January 1, 2025 • 58 mins
In 1801, Samuel Adams was contemplating the fate of the country with Thomas Jefferson at the helm, when he received a call from the future …
In this episode, Sam will talk about what a terrible businessperson he was, how his beliefs of liberty developed, and why he thinks Jefferson will be a better president than his cousin was.
Start the episode now to join the conversation.
-----
Tom Niewulis’ deep understanding of the American Founding Fathers and his passion for the principles of liberty shine brightly in his portrayal of Samuel Adams. With over 30 years immersed in the political and historical arenas, Tom’s journey began during his military service when he developed an intimate study of the U.S. Constitution and its amendments. Tom has long believed in the role of faith, morality, and virtue as cornerstones of America’s cultural and political renewal—principles that echo through Samuel Adams' life and work.
Tom’s portrayal is steeped in authenticity, driven by his extensive reading of original Founding documents. His insights challenge modern interpretations of history, reminding listeners of the Founders’ intent—particularly their nuanced views on religion and governance.
Learn more about Tom at: samueladamsreturns.com.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:28):
I'm Tony Dean, and today we'll be callinghistory to speak with Samuel Adams.
He'll be answering our call in 1801.
His cousin John Adams has recentlybeen defeated by Thomas Jefferson,
who has just taken office as thethird president of the United States.
Samuel Adams has always been aconfusing figure in history for me.
Clearly, he was one of the most importantFounding Fathers, responsible for
(00:52):
stoking the fire of rebellion wheneverthe flames would become tired embers.
When the British were on their wayto Concord, looking for the primary
troublemakers, they were lookingfor John Hancock and Samuel Adams.
When we talk about the Boston TeaParty, or the Sons of Liberty,
Samuel Adams was always involved.
Under rabble rouser, in the dictionary,there's probably a picture of Sam Adams.
(01:15):
And yet, he was never president.
We also don't see his likenesson our coins, or our dollars.
It's not that he was lost to history,but it also doesn't appear that he
was at the forefront of anything.
And And that's because,Sam Adams is a humble man.
And he did the work without the needfor recognition or monetary gain.
He worked behind the scenes witha very simple goal of waking up
(01:38):
each day to improve the livesof the people in his community.
And I don't mean just saying hewas gonna do it, I mean believing
it with all of his heart.
Sam's deep religious beliefs were rootedstrongly in the golden rule of do unto
others as you would have them do unto you.
This was not some rough andtumble scrapper that would get
into bar fights every night.
(01:58):
He was not a rabble rouser thatwould stir things up just for the
sake of raising another's ire.
Sam Adams was an educated man, aHarvard graduate, a man who believed
in the importance of education for alland dedicated his life to the service
of the people through his strongbelief in God, liberty, and justice.
Prior to this conversation, Idon't think I knew Sam Adams
(02:19):
at all, but I know him now.
Ladies and gentlemen, fellow undrinkablebeer everywhere, I give you Samuel Adams!
Sir, it is a pleasureto speak with you today.
My name is Tony Dean, and I'm talking toyou from the future, in the 21st century.
The device that you're holding in yourhand is called a smartphone, and it
allows us to speak as if you and Iwere sitting across from one another
(02:43):
at the Green Dragon having a drink.
And it also allows me to share arecord of our conversation with
people around the world in our time.
I was hoping that I could ask you somequestions today, but before I do, I
understand this is a strange introduction.
I Are there any questions thatI could answer for you first?
There's so many questions, especially withinteracting with someone to the future,
(03:03):
as you're describing, and the device isquite strange, but having been in the
Association of Science here I can acceptthat things will become very interesting
as the future comes upon itself.
Oh, I promise you, the future,if you were to see this, you'd
be overwhelmed, especially ifyou're interested in science.
(03:27):
What is the association of science?
I don't know what that
It was with philosophy and science.
The United States brought that intobeing in the about the middle of
the 1700s, and I was made from thephilosophy side as well as from being
interested in science and education.
of that association.
(03:48):
Interesting.
So, you say you were on the philosophyside of it, you were definitely not short
of philosophies on everything, it appears.
But would be an example ofsomething that they would
do
Well, the interest was in apolitical philosophy in particular.
So as you may know, Dr.
Franklin my cousin and others we wereknown for having the political impact,
(04:11):
but even in those early days in thatmid 1700s to late 1700s there were
people that were carrying over similarphilosophical issues or societies as
were in the mother country, as it wasduring that period, and was established
likewise here at the colonies at thattime, what's now these United States.
(04:34):
Yeah.
So you you mentioned Dr.
Franklin.
Did you have close relationship with Dr.
Franklin?
We had a number of interactionsover the years, and as you can
imagine, we definitely enjoyed thesame common interest in liberty as
the opportunity have known many ofthe same people, and interestingly
(04:56):
enough as you may know as well, Dr.
Franklin, back in the 1750 period oftime, was very interested in seeing
this nation become independent.
Especially after what happenedduring the French and Indian War.
I
I think that nobody, especiallyin our time would say that Dr.
Franklin was anything other than justabsolutely brilliant in every way.
(05:19):
I mean, there are few polymaths that,, have accomplished as much as he has,
no matter how many interests they have.
So where does your cousin.
Compare to him.
Is Franklin more intelligentthan your cousin, John Adams?
I would say that he is morerounded than my cousin John.
My cousin John was very focusedand he still is, as you well know,
(05:41):
especially with some of the issuesthat occurred during his presidency
and that being so focused andled in the manners that he did.
Has been that it created problems forour nation to the point that now with Mr.
Jefferson being president, we're seeinga revived perspective on what is true
(06:06):
federalism and once again, a republic.
So you're happy with Jefferson?
Oh, absolutely.
Absolutely.
Jefferson and I became friends earlyon during the Continental Convention.
He being much, much younger than myself.
And his brilliance was very impressive.
(06:28):
As we look back and see what he was ableto do with the Declaration of Independence
just a few years before that, I hadwritten the Declaration of Rights as an
Englishman, and to see the parallels ofthat brought into the true format that is
still, this day, our substantial documentof liberty is just beyond all things.
(06:53):
And I just appreciate what he's done tomake what is going on with our liberty
movement, again, most impressive.
And the person who was presidentbefore him was your cousin,
correct?
And so far, who's the better president?
Well, Jefferson, as we are here in1801, has just gotten into office.
(07:18):
So I believe that Jefferson is going tooutshine my cousin by virtue of how he is
going to deal with the various policieswith France, how he's going to take and
look at what happened with the Jay Treaty.
That occurred during that Washingtonpresidency, and then was implemented
(07:38):
with my cousin, and he's going to bringback, in my opinion, the liberties that
were pretty much moved to the side undermy cousin John, especially as he was
looking at the Alien and Sedition Act thatreally was focused not just on aliens,
but also was affecting the citizenry.
(08:00):
You know, it's interesting, but I've hada lot of these conversations, I've even
spoken with your cousin, and people alwayswish that I would have asked more about
this, so what was wrong with that, orwhat was right about that in your opinion?
What was right, I think, wassome of the basic intent to
make sure that aliens werenot affecting our interests.
(08:26):
They were not going toaffect our elections.
They weren't going to affect our commerce.
The sedition side was where Ihad the greater degree of grief.
And with that is where if someone wouldsay something against My cousin, even,
if someone would say something againstthe government, be they a officer of
(08:48):
state government or a merchant or evena religious person, they could have
been brought up on charges of sedition.
And that is not how , our liberties underthat declaration, first and foremost, was
And then secondly, when this Constitutioncame into effect, the idea that we would
(09:12):
have those rights, and as you well know,the fight for the First Amendment, and
those, what are now the Bill of Rights,And that First Amendment, to give us
that freedom of speech, to have thatcurbed, to me, was just insidious, and
some of the worst actions that couldhave been brought into legislation.
(09:35):
And that's exactly what it did, ittook that very first right and said,
, this is kind of a flexible thing.
, if we like what people aresaying, then we're okay with it.
And if we don't, then we're goingto do something bad to them.
And that seems like that fliesin the face of everything that
we fought for in the revolution.
I most agree, and I pray that, asyou said, you're from the future,
that in your time frame, that hasbecome settled, that First Amendment
(09:58):
is the first in solid workings.
of our liberties and is notinfringed upon in any way.
I hope the wisdom of the people of thefuture and the faith and morality and
virtue of the people in the future willhold so true and dear that is something
(10:18):
that is not infringed upon again.
You will be glad to know that the rightto free speech is protected in this time
dearly, but I'll be quite honest with you.
And this is maybe even a hard thing forme to say, cause I believe in that, right?
There's a possibilitythat we've actually gone.
Too far, because, , there's a lot ofpeople that know what they're talking
(10:43):
about, but then there are a lot of otherpeople that just like to make other
people angry, or, , just like to stirthe pot for no reason other than , just
because maybe they're unhappy themselves.
And the ability for people to get theword out very quickly now is greater
than it's ever been, and , someof those people do serious damage
because , they care about themselves.
They don't really care aboutthe Republic or other people.
(11:05):
And I don't know, do you think likesomething like that could go too far?
once again, even As my cousin John orMadison had said in relationship to
the Constitution and the amendments,and this one in particular, is
that this Constitution is onlyfor a moral and virtuous people,
a moral and religious people.
(11:26):
So that was a framework, even thoughmy cousin became a Unitarian and his
theology started to shift drastically,as well as that happened with Madison,
They clearly understood that we had tomaintain that, and their expectation
was that would continue within theconcept of the churches, so that we
(11:51):
would have that type of citizenry.
But as you well know, all through time,the citizens have those decisions and
make those moral decisions, and Even asit was coming into period of election,
how vehemently nasty it was of anelection period and how the bickering
(12:13):
was going on in our press of the day.
So can there be anoverstep, there always can.
Hopefully greater minds will take and holdtrue to those fundamentals of what does
it mean to self govern and then be able tocontinue with solid good governance under
(12:35):
the guiding hand of the constitution.
it sounds like you're optimistic.
about Jefferson.
