Talk:Sons of Liberty/Archive 1

Archive 1

From Another Article

The Sons of Liberty have been called many many things, everything from patriots to terrorists. In this essay I will show you both sides of the story. The first side is the colonist’s view. The second side is a side that is not shown very often, the British side. The British saw the Sons of Liberty the same as we see terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda today. The Sons of Liberty burnt houses, destroyed cargo, attacked British soldiers, and destroyed private property. And these same people are praised all over the nation even today. Is this a group of patriots, or something totally different?

The Sons of Liberty stood for two main things. The first was that America should have representation in the British Parliament because the Parliament had the power to pass laws and taxes on any item. This powerful legislature could pass taxes that none of the members of Parliament had to pay but could still bring in tons of money for their government. The second stance the Sons of Liberty had was the policy of non-importation. They wanted to make America’s economy self-reliant so they could separate from England.

There were two main factions of the Sons of Liberty. The New York faction was created in January 1765. It was a much more peaceful club than the other faction. The second faction was founded in Boston around the same time as the New York faction. It was founded mainly by Samuel Adams. This faction was the one you always hear about. The Boston group took much more violent action.

The Sons of Liberty ultimately took their name from a debate on the Stamp Act in Parliament in 1765. Charles Townshend, speaking in support of the act, spoke contemptuously of the American colonists as being "children planted by our care, nourished up by our indulgence...and protected by our arms." Then Isaac Barre, a member of Parliament and friend of the American colonists, jumped to his feet in outrage in this same session to counter with a severe reprimand in which he spoke favorably of the Americans as "these Sons of Liberty."

In the beginning, the New York faction did not need to hide their meetings because of their peaceful nature, but later both factions had to go into hiding. The Boston group was increasingly violent soon the British felt that the extremists would soon invade the New York sect. The groups usually met at night. The New York faction usually met in each other’s homes. While the Boston faction had places all over the city to meet, often in pubs. Some of the locations were the Green Dragon Tavern on Union Street, the tavern on Salvation Alley and the Bunch of Grapes on King Street. Also there was the now famous elm tree across from the Boylston Market, known as the liberty tree.

There was a broad range of members in the Sons of Liberty. It ranged from jewelers to sea captains. Some of the principal leaders were Samuel Adams, James Otis, John Hancock, Paul Revere, Patrick Henry, Joseph Warren, Benjamin Church, John Adams, Thomas Cushing, William Molineux, Oxenbridge Thatcher, and Benedict Arnold. One of the more famous stories was the Caucus Club. The Caucus Club was a Liberty club consisting only of Samuel Adams and almost all of the firemen in Boston. In addition Samuel Adams had a private club called The Loyal Nine. This consisted of nine of Adam’s most loyal friends where they would plan protests, meetings, and politics.

The Stamp Act of March 1765 was instituted to help defray the costs of maintaining British troops in the American colonies by issuing tax stamps for a wide range of public documents including: customs documents, newspapers, legal papers, and licenses. Essentially, the Sons of Liberty organized into patriotic chapters as a result of this tax because the Stamp Tax passed specifically for the American colonies and people in Britain did not have to pay it.

The first protest of this act was by McIntosh of the Boston faction. On August 14, 1765, when an effigy (kind of like a Voodoo doll) of Andrew Oliver was found hanging in a tree on Newbury street, along with a boot with a devil climbing out of it. The boot was a play on the name of the Earl of Bute and the whole display was intended to establish a connection between Oliver and the Stamp Act. The sheriffs were told to remove the display but protested in fear of their lives, because a large crowd had formed at the scene. Before the evening a mob burned Oliver's property on Kilby Street, then moved on to his house. There they beheaded the effigy and stoned the house. They then moved to nearby Fort Hill were they built a large fire and burned what was left of the effigy. Most of the crowd dissipated at that point, however McIntosh and crew, then under cover of darkness, ransacked Oliver's abandoned home until midnight.

