Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Sons of Liberty


Rye Miles #13621

Recommended Posts

Posted

Might be a little hard to follow if you're not familiar with Rev War history but pretty well done I think. Other than the inevitable modern language phrases and pronunciation of course. I'll watch episode 2.

Posted

Might be a little hard to follow if you're not familiar with Rev War history but pretty well done I think. Other than the inevitable modern language phrases and pronunciation of course. I'll watch episode 2.

 

Yep, noticed that too. I enjoyed the first episode, except for the vulgar language.

Posted

Looks like Comcast is running it all night episode 1 and 2. I will film it and watch it some other night when there is

nothing on I want to see. Thanks for the heads up.

I expect it will be re-run numerous times as most Hist Chnl programs are. Plenty of opportunity to catch it.

Posted

With my schedule, I would need to watch it online, but I really haven't had an interest in it since seeing the trailer with Revere galloping along shouting "The British are coming!" The last I checked, it was pretty well accepted that had he done so, people would have thought him a lunatic since they were, after all, British. Do they at least include Dawes and Prescott?

Posted

Five big myths about Samuel Adams in the History Channel series

By NCC Staff

4 hours ago



American TV viewers got to see part one of the History Channel’s mini-series about Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty on Sunday night, and true to its word, the series was more fiction than fact.

 

.

Samuel Adams In 1774

The network was quite open about “Sons of Liberty” being a “dramatic interpretation of events that sparked a revolution.” Clearly, the facts were changed in many cases to make for a more contemporary, action-adventure story line.

 

“It is historical fiction, not a documentary. The goal of our miniseries is to capture the spirit of the time, convey the personalities of the main characters, and focus on real events that have shaped our past,” the network said on its website. It also included a resource section with facts from historians about the real story of how these Founders shaped our history.

 

That said, at least the first part of the series is focused on “Sam” Adams and his constant fight with the British government over various matters. Here is a quick look at how the fictional “Sam” Adams differed from the real “Samuel” Adams.

 

1. TV Sam Adams was a hunky hero who brawled with the British. The TV version of Sam Adams is in his early 30s, swings from rooftops, leads brawls and acts as a Bostonian “Robin Hood.” The real Samuel Adams was in his mid-40s when the first protests happened in Boston, and was known more as a publisher, politician and town leader with grey hair.

 

2. Sam Adams was a failure as a tax collector. That part is true about the fictional and real-life Adams. He failed at most business ventures during his time. In the TV series, Sam Adams had been a tax collector for one year; in reality, Samuel Adams was a tax collector for nine years and been involved in Boston politics for 18 years.

 

3. What is the deal with the beer? The story about Sam Adams’ father and the land bank depicted in the TV series is true. But Samuel Adams Sr. was better known as a master beer brewer. His son inherited the beer business when his father died, and he had other people run it for him, since he had little interest in running a business.

 

4. Sam Adams – Boston’s most eligible bachelor. In the series, Sam Adams is depicted as a hunky, brooding widower in 1765. The real Samuel Adams in 1765 had just married for a second time and had two children. His first wife had died in 1757 and the second wife, Elizabeth Wells, was 14 years younger than Adams.

 

5. What is the real deal with the Adams’ family? In the TV series, Sam Adams is seen flirting with Abigail Adams, the wife of his cousin, John Adams. But Abigail was also John Adams’s cousin. So how were they all related? John and Samuel Adams were second cousins; John and Abigail Adams were third cousins. Abigail’s cousin, Dorothy Quincy, was John Hancock’s wife. Also, Samuel Adams’s daughter from his first marriage married his second wife’s younger brother. And John Adams was 13 years younger that Samuel Adams.

Posted

More on inaccuracies:

 

History Channel Presents Laughably Inaccurate 'Sons of Liberty'

 

By P.J. Gladnick | January 26, 2015 | 1:55 PM EST

Share it Tweet it More Sharing Services

 

161

shares

Okay, it wasn't quite as bad as "Sam Adams: Vampire Hunter" but it was close. I am referring to the History channel's series "The Sons of Liberty" in which the real life Sam Adams, who was a middle-aged portly guy by the time of the opening scene in 1765, comes off as a young athletic urban ninja hopping up to the rooftops of Boston to evade arrest by British troops. And that was just one of the many laughable inaccuracies of the History channel's presentation of the era leading up to the American Revolution.

