So Now All These People Will Apologize to Sarah Palin About Paul Revere, Right?
As with most people, I simply took at face value the popular version that Paul Revere warned that the British were coming, the British were coming.
Not having any real reason to look into it any deeper, Sarah Palin’s statement that Revere warned the British that the colonial militias were waiting seemed odd.
But it appears that the popular version is not complete.
In fact, as pointed out at Conservatives4Palin, Revere did in fact tell the British that the colonial militias, who had been alerted, were waiting for them. Here is the original historical text written by Revere (spelling in original, bold added):
I observed a Wood at a Small distance, & made for that. When I got there, out Started Six officers, on Horse back,and orderd me to dismount;-one of them, who appeared to have the command, examined me, where I came from,& what my Name Was? I told him. it was Revere, he asked if it was Paul? I told him yes He asked me if I was an express? I answered in the afirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and aded, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River, and that There would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up. He imediately rode towards those who stoppd us, when all five of them came down upon a full gallop; one of them, whom I afterwards found to be Major Mitchel, of the 5th Regiment, Clapped his pistol to my head, called me by name, & told me he was going to ask me some questions, & if I did not give him true answers, he would blow my brains out. He then asked me similar questions to those above. He then orderd me to mount my Horse, after searching me for arms
Palin’s short statement on the video was less than clear; that sometimes happens but the part of the statement which has people screaming — that Revere warned the British that the colonial militias were waiting – appears to be true.
I’ve learned something new today, about Paul Revere.
The leading lights of the left-blogosphere have made fools of themselves, as have people who are not of the left-blogosphere. I presume they all will be apologizing.
Update: Aaron Worthing at Patterico has a round-up of all the hyperventilated left-blogospheric reaction, including by Think Progress, which writes:
It’s hard to imagine why Revere would warn the British of anything, or why he’d do it with bells and gun shots.
This account in “Paul Revere’s Ride” by David Hackett Fischer (Oxford University Press 1994), may be of interest to Think Progress and all the others laughing because they purport to be so much better informed than Palin:
“A townsman remembered that ‘repeated gunshots, the beating of drums and the ringing of bells filled the air.’…. Along the North Shore of Massachusetts, church bells began to toll and the heavy beat of drums could be heard for many miles in the night air.”
It’s available on Google Books.
Update 6-4-2011: “I’m not a potted plant. I’m here as the blogger. That’s my job.”
——————————————–
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!





Comments
I ran into this just yesterday, at a party. Palin's name came up, some leftard said "Can you believe that people are actually considering voting for someone who is too stupid to know anything about Paul Revere?" I said "Actually, I don't think she was that far off, historically. When Revere was captured, he did warn the British.." and she started SCREAMING at me about how stupid Sarah Palin is. I, damn my black Irish temper, yelled back at her. We had quite the row. It was uncomfortable for the other people at the party, to say the least, and yea, I know I should have been the big man and walked away, but damnit, she was flat out WRONG on the facts and wouldn't listen or discuss the points I was trying to make, and I'm just plain tired of backing down to PDS. It wasn't even about Palin as far as I was concerned, it was about historical fact. I have a degree in American history, for Christ sake, I DO know a little bit about what I'm talking about. She tearfully left the party because "She wasn't used to being treated like this, SHE, you understand, has no problem talking to people whom she disagrees with politically, but I was just so mean and unreasonable…."etc, etc. This kind of thing is going to happen a lot more over the next year and a half, and I need to find a better method of responding, but I'm no longer going to roll over and show my belly just because some lib is spouting off. I feel bad for yelling because I AM better than that, but she called the tune, and when that happens, I'm going to dance. I plan to give back that exact level of decorum that I receive. No more retreating for politeness sake, 2012 is too important for that.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Sorry, Greg. Too nuanced. For you:
"How come she's really smart on Paul Revere, but stupid on just about everything else?"
That is to suggest that she isn't really smart about Paul Revere but that she gave her supporters enough to spin. Then the blind supporters, such as yourself, can run their binary logic routine and conclude that, since Palin was right after all, everybody else must be wrong. From there it's only a short leap to be reconfirmed in the belief that Harvard Law Review Editor Barack Obama is, in fact, stupid, a stuttering fool without his teleprompter.
