The episode delves into the infamous tarring and feathering of John Malcolm, a British customs official, which took place on January 25, 1774, amid the growing tensions between the American colonies and the British Crown. This violent act serves as a stark illustration of the tumultuous environment that characterized the pre-Revolutionary War period in America, where political terrorism and mob rule were employed as tools of revolutionary change. We examine how Malcolm's punishment was not merely a personal vendetta but a calculated manifestation of the collective anger towards British oppression and the perceived injustices of colonial governance. Furthermore, we explore the broader implications of such acts of violence on the revolutionary narrative, revealing the moral compromises that underpinned the American quest for independence. Through this examination, we highlight the intricate relationship between extrajudicial actions and the eventual emergence of a new political order, underscoring the complexities that shaped the founding of the nation.

Hosts: Michael and Alana are professional historians with a passion for bringing the most captivating and often overlooked criminal events of the past to light. ✨

Connect with Us:

Follow "History's Greatest Crimes" on social media for behind-the-scenes content, historical facts, and updates on future episodes! 👇

• X (formerly Twitter): @podcasthgc
• Facebook: History's Greatest Crimes Facebook 👍
• Instagram: @historys_greatest_crimes📸

Support History's Greatest Crimes:

Love the show and want to dig deeper into history's most infamous crimes? Consider supporting us by subscribing to one of our tiers: 🙏❤️

Detective Tier: Get exclusive access to:

• History’s Greatest Crimes Discord Channel
• Early access to new episodes several days in advance👂🔓
• Shout-outs on the podcast

Special Agent Tier: Unlock all Detective Tier benefits PLUS:

• Special BONUS Episodes⭐

Subscribe here: 👉 https://historys-greatest-crimes.captivate.fm/support

The historical narrative surrounding the American Revolution has often been romanticized, obscuring the grim realities of violence and coercion prevalent during this tumultuous period. The episode delves into a notorious incident that occurred on January 25, 1774, in Boston, where John Malcolm, a British customs official, became the target of a brutal mob led by the Sons of Liberty. This episode not only recounts the harrowing details of Malcolm’s tarring and feathering—a public humiliation that involved being stripped and coated in boiling tar and feathers—but also situates this act within the broader context of colonial resistance against British oppression. The discussion illustrates how such acts of political violence served to galvanize public sentiment, demonstrating the lengths to which ordinary colonists would go to assert their discontent with British rule.

Takeaways:

• The violent tarring and feathering of John Malcolm exemplifies the extreme tensions in pre-Revolutionary America, reflecting the complex interplay between loyalty to the Crown and colonial resistance.
• The actions of the Sons of Liberty, particularly their calculated political violence, demonstrate how revolutionary change was often achieved through intimidation and force rather than solely through Enlightenment ideals.
• The tarring and feathering incident underscores the brutal reality of colonial governance, revealing that mob violence served as a tool of political expression against British authority in the American colonies.
• The Coercive Acts of 1774, enacted in response to the Boston Tea Party and Malcolm's humiliation, inadvertently united the colonies, propelling them towards revolutionary action against British oppression.
• John Malcolm's tragic experience illustrates the moral compromises inherent in the American Revolution, highlighting a paradox where ideals of liberty were pursued alongside acts of violence and intimidation.
• The tensions between the British government and the American colonies intensified through a series of punitive measures, which ultimately led to the establishment of a revolutionary identity based on shared grievances and collective action.

Companies mentioned in this episode:

• East India Company
• Boston Tea Party
• Sons of Liberty
• British Empire

They watched as leaders of the mob dragged a high ranking British customs official by force through the broken door of his house in the north end of the city.

The official was then forced onto a wooden sled, stripped bare to his breeches, and his flesh was coated from head to toe in boiling pine tar and chicken feathers.

The official screamed as his skin blistered and parboiled beneath the heavy adhesive mixture.

The mob dragged the screaming official through the town, halting beneath the frost covered branches of the Liberty tree at the corner of Essex and Newbury streets.

There they fastened a hemp noose around his neck and threatened to hang him unless he renounced his customs commission and cursed King George iii.

This violent episode represents the visceral reality of the pre war American colonies.

A historical landscape stripped of romantic myth, where political terrorism, mob rule and corporal punishment served as critical instruments of revolutionary change.

He was an intensely combative, fiercely loyalist veteran of the French and Indian War who was determined to enforce British trade regulations in Boston, Massachusetts, a city that had effectively declared war on the Crown.

