Tarring and Feathering, as you might suspect, was an incredibly unpleasant experience, and the same could be said for the reverse too. The removal, and how painful or hard it might be, depended heavily on how the tar was applied in the first place.
The best case scenario for someone submitted to this painful and humiliating chariavari was that they would be subjected to it while still clothed, and with tar straight from the barrel (it ought to be pointed out that this is pine tar, not the kind of tar they use for asphalt. The former doesn't need to be nearly as hot for application as the latter would!). Similar to being clothed, a victim might be wrapped in a sheet, similarly offering protection from the tar, but also making them essentially immobile for the time. If unclothed, the tar of course would be stuck right to the skin. And if heated up, burning and blistering of the skin would only add to the pain as well, although this was reserved for few cases. Many persons might receive something of a mixed treatment, stripped to the waist but tar applied over their pants, at least, although it was surely little comfort in the moment. Another way to add to the pain -both of application and removal - was the beating of mutilation of the victim, such as Thomas Foster, who was tarred by a mob in Natchez, but not before being partially scalped and the tar poured over the wound.
To remove the tar was basically a matter of solvents and elbow grease. Turpentine could help to break down the tar - but was itself quite painful once it touched the effected area of skin - but the victims would, in the end, just need a lot of scrubbing with an abrasive from friends or family (removal would need to take place well away from the crowd though. A doctor who came to aid a tarred Tory in 1777 only earned the wrath of the crowd, and was himself then targeted), taking off the tar along with body hair and often layers of skin too. This photo (not for the squeemish) comes from a 20th century tarring, of a German-American seen as unsupportive of WWI, and provides an idea of the after-effects. A condition known as 'tar acne' would often remain afterwards on the skin. To be sure, tarring and feathering itself wasn't fatal. The Mormon leader Joseph Smith, subjected to a tarring, one which he was able to nevertheless walk away from and reach home where he spoke briefly of the removal:
My friends spent the night in scraping and removing the tar, and washing and cleansing my body; so that by morning I was ready to be clothed again. [...] With my flesh all scarified and defaced, I preached to the congregation as usual.
Clearly, it had left him a painful reminder of that night, but by his account, not even incapacitated him for a day. A similar result, recounted by Dr. James Carnahan of a 1794 treatment of a Deputy Inspector named John Lyn recounts that:
[Lyn] was left tied to a tree so loosely that he could easily extricate himself. He returned to his house, and after undergoing an ablution with grease and soap and sand and water, he exhibited himself to the boys in the Academy and others, and laughed and made sport of the whole matter.
Tar, even when applied hot, would burn the skin but wasn't enough to kill. This isn't to say that it wasn't accompanied by other behavior though, which increased the pain and damage at the very least.
Although it seems to have been incredibly rare, a particularly vengeful crowd might "assist" in the removal... by lighting the tar aflame, which occurred in Boston to a man named Richard Owen, but again, this wasn't common. Other acts of violence happened too though. The aforementioned surgeon reportedly had his eyes gouged by the crowd too. More commonly, the crowd would parade the victim around though, sometimes for hours, which while not quite as vengeful looking, nevertheless insured that the tar had plenty of time to set (especially in cold weather), which would at the very least add to the pain of removal. One such description of this, from Boston in 1774, recounts:
But the most shocking cruelty was exercised a few Nights ago, upon a poor Old Man a Tidesman one Malcolm he is reckond creasy, a quarrel was pickd wth him, he was afterward taken, & Tarrd, & featherd. Theres no Law that Knows a punishment for the greatest Crimes beyond what this is, of cruel torture. And this instance exceeds any other before it he was stript Stark naked, one of the severest cold nights this Winter, his body coverd all over with Tar, then with feathers, his arm dislocated in tearing off his cloaths, he was dragd in a Cart with thousands attending, some beating him wth clubs & Knocking him out of the Cart, then in again. They gave him several severe whipings, at different parts of the Town. This Spectacle of horror & sportive cruelty was exhibited for about five hours.
Again, though, it ought to be pointed out tarring wasn't fatal, and Malcom's treatment was some of the worst. The purpose was punishment of transgressions - in the Revolutionary era, often Toryism, and later often used for violations of 'community standards' - and the humiliation was, more than anything, what was aimed for. I bring this up to mention one more "tarring" and feathering, one which was probably the least painful of all, which Irvin notes in his essay, where a group of women decided to punish a young man who had interrupted their quilting, not with tar, but with molasses. It still served the same aim, the man's humiliation, but it was decidedly the easiest clean-up of anything else here.