Revere was riding a harley across New England taunting the British with the impending ratification of the second amendment. Those goal posts?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Touched a nerve, did she?
My previous post got swallowed in the attempt to log into WordPress, so I'll summarize:
Those on the right who claim Palin is not electable or not "presidential" need to educate themselves on the definition of the word "presidential" (from Dictionary.com):
pres·i·den·tial
[prez-i-den-shuhl]
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to a president or presidency.
2. of the nature of a president.
Clear as mud. Let's remember, the MSM said Reagan wasn't electable, nor was he "presidential," either (and this was in comparison to Jimmah Carter).
And to claim she "abdicated" the governorship of Alaska shows a blatant disregard for the facts. Go look up the circumstances of her resignation, and the fact that SHE WAS RIGHT to do so! Ever heard of "retrenching?" Only a fool would rush into a battle that he knows he would lose, unless ordered to do so by a superior (read the historical facts behind "The Charge of the Light Brigade" – don't rely on Tennyson solely).
Those of us who support Palin do so unapologetically, and we know that she, like everyone else, is human. "To err is human, to forgive divine." Christ died for us so that we would learn forgiveness. If the Lord can forgive us our sins, who are we to be unforgiving for a simple verbal gaffe?
To the lefties who scream PALIN IS AN IDIOT at the top of their lungs: Get some facts, learn how to debate with them, otherwise STFU. Stop simply gainsaying an argument (go Google the Monty Python "Argument Clinic" for a perfect example of what I mean) or deflecting the discussion with some arcane discussion about the meaning of the word "warn" (sounds Clinton-esque) or moving the goalposts regarding the intent of her statement. And don't rely on "perception," because PERCEPTION ISN'T TRUTH! Only the TRUTH is the truth; perception is how we muddle the facts to suit our worldview. Go back to the corner until you learn to behave like an adult. I'm sick of you.
Palin is one of those people who believe that if something is worth preserving (like our liberty), it's worth fighting for.
And I'm ready to fight.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
@VanHalen
How much of the deficit is due to BUSH's TWO wars he started?
Do you know what the medical (and economic) bills will result for this country because up to 35% of our veterans come home with PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder?) (do the math) – it's a HUGE problem.
source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090914151629.htm
Those wars and those medical bills (and the economic devastation of removing those soldiers from the workforce).. do the math.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
So now we are to believe that the comment was not a bumbling misremembrance of the tale, it was an astute analysis of several recondite academic sources? Occam? Meet razor.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
"…go Google the Monty Python "Argument Clinic"…"
Or rather, Google "bring out your dead." I'm convinced that's the actual basis of Palin's confused bell recollection.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
@newton
Thanks for the wise points lovely lady!!
It just dawned on me last night that I don't really have any friends left.
My best childhood friend seems to have written me off, too.
He de-friended me on Facebook and hasn't spoken to me in many months. I was joking one day just as I've always done … I jokingly called him a self-hating Jew (and it was 100% obvious I was kidding … just like he and I had always kidded each other for a few decades). And, now that he's become a vegetarian (after he used to mock vegetarians when we were teenagers) I kidded him about that … I posted something about making my world-class hamburgers for him as a teenager and watching him gobble them up …
He sent me a message asking me to stop insulting him, etc.
I was shocked, to say the least. He lives up in the San Francico area now. I sent him a message back saying something to the effect of,
"Whatever group of lefty friends you're hanging around with up there now … they sure did a job on your sense of humor. If you ever find your sense of humor again and stop taking yourself and life so seriously … feel free to contact me … no hard feelings, I'll always let bygones be bygones."
Haven't heard back from him and doubt I will. Like other lefty friends, in these rancorous partisan times he's moving further left … and with each step in that direction there is a simultaneous loss of sense of humor.
My male friends are all gone.
One girl, who I've known since elementary school, divulged to me on Facebook that she'd had a crush on me her entire life and would write diary entries about me daily for years !!!
We've corresponded a lot since getting in touch via Facebook. She was such a sweet girl in school. (I had no idea in school she liked me.) She is now a lawyer representing abused and neglected children … doesn't surprise me, she has always been the salt of the earth.
As much as I cherish our friendship … she's just a girl : )
The worst part about last night when a wave of sadness swept over me? Well, in the ninth grade, a gorgeous new girl came to our school. All the boys we're crazy about her. One day her friend approached me and told me this girl liked me and wanted "to go steady." We did … for two weeks … until she broke it off because I was too shy. Although outside of school things were fine, she was angry that I wouldn't go near her at school (because all the other boys' eyes watching constantly made me so uncomfortable).
I still have her up on a pedestal (and she is still gorgeous).
But last night, because of all the furor over the Sarah Palin post, which she couldn't see because she's not friends with the person who started the post (but she is friends with a number of people who contributed lefty talking points to it) I actually sent her a message, knowing she'd be hearing from people saying I had become a right-wing wacko and was foaming at the mouth (the foaming part being complete projection on their part).
In the message I pleaded my case, assuring her I was completely civil in my postings and that anything she would be hearing to the contrary was only sour grapes and simply not true.
A few minutes after I sent the message, I thought, "What the heck am I doing? How pathetic I'm acting. I feel like I'm in high school again with all the insecurities. This is how they've gotten under my skin and worn me down."
Well gotta go … I need to find that list of friends and acquaintances and scratch her name off, too!!
Isn't life funny?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Well, this was not the explanation she offered to Chris Wallace, as noted by Crooks and Liars:http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/palin-i-didnt-mess-about-paul-revere
Dang! I was really looking forward to her trying to convince us she was familiar with those obscure texts.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
So a woman who was flummoxed by the question of what newspaper she reads every day is reading obscure historical works on Google Books? Is that the story you are trying to sell here, Professor?
Sounds good! Now what's the price again on that bridge in Brooklyn?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The refusal of Palin's critics to admit she was right is astonishing. The simple facts are as follows:
1. Palin said that Revere warned the British.
2. The MSM screamed: no, idiot, Revere warned the *colonists(!
3. We now know that Revere *did* tell the *British* that approximately 500 Americans colonists would be waiting for them.
I consider "warn" a correct verb for that action. But no, Palin's critics continue to insist, she couldn't have been right. She's too dumb. It was a lucky mistake.
But HOW she got it right is not at issue. The MSM said she got it wrong. SHE GOT IT RIGHT. So be quiet.
One more point: Logic 101: when your premises, logically followed, lead you to incoherent conclusion, you might want to reconsider your premises.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
So a woman who was flummoxed by the question of what newspaper she reads every day is reading obscure historical works on Google Books? Is that the story you are trying to sell here, Professor?
So a woman who knows American history in detail was flummoxed by the question of which newspaper she reads? Is that really the story you genuinely believe?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Let me recap things:
1. Palin says something.
2. People who hate her say she's wrong and stupid.
3. She's not wrong.
4. People who hate her say she didn't know it wasn't wrong, and therefore is still stupid.
And how do they know she didn't know this? Because she's stupid, of course. No, that's not circular at all.
We get it. You hate Sarah Palin. That's not an excuse to pounce on every little thing with no regard for its veracity because it fits the narrative you've bought into. When you do that, it betrays the fact that your position has become emotional, rather than rational.
Get a GRIP, people. You're allowing a politician you don't like to turn you into a bunch of crazies.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
What she said was still wrong.. He wasn't riding around, shooting his gun off, to warn the British. Instead, at gunpoint, he told the British that the colonists were coming.. He didn't go out on his ride planning to tell the British. He wasn't going around warning the British. And he wasn't shooting his gun off. Shes still completely wrong.. oh.. and sorry guys, but Palin didn't use this explanation for what she said..
Like or Dislike:
0
0
It's called a narrative. She wasn't giving a detailed analysis of each anecdote: the causes, the results, etc. She was restating the story to make a point.
From what I hear, all the details are right: bells went off, shots were fired in the air, and REVERE WARNED THE BRITISH. She is foreshortening the causal connections (apparently Revere didn't ring the bells or fire the shots, or literally ride through town) TO TELL A STORY. The point of the story is that Revere WARNED THE BRITISH that the colonists would not have their arms taken away.
I'm a college teacher, and I do it all the time. I usually alert my students that I am reshaping the facts for narrative purposes, but then I don't have to worry that my description will be taken out of content on the 6 o'clock news.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
@David: "How come she's really smart on Paul Revere, but stupid on just about everything else?"
For me? Little me? How kind of you.
First, let's clear a few things up: I am not a Palin supporter. I am anti-smug however. Oh, and I'm not a big fan of the labels "stupid,"or "dumb" either, though they rank right near the top, just under the word "racist" of the deck of cards the left uses. Unfortunately, they're so worn and bent out of shape as to be of no use any more in the political game.
Now to your question: Stupid in everything else? As in the picayune gotchas you guys are so fond of? I know she's "stupid" enough that she has the press at her beck and call. She's "dumb" enough to–how do they say it–live rent free in the minds of her critics. She's so much of an "idiot" that she ran for office twice (three times?) and won, has parlayed a brief stint as a vice presidential candidate into a fortune, and has you wasting your time deriding her on an obscure blog (sorry Ann). Is that what you mean by stupid?
Oh and to repeat: garbled as her statement about Paul Revere was in that snippet, she was more correct than her Longfellow wielding detractors. (By the way, how comfortable would you be having your life, your intelligence judged by snippets of video? Unless you stood there with your lips sealed, I could make you look like a blithering idiot, leaving your best lines and most important insights on the editing floor. In the end, Sarah Palin may be "stupid," but in the morning she won't wake up uncharitable. Her critics will.)
As to Mr. Obama: I've never said he was stupid. I did quip that he's not so good without his teleprompter. And he's not. With teleprompter at the ready, he's an inspiring man. Without it, not so much. That says nothing about his intelligence.
Now I'm off. I won't be responding to anything else.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Palin is dumb as a stump and everybody knows it.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
What a clusterfuck. As a MA native and a history major, I can see all sides of this story. Sure, Revere warned Adams and Hancock that they were due to be arrested. Sure, Revere warned the British soldiers that the populace was getting ready to resist. As with any historical event, many different takes are possible, and all hold some small kernel of truth. And sure, Palin pretty much misspoke. Let's just get that out of the way. The mumblejumble of crap that spewed out of her mouth was in no way comprehensible. It neither proves that she's an abject moron nor that she's an over-educated mastermind spinning the "libtards" into a frenzy as a distraction technique. It just IS. Let's move on, shall we?
Let's move on to the fact that no matter how you slice it, that woman is in no way qualified to be president of these United States. IN NO WAY. She couldn't handle the governorship of Alaska, and she (co-)ran a ruinous campaign for president. No thinking person could seriously consider her a candidate, and yet here we all are, listening to this inane drivel and talking about it ceaselessly.
Her family vacation and the garbage that continues to come out of her mouth while that vacation is being endlessly covered by the media is taking attention away from reasonable candidates, candidates who should be getting our undivided attention as we go into yet another campaign season. We have more important things to worry about and comment on than the ill-chosen words of one American moron. Let's listen to ALL the ill-chosen words of ALL the morons running for president, and with any luck, pick the best of a bad bunch. What say you?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Palin is dumb as a stump and everybody knows it.
You can't stand it, can you, Angela?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Quoting Palin, "He who warned, uh, the…the British that they weren’t gonna be takin’ away our arms, uh, by ringin’ those bells and um by makin’ sure that as he’s ridin’ his horse through town to send those warnin’ shots and bells that uh we were gonna be secure and we were gonna be free…and we were gonna be armed."
Did she say he was riding to warn the British? That that was his purpose? No. Yet some have insisted that’s what she was saying and it was therefore stupid. The stupidity is on the part of the hearers, who don’t listen. They conflate his ride, which actually had two purposes, to warn Adams and Hancock and also to alert the countryside and villages with her statement about his encounter with the British.
As for the shots and bells, she used a synecdoche, a common figure of speech, that puts the part for the whole. No, Revere didn’t literally ring the bells, pound the drums and fire the warning shots. But, by warning all who did, he can be said to have done it. And the figure of speech synecdoche is used in precisely that way.
When you only have ten seconds to answer a question, you can’t expound upon the subject. Her point is quite clear to those whose judgment isn’t clouded by a hatred of Palin or by having been so thoroughly corrupted by the media’s portrayal of her as stupid that you can no longer think for yourself.
Some have even argued that he never rode through a town, only villages, and therefore Palin is stupid. If you can’t see how strained that attempt to defame her is, your vision is obscured.
The larger point is that had anyone else said this, there would have been some scratching of heads until those with knowledge confirmed the accuracy of her statement. Because it’s Palin, the alarm bells go off instantly and the full force of PDS rises up to damn her. Yet she just keeps chugging along like nothing has happened.
I want a person with that level of intestinal fortitude and peaceful inner strength to be my President. If she is the nominee, I will gladly cast my vote for her. What will you do? Vote for Obama?
If you vote for Obama after what he's done and is doing to this country, then give up calling Palin stupid, because you just won that prize yourself.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
@Jennaratrix:
"Palin pretty much misspoke…" but…but..but…she did NOT misspeak The essential fact under dispute is true.
"The mumblejumble of crap that spewed out of her mouth was in no way comprehensible."
It was perfectly comprehensible to me.
"the fact…that woman is in no way qualified…"That is not a "fact". It is an opinion. As far as I know she meets the essential qualifications: age, natural born citizen, etc.
She "handled" the governorship so well that she resigned when it became clear that her political enemies were going to investigate her into administrative stasis.
Finally, the VP candidate does not "co-run" the campaign. Never.
I'm a college teacher. I think that qualifies me as a "thinking person." I would seriously consider her as a candidate. So you are wrong when you say "no thinking person."
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Those darned liberals are so frustrating, relying on facts and reality, etc. But where they can never beat us is in our ability to spin a yarn, to twist those facts into something that may seem bizarre, but if we pretend it's not bizarre, after a while it's almost like it was true! So, don't give up, Sarah, no matter how wrong or inaccurate you are, we are standing by to "set it all straight!"
Like or Dislike:
0
0
@Yikes So, libs are going to rely on facts and reality now? Wow. That'll be a refreshing change, what brought that on, someone take away your raaaaacism card?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Angela Marie said…
Palin is dumb as a stump and everybody knows it.
Says the stump.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Yikes' post is amusing, because liberals in this comment section are now taking both positions: that she was technically wrong, and that she was technically right, but-who-cares-because-she's-still-stupid. You can even have fun pretending that they're arguing with each other!
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Very interesting. Good job on this post about Palin and Paul Revere!
Like or Dislike:
0
0
"On the same day at about 10 pm, Dr. Warren sent Revere and William Dawes, a shoe maker, to Lexington where Adams and Hancock were staying. They took separate routes in case one of them was arrested; they had to make sure the message would get to its destination. Dawes was sent through land while Revere embarked through the Charles River. As he was getting ready to board, he realized that the oars would make too much noise and would alert the British. Finally a boatman provided him with a petticoat from his girlfriend which he wrapped around the oars to muffle the sound."
This was written by the Paul Revere Heritage Project and the graduates at Boston University History Club.
Please note that Revere had ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION of warning the British of anything, let alone signaling he was near.
http://www.paul-revere-heritage.com/midnight-ride.html
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I can't wait to see what the left comes up with when she recounts the history of the "COME AND TAKE IT" flag. I bet they'll claim it's not a cannon, but a…use your imagination.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Mr. Jacobsen: Are you kidding me!!!!
We all know there is absolutley NO WAY Palin ever read Paul Revere's obscure 1789 letter. Even if she did, why minimize the aspect of Revere's ride that changed our nation's history i.e. his warnings to colonists?
Palin didn't describe the legend of Paul Revere, nor the actual historical events. She screwed up the facts and now defenders such as yourself are digging up an obscure story not even relevant to the history itself and holding it up as though Palin knew what she was talking about. This is insane.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Yeah, you sure learned something about Paul Revere. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The man was an American patriot who spent his ride trying to avoid the British – he even escaped a chase once – before his eventual capture. This is the problem when you put politics ahead of truth.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
you know they will not apologize http://nabacar.com
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Notice that Christopher's supposed derisive laughter ("hahaha!") changes to an orgasm? ("ahahahah!")
What a pathetic looser.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
"…he largely road through the countryside…"
Good thing this is a history lesson and not an English lesson ;c)
Like or Dislike:
0
0
There sure are a lot of stupid people on the left. They can't read. They don't understand the English language at all. They clearly don't understand that words can have more than one meaning. They can't grasp how anachronistic interjection alters the meaning of a story, don't grasp what a figure of speech is and aren't aware that regional speech patterns can influence the meaning of words as well as phraseology.
