History Channel’s “Sons of Liberty” was an excellent opportunity to tell the tale of the events that drove Massachusetts against the crown, setting the stage for independence. Unfortunately, it is a highly fictionalized account that gets much wrong. It is filled with myths, dramatized character assassinations, false hyperboles, and relevant omissions. Ultimately, it is a program that seems to provide entertainment rather than to shed light on important historical events. A few things about this program that made me shake my head: 1) The Sons of Liberty (or as the show portrays them, “Samuel Adams’ mob”) are portrayed as a mindless, uneducated mob that lacks any legitimate qualms with the crown and their unconstitutional behavior. In contrast to how they are portrayed, there was good reason to believe the crown was violating the most basic tenets of British liberty that had been established and fought for since 1215. The truth is that the Sons of Liberty had strong reason for their civil disobedience and noncompliance, and British policy was challenged on constitutional grounds by intelligent men like James Otis Jr, who exposed the malicious Writs of Assistance and a calculated attempt by the British to violate the privacy of the colonists. 2) Samuel Adams is portrayed as a young, rowdy criminal who used his position as a tax collector to protect his friends. It is true that Samuel Adams failed to collect taxes from many people (which added to his popularity), but he actually filed suit against several delinquent taxpayers. Adam’s political opponents even attacked him for doing this; given the commonplace stance that the taxes that were levied were unconstitutional under Britain’s constitutional system. Adams was elected as a tax collector by his town hall, not appointed by the governor. Adams was never served a warrant, as is shown. Additionally, Adams was much older at this point than is portrayed, and there is no good evidence to suggest that he was a heavy drinker that hung out in local pubs. 3) Hutchinson, who is portrayed as the Royal Governor, did not obtain this position until 1769. 4) Hutchinson’s household was taken in reaction to the Stamp Act, not in response to Samuel Adams’ fictional warrant. 5) There is no evidence to suggest that British soldiers shut down newspapers, arrested any popular patriot leaders, or stopped any peaceful demonstrations in 1765. 6) Benjamin Franklin was not “kicked out of the colonies,” as the show portrays. He was in London in 1765, but he went voluntarily in attempt to convince the king to allow Pennsylvania to be considered as a royal colony and to raise his objections to the Stamp Act. 7) The narrative portrays Hancock as an unquestionable guilty party in smuggling of Madeira wine. Smuggling was a colonial reaction to unconstitutional duties levied upon goods. The show makes reference to an 1768 event in which Hancock paid duties on 25 pipes of wine, but the British suspected that he had additional wine unloaded during the nighttime. This led to a highly publicized trial in which John Adams defended Hancock against the charges. The charges against Hancock were eventually dropped. Hancock’s guilt cannot be definitively established, and historians debate the issue to this day. 8) Although the show has not featured this part yet, a portion in the preview repeats the myth that Hancock signed his name large on the Declaration of Independence so King George III would be able to read it. This is nothing more than a classic tall tale. There are two plausible explanations as to why Hancock’s signature is featured larger and more prominently than his peers: 1) at the time of the signing, he was the President of the Continental Congress, and 2) Hancock was most likely the only person to sign the document in July of 1776. After signing, he provided a broadside to his printer friend so that copies were made. The rest of the signatories to the document did not sign until August, almost a full month later. 9) Although the show has not covered this portion yet, the preview for the series hints that Massachusetts patriots, in attempt to seek independence, wished to go beyond this to create “a new country.” This was not the case. The colonies in general, including Massachusetts, simply wished to retain their own colonial legislature and for decisions to be made by local government. From Ben Franklin’s 1754 Albany Plan proposal forward, there were few advocates to adjoin their colonies with others. In the 1776 Declaration of Independence, the last paragraph makes known that each state in North America (as compared to the state of Great Britain) were free an independent states, each with independent powers. The Confederation government under the articles of Confederation did even not go into effect until 1781. The colonial struggle for independence was not a calculated attempt to institutionalize a modern nation state.
Posted on: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 04:23:21 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015