The Sons of Libery

Name:
Professor:
Course:
Date:
The American Sons of Liberty
Introduction
America was a colony of the British long before it got its independence. Therefore, it means America was under the British rule. Some of the rules that the America had to abide were passed in the British parliament and passed on to the American people through the colonial masters. The colonist Americans were not at ease with the arrangement and could sometimes agitate and publicly grumble on some of the legislations passed over by the British parliament. Though the rule of law existed, King George III of Great Britain could at times enforce the rules with much severity that it angered the American colonists. When the stamp act was passed in late March of 1765, it received public outrage and equal wrath. The act required the Americans to pay tax on any printed piece of document. It meant to raise money for the protection of the American borders by the British. The colonists felt that though the money collected from the act was not much considering its use, the act opened up leeway for the colonial masters to keep imposing more direct taxes. Civil upheavals thus arose that challenged the development of the tax. Few groups of people, majorly artisans, blacksmiths, traders and a few professionals formed underground groups to show disgust to the tax, especially those who were directly in charge of its collection. The Union Club, the Long-Room Club, Boston Caucus Club among other were the small groups organized to show their opposition to the tax.

Later, in 1765, they joined under the same frontier, that though was initially underground, became openly public and vocal movement led by Samuel Adams in Boston. They called the group, “Sons of Liberty.”
The Origin and Role of Sons of Liberty
The term Sons of Liberty was a coinage from the speech of the Irish ex-American soldier and Member of Parliament, Isaac Barré, who was an open opponent of the Stamp Act. In one of his maiden speeches in parliament when he discredited the stamp act, Barré noted that Americans had able people who could be their representatives in the house, and so levying such taxes was better done by American representatives, and not the colonial masters. His speech also challenged the championing for the civil right of the Americans with such phrases as “No Taxation without Representation” being used by many people who agitated for the development of the American independence. He was an inspiration to the likes of Samuel Adams and James Otis who organized the activities of “Sons of Liberty,” in Boston. In New York chapter, a parallel and independent sons of liberty operative was headed by John Lamb and Alexander McDougall.
The main purpose of the sons of liberty was to focus on the implementation of the Stamp Duty Act (Bons 62). It was to ensure that the public officials who were charged with the responsibility of implementing the tax system to resign and thus curtail its successful implementation. Also, the team focused on the abolishment of any trade in goods from the colonial masters, UK. According to Bons, they believed that by boycotting the goods, their grievance and objections against the tax would be heard (62). It was not in their objective to form a revolutionary movement that would champion for the development of the American independence from the British colonial government, though this is what it finally developed. Sons of liberty, therefore, played an important role in the founding of the American independence.
Meaning and Role of the Stamp Act
It was not an easy task to organize and maintain the loyalty of the sons of liberty at a time when the British government had an autocratic rule on the Americans. The colonial masters were on the watch out to scuttle any opposition to its policies and values. Therefore, those who opposed the stamp duty tax approved by the British government and was thus considered constitutional would face the strong arm of the law. However, the founding nine members would meet in committees and communicate their agenda. Though they had the common values, secrecy was very important. Therefore, they forced themselves to swear by the Bible before they began any meeting that their information would be a total secret (Oats 109-11). Their communication also included code words, sign language, and clichés that were only understandable to themselves.
As the general American public continued to grow discontent and nonsupport of the stamp act that was already rolled out. More people showed a true willingness to join the sons of the liberty movement. Therefore, they recruited people who would champion for the abolition of the stamp act. Doctors, artist’s, lawyers and journalists as well as blacksmiths joined the fray. The focus and the number of the movement thus continued to grow, and it was no longer a secret anymore. The British colonial masters knew that public discontent was real but could not fight back (Oats 17). Moreover, the groups comprised some of the very reliable people who were government employees and thus stopping them required social acts of care and well thought out plans.
As the British were still planning to challenge the movement, the Boston team met in Hanover Square under the Liberty Tree, while the New York chapter met under the liberty poles (Carson, Jake and James 276). These two structures became a symbol of their statesmanship and had to be protected at all costs. The people who joined in the movement of the sons of liberty had taken up various roles. Their immediate target, however, were the people who were in charge of the implementation of the Stamp Duty Act.
The movement became more combative and physical as they targeted the public officials in charge of the implementation of the tax. Andrew Oliver was one of the causalities of the movement on August 4, 1765. Oliver was responsible for the implementation of the stamp act in Massachusetts, the same place the sons of liberty were also organizing and strategizing on their actions in Boston. His effigy was erected and was inscribed with statements that showed whoever could remove such effigy was an enemy of the country. The effigy was later brought down by the Sons of Liberty rioters, trampled upon as they matched to Oliver’s home (Maier 149). The sons of liberty stormed his house and destroyed property, as well as looting most of his personal belongings. Notably, Oliver was not a proponent of the stamp act but was just a public official in charge of its implementation, and so he bore the brunt of the rioters. Three days later on August 17, he resigned from his role as the foremen in the implementation of the stamp act.
However, the brother in law to Oliver who was the chief justice and the lieutenant governor of Massachusetts, Thomas Hutchinson, would not bow down to the demands of the sons of liberty that had become rioters. A day after destroying private property of Oliver, they stormed, Thomas Hutchinson’s residence and demanded him to denounce the tax, but he refused. A week later, the sons of liberty returned to his residence and destroyed property and looted his personal wealth (Maier 149-54). Though he was later reimbursed for the damages, his popularity among the people deteriorated, and he relocated his residence.
