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)
“And, the opinion is certainly not wrong as a matter of fact unless there is no reasonable basis upon which the opinion is based.”
Ah but Mr. Troll, your definition of “reasonable basis” is by the bulk of your own writings nothing more than the weaselly parsing of words and outright lying to define itself as that. You have no “reasonable basis,” it is all unfounded opinion and you have only proved the case of your own incompetence and deceitfulness.
However, in kderosa’s universe one opinion on a fact is equivalent to an other opinion on that fact.
I never claimed this. Moreover, having the better or more likely opinion, does not make the opposing opinion wrong. And, the opinion is certainly not wrong as a matter of fact unless there is no reasonable basis upon which the opinion is based.
“Because she was as a matter of evidentiary fact.
No, based on your opinion.
Evidence that you have yet to sufficiently challenge.
Again, in your opinion.
So that makes you both wrong as to matters of fact.
No, based on your opinion.
That is not an opinion.
Actually, it is.
That has been demonstrated quite throughly.
Only in your opinion.”
Who would’ve though that after posting so much drivel here that kderosa would have actually cleared up an issue that has been haunting the nation for at least 13 years.
A poll showed in 1998 that 66% of American Males believed strongly that the word “sex”
only referred to intercourse, this was their opinion. However, in kderosa’s universe one opinion on a fact is equivalent to an other opinion on that fact. Given that, the only way to know if something is a fact is if the majority of people believe it so So when Bill Clinton said “I did not have sex with that women,” he was merely expressing his true belief along with the opinions of 2/3 of American males. He wasn’t lying at all. What a relief!
Heh! I do muzzle loaders, and my favorite is my .50 caliber Hawkin. In that video, Steven Colbert captured the problem perfectly. Ever tried to pour powder down a muzzle while on a galloping horse? In the dark?
’nuff said.
kderosa,
Maybe you could just gallop off into the sunset reenacting Palin’s version of Revere’s ride…. Go ring those bells, fire those “warning shots”…
Because she was as a matter of evidentiary fact.
No, based on your opinion.
Evidence that you have yet to sufficiently challenge.
Again, in your opinion.
So that makes you both wrong as to matters of fact.
No, based on your opinion.
That is not an opinion.
Actually, it is.
That has been demonstrated quite throughly.
Only in your opinion.
Revere rang no bells, he fired no shots and he wasn’t warning the Redcoats [verbally] that “we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.”
He did cause others to ring bells and fire shots. And, he did warn the Redcoats that they wouldn’t be taking our arms because the colonials would be armed and resisting and as result we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.
Until you have evidence that he – personally – rang bells, fired shots
I don’t need evidence that he personally did thee things becasue my claim does not rest on him personally doing these things. Yours does.
or warned the Regulars that “we were going to be secure and we were going to be free”?
This comes from Revere’s and Sanderson’s depositions and Fischer’s expert analysis based on same.
“Your argument here boils down to Palin’s opinion was wrong.”
Because she was as a matter of evidentiary fact. Evidence that you have yet to sufficiently challenge. So that makes you both wrong as to matters of fact. That is not an opinion. That has been demonstrated quite throughly.
I’m not changing the subject. The subject has evolved. The falsity of Palin’s statements as to matters of fact is not an opinion at this point but rather based upon evidence. Evidence you have not been able to sufficiently refute. Revere rang no bells, he fired no shots and he wasn’t warning the Redcoats that “we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.” The only thing Palin got correct is that Revere rode a horse. Until you have evidence that he – personally – rang bells, fired shots or warned the Regulars that “we were going to be secure and we were going to be free”?
The argument concerning the facts is and has been over for quite some time.
You just didn’t win it.
The subject is now lying propagandists and their methodology within the context of Sarah Palin’s false statements concerning history surrounding Paul Revere’s Midnight Ride.
That you are so stupid as to continue providing a demonstration of that mechanic is another issue.
How is “this way” different from what he actually did?
Revere told British Regular Army troops that he had alarmed the entire countryside and they didn’t hang him for that even when they heard the bells and shots of the alarm which proved that he had done so. In fact they let him go.
Do you agree or disagree that the British Regular Army troops would likely have hung Revere if he had done it this way:
“…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.”
