I probably would have been better served reading a general history of Luddism than this well curated collection of primary sources. Binfield makes a distinction between Luddism and framebreaking, two distinct but frequently overlapping phenomena. Simply, Luddism referred to a nebulous movement somehow invoking the legendary figure of Ned Ludd in an effort to put an end to manufacturer's use of certain machinery. This didn't always involve frame breaking, and not all frame breaking referenced Ludd in any way.

The writings are divided into three geographical areas: The Midlands, Northwest, and Yorkshire. Binfield points out that the writings from each locale are influenced by the labor institutions in each area. The Midlands, with its larger focus on wool, had a larger history of institutionalized support from the Crown. Many of the Midlander's threats and letters appealed to legal systems such as charters and kingship. They were less concerned with the introduction of machines than they were by new industry practices that skirted around apprenticeships.

The Northwest in contrast to this had a higher prevalence of cotton looms. This was a newer industry, and consequently the social and legal institutions surrounding the workforce were not as strong. Their writings thus involved more oblique threats towards manufacturers rather than legalistic appeals.

Yorkshire, however, with a larger focus on croppers were long established, but also without the legal recognitions and traditions of the Midlands. The industry was decentralized, but they were also more violent, both in threats and actions. Rather than appeals to legal institutions, their violence was more direct towards the owners of machines and their threats more aimed at the authorities, advising them to stay out of their way. Their songs were better as well.