Think The Sons of Anarchy were badass? Try The Sons of Liberty....

                “The Sons of Liberty” is a name that gets thrown around a lot in high school history classes, arguments about American patriotism, and anytime an American wants to get a Brit riled up.  But who were they?  Why were they?  Did they spontaneously arise December 16, 1773 with a singular goal to throw tea in a harbor and fuck up the East Inida Company’s world?   Was their goal to start the American Revolution and show those dirty Brits whose boss?  

                The answer to all of the above is…. Not exactly…. 

                So, let’s explore who the Sons of Liberty were and why they were.  Because it’s important to American history, and whatever you learned in high school was probably wrong or incomplete or both-- and I’m on a one woman crusade to right all of the wrongs of high school history class.   Time to do what I do best—give you all a sexy and enlightening injection of knowledge—you lucky bastards…. 

                The Sons of Liberty were a group of workers and tradesmen in the American colony of Massachusetts, specifically Boston, originally called The Loyal Nine.  These were not the movers and shakers of Boston colony.  In eighteenth century America there was not an egalitarian society where workers were important and could make decisions.  We tend to forget this as Americans and see the colonial period, especially the events leading up to the Revolution, as an uprising of the common everyman.  This was only partially true.  Colonial society was highly stratified and mirrored, in a warped way, contemporary English society of the time.  Those in high places, including George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, aspired to be thought of as English gentlemen.  But the Sons of Liberty weren’t English gentlemen or their American counterparts, they were the people that served the gentlemen beer, they made buggies, and repaired hats.  The Sons of Liberty organized under a shoemaker named Ebenezer McIntosh and their ranks eventually grew to nearly two thousand.  American legend has it that The Sons had some friends in high places, though-- Samuel Adams and John Adams, two very high class movers and shakers in colonial America—that helped to organize The Sons of Liberty.  This is arguable.  Very, very arguable.  But we’ll get back to this.  

                First organized in 1765 they began their protests in that year.  Usually their protests took aim at the taxation policies of British Parliament.  Parliament at the time was not the elected body that established policy that we think of it today.  For the most part, the Parliament was there to support the king and was predominantly comprised of landed British gentlemen—exactly what many of the upper class American colonists aspired to be.  Parliament did, however, establish taxation policy.  Taxes weren’t unusual to the colonies—we often envision a tax free paradise of colonies that ruled themselves and acted without interference from the crown.  This wasn’t true—don’t tell the new people calling themselves the Tea Party.  For much of the pre-Revolution history of what would become the United States, the colonies acted as good British (or Dutch, or French, or Spanish) subjects.  There were times where they got unruly, but more often than not they behaved themselves.  So what changed in 1765?  Why did this small group of tradesmen grow into a force to be reckoned with and then suddenly decide to hang an effigy of the tax collector (technically it was a stamp distributor) and then burn his house down in August of that year?   Why were tradesmen and workers, those usually too poor to really be effected by the taxes being imposed on the colonies, suddenly so enraged by these acts of Parliament? 

                Life was not going well for the colonies.  Sure they were pretty much over that whole starvation/bludgeoned to death by Natives thing (for the most part) but suddenly the colonies were thrust into international politics on a grand scale and the colonists were paying the price—literally.  The French and Indian War had concluded in 1759.  Memories of what the French and Indian War was is probably hazy for most people and includes memories of some stodgy teacher droning on and on about something having to do with war.  So, in short, the French and Indian War was a giant prick waving contest between Britain and France (there are MANY of these throughout history).  An extension of the Seven Years War, the French and Indian War is the name given to the part of the prick waving contest that took place in North America.  See, North America wasn’t always British, at one point France held the lion’s share of the New World (the northern part, anyway) with huge holdings extending from Canada, through what is today New York and Michigan and down to the Caribbean (New Orleans, anyone?).  There were British holdings but the vast majority of what the French held didn’t change hands until the end of the war.  Fighting the French was a costly endeavor and Britain had to pay the bill somehow.  Remember when I said Parliament was an elected body full of wealthy British land owners?  Yeah, well, they weren’t going to raise the money through traditional taxes, because traditional taxes were predominantly passed as land taxes.  Tale as old as time: No one votes to pass taxes on themselves.  So something new had to be figured out.  Enter: excise taxes.  

