 |
| Sons of Liberty |
The first widely known acts of the Sons took place on August 14, 1765, when an effigy of Andrew Oliver (who was to be commissioned Distributor of Stamps for Massachusetts) was found hanging in a tree on Newbury street, along with a large 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 an evil connection between Oliver and the Stamp Act. The sheriffs were told to remove the display but protested in fear of their lives, for 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 as its occupants looked out in horror. They then moved to nearby Fort Hill were they built a large fire and burned what was left of the effigy...
On that evening it became very clear who ruled Boston. The British Militia, the Sheriffs and Justices, kept a low profile. No one dared respond to such violent force.
By the end of that year the Sons of Liberty existed in every colony. Their most popular objective was to force Stamp Distributors throughout the colonies to resign. However, there were opportunists everywhere, too, who would use the name Sons of Liberty to carry out acts of revenge and other violence not related to the cause.
How does a minority influence a majority to achieve political change?
Were the Sons of Liberty justified in their revolutionary activities?
Minority influences a majority of political change because the minorities is the majority in our world... they go through life at its worse unlike people who can just go fly to Paris for the weekend. Higher class people have an opinion of n issue but since there are fewer of them they cannot make such an impact as can minorities.
ReplyDeleteRiley Smith P.4
Well when one person or a small group of people do something like this, people notice it. Like how the British kept a low profile and then there were more groups popping up all over the colonies. They wanted all the Stamp Distributors to resign, so they took it into their own hands and took care of him.
ReplyDeleteNow, to go to the point if their activities were justified. I would have to say that I am tore between both sides. I say that because yes, they were justified, if they wanted to make a change. Ethically, they were not because the Sons of Liberty hung people and took revenge which is not morally justified. But if they wanted to make a statement, like they did, then yes, it was justified and because Britain was trying to take them over with all these different acts.
A minoity can influence a majority by using strong words and forceful actions. For Instance the Sons of Liberty esatblished fear in their opponents by threats and actions and also influenced the people with their writings and sermons. I believe the Sons of Liberty might have gone a little far with the hurting of hiis family, but at that time it is what they needed to do to get their point across. They wanted liberty and freedom and they needed o do anything possible to achieve and show that they had the power and courage to run their own country.
ReplyDeleteASHLEY GUTIERREZ
ReplyDeletePER.03
I think a minority should really try talking to the authority,but the problem is that some authority wont even listen to the minority.Try as hard as you can and in different ways.But I don't think what the Sons of Liberty did anything bad,except they should have toned down the violence.But at the same time if they did no one would have listened to them.Britain didn't want to listen and that was the karma of it.They thought they had all the power and there was rebellion because of it.
This action was basically the match that lit the fighter that spread across the colonies, the fire that was the revolution. Usually when there is a situation that needs to be dealt with, there's always someone brave enough to speak out first.
ReplyDeleteIn the case with a superpower like Great Britan at the time, there weren't many options to get the message across. This action seemed to get their attention.
A minority can easily influence a majority by completing such tremendous acts that could affect other minorities. An example would be Gandhi. During the Indian independence movement, he fought against the tyranny through civil disobedience by complete nonviolence. Eventually, he helped win India's independence by indirectly encouraging others to do what he was doing.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the Sons of Liberty were justified in their revolutionary activities because they thought that Britain should not meddle with their businesses and give them independence to do what the pleased as an independent country.
John Nguyen---Period 3
ReplyDeleteA minority may influence a majority to achieve political change because the minority can persuade the majority accept the minority's beliefs and thoughts. For example, Ebenezer MacIntosh-a minority- influenced colonists-the majority- that the stamp act is ridiculous. He led the riot to resign Andrew Oliver.
I believe that the Sons were justified in their revolutionary activities because they did whatever they could to gain their independence. They wanted Britain to know that they will not tolerate being controlled by someone who does not even care about their rights.
Is it wise to allow groups to take the law in their own hands?
ReplyDeleteEric, interesting connection-connect to your schema!
ReplyDelete"they go through life at it's worst"- Riley I like it! How does this quote describe the unjust laws of British rule?
ReplyDeletevigalante justice may seem like a good idea at the time but in the end law is what controlls human impulses of violence. when you let people do whatever they want lots of uncontrolled harm can be done. the sons of liberty had reason for what they did but the violence taken was too much. when you do something that drastic it brings attention but not the kind you generally want.
ReplyDeletemorgan anderson per. 7
I think that it was unfair for the towns people to ruin Oliver's home just because they didn't agree with him. It is the government's responsibility to handle situations with the law and not opinions. By saying that no one "dared respond to such a violent force" this allows the towns people to think that what they did was okay and that they did not deserve any consequences.
ReplyDeleteWere the Sons of Liberty justified in their revolutionary activities?
ReplyDelete- I would like to say that violence is never justified, but I doubt that the Sons of liberty would have been able to achieve teir political objectives through peaceful marches, sit-ins, and boycotts. There is an inscription over the Alamo that says "Freedom isnt free". Therefore, in hindsight the Sons of liberty were probably justified in using terrorism to accomplish their political objectives.
How does a minority influence a majority to achieve political change?
- I think it is very difficult for a minority to influence a majority sence the minority is usually more vunerable and often have less resources than the majority political establishment. I would say the best way for minorities to influence political change is by peaceful means. However, desperate times call for desperate measures and there may be occasions when the minority political establishment is justified in using violence to to achieve their politcal objectives.
Jazmyne Wright period. 3
i belive that the majority sholud be the one to have the political charge because of the all the different openon and a various amount of "point of veiws " with difernt laws and different political situation for example the colonest were not being heard by the king. so they have to take the law into there own hands. steven lamson per4
ReplyDeleteebenezer had a big impact on everyone even though he was just a shoe maker all his life. But even thoug he thought it was bad that they taxed the stamps he didnt have to go after oliver because he wasnt the one who taxed them he just collected the money he was doing his job Ebenezer didnt have to take the town to olivers house and destroy it it really wasnt his fault he was just doing his job to support his family and himself if they had to get someone they should have went after the people who taxed them who passed the law...
ReplyDeleteShea Treat p.3
The minority has the ability to influence the majority by creating an audience. With the audience he can hopefully influence enough people by making a bold move and hoping they follow he or she.
ReplyDeleteThe sons of liberty that wanted to make a change using the the right way were justified. The ones that used the name for other acts that were inappropriate were not justified.
-Jeffrey silva
Per:4
The Sons of Liberty
ReplyDeleteThe sons of liberty were a political group made up of American Patriots that were from the North American British Colonies. The sons of liberty wanted to incite change to the governments treatment and the effects after the French and Indian war.
The Members:
Charles Thomson
Haym Solomon
Thomas Young
Paul Revere
Joseph Warren
Benjamin Edes
Alexander McDougall
Patrick Henry
John Hancock
Isaac Sears
John Lamb
James Otis
Marinus Willett
John Adams
Samuel Adams
Benjamin Rush
William Mackay
Benedict Arnold
In 1767 the sons of liberty created the nine striped flag.
Some of their actions were brought up in Walt Disney Movies.
-TOT