Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
I’m sure most Americans are aware that former Alaska governor Sarah Palin has been on a bus tour along the east coast of the United States. What is the purpose of her tour?
Only Palin knows for sure. She did, however, provide people with her reason for taking this tour of historical places on her Sarah PAC website.
It’s interesting when (for the 100th time) reporters shout out, “Why are you traveling to historical sites? What are you trying to accomplish?” I repeat my answer, “It’s so important for Americans to learn about our past so we can clearly see our way forward in challenging times; so, we’re bringing attention to our great nation’s foundation.” When that answer isn’t what the reporters want to hear, we’ve asked them if they’ve ever visited these sites like the National Archives, Gettysburg, etc. When they confirm that they haven’t, it’s good to say, “Well, there you go. You’ll learn a lot about America today.” (They usually don’t want to hear that either!)
Last Thursday, Palin stopped in Boston for a tour of three Revolutionary War sites. She said she was “getting goose bumps’’ from all the history she was glimpsing in Boston. She added, “You’ve got to know a lot about our past in order to know how to proceed successfully into the future.’’ And thanks to Palin we’re learning history anew as she provides reporters with her version of American historical events when she speaks to them on stops along her way.
After visiting the Old North Church in Boston’s North End, she hailed Paul Revere and what he did on his “famous ride.” Here is how Palin described that event: …he who warned the British that they weren’t gonna be takin’ away our arms, uh, by ringin’ those bells and, um, makin’ sure as he’s ridin’ his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we’re gonna be secure and we were gonna be free. And we we’re gonna be armed.
Got that? Revere warned the British! That’s news to me. And to think that I thought for decades that Paul Revere had been riding around on his horse warning certain American colonists about the British. The archivist at the Cambridge Public Library doesn’t know what really happened that fateful night either. The archivist wrote the following in a blog post: “Paul Revere and his famous midnight ride is so much a part of the collective memory of the American Revolution that it is often forgotten that Revere was just one of several men and one woman who alerted the Minutemen of the impending British advancement.”
I guess the History Channel got it wrong too. Following is what I found on the channel’s website. It includes no mention of bells.
By 1775, tensions between the American colonies and the British government had approached the breaking point, especially in Massachusetts, where Patriot leaders formed a shadow revolutionary government and trained militias to prepare for armed conflict with the British troops occupying Boston. In the spring of 1775, General Thomas Gage, the British governor of Massachusetts, received instructions from Great Britain to seize all stores of weapons and gunpowder accessible to the American insurgents. On April 18, he ordered British troops to march against Concord and Lexington.
The Boston Patriots had been preparing for such a British military action for some time, and, upon learning of the British plan, Revere and Dawes set off across the Massachusetts countryside. They took separate routes in case one of them was captured: Dawes left the city via the Boston Neck peninsula and Revere crossed the Charles River to Charlestown by boat. As the two couriers made their way, Patriots in Charlestown waited for a signal from Boston informing them of the British troop movement. As previously agreed, one lantern would be hung in the steeple of Boston’s Old North Church, the highest point in the city, if the British were marching out of the city by Boston Neck, and two lanterns would be hung if they were crossing the Charles River to Cambridge. Two lanterns were hung, and the armed Patriots set out for Lexington and Concord accordingly. Along the way, Revere and Dawes roused hundreds of Minutemen, who armed themselves and set out to oppose the British.
Tim Murphy—snarking little fellow—wrote this in an article at Mother Jones: “We don’t mean to nitpick—we just think that if you launch a major publicity tour on the subject of great moments in American history, it might make sense to brush up on the details first. We can only imagine how Palin might try to spin this: ‘Listen my children and you shall hear, of the midnight ride of Paul Revere. If the story doesn’t sound like what you read on Wikipedia, you know who to blame: the elite liberal media.’”
It’s just not fair! Tim Murphy and other members of the “lamestream media” love to make fun of Palin. I don’t understand why. She’s only trying to give us the scoop on what really happened in our country’s past—just like Representative Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota. Thank heavens we have women so well versed in American history that they can enlighten us today with their knowledge.
SOURCES
Palin hits town to pick her spots, take her shots (Boston Globe)
Just passing through (Boston Globe)
Reminding Reporters, too, of America’s Foundations (Sarah PAC)
Sarah Palin’s Reasons for Bus Tour Misguided (Yahoo)
Paul Revere’s Ride, Reimagined by Sarah Palin (Mother Jones)
The Other Paul Revere: William Dawes’ Midnight Ride through Cambridge (The Cambridge Room)
Revere and Dawes warn of British attack (History.com)
“I don’t see that what I wrote is incoherent.”