 

Although one can easily get the sense that history was often left by the wayside just by watching it, several websites have pointed out the numerous historical inaccuracies of the series. Journal of the American Revolution is among those sites listing the many, many inaccuracies of this series. For the sake of brevity, we shall only look at the glaring errors of only the first episode:

 

 

 

AD FEEDBACK

...if you’re looking for facts about the Sons of Liberty or information about the War for American Independence, don’t plan on discovering those facts in this miniseries; you won’t find them. Instead of portraying actual historical events and giving each character balance and depth, the writers and producers have gone with a standard archetype of good and evil—you can probably guess which side is good and which is evil. So instead of the real General Thomas Gage, the viewer is told (in promotional material) that Gage is a brutal dictator-type figure who is abusive to his wife and orders his soldiers to act just as ruthlessly to the point of igniting the fuse of revolution. It’s complete bunk, of course, as we’ll see below.

 

And here is some of the bunk listed by the Journal of the American Revolution:

 

It’s Boston in 1765. Dr. Joseph Warren walks into a pub and stumbles into a drunk Samuel Adams. He explains to Adams that he’s been looking for him just as a group of British Regulars storm into the pub; there is muttering about a warrant, issued by Governor Hutchinson, for Adams’ arrest. The soldiers have come to collect! And we’re already off to a bizarre start. There were no British regulars stationed in Boston in 1765. They were there 1768-1770 and 1774-1776.

 

Oops! So no opportunity for Sam Adams to show off his ninja gymnastics while evading the British troops that weren't actually there. Come to think of it, the History channel version of hunk Sam Adams didn't seem to have much in the way of brains. See, he quickly evades the British troops (who weren't there in reality) by hiding in the tavern cellar. If he had just had the patience to wait at least 15 minutes for the British to split the scene, he would have been home free but noooo! He stupidly leaves the cellar after just a few moments to be spotted by the British who didn't have time to leave. But back to the listings of inaccuracies:

 

Doesn’t Look a Day Over 30 – The producers went with a younger look for Samuel Adams in 1765; in real life, at that time, he was 43. Certainly not old, but not a young lad either. Don’t get me wrong—Barnes is a fine actor and the producers wanted a hip fellow that all the kids can relate to and the girls swoon over—but Barnes is ten years younger than Adams would have been—was George Clooney not available (he asks facetiously)?

 

That Pub-Crawler Sam Adams - Samuel Adams has an undeserved reputation as a drinker who hangs out in bars. This wasn’t the case, at least not according to actual evidence. Samuel Adams inherited a brewery (which failed by 1764) and was called ‘Samuel the Publican’. But as J.L. Bell points out, Samuel Adams’ nickname has other connotations—it has nothing at all to do with pubs and alcohol.

 

Yeah, but when you know who is the major sponsor of this series, you have to emphasize the pub angle of Sam Adams as drinker of Boston brew.

 

The Governator – Hutchinson was not the Governor of Massachusetts in 1765. He was Lieutenant Governor as well as a probate judge. He would not take over as Governor until 1769 (and then only as acting governor until he was fully commissioned in 1771). The enmity between Adams and Hutchinson is founded in real history, but not for the reasons given in the show.

 

Civil vs. Military Authority – Under the English Bill of Rights (as well as the prevailing views of liberty at the time), British Civil Law was separate from Military Law (much as there is a distinction today), and military authority was viewed as being under the civil authority. Soldiers did not enforce the laws of the state and the state did not interfere in the judicial system of the military. All warrants were issued by sheriffs or magistrates and enforced by them alone.

