Stamp+Act(project)


 * October 26, 2010**
 * The Sons of Liberty Mob Tactic(editorial)**:

I don't think that the Sons of Liberty were justified in using the mob tactic. The Sons of Liberty were colonists who fought for liberty and what was right. As citizens they were happy to under the rule of Britain. The Stamp Act tax was then put on the colonists by Parliament. When the colonists heard of this they were outraged of the fact that they must pay another tax. With anger, a mob then was formed to protest against the tax. Violence broke out and soon people were scared of the colonists. Effigies were hung up to lighten the spirits of colonists but it was just a way of entertainment and mockery to those that the effigy was talking about. There are other ways that can solve the Stamp Act problem beside violence and mockery.

The Stamp Act tax was viewed as an unwanted tax by the colonists. The colonists in America was part of Britain and they loved the benefits that they got from being British. When it came down to taxes, though, the colonists refused to pay and caused havoc. As citizens of Britain it is the civic duty of the colonists to pay taxes. If you want to be British yet you don't want to pay taxes given by Parliament then that is as if you are acting like a criminal. Criminals use mob violence. The Sons of Liberty shouldn't be criminals so they shouldn't use violence.

Besides the fact that it is civic duty to pay taxes, in actual the colonists wouldn't even pay nearly as much as those in Britain. In Britain, there are seven and a half million people that pay taxes. The colonists would only have to pay a third of the amount of that. The mob violence was to protest out against taxes but only such a small amount didn't really need the violence and crime caused by the mobs. Effigies were rude pictures of someone who people often disliked. They were unnecessary and weren't needed as a way to make fun of someone, like Andrew Oliver, who was related to the Stamp Act. There was another man named Thomas Hutchinson. He was a victim to the violence of the mob because the mob oh angry colonists had looted his house. Hutchinson was known for being rich and hated. The angry mob had looted the house of Hutchinson leaving it empty of its' valuables and teared apart by what seems to be the doing of a monster (People just stood by the side line and watched as the house is being left as nothing but a shell!). Is this really necessary violence?

There are other ways to have the Stamp Act done away with rather than just violence. For example, the colonists could have just gotten attention by standing at the doors of the houses' of those that are related to the Stamp Act. If the colonists had not caused more trouble and just talked to someone in power that would help the colonists by speaking to higher authorities. A petition would have worked as well. The colonists could have signed a petition that would ask for the Stamp Act to be removed. Another way would have been for the colonists to send a representative to Britain and speak for the colonies about all the problems. The colonists could get their side of their story heard that way.

Other ways could have also led to the removal of the Stamp Act. The Stamp Act has been removed but at the cost of breaking down the reputations of the government officials, destroying buildings, and even stealing from someone else's house. The Sons of Liberty aren't supposed to be violent. Matters about the Stamp Act could have been figured out more calmly. The mob tactic really was just unnecessary violence where people destroyed anything that they thought stood in their way of removing the Stamp Act. The Sons of Liberty weren't justified in using the mob as a political tactic.


 * October 26, 2010**
 * Slideshow:**

media type="custom" key="7325857"