Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 5 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Question 5
When discussing the Stamp Act, Bercot describes mob violence against tax collectors (beatings, threats, burning houses, tarring and feathering) and says, “Today we would call it…a terrorist act”; how does that description affect the way you’ve been taught to emotionally frame revolutionary-era violence, and what does it force you to reconsider about calling the Revolution “godly”?
Another way to ask: If mob attacks on tax collectors would be called terrorism today, how does that change the way you feel about violence in the Revolution? Does it make you rethink calling the Revolution “godly”?

Direct Answer Bercot’s description pushes back against the “funny” or heroic framing many learned in school by naming the violence as inhuman and terroristic. It forces a reevaluation of whether a movement that used threats, torture, and intimidation—often by professing Christians—can honestly be celebrated as “godly.”

Support from Transcript:

  • He says colonists responded to the Stamp Act with “legal protests and with violence.”
  • He lists acts: collectors “beaten,” “threatened with death,” “houses…burned down.”
  • He describes tarring and feathering as severe: “hot tar poured upon their naked bodies…when you took the tar off, your skin came off with it.”
  • He contrasts school framing: “In school, we taught that this was real funny. Today we would call it…an inhuman act, a terrorist act.”
  • He notes this intimidation made it so “nobody…dared to try to collect this tax.”
  • He says Christians today who praise the Revolution would condemn similar actions now—showing a “double standard.”
Discussion Follow-ups If the methods used were clearly ungodly, what does that say about our tendency to excuse sin when it serves a patriotic outcome?