Most of the literature I have read for regarding the Luddites has been from one perspective: the side of General Ludd. This perspective paints a scathing image of the manufacturing big wigs whom found it necessary to introduce state-of-the-art mechanisms that increased the speed of production but decreased the quality of the goods produced-according to multiple poems and letters from individuals like Lord Byron. However, I began questioning how accurate of a representation of this civil uprising do we get from the Luddite perspective?
Lord Byron's letters and speeches ("Letter to Lord Holland" and "Speech to the House of Lords") are particularly interesting in this regard. In his speech to the House of Lords, Byron-known for his literary prowess-seems to drift into the realm of rhetoric, making many rhetorical moves in an attempt to persuade his audience to his cause. One instance of this is when Byron argues that "[y]ou may call the people a mob; but do not forget that a mob too often speaks the sentiments of the people." Byron is attempting to enlighten the House to their ignorance of the common people's views and plight(s). Byron's letter, similarly, attempts to persuade Lord Holland that something must be done to help the Luddites, so that we do not allow "mankind to be sacrificed to improvements in mechanization." Byron's rhetoric here is designed to make the Luddites seems pitiful, to cast them in a more positive light than Lord Holland may have been exposed to before from his peers. These rhetorical move aid in the persuasiveness of Luddite literature, but they do not seem to show the whole picture as accurately as they could.
I feel that the Luddites and figures like Byron were able to give a fair representation of this situation, even though their representation seems to be skewed toward their views. Although the government did create laws that regulate the breaking of machinery, the Luddites were-in essence-breaking other laws by destroying personal property. Also, by having the government alter and create laws in order to severely punish Luddite-inspired crimes (such as loom breaking), they possibly made the situation worse than it should/would have been. The job loss and the literal fear of starving to death that industrialization brought was enough to inspire radical resistance by Luddites, a resistance from all accounts that seems to be justified, but it should not have turned violent.
The government does not seem to be the only ones that used violence, though. The murder of William Horsfall, an outspoken opponent of Luddites and their destruction, marked a new step for Luddites: assassinations. Although I believe there are times for violence, murder and assassination are rarely the best courses of action if you are trying to evoke true change, which is potentially one of the reasons their protest movement eventually failed.