Violence and its role in Revolution

After listening the discussion we had last class and reading tonight's homework, the idea of violence and it's role in revolution came to mind . Last class we were responding to Tola's blog which discussed whether Americans were truly virtuous or simply whiny. We talked about the Son's of Liberty's methods of expressing their message of freedom, and came to the conclusion that they could essentially be considered terrorists. The sons used violence and scare tactics to cause a scene, such as the Boston Tea Party. Other destructive acts started by the colonists were the burning of the Gaspee and the Boston Massacre. For the most part, these events did not cause any improvement in the lives of the colonists, but rather prompted Britain to further impede upon their rights. For example, the Tea party triggered Britain to impose the Intolerable Acts which lessened the power of self- government in Massachusetts. Despite the downsides to these violent acts, they did draw attention, thus causing more people to support and join their cause. Overall, one may think that these destructive methods of gaining attention are inferior to more civil methods and are not necessary in revolution. However, I remember on Monday that our class came to the general consensus that some type of violent revolt is needed to spur a change. Patrick Henry agreed. In the passage we read for our read- aloud, Henry states "We must fight! I repeat sir, we must fight!" Patrick Henry realizes that to really gain the respect of England and achieve the liberties that they feel they deserve, they must start a violent conflict. They must be willing to risk death for what they believe in.
I believe that violent rebellion was needed to prompt a revolution during the 18th century and earlier, but not necessarily now. Humanity ( at least in America) has developed a much higher moral code and thus would be able to spur change without resorting to violence. With the technology society has nowadays, we have methods of spreading ideas that are much more widespread, civil, and easy. We have the ability to get a message across without violent means. In the 1700s, they could only hold protests and meetings, and spread pamphlets/propaganda. Violence was needed to start the revolution as America needed to assert the fact to Britain that they were a real threat. What do you guys think, how does violence play a role in revolution and is it necessary to trigger evolution of society?