Malcolm was not a corrupt municipal tyrant, but rather a dedicated royal administrator operating within reach of the increasingly defiant patriot group, the Sons of Liberty.

The mob leaders who kidnapped the official and oversaw his tarring and feathering were part of the infamous Sons of Liberty.

This rebel patriot group did not tend to engage in common street brawls when they targeted the king's officials in the years leading up to the Revolutionary War.

Instead, when they chose to act, the organizers of the clandestine rebel group tended to execute calculated, highly theatrical and terrifyingly coordinated acts of political violence designed to completely paralyzed British governments.

In Massachusetts, the traditional narrative of the.

American Revolution is popularly discussed as this romantic idealized push for liberty and representation.

Which of course, in part it was.

But the reality is those ideals existed alongside the use of extrajudicial torture and humiliation to persuade Americans to rise up against British oppression and embrace independence.

Welcome to history's greatest crimes.

I'm Elena.

And I'm Michael.

And in the process, we will reveal the moral compromises at the heart of the American founding and demonstrate that the American Revolution was secured not merely by high minded Enlightenment philosophy, but but by weaponized street violence and political terrorism.

Although it may sometimes feel like it when we're in the moment, historical moments themselves never happen out of the blue.

They always have a context that help to explain why they happened at that moment and in that particular way.

Instead, it fits within the growing independent nature of the American colonies that had been evolving and growing since the beginning of the 18th century.

That's right, Michael.

Both events worked together to encourage people to question established beliefs, practices and authority.

And at the same time, throughout the 17th and first part of the 18th centuries, the American colonies had been largely left to their own designs.

Parliament in London was more concerned with European politics and the kings of Great Britain were German imports who struggled with the English language language and were mostly controlled by Parliament.

It didn't help that three King Georges who ruled the British Empire in succession throughout the 18th century, increasingly struggled with mental illness.

In short, throughout much of the late 17th and early 18th centuries, the central British government didn't pay much attention to the American colonies.

They hadn't caused a huge amount of trouble for the British government in London, so they were allowed to run themselves for the most part.

And the laws weren't always strictly enforced, including those against piracy or paying taxes.

In fact, in comparison to British citizens in England or any other British colony, American colonists were the least taxed.

As a result, throughout the 18th century, American colonists began to develop a uniquely American identity.

And they weren't keen on being told what to do from a government that didn't understand the challenges they faced or the goals that they had.

The French and British were on two different sides of the war in Europe.

So they also fought each other in other colonies.

In the colonies in North America, the conflict became known as the French and Indian War because it mostly saw British armies and American colonists fighting against the French and their Native American allies.

And as a result, France ceded their Canadian and American territories to the British.

This was a glorious moment for the British Empire, and it introduced millions of acres of new land that the many American colonists regarded as theirs to take over and to benefit from.

From the King and Parliament's point of view, containing the colonists to their current lands would help to keep the peace with Native American tribes that were located farther in.

But from the perspective of American colonists, this was kind of a slap in the face.

They had helped with the French and Indian War, and many had done so because they thought that they would then have access to the rich lands of the Ohio River Valley and elsewhere if the British won the war.

And to make matters worse, even though the British had won the war, it had put the government in Britain deeply in debt.

British Parliament felt that it was high time that the American colonists pay their fair share of the taxes to help the Empire recover financially.

But from the perspective of the American colonists, this was another example of the British government worrying more about itself than its subjects.

Furthermore, the Sugar act cracked down on piracy and a lack of tax enforcement, which led to an overall increase in prices.

The Sugar act had been bad for the American colonists, but the Stamp act felt like an aggressive escalation because it marked the first time that Parliament taxed the colonies directly for revenue.

Those acts placed duties on even a larger range of imported goods that were commonly used by colonists, like glass tea and paper.

They couldn't expand further west into the new land to remedy their financial issues.

And now they had to pay a new heavy load of taxes on goods that had not been taxed before.

And it all just reinforced the growing feeling that the British government in London didn't care about their colonies.

And it emphasized the fact that those same colonies lacked representation in Parliament.

Only those who owned land in England could run for Parliament.

Even more infuriating, when colonists began pushing for some representation in their government, the current prime minister, George Grenville, rejected the idea based on the idea that the colonies enjoyed virtual representation.

Virtual representation meant that Parliament considered the interests of all subjects of the British king, including those in the American colonies when they were making government decisions.

All of this was making American colonists angrier and angrier, and it naturally led to uprisings and other forms of protests.

But when the colonists voiced their complaints about the situation, Parliament sent over more British soldiers, the redcoats, to keep the peace.