The New York faction also did one of the protests concerning this act in April 1765. This was when violence broke out with the arrival of a shipment of stamped paper to the Royal Governor's residence. After receiving the official papers, a mob captured the governor's coach and reduced it to ashes. From here the mob, consisting of extremist elements of the New York Sons of Liberty, raced uptown to the home of Fort George's commander, smashing numerous windows and breaking into the wine cellar. They proceeded to drink all of the commander’s prized aged wine collection. Then they descended on the rest of the house and vandalized everything.

The Boston Massacre is still one of the great mysteries. It is still unknown who started this event that killed 5 people and went down in the history books as a pivotal point in America’s history. What makes this event interesting to me is that there is three contradicting written accounts. One account by the accused starter of the Boston Massacre, Captain Prescott. The second was by people were for Captain Prescott who observed the event and the third being by people against Captain Prescott who observed the event. On March 5, 1770 a small group of colonists were up to their usual sport of tormenting British soldiers. By many accounts there was a great deal of taunting that eventually led to an escalation of hostilities. The sentry in front of the Custom House eventually lashed out at the colonists, which brought more colonists to the scene. In fact, someone began ringing the church bells, which usually signified a fire. The sentry called for help, setting up the clash which we now call the Boston Massacre. These are the facts we do know. A group of soldiers led by Captain Thomas Preston came to the rescue of the lone sentry. Captain Preston and his detachment of seven or eight men were quickly surrounded. All attempts to calm the crowd proved useless. After this, the accounts of the event vary drastically. Apparently, a soldier fired a musket into the crowd, immediately followed by more shots. This action left several wounded and five dead including an African-American named Crispus Attucks, who was the first black man to fall in the American Revolution. The crowd quickly dispersed, and the soldiers went back to their barracks. Captain Prescott claimed he ordered his men to load their weapons. Then he heard the crowd yelling fire. Captain Prescott claimed they were attacked by heavy clubs and snowballs by the crowd. During the beating a soldier was hit by a stick and then fired accidentally. Captain Prescott said that then the other soldiers fired in response to the colonist attack. Captain Prescott claimed he reprimanded his men for firing into the crowd without orders. People for Captain Prescott claimed they heard Captain Prescott order his men to load their weapons. Richard Palmes asked Captain Prescott if he intended to fire and he said no. William Wyatt said the crowd was calling for the soldiers to fire. James Woodall saw a stick thrown and hit a soldier, which prompted the man to fire, quickly followed by several other soldiers. Witnesses including Peter Cunningham claimed an officer other than Prescott was behind the men and that he ordered the soldiers to fire. William Sawyer crowd threw snowballs at the soldiers. Edward Hill claimed Captain Prescott made a soldier put away his weapon instead of allowing him to continue to shoot. People against Captain Prescott claimed that Captain Prescott ordered his men to fire. Henry Knox the soldiers were hitting and pushing with their muskets. Joseph Petty did not see any sticks thrown at the soldiers until after the firing. Robert Goddard heard Captain Prescott curse his men for not firing when ordered. Soldiers including Hugh White heard the order to fire and believed they were obeying his commands. Seven months later, in October of 1770, Captain Prescott was tried for murder in a Boston courtroom. He was prosecuted by John Adams and Robert Auchmuty and assisted by Josiah Quincy Junior. A Boston jury found Captain Prescott innocent. Though many people do not believe Prescott that was innocent, there is little proof to support a guilty verdict. One theory is that the Jury was picked of people who the court knew would vote for Prescott’s innocence, this is called packing the jury. One of the fun things that I got to do when researching the Boston Massacre is that I got to decide whether or not Captain Prescott was guilty. I think that Captain Prescott was innocent. My idea of what happened was that Prescott ordered his men to load their weapons in order to threaten the colonists. Then someone from the crowd threw a large stick, which struck a British solder and made him fire. I believe that the crowd was not throwing clubs or yelling “fire”. But the real significance of the Boston Massacre was not the scale of it, because it wasn’t that big. It was that it gave rebellious leaders an excuse to go against the British. Then three years after the Boston Massacre, the colonists did one of the most rebellious attacks on their homeland country ever. This event was the Boston Tea Party. On November 27, 1773, three ships from the East India Co., named the Dartmouth, Eleanor and the Beaver, loaded with tea landed at Boston and were prevented from unloading their cargo. Samuel Adams saw this as an opportunity to show Britain that the colonists meant business.

