It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Violent reactions to the Stamp Act began to occur throughout the colonies. A mob in Boston hung the stamp distributor in effigy, then beheaded the effigy and "stamped" it to pieces before shattering the windows of his home, destroying his furniture, and tearing out the paneling. The stamp distributor in Newport, Rhode Island, also lost his home, and one in Maryland was so upset upon seeing his store pulled down that he rode off in panic.
Effigy of George Mercer hanged
In Virginia, Richard Henry Lee, who opposed the Stamp Act even before it was enacted, demonstrated against the Stamp Act in September of 1765. His slaves led a procession, which carried effigies of George Mercer, Virginia's stamp distributor. The effigies were hanged at the end of the day, then hanged again the next day and burned after Lee read a satirical "dying speech of George Mercer." [Ironically, it was later revealed that Richard Henry Lee had applied for the job of stamp distributor, but that George Mercer had been chosen for the post.] When Mercer actually arrived in Virginia at the end of October 1765, he was met by angry crowds in both Hampton and Williamsburg. Like the stamp distributors in other colonies who faced such mobs, Mercer resigned the next day.
So it is understandable that a nation that so often used symbolic expression as part of politics would see the freedom of speech and press as covering symbolic expression to the same extent as verbal or printed expression. Likewise, it makes sense that the protection for symbolic expression on the Supreme Court dates back to the very first Supreme Court decision striking down any government action on free speech or free press grounds. The Court in that 1931 case simply casually assumed that symbolic expression was as protected as verbal expression, and treated the display of a red flag as legally tantamount to antigovernment speech. But its assumption was consistent with the First Amendment’s original meaning: The equivalence of symbolic expression and verbal expression has been part of American practice -- and, as I’ll try to show below, American law -- since the Framing era.
Originally posted by heyo
reply to post by HappilyEverAfter
Why would it be kindling wood other than the race thing?
Just asking.
Originally posted by HappilyEverAfter
reply to post by Janky Red
No where did I bring up race. Race was mentioned in the video posting remarks. If there needs to be race inserted into this, then let it be the human race, and the behavior of all of its kind.
Maybe a focus on how race doesnt matter when those in power with the ability to do good choose to ignore those of the same race with less socioeconomic value.
[edit on 5-1-2010 by HappilyEverAfter]
Originally posted by heyo
reply to post by Janky Red
IMO that wouldn't be good enough reason to report on it. See Bush burnings above. However, if someone was unaware of such things happening then it's understandable.
Originally posted by Janky Red
Originally posted by heyo
reply to post by Janky Red
IMO that wouldn't be good enough reason to report on it. See Bush burnings above. However, if someone was unaware of such things happening then it's understandable.
IDK, they report on this stuff when it is not racially motivated, rather politically...
here, remember this?
cbs2.com...