stirred the pot of mother Britain, causing them to wonder if they really had things under control in the way they wanted. This type of preoccupation with the colonists would eventually motivate Britain to violently defend their own authority on colonial soil.
The Mob Mentality
Out of all of these forms of participation, mob violence is certainly the most unique and the least civic form of participation, that contributed to the inception of the American Revolution. In what is a less-frequently utilized act of participation in America today, crowd violence against Britain, some would argue, was one of the most impactful citizen pursuits before the war began. One of the earlier examples that first demonstrated the ability of the crowd to thwart distinguishable authority was in the jailbreaks at Newark. About 150 New Jersey farmers banned together on more than one occasion to free one of their own, were they to be arrested. “‘Armed with clubs, axes, and crowbars,’” the farmers would march upon the jails in Newark and demand the freedom of their comrade. [31] If the Sheriff refused, then those clubs, axes, and crowbars were put to use. While this incident did not directly contribute to the start of the Revolution, it did provide a lucid example of the strength of a group of regular people and their ability to “[shatter] established authority.” [32]
With the slogan “taxation without representation” on the tongue of nearly every colonist, it is no surprise that the popularly abhorred Stamp Act would result in the fiercest of violent retaliations before the war. Mobs in many colonies chose to express their distaste with the Crown by means of physical harm, especially to property. Heavily targeted by these mobs were stamp collectors, or wealthier authoritative figures who acted in accordance with the Crown. One stamp collector named Andrew Oliver, the brother-in-law of Thomas Hutchinson who was also famously a target of mob retaliation, had a crowd “[tear] through [his] house, breaking windows and looking glass…demolishing elegant furniture, emptying the contents of the well-stocked wine cellar, and tearing up the gardens.” [33] Andrew Oliver resigned from his post as a stamp collector. An account from Josiah Quincy about Thomas Hutchinson’s ransacked mansion described a “rage-intoxicated rabble” in which the mob “destroyed every thing of value.” [34] Governor Bernard of Massachusetts even wrote that these violent uprisings were “‘so supported that all civil power ceased in an instant, and [he] had not the least authority to oppose or quiet the mob.” [35]
As illustrated by the former examples, mob violence had a discerning impact on the beginnings of a nascent revolution. These instances certainly stirred the pot of mother Britain, causing them to wonder if they really had things under control in the way they wanted. This type of preoccupation with the colonists would eventually motivate Britain to violently defend their own authority on colonial soil.