April 19th 2017: Today I Saw an American Revolution

a reply to: Justoneman

It was the resolve that led the French to our aide

Nice fairy tale idea but not the truth.

France joined the American Colonist Revolution as a way of seeking revenge for their defeat to Britain in the " Seven Years War "

a reply to: METACOMET


Fantastic post! Five stars!

a reply to: METACOMET

Awesome thread! Thanks for taking the time to write it, it was well worth the read. Even my girlfriend enjoyed it and she hates history.

a reply to: METACOMET

Good work OP.

Their objective was to find and capture weapons and ammunition hidden by the rebel forces in Concord, as General Gage had issued a ban on private ownership of weapons and ammunition earlier in the week

Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

originally posted by: 727Sky

And some people wonder why Americans cling to their guns !

It wasn't guns that began or won the American Revolution, it was hearts, minds, courage and words..like you read in this OP.

We were massively outgunned then and we would be massively outgunned now if revolution were to occur.

Even in Syria...It was the protestors that began the revolution...It was them being shot down in the streets that caused Factions and Generals in the Syrian Military to defect with heavy weapons that began the fight. Then AQ of Iraq moved in along with ISIS and the whole thing spiraled.

Point being...revolutions are won by courage, hearts, minds and inspiration. Guns are secondary...It is fantasy to think that a few AKs could go head to head with the modern American Military, air force and all.

EVERY occupant of America at the time of the American Revolution was a British Subject. Think about that..

When our founders signed their name to the Declaration of Independence...It was the legal duty of EVERY fellow citizen of theirs..every neighbor...every person they met there after...to Hang them for Treason on the spot. If any citizen was found to have let them pass without arresting them or give them shelter, they themselves could by law be hung. Every man who signed the declaration of independence literally signed their own death warrant on the spot and then broadcasted it to the entirety of their fellow BRITISH SUBJECTS.

THAT still amazes me. Stunning courage at a time when the likeliest outcome would be their own deaths in a matter of months at most. England was the largest army on the planet and was undefeated in a war at the time. Most people think that the founders were confident in their potential success, when history shows the opposite...It was very much "Give me liberty or give me death"..where those that signed their name to declaration were pretty sure the outcome was going to be death..Assuming their next door neighbor didn't immediately hang them for hefty reward, then they could look forward to being crushed in battle by the English Army.

It was words, ideas, hearts, minds and courage that gave them safety amongst the masses of British Subjects. It was words, ideas, hearts, minds that gave those American British Subjects the courage to risk their own life and join that "lost cause"..

a reply to: Indigo5

Don't derail this with Syria. Both protestors AND law enforcement were being picked off by snipers in Daraa 2011. Just like Caracas in the early 2000's, and Kiev in 2014. There is a reason those incidents from different part of the world began with the same M.O. , and it has little to do with citizens rising up against an oppressor. Learn your # before spoiling this good American history with Deep State lies.

a reply to: Indigo5

Winning hearts and minds ?

When did GWB enter the thread.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: Indigo5

Don't derail this with Syria. Both protestors AND law enforcement were being picked off by snipers in Daraa 2011.

Not according to witnesses and hospital workers that received those 81 Law Enforcement folks..

In a statement titled "ten days of massacres" the DCHRS says army units have been using anti-aircraft machine guns to shell houses in central neighbourhoods, such as al-Mahata and Daraa al-Balad.

Snipers have been stationed on the rooftops of high buildings and are targeting any moving persons, it adds.

The source also said 81 bodies of soldiers and army officers had been received. Most were killed by a gunshot to the back.

DCHRS says it strongly suspects that the soldiers were killed for refusing to shoot civilians.

www.bbc.com...

The topic is revolutions...and a contemporary comparison is valid.

a reply to: Indigo5
Well different sources tell a different story now don't they.

Daraa, mid-March 2011.

