CONCLUSION

           There were two objectives with this project – to gain a better understanding of the dichotomous nature of 1768 and 1769 Norfolk anti-inoculation riots and the following court cases, and to analyze Patrick Henderson’s argument about the riots and court cases being based in Patriot v. Loyalist tensions. To say that the riots and court cases were a chaotic mess of violence and prejudice is a valid claim – houses were mobbed, people were targeted, and there was clear bias against certain groups in Norfolk. The use of the word prejudice is important to the argument being made because it goes against Henderson’s argument of Patriot v. Loyalist tensions. Henderson was not wrong in stating that the anti-inoculationists were fueled by a sense of patriotism. Many of the men in Norfolk called themselves patriots during the riots. However, there is evidence to suggest that both it was not loyalism that motivated the pro-inoculationists and that it wasn’t just patriotism that fueled the anti-inoculationists. The pro-inoculationists weren’t basing their arguments in their loyalty to the Crown, considering many of them sympathized with the Colonists on issues like the Stamp Act and weren’t explicitly expressing loyalty to the Crown. Henderson’s lack of focus on the Scottish perspective, specifically James Parker’s letters to Charles Steuart, and the lack of attention to the newspapers muddles his argument. And with the anti-inoculationists, taking Samuel Boush and the fact that many were indebted to Scottish merchants into account questions the validity of the Patriot v. Loyalist argument all together. Again, the riots were a complicated, violent mess. Henderson’s argument of patriotism, even considering some of the counter arguments, has some validity to it. Thompson Mason’s involvement, when considering his past, fits into the patriotism mold. However, where I think Henderson’s argument falls flat is loyalism being at play in the riots. There is too much evidence that counters this. The apparent prejudices and biases against the Scots, from James Parker’s perspective, invalidates this argument. Future work focusing in on other perspectives from the pro-inoculationists, like Dalgleish and Campbell, would strengthen my argument and solidify new potential factors in the riots.