I know there was some riots. Wasn’t a judge even pulled out of his home and tarred & feathered at one point? Can’t remember the exact details.
However I felt like I was watching a version of “Occupy Wall Street” instead of the beginnings of the American Revolution. It seems like they are trying to push the class warfare rich against poor thing and skipping over the meat of the cause of the Revolution.
Bingo, that’s exactly my thinking on it. They concentrated way too much on the poor not able to eat. Why would the poor be hurt by taxes if they had no income or things to be taxed in the first place? In those days, if you were poor, either the church took care of you, you found work, even if it meant moving to where the work was, or you died.
No, the Stamp Act, Townsend Duties and other legislation of Parliament were primarily focused on those that were in industry and commerce. The Tea Act was a consumption tax. The British then actually tried to enforce the acts. The whole point of the colonists were they should have some— even any tidbit of—a say in what they would be required to give back to the Empire.
Now you could say that the poor were further impoverished if those that hired them were hurt financially and couldn’t pay, but the American anger at the acts were from the middle and wealthy classes primarily.
And all we see is Sam Adams fuming and knitting his eyebrows and fighting and punching. I didn’t see/hear ANY of his very well stated speeches and arguments he made at many an assembly or at the North Church etc. His words were the most important part of his efforts, not the black market, fighting, and tales about his father’s Bailey Savings and Loan.
And Governor Potter, er Hutchinson, was a much more capable leader and administrator. They make him out to look like some small town mayor. He was governor of a whole province.