• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sarah Palin: Paul Revere's Ride to Protect the Second Amendment

There were no bells, he had lanterns. This was not about them taking our guns, it was about them arresting independence leaders. Why the hell are guys even trying to defend her?

on the contrary - the movement of 700 British Regulars from Boston was explicitely to find an destroy a cache of powder, cannon, and guns that the Militia had at Concord.

my question is, why the hell are people so eager to fall behind an obviously false narrative, irrespective of it's emotional appeal.
 
It was about both, actually.

Good Ole Wikipedia

...700 British Army regulars, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith, were given secret orders to capture and destroy military supplies that were reportedly stored by the Massachusetts militia at Concord....

General Gage called a meeting of his senior officers at the Province House. He informed them that orders from Lord Dartmouth had arrived, ordering him to take action against the colonials. He also told them that the senior colonel of his regiments, Lieutenant Colonel Smith, would command, with Major John Pitcairn as his executive officer. The meeting adjourned around 8:30 pm, after which Lord Percy mingled with town folk on Boston Common. According to one account, the discussion among people there turned to the unusual movement of the British soldiers in the town. When Percy questioned one man further, the man replied, "Well, the regulars will miss their aim". "What aim?" asked Percy. "Why, the cannon at Concord" was the reply..

When the troops arrived in the village of Concord, Smith divided them to carry out Gage's orders. The 10th Regiment's company of grenadiers secured South Bridge under Captain Mundy Pole, while seven companies of light infantry under Captain Parsons, numbering about 100, secured the North Bridge near Barrett's force. Captain Parsons took four companies from the 5th, 23rd, 38th and 52nd Regiments up the road 2 miles (3.2 km) beyond the North Bridge to search Barrett's Farm, where intelligence indicated supplies would be found.[62] Two companies from the 4th and 10th were stationed to guard their return route, and one company from the 43rd remained guarding the bridge itself. These companies, which were under the relatively inexperienced command of Captain Walter Laurie, were aware that they were significantly outnumbered by the 400-plus militia men that were only a few hundred yards away. The concerned Captain Laurie sent a messenger to Smith requesting reinforcements.[63]

Using detailed information provided by Loyalist spies, the grenadier companies searched the small town for military supplies. When they arrived at Ephraim Jones's tavern, by the jail on the South Bridge road, they found the door barred shut, and Jones refused them entry. According to reports provided by local Tories, Pitcairn knew cannon had been buried on the property. Jones was ordered at gunpoint to show where the guns were buried. These turned out to be three massive pieces, firing 24-pound shot, that were much too heavy to use defensively, but very effective against fortifications, with sufficient range to bombard the city of Boston from other parts of nearby mainland.[64] The grenadiers smashed the trunnions of these three guns so they could not be mounted. They also burned some gun carriages found in the village meetinghouse, and when the fire spread to the meetinghouse itself, local resident Martha Moulton persuaded the soldiers to help in a bucket brigade to save the building.[65] Nearly a hundred barrels of flour and salted food were thrown into the millpond, as were 550 pounds of musket balls. Of the damage done, only that done to the cannon was significant. All of the shot and much of the food was recovered after the British left. During the search, the regulars were generally scrupulous in their treatment of the locals, including paying for food and drink consumed. This excessive politeness was used to advantage by the locals, who were able to misdirect searches from several smaller caches of militia supplies.[66]...
 
Last edited:
So, are we actually saying that Palin was referring to the smaller event of Revere's ride and not him warning the Americans?
 
we are saying that if you're touring something, you're probably reading up on it. and if you make comments that are contrary to a famous poem, but happen to be historically accurate, then you are correct, not the media narrative that you are So Stupid For Not Citing The Poem's Narrative.


Are those attacking her actually saying that they have mind-reading abilities, and happen to know that even though she was correct, she didn't know she was correct?
 
No I am calling out the fact though people are saying she meant to say Revere warned the British, not the colonies. I mean let's be honest, this is probably a gaffe that ended up working more into her favor because she cannot be called an idiot like Bachmann for saying that Lexington and Concord was in New Hampshire.
 
we are saying that if you're touring something, you're probably reading up on it. and if you make comments that are contrary to a famous poem, but happen to be historically accurate, then you are correct, not the media narrative that you are So Stupid For Not Citing The Poem's Narrative.


