Mob action justifiable?

The mob action of the American Revolution cannot be viewed as either justifiable or unjustifiable. There were too many factors at play. From the American point of view they fought the French and Indian War and once it was won they couldn't collect the spoils in order to make up for the loss of life and money. The reason the couldn't do so was a British policy, the Proclamation of 1763. From the British point of view, too much money had been already spent on one war to risk fighting another one on new territory. But the Americans felt that since Great Britain hadn't formally founded any of the colonies, why should they have the power to execute such orders. And then one must consider that the Britons just fought a WAR for the colonists so they should have some executive decision. And the colonists would refute that because THEY didn't make an enemy with France. And then the British would say that the colonists needed room to farm anyway. And then the colonists would point out that the British won't LET them farm and the cycle repeats itself.
As one can see, the situation was a paradox with all parties just as much in the moral right as in the moral wrong so there is no way to define whether or not the American mob action was justifiable.

The statement "rebellion is a great crime unless it succeeds" is very correct but not surprisingly so. Rebellion will always be crime under the regime against which it is rebelling and could be viewed as criminal by a third party but if it is successful, it creates new laws. And if it continues then posterity will see it as lawful and NOT criminal because of a previously instituted notion.

No one wishes to believe their society the product of a crime so that notion is not considered whatsoever.