Posted on 06/05/2011 10:08:27 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Sarah Palin yesterday insisted her claim at the Old North Church last week that Paul Revere “warned the British” during his famed 1775 ride — remarks that Democrats and the media roundly ridiculed — is actually historically accurate. And local historians are backing her up.
Palin prompted howls of partisan derision when she said on Boston’s Freedom Trail that Revere “warned the British that they weren’t going to 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 and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.”
Palin insisted yesterday on Fox News Sunday she was right: “Part of his ride was to warn the British that were already there. That, hey, you’re not going to succeed. You’re not going to take American arms.”
In fact, Revere’s own account of the ride in a 1798 letter seems to back up Palin’s claim. Revere describes how after his capture by British officers, he warned them “there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time for I had alarmed the Country all the way up.”
Boston University history professor Brendan McConville said, “Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British, he did say to them, ‘Look, there is a mobilization going on that you’ll be confronting,’ and the British are aware as they’re marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing — she was right about that — and warning shots being fired. That’s accurate.”
Patrick Leehey of the Paul Revere House said Revere was probably bluffing his British captors, but reluctantly conceded that it could be construed as Revere warning the British.
“I suppose you could say that,” Leehey said. “But I don’t know if that’s really what Mrs. Palin was referring to.”
McConville said he also is not convinced that Palin’s remarks reflect scholarship.
“I would call her lucky in her comments,” McConville said.
Meanwhile, the state’s Democratic Party held a thin blue line on the issue, insisting on mocking Palin despite a brief historical review of the matter. State party chairman John Walsh wise-cracked that the region welcomes all tourists, even those with “an alternative view of history.”
“If you believe he was riding through the countryside sending text messages and Tweets to the British, still come to Boston,” he said. “There are a lot of things to do and see.”
But Cornell law professor William Jacobson, who asserted last week that Palin was correct, linking to Revere quotes on his conservative blog Legalinsurrection.com, said Palin’s critics are the ones in need of a history lesson. “It seems to be a historical fact that this happened,” he said. “A lot of the criticism is unfair and made by people who are themselves ignorant of history.”
This is what she said (supposedly)
“warned the British that they weren’t going to 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 and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.”
There’s a lot wrong with what she (supposedly) said there.
It’s a victory for Palin if she can make it about warned or not warned.
But I would really be hoping that “let’s not talk about this anymore” is the way this one goes.
Thanks - now all I can think about is bacon.
Her statement was unclear - but those familiar with the history knew exactly what she meant. Those unfamiliar, and with an agenda - ridiculed her.
They were wrong.
And actually - you are wrong as well. Although the grammer - as you have produced it - is weak/terrible - why don’t you point out which parts are “a lot wrong with what she said” -
He -
warned the British
Who were coming to take arms
He was riding a horse from town to town
Bells were ringing
As far as “shots were fired - there are a few possible interpretations -
1. Shots certainly were fired and 2.) she was referring to “the shot heard round the world”
Why don’t you point out - EXACTLY what is wrong with the statement? How many books on the topic have you read?
Note that - in the article above - the History Profs align with her - even with this grammar.
Do you know why the Brits were headed out there? Because her statements indicate - she knew exactly why.
A picture is worth a thousand words. Looks like Walsh took Ted’s place in the porking out queue.
MSM will make corrections in print & on air ......................................................
The sentence is gibberish.
That’s what’s wrong with it.
Basically, what you’re saying is something like “well, we can really rip apart what Palin says, tear it down to words or very short phrases, add some more words, leave a couple words out, and come up with a historically accurate sentence. That’s what Palin meant to say, and what she meant to say was historically accurate.”
You didn’t question this account of what she said, so let’s just assume it’s ok.
“warned the British that they weren’t going to 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 and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.”
1) “Revere warned ... by ringing those bells.” 2)
“to send those warning shots” 3) And the fact that we’re looking at this gibberish sentence so closely just to figure out what it is that she’s trying to say. Not to determine whether what she’s saying is true or not, just to figure out what she’s trying to say. The criticism here isn’t “Palin doesn’t know her history”, the criticism is “Palin makes no sense”.
You actually can strengthen up your own argument by mentioning that some scholars do believe that warning shots were fired.
