Where Are the Sons of Liberty? N. S. Ream

Patrick Henry was only in his 20s at the time. No doubt he was trying to build a reputation for him self, but his speech contained a ringing defense for the liberties of free men: "... a king, by disallowing Acts of this salutary nature, from being the father of his people, degenerated into a Tyrant, and for feits all rights to his subjects' obedience." The King's action through his Privy Council was only one of many threats to the people's liberties that provided a prelude to the final revolt. Facing such threats, the. Sons of Liberty were formed after the Stamp Act was passed in 1765. Dr. Ream, who served for many years as pastor of the First Congregational Church, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, lives in retirement with his wife in Estes Park, Colorado. Although these groups sometimes may have been unruly,for the most part they were made up of mid dle-class citizens who kept themselves under con trol. They did, however, make it clear that they would not and could not tolerate the loss of their liberties which Georg{fIII was seeking to take from them. They frequently disguised themselves, as they did at the Boston Tea Party, burned stamped paper, staged processions, and intimidated English officials.

There is often a misconception on the part of Americans concerning the situation that existed between the people of the 13 original colonies and the British government prior to 1776.This miscon ception may be due to our 20th century's poor record at teaching history. It is widely believed today that the colonists rebelled against the British and King George because they desired freedom from harsh rules and regulations, but the facts are somewhat differ ent. As early as 1763, a decade before the Boston Tea Party, the colonists were free from most of the governmental restrictions we live under in the late 20th century. The colonists' objection was not that they had no freedom, but that what wide freedom they had was being threatened by new and odious rules emanating from England. They cherished the liberty offered them in this new land.and did not wish to forfeit it. PreservingLiberties In his excellent work, The Oxford History of the American People, Samuel Eliot Morison makes the same point when he insists, "Make no 372 THE FREEMAN • OCTOBER 1990 the Boston Tea Party.

mistake,the AmericanRevolutionwas not fought to obtain freedom, but to preserve the liberties that Americansalreadyhad as colonials." Morison makes clear that Americans of that period probably had more freedom than Ameri cans of any succeedingera. Followingthe·French and IndianWar,KingGeorgewas generallypopu lar. Duringthat period,however,the colonieshad grownstrongerand moreself-confident,consider ing their own interests primary. They enjoyed completefreedomof speech,press,and assembly, and militaryservicein time of war was voluntary. What taxes were enacted were not burdensome. As Morisonputsit, "the hand of governmentrest ed lightlyon Americans." TravelingthroughVirginiain 1759a clergyman, Andrew Burnaby,observed, "They are haughty andjealousoftheirliberties,impatientofrestraint, and can scarcelybear the thought of being con trolledby any superiorpower." It is perhapsconceivablethat thispolitical,eco nomic,andsociallatitudeexplainsthe strongreac tion on the part of the colonistswhen George III threatened and actually began to restrict their freedom.

One has difficultyimaginingAmericansin our day reacting as did the 18th-century colonial Americans.Oppressiveand restrictivelaws may annoyus, but overallwe are so affluentwe would rather do nothingthat wouldimpenl our easeand comfort. Over the past several decades we have had our libertiesslowlybut surely abridged,and most Americansare unaware of or indifferentto how muchlibertythey have lost.We may murmur occasionallyat legislativeor administrativedeci sionsthat further curtailour liberty,but it is very unlikelywe wouldrevolt as did the Americansof 1776, or as did the Sons of Libertyin 1773 when theydumpedthe tea into BostonHarbor. Although smugglingwas widely practiced in NewEngland,the peopleweregenerallylaw-abid ing,perhapsmoreso thantheir20th-centurycoun terparts for whom there are so many proscriptive laws that no man knows their number.The more numerous the laws, the more law-breakingthere willbe. Laws,whethergoodor bad,are limitations on individualliberty,and when they get to be so numerousandso odiousthat theybecomedifficult to endure, lack of respect for all law will be the consequence.

