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.

Advertisement
1 Comment

Economy

Blue Collar Logic: Most young people have big dreams and no real work ethic

Published

on

Blue Collar Logic Most young people have big dreams and no real work ethic

If you want to know why this current generation of young people seem to be embracing the tenets of socialism, we need only to look in the mirror. Granted, not all of us in Generation X and our predecessors are directly to blame, but many have given our children so much prosperity through our own pursuit of the American dream, this new generation hasn’t acquired the work ethic to match their elevated tastes.

They want security and prosperity, but many are unwilling to do what it takes to achieve it on their own. They’re taking out student loans willfully, then turning around and embracing politicians who are offering to forgive the debt they accrued. They look at the bills they’re paying for healthcare and demanding that the rich people in this country make healthcare free for them. They hear promises of higher minimum wage and universal basic income and they think it will benefit them without forcing them to work harder for their lifestyle.

These are all clearly false notions, of course, but when powerful Democrats tell them these notions are true, many progressives hop on the socialism bandwagon because they now have justification for being lazy. It really does come down to that, being lazy.

The folks over at Blue Collar Logic put together another of their thought-provoking videos detailing these. One of the hosts, Jason, recounts experiences in his life that point to a reality of today’s misguided youth.

“How lazy have we become that so many Americans are willing to give the control of their life over to the state for the promise of security? Jason asked. “It’s terribly sad you’re living in the greatest country in the greatest time in history and you want to throw that away all because you just don’t want to work, and that’s a simple truth.”

If you want something badly enough, you work hard to get it. You take risks. You patiently build up your resources and abilities to achieve it. That’s the American dream. Socialism is the antithesis of that dream.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Education

University of Alabama returning big gift over interference, not abortion law

Published

on

University of Alabama returning big gift over interference not abortion law

The University of Alabama has been adamant about the reason they’re returning $21.5 million Hugh F. Culverhouse Jr., their biggest donor in school history. Despite reports that they’re returning it to show their support of the state’s new abortion law, the school has been clear from the start they’re returning the gift because of the donor’s actions.

“The action taken by the board today was a direct result of Mr. Culverhouse’s ongoing attempts to interfere in the operations of the Law School,” the university’s vice chancellor for communication, Kellee Reinhart, said in a statement to Fox News. “That was the only reason the Board voted to remove his name and return his money.”

Culverhouse encouraged boycotts at the school over the Alabama abortion law that would essentially eliminate abortions in the state if the judiciary doesn’t strike it down, which it almost certainly will. Following appeals, it will likely be considered by the Supreme Court.

While the board did not imply they supported the abortion ban, their willingness to pan such a large donation is a good indicator they don’t appreciate Culverhouse’s perspectives. He can keep his money.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Education

NYC school job posting calls for only ‘teachers of color’ to apply

Published

on

NYC job posting calls for teachers of color to apply

At every level from city to county to state to federal, it is illegal to post a job listing that discriminates based on race. This isn’t just common sense in 2019. It’s been part of federal Equal Opportunity Employment language for decades.

According to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, it is “illegal for an employer to publish a job advertisement that shows a preference for or discourages someone from applying for a job” due to race, color, religion, sex or other characteristics.

Someone at the New York City Board of Education missed the memo on racism, perhaps because they didn’t see anything wrong as long as the racism was targeting Caucasian-Americans and possibly Asian-Americans. After all, anything done in the name of diversity couldn’t be racist, right?

That question was both sarcastic and rhetorical.

The job posting, which went up on Indeed on April 27th, reads:

“District 1 in NYC is looking to hire teachers of color for the 2019-2020 school year.”

It the proceeds to encourage applicants to attend a “Job Fair for Diverse Teachers” which happened May 14.

Imagine, for a moment, the national backlash that would have come had a school district posted a job listing attempting to “hire white or Asian teachers for the 2019-2020 school year.” Such a listing wouldn’t be ignored by mainstream media. Heads would roll at the board of education. Protests would be held at city hall.

But for this listing, only the NY Post chose to point out the problems.

The tone for this illegal ad came from the top of DOE

Yes, the DOE denies direct responsibility for the post, which linked to a job fair invitation from Irene Sanchez, the principal at PS 15 Roberto Clemente. And her invite hinted in the same direction: “We are committed to diversifying our teaching staff.”

Chancellor Richard Carranza is too experienced to put out a “no whites (or Asians) need apply” sign. But he told the DOE brass to “get on board with my equity platform or leave” when he arrived last June.

A principal at an American public school should be aware that bigotry in any form is not acceptable. When it comes to hiring practices, it’s illegal. The sad part is this particular bigotry will be swept under the rug.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending