tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post7665898770888818246..comments2024-03-28T04:26:30.557-05:00Comments on Boston 1775: Whom Do We Mean by “Sons of Liberty”? Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-24746505308981370932015-02-08T10:59:20.091-05:002015-02-08T10:59:20.091-05:00Good stuff, John. Both sides are evident in the ne...Good stuff, John. Both sides are evident in the newspapers. The Georgia Gazette of October 24, 1765, published the following: "At a meeting of the Sons of Liberty, on Monday night last, at Machenry's tavern..." <br /><br />The Supplement to the Boston News-Letter, 27 Jan 1766, includes an extract of a letter from Charleston, South Carolina, dated 2 Dec 1765: "At present every thing is very quiet here; our Liberty Boys being content to keep out the Stamps..." <br /><br />Then, in the 20 March 1766 Pennsylvania Gazette is a passage under an "Annapolis, March 6" date line: "On Monday, the 24th of February, a considerable Number of the principal Gentlemen of Baltimore County, met at the Market-House in Baltimore-Town, formed themselves into a Society for the Maintenance of Order and Protection of American LIBERTY, by the Name of SONS OF LIBERTY, and resolved to meet at Annapolis, on Friday last, to oblige the several Officers there, to open their respective Offices, and proceed in Business, as usual, without stamped Paper: And that the Society and Application might be still the more respectable, the SONS OF LIBERTY in Baltimore, gave the most speedy Notice to Gentlemen of the neighboring Counties, to form themselves into the like Societies, and co-operate with them in this so laudable Work. Saturday last, a much greater Number of the SONS OF LIBERTY than could be expected from the Shortness of the Notice, met, by Adjournment, at the Court House in Annapolis..."Todd Andrlikhttp://allthingsliberty.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-22011169463366825932014-12-15T09:19:04.502-05:002014-12-15T09:19:04.502-05:00Indeed!! Excellent post. I think your last paragra...Indeed!! Excellent post. I think your last paragraph nails the way I've always thought about it. Neither a small group of movement leaders nor the entirety of a defined group led by those men. Rather, it was more a term that signaled a political position and served as an umbrella term for the array of individuals who took that position. In some sense, it was much like "Whig" or "Tory" were used in the colonies, in that it described a discrete political position on a specific issue rather than describing a coherently defined ideology or, even, party platform. In many ways the use of this kind of terminology being applied on an issue-by-issue basis is reflective of the non-ideological factional fluidity of political culture in the colonies (particularly in the Middle Colonies and, also, New England).Michael Hattemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16609888909050785140noreply@blogger.com