 

On Probation – No warrant was issued for Samuel Adams in 1765. In 1758—seven years before this scene supposedly takes place—the sheriff (not Hutchinson) put out a warrant involving the estate of Samuel Adams’ father. The £8,000 was the total of uncollected taxes Adams owed to Boston as calculated in 1765. Instead of coming after him with a gun, however, the sheriff engaged him in public discussions (and threatened to take away his businesses, his home, and his property to repay the debt). Nothing ever came of the threats.

 

Thus no reason for the ninja Sam Adams to escape from the non-existent British troops who did not have the authority to enforce civil law for a warrant that was never issued.

 

Assassin’s Creed – Yeah, at one point Samuel Adams is climbing up walls and running across the roofs of Boston like in the popular video game. That didn’t happen, folks. Let’s be honest though; it sure looked cool.

 

I still want to buy that Sam Adams Ninja Warrior video game.

 

Where in the World is Thomas Gage? – Historically, Gage had already been given command of British forces in North America in 1763. He had been in the colonies and in Canada since 1755, ten years prior to the Stamp Act riots; so I was surprised that the episode introduces him hanging out in England in 1765, completely unaware of events unfolding in Boston. In 1765, Gen. Thomas Gage was living in New York. He visited Boston in 1768 but was not closely involved in that town’s politics until he arrived as governor in 1774. Since Gage’s relationship with Adams is part of the premise of the series, it was a little off-putting to see such a glaring historical inaccuracy.

 

An Angry and Vengeful Parliament – The whole scene where parliamentary officials give license for British troops to enter homes and destroy personal property and seize possessions is nonsense. In fact, parliament was pretty out of touch with American sentiment in the colonies to the point of fault. While they instituted the Coercive Acts, they ignored General Gage’s requests time after time to send more troops and munitions because he was worried about a war breaking out.

 

And the Journal of the American Revolution has a whole section devoted to what the British troops did NOT do in Boston such as not arresting patriot leaders or storming homes. In fact, it sounds like the British troops back then often acted more benevolently than our modern day federal government.

 

Another analysis of the inaccuracies of "Sons of Liberty" comes from MediaLife Magazine:

 

Few Americans know that the famous patriot Samuel Adams was present at the Boston Massacre, where he bravely picked up a cudgel and beat the British soldier who fired the first shot.

 

They don’t know that because it isn’t true. But it’s presented as true by History’s new six-hour miniseries “Sons of Liberty,” a retelling of the movement for American independence that is sprinkled with so many half-truths and outright falsehoods that it becomes worthless to history buffs, who might otherwise enjoy it, and students, who might otherwise benefit from it.

 

Exit question: Which is more historically accurate, "Sons of Liberty" or "Ancient Aliens?"

 

- See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2015/01/26/history-channel-presents-laughably-inaccurate-sons-liberty#sthash.J1ShiqHr.dpuf

Posted

Despite some inaccuracies, I'm enjoying it! ;)

Posted

It's entertainment.

The Lone Ranger was also not a real character in the old west. We who dressnup as fctional cowboys can scarcelymbe too critical eh?

It ain't a documentary. ;)

Posted

So given all the inaccuracies and misleading character presentations, what would be a good accurate read on this series of events?

 

There is all kinds of good reading out there, but the HBO miniseries "John Adams" was excellent, in my opinion.

Posted

But it's The History Channel. I expect history, not fiction. Am I expecting too much?

I'm afraid so. It is a dramatization not a documentary.

I can only say that (pardon the expression) liberties will be taken with the truth.;)

Posted

There is all kinds of good reading out there, but the HBO miniseries "John Adams" was excellent, in my opinion.

+1

Posted

 

There is all kinds of good reading out there, but the HBO miniseries "John Adams" was excellent, in my opinion.

Absolutely! One miniseries I've watched several times. Surprising to me from the series was that John Adams was the defense lawyer who successfully defended the British troops that fired on the mob, killing five citizens. It was called the "Boston Massacre."

Posted

One of the best books about the British powder raids and the events of the first days of the Revolutionary War is a book by David Hackett Fischer, "Paul Revere's Ride" will give you the historical information in a very readable format. It was a hard book to put down and I enjoyed it immensely!

