Stamp+Act+Project

Matthew Tran Per 5

10/26  The Sons of Liberty weren’t justified in using the mob as a political tactic. It was a colonist’s civic duty to pay a tax. They were also part of Britain, so they had to abide by British law. Also, the British viewed the Sons of Liberty as the “Sons of Violence.” They were nicknamed that because of their actions that they did.  So, it was the colonist’s duty to pay a tax to Britain since they were considered as a citizen of Britain. It was like saying that the colonists wanted to be part of Britain, but they didn’t want to follow their rules and laws. I don’t know why the colonists would think that they would be part of Britain, and not follow Britain’s rules. It seems like the colonists were acting like criminals. Criminals //would// use mob violence to cause up attention. But the Sons of Liberty, were suppose to be the good people. They shouldn’t be criminals, so they shouldn’t have used mob violence as a way to protest. If they were viewed as the good people here in colonial times, then they absolutely must have been viewed as criminals in the British point of view.  British nicknamed the Sons of Liberty as the “Sons of Violence.” They were nicknamed this for their aggressive and frequent deadly, behavior. A few examples would be, that a man was tarred, and feathered for toasting the King’s health. Another would be frequent burnings of effigies of authorities and other hated men. The last example that would be used is that the Sons of Liberty burned down houses and didn’t care If anyone in that house was hurt or even died. Now, connecting to the criminal part from before, I think they should be viewed as criminals. The Sons of Liberty weren’t mean to a group of people that went out and caused havoc in the city. That’s even worse than paying some small stupid tax. I’m pretty sure life would be sooo much easier if the Sons of Liberty, and everyone else just paid the tax and get on with their lives. The Sons of Liberty should’ve handled their protesting and revolts a lot more civilized.  I’m just putting this out there, but I think that the Sons of Liberty were viewed as the “bad” people. I mean the British, had no intentions of going to war. They just wanted money to help pay back the debt that was caused. But nooo, the colonists just had to whine like babies and cause hell. The British people were civilized, and even though the colonists didn’t have a representative to speak their thoughts, they still did some crazy, disastrous things. I don’t know how anyone back in colonial times, viewed them as the “good” people. I actually wonder if anyone in colonials actually didn’t agree to what they were doing. And if they didn’t, I’m sure they didn’t speak out, or else they most likely would’ve been beaten to death or something.  This is why the Sons of Liberty were not justified in using the mobs as a political tactic. The colonists wanted to be part of Britain, but not pay their taxes. They should’ve known that the British weren’t going to let them not pay the tax. Also, the fact that the British called them the “Sons of Violence,” rather than the “Sons of Liberty,” shows how the British viewed that violence was not a way of approaching their revolts and protests. But, these are the colonists and they were crazy back then.

__**Wordle:**__ 

__**Slide: **__ media type="custom" key="7325877"