Over the next few years, tension among colonists continued to increase, the leading to the establishment of secret patriot groups like the Sons of Liberty.

These were loosely organized groups that came together to defend the rights of the colonists.

Sons of Liberty groups spread throughout New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts and other colonies.

In Boston, famous members included Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Paul Revere and others.

The group often met in the city at a large elm tree, which became popularly known as the Liberty tree.

The tree would be the backdrop for many Sons of Liberty rallies, petitions, and sometimes violent acts against British officials.

And more importantly, the Sons of Liberty had the power to call upon the widespread anger of colonists in Boston and direct a mob to its intended destination.

The colonial mob was not an anarchic rabble of the lower classes, but a structured political instrument.

Scholars of early American crowds have demonstrated that Boston's mobs were indeed highly organized, often divided into geographic factions such as the north end and south end gangs.

And they were mobilized by middle and upper class members of the Sons of Liberty to enforce ideological conformity.

During that event, Boston residents verbally and physically harassed the redcoats stationed in front of the tax collection house to protect it.

In the chaos of the moment, a redcoat accidentally fired into the crowd, leading the other redcoats with him to do the same.

In the end, five Boston residents were killed and several others were wounded.

For the colonists in Boston and elsewhere, this was another example of Parliament failing to consider their interests when creating policies.

In response, members of the Sons of Liberty, disguising themselves as Mohawk Native Americans, boarded three British ships at Griffin's Wharf and Boston harbor and dumped 342 chests of East India Company tea into the harbor.

This act of defiance resulted in a financial loss as of over 9,000 sterling to the East India Company and undermined Parliament policies.

By the way, that amount translates to about $1.7 million today.

As you can imagine, the British government was big mad, but the colonists were nowhere close to standing down.

With each new tax act or limiting policy, the colonists became more resistant and vented their anger through acts of violence like the Boston Massacre or an act of property destruction like the Boston Tea Party.

In response, Prime Minister north imposed harsh sanctions that were intended to make an example of the city of Boston.

In the midst of this political chaos stood royal tax collectors and military officers.

Like John Malcolm.

And although Malcolm was born and raised in Boston by Scotch Irish immigrant parents, he was a staunch supporter of the Crown.

As a young man, he entered the maritime trade, becoming a ship owner and master of numerous merchant vessels.

Apparently, Malcolm had a tendency to be a bit overzealous in his job.

His approach emphasized proactive seizures and inspections, often boarding ships without prior notice to verify compliance.

There were also a couple of incidents during which Malcolm reportedly drew his sword and threatened ship crews who he believed were not following the laws.

Malcolm's enthusiasm for his job and deep arrogance seems to have been partially due to his own personality and partially Due to the British government's recent push to tighten colonial trade controls and collect as much taxes as possible wherever he went,.

John Malcolm quickly became a deeply hated man, particularly by dock workers and sailors who were dependent on illicit trade for their livelihoods.

End quote.

So enraged with the sailors by Malcolm's behavior that they apparently seized and disarmed him of his sword, cane, hat and wig.

They then applied hot tar over his clothing without stripping him first and affixed feathers to the tar covered Malcolm and paraded him through the streets in a cart, halting at key sites to mock his authority.

This, as you would expect, was a humiliating experience for Malcolm.

In the weeks that followed, Malcolm complained in his letters of, quote, being hooted at in the streets for having been tarred and feathered, end quote.

Clearly, the populace was not sympathetic, but as mentioned, the sailors who first tarred and feather him either had thoughts of pity or morality as they did not strip his clothes beforehand.

This spared Malcolm further embarrassment from nudity and severe physical harm from the boiling tar.

Two months later, during his second ordeal, Malcolm would not be as fortunate.

According to contemporary accounts, the boy had either collided with Malcolm or Malcolm had accused the child of disrupting his path.

Enraged, Malcolm began cursing the child, shaking a heavy, iron ferruled cane over his head and threatening to strike him.

George Robert Twelves Hughes, a 31 year old shoemaker, witnessed the exchange and intervened to protect the child.

Interestingly, Hughes had been an active participant in both the Boston Massacre and the recent Boston Tea Party, and he seemed to have no problem standing up to Malcolm.

According to one account in the Massachusetts Gazette newspaper, Hughes spoke directly, saying, quote, Mr. Malcolm, I hope you are not going to strike this boy with that stick, end quote.

Malcolm turned his fury toward the shoemaker, retorting, quote, you are an impertinent rascal.

It is none of your business, end quote.