On the cold evening of December 16, 1773, a small band of the Boston Committee of Correspondence members, approximately fifty in number, lead by Samuel Adams directed the Boston Tea Party. Disguised as Mohawk Indians, they ran out of the South Meeting House towards Griffin's Wharf and the three ships. Once on board they cut open the tea boxes with axes and threw them in to the Boston harbor.

When they were finished they threatened anyone who saw them to not say a word. By nine at night, the Sons of Liberty had emptied a total of 342 crates of tea into Boston Harbor. Fearing any connection to their attack, the patriots took off their shoes and shook them overboard. They swept the ships' decks, and made each ship's first mate say that only that the tea was damaged.

When all was through, Lendall Pitts led the patriots from the wharf. They marched past the home where British Admiral Montague had been spying on their work. Montague yelled as they past, "Well boys, you have had a fine, pleasant evening for your Indian caper, haven't you? But mind, you have got to pay the fiddler yet!” This meant that he knew who they were and that they would pay for their rebellion. In response to the Boston Tea Party The British Government closed the port of Boston.

In conclusion I do not think The Sons of Liberty were a terrorist organization. The British rule was unfair and needed something to show what the colonists realy felt. If The Sons of Liberty were never established there would have been no revolutionary war. So then we would stll be part of the oppressive government of Britian. All of history would have been changed if Samuel Adams hadn’t started his rag-tag gang of followers. I think the moral of this chapter of history is that one man can change everything that we know of. That a small movement can grow in to a generally accepted idea in a whole continent. So I will end with the new question I have found as I reaserched this topic. How can we not praise people who gave so much for their country. When dipiomacy failed these men took action to get their beliefs heard. Why are they’re not more monuments for these great men, these Sons of Liberty.

The above was in another article which is now a redirect. Since some of the things said here appear to contradict what is in this article now I'm going to leave it to someone more knowledgeable than me to merge the two. DJ Clayworth 00:24, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Where was the "other article"? 68.39.174.39 01:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) (PS. That think comes off something like a not too well proofread term-ppr.)

---

OK, I'm not sure about something here, but isn't "terrorist" in the main article slightly POV? I mean, is there a way to express the same meaning without using a word that has some rather strong connotations? 68.39.174.39 01:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The DOD definition is "An individual who uses violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve a result." This would aptly describe the Sons of Liberty who destroyed property and intimidated local Loyalist businesses. Ashibaka (tock) 22:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The Article says: Viewed from the British side the Sons of Liberty were considered a revolutionary terrorist organization, and they were derisively referred to as "The Sons of Violence". I do not see how that is POV. I see it as a fact because the british opposed the sons of liberty. A good example of POV is the person writing up above said "In conclution I do not think The Sons of Liberty were a terrorist organization." I do not think is a POV statement.

The Article says Samuel Adams supported the Sons of Liberty but didnt take part in them, on the Samuel Adams page, it says he founded the Sons of Liberty. Mabe someone can research and fix the problem?:$

Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty

shouldnt there be some type of disambiguation page under this name and this article be titled "Sons of Liberty (American Revolution)" because not only is the subtitle of the game "Sons of Liberty" but there is an organization within the plotline that refers to itself as the "Sons of Liberty" headed by Solidus Snake. I knew of the original sons of liberty but while trying to get information on Metal Gear i stumbled upon this page while looking for solidus' organization.