Posted

That was bad I hope you can look in the mirror in the morning.

No time to look in the mirror. Watching Deadly Blizzard Juno coverage. :rolleyes:

Posted

One thing I can say about the Sons of Liberty, is that it is better then most of the drivel on the boob tube. I realize that isn't saying much.

Posted

One of the best books about the British powder raids and the events of the first days of the Revolutionary War is a book by David Hackett Fischer, "Paul Revere's Ride" will give you the historical information in a very readable format. It was a hard book to put down and I enjoyed it immensely!

Another good historical novel of the Revolutionary War is Bernard Cornwell's, "The Fort." It's about the Penobscot Expedition of 1779. Paul Revere is a Colonial Lieutenant Colonel and for his conduct, he should have received a court martial and been shot. At the end of the book, Bernard Cornwell tells you where he deviated from historical facts. He didn't deviate about Paul Revere.

Posted

It disappoints me that historical fact isn't entertaining enough for Hollywood. I write historical fiction, in fact I have two EE2 books out and I'm a couple of chapters in on a book on WW1. I pride myself on doing my best to make sure the history is correct. In my view Historical Fiction should be both entertaining and informative. What could be a better way to teach history than to weave it in an interesting story. I feel I would be doing a disservice to my readers if I mislead them on historical fact. Despite all that I am enjoying Sons of Liberty as entertainment.

Posted

Sadly, Bugs, maybe the producers and writers don't know the truth about history.

 

But in fact, a lot of the things that we take as truth today, are a fabric of part truth

and part fiction woven through the years. There is an old saying, that HISTORY is

written by the victors.

 

If one reads the accounts of the Civil War, War of the Rebellion, or War between

the states, from the view of the North and the view of the South you get two different

ideas of what actually happened.

 

That said, I watched part of it last night and filmed the first two episodes. I will watch

them when it is more convenient to do so. I had a hard time understanding what was

going on. Partly because I am not all that sharp in the brain department, and partly because

the story line was somewhat in conflict with my perceived notion of history. Of course

coming in to the story at the middle and only watching a brief portion probably helped

to confuse me.

 

I will see what the whole thing brings to the party. Gonna need some chips and/or pretzels

to go with the video and libations. :)

 

One thing that did stand out, it did not seem to be a pleasant time to live in the colonies.

 

Posted

I haven't been able to watch it yet. What part do the Ancient Aliens play in the Revolution??

Posted

A good number of very accurate historical novels have been written. But once the rights are sold to a studio, screenwriters, producers and directors are more concerned with dramaand box office numbers.

Shakespeare also wrote historical plays that weren't very accurate. ;)

Posted

Well, my opinion is just that, my opinion and while those Hollywood types are rich and famous I'm just a poo

r story teller nobody knows and very few people read. Their movies make millions and my book make pennies so perhaps their way is better but my way is my way. I want to leave my kids and grand kids something that they will learn from as well as enjoy reading and I don't want them to discover I was full of S.... er, Untruths.

Posted

Well, my opinion is just that, my opinion and while those Hollywood types are rich and famous I'm just a poo

r story teller nobody knows and very few people read. Their movies make millions and my book make pennies so perhaps their way is better but my way is my way. I want to leave my kids and grand kids something that they will learn from as well as enjoy reading and I don't want them to discover I was full of S.... er, Untruths.

WE here all know your way is better.

Posted

It just frustrates me that the story of the founding of our great nation is a fascinating one, filled with diverse characters. There is no need to fabricate a storyline. There's drama, intrigue and dealmaking everywhere. Just tell the story.

Posted

It just frustrates me that the story of the founding of our great nation is a fascinating one, filled with diverse characters. There is no need to fabricate a storyline. There's drama, intrigue and dealmaking everywhere. Just tell the story.

Alas most producers are incapable of telling a historical story in an intersting way. I've had teachers like that. They were not able to diminish my enthusiasm fo history with their poor teaching methods, but I know they killed the spark in many of my fellow students.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.