A son and a father
Welcome, Arctic Patriot readers. I hope you find this site insightful and useful.
The header to this site, “The son and father of liberty”, I blatantly stole from a signature line I saw once – “Liberty is my father, and he shall be my son.” Not wanting to plagiarize the author of that wonderfully elegant expression, I took it and modified it a bit. I suppose it should read “A” instead of “The”, as there are more people like me out there, but that’s just a quibble.
So what is a son and father of liberty? He is a person who follows in the footsteps of the Sons of Liberty, the aggressive band of patriots who resisted the tyranny of the King before the war broke out in 1775.
He is one who is dedicated to the preservation and enlargement of freedoms in his day, so as to pass them on to his offspring, becoming their father of liberty.
He looks to the past for wisdom and the future for encouragement. He is not afraid to act, for he knows that his actions will have consequence. I would pay Arctic Patriot the honor of the same title, for his site’s headline embraces the perspective with a quote from Thomas Paine: “If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.” The actions of liberty’s father-son may be dangerous, but he takes them anyway, so as to mitigate the danger to his children.
There is a wonderful scene in the opening episode of the HBO miniseries John Adams. Sam Adams is leading a funeral procession for Crispus Attucks and the other victims of the Boston Massacre, which passes by his cousin John’s house. There is a verbal confrontation between Sam and John, which ends with Sam exclaiming “We’re all sons of liberty here, cousin.” (I can’t seem to find the scene on YouTube, if anyone has it please link to it in comment below). John, of course, is defending the accused Redcoat soldiers. Sam is pointing out that everyone there is for the Patriot cause except John. John, as we know from his writings and other sources, is for the rule of law.
The scene reminds me of the III movement to some extent. I’ve read numerous posts on various blogs over the past year, where various members of the III community lash out at one another, declaring that A isn’t a true IIIper because they did or did not do X, but B is a true IIIper because they said Y.
This is misdirected fire (oops, there I go with the violent eliminationist rhetoric again). In 1773, it looked like John Adams was most definitely the King’s Man. He wasn’t. He was Justice’s Man. He “switched” sides when the King switched to being a Tyrant. He acted according to the dictates of his conscience.
The III movement stands at a similar point now, before the big game kicks off. We don’t need to be bickering over who is and who isn’t in the movement just because we get the impression that under certain circumstances (yet to be experienced) a particular individual will not fight back against the tyranny. We need to let each man act according to his conscience, for that is every man’s only guide. More will join our side, once their consciences compel them to decide.
Liberty’s father-son directs his fire against the enemies of the Republic, not against his brothers. He knows that when the fecal matter impacts the rotary gas impeller, he’ll know who his allies are. He’ll know who is with him on Lexington Green.
In the meantime, he’ll work to prevent it from happening. Because as John Adams says in the HBO series at his nomination to the Continental Congress, “Liberty will reign in America.”