“I have seen from the beginning armed protesters in those demonstrations … they were the first to fire on the police. Very often the violence of the security forces comes in response to the brutal violence of the armed insurgents” – Jesuit priest Father Frans Van der Lugt, January 2012, Homs Syria

“The claim that armed opposition to the government has begun only recently is a complete lie. The killings of soldiers, police and civilians, often in the most brutal circumstances, have been going on virtually since the beginning.” – Professor Jeremy Salt, October 2011, Ankara Turkey

“The protest movement in Syria was overwhelmingly peaceful until September 2011” – Human Rights Watch, March 2012, Washington

A double story began on the Syrian conflict, at the very beginning of the armed violence in 2011, in the southern border town of Daraa. The first story comes from independent witnesses in Syria, such as the late Father Frans Van der Lugt in Homs. They say that armed men infiltrated the early political reform demonstrations to shoot at both police and civilians. This violence came from sectarian Islamists. The second comes from the Islamist groups (‘rebels’) and their western backers, including the Washington-based Human Rights Watch. They claim there was ‘indiscriminate’ violence from Syrian security forces to repress political rallies and that the ‘rebels’ grew out of a secular political reform movement.

Careful study of the independent evidence, however, shows that the Washington-backed ‘rebel’ story, while widespread, was part of a strategy to delegitimise the Syrian Government, with the aim of fomenting ‘regime change’.

Ok, now that you have presented the claims of one side, and I have offered a rebuttal of those claims from another side, lets move beyond and back on topic. The American Revolution, and the amazing history presented about it. There are more than enough Syria threads where this very same discussion has been beaten like a dead horse.

Disclaimer: American history bores TF out of me, I openly admit I zoned out on the text.

But the pictures are epic, that looks like a very gorgeous area visually, picturesque even. I'd not visit for the history, but for the woodsy walk. Just too pretty to ignore there.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Didn't read your source cuz..

RationalWiki:

Globalresearch is an anti-"Western" website that can't distinguish between serious analysis and discreditable junk — and so publishes both. It's basically the moonbat equivalent to Infowars or WND.

rationalwiki.org...

Now back to the REAL world and the American Revolution?

Or was the American Revolution a Deep-State conspiracy as well?

a reply to: Indigo5

You are right about the founders courage, but you are wrong about the guns.
The founders endured many acts of tyranny before violence broke out. The catalyst for the violence was the kings army attempting to disarm the colonists.
Had the kings army been successful that day the revolution very well could have ended.

a reply to: alldaylong

whiner,

the French, Dutch and Spanish came late. the british declared war on France on March 17, 1778, all France did before then was sign some treaties and sold some goods. the first French battle was in july of that year the battle of Battle of Ushant. it was a navel battle not a land battle. the first french troops came in 1780 and they were mainly sailors.
in total the number of French that severed in those three and half years never exceded 12,000.
the Spanish mainly fought the british in territory that the british had taken during the seven years war and in French and Spainish territory in North America, that to only started in 1779, before that just money and goods.
the british declared war on the Dutch in 1780 after they joined Russia, Denmark, and Sweden in League of Armed Neutrality, and even then the Dutch didn't have troops on U.S. soil it was all naval battles. which took place near Dutch ports.
then you got to remember that the british had at least 30,000 hessian troops, and loyalist that joined with native americans to fight with them.

so for almost 5 years a rag tag U.S. force with the help of milita made up of farmers, silversmiths, black smiths, merchants, carpenters, and what ever occupation they were in, held the biggest force of the world at the time at bay.

perhaps if arrogant british at the time hadn't been trying to whip everyone ass at the same time and focused on the colonies the U.S. would be called the united states of great brittan, instead of the United States of America.

There is error in the assumption that the General Government is a party to the constitutional compact. The States formed the compact, acting as sovereign and independent communities. – Vice President John C. Calhoun

The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now. – U.S. Supreme Court, South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)

The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism – U.S. Supreme Court, Ex Parte Milligan

I cannot assent to the view, if it be meant that the legislature may impair or abridge the rights of a free press and of free speech whenever it thinks that the public welfare requires that it be done. The public welfare cannot override constitutional privilege. – John Marshall Harlan, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Patterson v. Chicago

The Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals. It does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government. It is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizens’ protection against the government. – Ayn Rand

Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence. –U.S. Supreme Court, Mapp vs. Ohio

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy. One’s right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly may not be submitted to vote; they depend on no elections. -U.S. Supreme Court, West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette,

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government. – James Madison, Co-Author of the U.S Constitution.

