TheDaywalkersDad
Member
Great job.
Shot Heard 'Round the World
- Thread starter mac66
- Start date
- Status
Here are a few more details of some of the people involved that day...
John Hancock was raised by his aunt and uncle. His uncle was a wealthy businessman who owned ships and ran an import/export business. This put young John in the upper ranks of Boston society. When his uncle died, John took the reigns of the business under the watchful eye of his Aunt Lydia. He was not as good as running the business as his uncle. John was known to have done some smuggling after the blockage shut down Boston harbor.
When Paul Revere showed up that the Rev. Clark's house early on the morning of the 19th, he was staying there with his Aunt, his fiancee' Dorthy Quincy, and of course Samuel Adams. When Paul Revere returned to town after being caught on the road he was able to convince Hancock to leave town. Hancock, his aunt and fiancee' took their carriage north to the town of Woburn when Revere late caught up to them after rescuing the trunk of papers.
Hancock was a signer of the Declaration of Independence and is famous for his large signature.
John Hancock was raised by his aunt and uncle. His uncle was a wealthy businessman who owned ships and ran an import/export business. This put young John in the upper ranks of Boston society. When his uncle died, John took the reigns of the business under the watchful eye of his Aunt Lydia. He was not as good as running the business as his uncle. John was known to have done some smuggling after the blockage shut down Boston harbor.
When Paul Revere showed up that the Rev. Clark's house early on the morning of the 19th, he was staying there with his Aunt, his fiancee' Dorthy Quincy, and of course Samuel Adams. When Paul Revere returned to town after being caught on the road he was able to convince Hancock to leave town. Hancock, his aunt and fiancee' took their carriage north to the town of Woburn when Revere late caught up to them after rescuing the trunk of papers.
Hancock was a signer of the Declaration of Independence and is famous for his large signature.
Rugg_Ed
Member
Great Work Mac 
I hope everyone gets this message to the elected officials, after all they are to Work for the People who elected them, not corrupt foreign entities.
I hope everyone gets this message to the elected officials, after all they are to Work for the People who elected them, not corrupt foreign entities.
You know, it sounds like the founding fathers were a bunch of misfit rabble-rouser scoundrel types at first.
Meeting in taverns, smuggling, stealing weapons, etc.
Reminds me of the scene in the Patriot where Mel Gibson goes in to the bar and ... I won't spoil it other than to say "these are EXACTLY the kind of people we need!"
I mean, let's face it. The upstanding law-abiding citizens aren't the ones who start revolutions. The law abiding, truly honest folk bend to the will and obey the law, even if they don't agree with it.
It takes a little special something to say "screw you!", and even MORE of a little special something to shoulder a firearm in place of a middle finger and peaceful protests.
Maybe I'm reading something in to it that isn't there.
Mac, you got any other insights in to the MINDSET of those that were there when it all started? Did any of them later record their thoughts on what was running through their head when they crossed that line in the dirt to pick up and USE their arms?
I mean, we can read about it happening, and how it happened, and chronologically order it, and infer things, but are there any surviving original writings about what they were feeling at the time?
What about the mindset of the general populace? How were these initial incidents received by the masses? Were people aghast that people would resort to violence? Were they sympathetic? Mixed?
Meeting in taverns, smuggling, stealing weapons, etc.
Reminds me of the scene in the Patriot where Mel Gibson goes in to the bar and ... I won't spoil it other than to say "these are EXACTLY the kind of people we need!"
I mean, let's face it. The upstanding law-abiding citizens aren't the ones who start revolutions. The law abiding, truly honest folk bend to the will and obey the law, even if they don't agree with it.
It takes a little special something to say "screw you!", and even MORE of a little special something to shoulder a firearm in place of a middle finger and peaceful protests.
Maybe I'm reading something in to it that isn't there.
Mac, you got any other insights in to the MINDSET of those that were there when it all started? Did any of them later record their thoughts on what was running through their head when they crossed that line in the dirt to pick up and USE their arms?
I mean, we can read about it happening, and how it happened, and chronologically order it, and infer things, but are there any surviving original writings about what they were feeling at the time?
What about the mindset of the general populace? How were these initial incidents received by the masses? Were people aghast that people would resort to violence? Were they sympathetic? Mixed?
