Sons Of Liberty Analysis

The prosecution team in this trial worked to convince and persuade the judges to declare the Sons of Liberty at fault for their rebellious actions during the Boston Tea Party and proclaim them guilty of treason. With this goal in mind, they focused specifically on the colonists’ relationship to Great Britain. Furthermore, the prosecution specifically exploited from the declaration of the colonist’s betrayal and disregard for their own mother country, while claiming that the actions taken broke the “sacred laws” of America’s connection to Great Britain, crossing a boundary and betraying trust. In their argument, members of the prosecution frequently referred to the participants of the Tea Party as “radical colonists”, capitalizing on the way …show more content…
Also, the members of the defense were unable to negate the claim that guards were killed by the colonists disguised as Native Americans upon invasion of the ship. Eventually, however, the judges came to the decision that the Sons of Liberty were not guilty of treason, placing victory in the hands of the defense. I agree with the verdict since I feel as though the defense proved more successful in supporting their argument with strong points. A few of these include the fact that the colonists are stated to have been given the same liberties as citizens of England by the English government, yet despite this, were unjustly taxed without representation, the goal of overthrowing the oppressive government was influenced by English supported Enlightenment thought, did not aid an outside enemy and lastly, no direct British property was destroyed, but rather that of a private company. Conclusively, while both sides supported their arguments with relevant points which often worked in their favor, I feel as though the defense came with a stronger backing of factual evidence, already aided by the innocence of the colonists’ actions, justifying the verdict of the