So in short, removal depended greatly on how you were tarred. If you were lucky to remain clothed, the biggest pain might very well have been to your pride, while on the other end, someone stripped, given hot tar, and paraded for hours would likely have a very painful night, and a long, painful recovery afterwards.
Hersey, Frank W. C. “Tar and Feathers: The Adventures of Captain John Malcolm,” Colonial Society of Massachusetts Publications, Vol. 34 (1941), 429-73.
Irvin, Benjamin H. "Tar, Feathers, and the Enemies of American Liberties, 1768-1776." The New England Quarterly 76, no. 2 (2003): 197-238.
John Meints, Punished during World War I. ca 1917-1918. John Meints v. O.R. Huntington, Et. Al, 1917 - 1918; Law Case Files, 1898 - 1938 Record Group 21: Records of District Courts of the United States, 1685 - 2009, National Archives at Kansas City, Kansas City.
Levy, Barry. "Tar and Feathers" Journal of the Historical Society 11 no. 1 (2011) 85-110.
Smith, Joseph. History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (2014)
Ward, Townsend. "The Insurrection of the Year 1794 in the Western Counties of Pennsylvania" Memoirs Of The Historical Society of Pennsylvania Vol. 6 M. Carty And Davis (1858)
Wyatt-Brown, Bertrand. Southern Honor: Ethics and Behavior in the Old South, Oxford University Press (2007)
Edit: Trying to find a few more primary sources to stick in there.
Hey there,
If you've come to the thread and are wondering why the comments have been removed along with the tar and feathers, the reason is that, on /r/AskHistorians, we'd rather have no answer than a thread cluttered with bad answers, jokes, and people saying "where are all the comments?". By removing the short, quick, bad answers that would otherwise crowd them out, the well-researched in-depth answers (that take people time to research and write) are more likely to be seen (see this graph for more detail).
This heavy moderation works: we have found that it takes an average of 9 hours for a good answer to appear on a popular thread - properly researching and writing an answer takes time - and that 90%+ of popular threads get an answer. Additionally, it's late at night on the East Coast of the US at the moment, which means that plenty of the historians interested in this topic might already be asleep. The last time we did a survey, ~88% of /r/AskHistorians subscribers who had an opinion on our moderation approved of it, while another 6% thought we should be stricter - presumably they also want us to tar and feather shitposters as well as remove their posts? Interesting idea...
In other words, patience, good people. If you want to be reminded to look at this thread later, please see this really awesome Roundtable post for a list of ways. And if you're wondering why Reddit never shows you an AskHistorians thread with answers, consider sorting your Reddit home feed by 'Hot' rather than 'Best' - 'Best' seems to give precedence to newer posts (which are less likely to have an answer on this subreddit, of course) and threads you haven't already looked at (e.g., it'll show you something else next time you log in, even if this thread is still getting lots of upvotes because there's an actual answer now). If you want to send RemindMeBot a PM to be reminded of this post in 2 days, click here.
If you're wondering what's in the 24 removed top-level comments at the time of writing, about a third of that is people going "what happened to all of the comments?" or "[removed]". Another third is people making jokes ("with difficulty"). The other third is either links to sometimes dubious information, or people saying in a sentence or two something to the effect of "they used oil" or "they didn't, they died". None of which meets the standards in our subreddit rules. All of these comments get removed on /r/AskHistorians because the huge majority of our subscribers really do want accurate, comprehensive, in-depth historical answers based on good historical practice and high-quality sources. It's amazing how many downvotes and reports an obvious shitpost can attract on a popular thread on /r/AskHistorians within minutes, thanks to our readers (if you see it, report it!)
What makes a good answer on /r/AskHistorians? Well, we want people answering questions to be able to explain not just what the basic facts are according to academic research, but why we know that these basic facts are right, and to put those basic facts into context. This is why we encourage the use of primary and secondary sources in answering questions, rather than tertiary sources like Wikipedia, podcasts and textbooks.
Unfortunately, the downside of encouraging in-depth and comprehensive answers is that we have to remove a lot of shitposts and comments wondering what happened to the removed shitposts. The upside, however, is that our contributors consistently post amazing stuff to /r/AskHistorians (which we collate the best of every week in our Sunday Digest), and daily on our Twitter. Alternatively, if you want to discuss history without these constraints, /r/history or /r/askhistory might be more appropriate subreddits for you than /r/AskHistorians.