For example, Tony Matias (and numerous others) completely misses the meaning of the word "warn" (as in "threaten, admonish, caution") which Revere most certainly did when captured by the British. Yes, it was a ploy designed to win his release, and yes, it involved a bit of false bravado, but he warned the British nonetheless.
For Tony, warn can only have one meaning – alert – and he simply can't grasp why Revere would have warned the British when he was trying so hard to avoid them.
Either we are to believe that, or we must accept the fact that Tony knows exactly what warn means in this instance but, for partisan reasons, refuses to acknowledge it, preferring instead to mock Palin for something she never said.
Others want to insist that Palin couldn't possibly have suddenly boned up on the minutiae of Revere's letters, completely forgetting that she had visited the museum that day and probably heard the story from a museum guide. I suppose it's because they never go to museums and so have no idea what kind of information one can learn there. Yet that was, in part, the purpose of Palin's trip.
For them, if something is incomprehensible to them it is incomprehensible to all. The idea that someone else might comprehend something that they cannot comprehend is, well, incomprehensible to them.
Still they insist on lecturing others on the meaning of words, sentences and paragraphs and how people think as if their knowledge and comprehension knows no bounds.
It would be pitiful if it weren't so dangerous. Once we have restored freedom to America, we should find a special place for such people, a place where they can babble incoherently without doing any more damage to the nation.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
1) Palin had no idea what Revere was about until the next day after her handlers helped her out 2) the ride was obviously over if he was captured 3) once caught, he didn't "warn" the British Regulars, he "taunted" them and "boasted" 4) some townspeople in some towns rang the bells and shot their guns, but he didn't and he didn't tell them to.
Did she perhaps mean there were no "Americans" yet, as there were no United States? They were all British subjects, but no one's made that argument that I've heard, certainly no one from the Palin camp.
What's this unaccomplished anti-intellectual quitter going to call her third party? "Know-nothings" is already taken.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You just can't stand it, can you, TheFooshShow? "He only taunted them! He didn't warn them!" LOL.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Revere had ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION of warning the British
Until he did.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Uh, logic?
1) Whether or not he INTENDED to do it doesn't change the fact that he did.
2) Oh my. Big laugh at the "he didn't war them, he haunted them."
The parsing that's going on here is tremendous. If these are the lengths you have to go to prove that someone's dumb, you're clearly beyond the low-hanging fruit, people. I'll say it again: GET. A. GRIP.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Here are a few things: First, The British were coming, in part to take arms, not every colonist's personal arms, but the supply cache of weapons in Lexington and Concord. Second, they were also coming to arrest Samuel Adams and John Hancock. Third, Paul Revere's job was to warn Adams and Hancock of the British's intent to arrest them and to warn the colonists of the British forces. Fourth, Paul Revere was not tasked with warning the British soldiers that the Colonists were not going to let them take away their arms and would fight them, they already knew that was the feeling among a lot of the Colonists. When he was captured, he did inform the British soldiers again of the Colonists intent.
Bottom line, Sarah Palin's answer to a simple question, "What have you seen here (Boston) today and what will you take away from today?" was inaccurate and jumbled. I do not believe her misstep was the result of ignorance of American history, but rather she was surprised by the question and was trying to give an answer that would remain on message. My biggest complaint is that she refuses to say, "Oops, I misspoke."
http://www.canigetawordin.com
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Another idiot joins the fray. "It wasn't the colonist's arms, but a supply cache of weapons." Who do you suppose those weapons belonged to moron? And do you suppose they might have referred to them as "our" arms?
No one has ever said that Revere was "tasked with warning the British" except for the boobs like you that can't read. I know this might be hard for you to grasp, but sometimes people end up doing things they weren't tasked to do. Work on understanding that. It might help you in the future.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
OK political numbnuts let's look at the real history, not what a poet wrote close to 100 years after the fact, or what other historians wrote 200 years after the fact.
1) The colonists were British in April of 1775. They were not fighting for freedom from the British Empire, but to be Free Englishmen with the ability to govern themselves. The Declaration of Independence was not ratified until the next year, 1776. Although some radicals might have wanted separation from England sooner "the cause of liberty" from England had not yet been adopted by the Continental Congress which was the defacto government of the rebellion.
2) If you look at the Orders of General Gage to the commander of the military expedition to Concord, Lt Col Francis Smith, dated April 18 1775 (found online at: http://tinyurl.com/6ebs4b4), Gage does not mention Samuel Adams or John Hancock, NOR does he mention Lexington at all. The colonists, though knowing in advance of the expedition, did not know and only speculated that Adams and Hancock were targeted.
3) Paul Revere. When Revere was stopped en route to Concord by Maj Mitchell and party and then questioned, Revere lies. He tells then that the troops intended for Concord had been stopped by some 500 militia in Cambridge. This is not warning the "British", this is lying to unnerve a small group of mounted officers on horseback, 10+/- miles away from safety, in the middle of a chilly April night. (Side note: when Revere appears a couple weeks later, he puts in to the Committee of Safety for the Cost, Care and Feeding of the horse he lost on his ride. He bill is paid by the Committee. However, the horse did not belong to Revere, but to Deacon John Larkin of Charlestown and Deacon Larkin never saw a penny of that money. If Revere sped through the night to warn the countryside, would he have stopped to feed the horse along the way? If you want o read more abo0ut Revere's character look into his exploits on the Penobscot Expedition of 1779. The man if not an idiot was a complete Douche!
4) Colonial Arms. The stock pile of arms, munitions and military supplies which were the focus of Gen Gage's orders were not targeting people's personal property, but were the property of the Colony of Massachusetts. What colonist would have a 12-lb cannon for his own personal protection??? The Colony of Massachusetts was owned by England. If the Colony is owned by England, and the munitions and arms were property of the Colony of Massachusetts, you do the math, who owned them??? They were supplies originally supplied by or stolen from the Government of Massachusetts and therefore property of not the colonists but the Government. Not one order was given to target individuals in their homes and abscond with their personal Fowler or musket.
Please notice I have not commented on Sarah Palin, her politics, or the Tea Party movement. I have posted only to set straight historical inaccuracies which have been vomited all over this blog.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I wanted to quote from David Hackett Fischer's book "Paul Revere's Ride" , Oxford Press 1994. Taken from the chapter"The Capture" pp.135-136. "At last the (British) officers began to feel the full import of what Paul Revere had been telling them.His words of warning took on a stronger meaning when punctuated with gun fire (from the colonist)…..As they (the British) came closer to the Common they (the British) began to hear Lexington's town bell clanging rapidly"
Like or Dislike:
0
0
@Antimedia
You said, "No one has ever said that Revere was 'tasked with warning the British' except for the boobs like you that can't read."
No one except for Sarah Palin in her interview with Fox News. She said, "Part of his ride was to warn the British that were already there."
Like or Dislike:
0
0
@riasgt, it was common for individuals, groups and towns to own cannons in America until the late 1800's. A group of whites used a cannon to slaughter some blacks in South Carolina shortly after the civil war. In 1873 in Louisiana, a group of whites used a cannon to kill 80-150 people, mostly black, in what is known as the Colfax Massacre. Three years later, in South Carolina, a cannon was used again to slaughter blacks in what is known as the Hamburg Massacre.
So the idea that the colonists wouldn't own a cannon is rather silly and doesn't square with the historical facts.
It's a lame attempt to argue that the arms to which Palin referred were not the arms that the British wanted to capture and reveals a willingness to parse words in the extreme to arrive at a preconceived conclusion.
Furthermore to argue that the arms belonged to the Massachusetts Colony and therefore not the colonists is to argue that the colonists were not the Massachusetts Colony. The Colony is apparently some disembodied entity that has no relation to its inhabitants. This kind of thinking makes a mockery of Lincoln's words "of the people, by the people, for the people".
The argument about lying not warning doesn't even deserve a response it's so ridiculous.
@Steven Kippel, first of all, the quote you cite was from a later interview and has only a tangential relationship with Palin's comments that engendered such derision from the uninformed and which are the subject of this post.
Furthermore, even that quote does not say that the purpose of his ride was to warn the British. I know you think it does, but you clearly don't get the Palin vernacular. If you read it, it's actually true. Although it wasn't the reason he was sent out, it turned out to be part of his ride.
I don't expect Palin's critics to ever concede a single point. It's not in their DNA. But as long as you keep making these ridiculous assertions in vain attempts to denigrate Palin, I will keep responding with facts.
Like or Dislike:
0
0