It's back. I pulled it from the article a while back 'cause I really didn't think it likely that anyone looking for the game would end up here-- guess I was wrong. -- Mwanner | Talk 03:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made a dablink to the Metal Gear page. That should clear things up for now. dethtoll (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There used to be a dablink on this article, but it was lost in a wave of vandalism earlier in the month, and was never restored. Just an oversight. Thanks for making a new one. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, priorities need to be established with regard to diambiguation. In my opinion a simple video game holds very little clout over a US Revolutionary War organization. While I understand most people imbewed with the sense of immediate fullfillment cant see the forest before the trees, I suggest you start your own page called Metal Gear Solid. The use of "Sons of Liberty" was 200+ years before even "pong" came out, if anyone or anything needs to be disambiguated or have its name changed it should be a superficial and baseless video game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.166.126 (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Organization's Start

I have read that there is a dispute as to where the Sons of Liberty actually started in Boston or in New York. Should there be a mention of this unsurity? Sixthcolumn 13:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed there should. There were a number of incidents with British troops over ther erecting of Liberty Poles in the commons of New York City (now City Hall Park) prior to the Revolution that I understand are well-known to historians. These may pre-date any known SoL activities in Boston. The destruction of the statue of King George in Bowling Green was also incited by SoL in the city, and the supposed transfer of the shattered lead statue to have it converted into musket balls an SoL operation, though I expect this is far less certain.--Shoreranger 02:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• "Sons of Liberty" was used as a general label for revolutionaries and patriots long before any formal organization may have been organized. When the organization was purportedly created, it would have recruited a number of patriots who already considered themselves Sons of Liberty. So where it was founded and who was or wasn't an official member is murky, at best. -- Joshua BishopRoby 23:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"...did not commit murder" reference

The SoL were implicated and suspected of some deaths, but because of the nature of the organization and the outcome of the Revolution no allegations were proven. This does not necessarily mean that SoL was not involved. In addition, as is common in political struggle that comes to armed conflict, these kinds of secret organizations often have - at least - cross-memeberships with other organizations having similar aims, and/or are utilized by other entities out in the open. For example, Washington used SoL networks and members for the Army's intelligence operations, which may have resulted in some enemy casualties. In any case, since consensus seems to be that the SoL cause was just "murder" would not apply, especially if the deaths were all military or British officials. Probably best the sentence is removed, in any case.--Shoreranger 03:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

a life is still a life they weren't its still murder or terrorism since they weren't wearing a uniform 82.26.100.167 23:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Image Inconsistencies

There is a print at the top of this article showing the SOL tarring and feathering a representative of the Crown, with an attribution to Paul Revere File:Sons of Libery.jpg.
The same print appears in the article Tarring and Feathering described as propoganda for England, with an attribution to a different artist .
I tend to regard the second as more accurate, since Paul Revere would never have painted the SOL in such a bad light, but I have nothing to base this on. Both pictures cite sources for the material. Anybody else have an insight into this? --Bridgecross 00:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'll chime in on disbelieving the Paul Revere attribution. Revere was an engraver, not a painter. This isn't his medium. -- Joshua BishopRoby 23:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Minnesota group?

Any information on this group that we can add? Do they have a website? TornVictor 22:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

wording?

"The Sons of Liberty wanted to resist the British Crown with acts of protest, however they did want mob violence."

"however"? Those don't seem opposed, or if they do, it's not explained well enough. Wikipedia:Words to avoid recommends against "however". But I'm not sure what the overall point of the sentence is, so I'm not changing it at the moment.

—Isaac Dupree^(talk) 00:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

To define this term is has to do with the Boston Tea Party and more —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.31.243 (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Patriots?

