Sons of Liberty (History Channel) First Look

Whatever the source of the word boycott, it seems they were not buyibg British goods:

1764 - In May, at a town meeting in Boston, James Otis raises the issue of taxation without representation and urges a united response to the recent acts imposed by England. In July, Otis publishes "The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved." In August, Boston merchants begin a boycott of British luxury goods.
1765 - In December, British General Thomas Gage, commander of all English military forces in America, asks the New York assembly to make colonists comply with the Quartering Act and house and supply his troops. Also in December, the American boycott of English imports spreads, as over 200 Boston merchants join the movement.
1766 - In April, news of the repeal of the Stamp Act results in celebrations in the colonies and a relaxation of the boycott of imported English trade goods.
1767 - In June, The English Parliament passes the Townshend Revenue Acts, imposing a new series of taxes on the colonists to offset the costs of administering and protecting the American colonies. Items taxed include imports such as paper, tea, glass, lead and paints. The Act also establishes a colonial board of customs commissioners in Boston. In October, Bostonians decide to reinstate a boycott of English luxury items.
1774 - May 12, Bostonians at a town meeting call for a boycott of British imports in response to the Boston Port Bill. May 13, General Thomas Gage, commander of all British military forces in the colonies, arrives in Boston and replaces Hutchinson as Royal governor, putting Massachusetts under military rule. He is followed by the arrival of four regiments of British troops.
Source. Lot of other sources on the web give the same history.

HISTORY CHANNEL takes lots of LIBERTY with ‘SONS OF LIBERTY”
If you were hoping for historical accuracy - it ain’t happening.
But, as the excellent article in the link below reads: “but on History’s website, they make it clear that this program is “is a dramatic interpretation of events that sparked a revolution. It is historical fiction, not a documentary.” It goes on to state that one of the goals is to “focus on real events that have shaped our past.” Whatever you do, don’t take that statement too literally. “ unquote

The REAL history of these men and the birth of our country is ‘dramatic’ enough for any production, the facts do not need ‘interpretation.” It’s despicable to take real history - especially on such important events - and rewrite them, distorting them in such ways as to make it impossible for anyone - especially young people, to know fact from fiction.
VERY disappointing. (But fits an agenda...)

http://allthingsliberty.com/2015/01/discover-the-truth-behind-history-channels-sons-of-liberty-series/

Bingo, that’s exactly my thinking on it. They concentrated way too much on the poor not able to eat. Why would the poor be hurt by taxes if they had no income or things to be taxed in the first place? In those days, if you were poor, either the church took care of you, you found work, even if it meant moving to where the work was, or you died.

No, the Stamp Act, Townsend Duties and other legislation of Parliament were primarily focused on those that were in industry and commerce. The Tea Act was a consumption tax. The British then actually tried to enforce the acts. The whole point of the colonists were they should have some— even any tidbit of—a say in what they would be required to give back to the Empire.

Now you could say that the poor were further impoverished if those that hired them were hurt financially and couldn’t pay, but the American anger at the acts were from the middle and wealthy classes primarily.

And all we see is Sam Adams fuming and knitting his eyebrows and fighting and punching. I didn’t see/hear ANY of his very well stated speeches and arguments he made at many an assembly or at the North Church etc. His words were the most important part of his efforts, not the black market, fighting, and tales about his father’s Bailey Savings and Loan.

And Governor Potter, er Hutchinson, was a much more capable leader and administrator. They make him out to look like some small town mayor. He was governor of a whole province.

Absolutely, the house was torched, but at the time its occupant, Thomas Hutchinson, was lieutenant Governor, and the man responsible was the leader of a Boston gang, Ebenezer Macintosh, who had been hired by Sam Adams to lead the demonstration so Adams could remain in the background. Also throughout the show absolutely no context was provided. What taxes were being protested? When was this happening. ? No reference to the Stamp Act, The Navigation Acts, the repeal of those acts, the creation of the Sons of Liberty. No reference! Finally Adams was nowhere near King Street when the Massacre occurred, let alone the leader of the riot and responsible for clubbing a redcoat into unconsciousness.. We actually know what happened because these people wrote down evertything in diaries and journals. You would get a better history lesson going on the tour of Sam Adams Brewery.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.