On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. – Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence.

The framers of the Constitution employed words in their natural sense; and where they are plain and clear, resort to collateral aids to interpretation is unnecessary and cannot be indulged in to narrow or enlarge the text. -U.S. Supreme Court, McPherson v. Blacker

Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom. – John F. Kennedy

At the heart of western civilization is the belief that the individual man is the touchstone of value, and all society, groups, the state, exist for his benefit. Therefore the enlargement of liberty for individual human beings must be the supreme goal and abiding practice of any western society.– Robert F. Kennedy

An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law. – Martin Luther King Jr.

The right to defy an unconstitutional statute is basic in our scheme. Even when an ordinance requires a permit to make a speech, to deliver a sermon, to picket, to parade, or to assemble, it need not be honored when it's invalid on its face.– Potter Stewart U.S. Supreme Court Justice

When a legislature undertakes to proscribe the exercise of a citizen's constitutional rights it acts lawlessly and the citizen can take matters into his own hands and proceed on the basis that such a law is no law at all.– Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.-Henry David Thoreau

Every actual State is corrupt. Good men must not obey the laws too well. – Ralph Waldo Emerson

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right – a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. – Abraham Lincoln, January 12, 1848 speech in Congress

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. -
The Declaration of Independence

Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools. And their grand-children are once more slaves. – D. H. Lawrence 1915

a reply to: Indigo5

It is another independent research organization with very high professional standards with contributions from many award winning journalists, researchers, professors and typically has very well sourced citations for much of its content. But hey, a government funded (essentially state owned media) BBC is less likely to spin the truth right? And rationalwiki has its own problems, especially considering its mission statement and the fact a drunken hobo using a library computer could edit whatever they want about whoever they want with an admittedly not neutral policy .

RationalWiki differs in several ways from the philosophy of Wikipedia and some other informational wikis. It has a "snarky point of view" (SPOV) policy,[10] as opposed to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Following this mission, many RationalWiki articles mockingly describe beliefs that RationalWiki opposes, especially when covering topics like alternative medicine or fundamentalist Christian leaders.[5][11][12]

A significant fraction of activity on RationalWiki was critiquing and "monitor[ing] Conservapedia".[4] RationalWiki contributors, many of whom are former Conservapedia contributors, are often highly critical of Conservapedia. "[5] According to an article published in the Los Angeles Times in 2007, RationalWiki members "by their own admission" vandalize Conservapedia.[4]

Yea, use a site run by anonymous internet vandals playing tit for tat on a conservative alternative as your source to discredit the source that challenges readers to think and be skeptical of the establishment sources that have already been proven to lie to the general public in the pursuit of globalist agendas.

You seem to favor the broken record soundbites with zero factual backing or evidence, such as the narrative on the Syrian war. Don't think Indigo, just repeat the same obvious lies from the same sources that were already proven to lie before, even admittedly. It is the only truth and should never be questioned.

Whatever man. Do us all a favor, and sit out the next American revolution.

Thankfully the Loyalists contribution to the King's oppression was hardly significant enough to stop history.

a reply to: METACOMET

Awesome post man S&F, huge fan of the pictures as well...I will always remember as a child going to Lexington and Concord for school field trips and not fully understanding the significance of what had taken place in those areas many years ago. Now as a full grown man who has served in the military I appreciate it more and more every day of my life. Again man hell of a post.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Justoneman

It was the resolve that led the French to our aide

Nice fairy tale idea but not the truth.

France joined the American Colonist Revolution as a way of seeking revenge for their defeat to Britain in the " Seven Years War "

Yea you can think that all you want, but the French troops weren't here in major numbers and we all know it. The blockade while it did help was aided by the Colonist having captured some major canons. Simply, the Revolution was destiny and the fact the French helped blockade the Kings men did help that battle to keep them from escaping in mass but the resolve to not give up really did chase the Brits out of here. There would be no victory without the resolve to throw of the shackles of the old world and to keep our firearms and powder.

a reply to: METACOMET

Isn't it crazy that extremely brave men and women laid down their lives for our future freedoms, and we now have people violently protesting the very freedoms that were won?

a reply to: METACOMET

Great thread.