I'm not sure how the Sons of Liberty can seriously be called 'patriots'. Prior to 1776 their nation was Britain, and they must therefore be regarded as, at best, insurrectionists and/or terrorists. A terrorist can only be a patriot if he is working against a foreign power, and prior to 1776 this was not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.186.198 (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• The SoL prior to the Declaration were ostensibly demanding redress for what they saw was denial of their inherent "rights of Englishmen" - a patriotic endeavor. The lack of direct representation in parliament was the main source of their complaint, as they saw illegitimate laws eminating from parliament as the result of this lack of legitimate representation, which they believed was their "right as Englishmen". They believed they were living under tyranny and believed that one of the rights of Englishman is to resist tyranny - a patriotic duty. (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism Claim

I have reverted the third attempt by a third different IP to add references to terrorism to the lede of the article. The third IP in his/her edit summary claims “it is an academic issue”, but offers nothing to suggest that serious academics consider the charge. Instead the IP references a website entry by “Todd Alan Kreamer” -- I have been unable from the website or Google to determine who Mr. Kreamer is, but I have read enough serious works on the era to realize that the term “terrorism” is not used by historians writing about the Revolution.

The edit seems to fall within WP:FRINGE and have no place within the article. Certainly the place to introduce the claim is not in the lede of the article. I suggest that if any of the IPs are serious about pursuing this, that they first develop a consensus on this discussion page. As it says at WP:REDFLAG, “exceptional claims require exceptional sources” and there is nothing exceptional about the sole source that has been presented. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what you did. The article by Mr. Kreamer looks to be amateur history, no better or worse than the average Wikipedia article. The information added by the anon--that the Sons of Liberty were involved in "several possible murders"--isn't even in the cited source. The Wikipedia article does need to be completely rewritten, but that's another matter.... —Kevin Myers 01:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Planning the Tea Party?

Just a heads up. There's conflictiong info in this article and the Boston Tea Party article. Here it says that the Sons of Liberty planned the tea party in a rooom while the Tea Party page says that it was an act carried out by citizens that were at a Sons Of liberty meeting. You might want to recheck the sources for both —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.209.128 (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Popular Culture?

This page desperately needs a popular culture influence section, as they've influenced a number of fictional organizations, the one in Metal Gear Solid 2 being the most famous. 64.134.243.244 (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

History section

I have reservations with the first part of the 'History' section, the article reads: "sought to provide offices for hundreds of military officers and 10,000 men and intended to have the Americans pay for it." I believe it ought to be considered if a specification to that statement be made that the bulk of these 'hundreds of military officers and 10,0000 men' were earmarked for the protection of the 13 colonies. As it stands, the statement makes it seem that Britain arbitrarily imposed an onerous burden on the colonies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.148.213 (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Notable Members: George Sears

George Sears - former president of the United States of America

This would appear to be a reference to a video game character, and not an actual member of the Sons of Liberty, or a former POTUS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoutwalker (talk • contribs) 20:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Philip Foner (p. 73) mentions an Isaac Sears leading the Sons of Liberty protests regarding the Liberty Pole in New York on Aug. 16, 1766. Bdubay (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Use of the term "mobs"

Use of the term "mobs" in respect to the violence used in the protests against British taxation was, according to historian Phillip Foner, a derogatory term used by aristocrats and other conservatives who were fearful of the "leveling" tendencies of the working classes who wanted a change in the economic structure. The record instead shows that the violence and threats against the properties of the wealthy officials were restrained, organized, and purposefully targeted, not the unruly result of a mob. Foner instead uses "crowds" when describing these protests. Bdubay (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Half a year later, the offending word 'mob' is still in the article. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

But the term "mob" is widely used in sources on the era. "the mobs working in concert with the Loyal Nine had a discernible organizational structure and discipline, the mobs that the Sons of Liberty in New York tried to control were more inchoate". (Beeman, Richard R. The Varieties of Political Experience in Eighteenth-Century America. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006. p.266) "The glowing picture of the Sons of Liberty presented by the newspapers was not accepted by many alarmed Americans who looked upon them as nothing but dangerous, and all too often drunken mobs" (Jensen, Merrill. The Founding of a Nation: A History of the American Revolution, 1763-1776. Hackett Publishing, 2004)

Obviously levels of organization varied from area to area, but the general pattern was one of coercive if not violent mobs (whether they had the sanction of the local upper-classes of not) that often threatened to run out of control. I can't see that "mobs" is a particularly inappropriate term to use.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Well spoken. I'm changing my mind having also checked other sources. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Another name for Sons of Liberty

There is another name for the Sons of Liberty is known as The Loyal Nine. It was the original name before it became the Sons of Liberty. When I typed the Loyal Nine on Google, Wikipedia also came up on it, saying the Son's of Liberty counts as the Loyal Nine. Why not mention it? I didn't want to add this piece in, just in case it might not be approved.