On the other hand I think that you'll find that many of the founding fathers were successful business men, doctors and scholars.
Here is a video of Dr Benjamin Carson at the National Prayer Breakfast. http://youtu.be/PFb6NU1giRA
@ 12:25 for the specific message.
Here is a video of Dr Benjamin Carson at the National Prayer Breakfast. http://youtu.be/PFb6NU1giRA
@ 12:25 for the specific message.
JRH6856
Member
From Wikipedia:
Whatever the public mindset was during the war, after it's conclusion, the mindset was pretty clear, and many if not most of the Loyalists emigrated to Canada after the Revolution. As near as I can tell, I have Patriot but no Loyalist ancestors. My wife has both.
Whatever the public mindset was during the war, after it's conclusion, the mindset was pretty clear, and many if not most of the Loyalists emigrated to Canada after the Revolution. As near as I can tell, I have Patriot but no Loyalist ancestors. My wife has both.
michaelbsc
Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2012
- Messages
- 374
I think this Wikipedia description sums up my family reasonably. The property originally came as a grant from King George II, and you don't really want to bite the hand that feeds you.
But by then Geo.2 was gone and Geo.3 was not the same man. My family appears to have taken the position of "keep your head down" whenever they could.
But once the die was cast we weren't leaving. After all, home is home. We're still here. We may not have a big fine plantation like the museums at the historic landmarks, but the fields have been planted every year since the 18th century.
And yes, we're the poor backwards hicks clinging to the guns and bibles. Come take them.
JRH6856
Member
^^^ The portion you quoted is not a "Wikipedia description", it's mine.
Trent,
Most of the people in the colonies wanted to just get along. While many felt that what the king/parliament was doing was wrong they weren't willing to do anything about it. The thing that started the problem was not so much the taxes being imposed but the "taxation without representation" thing. The arrogant reaction of the king/parliament, "how dare you question us" caused more dissension. The colonists had a very deep sense of what right and wrong was based in part by the Calvinist religious values of the day. They had a very deep sense of freedom and liberty based on having cleared and settled the land with their own two hands.
It should be noted that only about 10% of the population was actively involved in the war for independence. Only a small percentage actually fought for it. Another 10% were for it but did nothing to support it. The rest of the colonists were neutral or actively supporting the crown. There were as many colonists who fought with the crown as who fought against it.
It is an interesting to note that the people in the large cities usually supported the king. Those out in the countryside away from the centers of government, tended to be against the king. Point being, the less dependent one is on the government, the less likely one is to support it. Kind of brings out the insidiousness of government intrusion and control.
Most of the people in the colonies wanted to just get along. While many felt that what the king/parliament was doing was wrong they weren't willing to do anything about it. The thing that started the problem was not so much the taxes being imposed but the "taxation without representation" thing. The arrogant reaction of the king/parliament, "how dare you question us" caused more dissension. The colonists had a very deep sense of what right and wrong was based in part by the Calvinist religious values of the day. They had a very deep sense of freedom and liberty based on having cleared and settled the land with their own two hands.
It should be noted that only about 10% of the population was actively involved in the war for independence. Only a small percentage actually fought for it. Another 10% were for it but did nothing to support it. The rest of the colonists were neutral or actively supporting the crown. There were as many colonists who fought with the crown as who fought against it.
It is an interesting to note that the people in the large cities usually supported the king. Those out in the countryside away from the centers of government, tended to be against the king. Point being, the less dependent one is on the government, the less likely one is to support it. Kind of brings out the insidiousness of government intrusion and control.
Interesting parallel how closely things are still situated along these lines, and in this fashion.
I believe in a large degree of "living history". People tend to look at history as something static, and dead, and over.
But choices made by individuals a couple of hundred years ago still affect our daily lives today. And sometimes, in interesting new ways. In truth, history isn't dead, it's still alive, and influencing things to this very day.
Whether we KNOW about it, or not.
Thanks for the education.
michaelbsc
Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2012
- Messages
- 374
Yes, I know. I worked for quite a while trying to get that URL link to display correctly in the quote, and I finally gave up.
Beaten by the technology monkey again.