When Hughes inquired as to what the child had done to warrant such treatment, Malcolm didn't explain, but instead called Hughes a vagabond and declared that Hughes should not speak to a gentleman in the street.

In response, Hughes defended his reputation, stating that though he was a poor man, he was of good credit in the town.

But then he added one more thing that sent John Malcolm over the edge of Hughes said that at least he had never been tarred and feathered before.

Overcome with fury, John Malcolm struck Hughes on the head with his cane, opening up a gash in the shoemaker's forehead and causing him to fall to the ground unconscious.

Following the assault, bystanders rushed the bleeding Hughes to the Hanover street office of Dr. Joseph Warren, a prominent physician and known patriot.

Warren treated the wound on Hughes head, famously remarking, quote, cousin Hughes, you are the luckiest man I know of to have such a skull.

Nothing else could have saved you.

The physical scar of this blow remained visible on Hughes forehead for the rest.

Of his life while Hughes proceeded to the office of Justice Edmund Quincy to swear out an arrest warrant for Malcolm.

Word of the assault spread rapidly through Boston, mobilizing the town's Radical Network.

By 8pm an angry crowd estimated between 500 and 1,000 people had gathered outside Malcolm's residence on King Street, a two story structure with a gabled roof and a front porch.

The crowd demanded that Malcolm apologize to Hughes and recant his support for British tax enforcement.

Malcolm barricaded himself inside with his wife Anne and their children and refused to submit to the constable, attempting to serve the warrant, much less the mob outside.

Instead, Malcolm taunted the crowd from a window shouting, you say I was tarred and feathered and that it was not done in a proper manner.

Damn you, let me see the man that dared do it better.

I want to see it done in the new fashion manner.

When his wife threw up the window sash to plead with the crowd to disperse, Malcolm pushed past her and thrust his unsheathed sword through the opening, stabbing a local resident, John Wardell.

The blade struck a bone in the man's chest, narrowly missing his vitals.

Malcolm then found a set of pistols with which he threatened the crowd, shouting that he would receive a 30 pound reward for killing every person.

Over 250 years later, John Malcolm's defiance of the crowd is astonishing.

But eventually the crowd won.

People secured ladders, shattered the upper window glass and breached the home.

A local named William Russell, who had participated in the Boston Tea Party, entered the room and feigned friendship, tricking Malcolm into handing over his sword.

Once Malcolm was disarmed, the mob rushed him, bound him, beat him with sticks and lowered him out the window onto a waiting sled.

The confrontation between the stuck up, royally appointed tax collector and the poor shoemaker represented a clash of socio political status.

In 18th century colonial society.

Physical violence with a cane was a common method for a gentleman of status to discipline a social inferior without granting them the honor of a duel.

Malcolm's insistence that Hughes should not speak to a gentleman in the street was a direct assertion of that social hierarchy.

And by striking Hughes, Malcolm sought to reassert his class dominance.

However, the mob's intervention that same day demonstrated that the traditional social deference of the colonial era had eroded.

Dragged from his home into the freezing night, John Malcolm faced being tarred and feathered a second time.

The substance utilized by the Boston mob was marine pine tar, a dark, highly viscous and hydrophobic liquid made from pine wood.

This tar was a standard commodity in 18th century shipbuilding ports, used extensively for waterproofing, cordage, rigging and wooden hulls.

To make the thick, sludgy tar pourable and spreadable, the mob had to heat it in large iron cauldrons over open wood bonfires.

When it started to boil, the adhesive paste was painted directly onto Malcolm's bare skin.

It formed an immediate insulating seal that trapped the high heat against his flesh, preventing rapid cooling and parboiling the underlying epidermal and dermal layers and causing immediate extensive second degree and third degree burns.

The application of feathers immediately following the tarring bonded to the cooling tar.

They then created a dense insulating matrix that further trapped the heat against the skin.

After being covered by tar and feathers, Malcolm was paraded through the freezing night.

The low temperatures would have caused the outer layer of the tar to congeal, but horrifyingly, the inner layer of tar would have continued to burn his skin while his uncovered extremities were at risk of falling.

Frostburn and profound hyperthermia.

Even worse, the rigid, congealing tar would have made breathing difficult, while the continued systematic beating of Malcolm he received from ropes and sticks influenced blunt force trauma.

The physical path of Malcolm's parade through Boston was a deliberate map of political transgression and revolutionary reclamation.

He was tarred and feathered in front of the custom house, whose officials oversaw the collection of taxes.