That’s the unfortunate part.
“I think my written language is perfectly understandable.”
I thought it was understandable too. But understandable in this case results in an ahistoric statement. But, you claim it’s historically accurate. Therfore, your interpretation must be incoherent.
“You may not agree with what I wrote–that doesn’t make it incoherent.”
You may not agree with what Palin wrote–that doesn’t make it incoherent. Whats good for the goose and all that.
“Stupid squared is your defending of Palin’s version of Paul Revere’s ride.”
That must mean that stupid cubed is your defending of your own ahistoric version of paul Revere’s ride.
kderosa,
I don’t see that what I wrote is incoherent. I think my written language is perfectly understandable. You may not agree with what I wrote–that doesn’t make it incoherent.
Stupid squared is your defending of Palin’s version of Paul Revere’s ride.
“But now, I’ve made our lil’ troll a parting gift . . .”
What happened to that confident tone, word salad boy?
You’re back to incoherent stuttering.
Off to my wekend trip.
“I don’t need to counter your “expert” because everything you’ve introduced is hearsay. You can try to back track and qualify all you want, liar, it still doesn’t make your revisions true as to the actions of Paul Revere on the night of April 19, 1775. The best evidence – and the only evidence submitted so far that is admissible in court – is Revere’s own deposition as to his actions.”
I continue to disagree, Ironside.
“As to your attempts at diversion concerning any other role Revere may have played in the Revolutionary War? ”
Is that word salad a sentence? And, Revere’s ride occured before the war. And, it wouldn’t have been called the Revolutionary war in any event. It’s fun to nitpit like Buddha.
“Palin’s comments were discussing the Midnight Ride of April 19, 1775 and not about anything else no matter what you want to try to read into it.”
Right. Plus the synecdoche penumbra, Mr. Literalist.
“Both are logical fallacies. ”
I again disagree.
“Unless you have a deposition from Paul Revere in HIS OWN WORDS an account of his actions on April 19, 1775 that comports with Palin’s fiction?”
is this another word salad non-sentence, Mr. Palin?
“Palin is wrong.
You are wrong.
Your evidence is inadmissible and insufficient.
And by your tactics you are a liar and a propagandist engaging in historical revisionism.”
Diagree as to all four.
“End of story.”
See you in the funny pages.
Buddha, they are all over. I was just looking at a YouTube video of Karen Matheson singing Amazing Grace in Scots Gaelic. Would you believe K has a clone. They are all over the comments in a YouTube video of a Scottish vocalist singing Amazing Grace! Same trivial and nonsensical tripe that K is putting out. These trolls are fanning out. I am inclined to agree with lottakatz that is is more like religious fervor. I cannot imagine the Palin camp has the money or the inclination to actually pay people to spread this kind of manure. I wish Eric Hoffer were still alive to comment on this new generation of True Believer.
OS,
I think this is the paid variety of troll. Maybe even someone on Palin’s staff. That or a crazy person. Not that the two states of being are mutually exclusive.
I don’t need to counter your “expert” because everything you’ve introduced is hearsay. You can try to back track and qualify all you want, liar, it still doesn’t make your revisions true as to the actions of Paul Revere on the night of April 19, 1775. The best evidence – and the only evidence submitted so far that is admissible in court – is Revere’s own deposition as to his actions.
Not your “expert”.
Not any third party.
And most certainly not Sarah Palin’s fictional account of what Paul Revere did on the night of April 19, 1775.
As to your attempts at diversion concerning any other role Revere may have played in the Revolutionary War? That’s again moving the goal post. Palin’s comments were discussing the Midnight Ride of April 19, 1775 and not about anything else no matter what you want to try to read into it.
More diversionary bullshit that’s neither on topic nor substantive evidence is are tactics called argument from verbosity and irrelevant conclusion.
Both are logical fallacies.
Sooooo – again . . .
Unless you have a deposition from Paul Revere in HIS OWN WORDS an account of his actions on April 19, 1775 that comports with Palin’s fiction?
Palin is wrong.
You are wrong.
Your evidence is inadmissible and insufficient.
And by your tactics you are a liar and a propagandist engaging in historical revisionism.
End of story.
Keep digging. You are trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Your arguments are totally irrelevant. Let’s remember why we are here:
Got that? Revere warned the British! That’s news to me. And to think that I thought for decades that Paul Revere had been riding around on his horse warning certain American colonists about the British. The archivist at the Cambridge Public Library doesn’t know what really happened that fateful night either. The archivist wrote the following in a blog post: “Paul Revere and his famous midnight ride is so much a part of the collective memory of the American Revolution that it is often forgotten that Revere was just one of several men and one woman who alerted the Minutemen of the impending British advancement.”
