Yes, but we have…RASPBERRIES!
And also pointed sticks.
And if you try to sneak up on us from behind, we will RELEASE THE TIGER!!
Roll up! Roll up for the History Tour!
Roll up! Roll up for the History Tour!
Roll up! (And that’s an invitation.) Roll up for the History Tour!
Roll up to make a Conservative nation. Roll up for the History Tour!
The Tragical History Tour is coming to lead you astray
Coming to lead you astray!
The Tragical History Tour is dying to lead you astray
Dying to lead you astray! Lead you astray!
If you’ve reached the point where you’re dismissing primary sources as “spinning reality,” I think it’s time to step away from reading about politics and go get some fresh air…
He gave them exaggerated information at gunpoint. It’s called ‘lying to the enemy’. This is very different from a formal ‘warning’.
Palin can be factually correct and completely oblivious.
Palin said Paul Revere went out to warn the British*. That wasn’t what he went out to do - he went out to warn the Americans about the British.
If I said that Paul Revere rode out that night to exercise his horse, I’d be factually correct. Revere did ride and his horse did get exercised. But I’d be missing the point.
*Here’s the exact words she said when somebody asked her if she knew who Paul Revere was: “He who warned the, the British that they weren’t gonna be taking away our arms, by ringing those bells and making sure he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were gonna be secure and we were gonna be free.”
You’re spinning reality by saying that all she said was what your primary source says. She said the purpose of the ride was to warn the British that colonists were going to fight back because they were trying to take away their firearms.
No, what happened is that she half-remembered something about what Paul Revere did after he got captured, combined it with that song about the bells and apparently everything she’s been saying about the Second Amendment.
No, Palin had a point about the firearms. The Americans had been gathering cannons and supplies of gunpowder and shot. The British Army was marching to Concord to confiscate these supplies. (It’s unclear who owned the supplies so we can’t really say whether the British were stealing American property or securing British property.) So saying that the British were “taking away our arms” was reasonably accurate.
No idea how the warning shots and bells fit in.
Paul Revere fired ‘the shot heard round the world’ while he was ringing the Liberty Bell.
He was also a staunch supporter of the Cherokee people.
Just to avoid any confusion, the “shot heard round the world” was fired at Lexington. But nobody is sure who fired that first shot.
But one person who definitely didn’t was Paul Revere, who had been captured several hours earlier and was in British custody at the time of the battle.
I thought it was at the Polo Grounds. 
I believe she had recently visted the Old North Church, and it sounds like she heard some stuff about Paul Revere during her tour and then (as is her wont) she totally garbled what she had learned.
There are elements in her version that aren’t complete fiction - the colonists did ring church bells, for instance (although Paul Revere obviously did not).
For the record, the distinction between the “British” and the colonists is a retrojection. They were all still British at the time. Revere didn’t actually say, “the British are coming,” but “the regulars are coming.” In a sense, he was actually warning the “British,” in that he was warning the British colonists about the British regulars.
Not that Palin would know any of that.
Confuse people? Moi?
He did not say “The British are coming”. He didn’t ride his horse through towns and shout it either.
He stopped at the houses of the militia leaders. Woke them up, spoke to them and informed that “the regulars are marching to Lexington and Concord”.
The soldiers were trying to seize weapons and gun powder, but those belonged to the crown no to the colonists.
Sorry for the history break, we can now go back to making fun of Sarah Palin.
My understanding was that the munitions were those stockpiled by the colonial militia. Under what theory would they be Crown property?
Day after Day, that Crone on the Hill?
With knowledge and education keeping perfectly nill?
But everybody wants to show Dim,
Though, they can see that she’s just a fool.
And she never gives an answer …
But the fool on the hill,
Sees her polls going down.
So the phones in her ears,
Spout FOX’s spin all around…
Well on her way, smart as a cloud,
Denser-than-lead on cam, but talking perfectly loud.
But nobody looks upon them,
Those statements she appears to make.
And she never seems to notice …
But the fool on the hill,
Sees her polls going down.
So the phones in her ears,
Spout FOX’s spin all around…
And nobody seems to like her,
They can tell what she wants to do.
And she never owns her failings,
But the fool on the hill,
Sees her polls going down.
So the phones in her ears,
Spout FOX’s spin all around…
You’re either claiming that your primary sources say Paul Revere "“warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells,” or you’re spinning reality. Which is it?
Well done! 
Count Blucher, Johnny L.A., you guys going to put out a CD or will it be available online?
It was sort of like the situation with Fort Sumter a few decades later.
Nobody is claiming the supplies were private property. They belonged to the government. But the government was in danger of splitting in two - although it hadn’t done so yet.
The Province of Massachusetts Bay was part of the British Empire in 1774 and the provincial militia was part of the British Army. So did the supplies belong to the province or to the British? The British argument was that all military equipment ultimately belonged to the Crown not to the individual soldiers who had been issued it. The Massachusetts militia had no more right to claim ownership of a stockpile of ammunition than Private Tommy Atkins had to claim he owned his musket.