Connect with us

Education

Hidden History: The Disarmament of Boston

Published

on

The first shots were fired in the American War for Independence on April 19, 1775, when 700 British Redcoats, led by Major John Pitcairn, attempted to seize American arms at Lexington and Concord (American Bar Association, 2012).

The patriots, however, had already moved their supply of arms to safety.

After an initial, successful battle against the patriots at the bridge at Lexington and Concord, the Redcoats were ambushed and eventually outnumbered 2:1 by American re-enforcements arriving from surrounding towns (Charleston Law Review, 2012, p. 310).

While some American fighters had arrived organized – illegally-formed local militias – a large number arrived and fought on their own, even taking up sniper positions whenever possible. Patriots who joined the fight even included a number of women and the elderly. Before long, the armed Americans harried Pitcairn’s Redcoats back into Boston (Charleston Law Review, 2012, p. 310).

“One British officer reported: ‘These fellows were generally good marksmen, and many of them used long guns made for Duck-Shooting.’ On a per-shot basis, the Americans inflicted higher casualties than had the British regulars” (American Bar Association, 2012).

Boston, where the Royal Governor, General Thomas Gage’s Red Coats were stationed, was now surrounded by armed American patriots.

Since their attempt to seize American’s arms at Lexington and Concord had gone badly for the British, and now finding themselves surrounded by armed patriots, Royal Governor Gage devised an alternate plan for disarmament.

On April 23, 1775, General Gage made an offer to Bostonians trapped within the city: turn in your arms and you can leave Boston.

“The Boston Selectmen voted to accept the offer, and within days, 2,674 guns were deposited, one gun for every two adult male Bostonians,” (American Bar Association, 2012). Arms collected included: “1778 fire-arms (muskets or rifles)… 634 pistols… 973 bayonets (bayonets attached to the long guns)… and 38 blunderbusses (short-barreled shotguns),” (Frothingham, 1849).

However, after “having collected the arms, Gage then refused to allow the Bostonians to leave. He claimed that many more arms had been secreted away than surrendered,” (American Bar Association, 2012). While inhabitants of Boston were supposed to receive certificates permitting departure from Boston, this rarely occurred in practice. Indeed, before long, “passes to leave issued by Gage quickly dried up,” (Halbrook, 2008).

Further complicating the matter was the fact that those Bostonians who were permitted to leave, were prohibited from taking any belongings with them (Halbrook, 2008).

The situation for Bostonians worsened over time, as food shortages began to take effect.

As one Bostonians wrote, in a letter to an acquaintance in Philadelphia (New England Historical Society, 2014):

You request my writing freely, which I must be cautious of, for reasons which will naturally occur to you. As to the inhabitants removing, they are suffered to go out under certain restrictions. This liberty was obtained after many town meetings, and several conferences between their Committee and General Gage. The terms mutually agreed to were, “that the inhabitants should deliver up all their arms to the Selectmen.” This was generally done, though it took up some days. On this occasion the inhabitants were to have had liberty to remove out of Town, with their effects, and during this, to have free egress and regress. But mark the event: the arms being delivered, orders were issued by the General, that those who inclined to remove must give in their names to the Selectmen, to be by them returned to the Military Town Major, who was then to write a pass for the person or family applying, to go through the lines, or over the ferry; but all merchandise was forbid; after a while, all provisions were forbid; and now all merchandise, provisions, and medicine. Guards are appointed to examine all trunks, boxes, beds, and every thing else to be carried out; these have proceeded such extremities, as to take from the poor people a single loaf of bread, and half pound of chocolate; so that no one is allowed to carry out a mouthful of provisions; but all is submitted to quietly. The anxiety indeed is so great to get out of Town, that even were we obliged to go naked, it would not hinder us. But there are so many obstructions thrown in the way, that I do not think, those who are most anxious will be all out in less than two or three months — vastly different from what was expected, for the General at first proposed, unasked, to procure the Admiral’ s boats to assist the inhabitants in the transportation of their effects, which is not done, and there are but two ferry-boats allowed to cross. They have their designs in this, which you may easily guess at. We suffer much for want of fresh meat.

“After several months, food shortages in Boston convinced Gage to allow easier emigration from the city,” (American Bar Association, 2012).

In the end, it was the “seizure of these arms from the peaceable citizens of Boston who were not even involved in hostilities,” which ultimately “sent a message to all of the colonies that fundamental rights were in grave danger” (Halbrook, 20008).

Citations:

  • “The Founder’s Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms”, Stephen P. Halbrook, 2008.

Continue Reading
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Danny

    March 30, 2018 at 8:07 am

    These young ppl need to realize they are being lied to by the democrats. If the democrats convince them to give up their roght to arms they will lose their other liberties a very short time later. If you young ppl give up your 2nd amendment then you will lose your freedom of speech directly after that. Look at the UK and Australia they are being jailed for saying what they think and going against the Muslims and others. There will be no more rally’s and protest of all the rights that are taken after your 2nd is gone. You better study history.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Education

DeVos: Lack of civics education, competing ideas to blame for rise in approval of socialism

Published

on

DeVos Lack of civics education competing ideas to blame for rise in approval of socialism

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos was interviewed by The Daily Signal recently. One of the questions they asked regarded the rise of socialism as a popular idea among young people. Could the education be to blame?