Proponents of the act were followed by the Sons of Liberty, and they forced James McEvers to resign from the tax collection work when he was confronted. Moreover, another Public officer who became a causality of the movement was Zachariah Hood of Maryland. Initially, he fled his home to get refuge from Governor Colden of New York (Maier 81). However, the movement, later on, caught up with them, and the governor was forced to resign from his role. John Lamb made a trip to Philadelphia where he was assisting in the founding of “Heart and Hand Fire Company.” While at the colony, he marshaled enough number of people to force the governor, John Hughes, to resign from his role, marking the last casualty public officer from the demands of the sons of liberty.
In March 1776, the sons of liberty boarded the British Man-0-War ship in New York and demanded to be given a British army officer who had talked negatively about the colonists and the sons of liberty (Kimmel 52). It took the effort of the overall British army commander in the whole of North America, General Thomas Gage to intervene for the officer as he promised to boost his army in New York to counter the activities of the sons of liberty. This, however, did not go down well, and the sons of liberty. The sons had to lie that one of their own, Colonel Israel Putnam from Connecticut was ready to release an army of over 10000 soldiers to come in aid of the sons of liberty in New York fight the army of General Thomas Gage. The New York General on hearing word of mouth became afraid and repealed the provisions of the Stamp duty act in the state, giving the sons of liberty great victory.
Meanwhile, the sons of liberty movement expanded in people numbers and area coverage. By the end of 1766, up to nine colonies had joined the movement in amerce including New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. Other states that joined in the movement included Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Maryland. The presence of South Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Delaware meant that a strong group of nine colonies was party to the movement that was slowly turning into a revolution. They created the American Sons of Liberty flag with nine alternating white and red stripes (Leepson 6). Later when their number grew to 13, they expanded their flag to have thirteen stripes, each representing the colonial state that was protesting the stamp duty act.
Initially began in July 1765 in Boston, the new York branch was opened up by September the very year, and by the end of the year, Connecticut was also included on the list. The early years of 1766 saw more member colonies joining forces with the existing team to form a stronger focus. The New Hampshire joined in the January of 1766. In March, more states like Maryland, Rhode Island, and New Jersey, as well as Virginia became member parties. South Carolina joined in April while North Carolina and Georgia joined in June 1766, alongside Delaware and Pennsylvania. Looking at the rate of the colony-states joining the movement, it must have been an act that touched directly on the lives of many people. It was very easy for more states to join in the condemnation of the public Stamp duty act. They did not just join in name but in personnel and resources. It became a larger movement to the delight of the founder members, and later shaped the political, democracy and the ideological of the United States of America through its organizers.
Samuel Adams who was responsible for the movement in Boston, Massachusetts, was a second cousin to John Adams who was responsible for the development of the sons of the liberty movement in New York (Wallis 41-5). John Adams later worked his way to becoming the second president of the United States of America and reigned between the years 1797 and 1801. Other notable people who participated in the development of the sons of liberty movement included Massachusetts and Virginia-based lawyers James Otis and Patrick Henry respectively. The movement doctors included Thomas Young and Joseph Warren among others.
The approaches that the sons of liberty took to make their statements known to the British colonizers varied. From their initial peaceful and private meetings that they organized, the group changed tact to be more demanding. They created effigies of unpopular leaders and burnt them. They organized boycotts and sit-in that were meant to cripple the administration of the British colonies. Later, they became more violent and attacked property and homes of people. The movement was subjecting the stamp officials to humiliations, intimidation, and threats. They even started using guns towards the transition to the American Revolution.
Towards the end of the years 1773, the people were more ready to take on the British government and demand for their civil rights. It was at the Boston Tea party of December 16th, 1773 when the likes of Samuel Adams and other Sons of Liberty resolved to indulge in the American Revolution wars. This explains why the war began in Massachusetts (Wallis 30). The major point to note is that it is the war that ultimately gave rise to the development of the American independence on July 4, 1776.
The activities of the sons of liberty, however, did not fully end the revolution wars and the American independence. In 1784, the like of Marinus Willet, John Lamb, and Isaac Seers reorganized the sons of the liberty movement in New York to complete the expulsion o the remaining British loyalists in America, an activity that began on 1st of May 1784. Being an election year, the sons of liberty influenced the American election and got the majority in both the Senate and the house assemblies. What followed was the development of punitive regulations against the British colonials. Some of the notable laws they passed nullified the Paris agreement of 1783 that gave immunity to the colonial property. Their laws thus called for the confiscation of such property that was owned by the British colonists and their sympathizers or loyalists.

Works Cited
Bons, S. “The Sons of Liberty and the birth of America Revolutionary radicalism of the Sons of Liberty in the American colonies and their influence in the First and Second Continental Congresses (1765-1776).” (2015).
Carson, Clayborne, Jake Miller, and James Miller. “Sons of Liberty.” Civil Disobedience: An Encyclopedic History of Dissidence in the United States (2015): 276.
Kimmel, Michael S. The History of Men: Essays on the history of American and British Masculinities. SUNY Press, 2005.
Leepson, Marc. Flag: An American Biography. Macmillan, 2006.
Maier, Pauline. From resistance to revolution. Knopf, 2013.
Maier, Pauline. From Resistance to Revolution: Colonial Radicals and the development of American opposition to Britain, 1765-1776. WW Norton & Company, 1991.
Oats, Lynne, and Pauline Sadler. “Accounting for the stamp act crisis.” The Accounting Historians Journal (2008): 101-143.
Wallis, John Joseph. “The concept of systematic corruption in American history.” Corruption and Reform: Lessons from America’s economic history. University of Chicago Press, 2006. 23-62.