There has been talk with historians about the rhetoric of the patriots call to freedom and how they contradict themselves since they also hold many people as slaves. There was focused on Bernard Bailyn's reference that mentioned patriots were opposed to the political terms of slavery, but not the economic terms. Since slavery was key to the economy of the southern colonies and later the states, it would help explain why they claim this. -David Y.
As the colonists were dealing with the passing of the Stamp Act in 1765, protests began to occur to respond to this assertion of power such as signing petitions, which were not taken seriously by the British. Another avenue that was talked about in this book was using anger to scare the tax collectors. However, colonists also believed that they needed to be careful that anger didn't veer out of control and target the local elite. -David Y.
As it became clear that support for good relations between Britain and her American colonies was fleeting, resistance was growing, especially with the new way of actions pushed on them. Charles Townshend began to enforce the Quartering Act of 1765, which (forced?) the colonist to supply the king's army. I myself am not sure whether or not this was a way to try to snuff out embers of rebellion or it was a way to save on money to support their own troops, the colonists were readying new resistance to this. -David Y.
We have come to accept in our thinking that the idea of liberty was essential at during the time of the American Revolution and ignore that it came at the expense of slavery. George Washington, in explaining the importance of the American position, highlighted the idea of liberty and downplayed the expense of slavery. (Suzanne Ferraro).
Colonial elites needed emotion to explain the political differences between Britain and the aristocracy. They used the idea of liberty to explain what they were looking for. This idea was used to distinguish Indians and enslaved individuals from the Colonists. (Suzanne Ferraro).
The chapter opens with a quote from George Washington arguing that the revolutionaries weren't immoral or corrupt, but instead had a genuine love for liberty and their country, which is what pushed them to revolution. This can be compared to other explanations of potential causes for the revolution that may not have painted the revolutionaries in such a great light, such as the British subjects' view that the colonists were simply being whiny that they finally had to pay their share in taxes. (Ezra C.)
The colonial leaders used different avenues to protest English rule over the colonies. They wanted to stay away from the “unchecked anger” or “popular rage” partly because colonial protests sought support and alliance from English elites to some degree. Their anger needed to be civilized and they felt showing stability was important. Instead they used petitions, pamphlets and displays of grief (tolling of bells) as different protest forms.(Connor H.)
One point that Eustace makes in the beginning of this chapter is that fact that much of the revolutionary and headstrong spirit that many patriots used during the war, was in part based off of Native American attitudes and steadfast way of life. It's weird to me how simultaneously, most colonists can think of Native Americans as inferior and lesser than, while also respecting how they've tried to keep their way of life alive, amidst being pushed over and ignored.-Emma Galvin
The spirit of the American revolution was generally a jumble of hypocritical emotions. American anger and patriotism was viewed as justified and right in the eyes of those participating. However when compared to the nature of the “excessive ferocity” of the Native Americans and the “emotional stupor” of the Enslaved Africans. Americans became so focused on their own liberty while greatly neglecting the lack of liberty they were giving to those around them. -Declan F.
Eustace refers to the American revolution as an “imperial conflict argued with emotional rhetoric.” Anger and frustrations following the Stamp Act were often coming from colonists attempting to protect their own dignity. Complications came from colonists not wanting to retaliate against local elite but rather the monarch so far away. This distance prompted unity for the colonial voices to be heard. - Declan F.
A larger sociocultural divide became apparent in the decade predating the actual war. In wanting to be polite, the colonists effectively ruined their chances of preventing the Stamp Act. The letters and petitions sent to Parliament were intended to be “the most respectable and the most respectful”, but were received fairly poorly. This dynamic shows the beginnings of not only a physical difference, as we've seen with the distance between the two continents but also the social aspect and changing of manners or etiquette, partially because of that physical space. - Lily H
In a time when grief was a public event, it was genius to use mourning as a form of protest. Using the emotions that represented people of a genteel status combined with the physical attributes of public mourning resulted in a powerful movement used to show Parliament a sense of distaste with their Acts. _ Lily H.
The colonists seemed to have wanted it both ways. They wanted to express their frustration and rebellion, but at the same time, Eustace seemed to communicate that they hadn't yet wanted to disrespect Britain as to anger them. They thought that their emotional response was of “high class” and sensible, as to not be acting out in anger. This expression was to evoke pity from the crown but ended up coming off as overtly subservient. - Keller D.
Eustace provides an insight that emotion in the colonies was unifying. Whether the purpose was to show discontentment of rule or outright anger, (Eustace used the term “angry mourners”), the colonists were unified. This goes beyond the previous notion that the revolution was purely ideological, it was very much emotional which can also provide an insight into the ability to gain such a following in the revolutionary movement. - Keller D.
While a larger portion of protest during the American Revolution were typically public displays of aggravation, such as shouting or physical force; protest also stemmed in the form of satirical comics and prints placed within publicly distributed pamphlets. Often the comics displayed Britian as an overbearing matron to a younger and less experienced America as a configuration of the colonies displease with their domineering rulers. (Scarlett).
By the time of the Boston Massacre, sentiment in the colonies decided on the action of rallying with each other, rather than to depend on reaching British policy makers. We've seen that same instruction in previous readings; group formation of protest as one unit is better to garner the attention of policy makers who often ignore the colonist wants and aggrievements. (Scarlett).
Colonist began to consider that petitions to parliament were unable to be seriously considered and rather, proposition to the King directly would be a better suited. (Scarlett).
Eustace comments on how parliament would not acknowledge black humanity and their need for freedom. They wouldn't denounce the composition of slavery and did all they could to ignore their grief and its impact in order to continue to turn a blind eye to the humanity of these people being affected. This is prevalent both in general and in regard to the Stamp Act protests. Eustace states that even enslaved individuals were “mourning for liberty” thus reinstating the agenda that those in power are trying to keep parliament and colonists separate. (Annie Feck)
It was believed that the parliament could no longer be depended on for the best outcome which led to the shift in their position of power. The British were pleased with the denouncement of the Stamp Act. The repeal of the Act actually reaffirmed the power of the parliament and helped the British to preserve their status. (Annie Feck)
The elite and rich colonists grew nervous of the violence and rage in response to the Stamp Act and worried it would eventually turn against them as well. They began to champion the idea that emotions were a natural and universal human experience and even the lowest of men could contribute to public virtue through measured emotions, in an effort to encourage people to “abandon rancorous rage.” (Guy)