I guess the History Channel got it wrong too. Following is what I found on the channel’s website. It includes no mention of bells.
This is stupid squared. Elaine the Incoherent. What does that make her sycophantic followers who now try to rewrite history to conform to that ahistoric account?
_________
You think there is only one issue (Sarah’s allegedly incoherent account). There are actually two issues (The incoherent unhinged response thereto). Wait, there are actually three (How much of Sarah’s allegedly incoherent account is the result of her critics misunersatnding of history).
Keep digging. You are trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Your arguments are totally irrelevant. Let’s remember why we are here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS4C7bvHv2w
This is stupid squared. Sarah the Incoherent. What does that make her sycophantic followers who now try to rewrite history to conform to that word salad?
@Buddha
“We are concerned with what Revere did”
Right. Not just what he said he did, as you suggest.
“as it was Revere’s actions Palin was addressing as has been plainly shown.”
Right again, And, Revere’s actions, as leader, had far sweeping condequences that was not in the Whigs best interest to opine about at the time. If you knew your history you’d have known this.
“We are not concerned with what others say happened or with what others did.”
Wrong. We are to the extent they were releveant to what happended that night.
“The best evidence of what Revere actually did is his own words and in this case unfortunately for you his own words are in the legally admissible form of a deposition.”
They are the best evidence as to what he said he did, assuming he was reliable. And, yes they would be admissible along with all the other depositions and orimary sources. And Fischer is an expert so his opinion comes in to. Your opinion, in contrast is merely attorney argument.
@OS, “Oh, bullshit. K, this is not about what Paul Revere said as much as what Palin said.” You need to have this discussion with Buddha, not me.
“He was the only one there and was the only one who knew exactly what he did.”
Actually, he wasn’t and if you knew your history, you’d know this too. There are other depositions as well and they are cited.
Also, the real question in issue is what is considered to be considered to be the history of the event in question in 2011. Morover, if you want to calim that she lied, we’re talking about her intent and what she was told, such as by what the vicar had just told her re the event. The question is not nearly as simple as you and Buddha would like to assert it to be.
“If the account were to be presented as evidence in a trial today, it would be accepted as credible and reliable.” Who said it wouldn’t be. It would be evidence as to what he said had happened. Again, if you knew your colonial history you would know that all the contemporaneous depositions were true as far as the questions asked. But many questions were not asked. Intentionally so. That’s why we have Expert opinion on matters such as these. I brought in the expert. You and Buddha have nothing to counter that testimony with. See you on appeal.
Republicans Edit History on Paul Revere, Taxes, Debt
Rejection of reality has become endemic to politics—especially on the right
By Robert Schlesinger
US News & World Report
June 15, 2011
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/06/15/republicans-edit-history-on-paul-revere-taxes-debt
Excerpt:
Listen my children, and you won’t be failin’ basic American history like Sarah Palin. Hardly a man is alive who is not aware of the former vice presidential candidate’s recent quote, uttered with little care. The great patriot, she rambled, “warned the British that they weren’t gonna be taking away our arms, by ringing those bells and making sure, as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots that we were gonna be secure and we were gonna be free.”
Thus was ignited the second battle of Lexington and Concord, with Palin and her partisans exchanging volley after ridiculous volley with not only the press but history itself. She insists that she knows her history better than those fusty, liberal old lamestream historians. (Joel J. Miller, author of The Revolutionary Paul Revere, wrote in the certifiably conservative National Review Online that “From Revere’s own account, it’s clear that he didn’t fire a shot, he didn’t ring a bell, and he didn’t intend to warn the British of anything,” adding, “In short, Palin basically got the whole story wrong.”)
Palin’s minutemen made their stand on Wikipedia, editing Revere’s entry there to fit Palin’s view of reality. The whole squabble perfectly reflects a political culture where such absurdist rejection of reality has become endemic—especially on the right. It used to be said of conservatism that it stood athwart history and yelled “stop.” Increasingly it seems to stand beside reality while hitting the “edit” button.
Oh, bullshit. K, this is not about what Paul Revere said as much as what Palin said. You can try to get the toothpaste back in the tube as much as you want and parse words as much as you want. The fact remains that she made a factually inaccurate and syntactically incoherent statement in front of video cameras. The sworn statement of Paul Revere is the only legally reliable account of exactly what he did that night.
Do you know what “reliable” means? it has two meanings. The meaning to a scientist or statistician is that data are reliable if the experiment or test is repeatable. To a lawyer or the legal system, testimony is reliable if it is conforming to fact and therefore worthy of belief. In other words, believable and credible. Unsworn testimony or an account is not considered reliable.
Revere’s testimony is the ONLY reliable account of his actions. He was the only one there and was the only one who knew exactly what he did. He swore to his words in that testimony. If the account were to be presented as evidence in a trial today, it would be accepted as credible and reliable. No one else, no one, would be accommodated that privilege because it would be inadmissible hearsay.
You prefer to rely on the words of an ill informed grifter and people who were not there over the sworn testimony of the only man who was? Good luck with that, sport.
“We are concerned with what happened that night, not just what Revere said happened that night.”
That’s a tactic called moving the goal post and that won’t work either.
We are concerned with what Revere did as it was Revere’s actions Palin was addressing as has been plainly shown. We are not concerned with what others say happened or with what others did.
The best evidence of what Revere actually did is his own words and in this case unfortunately for you his own words are in the legally admissible form of a deposition.
You still don’t have sufficient evidence to prove Revere did what Palin claimed. If you have a problem with the FRCP and the Rules of Evidence, I suggest you take it up with Congress. Nothing, I repeat, NOTHING in Fischer’s book is admissible evidence to the fact of the matter of Revere’s actions on April 15, 1775 unless his book includes depositions. And even if it contains depositions, unless one of those depositions is from Revere and comports to Palin’s fiction in contradiction of the evidence as presented?
You still lose.
Please do keep coming back to get your ass kicked though.
It only further illustrates the assessment of your tactics was accurate, Lil’ Propagandist.
We are concerned with what happened that night, not just what Revere said happened that night. Moreover, all of the accounts are consistent and we’re not trying to impeach Revere. Plus, it’s all admissible as to what each what individual said or wrote about what he had witnessed or had been told. None of it is hearsay and even if it were, it all would come in under one of the numerous exceptions (business record, admission against interest, dead/unavailable witness, etc.) of the hearsay rules.
Again, your “evidence” is insufficient. That is merely your opinion and you’re not the judge.
what Palin claimed Revere did – “He [Revere] who warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and, um, making sure as he’s [Revere] riding his {Revere] horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that, uh, we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.”)
That’s your layman’s interpretation. You are entitled to it. It’s not a fact. Also, it’s not a sentence as written — there’s no clear predicate. You need some parsing.
Here’s mine: “He [Revere]
whowarned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms. By ringing those bells and, um, making sure as he’s [Revere] riding his [Revere] horse through town to send those warning shotsand bells[signified] that, uh, we [the colonials] were going to be secure and we [the colonials]were going to be free.”It’s as valid as yours. And it is a complete thought. Actually two.
With respect to your “personally doing is not the same as causing to do”argument, all I know is that the dictionary definition of the verb ring is “to cause to ring” which is broader than what you suggest is the only correct interpretation.
Lastly, this is not at odds at what Revere actually stated. Revere was silent as to this issue and many others. There was a reason for this taht you apparently don’t know. Read the Fischer book and learn some American history.
Also, according to your own hyper-literal interpretation mandate, Elaine’s clear statements, in context, are clearly ahistorical (Revere did “warn” the British (without any qualification) and bells rung out that night (also without any qualification), among others). As do some of yours.
LK, we are not arguing. We are kicking his ass, but he will not accept the fact he invited himself to an ass kicking.
You nailed the psychopathology of what is going on, though. It is a kind of religious fanaticism. Remember Brent the Confederate Troll? He did not shut up until I dropped the hammer on him with that video of Governor Haley Barbour saying there would definitely be no Mississippi license plate honoring Nathan B. Forrest. I do believe our current Palin suckup is even more rabid than Brent.
You folks are arguing with a religious fanatic, a worshipper of Saint Sarah the Incoherent. Remember the last holiday dinner when you got stuck sitting next to the rabid fundi uncle that still wanted you to be saved and just wouldn’t leave you alone to enjoy the sweet-potato souffle? It reads like that discussion. She is a religion to a certain class of intellect and nothing, not even the first-person testimony, the best evidence quoted verbatim is sufficient to shake the faith- a BS analysis that supports the faith is preferable to to plain language of the only witness that counts.
Is this not exactly the radical religious mindset? Hoards of people hanging on the every interpretation of false prophets when the plain language of the Christ is set down by those he trained, for all to see. Kedrosa is to the political history he argues as the fundamentalists are to Christianity, ignorant and self-deluded by choice and pushy about it.
I have enjoyed reading much of the debate though. Thanks for the fine scholarship.