+1 98C5; my favorite part is the "cause and effect" nature of the events versus just the people, places, dates. It is OUR early history that began the new era of the formation of democratic republics…yes, there's that whole Greek & Rome thing but likely a topic for another thread given the ultimate failure/each's descent. Or, perhaps that is an appropriate thread for our times as you suggest...
Mac did an excellent job of telling a riveting story of how the events unfolded, how all the moving parts intertwined and how the actions of a seemingly few patriots sparked the ensuing Revolution. Wish I had a few more history teachers like him when I was in school.
Mac did an excellent job of telling a riveting story of how the events unfolded, how all the moving parts intertwined and how the actions of a seemingly few patriots sparked the ensuing Revolution. Wish I had a few more history teachers like him when I was in school.
JTHunter
Member
Trent - I'm afraid that I disagree with your statement:
It's not that the people are "law-abiding" but that they are afraid. They are afraid for themselves, their families, afraid of what might happen if they lose. But I believe that pushed hard enough, long enough, even the most "law-abiding" will get fed up with their losses and will become the body and soul of the "resistance". Some may even become "leaders".
The question is - will they do so in time to stop the destruction of America?
It's not that the people are "law-abiding" but that they are afraid. They are afraid for themselves, their families, afraid of what might happen if they lose. But I believe that pushed hard enough, long enough, even the most "law-abiding" will get fed up with their losses and will become the body and soul of the "resistance". Some may even become "leaders".
The question is - will they do so in time to stop the destruction of America?
There won't be any more "law abiding citizens" when the government makes everything illegal. The step from being dependent on the government for your safety, welfare, job, pension, food, gasoline to being dependent on them for their benevolence in allowing you to exist is not very big.
The cause of the American revolution was a lot more complex than a few taxes. The roots go back to the French-Indian War and are interlocked with a continuing world power struggle between France and England. If you wish to know what really set off the revolution in America, I recommend "A Struggle For Power, The American Revolution" by Theodore Draper, published by Times Books, 1996. This book shows how the struggle for control of trade in the Caribbean, India,S.E.Asia, North America, South America and Europe clashed with domestic and forgien trade policies, pride, egoes, and a hundred other factors to create the U.S.A. As with most history, the truth is far more facinating tha anything Hollywood can create.
Don't be afraid to disagree with me, I encourage it among all peers, my employees, and even my five children! (But - my children and employees - had BETTER present a very well thought out disagreement or suffer the consequences of a lengthy ovation and lecture.)
Well, there's a lot of truth in that.
If a law-abiding, honest, hard working man is pushed, and pushed, and pushed... there comes a point in time a man has to say "Enough is Enough!" (to coin the anti-gun slogan, and put it to good use.)
Just as there were 200 and some odd years ago, there are a lot of factors setting America to boil today, but it's beyond the scope of the thread. I'll let my (current) signature speak the remainder of my thoughts.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
The populations in cities tend to support the consolidation of power; the cities themselves being a byproduct/catalyst of that centralized authority. Kind of a chicken/egg thing, but urban areas and government tend to have a strong (and dangerous) symbiosis that leads to the accumulation of wealth and power in the cities far beyond what their superior numbers would suggest. Usually under the guise of redistribution, but the nation's treasures end up piled high in the seats of power.
Interestingly, some of the most repressive governments (namely Iran and Russia) are said to function opposite this, where those ignorant/complicit to tyranny in the hinterlands are overly represented/benefitted at the expense of the more cosmopolitan cities. The mechanics are the same though, the government secures enough popular support by subjugating* a portion of its citizens with the treasury, that it can run rough-shod over the remaining dissidents. Many of these terrible governments were immediately preceded by systems of the former city-dominated type. Endless tug of war, I suppose...
*the act or process of bringing somebody, especially a people, nation, or state, under the control of another (by force or entitlement dependancy)
TCB
The part about the road to Revolution, that I find particularly fascinating, is that ALL of those factors combined didn't have people doing anything more than protests, really. (Boston tea party, etc.)
But when they came marching for the weapons, the colonists drew the line.
They had MANY complaints against the government.
But they didn't take action until the Government came after their sole means of disposing of said Government.
Makes a guy wonder what would have happened if they hadn't rallied that day?