And I guess, I think I knowthe answer to this question.
So, , what do you think thecurrent state right now of the
Republic is as far as standing trueto, , our original revolutionary
(12:56):
principles that, that we fought for?
, where do you think we are right now?
I think we're in disarray and the hopeis, and I think if you go and you look
at Jefferson's inaugural speech and ina letter that he wrote to me as well.
And my reply to him is that there willbe a unity, a reunification of the
people in their thinking In lookingat how the republic should function
(13:20):
and to work through those issuesthat were causing separations from
my cousin John's quite frankly fromhis presidency and administration.
So I have great hope.
As you said, I lookforward to seeing what Mr.
Jefferson is going to be able toaccomplish and bringing that unity
together and working througha number of those issues that
(13:44):
happened at the end of Washington'spresidency and then through my cousins
When I think of President John Adamsand the fact that he served one term and
then lost to Jefferson, when I think ofhis job, I think of an impossible job.
, becoming president after Washington,who many people loved Washington,
(14:06):
maybe, probably you'd say most, I justthink that his job was impossible.
, I'm wondering if maybe he did as wellas somebody could have done, or do
you think he just did a poor job?
, what are your thoughts on that?
as with it.
Anyone that is, comes to office, Ithink with the, as you said, with
General President Washington, his wasbecause of his natural leadership.
(14:29):
He also had some good people around himand that is what always will take and
drive what happens in the administration.
The one person As younoted, can only do so much.
The rest of it is so impossible aswe look at the size of our nation and
looking at the potentials of how dowe expand our commerce, how do we deal
(14:54):
with what is going on in Europe as faras the French and the revolution that
they're having still the problemsthat we're having with the British
and our trade and so on and so forth.
That is extremely difficult.
And I do have to say, I agree with you inthat regard, but because of the council
(15:14):
around him, some of his decisions werenot the best, especially those that led to
the Alien and Sedition Act, which I thinkis the very dark mark on his presidency.
. When you've mentioned GeorgeWashington a couple times, President
Washington, General Washington.
The first time you said it, I waslistening to your voice and I thought I
(15:35):
heard you say like General Washington,almost like you had something to say about
him that wasn't necessarily positive.
I'm curious how you feel about Washington.
Well, , I was one of the firstto nominate him as general of
the revolutionary forces, butwhere I had to take a side draw.
(15:55):
And if you heard that in my voice was ashe went forward with the J treaty myself,
I did not feel that we were really.
moving in the rightdirection with that treaty.
I think that we gave toomuch up to the British.
We did not secure enough on makingsure in particular that our ships
(16:19):
were not boarded and our seamenwere not taken by the British.
And then entrusted into their care,I guess is what they would say.
But it impacted us severelyjust in that trade alone.
And although I disagreed with the bloodyterror that was happening in France, the
(16:40):
idea of the French Revolution and beingable to trade better with them as , a
country, a nation, and people trying tobecome a republic versus what we saw with,
, an established kingdom and all of theold style of government in Great Britain.
(17:02):
That was really what my problemwas with Washington taking J.
Blanketly when I thought that wecould take and negotiate a little
bit stronger in those critical areas.
When you say kingdom and, asfar as your feelings about the
monarchies and like this absolutepower and people not having freedom.
(17:24):
. I wonder what yourreaction would have been.
if Washington had notgiven up his presidency?
What if Washington had stood upand everybody loved him and he
said, you know what, I'm just goingto hang around here till I die.
And, you know, I don't know,maybe I'll adopt a son and
teach him how to be president.
I mean, if he had not, , handedthe reins to somebody else,
(17:44):
would you have had a reaction ifhe would have stayed president?
Oh, absolutely He would been thefirst violator of that which he led
very strongly during the conventionof 87 Everything about him at
that time would have been againstevery first principle that he had.
And in that case, then the nationwould have the right to reject him
(18:10):
and reject that form of government.
It , could have become a travesty forwhere we came together as a nation.
It could have been a travesty.
That was a big move for himto step down, wasn't it?
Not really, I think he was tired.
And you may know that I resignedshortly, as the governor of
(18:30):
Massachusetts, shortly after he did.
I think that both of us came to anindependent decision that we've run our
course in governing, leading people.
Being willing to exercise all that wehave for the liberty of this nation.
And it was time for younger peopleto actually become engaged and
(18:55):
observe and be there availablefor them as they would need
used in your time?
That
sounds like a yes.
I, Sir, I've been called that in war.
Okay, well that's whatI was going to ask you.
So here you are mentioning that youwere the governor of Massachusetts.
(19:17):
And yet, prior to that, you werethe guy disrupting the government.
And I'm wondering, whichof these you like more?
Thanks for watching!
Bye!
A stable government for sure.
One that is based on the principlesof republicanism and federalism
and one that then, as I mentioned,is the people's government.
(19:37):
It's all about we the people being ableto self govern and then be able to come
together in a society and choose thosewho will participate in governing with us.
That's my preference.
Always to be as governor.
I always maintain that humbleposition that it was not about myself.
(19:59):
It was not about holding a officeof power, but how to best serve the
people and to execute that which thelegislature would put before me in the
most expedient manner, and in a mannerthat followed through with what the
state constitution expected us to do.
(20:20):
, that is one of the things about yourhistory as we read about it in our
time that I find most fascinating.
It seems like everybody says whatyou said, you know, they make that
humble statement that it's notabout me and it's about the people.
And, , then they go out and make asmuch money as they can and try to get
all kinds of fame and recognition.
(20:41):
But I don't see that from you anywhere.
Everything that you said, I feellike that is the absolute, , God
spoken truth that, , you really don'tcare maybe even about either making
money or having it or about fame.
That it seems that you're spending allof your, , mental horsepower or whatever
(21:02):
energy you have or had to make the peoplearound you the people of your nation.
to make their situation better and withoutany care of recognition for yourself.
And is that, am I right on track with
You are.
You are.
Most definitely.
It It goes to what I believe thefirst principles from the Reformation
(21:24):
are, and what that biblical truth is.
I've always said that the truesovereign is Almighty God.
And that is where I've alwayslived my life, is based on
understanding who has authority.
The full sovereignty and to be an agentof that sovereignty and to do that in a
(21:45):
way that follows within those biblicalprinciples of truth, honesty, and
maintaining the rights of those otherindividuals that also have , those
God given rights in which that is theform and purpose of government is to
ensure that those rights are protected.
As you well know, that.
(22:07):
is the truest, simplest perspective whenwe look at What is the right of property
and what is the rights of a person?
They're not given to usby any laws or government.
They're naturally given to us by God.
We look at that just from what natural lawand natural revelation and I take that to
(22:29):
heart and that is the way I live my life.
I never did, I was never good atbusiness as you may obviously you say
you've Have some history of myself andin that, you know, that I was not good
at businesses at all, and in fact, Iwas fired from the first job I ever had
because I couldn't keep my interest there.
(22:50):
So making money was not as important asmaking sure that people were guaranteed
in their freedoms and their liberties.
I want to come back andtalk about business.
I have something specifically to askyou about that because it definitely
does seem that business was notgoing to be your area of expertise.
(23:13):
But you had mentionedreformation a couple of times.
And for anybody that would notexactly know what you were talking
about , explain , what that means.
When I look at the Reformation iswhat began to happen and probably
the most well known is the time ofMartin Luther and that separation
from Catholicism into Protestantism,the protesters of Catholicism.
(23:40):
The Reformation was that wholereforming of an idea, not just of
religion, but the true or what Icall the true application of those
biblical principles, the truth of God.
And how did that start moving intonot only individual worship, but what
did that start meaning in culture?
And what did it startto mean for governing?
(24:04):
We can look at numerous examples ofwhat that is and how that then played
into even the, those early settlerscoming over the Puritans coming over.
And that's a heritage that I have andthat I carried through not only in
What I did in government what I triedto do in every aspect of my life.
(24:28):
And that's the foundations of whatwe looked at during those early
years of this nation being built.
So back into the 1600s.
And so we can take that period and lookat, for instance, one of the authors that
I read and considered very strongly whenI was looking at what is federalism and
(24:53):
what is a republican form of governmentwas Johannes Althussius and there we're
looking at 1614 when he was doing someof his great writings and being able
to digest that as well as others thatwrote early times in even in England and
(25:14):
what happened to set up the differenceof just the absolute monarchy to bring
a Parliamentary government into play.
It was all part of what happened frompeople looking at what do we reform?
Not just in religious ideas, but trueLiving out their biblical concept and then
(25:36):
what does that mean and how do we govern?
It's interesting to me how.
All of this, these religiousbeliefs that you so strongly hold
are tied so directly to government.
It almost seems likethey are one in the same.
Is that correct?
In my mind they are, and they shouldbe, , there were times, and we see
(25:59):
even now, the, how that is becomingsomewhat separate, as I mentioned,
what we looked at early on wasthat from the 1600s until today.
So, Probably right after I graduatedfrom Harvard, we saw that was a unifying
(26:20):
mindset, especially in Massachusetts,not so much down in the southern
colonies, especially in Virginia.
And it depended on the denominationalsettings of the various people, those
that had more of a Presbyterian conceptin government, because that's a church
government, it's not a denomination perse, but it's a form of church government,
(26:43):
versus an Anglican form of government.
in the church was more aligned witha monarchical perspective, whereas
a Presbyterian or the Puritansor Congregationalists were more
liberty minded towards the people.
So are the two tied together even inthe functions of church government?
(27:06):
I believe that to be true.
Okay.
So as we're now just startingthis conversation, I have
to be honest with you.
This is completely going a differentdirection than I would have guessed.
. I guess I didn't realize how.
religious of a person you areand how strong your beliefs are.
(27:27):
And yet when you look at thethe revolution , your role in
that is as great as anybody's.
I mean, there's a lot of death.