@OS, I’m not trying to prove anything. There is nothing to prove because the entire issue of interpretation rests on opinion. I have no idea what Palin knew or didn’t know; all I know is what she said. I have already provided one reasonable interpretation above. I have never claimed that it is the only or the right interpretation. There was, in fact, some scholarly dispute as to whether Revere’s disclosure to the British upon capture was treasonous.
Since we have spiraled down the rabbit hole into a morass of illogic, I want to know what kderosa is trying to prove. K, are you claiming that Sarah the Incomprehensible knew these obscure facts we are discussing? Knew them at that time? And I, like the Buddha, want to hear your explanation of her description of him riding through town firing shots and ringing bells and telling the British troops they would not be taking our guns and that we were going to be free. Really? If Revere had told those British Regulars anything remotely like that, they would have summarily hung him from the nearest tree. And I would not blame them.
@Buddha — “Symbolic warnings? That’s some grasping at straws there, Lil’ Liar.” More like grasping at the dictionary definition, Jerky.
“Is not a rebuttal nor is it you meeting the required burden of proof to trump Revere’s deposition.” The rebuttal was contained in the previous paragraph. This was merely gratuitous ridicule. Revere’s deposition is silent as to the intended take away of his warning. You proposed take-away is merely your opinion. Palin’s proposed take-away is her opinion, as well. Your argument here boils down to Palin’s opinion was wrong.
““Revere caused bells to ring and shots to be fired, just not personally.” – Personally is what Palin claimed, so she’s still wrong and so are you.” No, the “personally part is merely your interpretation, which BTW is contrary to the dictionary definition. And, you are neither an expert linguist nor an expert historian.
Last, these statements of yours “He told the patrol which had captured him that they were marching into certain death. Nothing more, nothing less.” and “Again – for the hard of understanding – Revere … wasn’t warning the Redcoats.” remain wrong and ahistoric, especially the second one. But, nice try changing the subject.
You have undoubtedly heard of a relative of mine, Francis S. Key. Well, he could not sign a lick. He could not even sign. Well, we are related because we a secure and free after Paul warned us by ringing the bells in the North Church. You are aware he was not welcome in the South Church. He was of a different percussion.
What follows is a short summary of what has been proven and what we have learned from this long thread:
kderosa=lying, possibly paid troll=schmuck=hilariously tedious
All the rest is proof and commentary on the above..
Cherry picking won’t get you a pie. “That is not the equivalent of saying ““we were going to be secure and we were going to be free”. “I know what you’re after” in the face of denials is exactly as I said in context above: Revere was calling their bluff. That he made additional statements is irrelevant as the substance is still the same as Revere deposed.”
Symbolic warnings? That’s some grasping at straws there, Lil’ Liar. That’s so desperate that I’ll simply point out that symbolically the ride from Boston to Lexington could represent the sperm traveling to the egg to initiate the sequence that led to the birth of a nation or it could symbolize mankind’s eternal existential dilemma on how to achieve one’s goals in the face of a hostile and/or indifferent world. It’s reduction to the absurd, but so is suggesting “symbolic warnings”.
“I was wrong, you really are that stupid.” – Is not a rebuttal nor is it you meeting the required burden of proof to trump Revere’s deposition. You can’t meet the burden of proof because the facts were simply not as Palin stated. And your assessments of my intelligence may soothe your bruised ego, but they just make me giggle.
“Revere caused bells to ring and shots to be fired, just not personally.” – Personally is what Palin claimed, so she’s still wrong and so are you.
Come on. Come back and do that Big Lie tactic some more. The more you gyrate, the more you illustrate the tactic I’m educating others about.
@OS, your aim is off.
@Buddha, “‘I know what you’re after’? That is not the equivalent of saying ‘we were going to be secure and we were going to be free’” — Who claimed that it was? “Paul Revere proceeded to tell his astonished captors more than they knew about their own mission.” That would be more than teling them that “they were marching into certain death.” That would be telling them that Revere knew their entire plan better than they did. Then he warned them. Even you agree, “He told them he knew what they were up to, the militias were ready and the Redcoats were going to die if they proceeded. The warning was to their lives. ”
Here’s where you get stupid: “The salient issue is that Revere still didn’t warn the British Regulars that ‘we were going to be secure and we were going to be free’.” A warning is not limited verbal warnings. In this case, Revere’s verbal warning (the militias were ready and the Redcoats were going to die if they proceeded) also carried symbolic significance (we were going to be secure and we were going to be free) by virtue of our being ready to resist. wait, you’re not actually arguingthat Palin meant that Revere actually spoke those words? Now that would be stupid.