Sources:http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/sons.htm

To prove: https://www.google.com/#q=the+loyal+nine

Signed by:Allied Rangoon/Anti-VandalBot (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought it was interesting and went to the link you provided: It has the names of the original 'Nine': "The membership of the Loyal Nine consisted of club secretary John Avery, a distiller by trade, Henry Bass, a cousin of Samuel Adams, Thomas Chase, a distiller, Stephen Cleverly, a brazier, Thomas Crafts, a painter, Benjamin Edes, printer of the Boston Gazette, Joseph Field, a ship captain, John Smith, a brazier, and George Trott, a jeweler. All nine men would go on to become active members of the Sons of Liberty, and to date four of the nine men are documented to have participated in the Boston Tea Party." -- Nice work. Thanks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Sons of Liberty were not American patriots

The Sons of Liberty, as explained in the article, sought representation of the Colonies in the British Parliament, not independence from Britain. They were British political dissidents, not American patriots (rebels).

dissident: A person who formally opposes the current political structure, opposes the political group in power, opposes the policies of the political group in power, or opposes current laws. [Wiktionary]

patriot: A person who loves and zealously supports and defends their country. [Wiktionary]

Patriot (American Revolution): Patriots (also known as Rebels, Revolutionaries, Congress-Men, or American Whigs) were those colonists of the British Thirteen United Colonies that violently rebelled against British control during the American Revolution and in July 1776 declared the United States of America an independent nation. Their rebellion was based on the political philosophy of republicanism, as expressed by pamphleteers, such as Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and Thomas Paine. [Wikipedia] ThomHImself (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

the demand for independence came about rather suddenly in early 1776 (see Tom Paine), at which time the Sons of Liberty were in the lead. Rjensen (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting points--that would explain why the forerunner (some say) to The Sons of Liberty, the American-Patriot group, called themselves "The Loyal Nine". I wondered about that early name. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Should Know...

...that I believe we should have resolves of the Sons of Liberty. Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk 00:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Source:[1]

Citation for the "boiling worms...butt" factoid

From the top of the article:

"In the popular imagination, the Sons of Liberty was a formal underground organization with recognized members and leaders who occasionally dug up worms and boiled them for food, because the worms would crawl up there butts so they dug them up before they could."

First, the word "butt". That seems a little too informal. Second, the very content of the assertion seems more than outlandish given the name of the organization. Third, for something that "out there", I would love to see a citation.

well the 8th grader who wrote it has not figured out our citation system, so I dropped it. Rjensen (talk) 05:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Find a source or leave it out. Yelling it loudly is not a source.

The idea that SOL is "best known" for one thing or another thing is unsupported and dubious. It's immaterial for the lede and off-topic in general unless how well they're known today for something has become a notable part of their story (which would require sources anyway). It's unencyclopedic to word it that way, but in the end it's unnecessary too. The same goal can be achieved without the "best known for" flourish. I reworded it so the fact that they undertook the Boston Tea Party is still stated in the lede and still serves the function of associating SOL with something readers are likely to know. This serves the original purpose of the sentence (helping make SOL more relevant) while avoiding the unsupported pitfall. 71.174.213.3 (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion. BMK (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken,