WHERE ARE THE SONS OF LIBERTY? 373 TradingLibertyfor the Promiseof Security It has begun to happen in the United States today. The majority of long-suffering Americans are the victims of self-seeking politicians whose primary goal, and often apparently their only goal, is to maintain themselves in the cushy office to which they have become accustomed. We have endured continued inroads on our freedom, all made in the name of security and the public wel fare. We have done what we were warned long ago not to do, trade liberty for the promise of security. As a consequence we have neither. Do we have increased economic security when government takes five months of our working income in taxes each year and when each family in America owes $44,000on the national debt? The American taxpayer could today make a case similar to that made by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence when he listed the failures and shortcomings of George III. Our representatives in Congress have given them selves multitudinous and generous benefits at the expense of ordinary citizens. They have exempted themselves from laws binding the rest of us. They have burdened us, our children, and our grand children with a huge national debt. They have laid on us an ever-increasing burden of taxation. Many of them have been guilty of gross immoral and unethical behavior. They have so arranged things that once in office it is nearly impossible to remove them.

Now comes, perhaps, what may prove to be the last straw-an April 1990 ruling by the Supreme Court destroying the Constitutionally mandated separation of powers between the legislative,judi cial, and executive branches of government. It is Constitutional, the Justices ruled 5-to-4 in a Kansas City school-desegregation case, for a Fed eral judge to require local governments to increase taxes whether they wish to or not. It is strange beyond credibilitythat our nation rejoices over the death of socialism in Eastern Europe while seek ing to impose it on ourselves. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson argued the citizens' right to alter or abolish a gov ernment when it became destructive of the basic and unalienable rights of man. He went on to say, however, that experience had shown "that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolish ing the forms to which they are accustomed."

Unfortunately, modern Americans seem accus tomed to the sins of their politicians and thus are not in the mood to be rid of them. We have not demanded less government, less waste in govern ment, a balanced budget, and a high degree of moral and ethical integrity-and so the sins and errors continue. Someone once remarked that the trouble with politicians is that their office gives them power, and they come to believe that because they have power they also have wisdom. Certainly a knowl edge of history gives the lie to any such absurdity. The late Ben Rogge of Wabash College once wrote, "Given man's nature, freedom will always be in jeopardy and the only question that need concern each of us is if and how well we took our stand in its defense during the short period of time when we were potentially a part of the struggle." Where are the Sons of Liberty today? We are not without hope. Freedom, the most basic right granted mankind by God, has been burned into the minds of men throughout the history of all civ ilized society.It remains unquenchable, and when its lack becomes intolerable, men and women will rise up and demand its rebirth.

Barbara Tuchman, in an article in the Ameri can Scholar(Autumn 1980),puts it this way: We cannot reckon the better impulses pre dominating in the world, only that they will always appear. The strongest of these in history,summoner of the best in man, has been zeal for liberty. Time after time in some spot somewhere on the globe, people have risen in what Swinburne called the "divine right of insurrection" -to overthrow despots, repel alien conquerors, achieve independence, and so it willbe until the day power ceases to corrupt-which, I think, is not a near expectation. Where are the Sons (and Daughters) of Liber ty? They are among us yet today and always will be. Their numbers are growing. One day they will be successful once more in demanding the end of selfish power-seeking, the end of government by special interests, the end of socialism and central ization of power, and the renewal of freedom under God. D 374 The Politics of Compassion by WilliamB. Irvine N ot long ago a colleague and I were dis cussing my article on Federal disaster relief that appeared in the March 1990 Freeman. In the article I argued, among other things,that the governmentshouldnotspendmon ey to help rebuildthe homesand businessesof the victimsof the 1989 San Francisco earthquake. I pointed out that someonewho couldown a home in San Francisco would be wealthier than most Americans,and wouldthereforehardlybe in need ofa Federalbailout;that the homeownercouldand shouldhaveboughtearthquakeinsurance;andthat by "bailing out" those who failed to buy earth quake insurance,the governmentwas inadvertent 1y encouragingpeopleto go withoutinsurance.