There's a lot of killing.
There's a lot of suffering thathappened as a result of that.
How do you reconcile with that?
Knowing that although you'reworking towards something
better, there's, , thousands.
(27:48):
Tens of thousands, maybea hundred thousand people.
I don't know how many that hadto suffer because of the change
that you were trying to incite.
But through the ages, as you well know,there have been many, even religious wars.
, if you go back to the mother countryof the early settling, excuse my age
here, I think it was about 1680 orso, was the Glorious Revolution and
(28:14):
that was Protestant against Catholicat the time there in England itself.
Cromwell and his troops and what theywere doing and how that came about.
The idea of trying to establish theliberty will always have times when people
go beyond Any form of common negotiation.
(28:38):
And at some points in time, when thattyranny becomes so aggressive that it
does call us to take action, we don'twant to take as you may know, when I left
Reverend Clark's house, when the Britishwere coming to arrest myself and Mr.
Hancock, that as we were in the woodsand heard those first shots in Lexington,
(29:02):
I did raise my hands to heaven andsay, It has begun, glory to God.
And, It is because of tyranny that atpoints in time, and we can go back to
what happened during an earlier periodwith the city of Magdeburg in Germany
at that time when the Holy Roman Emperorwas going against one city to squash, and
(29:27):
destroy Protestantism all at one time,and that city leaders stood up against
that emperor and Was there bloodshed?
Unfortunately, yes, and because of man'spersonal sins and the way that we treat
other human beings, it is a travestythat we have to shed blood, but at
(29:54):
times it is necessary so that libertyprevails, not just for oneself, but for
others, and so to reconcile that It wasan unfortunate necessity that we saw the
hearts of the people understanding libertyshould prevail and tyranny be put aside.
(30:18):
And when tyranny takes and comes againstthose that want their liberty, There will,
unfortunately, be times of bloodshed.
Speaking of tyranny, if you had been aliveduring the time when Rome was growing,
I don't think that you would have beena good friend of the Roman leaders.
(30:40):
Most likely not.
And again, if you go to that veryearly period, or if you go to
the first century period, as welook at it, most certainly not.
Because, as I mentioned earlier, I wouldhave to fall into the category of knowing
who the sovereign of the universe is.
So, would not bow a knee.
And It's very interesting and how manypeople get that perspective confused as to
(31:09):
Christians going to the jaws of the lionsand tigers that was resistance to tyranny.
And those martyrs were in factthose that were resisting a
tyrannical and despotic government.
So , what are you thinkinghappens next with America?
(31:32):
I mean, I know you're hopefulthat we figure this out, but.
, what is your hope been for Americain these early years of, , having
our first few presidents?
Well my hope is that we're able toexercise the constitution in a manner
that it does not become pervertedand that we're able to contain
(31:52):
It and keep those chains on it.
As Mr Hamilton said on chainson government and not see
government become excessive.
That is my hope.
My hope is that when we look at howdo we finance the federal government?
That it maintains itself within thescope of those first article and
(32:16):
maintaining that the tariffs and exciseand would be the better method of being
able to keep the activities flowingand working and be sufficient funding
to keep a small government active.
My hope is that federalism will be ableto work and that we'll be able to maintain
(32:39):
the types of open trade between the statesthat led us to that convention in 87.
When we looked at the arguments fromthe Maryland convention early on, that
was one of the largest complaints wasthe inequality of trade between the
various states or some of the otherpoints of interest and legal arguments
(33:02):
that were coming as one person wastrying to make a argument or a case
with another over business dealingsor other personal property dealings.
And so hopefully, We're able to maintainthat the federalism working and that a
representative government will continue tobe small and have those specific interests
(33:27):
in what does it mean to treaty properlyand not become excessive in treaties.
That was one of my reasons with theJay treaty, the problem that I had,
was this going to become excessive?
Because as you know, a treaty becomes.
Part of the law of the land, not theconstitution, but the law of the land.
And we have to honor it.
(33:48):
And then how was that funded thatas you well know, that treaty almost
did not succeed because the initialCongress was not going to fund the
mechanisms, especially for the tradeaspect of that treaty to function.
So a treaty can be negotiated fromthe administration's perspective.
(34:10):
The It can be acknowledged within thecontext of the Senate, but then can it
be operational based on will the housetake and appropriate the proper funding.
So to keep our government small andto keep it functionally operational
(34:31):
within the context of the constitutionis my greatest hope and that's why
I'm looking forward to what Mr.
Jefferson, God willing, will letme see more of his presidency.
You had mentioned a little bit agothat you were not great at business.
And in fact and I don't know if this wasjust a skill that you never developed, or
(34:54):
if you just didn't care about making moneyand, , maybe you would have been a maybe
even a better preacher if you weren'tgoing to be what I suppose the English
would have considered a revolutionary,in your early days, but it appears that.
Because revolution was your thing,or searching for freedom was your
thing, it appears that the first40 years of your life you didn't
(35:14):
really accomplish that much.
Is that how you feel about it?
If you look at what is accomplishment,and you put that price tag on it, or you
look at it from a business perspectiveand accumulating wealth, I was not
very successful at that agreeably.
And, in that, I think that you touchedon two points that were very interesting,
(35:37):
is that in my youth, that my parents,when they enrolled me at Harvard,
they wanted me to be a preacher.
So you're very astute in recognizing that.
And in that, study of theology, andas I mentioned already, about the
Reformation, and then studying law thatwas associated to that, especially with
(36:01):
Althusias and what he looked at in lawand the Roman law and law of the nations,
that changed my heart to go after andlook more as to What is the liberty?
And going with my father to the shipyardsand listening to the men talk about
(36:22):
what was happening at the time and whathappened during the French and Indian
War and how we were even turned uponby the monarchy and by parliament in
particular that led us into egregioustaxation but getting off the ship.
the direction that you were asking about.
So yes, you're right.
I did take and focus on what did itmean to take and participate in good
(36:47):
government and making sure that wehad that capacity to govern ourselves.
in a manner that we were by charteralready doing in so many different ways
of having a free form of government.
And we were seeing thatchipped away over the years.
So that became my impetus of goinginto government more was to make sure
(37:12):
that we can maintain the freedomsthat we had under our charters.
But if we couldn't do it, inrelationship with the mother country,
then we needed to be independent,which then brings me to my master's
thesis in which I did take and write.
And again, here's where I'llparaphrase is that it was, if this
(37:35):
government could not be swayed Thenwhen is it time to rebel against it?
That was the topic.
Wow.
And that was given before the governorthat was of Massachusetts that was given
before the judges, the legislature.
(37:55):
And so.
From that point, that was my heartand understanding to when would
be the right time when we see suchtyranny and despotism coming upon us.
Before you became public enemy numberone, two, or three, or whatever number
you were, to the king was there ever atime where you were called on by them
(38:18):
or you sailed across the ocean and metwith him and or had direct communication
with him about what was happening.
Never direct communication.
Because I was part of the legislature.
I was elected to representmy area in Boston , so I.
Obviously then had a lot of interactionwith the governor and the lieutenant
(38:38):
governor and Through them being the agentsto the king the various communications
But never any personal interaction.
When it came time for the Americancolonists to figure out that they
needed to unite and they needed avoice to stand up before the English
would impose more Stamp Acts, moreSugar Acts, , more Townsend Acts.
(39:04):
And things would just get worseas far as freedom and liberty.
Imagine a scenario that the king andthe monarchy would have looked at that
situation and said, you know, thatis, that's a big fight over there.
First of all, they'rea million miles away.
I got to sail so far just toeven go over there and fight.
Like we're never going to win that battle.
(39:25):
Here's what we're going to do.
We're going to back off.
We're going to let them have theirfreedom , we're going to negotiate
something that is fair to them wherethey can vote and make their own laws.
And, you know, we'll just havea, maybe get a small amount from
them that they can live with.
And basically they come to, they'dcome to some sort of settlement
that was agreeable to you.
and agreeable to the colonists,where there was no reason to rebel
(39:49):
and we would just all stay English.
If that had happened, which wasnever going to happen, we both
know that, but if it was going tohappen, what would you have done?
I would have supported it Iactually did that early on as well.
And when we met in the first Congress,and at that time, the intentions were to
try and reconcile with the mother country.
(40:11):
And I said, fine, let's try andreconcile with the mother country.
Knowing, as you already pointedout, that was not going to work.
And the Points of interest anda lot of, that drove us in the
directions that we were driven inwere not necessarily by the king.
We, brought up the charges as weredrafted in the declaration by Mr.
(40:36):
Jefferson, specific to the king,because as you recall, we were
given charters for governing.
Massachusetts had some of the mostlenient charters in self government.
So we had those rights to elect our ownrepresentatives here in Massachusetts,
(40:59):
not anyone that went to parliament.
So the real problem became whatparliament was doing in conjunction with.
the East India Trading Company and wesaw our manufacturing being shut down.
(41:19):
As you well know, we had to sendour raw materials to England to have
it manufactured there and then witha duty sent back to us to purchase
That's crazy.
we were manufacturing here all alone inBraintree where my cousin John lived.
I don't know if he mentioned that toyou or not, but we had an iron work.
(41:43):
In Braintree, and that was shut downso we could no longer make our own
implements for farming, for protection,for any other types of use, even for
building the ships in Boston Harbor.
That was part of it.
It was not just what people gather,or could have gathered by what was in
(42:07):
the media, but it was very, and I domean the media there, which we had as
newspapers, And letters and pamphlets.
What was happening was that theywere actually destroying our
local commerce, our banking.
One of the early days, as you mayrecall, is with my father who started
(42:27):
a bank called a land bank where peoplewould put into trust properties.
And be able then to takeloans out against that.
Parliament came in and shut that down.
And that's what drove myfather into bankruptcy.
So many issues of that naturewere the economic issues that were
(42:50):
forcing the people to look at howcan we better self govern completely
without the impact of parliament or.
