Talk:Liberty Tree

Untitled

In France, 1790

Is this connected in any way to the "Liberty trees" later erected by the French revolutionaries? Bastie 23:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised this hasn't been raised since - to me at least, "liberty tree" refers to a concept rather than a specific tree in Boston. Liberty trees are well-attested during the French Revolution and afterwards (see picture). —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Brigade Piron: There's already a Liberty Tree (disambiguation) page. Does that address your concern? Or are you suggesting we rename this article "Liberty Tree (Boston)" and have "Liberty Tree" direct users to the disambiguation page? Personally, I don't have a strong objection to that, but I think it's likely that most users of the English-language Wikipedia associate "Liberty Tree" with the one in Boston. But who knows. Most Americans know so little about American history, they're probably starting with a blank slate. Rosekelleher (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Untitled2

The image shouldn't be labeled "lynching" as it was only an effigy that was hanged--and in fact, the sign indicated it was the tax collector hanging himself in shame.52.129.8.48 18:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

tree of liberty

the tipton holtel is right in front of the tree of liberty. the tree of liberty is a part in history because it was there when the revolutionary war and is still standing today,it a national geographic monument of the united states of america (who won the revolutionary war). this is an awsome tree here in the united states of america. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.135.227.163 (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Needs significant revision

A rather substantial portion of the text is fictionalized. Errors pop up throughout, starting with the very first paragraph. The tree was not located anywhere near the Boston Common. In fact, the tree was in the location known as "the Great Trees" in the South End of Boston--a name that's been acknowledges at least since 1733. The ceremonies at the tree did not "conclude with a lynching". The facts are just the opposite (in addition to "lynching" being an utterly inappropriate term)--the effigies had been hung from the tree during the night and removed during the day of August 14 and later burned. The tree was not known as "the Liberty Tree" and, in fact, was not identified as such for some time. Early in September the Boston newspapers published an account that suggested that "the tree" had since the events of August 14 become known as "The Tree of Liberty", making an allusion to the expression that was used to describe the English system of laws.

It is only in November that the first references to the "Liberty Tree" appear. Furthermore, the effigies were not of "tax collectors". One was of the recently appointed stamp administrator--the point may be moot to some, but referring to him as a "tax collector" is simply inaccurate. In fact, this same person was the Colonial Assembly secretary who had signed the letter to Parliament (sent in October) that made the colonists' arguments against the adoption of the Stamp Act.

There had been several trees in other parts of the original 13 colonies, most notably in Newport, RI, where similar effigies had been hung on August 27, 1765. Yet, in all locations where the trees had been specifically identified, they were known as "the Tree of Liberty", not "the Liberty Tree". Boston is unique in this denomination. Many of these trees had been subsequently chopped down by the loyalists (royalists). In other locations, such as Savannah, GA, there was no tree involved in Stamp Act protests at all. The protesters had built gallows on which the effigies were hung. In most locations, the gallows were then burned along with the effigies. In some locations (Portsmouth, NH), the effigies were buried along with copies of the Stamp Act.

The Liberty Poles held a considerably different function--and had entirely different origins--from the Trees of Liberty (and the Liberty Tree). Similarly, the Liberty Trees of the French Revolution had been inspired by the American Revolution but carried a substantially different symbolism. They had been planted throughout France (mostly poplars) to commemorate the Revolution. Whereas in American colonies the tree was a symbol of established liberties worth defending, in France, they were the symbol of sprouting liberty, of growing democracy.

The reason I am putting all this information here is because of the Wiki stated policy of "no original research", which is absolutely preposterous for an encyclopedia. The information I am offering is gleaned from contemporaneous publications, some of which are now available on-line. There is no reason to maintain fictional accounts of historical events unless they are specifically described as such. Unless there will be strong objections added to this page, I will try to introduce corrections--gradually--to the main article, along the lines I've brought up above. I'll return to this in about a month--that should be sufficient time for anyone interested to verify the stories and to make objections (or express support). Alex.deWitte (talk) 09:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The tree was not located anywhere near the Boston Common. In fact, the tree was in the location known as "the Great Trees" in the South End of Boston. If there are publications that support this claim, and they're reliable sources, and they're available online, why don't you edit the article and cite those sources? Or if you're worried about controversy, why not add a brief, neutral section saying something like, "According to popular belief... but other sources point to..."? The handful of sources I've seen locate the tree at what is now Washington and Essex, near the Common, and that's where the city installed the plaque. Of course it's entirely possible that everyone has been wrong all this time, including the Boston Globe reporter who researched it in the 60s, and the Boston Redevelopment Authority, and Samuel Adams Drake the journalist who wrote this book about Boston landmarks in 1873, and so on. If so, all you have to do is cite these publications you mention. Right? --Rosekelleher (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Additional Changes

While I agree with most of what Alex indicates above I would make the following additional changes:

The tree was actually given its name on September 11, 1765 when a cooper plate was attached to the tree with the following inscription: "The Tree of Liberty stamped thereon in golden letters."

The second effigy was a large boot, with a small devil peeking out holding a copy of the stamp act and with its sole painted green. The boot was a pun on the name of the Earl of Bute. The green sole was a pun on Green-vile-soul which stood for George Grenville the author of the stamp act.

Finally, the description of the current plaques have a number of problems: A painted wooden relief was installed on the side of the Liberty Tree Building (628-636 Washington Street), when it was built by Peter Sears in 1850. The relief is located on the third floor of the building, set in a niche and measures about four feet by seven feet. Carved by unnamed ship’s carpenters , the relief consists of a painted elm tree with green leaves. There is a banner across the top of the tree with the words “Liberty 1765.” There is also a banner across the bottom of the relief with the words “Sons of Liberty 1766; Independence of their Country 1776.” On the roots of the tree is the phrase “Law and Order.”

Directly across the street from the Liberty Tree Building is a bronze plaque embedded in ground in the middle of a small brick square. This plaque was installed in 1966 after a series of articles appeared in the Boston Herald pointing out that the city and state were neglecting the memory of the liberty tree. The plaque is about four feet by five feet and is a loose copy of the wooden relief. Above the image of the tree the bronze plaque says “Liberty 1766” instead of “Liberty 1765” and across the bottom are the words “Sons of Liberty 1766, Independence of 'Our' Country 1776.” The original wording was “Independence of 'their' Country 1776.”

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.150.50.189 (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC) 

images needed

This article needs images of the present-day site. Can someone who lives in Boston please take some pictures and upload them? (There are some non-free examples here.) --Rosekelleher (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

"History of the Great Tree"?

Looks like "The Great Tree" is being used interchangeably with "The Liberty Tree" here, but according to at least one source, the Great Tree (or the Great Elm) is a different tree.

Old Landmarks and Historic Personages of Boston

Since there's no other mention of the Great Tree in the article, and no supporting reference, I think that subheading should be changed to "History".

Does anyone care? It's clear that this article needs work. I don't mind working on it, but I'm sure there are editors who are much better qualified for the job. My approach when I'm not an expert on the subject of an article is to look for sources that support what's already been said, but from the comments here, I gather that's not going to cut it. --Rosekelleher (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, The Great Elm was a tree on Boston Common, once used in executions, amongst other things. The Liberty Tree was on the corner of Washington and Beach, now the RMV building. Two different trees, two different eras, two different stories. Hi-storian (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done @High-storian: This problem was taken care of last May by User:Rosekelleher. The word "great" no longer appears in the article. You are correct about them being two different trees. For good measure, the article on the Great Elm clearly distinguishes the two in a sourced statement. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I found this page through the pic request, above. I'll try to get a pic for you sometime this week. Hi-storian (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

GTA 3

Hi 173.29.57.161 (talk) 09:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)