You are engaged in an unwarranted attack campaign against my reputation: 1) on this page with your strikeout, 2) in the unchangeable edit summaries on the SOL history page, and 3) on my talk page. Over just the past few hours, and all by yourself, you've accused me of being an abusive editor from South America, tried me, decided I'm guilty, and are now attempting to impose sentence by undoing everything I do based on the idea that I'm evading someone's block. I don't know your true motive, but this kind of bullying cannot be tolerated and I won't tolerate it. I've tried to keep your accusations and my responses relatively quiet over on my talk page, but you haven't stopped. I don't actually give a damn about you or whatever nutty ideas about who I am are spinning around in your head. But, when you continue to bully me (or anyone) into running away or "confessing" to someone else's bad behavior, well I will not put up with that. I will fight back and escalate if you keep it up.
This is about a more encyclopedic way of avoiding unnecessary and unsourced wording while still achieving it's original benefit -- making the subject relevant to the reader early in the lede. Like I said, "best known" is unsupported, dubious, and ultimately unnecessary. I reworded it to avoid the unnecessary words while still getting the job done. Given the strength of conviction you've shown toward including those words, I would imagine you have some source ready at hand that you can include, or that it would be easy to find such a source for you. Please do! And, when you get that source in hand, please replace the disputed words along with the source (your strength of conviction doesn't count as a reliable source).

71.174.213.3 (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion. Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP BMK (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken,

Nice ref you added there. I think it satisfies the requirement. The reliability of the source's assertion is questionable, but whatever, it's fine. I am still extremely resentful of the false accusations you've made and the mud you dragged me through, and of that "curious" IP hopping IPV6 vandal. Maybe you can help control him somehow? I'm still seeking (his) block and an investigation of the obvious connection he may have with you. You are not my friend and you've behaved very uncivilly toward me.

71.174.213.3 (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion. Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP BMK (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected this talk page temporarily for disruptive blanking. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

When and where were they founded?

In August of 1765, the group was founded in Boston, Massachusetts.[9] By November 6, a committee was set up in New York to correspond with other colonies. In December, an alliance was formed between groups in New York and Connecticut. January bore witness to a correspondence link between Boston and New York City, and by March, Providence had initiated connections with New York, New Hampshire, and Newport, Rhode Island. March also marked the emergence of Sons of Liberty organizations in New Jersey, Maryland, and In Boston, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.182.193.160 (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Sons of Liberty

Early mention of Sons of Liberty is found in Timothy's Gazette, March 30th, of the year 1752. This was an essay on Masonic Symbolism and was the first literary article ever published in South Carolina which made any allusion to Freemasonry... Suggested that it came from the pen of Bro. Hugh Anderson of the Solomon's Lodge in Charles Town. What is interesting in this article is that it concludes with a reference to "The Sons of Liberty. Writer of the essay signs off as Archeologus.

This information comes from the book titled:The History of Freemasonry in South Carolina, From its Origin in the Year 1736 to the Present Time (When the book was written). By Albert Gallatin Mackey. It was republished by The Classic Reprint Series, Forgotten Books. Pages 23, and 24.

The Note states that The Sons of Liberty were opposed to the oppressiveness of the parent government and later they became the Whigs. As early as 1752 and must have been organized before then.

Dorothy K Morris (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Biased Patriotic U.S.-tone?

The tone of this article seems to be written with some bias--as if those with a strong political sense of national pride, whether founded on facts or fiction, contributed heavily. The Sons of Liberty were very much viewed as a militant opposition group whose ranks were filled with extremists.. close to groups that we today see as not quite, but getting closer towards terrorist organizations. They had political and ideologically motivated goals, and were willing to use anarchist tactics, violence, and piracy to help achieve these goals. Even Benjamin Franklin declared the Tea Party as a disgraceful act of piracy, and said that the British should be re-paid. Their real motivation was to help the colonies achieve independence by any means necessary, and they would come up with any politically charged narrative they could in order to help achieve that goal. "No taxation without representative" was such a narrative. Englishmen in Britain itself who were living in cities were not represented very fairly in Parliament, yet were taxed, and the Sons of Liberty did not ultimately fight for representation so much as they fought to oppose Great Britain's rule, and promote political revolution and colonial independence. The price of tea actually dropped when the tax was imposed, and it was a very reasonable way for a benevolent Government to raise money and protect their own companies/jobs and economy simultaneously. If taxation had not been going on, the Sons of Liberty would have had a slogan of "No [fill in the blank] without representation!", and if they had representation, they would have come up with something else. This opposition group was more interested in not being ruled by entities 3,000+ miles away who might not have their best interests in mind all of the time, and had elements interested in rising and/or solidifying their political and economic power locally in the colonies. Very little of this aspect is touched upon in this article, and U.S. historians tend to go with the "Disney narrative" taught to them as school children, ignoring how the truth is actually closer to the "British propaganda" that "Patriots" tried to erase and re-write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.97.32.14 (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