Those people that had greatinfluence to Parliament, such as
the Dutch Indian Trading Company.
It just sounds absolutely absurd thatyou make these goods and then you put
(43:12):
them on a ship and send them all theway across the ocean and then wait
until they make you some nails andthen send the nails back so you can
pound them into the whole of the shipor I don't know how to make ships.
I don't know if you put nails inships but it just sounds crazy.
Like, even if it wasn't.
It just sounds insane
That's what we thought.
Thank God somebody said something, huh?
(43:33):
so that, caused peopleto say, what is going on?
How can this happen?
And then to try and put pressureon the Governor to try and
ask and go back to Parliament.
And, but.
, take it back just for another instant withthe French and Indian War, for instance.
Now, my father was involved in thatfrom the point of making sure that
(43:55):
the troops, which, as you may know,the Massachusetts colony encompassed a
greater area than it does now as a state.
It encompassed most of all of New England.
We provided the majority of thetroops to go and fight into Canada.
all the way to Nova Scotia.
(44:16):
And we provided the troops, weprovided the funding, we provided the
clothing, , we were the provisioners.
But yet, because of that seven year war onthe continent, after it was all finished,
that's when Parliament came back andsays, You didn't pay your fair share.
(44:37):
You did not make sure that thecoffers of England were full and now
the debt that we have is a war debt.
You need to pay for that.
Well now that's interesting cuz Ijust talked with Thomas Gage here
Just recently and Thomas Gage told methe exact opposite story what he said
(44:58):
Of course!
he's you're telling me that he's thecolonists put up everything to fight
that, including the men and funding, andhe's saying that the English were putting
up the men and the funding and that,, supporting what the colonists were doing.
But you're saying that's not true at
No, that's not true.
There was some, obviously in the Canadaarea where some of the British troops came
(45:21):
in, but the majority of the British troopsmen that went to fight and the supplies
that came to them were from the coloniesand were from a greater proportion of it
to Massachusetts is where it came from.
We can take you back to myfather's ledgers if you'd like.
I have a feeling you're going to be right.
(45:41):
And so I'm not going to make youdo that, but it is very interesting
to hear the other side of that.
Because , we have a tendency to kindof believe our own stories sometimes.
Or the stories that are told to us.
And remember, General Gage reallyappreciated all of my enthusiasms,
(46:02):
as they were for Liberty.
Oh, he loved you.
Yeah.
I think your name cameup when we were talking.
He had nothing but kind words to say.
You're the first onebeing invited to dinner.
When they're having
Yes.
Yes.
What are your, have you, didyou have any meetings with him?
Slight.
In correspondence, and then as hewas in Boston just on a general side
(46:24):
of things, but nothing that wouldbe of any usefulness to try and
negotiate some types of settlements.
. When I had asked you I'd asked youthat long question about, , if they
conceded and they acquiesced and said,hey, , yeah we're gonna treat you guys
better and give you liberty and freedom.
And I said, what would you do?
If there was nothing to rebel against,you had said, , I would support that.
(46:47):
But what I actually meant was,and although I appreciate your
answer, what I actually meant was,what would you do for a living?
Would you be selling lumber?
Would you start making shoes?
What would you have done?
In that case, I would have, if theycontinued in giving us the liberties of
self governance to the extent that wehad already had, For most instances, I
(47:10):
would have stayed in the local legislature, if I was elected to do that.
Otherwise, my great interest hasalways been in education and ensuring
that young people were educated, boysand girls equally, and that would
have been an area of interest for me.
, since my retirement from politics, that'swhat I became very involved with as time
(47:35):
went a lot, is to take and visit theschools, participate, help students as
I could, tutor, and ensure that therewas a good educational schools within
Boston and Massachusetts in particular.
That came
You know, I'm so glad that thereare people that wake up in the
(47:57):
morning that first think, whatcan I do for other people?
Because your reputation is about stirringup mobs and being a rabble rouser.
And I'd love to hear those othernames that people call you.
And, but the reality is you wake up inthe morning and if there's nobody to
fight, you're like, well, maybe we canmake sure that more people are educated
(48:17):
so that they can do better for themselves.
And if we don't have to create some sortof rebellion, maybe we can work for the
government and do something to take whatis exists right now and make that better.
I mean, I'm so glad that there are peoplelike you that are willing to do that.
And I applaud you for that.
And I'd like to go back for a minuteand I'm sure you've probably had this
(48:39):
discussion with people before andmaybe not, but let's talk about the
moment, the destruction of the T moment.
Tell me a little bitabout how that came about.
Because of the Refusal , ofthe governor in particular
to not allow the tea to land.
(49:00):
It was not an issue of the costof the tea or even the tax.
The tax was insignificant.
It was the general principle ofgovernment forcing upon us that
which we could not freely trade.
Once again, it was the East India TradingCompany that we had to buy the tea from.
Whereas prior to that action, justa few years prior, we were able to
(49:25):
buy tea independent, and we weretrading independent to be able to
acquire our tea at the best price.
But, the East India Trading Companyaccumulated so much tea in their
warehouses because we were free tradingwith other nations directly that they
went to Parliament and said , theywanted to have that sole right of trade.
(49:51):
So, the tax that was put on, itwas more of free trade issue.
And then how did it comeabout in particular?
It was because the Sons of Liberty,which were not just a group of people
in the Massachusetts colonies orNew England colonies, but there were
others in New York, there were those inPennsylvania, and even into Virginia.
(50:16):
This was a unified group of patriotsthat said enough was enough.
And I had met with thegovernor earlier in the day.
Before that meeting actually was incorrespondence with the Sons of Liberty
working through a concept and a planof if the governor would not acquiesce
(50:42):
and ensure that T did not come ashorebecause then we would be responsible
for the tax as well as then being thereforced upon us from a sole provider.
It was.
determined what would be a signal.
What would we do?
So then it was that I would meetwith the governor and ask him to
(51:05):
make sure that T would not land.
And with his refusal, that's when I leftand went out and gave basically, again,
I'll paraphrase because of my age, it'shard to remember some of my exact words
at that time, that There's nothing morewe can do that it's time to move on
(51:30):
because there's nothing more we can do.
And that was the signal for those of theSons of Liberty then to go forward with
the plan of removing the T before itlanded and putting it into the harbor.
So putting it into the Harbor was notonly an act of defiance that, Hey,
we're not going to tolerate this.
(51:52):
It, I guess I hadn'treally thought about this.
It was actually an attempt, a successfulattempt to prevent it from going the
other 10 feet where it would land.
And you'd have to pay a tax.
That's interesting.
I'd never really thoughtof it about it that way.
Their tea, by the way,when you say you could get.
Tea for better prices elsewhere.
The tea from the East Indiacompany was probably terrible.
(52:14):
Wasn't it?
After having been in storage for quite awhile, , what was really interesting, the
great support there was against that act.
was even the young ladies refused to drinktea it was a social gathering environment
so the women and young girls participatedin standing against that particular text.
(52:41):
. So what about the sons of Liberty?
Tell me about that.
You, did you start the sons of Liberty?
Not actually.
That was a group that wasforming as of their own.
There were other patriots within thecolony, and as I mentioned, in other
locations as well, that determinedthat we needed to take a position
(53:06):
on the different points of tyrannyor despotism that were coming at us.
And how would we do that?
How would we communicate with one another?
How would we take and ensure thatwe had a capacity to go beyond
just that local environment?
So the Sons of Liberty were those thatformed naturally, By people who were
(53:31):
interested in truth and in the nation andin making sure that liberty would prevail.
So I cannot take anypersonal credit for that.
Is this one of those moments where youare just being humble because that's
who you actually are and you reallywere the force behind starting this?
(53:52):
Because I have a hard timebelieving that things like this
just get started and then it works.
Like somebody's got to light the match.
Did you not play a bigger role in that?
If I would say there was the kindlingput to the fire, I would have to go
back even further to when my fatherwas alive, and the men would gather,
(54:14):
in the taverns and they became whatwas known as the caulkers club.
The caulkers club being thosein relationship to all that work
on the wharf where they wouldput the caulking into the ships.
And that became, I would say,that first of what would later
become the Sons of Liberty.
(54:35):
Because at that point in time, theCaucus Club were those that were
looking at how they could impact whatwas going on in our local government.
How could they raise up that nextgeneration of leaders to participate,
or who could become elected, or howdo we make sure that there were people
(54:57):
That would go forward, not only in localgovernment, but would go further in
colonial government and at some pointin time have the level of correspondence
throughout the various colonies.
So I would have to say thatwas already in bloodstream.
(55:18):
of the Patriots throughout theMassachusetts colony and how that would
have spilled over into the other colonies.
I think it was just by virtueof the various correspondence.
So I would take and say that would havebeen the real beginning of the Sons
of Liberty, who then took on that newname and were more active and willing
(55:41):
to take and become, at times, Moreaggressive with those that were trying
to push the insults of despotism upon us.
. So it might be more accurate to say thatyou took something that already existed
and shaped it gave it some direction.
Is that more accurate?
I would concur with that.
. So let's go back to the thedestruction of the tea for a minute.
(56:04):
John Hancock.
I spoke with John Hancock and I wasvery surprised that he openly admitted
that he was very involved in this.
And he said something along thelines of he was happy to supply those
Indians with tomahawks But, you andhim, were you the two that were most
a part of spurring that into action?
(56:26):
I would agree.
Yes, Mr.
Hancock, he had the financial capacityto be able to do exactly what he said to
provide whether it was the headdresses orclothing or all that would be required for
such an action and as well , he providedships for other activity as well.
(56:47):
So, his family and himself were.
Involved in , what would that be calledwhere they would sail their ships
around the blockades and make surethat goods got to support the patriots.
But yes, I would agree with that.
Yes, I know exactly what that word is.
It's smuggling.
(57:08):
Hancock was a smuggler, butyou know what he also was?
