The MAGA meme falsely claims Patriots tarred Judge James Smith in 1775 for "preventing the removal of enemy aliens" - a lie twisting history to fit anti-immigrant rhetoric. In truth, Smith was attacked for defending property rights under British law, after ruling against musket seizure and arresting a Patriot committee member. Like much MAGA propaganda, it stitches a shred of fact (Smith's punishment) to pure fiction (xenophobic scapegoating). Smith's tar and feathering had nothing to do with immigration - yet far-right grifters weaponize historical ignorance to spread divisive myths

The Actual Facts

The First Continental Congress - precursor to the U.S. government - convened on September 5, 1774, in Carpenters' Hall, Philadelphia.

The first shot of the American Revolution was fired on April 19, 1775, at Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts.

On September 16, 1775, in Dutchess County, New York, Judge James Smith of the Court of Common Pleas issued a ruling that made him a target of Patriot mob violence. The case involved the seizure of a Loyalist's musket by local Patriot committees, which had been confiscating weapons from British sympathizers. Smith ruled the seizure unlawful, citing property rights and due process.

His decision directly challenged the Dutchess County Committee, an extralegal Patriot body behind the confiscation. When Smith went further and arrested a Patriot committee member, tensions erupted. A mob stormed the court, freed the prisoner, and turned on Smith - tarring and feathering him, then parading him for miles as a warning to others who defied revolutionary authority.

Judge Smith's Legal Authority

As a judge in the Court of Common Pleas, Smith operated under British colonial law, which still technically governed New York in 1775. His court had jurisdiction over civil disputes, including property seizures, making his ruling legally valid at the time.

However, his authority was challenged on three fronts:

• Extralegal Patriot Committees - The Dutchess County Committee derived power from the Continental Congress and local militias - not British law. Its "resolves" lacked legal standing under colonial statutes.
• Collapse of British Governance - By late 1775, British authority was disintegrating. Patriot militias often bypassed formal courts, enforcing their rules through intimidation.
• Wartime Justifications - Patriots saw confiscations as military necessity. Smith's insistence on legal process clashed with revolutionary priorities.

The Patriots' Perspective

To the rebels, Smith's actions were treasonous:

• Undermining Revolutionary Goals - His ruling hindered efforts to disarm potential British collaborators.
• Defying Rebel Authority - Arresting a committee member positioned Smith as an enforcer of British law.
• Symbol of the Crown - Colonial judges were widely seen as tools of British oppression. Smith became a symbolic target.

The tarring and feathering was not just punishment - it was a spectacle meant to humiliate and deter Loyalist sympathizers.

The Legal Dilemma: Whose Laws Applied?

The incident exposed a clash of legal systems:

• British Colonial Law - Still technically in force, it upheld property rights and due process.
• Patriot Resolves - Revolutionary committees enforced extralegal rules with mob power, not courts.
• Martial Necessity - Patriots argued that war overrode legal norms, especially regarding "enemies of liberty."

Conclusion

Judge Smith's case reveals the breakdown of legal order in Revolutionary New York. Though acting within official authority, he was overtaken by a movement that had rejected colonial law in favor of revolutionary justice. His public punishment marked a shift: mob rule replacing courts in rebel-held areas - a pattern that would echo across the colonies as war escalated.

Further Reading

• Tories: Fighting for the King in America's First Civil War - Allen
• Liberty's Exiles: American Loyalists in the Revolutionary World - Jasanoff
• New York State Archives on Revolutionary Committees