What would the world be like today if they'd given in and handed over their powder and arms stockpiles without a fight?
The founding fathers were not stupid, by any measure; they knew when they drafted the Bill of Rights that there were certain cornerstones of liberty that would ensure (or help to ensure) that a repeat of their situation never happened again.
First, the ability for men to gather, speak freely, distribute literature, and address grievances with their government. (Something we do daily here, albeit virtually).
Second, the ability for men to keep and bear arms for personal and common defense. (Without this, nothing else can really be protected)
Third, protection from quartering of troops. (This is an extension of the English bill of rights which protected citizens from a standing army in peacetime). Our government is getting pretty ... liberal, with it's idea of a standing army (Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, etc). At the time of the Revolution the British occupation was a MAJOR factor in colonial discontent.
Fourth, protection from search and seizure. This interlocks with the Second amendment, to ensure arms and other materials of war, cannot be confiscated, among other things. Basically it tells the government to "butt-out of private affairs." From the eyes of the Revolutionaries drafting a new framework, this was critical to ensure that the Government couldn't just barge in and search you for stuff. Lexington and Concord and the other early events that sparked the revolution were surely still fresh on their minds when they drafted this one.
Fifth, due process, imminent domain, double jeopardy, etc. This makes sure innocent men remain innocent, protects us against the government grabbing your property without "just and fair" compensation, and also interlocks with the second amendment to make sure those with "revolutionary" ideals aren't locked away for expressing them, unjustly. This amendment, from the eyes of the recent revolutionaries, would be a critical one and was VERY broad in scope (it actually lays out a LOT of rights, all rolled in to one amendment), intentionally limiting the powers of government and ensuring any man charged with a crime gets a fair shake.
Sixth provides wide protection against a tyrannical government when you're in court, and helps to ensure that hearsay, etc isn't admissible. The Sixth amendment is probably one of THE most important amendments, in my opinion, as it ensures that every man receives a fair trial of his peers, in public, and can face his accuser. It ensures the government cannot railroad you, that you have a right to be tried by your PEERS, and not the government officials.
Seventh concerns civil affairs.
Eight puts limits on tyranny with excessive bail and unusual punishments. I'm sure the founding fathers had many examples to draw from, particularly going back through their European roots, where Governments fined citizens excessively or tortured them.
Ninth, the catch all, that does nothing and everything all at once. It references back to the constitution, and to paraphrase, says "The constitution doesn't specify ALL rights, and any that it doesn't specifically limit, are still retained by the people." Not exactly sure how to draw a line back to the founders intent, because I'm not even close to 100% clear on the meaning of the 9th amendment.
Then the 10th, state rights.
Am I off base on any of these, and how they grew from revolution to codification after victory?
I mean, these guys just finished spilling blood, and having their blood spilled, and now they're sitting down together, tired of war, tired of fighting, determined "never again!"
Tell me those men who fought and were involved didn't put their very best foot forward here, trying to codify a structure of a new Rule of Law, of a limited but central government, that would prevent people from ever NEEDING to question the Government (because they just framed up the least-intrusive Government they could possibly construct)?
What would those men say, if they saw the sheer size of the Government we have today? Could they even fathom the size it has grown to? Could they comprehend it?
Would they be appalled, and feel revulsion?
Or proud, and satisfied of their legacy?
THOSE are the sorts of questions I am interested about, when learning about history.
But when they came marching for the weapons, the colonists drew the line.
They had MANY complaints against the government.
But they didn't take action until the Government came after their sole means of disposing of said Government.
Makes a guy wonder what would have happened if they hadn't rallied that day?
What would the world be like today if they'd given in and handed over their powder and arms stockpiles without a fight?
The founding fathers were not stupid, by any measure; they knew when they drafted the Bill of Rights that there were certain cornerstones of liberty that would ensure (or help to ensure) that a repeat of their situation never happened again.
First, the ability for men to gather, speak freely, distribute literature, and address grievances with their government. (Something we do daily here, albeit virtually).
Second, the ability for men to keep and bear arms for personal and common defense. (Without this, nothing else can really be protected)
Third, protection from quartering of troops. (This is an extension of the English bill of rights which protected citizens from a standing army in peacetime). Our government is getting pretty ... liberal, with it's idea of a standing army (Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, etc). At the time of the Revolution the British occupation was a MAJOR factor in colonial discontent.