He was the funding behind Samuel Adams,so that this man who cared nothing
about recognition or personal wealthcould continue to move the revolution
forward, so that one day the peopleof his nation would have the freedom
and the liberty that they deserved.
In the next episode, we'll talkabout Sam's role in government
(57:30):
after independence, the myth abouthim making beer and how close
he was to becoming president.
Hint, it wasn't first, second,third, or fourth in line.
I'm glad you're enjoying this podcast,and if you haven't yet, subscribe
now, and we'll see you at the nextepisode of the Calling History
podcast with part two of Samuel Adams.
I'm Tony Dean, and today we'll be callinghistory to speak with Samuel Adams.
He'll be answering our call in 1801.
His cousin John Adams has recentlybeen defeated by Thomas Jefferson,
who has just taken office as thethird president of the United States.
Samuel Adams has always been aconfusing figure in history for me.
Clearly, he was one of the most importantFounding Fathers, responsible for
(00:52):
stoking the fire of rebellion wheneverthe flames would become tired embers.
When the British were on their wayto Concord, looking for the primary
troublemakers, they were lookingfor John Hancock and Samuel Adams.
When we talk about the Boston TeaParty, or the Sons of Liberty,
Samuel Adams was always involved.
Under rabble rouser, in the dictionary,there's probably a picture of Sam Adams.
(01:15):
And yet, he was never president.
We also don't see his likenesson our coins, or our dollars.
It's not that he was lost to history,but it also doesn't appear that he
was at the forefront of anything.
And And that's because,Sam Adams is a humble man.
And he did the work without the needfor recognition or monetary gain.
He worked behind the scenes witha very simple goal of waking up
(01:38):
each day to improve the livesof the people in his community.
And I don't mean just saying hewas gonna do it, I mean believing
it with all of his heart.
Sam's deep religious beliefs were rootedstrongly in the golden rule of do unto
others as you would have them do unto you.
This was not some rough andtumble scrapper that would get
into bar fights every night.
(01:58):
He was not a rabble rouser thatwould stir things up just for the
sake of raising another's ire.
Sam Adams was an educated man, aHarvard graduate, a man who believed
in the importance of education for alland dedicated his life to the service
of the people through his strongbelief in God, liberty, and justice.
Prior to this conversation, Idon't think I knew Sam Adams
(02:19):
at all, but I know him now.
Ladies and gentlemen, fellow undrinkablebeer everywhere, I give you Samuel Adams!
Sir, it is a pleasureto speak with you today.
My name is Tony Dean, and I'm talking toyou from the future, in the 21st century.
The device that you're holding in yourhand is called a smartphone, and it
allows us to speak as if you and Iwere sitting across from one another
(02:43):
at the Green Dragon having a drink.
And it also allows me to share arecord of our conversation with
people around the world in our time.
I was hoping that I could ask you somequestions today, but before I do, I
understand this is a strange introduction.
I Are there any questions thatI could answer for you first?
There's so many questions, especially withinteracting with someone to the future,
(03:03):
as you're describing, and the device isquite strange, but having been in the
Association of Science here I can acceptthat things will become very interesting
as the future comes upon itself.
Oh, I promise you, the future,if you were to see this, you'd
be overwhelmed, especially ifyou're interested in science.
(03:27):
What is the association of science?
I don't know what that
It was with philosophy and science.
The United States brought that intobeing in the about the middle of
the 1700s, and I was made from thephilosophy side as well as from being
interested in science and education.
of that association.
(03:48):
Interesting.
So, you say you were on the philosophyside of it, you were definitely not short
of philosophies on everything, it appears.
But would be an example ofsomething that they would
do
Well, the interest was in apolitical philosophy in particular.
So as you may know, Dr.
Franklin my cousin and others we wereknown for having the political impact,
(04:11):
but even in those early days in thatmid 1700s to late 1700s there were
people that were carrying over similarphilosophical issues or societies as
were in the mother country, as it wasduring that period, and was established
likewise here at the colonies at thattime, what's now these United States.
(04:34):
Yeah.
So you you mentioned Dr.
Franklin.
Did you have close relationship with Dr.
Franklin?
We had a number of interactionsover the years, and as you can
imagine, we definitely enjoyed thesame common interest in liberty as
the opportunity have known many ofthe same people, and interestingly
(04:56):
enough as you may know as well, Dr.
Franklin, back in the 1750 period oftime, was very interested in seeing
this nation become independent.
Especially after what happenedduring the French and Indian War.
I
I think that nobody, especiallyin our time would say that Dr.
Franklin was anything other than justabsolutely brilliant in every way.
(05:19):
I mean, there are few polymaths that,, have accomplished as much as he has,
no matter how many interests they have.
So where does your cousin.
Compare to him.
Is Franklin more intelligentthan your cousin, John Adams?
I would say that he is morerounded than my cousin John.
My cousin John was very focusedand he still is, as you well know,
(05:41):
especially with some of the issuesthat occurred during his presidency
and that being so focused andled in the manners that he did.
Has been that it created problems forour nation to the point that now with Mr.
Jefferson being president, we're seeinga revived perspective on what is true
(06:06):
federalism and once again, a republic.
So you're happy with Jefferson?
Oh, absolutely.
Absolutely.
Jefferson and I became friends earlyon during the Continental Convention.
He being much, much younger than myself.
And his brilliance was very impressive.
(06:28):
As we look back and see what he was ableto do with the Declaration of Independence
just a few years before that, I hadwritten the Declaration of Rights as an
Englishman, and to see the parallels ofthat brought into the true format that is
still, this day, our substantial documentof liberty is just beyond all things.
(06:53):
And I just appreciate what he's done tomake what is going on with our liberty
movement, again, most impressive.
And the person who was presidentbefore him was your cousin,
correct?
And so far, who's the better president?
Well, Jefferson, as we are here in1801, has just gotten into office.
(07:18):
So I believe that Jefferson is going tooutshine my cousin by virtue of how he is
going to deal with the various policieswith France, how he's going to take and
look at what happened with the Jay Treaty.
That occurred during that Washingtonpresidency, and then was implemented
(07:38):
with my cousin, and he's going to bringback, in my opinion, the liberties that
were pretty much moved to the side undermy cousin John, especially as he was
looking at the Alien and Sedition Act thatreally was focused not just on aliens,
but also was affecting the citizenry.
(08:00):
You know, it's interesting, but I've hada lot of these conversations, I've even
spoken with your cousin, and people alwayswish that I would have asked more about
this, so what was wrong with that, orwhat was right about that in your opinion?
What was right, I think, wassome of the basic intent to
make sure that aliens werenot affecting our interests.
(08:26):
They were not going toaffect our elections.
They weren't going to affect our commerce.
The sedition side was where Ihad the greater degree of grief.
And with that is where if someone wouldsay something against My cousin, even,
if someone would say something againstthe government, be they a officer of
(08:48):
state government or a merchant or evena religious person, they could have
been brought up on charges of sedition.
And that is not how , our liberties underthat declaration, first and foremost, was
And then secondly, when this Constitutioncame into effect, the idea that we would
(09:12):
have those rights, and as you well know,the fight for the First Amendment, and
those, what are now the Bill of Rights,And that First Amendment, to give us
that freedom of speech, to have thatcurbed, to me, was just insidious, and
some of the worst actions that couldhave been brought into legislation.
(09:35):
And that's exactly what it did, ittook that very first right and said,
, this is kind of a flexible thing.
, if we like what people aresaying, then we're okay with it.
And if we don't, then we're goingto do something bad to them.
And that seems like that fliesin the face of everything that
we fought for in the revolution.
I most agree, and I pray that, asyou said, you're from the future,
that in your time frame, that hasbecome settled, that First Amendment
(09:58):
is the first in solid workings.
of our liberties and is notinfringed upon in any way.
I hope the wisdom of the people of thefuture and the faith and morality and
virtue of the people in the future willhold so true and dear that is something
(10:18):
that is not infringed upon again.
You will be glad to know that the rightto free speech is protected in this time
dearly, but I'll be quite honest with you.
And this is maybe even a hard thing forme to say, cause I believe in that, right?
There's a possibilitythat we've actually gone.
Too far, because, , there's a lot ofpeople that know what they're talking
(10:43):
about, but then there are a lot of otherpeople that just like to make other
people angry, or, , just like to stirthe pot for no reason other than , just
because maybe they're unhappy themselves.
And the ability for people to get theword out very quickly now is greater
than it's ever been, and , someof those people do serious damage
because , they care about themselves.
They don't really care aboutthe Republic or other people.
(11:05):
And I don't know, do you think likesomething like that could go too far?
once again, even As my cousin John orMadison had said in relationship to
the Constitution and the amendments,and this one in particular, is
that this Constitution is onlyfor a moral and virtuous people,
a moral and religious people.
(11:26):
So that was a framework, even thoughmy cousin became a Unitarian and his
theology started to shift drastically,as well as that happened with Madison,
They clearly understood that we had tomaintain that, and their expectation
was that would continue within theconcept of the churches, so that we
(11:51):
would have that type of citizenry.
But as you well know, all through time,the citizens have those decisions and
make those moral decisions, and Even asit was coming into period of election,
how vehemently nasty it was of anelection period and how the bickering
(12:13):
was going on in our press of the day.
So can there be anoverstep, there always can.
Hopefully greater minds will take and holdtrue to those fundamentals of what does
it mean to self govern and then be able tocontinue with solid good governance under
(12:35):
the guiding hand of the constitution.
it sounds like you're optimistic.
about Jefferson.
And I guess, I think I knowthe answer to this question.
So, , what do you think thecurrent state right now of the
Republic is as far as standing trueto, , our original revolutionary
(12:56):
principles that, that we fought for?
, where do you think we are right now?
I think we're in disarray and the hopeis, and I think if you go and you look
at Jefferson's inaugural speech and ina letter that he wrote to me as well.
And my reply to him is that there willbe a unity, a reunification of the
people in their thinking In lookingat how the republic should function
(13:20):
and to work through those issuesthat were causing separations from
my cousin John's quite frankly fromhis presidency and administration.
So I have great hope.
As you said, I lookforward to seeing what Mr.
Jefferson is going to be able toaccomplish and bringing that unity
together and working througha number of those issues that
(13:44):
happened at the end of Washington'spresidency and then through my cousins
When I think of President John Adamsand the fact that he served one term and
then lost to Jefferson, when I think ofhis job, I think of an impossible job.
, becoming president after Washington,who many people loved Washington,
(14:06):
maybe, probably you'd say most, I justthink that his job was impossible.
, I'm wondering if maybe he did as wellas somebody could have done, or do
you think he just did a poor job?
, what are your thoughts on that?
as with it.
Anyone that is, comes to office, Ithink with the, as you said, with
General President Washington, his wasbecause of his natural leadership.
(14:29):
He also had some good people around himand that is what always will take and
drive what happens in the administration.
The one person As younoted, can only do so much.
The rest of it is so impossible aswe look at the size of our nation and
looking at the potentials of how dowe expand our commerce, how do we deal
(14:54):
with what is going on in Europe as faras the French and the revolution that
they're having still the problemsthat we're having with the British
and our trade and so on and so forth.
That is extremely difficult.
And I do have to say, I agree with you inthat regard, but because of the council
(15:14):
around him, some of his decisions werenot the best, especially those that led to
the Alien and Sedition Act, which I thinkis the very dark mark on his presidency.
. When you've mentioned GeorgeWashington a couple times, President
Washington, General Washington.
The first time you said it, I waslistening to your voice and I thought I
(15:35):
heard you say like General Washington,almost like you had something to say about
him that wasn't necessarily positive.
I'm curious how you feel about Washington.
Well, , I was one of the firstto nominate him as general of
the revolutionary forces, butwhere I had to take a side draw.
(15:55):
And if you heard that in my voice was ashe went forward with the J treaty myself,
I did not feel that we were really.
moving in the rightdirection with that treaty.
I think that we gave toomuch up to the British.
We did not secure enough on makingsure in particular that our ships
(16:19):
were not boarded and our seamenwere not taken by the British.
And then entrusted into their care,I guess is what they would say.
But it impacted us severelyjust in that trade alone.
And although I disagreed with the bloodyterror that was happening in France, the
(16:40):
idea of the French Revolution and beingable to trade better with them as , a
country, a nation, and people trying tobecome a republic versus what we saw with,
, an established kingdom and all of theold style of government in Great Britain.
(17:02):
That was really what my problemwas with Washington taking J.
Blanketly when I thought that wecould take and negotiate a little
bit stronger in those critical areas.
When you say kingdom and, asfar as your feelings about the
monarchies and like this absolutepower and people not having freedom.
(17:24):
. I wonder what yourreaction would have been.
if Washington had notgiven up his presidency?
What if Washington had stood upand everybody loved him and he
said, you know what, I'm just goingto hang around here till I die.
And, you know, I don't know,maybe I'll adopt a son and
teach him how to be president.
I mean, if he had not, , handedthe reins to somebody else,
(17:44):
would you have had a reaction ifhe would have stayed president?
Oh, absolutely He would been thefirst violator of that which he led
very strongly during the conventionof 87 Everything about him at
that time would have been againstevery first principle that he had.
And in that case, then the nationwould have the right to reject him
(18:10):
and reject that form of government.
It , could have become a travesty forwhere we came together as a nation.
It could have been a travesty.
That was a big move for himto step down, wasn't it?
Not really, I think he was tired.
And you may know that I resignedshortly, as the governor of
(18:30):
Massachusetts, shortly after he did.
I think that both of us came to anindependent decision that we've run our
course in governing, leading people.
Being willing to exercise all that wehave for the liberty of this nation.
And it was time for younger peopleto actually become engaged and
(18:55):
observe and be there availablefor them as they would need
used in your time?
That
sounds like a yes.
I, Sir, I've been called that in war.
Okay, well that's whatI was going to ask you.
So here you are mentioning that youwere the governor of Massachusetts.
(19:17):
And yet, prior to that, you werethe guy disrupting the government.
And I'm wondering, whichof these you like more?
Thanks for watching!
Bye!
A stable government for sure.
One that is based on the principlesof republicanism and federalism
and one that then, as I mentioned,is the people's government.
(19:37):
It's all about we the people being ableto self govern and then be able to come
together in a society and choose thosewho will participate in governing with us.
That's my preference.
Always to be as governor.
I always maintain that humbleposition that it was not about myself.
(19:59):
It was not about holding a officeof power, but how to best serve the
people and to execute that which thelegislature would put before me in the
most expedient manner, and in a mannerthat followed through with what the
state constitution expected us to do.
(20:20):
, that is one of the things about yourhistory as we read about it in our
time that I find most fascinating.
It seems like everybody says whatyou said, you know, they make that
humble statement that it's notabout me and it's about the people.
And, , then they go out and make asmuch money as they can and try to get
all kinds of fame and recognition.
(20:41):
But I don't see that from you anywhere.
Everything that you said, I feellike that is the absolute, , God
spoken truth that, , you really don'tcare maybe even about either making
money or having it or about fame.
That it seems that you're spending allof your, , mental horsepower or whatever
(21:02):
energy you have or had to make the peoplearound you the people of your nation.
to make their situation better and withoutany care of recognition for yourself.
And is that, am I right on track with
You are.
You are.
Most definitely.
It It goes to what I believe thefirst principles from the Reformation
(21:24):
are, and what that biblical truth is.
I've always said that the truesovereign is Almighty God.
And that is where I've alwayslived my life, is based on
understanding who has authority.
The full sovereignty and to be an agentof that sovereignty and to do that in a
(21:45):
way that follows within those biblicalprinciples of truth, honesty, and
maintaining the rights of those otherindividuals that also have , those
God given rights in which that is theform and purpose of government is to
ensure that those rights are protected.
As you well know, that.
(22:07):
is the truest, simplest perspective whenwe look at What is the right of property
and what is the rights of a person?
They're not given to usby any laws or government.
They're naturally given to us by God.
We look at that just from what natural lawand natural revelation and I take that to
(22:29):
heart and that is the way I live my life.
I never did, I was never good atbusiness as you may obviously you say
you've Have some history of myself andin that, you know, that I was not good
at businesses at all, and in fact, Iwas fired from the first job I ever had
because I couldn't keep my interest there.
(22:50):
So making money was not as important asmaking sure that people were guaranteed
in their freedoms and their liberties.
I want to come back andtalk about business.
I have something specifically to askyou about that because it definitely
does seem that business was notgoing to be your area of expertise.
(23:13):
But you had mentionedreformation a couple of times.
And for anybody that would notexactly know what you were talking
about , explain , what that means.
When I look at the Reformation iswhat began to happen and probably
the most well known is the time ofMartin Luther and that separation
from Catholicism into Protestantism,the protesters of Catholicism.
(23:40):
The Reformation was that wholereforming of an idea, not just of
religion, but the true or what Icall the true application of those
biblical principles, the truth of God.
And how did that start moving intonot only individual worship, but what
did that start meaning in culture?
And what did it startto mean for governing?
(24:04):
We can look at numerous examples ofwhat that is and how that then played
into even the, those early settlerscoming over the Puritans coming over.
And that's a heritage that I have andthat I carried through not only in
What I did in government what I triedto do in every aspect of my life.
(24:28):
And that's the foundations of whatwe looked at during those early
years of this nation being built.
So back into the 1600s.
And so we can take that period and lookat, for instance, one of the authors that
I read and considered very strongly whenI was looking at what is federalism and
(24:53):
what is a republican form of governmentwas Johannes Althussius and there we're
looking at 1614 when he was doing someof his great writings and being able
to digest that as well as others thatwrote early times in even in England and
(25:14):
what happened to set up the differenceof just the absolute monarchy to bring
a Parliamentary government into play.
It was all part of what happened frompeople looking at what do we reform?
Not just in religious ideas, but trueLiving out their biblical concept and then
(25:36):
what does that mean and how do we govern?
It's interesting to me how.
All of this, these religiousbeliefs that you so strongly hold
are tied so directly to government.
It almost seems likethey are one in the same.
Is that correct?
In my mind they are, and they shouldbe, , there were times, and we see
(25:59):
even now, the, how that is becomingsomewhat separate, as I mentioned,
what we looked at early on wasthat from the 1600s until today.
So, Probably right after I graduatedfrom Harvard, we saw that was a unifying
(26:20):
mindset, especially in Massachusetts,not so much down in the southern
colonies, especially in Virginia.
And it depended on the denominationalsettings of the various people, those
that had more of a Presbyterian conceptin government, because that's a church
government, it's not a denomination perse, but it's a form of church government,
(26:43):
versus an Anglican form of government.
in the church was more aligned witha monarchical perspective, whereas
a Presbyterian or the Puritansor Congregationalists were more
liberty minded towards the people.
So are the two tied together even inthe functions of church government?
(27:06):
I believe that to be true.
Okay.
So as we're now just startingthis conversation, I have
to be honest with you.
This is completely going a differentdirection than I would have guessed.
. I guess I didn't realize how.
religious of a person you areand how strong your beliefs are.
(27:27):
And yet when you look at thethe revolution , your role in
that is as great as anybody's.
I mean, there's a lot of death.
There's a lot of killing.
There's a lot of suffering thathappened as a result of that.
How do you reconcile with that?
Knowing that although you'reworking towards something
better, there's, , thousands.
(27:48):
Tens of thousands, maybea hundred thousand people.
I don't know how many that hadto suffer because of the change
that you were trying to incite.
But through the ages, as you well know,there have been many, even religious wars.
, if you go back to the mother countryof the early settling, excuse my age
here, I think it was about 1680 orso, was the Glorious Revolution and
(28:14):
that was Protestant against Catholicat the time there in England itself.
Cromwell and his troops and what theywere doing and how that came about.
The idea of trying to establish theliberty will always have times when people
go beyond Any form of common negotiation.
(28:38):
And at some points in time, when thattyranny becomes so aggressive that it
does call us to take action, we don'twant to take as you may know, when I left
Reverend Clark's house, when the Britishwere coming to arrest myself and Mr.
Hancock, that as we were in the woodsand heard those first shots in Lexington,
(29:02):
I did raise my hands to heaven andsay, It has begun, glory to God.
And, It is because of tyranny that atpoints in time, and we can go back to
what happened during an earlier periodwith the city of Magdeburg in Germany
at that time when the Holy Roman Emperorwas going against one city to squash, and
(29:27):
destroy Protestantism all at one time,and that city leaders stood up against
that emperor and Was there bloodshed?
Unfortunately, yes, and because of man'spersonal sins and the way that we treat
other human beings, it is a travestythat we have to shed blood, but at
(29:54):
times it is necessary so that libertyprevails, not just for oneself, but for
others, and so to reconcile that It wasan unfortunate necessity that we saw the
hearts of the people understanding libertyshould prevail and tyranny be put aside.
(30:18):
And when tyranny takes and comes againstthose that want their liberty, There will,
unfortunately, be times of bloodshed.
Speaking of tyranny, if you had been aliveduring the time when Rome was growing,
I don't think that you would have beena good friend of the Roman leaders.
(30:40):
Most likely not.
And again, if you go to that veryearly period, or if you go to
the first century period, as welook at it, most certainly not.
Because, as I mentioned earlier, I wouldhave to fall into the category of knowing
who the sovereign of the universe is.
So, would not bow a knee.
And It's very interesting and how manypeople get that perspective confused as to
(31:09):
Christians going to the jaws of the lionsand tigers that was resistance to tyranny.
And those martyrs were in factthose that were resisting a
tyrannical and despotic government.
So , what are you thinkinghappens next with America?
(31:32):
I mean, I know you're hopefulthat we figure this out, but.
, what is your hope been for Americain these early years of, , having
our first few presidents?
Well my hope is that we're able toexercise the constitution in a manner
that it does not become pervertedand that we're able to contain
(31:52):
It and keep those chains on it.
As Mr Hamilton said on chainson government and not see
government become excessive.
That is my hope.
My hope is that when we look at howdo we finance the federal government?
That it maintains itself within thescope of those first article and
(32:16):
maintaining that the tariffs and exciseand would be the better method of being
able to keep the activities flowingand working and be sufficient funding
to keep a small government active.
My hope is that federalism will be ableto work and that we'll be able to maintain
(32:39):
the types of open trade between the statesthat led us to that convention in 87.
When we looked at the arguments fromthe Maryland convention early on, that
was one of the largest complaints wasthe inequality of trade between the
various states or some of the otherpoints of interest and legal arguments
(33:02):
that were coming as one person wastrying to make a argument or a case
with another over business dealingsor other personal property dealings.
And so hopefully, We're able to maintainthat the federalism working and that a
representative government will continue tobe small and have those specific interests
(33:27):
in what does it mean to treaty properlyand not become excessive in treaties.
That was one of my reasons with theJay treaty, the problem that I had,
was this going to become excessive?
Because as you know, a treaty becomes.
Part of the law of the land, not theconstitution, but the law of the land.
And we have to honor it.
(33:48):
And then how was that funded thatas you well know, that treaty almost
did not succeed because the initialCongress was not going to fund the
mechanisms, especially for the tradeaspect of that treaty to function.
So a treaty can be negotiated fromthe administration's perspective.
(34:10):
The It can be acknowledged within thecontext of the Senate, but then can it
be operational based on will the housetake and appropriate the proper funding.
So to keep our government small andto keep it functionally operational
(34:31):
within the context of the constitutionis my greatest hope and that's why
I'm looking forward to what Mr.
Jefferson, God willing, will letme see more of his presidency.
You had mentioned a little bit agothat you were not great at business.
And in fact and I don't know if this wasjust a skill that you never developed, or
(34:54):
if you just didn't care about making moneyand, , maybe you would have been a maybe
even a better preacher if you weren'tgoing to be what I suppose the English
would have considered a revolutionary,in your early days, but it appears that.
Because revolution was your thing,or searching for freedom was your
thing, it appears that the first40 years of your life you didn't
(35:14):
really accomplish that much.
Is that how you feel about it?
If you look at what is accomplishment,and you put that price tag on it, or you
look at it from a business perspectiveand accumulating wealth, I was not
very successful at that agreeably.
And, in that, I think that you touchedon two points that were very interesting,
(35:37):
is that in my youth, that my parents,when they enrolled me at Harvard,
they wanted me to be a preacher.
So you're very astute in recognizing that.
And in that, study of theology, andas I mentioned already, about the
Reformation, and then studying law thatwas associated to that, especially with
(36:01):
Althusias and what he looked at in lawand the Roman law and law of the nations,
that changed my heart to go after andlook more as to What is the liberty?
And going with my father to the shipyardsand listening to the men talk about
(36:22):
what was happening at the time and whathappened during the French and Indian
War and how we were even turned uponby the monarchy and by parliament in
particular that led us into egregioustaxation but getting off the ship.
the direction that you were asking about.
So yes, you're right.
I did take and focus on what did itmean to take and participate in good
(36:47):
government and making sure that wehad that capacity to govern ourselves.
in a manner that we were by charteralready doing in so many different ways
of having a free form of government.
And we were seeing thatchipped away over the years.
So that became my impetus of goinginto government more was to make sure
(37:12):
that we can maintain the freedomsthat we had under our charters.
But if we couldn't do it, inrelationship with the mother country,
then we needed to be independent,which then brings me to my master's
thesis in which I did take and write.
And again, here's where I'llparaphrase is that it was, if this
(37:35):
government could not be swayed Thenwhen is it time to rebel against it?
That was the topic.
Wow.
And that was given before the governorthat was of Massachusetts that was given
before the judges, the legislature.
(37:55):
And so.
From that point, that was my heartand understanding to when would
be the right time when we see suchtyranny and despotism coming upon us.
Before you became public enemy numberone, two, or three, or whatever number
you were, to the king was there ever atime where you were called on by them
(38:18):
or you sailed across the ocean and metwith him and or had direct communication
with him about what was happening.
Never direct communication.
Because I was part of the legislature.
I was elected to representmy area in Boston , so I.
Obviously then had a lot of interactionwith the governor and the lieutenant
(38:38):
governor and Through them being the agentsto the king the various communications
But never any personal interaction.
When it came time for the Americancolonists to figure out that they
needed to unite and they needed avoice to stand up before the English
would impose more Stamp Acts, moreSugar Acts, , more Townsend Acts.
(39:04):
And things would just get worseas far as freedom and liberty.
Imagine a scenario that the king andthe monarchy would have looked at that
situation and said, you know, thatis, that's a big fight over there.
First of all, they'rea million miles away.
I got to sail so far just toeven go over there and fight.
Like we're never going to win that battle.
(39:25):
Here's what we're going to do.
We're going to back off.
We're going to let them have theirfreedom , we're going to negotiate
something that is fair to them wherethey can vote and make their own laws.
And, you know, we'll just havea, maybe get a small amount from
them that they can live with.
And basically they come to, they'dcome to some sort of settlement
that was agreeable to you.
and agreeable to the colonists,where there was no reason to rebel
(39:49):
and we would just all stay English.
If that had happened, which wasnever going to happen, we both
know that, but if it was going tohappen, what would you have done?
I would have supported it Iactually did that early on as well.
And when we met in the first Congress,and at that time, the intentions were to
try and reconcile with the mother country.
(40:11):
And I said, fine, let's try andreconcile with the mother country.
Knowing, as you already pointedout, that was not going to work.
And the Points of interest anda lot of, that drove us in the
directions that we were driven inwere not necessarily by the king.
We, brought up the charges as weredrafted in the declaration by Mr.
(40:36):
Jefferson, specific to the king,because as you recall, we were
given charters for governing.
Massachusetts had some of the mostlenient charters in self government.
So we had those rights to elect our ownrepresentatives here in Massachusetts,
(40:59):
not anyone that went to parliament.
So the real problem became whatparliament was doing in conjunction with.
the East India Trading Company and wesaw our manufacturing being shut down.
(41:19):
As you well know, we had to sendour raw materials to England to have
it manufactured there and then witha duty sent back to us to purchase
That's crazy.
we were manufacturing here all alone inBraintree where my cousin John lived.
I don't know if he mentioned that toyou or not, but we had an iron work.
(41:43):
In Braintree, and that was shut downso we could no longer make our own
implements for farming, for protection,for any other types of use, even for
building the ships in Boston Harbor.
That was part of it.
It was not just what people gather,or could have gathered by what was in
(42:07):
the media, but it was very, and I domean the media there, which we had as
newspapers, And letters and pamphlets.
What was happening was that theywere actually destroying our
local commerce, our banking.
One of the early days, as you mayrecall, is with my father who started
(42:27):
a bank called a land bank where peoplewould put into trust properties.
And be able then to takeloans out against that.
Parliament came in and shut that down.
And that's what drove myfather into bankruptcy.
So many issues of that naturewere the economic issues that were
(42:50):
forcing the people to look at howcan we better self govern completely
without the impact of parliament or.
Those people that had greatinfluence to Parliament, such as
the Dutch Indian Trading Company.
It just sounds absolutely absurd thatyou make these goods and then you put
(43:12):
them on a ship and send them all theway across the ocean and then wait
until they make you some nails andthen send the nails back so you can
pound them into the whole of the shipor I don't know how to make ships.
I don't know if you put nails inships but it just sounds crazy.
Like, even if it wasn't.
It just sounds insane
That's what we thought.
Thank God somebody said something, huh?
(43:33):
so that, caused peopleto say, what is going on?