1, 2 & 4) Anything Thomas Gage, Elijah Sanderson, Levi Preston or an unnamed townsman says is inadmissible as hearsay as to the activities of Paul Revere.
That you tried to use them as evidence of Revere’s activities illustrates that you do not understand hearsay evidence.
The basic rule concerning hearsay is that testimony or documents which quote persons not in court are not admissible. Because the person who supposedly knew the facts is not in court to state his/her exact words, the trier of fact cannot judge the demeanor and credibility of the alleged first-hand witness, and the other party’s lawyer cannot cross-examine (ask questions of) him or her. There are exceptions to this rule and one of the exceptions is prior testimony such as in deposition (taken under oath outside of court), or at a hearing, if the witness is not available (including being dead).
My evidence was Paul Revere’s deposition and it is still admissible in a court of law today and it is evidence that speaks directly to the facts of the matter concerning his actions on April 19, 1775.
None of what you posted meets any exception for the hearsay rule.
In addition to valid admissible evidence, I also offered a later restatement of the events made by Revere that was consistent with his prior statements under oath.
Again, your “evidence” is insufficient.
3) Causing an alarm to be sounded by others and actually ringing the bells and firing the shots (what Palin claimed Revere did – “He [Revere] who warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and, um, making sure as he’s [Revere] riding his {Revere] horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that, uh, we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.”) are not the same thing as others reactions to Revere spreading the message that the Regulars were approaching or the motivations of a third party. That argument fails because it is semantic and not representative of Palin’s words. She was plainly (albeit incorrectly) speaking of Revere’s personal actions and what she said is at odds with the sworn deposition of Paul Revere himself.
You still lose.
Come back Monday and you’ll lose again unless you have a verifiable sworn account of Revere’s actions in Revere’s OWN WORDS that matches Palin’s fictional retelling of the Midnight Ride of April 19, 1775.
lol , , , amateur.
Plaintiff rests. Rebuttals will be responded to come Monday. You all have a good weekend.
Issue 4: It Was All About Securing Freedom
IN THE TIME THAT Paul Revere remained a prisoner, his message travelled rapidly across the countryside. To many Americans, the legend of the Lexington alarm conjures up the image of a solitary rider, galloping bravely in the darkness from one lonely farmstead to the next. This romantic idea is etched indelibly upon the national memory, but it is not what actually happened that night. Many other riders helped Paul Revere to carry the alarm. Their participation did not in any way diminish his role, but actually enlarged it. The more we learn about these messengers, the more interesting Paul Revere’s part becomes—not merely as a solitary courier, but as an organizer and promoter of a common effort in the cause of freedom.
Fischer at Kindle Location 2400
Many years later Captain Levi Preston of Danvers was asked why he went to war that day. At the age of ninety-two, his memory of the Lexington alarm was crystal clear, and his understanding was very different from academic interpretations of this event. An historian asked him, “Captain Preston, what made you go to the Concord Fight?”
[After denying it was about the Stamp Act, tea tax, and the “eternal principle of liberty”], Preston answered, “Young man, what we meant in going for those Redcoats was this: we always had governed ourselves and we always meant to. They didn’t mean we should”
Fischer Kindle Location 2836, citing “Why Captain Levi Preston Fought: An Interview with One of the Survivors of the Revolution by Hon. Mellen Chamberlain of Chelsea,” Danvers Historical Collections 8 (1920): 68-70; and John S. Pancake, 1777, the Year of the Hangman (University, Ala., 1977), 7.
Issue 3: Revere caused Bells to Ring and Shots to be Fired
… Paul Revere himself was on the road, traveling northeast from Charlestown to Medford. As we have seen, he had not planned to go that way, but once in the village of Medford, he went quickly about the task of awakening that community with remarkable economy of effort. He rode directly to the house of Captain Isaac Hall, commander of Medford’s minutemen, who instantly triggered the town’s alarm system. A townsman remembered that “repeated gunshots, the beating of drums and the ringing of bells filled the air.”
Fischer at Kindle Location 2435, citing Hall Gleason, “Captain Isaac Hall,” Medford Historical Society Publications 8 (1905): 100-103; Henry Tilden Wild, Medford in the Revolution; Military History of Medford, Massachusetts, 1765-1783 (Medford 1903), 8; Charles Brooks, History of the Town of Medford (Boston, 1886).
Along Paul Revere’s northern route, the town leaders and company captains instantly triggered the alarm system.
Fischer at Kindle Location 2473
Just two of a an embarrassingly large number of mention of bells and gunshots that night cataloged by Fischer from primary and secondary sources.