                Excise taxes are taxes passed on manufactured goods like sugar, tea, woven textiles, etc.  Parliament passed these taxes and the brunt of them fell on the colonies, along with heavier import duties under the theory that the French and Indian War was fought for the defense of the colonists and thus they should have to pay for it.  The colonists called bull-shit with a quickness.  They saw the war for what it was—a giant prick waving contest for empire expansion.  

                So The Sons were established on principle?  The whole no taxation without representation thing, amirite? 

                Yeah, no.  Not exactly.  It is very common for a global depression to hit shortly after major global powers end a war with one another, especially if these global powers are empires.  See: World War I.  The French and Indian War/Seven Years War was no different and at the conclusion, the world fell into a deep economic depression that the colonies were not exempt from.  As this depression began to take its toll, Parliament began passing these taxes.  Though the taxes were predominantly a problem of the elite, in the context of depression they were felt by the entire population.  To make matters worse, the colonists were well aware that the majority of these new taxes, including the Sugar Act, the Stamp Act and the Townsend Act, were really only levelled on the colonies—NOT on British subjects on the main-land.  Further, in 1764 Parliament abolished all forms of colonial currency.  This was not a bad idea, so much as it was bad timing.  In the colonies there was no one particular currency, everyone pretty much made their own currency with its own value and worth.  This was confusing and did not lend itself to international trade which was becoming increasingly involved in the colonial economies.  Something needed to change, but when Parliament abolished these and instituted new currency tied to the British Pound Sterling it threw the colonial economy into further chaos.  Then came the East India Company and the camel’s back was broken.  

                Tea was popular with everyone in the colonies.  The British drink tea.  That’s just a thing.  It just is.  The Tea Act was passed in 1773 as a government bail out to the East India Company.  The East India Company had found themselves in trouble due to some really complicated international goings on and some bad business investments.  Companies like this one were giant and often had their own militaries.  We think international corporations are bad today?  They got nothing, and I mean NOTHING, on the internationally chartered companies of the eighteenth century.  These companies not only raised armies, but chartered colonies, ran entire countries, and changed the course of international history to suit their financial needs.  So when they found themselves going bankrupt, the Brits determined them “too big to fail” and bailed them out.  But the Brits were broke, so instead of handing them cash, they instead handed them a monopoly on selling tea to the colonies.  Thus, the only tea allowed into the colonies was that imported, duty free, by the East India Company.  But those buying the tea still had to pay taxes.  Boycotts and violent protests flared almost immediately and then, in December 1773, the Boston Tea Party became a thing.  

                The Sons of Liberty entered history at this point.  Some dressed as Native Americans (Mohawks) and all boarded ships and dumped over three hundred chests of tea into the harbor in protest of the Tea Act.  So what’s with the guy that makes the beer?  Legend has it that Samuel Adams was the architect of the Boston Tea Party, but really, there’s little to no evidence of this.  Some historians argue that the legend is true and the lack of evidence is due to the fact that Adams couldn’t, as a British gentleman, have his name attached to such a group.  Others argue that these historians are just clinging to folklore.  It doesn’t matter, really, after the Tea Party Adams popularized the act of protest and backed the colonists up.  That’s what makes Adams an American patriot.  It’s also what tends to lend credence to the folks that claim he didn’t plan the protest—why not attach your name to something before and then attach your name to it after it’s even more dangerous to do so?  But I digress.  

                The Sons of Liberty weren’t planning a revolution.  They wanted an alleviation of the taxes that were killing their economy.  And the whole no taxation without representation thing?  It was a thing.  It wasn’t nearly as singularly important as high school history makes it sound though.  The representation part wasn’t what we make it seem—no one wanted to vote for the king or be able to enact legislation.  Upper class colonists wanted Parliamentary representation for a say in the taxes that were being leveled on them and zapping any chance of making profitable business ventures.  But unintended consequences being what they are, revolution did occur and The Sons of Liberty and their most famous party were instrumental.  The relationship between the crown and the colonies was irreparably damaged from the Tea Party onward and independence was won in 1783. 

America.  Fuck yeah!