She's done it again: Sarah Palin insisted Sunday that history was on her side when she claimed that Paul Revere's famous Massachusetts ride was intended to warn both British soldiers and his fellow colonists.
"You realize that you messed up about Paul Revere, don't you?" "Fox News Sunday" anchor Chris Wallace asked the potential 2012 presidential candidate.
"I didn't mess up about Paul Revere," replied Palin, a paid contributor to the network.
"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. You are not going to beat our own well-armed persons, individual, private militia that we have," she added. "He did warn the British."
The British were marching to Lexington and then Concord, they had two ways to getting there from there HQ in Boston, the long way around the bay, or across the bay on boats. depending on their route, they would arrive in Lexington earlier if they went by boat across the bay, rather than march around it. Paul Revere's job, along with other riders (yes there were others) was to alert other "sons of liberty" members (a domestic terrorist group) which route the british were taking. He rode a race horse named Brown Beauty, a borrowed horse, because he didnt own his own horse. Horses were expensive, only rich people had horses to ride, esp horses like brown beauty . Farmers had horses to help with farm work, they didnt "ride" them. Revere wasnt a farmer, he had no horses, he was a relatively unsuccessful tin-iron monger, living in a small house with a shit load of children. He was stopped by a british patrol, because he was out late (after curfew) and he was obviously riding a race horse (the soldiers recognized brown beauty, because they would bet on her in races). They took Brown Beauty, and revere went on ahead on foot. he ended up at Lexington mass, just before the british arrived. there were two other members of the Sons of Liberty at lexington (they didnt live there). the Lexington Militia was drilling on the town square when the british arrived, they were ordered to disperse. they did. their guns were not loaded, since they were muzzle loaders, and the powder would get wet if it stayed in the rod too long, esp in the morning with morning dew. A shot rang out - still a mystery. the british troops started firing, oddly enough, they either marched with loaded muskets (which would have been strange) or they stopped prior to entering Lexington and loaded. It was not policy for the british to march with loaded weapons, or to have loaded weapons among colonists (they were british citizens, not an enemy, they were not at war). the lexington militia members who were shot were mostly shot in the back, they were walking away when the british opened fire. who fired the first shot? There were "outside agitators" from Boston, revere and some other sons of liberty, among them Sam Adams (a real prick) - could THEY have fired the shot? did they fire a shot to start an incident? Could revere have been a catalyst behind the lexington massacre, or sam adams, who wanted to start a war, so the extent that they would fire a shot and cause the british to open fire? Sarah Palin has no idea whatsoever about Paul Revere, jesus, i mean, few people do, most history books are inaccurate, but academicians have research revere and sam adams and the whole lexington and concord events, and the conclusion is that the British march was stupid, unnecessary, nothing was accomplished by the british, the Lexington militia was not poised for trouble, the initial shots were an accident, no british officer gave the order to shoot, but there was a mysterious "shot" that started the firing, and it DID NOT come from either the lexington militia, or the british. that is for sure. My opinion? Sam Adams shot a round off while hiding off the village green, or maybe it was Revere, with the intention of forcing the british to open fire.
No comments:
Post a Comment