Are those attacking her actually saying that they have mind-reading abilities, and happen to know that even though she was correct, she didn't know she was correct?


Warning the British was not a part of the mission even tough Palin seems to think otherwise:

"Part of his ride was to warn the British that were already there that 'hey, you're not going to take American arms, you are not going to beat our own well-armed persons individual private militia that we have.'"
 
From your own link ...

"Sarah Palin is correct: Paul Revere did warn the British — sort of"​

Translation: not correct.

First of all, she claimed he warned the British they weren't going to take our arms away; then she said he warned the Americans (as if the colonists were American) that they weren't going to take our arms away;

Secondly, Paul Revere did not warn the British they weren't going to take our arms away;

Thirdly, she said, "he was a courrier, he was a messenger, part of his ride was to warn the British that we we're already there." Except that his role as a courrier/messenger didn't include riding to warn the British about anything. That was the result of him unfortunately getting captured by the same British Palin thinks Revere rode to warn. Not to mention, his mission that night was to ride to Lexington to deliver a message to Adams and Hancock, which he completed without warning the British about anything. It was only after he completed that mission that he was captured.
 
No I am calling out the fact though people are saying she meant to say Revere warned the British, not the colonies. I mean let's be honest, this is probably a gaffe that ended up working more into her favor because she cannot be called an idiot like Bachmann for saying that Lexington and Concord was in New Hampshire.

It can probably be said that she dodged the bullet on this one, but let's not pretend that what she said happened, didn't happen. The people who are constantly harping that argument are making themselves look foolish, especially in light of the evidence that has been presented.
 
Conservapedia... I'm not familiar with it. Is it something like Little Green Footballs, or is it more like the Onion?

Surely, no one actually takes it seriously, do they?
Conservapedia.com is actually a very funny site, though it doesn't intend to be. It was borne of the frustration of uber-Conservative, Andy Schlafly (son of Phyllis Schlafly), who created it so he could post whatever nonsense he felt like after Wikipedia.com kept correcting his rightwinged edits on their website.

The entry on Paul Revere is just one example of the bizarro world some Conservatives create for themselves because they can't handle the real world.
 
As a reward for this national history lesson, I would hope the GOP nominate her to be their party standard bearer in 2012. She deserves nothing less.
 
It can probably be said that she dodged the bullet on this one, but let's not pretend that what she said happened, didn't happen. The people who are constantly harping that argument are making themselves look foolish, especially in light of the evidence that has been presented.
I doubt it. I suspect this will haunt her the rest of her political career. Not because she made a flub, but because she doubled down on stupid and made her account even more inaccurate; removing all doubt that she was clueless to that famous event.
 
I had to like one of the silliest and self-important posts I'd read in a long time.

Edit: Also there was no American at any of the engagements between the militia Revere warned, so either you're wrong about them coming for artillery or... well you're still wrong.
LOL. Think what you like.
 
If she was right in her assessment, why are her supporters trying to change the Wikipedia entry on Paul Revere?

How do you know it is her supporters doing that? I mean, there are still people editing the librarian article to slip in that they are "hiding something" long after it was suggested by Stephen Colbert. There are some people who are truly dedicated to the lulz on Wikipedia.
 
Just so you know, if you're going to try to defend Sarah's version of this historical event, here are the words that have to be somehow shown to be accurate:

He who warned the, the British that they weren't gonna be taking away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells and, um, by making sure that as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that, uh, we were gonna be secure and we were gonna be free, and we were gonna be armed,"

So, we have to picture Paul Revere riding through town while ringing bells and firing warning shots, intent on warning the British that they weren't going to take the rebels' guns away. He wasn't shouting "the Redcoats are coming,' or "The Regulars are coming", but "We're going to be free, secure, and armed!"

OK, so post that in "Conservapedia."
 
Well...technically the Colonists did consider themselves British. So he and the other riders were warning the British. Just not the British Palin was talking about.
We are speaking today, not then. The British Regulars were coming for the British rebels. Shorthand: Brits and rebels.

