How Accurate Were Palin's Paul Revere Comments?

NPR ^ | June 6, 2011 | MELISSA BLOCK interviews Professor ROBERT ALLISON

[cripplecreek]

Yeah. The Declaratory Act of 1766 shows how much it was a matter of pride on the part of the British empire. The colonists won repeal of the stamp act but the brits couldn’t accept it without declaring themselves to be superior.

[Adder]

My understanding without having to go google all of the documents is that yes, there was A sentiment for independence especially in Boston and among the inner circles of Sam adams et al but it was not a big push for it.
There was still hope for a peaceful settlement with the Crown.

Independence didn’t get its push until 1776. As late as April of 1776 there was a drive to petition the King but it was expected that it would fail, by some.

So yes: some may have wanted independence but the voices were hushed.

Because of the treason involved.

[Atlas Sneezed]

You’re a Newbie anti-Palin concern troll. In less than two weeks, you have quite a track record.

[TigersEye]

It’s not so much the literal political independence that I’m referring to as the feeling that they had little left in common with the Motherland and the sense that they could stand on their own and didn’t appreciate the interference imposed upon them. I am suggesting that that basic POV was common even though it may not have been a well-formed thought with specific goals behind it and that without that pre-existing sentiment there would have been no serious movement towards actual political independence.

[RobRoy]

>>THEY REALLY tried to get this Professor to say Sarah messed up....and she did NOT!<<

In fact, quite the opposite:

BLOCK: So you think basically, on the whole, Sarah Palin got her history right.

Prof. ALLISON: Well, yeah, she did. And remember, she is a politician. She’s not an historian. And God help us when historians start acting like politicians, and I suppose when politicians start writing history.

[goodnesswins]

Questioner...So you think basically, on the whole, Sarah Palin got her history right."

Professor... "Well, yeah, she did."

After that is garbage.

[allmendream]

“If it be treason, make the most of it!” Patrick Henry

[AndyTheBear]

Palin was correct, as the ill informed NPR interviewer was surprised to find. Palin's words about bells were:

...weren’t going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and by making sure that as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells...

She directly asserts two things about bells:

A) That Paul Revere rang bells

B) That Paul Revere rode his horse through town so that bells could bring warning.

Both are true. However, it is probably not true he rang bells on the night of his famous ride Revere was a bell ringer in his younger years, and he was actually a bell maker of some renown in his latter years. He rang bells to let freedom ring.

She seems to imply both types of ringing were about taking away arms, which is probably not true in the case of him ringing bells when he was younger, but was the case when he alerted those who rang bells (as the Professor in the interview attests to).

As far as taking away arms, that was the objective that the country side was being rallied against that night. The King's forces had the objective of taking arms. Reference to this can be seen in Revere's own testimony.

Little of this did I know until Palin was jumped on by the lame stream. They were as ignorant as most of us were (my apologies to the history buffs here) but unlike normal reasonable people, they just assumed she was wrong and jumped all over her projecting their own ignorance.