sons of liberty

what is a characteristic of song of liberty? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C5:300:5600:C558:A839:3FBE:B0DA (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

No Talk about the Gaspee Affair or the Boston Tea Party

These are very important events, notable i may say. It is very lacking to not have these Mentioned once on this Wikipeidia article Billy Apicella 38.73.233.229 (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Israel Putnam

Trying to add Israel Putnam, as founding member of sons of liberty. This is both widely known as well as referenced in history. Additionally it can be found right on his own Wikipedia page (paragraph 10) I really enjoy early colonial and especially revolutionary history, specifically Rogers rangers, of which Putnam was one. Concerning the sons of liberty, he famously threatened to level the British governors house if his tax stamp wasn’t immediately turned over. Which it then was. This was in the fall of 1765. Also thanks to the gentlemen who pointed out the talk page etc as I’m obviously new here. 8thgenerationson (talk)

The Israel Putnam article does indeed state he was involved with the Sons of Liberty -- specifically that he was one of the founders of the state's chapter of the Sons of Liberty. Note the qualification: a "state chapter" of the group. I believe this is significant, as this article (Sons of Liberty) states The group officially disbanded after the Stamp Act was repealed. However, the name was applied to other local separatist groups during the years preceding the American Revolution. This means that this article is about one specific group, not other local groups of the same name. Further, the Stamp Act was repealed and the original Sons of Liberty was disbanded in early 1766, apparently about the same time Putnam help found his state's local group. This implies Putnam's group had little or no connection to the subject of this article, except using the same name.

However, this reasoning relies on the text of Wikipedia itself, which isn't a good idea, per WP:CIRCULAR. Instead, this should be decided by the sources. If we find a WP:Reliable source that links Putnam directly to the origin of the Sons of Liberty, then he should be included in the lede. If no source can be found for this, then he should not be included.

It may be possible that Putnam might be included later in this article, at Sons of Liberty#Notable Sons of Liberty. But I'm not sure what qualifications are being used to add names in that section, so cannot comment on whether Putnam could go there. Perhaps other editors can comment on that. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 20:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that the Sons of Liberty was a "national" organization the way we think of them today. To that extent, they were all state chapters. Besides, there is an issue of timing and the Israel Putnam wiki page doesn't exactly address that. From what I can tell, the Connecticut Sons of Liberty was started up prior to the Stamp Act repeal.[2][3][4][5][6]

Often mentioned together with Putnam are John Durkee and Hugh Ledlie. Doing a search for them seems to place the organization more firmly prior to the repeal of the Stamp Act.[7][8]

Jared Ingersoll Sr. was one of the first targets of the Connecticut Sons of Liberty, which was before its repeal.[9] Progressingamerica (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The current article purports that there was one original Sons of Liberty with other local groups later sharing the same name, which are outside the subject of the article. Yes, it is possible that is somehow incorrect. But changing the definition of the subject matter of the article (requiring support of new reliable sources) would have to be done before rolling members of all those other groups into the lede of this article.

Underling all this is the fact that, as semi-secret and semi-informal organizations, good primary sources of these various SOL groups are often rare or incomplete, making the reliable secondary sources we need for any of this also rare or incomplete. That's just the way it is; we cannot resort to WP:SYNTH -- making additions based on selected implications in the gaps between different sources.

If someone can find sources that change the definition of the SOL in this article, great; the article will be all the better for it. Until then, we have to strictly follow the sources we have. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 00:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)