Why were boycotts an effective method of protest during the revolution? Why were boycotts an effective method of protest during the American...

Refusing to
trade may hurt you, but if you've got nothing to lose, it may convince the other party to change
their ways if they're suddenly losing lots of money. Charles Boycott (1832-1897) was an Irish
landlord whose rent practices caused tenants to refuse to work on his farms.  The workers went
further, destroying his property and equipment, burning him in effigy, and socially isolating
("shunning") him and all that might to business with him.  "To boycott" now
means to apply these actions towards a given business or individual.  Although the term did not
exist at the time of the American Revolution, these were the same practices colonists exercised
to convey their displeasure over Parliament's governance.  In 1765, the Royal Lieutenant
Governor in Boston, Thomas Hutchinson (descended from Anne Hutchinson) along with other tax
agents had their homes ransacked, were beaten, and burned in effigy.  In 1767, after the passage
of the Townsend Acts, which taxed a variety of British manufactured goods, merchants along the
Atlantic coast organized a boycott of all British goods.  In addition to hurting British
merchants, it stimulated manufacturing within the colonies. The boycott caused huge losses to
British merchants; the duties imposed by the Townsend Acts, if they could even be collected,
wouldn't have offset the deficit.  Parliament, pressured by the merchants, was forced to alter
course and repealed the Acts, excepting the tax on tea, which lead to the "boycotting"
of that item in Boston on December 16, 1773.