I have a thick volume called "The American Revolution". The first paper in it is written by Paul Revere. It is his memorandum on the events of April 18th, 1775. He rode first to Lexington to warn Hancock and Adams that the Brits (British Light Troops and Grenadiers) were coming to arrest them or to to to Concord to destroy the Colony Stores (that would be the powder and shot). When he was captured on the road to Concord, by the Brits, he warned them, "that I had alarmed the country all the way up, that their boats were catch'd aground, and I should have 500 men there soon..."

So Palin was right. Revere warned the British. His memo mentions gunfire and the Brits asking him what it meant. P. Revere wrote,"I told him to alarm the country."

Awesome.
 
Last edited:
We are speaking today, not then. The British Regulars were coming for the British rebels. Shorthand: Brits and rebels.

i have a thick volume called "The American Revolution". The first paper in it is written by Paul Revere. It is his memorandum on the events of April 18th, 1775. He rode first to Lexington to warn Hancock and Adams that the Brits (British Light Troops and Grenadiers) were coming to arrest them or to to to Concord to destroy the Colony Stores (that would be the powder and shot). When he was captured on the road to Concord, by the Brits, he warned them, "that I had alarmed the country all the way up, that their boats were catch'd aground, and I should have 500 men there soon..."

So Palin was right. Revere warned the British. His memo mentions gunfire and the Brits asking him what it meant. P. Revere wrote,"I told him to alarm the country."

Awesome.

Yes, she was right.
 
Are you saying that Palin has never made a gaffe and it is, instead, people lying and omitting facts to condemn her?

NEVER? We are talking about a specific comment. Now you want to go down a rabbit trail because she was correct. Who are the stupid ones now?
 
An opinion piece, you mean?

She ****ed up. Big whoop. Move on.

If she was right in her assessment, why are her supporters trying to change the Wikipedia entry on Paul Revere? Why did they change the Conservapedia entry on Paul Revere? While one could argue that she is somewhat correct, it's a very skewed stance. Why not just own up to your mistake? I think people would have more respect for her if she did that.

You mean the liberals who said she was wrong when she is right
 
From your own link ...

"Sarah Palin is correct: Paul Revere did warn the British — sort of"​

Translation: not correct.

First of all, she claimed he warned the British they weren't going to take our arms away; then she said he warned the Americans (as if the colonists were American) that they weren't going to take our arms away;

Secondly, Paul Revere did not warn the British they weren't going to take our arms away;

Thirdly, she said, "he was a courrier, he was a messenger, part of his ride was to warn the British that we we're already there." Except that his role as a courrier/messenger didn't include riding to warn the British about anything. That was the result of him unfortunately getting captured by the same British Palin thinks Revere rode to warn. Not to mention, his mission that night was to ride to Lexington to deliver a message to Adams and Hancock, which he completed without warning the British about anything. It was only after he completed that mission that he was captured.

How Sarah Palin Got it Right About Paul Revere 'Warning the British' - Yahoo! News
 
... he warned them, "that I had alarmed the country all the way up, that their boats were catch'd aground, and I should have 500 men there soon..."
Nope, nothing in there warning the British about our arms, Palin was wrong.
 
Actually, she didn't. But, I don't expect you to know that.

She certainly has been better coached, and speaks much better than before... but it is difficult to hide how utterly stupid she really is.

Sure she did. Are you going to go against the Director of the Paul Revere House... but that would be silly...

"Revere's assignment that night was to go to Lexington to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were moving in that direction from Boston," explained Kristin Peszka, director of interpretation and visitor's services at the Paul Revere House, which Palin visited Thursday.

It was an extremely complicated situation which she sort of regurgitated in a garbled way," Boston University's Brendan McConville said.

"He didn't warn the British," said James Giblin, author of "The Many Rides of Paul Revere." "That's her most obvious blooper."

To the source: In a 1798 letter, Revere wrote that after being captured by British officers during the midnight ride, he told them "there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time for I had alarmed the Country all the way up." Does that mean he warned the British? Not exactly.

"He wasn't really warning the British when he was a captive," said "Rides of Paul Revere" author Giblin. "He was just, in a way, boasting about the capabilities of Americans. 'You don't know what you're going to be up against,' etc. He was playing the patriot even there. He did maybe inflate the American strength, but that was to throw the British off guard. He was propagandizing, really."


Sarah Palin's Account of Paul Revere's Midnight Ride Gets Shot Down by Historians - ABC News
 
Back
Top Bottom