“Your burden of proof is that you must prove Revere warned the Regulars that “we were going to be secure and we were going to be free” (in contrast with what he actually said which was “I know what you’re up to and you’re going to die”) with a quality of evidence equivalent to a deposition by Revere or another sworn witness.” — I was wrong, you really are that stupid.
“While we’re at it, I’ll also take it as a tacit admission that you are giving up on the whole Revere was “ringing bells/firing shots” issue since you have stopped addressing it.” — What’s left to address? The historic record is clear — Revere caused bells to ring and shots to be fired, just not personally.
Here a version that probably meets Kdrosas recollection.
I was sitting getting High. I saw a horse go by, I think, I saw some lights, the bells were ringing off in my head from the shroom trip I took before the smoke. You’ve heard of Up in Smoke, well, I think I was there but it was the 70s as well. Anyway, back to the story.
I saw this dude and he looked like he was trippin, he was carrying that horse on his shoulders or was it just a nag. It was hard to tell as it was night. This dude yells at me “to get down from that bell tower”
All’s I was trying to do was light up a fat one, but I kept seeing things in twos, so now I am not sure, was it one or was it two, because of had double vision. But that was kinda foreign to me. That’s another story at a later date. Anyway, this dude says get down. I yelled back man, I ain’t James, but as I was coming down, I started to fall. I caught this rope and pulled it to catch my self, then it started clanging, I was like man oh man. It was like really loud, Then this musket loader I had in my pocket fell, hit the floor and went off.
This dude, I’ll call him Paul for right now, but I really think his name was like Matthew, Mark, Luke or like John. But since this is my version of what happened, lets just call him Paul. He yelled at me. He was like what are you trying to do warn the British, and I was like man, You are on acid, cause we are all British. He had to be I swear. But they is all upset because I this fat dude over the pond tells we have to drink more tea. I was like all for herb. Yeah this dude like dressed up like a drag queen, Yeah buddy, let me tell you about a real drag queen that rang bells, busted balls or something like that. Man he made mercury rise, but he pulled some trigger and now he’s dead.
I know this cause I was taught this stuff, in the Yukon Territory. Yeah man, man…a piece of advice, don’t eat yellow snow and everything that looks like a cigar on the ground ain’t.
So now you know the story about the milfnight ride of some dude named Paul.
Again . . .
Your burden of proof is that you must prove Revere warned the Regulars that “we were going to be secure and we were going to be free” (in contrast with what he actually said which was “I know what you’re up to and you’re going to die”) with a quality of evidence equivalent to a deposition by Revere or another sworn witness.
You still haven’t met that criteria for making your burden of proof.
While we’re at it, I’ll also take it as a tacit admission that you are giving up on the whole Revere was “ringing bells/firing shots” issue since you have stopped addressing it.
Please feel free to rack yourself again.
“Gentlemen,” Revere told them, “you’ve missed of your aim.”
“What of our aim?” one answered in a “hard” tone. Another insisted that they were out after deserters, a frequent employment of British officers in America. “I know better,” Paul Revere boldly replied.
“I know what you are after, and have alarmed the country all the way up.”
“He also told them what he had been doing that night, and warned that he had alarmed the militia at Lexington, and their lives would be at risk if they lingered near that town.”
No shit. Just like I said.
As to the “I know what you’re after”?
That is not the equivalent of saying ““we were going to be secure and we were going to be free”. “I know what you’re after” in the face of denials is exactly as I said in context above: Revere was calling their bluff. That he made additional statements is irrelevant as the substance is still the same as Revere deposed. He told them he knew what they were up to, the militias were ready and the Redcoats were going to die if they proceeded. The warning was to their lives. The salient issue is that Revere still didn’t warn the British Regulars that “we were going to be secure and we were going to be free”.
None of what you relayed backs up Palin’s version of events.
It does, however, bolster my case.
Moron?
At least I’m not so fucking stupid I help my opponent’s case.
That revised score: Revere (w/ assist by Sanderson) 4, Palin 0
Thank you for playing, liar and propagandist.
Next time you should be more careful although watching you hit yourself in the crotch is kinda funny.