How can this happen?
And then to try and put pressureon the Governor to try and
ask and go back to Parliament.
And, but.
, take it back just for another instant withthe French and Indian War, for instance.
Now, my father was involved in thatfrom the point of making sure that
(43:55):
the troops, which, as you may know,the Massachusetts colony encompassed a
greater area than it does now as a state.
It encompassed most of all of New England.
We provided the majority of thetroops to go and fight into Canada.
all the way to Nova Scotia.
(44:16):
And we provided the troops, weprovided the funding, we provided the
clothing, , we were the provisioners.
But yet, because of that seven year war onthe continent, after it was all finished,
that's when Parliament came back andsays, You didn't pay your fair share.
(44:37):
You did not make sure that thecoffers of England were full and now
the debt that we have is a war debt.
You need to pay for that.
Well now that's interesting cuz Ijust talked with Thomas Gage here
Just recently and Thomas Gage told methe exact opposite story what he said
(44:58):
Of course!
he's you're telling me that he's thecolonists put up everything to fight
that, including the men and funding, andhe's saying that the English were putting
up the men and the funding and that,, supporting what the colonists were doing.
But you're saying that's not true at
No, that's not true.
There was some, obviously in the Canadaarea where some of the British troops came
(45:21):
in, but the majority of the British troopsmen that went to fight and the supplies
that came to them were from the coloniesand were from a greater proportion of it
to Massachusetts is where it came from.
We can take you back to myfather's ledgers if you'd like.
I have a feeling you're going to be right.
(45:41):
And so I'm not going to make youdo that, but it is very interesting
to hear the other side of that.
Because , we have a tendency to kindof believe our own stories sometimes.
Or the stories that are told to us.
And remember, General Gage reallyappreciated all of my enthusiasms,
(46:02):
as they were for Liberty.
Oh, he loved you.
Yeah.
I think your name cameup when we were talking.
He had nothing but kind words to say.
You're the first onebeing invited to dinner.
When they're having
Yes.
Yes.
What are your, have you, didyou have any meetings with him?
Slight.
In correspondence, and then as hewas in Boston just on a general side
(46:24):
of things, but nothing that wouldbe of any usefulness to try and
negotiate some types of settlements.
. When I had asked you I'd asked youthat long question about, , if they
conceded and they acquiesced and said,hey, , yeah we're gonna treat you guys
better and give you liberty and freedom.
And I said, what would you do?
If there was nothing to rebel against,you had said, , I would support that.
(46:47):
But what I actually meant was,and although I appreciate your
answer, what I actually meant was,what would you do for a living?
Would you be selling lumber?
Would you start making shoes?
What would you have done?
In that case, I would have, if theycontinued in giving us the liberties of
self governance to the extent that wehad already had, For most instances, I
(47:10):
would have stayed in the local legislature, if I was elected to do that.
Otherwise, my great interest hasalways been in education and ensuring
that young people were educated, boysand girls equally, and that would
have been an area of interest for me.
, since my retirement from politics, that'swhat I became very involved with as time
(47:35):
went a lot, is to take and visit theschools, participate, help students as
I could, tutor, and ensure that therewas a good educational schools within
Boston and Massachusetts in particular.
That came
You know, I'm so glad that thereare people that wake up in the
(47:57):
morning that first think, whatcan I do for other people?
Because your reputation is about stirringup mobs and being a rabble rouser.
And I'd love to hear those othernames that people call you.
And, but the reality is you wake up inthe morning and if there's nobody to
fight, you're like, well, maybe we canmake sure that more people are educated
(48:17):
so that they can do better for themselves.
And if we don't have to create some sortof rebellion, maybe we can work for the
government and do something to take whatis exists right now and make that better.
I mean, I'm so glad that there are peoplelike you that are willing to do that.
And I applaud you for that.
And I'd like to go back for a minuteand I'm sure you've probably had this
(48:39):
discussion with people before andmaybe not, but let's talk about the
moment, the destruction of the T moment.
Tell me a little bitabout how that came about.
Because of the Refusal , ofthe governor in particular
to not allow the tea to land.
(49:00):
It was not an issue of the costof the tea or even the tax.
The tax was insignificant.
It was the general principle ofgovernment forcing upon us that
which we could not freely trade.
Once again, it was the East India TradingCompany that we had to buy the tea from.
Whereas prior to that action, justa few years prior, we were able to
(49:25):
buy tea independent, and we weretrading independent to be able to
acquire our tea at the best price.
But, the East India Trading Companyaccumulated so much tea in their
warehouses because we were free tradingwith other nations directly that they
went to Parliament and said , theywanted to have that sole right of trade.
(49:51):
So, the tax that was put on, itwas more of free trade issue.
And then how did it comeabout in particular?
It was because the Sons of Liberty,which were not just a group of people
in the Massachusetts colonies orNew England colonies, but there were
others in New York, there were those inPennsylvania, and even into Virginia.
(50:16):
This was a unified group of patriotsthat said enough was enough.
And I had met with thegovernor earlier in the day.
Before that meeting actually was incorrespondence with the Sons of Liberty
working through a concept and a planof if the governor would not acquiesce
(50:42):
and ensure that T did not come ashorebecause then we would be responsible
for the tax as well as then being thereforced upon us from a sole provider.
It was.
determined what would be a signal.
What would we do?
So then it was that I would meetwith the governor and ask him to
(51:05):
make sure that T would not land.
And with his refusal, that's when I leftand went out and gave basically, again,
I'll paraphrase because of my age, it'shard to remember some of my exact words
at that time, that There's nothing morewe can do that it's time to move on
(51:30):
because there's nothing more we can do.
And that was the signal for those of theSons of Liberty then to go forward with
the plan of removing the T before itlanded and putting it into the harbor.
So putting it into the Harbor was notonly an act of defiance that, Hey,
we're not going to tolerate this.
(51:52):
It, I guess I hadn'treally thought about this.
It was actually an attempt, a successfulattempt to prevent it from going the
other 10 feet where it would land.
And you'd have to pay a tax.
That's interesting.
I'd never really thoughtof it about it that way.
Their tea, by the way,when you say you could get.
Tea for better prices elsewhere.
The tea from the East Indiacompany was probably terrible.
(52:14):
Wasn't it?
After having been in storage for quite awhile, , what was really interesting, the
great support there was against that act.
was even the young ladies refused to drinktea it was a social gathering environment
so the women and young girls participatedin standing against that particular text.
(52:41):
. So what about the sons of Liberty?
Tell me about that.
You, did you start the sons of Liberty?
Not actually.
That was a group that wasforming as of their own.
There were other patriots within thecolony, and as I mentioned, in other
locations as well, that determinedthat we needed to take a position
(53:06):
on the different points of tyrannyor despotism that were coming at us.
And how would we do that?
How would we communicate with one another?
How would we take and ensure thatwe had a capacity to go beyond
just that local environment?
So the Sons of Liberty were those thatformed naturally, By people who were
(53:31):
interested in truth and in the nation andin making sure that liberty would prevail.
So I cannot take anypersonal credit for that.
Is this one of those moments where youare just being humble because that's
who you actually are and you reallywere the force behind starting this?
(53:52):
Because I have a hard timebelieving that things like this
just get started and then it works.
Like somebody's got to light the match.
Did you not play a bigger role in that?
If I would say there was the kindlingput to the fire, I would have to go
back even further to when my fatherwas alive, and the men would gather,
(54:14):
in the taverns and they became whatwas known as the caulkers club.
The caulkers club being thosein relationship to all that work
on the wharf where they wouldput the caulking into the ships.
And that became, I would say,that first of what would later
become the Sons of Liberty.
(54:35):
Because at that point in time, theCaucus Club were those that were
looking at how they could impact whatwas going on in our local government.
How could they raise up that nextgeneration of leaders to participate,
or who could become elected, or howdo we make sure that there were people
(54:57):
That would go forward, not only in localgovernment, but would go further in
colonial government and at some pointin time have the level of correspondence
throughout the various colonies.
So I would have to say thatwas already in bloodstream.
(55:18):
of the Patriots throughout theMassachusetts colony and how that would
have spilled over into the other colonies.
I think it was just by virtueof the various correspondence.
So I would take and say that would havebeen the real beginning of the Sons
of Liberty, who then took on that newname and were more active and willing
(55:41):
to take and become, at times, Moreaggressive with those that were trying
to push the insults of despotism upon us.
. So it might be more accurate to say thatyou took something that already existed
and shaped it gave it some direction.
Is that more accurate?
I would concur with that.
. So let's go back to the thedestruction of the tea for a minute.
(56:04):
John Hancock.
I spoke with John Hancock and I wasvery surprised that he openly admitted
that he was very involved in this.
And he said something along thelines of he was happy to supply those
Indians with tomahawks But, you andhim, were you the two that were most
a part of spurring that into action?
(56:26):
I would agree.
Yes, Mr.
Hancock, he had the financial capacityto be able to do exactly what he said to
provide whether it was the headdresses orclothing or all that would be required for
such an action and as well , he providedships for other activity as well.
(56:47):
So, his family and himself were.
Involved in , what would that be calledwhere they would sail their ships
around the blockades and make surethat goods got to support the patriots.
But yes, I would agree with that.
Yes, I know exactly what that word is.
It's smuggling.
(57:08):
Hancock was a smuggler, butyou know what he also was?
He was the funding behind Samuel Adams,so that this man who cared nothing
about recognition or personal wealthcould continue to move the revolution
forward, so that one day the peopleof his nation would have the freedom
and the liberty that they deserved.
In the next episode, we'll talkabout Sam's role in government
(57:30):
after independence, the myth abouthim making beer and how close
he was to becoming president.
Hint, it wasn't first, second,third, or fourth in line.
I'm glad you're enjoying this podcast,and if you haven't yet, subscribe
now, and we'll see you at the nextepisode of the Calling History
podcast with part two of Samuel Adams.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.