Fourth, protection from search and seizure. This interlocks with the Second amendment, to ensure arms and other materials of war, cannot be confiscated, among other things. Basically it tells the government to "butt-out of private affairs." From the eyes of the Revolutionaries drafting a new framework, this was critical to ensure that the Government couldn't just barge in and search you for stuff. Lexington and Concord and the other early events that sparked the revolution were surely still fresh on their minds when they drafted this one.
Fifth, due process, imminent domain, double jeopardy, etc. This makes sure innocent men remain innocent, protects us against the government grabbing your property without "just and fair" compensation, and also interlocks with the second amendment to make sure those with "revolutionary" ideals aren't locked away for expressing them, unjustly. This amendment, from the eyes of the recent revolutionaries, would be a critical one and was VERY broad in scope (it actually lays out a LOT of rights, all rolled in to one amendment), intentionally limiting the powers of government and ensuring any man charged with a crime gets a fair shake.
Sixth provides wide protection against a tyrannical government when you're in court, and helps to ensure that hearsay, etc isn't admissible. The Sixth amendment is probably one of THE most important amendments, in my opinion, as it ensures that every man receives a fair trial of his peers, in public, and can face his accuser. It ensures the government cannot railroad you, that you have a right to be tried by your PEERS, and not the government officials.
Seventh concerns civil affairs.
Eight puts limits on tyranny with excessive bail and unusual punishments. I'm sure the founding fathers had many examples to draw from, particularly going back through their European roots, where Governments fined citizens excessively or tortured them.
Ninth, the catch all, that does nothing and everything all at once. It references back to the constitution, and to paraphrase, says "The constitution doesn't specify ALL rights, and any that it doesn't specifically limit, are still retained by the people." Not exactly sure how to draw a line back to the founders intent, because I'm not even close to 100% clear on the meaning of the 9th amendment.
Then the 10th, state rights.
Am I off base on any of these, and how they grew from revolution to codification after victory?
I mean, these guys just finished spilling blood, and having their blood spilled, and now they're sitting down together, tired of war, tired of fighting, determined "never again!"
Tell me those men who fought and were involved didn't put their very best foot forward here, trying to codify a structure of a new Rule of Law, of a limited but central government, that would prevent people from ever NEEDING to question the Government (because they just framed up the least-intrusive Government they could possibly construct)?
What would those men say, if they saw the sheer size of the Government we have today? Could they even fathom the size it has grown to? Could they comprehend it?
Would they be appalled, and feel revulsion?
Or proud, and satisfied of their legacy?
THOSE are the sorts of questions I am interested about, when learning about history.
It makes me disgusted to see how far we've come.
I know the story very well having lived and worked in the same communities as those in the story. Even with my in depth knowledge of the story I found myself on the edge of my seat while reading it again. Mac did an exceptional job of narrating the story and I give him a hearty BOOOOO for not sharing the rest of the story!
People need to hear these stories!!!
Trent: The American Revolution was for the most part a very unpopular war. The King had a small impact on the comfortable lives of people living on farms and small towns thousands of miles away. It didn't make sense to them that people would pick a fight with the strongest army in the world at the time. Not to mention many had family living in England and serving in the British army. In addition many of them fought as redcoats during the French and Indian war.
This is partly to explain why George Washington's army suffered so much deprivation in the land of plenty. People simply didn't want to get involved even if they were secretly sympathetic.
This is partly to explain why George Washington's army suffered so much deprivation in the land of plenty. People simply didn't want to get involved even if they were secretly sympathetic.
The founding fathers had a sense of what they were doing and what they intended. They knew it was great thing if we had the sense to keep it.
John Adams rode out the day after April 19th on battle road to what had happened. He later wrote a letter to his wife in which he said....
"Posterity! You will never know how much it cost the current generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it." -John Adams
John Adams rode out the day after April 19th on battle road to what had happened. He later wrote a letter to his wife in which he said....
"Posterity! You will never know how much it cost the current generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it." -John Adams
Last edited:
Tag
Member
Fantastic Mac. Someone seriously needs to make this into a mini-series. Epic storytelling man.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