It was the same custom house where British soldiers had fired upon crowds during the Boston Massacre.

The mob then took Malcolm south, passing the townhouse, the institutional home of the colony's legislature.

They continued to the Province House, the official residence of the royal governor, Thomas Hutchinson.

Here the crowd halted and demanded demanded that Malcolm curse the governor.

Afterwards, moving south, the parade went to the Liberty Tree.

Under its branches, the crowd fastened a halter around Malcolm's neck, threatening to hang him, and forced him to apologize for his actions and renounce his royal office as tax collector.

The march then continued Over a mile south of Bought to the Boston Gallows, the site of public executions.

By binding Malcolm to the gallows and beating him with ropes and sticks, the mob again performed a symbolic mock's execution, signaling that Malcolm had suffered a social death and was legally and physically cast out of the political community.

Before dumping the unconscious Malcolm on his doorstep, the mob made a final symbolic stop at Copp's Hill Cemetery.

There they paused by the grave of Malcolm's late brother, Captain Daniel Malcolm.

By stopping at Daniel's grave, the mob highlighted the deep ideological division within families and mocked John's loyalty to the crown by contrasting it with his brother's radical local legacy.

Having completed this highly symbolic tour of Boston's ideological landscape, the mob returned Malcolm to his home and rolled him out of the cart like a frozen log.

But even then, his ordeal wasn't completely over.

Because the tar had bonded with his skin, removal presented a dangerous medical challenge.

John Malcolm's relatives and doctors documented that the congealed tar and frostbite caused his skin to peel off his back in sheets and putting him at risk of secondary bacterial infections.

And for the next eight weeks, Malcolm remained bedridden and in critical condition.

The first incident seems to have been a warning of sorts, leaving Malcolm with more humiliation than physical injury.

The second incident, a few months later, was far more severe, leaving Malcolm in critical condition for weeks afterwards.

Crucially, Malcolm did not travel with proper documentation alone.

He carried a box containing preserved withered pieces of his own skin with pine tar and chicken feathers still attached as empirical evidence of his profound suffering.

When he arrived in London, he submitted a petition to King George iii.

Interestingly, the king, who was already well aware of what happened to John Malcolm, ignored Malcolm's petition for six months.

Eventually, Malcolm's patience wore thin and he decided to see the King in person.

The royal levy was a ceremonial morning reception held by the king, where privileged guests were granted the honor of watch watching the ruler wake up and dress.

There, Malcolm knelt before King George III and presented his petition along with his preserved, tarred flesh.

It's a Rather humorous scene if you think about it.

The King, still in his pajamas before he's had his breakfast and tea, finds himself face to face with the man he's been avoiding for months and his box of skin.

Funny as it is, that's exactly what happened.

In his written petition to the King, first, Malcolm described his extreme loyalty to the Crown, boasting of his military service across 13 different commissions and his participation in all the battles of the French and Indian War.

He then declared, I long to be sent out to my family in Boston and to my business in the custom in the Boston government, and I would humbly implore, your majesty, let me be soon sent from London to Boston.

This rhetoric was calculated to frame his personal suffering as a noble sacrifice for the preservation of British sovereignty.

Perhaps we shouldn't be too surprised that King George was less than impressed and refused to send John Malcolm back to Boston.

Instead, he gave Malcolm the new job of overseeing a independent company of invalids in the town of Plymouth, England.

This new job was definitely a demotion for Malcolm.

John Malcolm also sent letters to the Lords of the treasury who were in charge of compensating officials who were injured in the line of duty.

In those letters, Malcolm sought to frame his assault as a direct consequence of his imperial service.

He stated that he was barbarously and inhumanely treated while endeavoring to do my duty in getting the tea landed.

Malcolm's claim, however, was systematically dismantled by his own superior.

In London, the loyalist press capitalized on the details of Malcolm's assault to shape British public opinion.

Newspapers like the London Chronicle portrayed the Boston patriots not as defenders of English liberties, but as savage subhuman monsters who rejected the rule of law.

This image, likely created by the satirist Philip Dawes, combine the assault of Malcolm with the earlier dumping of tea in the background, depicting a menacing mob holding a tea collector by the neck and forcing him to drink tea while bound.

This image was widely circulated throughout England and Europe, reinforcing the perception that Boston was governed by a lawless mob.

In contrast to the graphic, sensationalized loyalist accounts, Patriot political leaders and radical newspapers inside the colonies engaged in a sophisticated campaign to sanitize and downplay the violence.

Printers for the Boston Gazette systematically minimized or satirized the assault, framing the torture of Malcolm as a humorous, justifiable act of popular correction provoked by Malcolm's own behavior.

By publishing accounts that emphasized Malcolm's hot temper and his physical assault on the decent shoemaker George Hughes, Patriot writers sought to shift the moral culpability of the event entirely onto the victim.

This effort to regulate the narrative is reflected in the actions of the formal patriot leadership.

The Sons of liberty published a public posting in Boston and other major cities that sought to distance their group from the attack on John Malcolm.

Their posting stated, quote, we reserve that method for bringing villains of greater consequence to a sense of guilt and infamy.

This statement reveals a fascinating paradox within the revolutionary movement.

While elite patriots leaders relied on the threat of mob violence to paralyze royal tax collection, they sought to regulate its execution to preserve their claims to moral and legal legitimacy.

The Sons of Liberty recognized that the raw, uncontrolled brutality of the Boston crowd, if left unregulated, risked alienating moderate colonists and validating the British administration's claims that the colonies had degenerated into a state of lawless anarchy.

Thus, patriotic rhetoric worked to frame Malcolm's torture as an isolated, albeit deserved, eruption of local indignation rather than a systematic campaign of political terror.

For years, moderate voices in parliament had argued that colonial resistance was limited to a small group of agitators and could be managed through economic concessions and political compromise.

Prime minister Lord north and the Secretary of state for North America, Lord Dartmouth, pointed to Malcolm scarred peeled skin as empirical proof that royal authority had indeed collapsed in Massachusetts.

In the eyes of the British administration, the Bostonians had moved beyond legitimate protest into a state of high treason and open rebellion.

It's fascinating that even the names that the British government called these acts versus what the colonists Themselves called them, reflect two different perspectives and realities on the conflict.

By calling them the Coercive Acts, Parliament demonstrated their intent to force Boston to back down and to prevent other rebellious cities and colonies from trying something similar.

In contrast, by calling them the Intolerable Acts, colonists suggested that they were unjust and oppressive.

First, the Boston Port act closed Boston harbor to all commercial shipping until the East India Company was compensated for its tea and order was restored.

The third act, the Administration of Justice act, allowed royal officials charged with capital offenses in the execution of their duties to be tried in Great Britain or other colonies, ensuring they would not face radicalized local juries.

And the final fourth act, and the legal cherry on top, was another Quartering act, which sent over more soldiers to Boston and housed them in Colonists residence.

But the royal goal of punishing Boston and making them an example ultimately backfired.

Rather than isolating Massachusetts, the Coercive Acts galvanized intercolonial unity.

The closing of Boston harbor caused widespread economic hardship, prompting other colonies to send food, supplies and expressions of political solidarity.

A comprehensive analysis of this systemic escalation demonstrates that the Coercive act functioned as a double edged sword designed to reassert parliamentary supremacy.

They instead exposed the limits of British military and administrative power.

The suspension of local representative government created a political vacuum that was rapidly filled by members of the Sons of Liberty and the newly formed Continental Congress.

Other forms of rebellion, like the Boston Tea Party, boycotts and formal declarations were certainly effective in that they hit the British government in the pocketbook and clarified exactly what the colonists resented and what their goals were.

And it also reveals that the American Revolution was Not just a battle of ideas, but a physical and violent struggle for municipal and sovereign power.

But in an interesting turn of events, the attack on John Malcolm later encouraged the builders of the future American republic to reckon with the dangerous nature of mob forces that they themselves had helped to unleash.

People like George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson consequently tried to create a constitutional framework that was designed to suppress the very street violence that it had helped birth the nation.

Under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 of the Constitution, commonly referred to as the Insurrection clause, Congress is granted the explicit power to call up the military and send them to put down uprisings and ensure that the laws are followed.

Similarly, Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution, commonly known as the Guarantee Clause, dictates that the United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government and protect each of them against domestic violence.

Violence.

The story of John Malcolm remains a powerful warning of the moral compromises at the heart of the American founding.

The historical evidence demonstrates that the path to American independence was not paved only by the enlightened philosophy of the Declaration of Independence, but also by the terrifying physical enforcement of the mob.

And for modern democracies, Malcolm's story is a reminder of the fragility of the rule of law and the danger of replacing institutional justice with street violence.

When a society decides that its political ideals justify the extrajudicial torture of its opponents, the boundary between liberation and terror disappears.

Thanks for listening to history's greatest crimes.

I'm Elena.

And I'm Michael.

And until next time, stay curious.

Sam.