[rktman]

Agreed with most of the review. Watched all 3 parts and there were of course "liberties" taken and of course inaccuracies but as a whole, it was enjoyable in one sense and very sad in another. Sad in the respect that in the short time we've been a country, we've squandered what these people did to get us here. Of course, that's just how I "feel" about it. :>}

[Tennessee Nana]

http://www.history.com/shows/sons-of-liberty/videos

[rabidralph]

It was interesting how every issue facing the colonists are still facing us today. And they managed to do something about it.

[VR-21]

I question the way some of the characters were cast in the series, but on the whole I enjoyed the series. It was excellent...particularly the last two parts in its illustration of the need for the Second Amendment.

[momtothree]

I understand some liberty (play on words) was used. However, I enjoyed it. I remember as a child watching movies about our Founding Fathers. They all seemed so strange in the sense every one had on a powdered, fluffy wig and spoke eloquently ALL the time. What was refreshing to me about SOL was the characters had flaws but all were likable and comparable to modern day personality types/behaviors. The character of John Hancock was interesting because he truly changed his opinion (money/business vs freedom/liberty). I watched the first episode on tv and the following two on historychannel.com. Oh and the costume design was brilliant to me.

[SMARTY]

Increasingly, I see these kinds of productions as the means to educate Americans.

Public schools dropped the ball long ago-so.

So, the MSM (hardly an organization acknowledged for COMPLETE integrity and lack of bias) sometimes sees an opportunity for profit in presenting this information.

Of course, they can interest viewers greatly on the sheer novelty of presenting the ‘story’ of our Revolution, the Civil War, the Western expansion, etc... but, they should tread carefully.

MSM productions are a two edge sword for the historical record. Dummied down viewers with NO frame of reference regarding factual events, are easily entertained but even MORE easily duped.

Myself, very familiar with the events and facts of American history (all history), I am always interested to see how well/badly the MSM does on these productions.

I’ve been entertained, shocked, insulted, surprised, etc. but rarely informed.

I guess if you bring absolutely NOTHING to the show, it’s ALL entertaining and informative. If you actually KNOW something about the event/s, then you are more discerning.

In my life-long research and reading of original sources and actual accounts of historical events I find that invariably, the actual record and description of events/people is worlds more interesting and dramatic than ANY Hollywood ‘invention’.

[loveliberty2]

Then, as now, the battle which must be fought is, at its core, a battle of ideas, and ideas have consequences.

If this Sons of Liberty production arouses the curiosity and interest of individual citizens to explore the writings, speeches, and ideas of the characters portrayed, then it may play a part in a recognition of the essential ideas of liberty, and a rejection of the tired old ideas of tyranny which dominate so-called "progressive" politics of 2015.

We must not overlook what the Founders of the American Republic called, the role of "Divine Providence," whose pathway to the minds and hearts of youth can bypass even the most ardent and determined efforts of those so-called "progressives."

We have some responsibility ourselves for directing attention of youth to the ideas of the Founders, all to be found online now, not in some dark stacks on remote floors of university libraries.

For instance, the Sons of Liberty portrayal of Samuel Adams might allow us to introduce to Millenials his clearly-articulated understanding of liberty versus tyranny.

"The liberties of our Country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have receiv'd them as a fair Inheritance from our worthy Ancestors: They purchas'd them for us with toil and danger and expence of treasure and blood; and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle; or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men. Of the latter we are in most danger at present: Let us therefore be aware of it. Let us contemplate our forefathers and posterity; and resolve to maintain the rights bequeath'd to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. - Instead of sitting down satisfied with the efforts we have already made, which is the wish of our enemies, the necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that "if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom." It is a very serious consideration, which should deeply impress our minds, that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event." Samuel Adams - Essay in the Boston Gazette, October 14, 1771

"When designs are form'd to raze the very foundation of a free government, those few who are to erect their grandeur and fortunes upon the general ruin, will employ every art to sooth the devoted people into a state of indolence, inattention and security, which is forever the fore-runner of slavery." - Article signed "Candidus," in Boston Gazette, December 9, 1771

"If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them." Samuel Adams- As Candidus in the Boston Gazette, January 20, 1772

"The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave... These may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament." Samuel Adams - Rights of the Colonists, November 20, 1772

"It is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." - The Rights of the Colonists, November 20, 1772

"Is it now high time for the people of this country to explicitly declare whether they will be free men or slaves. It is an important question which ought to be decided. It concerns more than anything in this life. The salvation of our souls is interested in this event. For wherever tyranny is established, immorality of every kind comes in like a torrent, it is in the interest of tyrants to reduce the people to ignorance and vice.” - Samuel Adams

And:

“The utopian schemes of leveling and a community of goods, are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the crown. These ideas are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government unconstitutional.” - Samuel Adams

[Sans-Culotte]

So, is this a dramatization of history, or one of those History Channel documentaries featuring re-enactors for visuals? If it is a drama, do all/most of the men sport those cool stubble beards that today’s meterosexuals love so much?

[centurion316]

I found it unwatchable, so only saw the first 30 minutes or so. I won’t bother to try again. For me, it wasn’t just the historical inaccuracies, but the hamfisted attempts to turn it into a Colonial Mission Impossible. The dialogue and the characters just didn’t work for me. AHC production was far superior, IMO.

[Sam Gamgee]

Always nervous about anything from such a liberal network. Sam Adams played by a redcoat!?

[ßuddaßudd]

I liked the series Turn much better . .

[navyguy]

I’ve enjoyed this series. It makes the Brits look like HUGE A-Holes. Because they were...

[tomd2]

agee. I liked the Disney version “Sons of Liberty” from the ‘60s.

[mass55th]

You’re not alone in your sentiments. I watched the show too, and enjoyed it, even if it wasn’t accurate. I too asked what happened to the good people who fought a war to gain their independence from an oppressive monarchy, only to allow themselves to eventually be shackled by an oppressive Federal government. The people of this country did not take heed of the history that went before them.

[Psalm 73]

Cannot watch it as a history program - it was not, (far, very far from it).
As a "historical fiction" it was a pretty cool story, great period costumes and scenery, some pretty good acting, (which made up for some awful screen writing - the dialogue was clunky and not even really period-related).

[Chuckster]

“Movie History” FWIW