According to the Secretary, it is. She said there needs to be better civics education throughout schooling. She also noted that a lack of competing ideas and debates prevents students from hearing more than the perspectives of their teachers, most of whom lean left.

DeVos discussed improving higher education, accreditation, school choice, and parental involvement as ways to fix education, but the question about socialism stood out.

Why Do Millennials Like Socialism? Betsy DeVos Cites Lack of Civics Education

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/10/16/why-do-millennials-like-socialism-betsy-devos-cites-lack-of-civics-education/DeVos: I think it’s really a combination of things. I think, No. 1, students aren’t getting the kind of foundation in civics and government that I recall getting as a student in K-12 education. And they’re coming then into higher education without the background to even know and understand competing ideas, and then without the ability to discuss and debate them.

I recall visiting a classroom not too long ago where one of teachers was wearing a shirt that said, “Find Your Truth,” suggesting that, of course, truth is a very fungible and mutable thing instead of focusing on the fact that there is objective truth and part of learning is actually pursuing that truth.

So roll it back, there is a very important need for students to know the foundations of our country and the ideas around which our country was formed. And to then have the ability to discuss and debate those ideas freely on their K-12 campuses and on their higher ed campuses.

Continue Reading

Education

Students who attack teachers should be harshly disciplined regardless of race

Published

on

Students who attack teachers should be harshly disciplined regardless of race

It’s hypocritical to call for equal rights on one hand, then distribute discipline differently based on a student’s race. As crazy as it sounds, that’s a thing nowadays and efforts to reverse course from the Obama-era educational abomination have been thwarted at nearly every turn.

Walter E Williams at The Daily Signal pointed out the problem by highlighting how it negatively affects students:

Obama’s Anti-Discipline Policies Set Our Students Up for Failure

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/10/03/obamas-anti-discipline-policies-set-our-students-up-for-failure/President Barack Obama’s first education secretary, Arne Duncan, gave a speech on the 45th anniversary of “Bloody Sunday” at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, where, in 1965, state troopers beat and tear-gassed hundreds of peaceful civil rights marchers who were demanding voting rights.

Later that year, as a result of widespread support across the nation, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act. Duncan titled his speech “Crossing the Next Bridge.” Duncan told the crowd that black students “are more than three times as likely to be expelled as their white peers,” adding that Martin Luther King would be “dismayed.”

Let’s take it a step further and highlight that this will have a tremendous negative impact on teachers, present and future. Who wants to get into a career where over 5% of teachers are attacked by the children they’re trying to help? Discipline is the only way to safeguard teachers and students. It’s not the teachers’ fault if more African-American males are committing the attacks.

Race should not be an issue here. If a student attacks a teacher, they must be punished. They cannot be allowed to have free rein over the classrooms they attend simply because a study concluded they were being punished more than others.

Read Williams’ article and ask yourself this question: When a student attacks a teacher, does it cause any less pain if the attacker is a certain race?

Teachers should not be put at risk to satisfy a leftist talking point.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

PragerU Video: Who Is Karl Marx?

Published

on

By

PragerU Video Who Is Karl Marx

He produced horrific results from ideas that were already several centuries old in his day – isn’t it time we rejected them?

Born in Trier, Germany in 1818, Marx didn’t invent communism. But it was on his ideas that Lenin and Stalin built the Soviet Union, Mao built communist China, and innumerable other tyrants, from the Kims in North Korea to the Castros in Cuba, built their communist regimes. Ultimately, those regimes and movements calling themselves “Marxist” murdered about 100 million people and enslaved more than a billion.

This is a man who spent a lifetime trying to popularise the societal slavery of socialism, presenting ideas that were already centuries old when he arrived on the scene. Even though these ideas had already failed in the American colonies, he tried to sell them to a new generation with horrific results. Despite the repeated failure of these ancient ideas, the Left continues on insisting that they’ve never been tried before. This video eviscerates that Leftist lie on Marx’s societal slavery.

Socialism’s fundamental flaw

The fundamental flaw of socialism is that it defies human nature, therefore it requires force to function. It doesn’t matter what it’s called or who is in control, it can never work. One cannot take ‘From each according to his abilities’ without the threat of force. If one’s property is under claim by the government, there is no incentive to produce more and the system falls apart.

That is why this form of government needs a secret police apparatus, concentration camps and the ‘pedagogy of the wall’ as Che Guevara put it. Most of all, it requires falsehoods and lies to sell it’s societal slavery. This is why the Left spends an inordinate amount of time lying about it’s base ideology. It has to do this because no free society would ever choose to enslave itself. These lies range from trying to pretend small, homogenous welfare states are ‘socialist’ to making the absurd claim that Leftist, authoritarian socialist dictatorships are supposedly “right-wing”.

One last point on due process

One last point, the video quotes the man whose face has launched a million T-shirts sales as saying: “I don’t need proof to execute a man, I only need proof that it’s necessary to execute him!”. Isn’t that the sort of due-process-free mindset that is disturbingly close to the nation’s Socialist Left at this point in time with Kavanaugh confirmation?

Something along the lines of ‘this is La Cabaña prison, not a court room should alarm everyone interested in the cause of Liberty.

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report
Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report