While also technically vandalism, the point of the event was to send a message to the king, and they didn't want their identities revealed for fear of retribution.
I can't speak for the founding fathers, but I don't believe a single one of them would argue against the right of the citizen to express his opinion anonymously.
Because they were planning to destroy property and wanted to protect themselves from being recognized and later arrested as criminals. The justification for this mob action, if any, is wholly tied to the illegitimacy of the British colonial government. Anything comparable in today's America is part of what our Coast Guard exists to prevent.
I can't speak for the founding fathers, but I don't believe a single one of them would argue against the right of the citizen to express his opinion anonymously.
I said almost the opposite in my last post, but the real answer may be that different founding fathers would, well, differ. It mainly would have to do with their attitude towards "the mob." I did notice the previous post stating how dozens of demonstrating klansmen are surrounded by thousands of counterdemonstrators, making it a bit of a judgement call as to where the mob lies. However, in siding against a masked mob trying, however ineffectually, to intimindate, I think I am taking the side of Washington, although probably not that of Jefferson, and certainly not that of Paine.
Thanks to dead for the opportunity to discuss an issue where I am not sure I am right.