Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Paul Revere

2011-06-07T22:01:08Z

DanW: /* References */

Paul Revere

2011-06-07T21:53:26Z

DanW:

Talk:Paul Revere

2011-06-07T21:50:53Z

DanW: /* need to cite source for recent edit */

Actually, Revere was captured early on. Other riders sent out the warning, but Revere had a name that was easy to rhyme. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 14:21, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== need to cite source for recent edit ==

Can someone supply a citation or reference for the statement that Revere's intent was to warn the British?
[[User:RustyR|RustyR]] 13:02, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

It's been all over the news the past couple of days, and Palin did produce a historian who agreed with her. I'll see if I can find a good link on it.

I am having trouble understanding the need for the bottom part. Wikipedia already has the liberal version of events. Does Conservapedia need to cover the same ground?
=> Agreed. I just removed it. It was in the wrong section anyway, it clearly wasn't a reference.

Is it acceptable to have totally fabricated history on conservapedia, just because it differs from the "liberal version of the events"? Here is what Revere said *himself* about his ride:
"On Tuesday evening, the 18th, it was observed, that a number of Soldiers were marching towards the bottom of the Common. About 10 o'Clock, Dr. Warren Sent in great haste for me, and beged that I would imediately Set off for Lexington, where Messrs. Hancock & Adams were, and acquaint them of the Movement, and that it was thought they were the objets."

He set out to warn Hancock and Adams, not to affirm the 2nd amendment rights against BigGovernment. Don't we look like fools if we just make things up?

Is Paul Revere really the hill on which we want to tussle over political ideology? I reverted it back to the 2009 entry because it seems silly to sacrifice legitimate history in the name of politics.

No offense, but you sound like a conservative in name only to me. Sarah Palin did not "fabricate" history just because the liberal MSM said she did. Facts are facts, and there's an actual historian who agrees with Palin.

Talk:Paul Revere

2011-06-06T20:59:36Z

DanW: /* need to cite source for recent edit */

Talk:Paul Revere

2011-06-06T20:50:44Z

DanW: /* need to cite source for recent edit */

Paul Revere

2011-06-06T20:24:48Z

DanW: spelling of secede

[[Image:Paul Revere.jpg|300px|right|thumb|Paul Revere]]
'''Paul Revere''' (1734-1818) was a silversmith in colonial America who was very active in [[Boston]]-area revolutionary groups such as the [[Sons of Liberty]]. He is famous for riding from Boston to Lexington, [[Massachusetts]] with [[William Dawes]] on the night of April 18, 1775 ringing bells to warn the British that colonists would exercise their natural rights to both bear arms and use them in an effort secede from the [[United Kingdom]] in response to [[Big Government]] bullying and interfering with [[Local government|Colony's Rights]]. Coincidentally, this also served to warn the minutemen the British were coming. Revere was captured before he could reach [[Concord]], but managed to escape. His midnight ride was immortalized by a poem by [[Henry Wadsworth Longfellow]].<ref>[http://darter.ocps.net/classroom/revolution/revere.htm Paul Revere]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:American Revolution]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Revere, Paul}}
Paul Revere rode from Boston to Lexington to warn colonial leaders that British forces had set out to arrest them. He was met there by William Dawes and Dr. Samuel Prescott, who had rode to Lexington via different routes. They then on their own, chose to ride on to Concord to, where a large store of arms and powder were hidden, to warn the residents there of the redcoats approach. They were captured by a British patrol while making their way to Concord. Their mission was to warn the colonist, not the British. Bells ringing or not there was no 2nd Amendment for Revere to protest to the British about at the time, since the Constitution had not been written. English law permitted the keeping of arms for hunting and self defense (Declaration of Rights (1689 amended version)) but with the language of "as allowed by law" embedded within, which indicated that that which Parliament giveth, Parliament can take away. The Declaration of Rights permitted the possession of arms for hunting and self defense, but did not allow the stock piling of weapons for private militias. This is what the British were marching from Boston to Concord to confiscate, not individual weapons. And maybe the bells.

Paul Revere

2011-06-06T02:44:39Z

DanW: The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right. It does not matter whether or not the British recognized them.

Paul Revere

2011-06-06T02:42:58Z

DanW: Undo revision 875994 by DanW (talk)

Paul Revere

2011-06-06T02:42:01Z

DanW:

Paul Revere

2011-06-06T02:15:02Z

DanW:

Paul Revere

2011-06-06T01:11:27Z

DanW: