Eighteenth-century uprisings were in some important ways different than those of today different in themselves, but even more in the political context in which they occurred. Discuss.

Another assumption of Maier’s view is that rebellions were popular, expressing a mixture of local and great issues. Other historians have touched upon this, though this ‘mixture’ is indicative of incoherence within these uprisings. Many mobs attracted popular backing, but these groups were rising for dissimilar reasons: merchants attacked customs officials, farmers attempted to close courts, radicals brawled with redcoats and peasants confronted their landowners. Contrariwise, Bridenbaugh claims that uprisings were often temporary and limited to the rowdy and less privileged groups of society. This supports a traditional view of uprisings in general; that they were violent protests centred on localised social and economic issues, driven from below. There is contemporary support for this as Charles McLean Andrews’ quote from the introduction illustrates. There is also the view supported by Bridenbaugh and Bailyn that the colonial mobs were made up of middle class citizens sharing popular grievances. 

Edward Wright mentions a transition in the 1770s from a sectionalist approach to uprisings to a more unified approach. The emergence of unified mob in 1775 brought the mixture of local and imperial issues together and drove the revolution forward; it is applicable to suggest that there was popular rebellion against a common cause. Bunwick stresses that the revolution transformed as the protests began to merge together, triggering the emergence of a national identity. 

Maier’s view is centred on the community role of the mob, demonstrated by various examples, such as that of a Boston mob in 1737, which attacked a ‘bawdy house’ to combat prostitution. This particular example links to Maier’s comments on violence; the mob did enough damage to the house that the woman was forced to abandon it, suggesting no lack of violence.  There is no doubt that there were certain groups that effectively acted as vigilantes, the issue remains as to whether these groups were typically involved in uprisings throughout the eighteenth-century. Wright states that there were extra-legal conventions, but they were not associated with any wider national movement. Maier does concede that some uprisings were also anti-institutional (though these were usually regarding imperial issues), yet Shays’ rebellion was clearly anti-institutional despite being centred on local issues. Furthermore, an eastern uprising in 1777 suppressed by force displays that uprisings cannot be viewed as exclusively extra-legal.

More important than the nature of the uprisings themselves is the political context in which they occurred. There is no doubt that the pre-independence era is a significantly different context to that of which uprisings occur in today, for example the austerity riots in Greece earlier this year were triggered by economic issues. The popular rebellions were driven by the changing political climate of the revolution. Constant fears of tyranny from a foreign monarch created public anxiety; rumours spread of an ecclesiastical conspiracy against American liberties. Such fears were perpetuated by increased British efforts to make money from the colonies, such as the Revenue/Sugar Act (1764) and the Stamp Act (1765). There was a nascent belief among contemporaries that the British were attempting to “force the colonies into a rebellion” and take the opportunity to “treat them with severity… and reduce them to servitude”. Such anxieties will inevitably have impacted upon the common people. The late 1760s also saw sudden colonial expansion, attracting opportunistic outsiders, this not only resulted in increased social tension but in a more powerful customs administration, preserving the fears of coercion.

It is necessary to conclude that uprisings were different when considering their wider political context. New groups were constantly making their grab for power in the colonies, resulting in no long-standing political stability,  a prerequisite for the formation of extra-legal conventions. There was little consistency in local government, but there was also a lack of uniformity at the imperial level; after the repeal of the Stamp Act in 1766 it appeared as though the colonies had exerted some power over the monarchy. This was not the case as the British government came to strengthen their principles and asserted parliamentary power over the colonists “in all cases”. This was accompanied by an increase in rioting: Gordon Wood claims that crowd action affected all major settlements and periodically impacted upon rural life. The move towards an ‘inclusionist’ political system also encouraged common men to express their views in the form of rebellion. 

In conclusion, Maier’s viewpoint provides a valid insight into the varied nature of uprisings in colonial America.  In comparison to modern uprisings, predominantly anti-authoritarian in nature, eighteenth-century uprisings were unique in that they drew from all areas of society and assumed an extra-legal role in some cases. While this model is by no means universal, it is difficult for any historian to document issues such as this without making generalisations. The extra-legal role of the mob is debatable, as there were obviously traditional lower class mobs rebelling against their landowners and provincial governors, but it is important to note the distinct extra-legal nature of some uprisings. What is not debatable is the unique political climate in which these uprisings occurred. The fear of tyranny from a foreign power and inconsistency in local power came together to form a distinct political climate that is clearly distinguishable from that of today.

BibliographyJournal articlesPauline Maier, ‘Popular uprisings and civil authority in eighteenth-century America’, The William and Mary Quarterly, 27 pt.1 (1970), p3-35.Gordon S. Wood, ‘A note on mobs in the American Revolution’, The William and Mary Quarterly, 23 pt.4 (1966), p635-642.Lloyd I. Rudolph, ‘The Eighteenth Century Mob in America and Europe’, American Quarterly, II pt.4 (1959), p.447-469.Jesse Lemisch, Jack Tar in the Streets: Merchant Seamen in the Politics of Revolutionary America, The William and Mary Quarterly, 25 pt.3 (1968), p371-407.

Books
Edward Countryman, The People's American Revolution (Tyne and Wear: British Association for American Studies, 1983).

Edward Wright, Fabric of Freedom 1763-1800 (London: Macmillan & Co Ltd, 1965).
Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, first published 1967 (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1992).
Colin Bunwick, The American Revolution (London: The Macmillan Press Ltd, 1991).

Carl Bridenbaugh, Cities in the Wilderness - The First Century of Urban Life in America 1625-1742, first published 1938; second impression (Canada: McClelland and Stewart Ltd, 1964).
John Franklin Jameson, The American Revolution considered as a social movement, first published 1967; third printing (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975).

Essays
Jack P. Greene, ‘The Preconditions of the American Revolution’, in Richard D. Brown (eds), Major Problems in the era of the American Revolution 1760-1791 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000).  

---