I’m not arguing this is a big deal, and I didn’t really read the stories about what Palin intially said, I started paying attention to the “critics are wrong” stories. It may very well be that the critics were attacking the wrong aspects of the sentence, perhaps by making a story out of it in the first place.
I guess “Palin says something that makes no sense” is not a news story, but “Palin gets Paul Revere facts wrong” is a story?
It’s just something you don’t really want to be talking about any more.
Victory! Read all about how we made a historically accurate sentence out of Palin’s gibberish. You kinda have to repeat the gibberish over and over every time you want to point out how each nugget of factishness is related in some way to something that did happen. That’s not necessarily a good thing for Palin.
Funny the best presidents I can think of in my lifetime have all been called stupid or ignorant simply because of the way they talk... i.e. talking gibberish or cant talk etc... and our current president is just an articulate talking figurehead reading what his controllers are putting up on the teleprompter. I will take Gibberish from now on thanks! If she runs (which I personally believe she will) she has our two votes.
Funny the best presidents I can think of in my lifetime have all been called stupid or ignorant simply because of the way they talk... i.e. talking gibberish or cant talk etc... and our current president is just an articulate talking figurehead reading what his controllers are putting up on the teleprompter. I will take Gibberish from now on thanks! If she runs (which I personally believe she will) she has our two votes.
Well, I like Palin too. If Palin talks like that a lot, a new defense trick, instead of defending aggressively, say “that’s just Palin being Palin” or whatever. Trying to communicate the idea that you understand that sometimes her sentences don’t make sense, and you really don’t care.
As always, the leftys never let the truth get in the way of a good lie.
This is an good read about the battles of Lexington and Concord. Being an old fart, found this interesting, even some old men as a group did their thing that April 19th day in 1775.
“After Percy had left the city, Gage directed two ammunition wagons guarded by one officer and thirteen men to follow. This convoy was intercepted by a small party of older, former militiamen, still on the “alarm list” who could not join their militia companies because they were well over 60. These men rose up in ambush and demanded the surrender of the wagons, but the regulars ignored them and drove their horses on. The old men opened fire, shot the lead horses, killed two sergeants, and wounded the officer. The survivors ran, and six of them threw their weapons into a pond before they surrendered.”
(snip) “After 1860, several generations of schoolchildren memorized Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s poem Paul Revere’s Ride. Historically it is inaccurate (Despite what the poem says, Paul Revere never made it to Concord, for example), but it captures the idea that an individual can change the course of history.”
http://www.theamericanrevolution.org/battledetail.aspx?battle=1
"He who warned uh the, the British that they weren’t gonna to be takin away our arms uh by ringin those bells and and um making sure as he’s ridin his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that uh we were gonna be secure and we were gonna be free."
I keep picturing Revere riding with one hand firing into the night sky, and one hand tirelessly ringing some little bells. lol
There's 56 other states where I will spend my money. I have no urge to ever go to Massachusetts, let alone Boston.
Meanwhile, Barry and Joe can gaffe all day long and nobody outside the blogosphere says anything.
Crickets from the mainstream media when Barry and Joe gaffe.
Mainstream media deconstructs every word from Palin in an effort to turn it into a gaffe.
Ahhh, I see, if she gets it right, she’s lucky.Patrick Leehey of the Paul Revere House said Revere was probably bluffing his British captors, but reluctantly conceded that it could be construed as Revere warning the British.“I suppose you could say that,” Leehey said. “But I don’t know if that’s really what Mrs. Palin was referring to.”
McConville said he also is not convinced that Palin’s remarks reflect scholarship.
“I would call her lucky in her comments,” McConville said.
A real bunch of truth-seekers we have here! LOL!
Look, it's a commonplace that people don't actually speak in complete sentences all the time.
Had this been a prepared speech, it would have been rightly criticized for sloppiness.In the event, critics of Palin's response are exactly like the grammar police who nitpick on FR from time to time.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
That's it. She's just lucky!!!
A tornado in Kansas killing 10,000 people
57 states in the U.S.
The “Marine Corpse”
Signing the guest book at Westminster Abbey with the year 2008
Not a peep from the media.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.