Education

Hidden History: The Disarmament of Boston

Published

1 year ago

March 27, 2018

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:

“How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution”, 6 Charleston Law Review, 283 (2012), Retrieved at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1967702
“History of The Siege Of Boston And Of The Battles Of Lexington, Concord, And Bunker Hill”, Richard Frothingham, 94 (Boston, Charles C. Little & James Brown 1849)
“May 21, 1775: General Gage has broken his engagement with the People of Boston, after they had delivered up their Arms.”, The New England Historical Society, 2014. Retrieved at http://www.newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/may-21-1775-general-gage-broken-engagement-people-boston-delivered-arms/
“The American Revolution against British Gun Control”, Administrative and Regulatory Law News (American Bar Association). Vol. 37, no. 4, Summer 2012. Retrieved at http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/american-revolution-against-british-gun-control.html

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

1 Comment

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.

Reply

Economy

The 1751 machine that made everything

Published

1 day ago

April 18, 2019

DParker

A short video on how technological innovation born of economic liberty has changed the world.

History is more than dates, places and battles. In many instances it’s technological advances that change the world for the betterment of all mankind. In this case it’s the story of French inventor Jacques de Vaucanson and his creation in France of the first all metal slide rest lathe, the forerunner to all modern machine tools in 1751.

Lathes had been around for centuries, but lacked the precision with hand held cutting tools. The slide rest of the Vaucanson metal lathe that provided the control to produce metal part of exacting dimensions. The lathe is said to be able to produce every other machine and machine tool. This advancement changed everything.

The producer of the video references a profound chart of World Population GCP and per Capita GCP 1 –2008 AD from data of the late Angus Maddison, similar to this produced by the Visual Capitalist, we credit them for the chart and commentary:
Image Credit: Visual Capitalist

For thousands of years, economic progress was largely linear and linked to population growth. Without machines or technological innovations, one person could only produce so much with their time and resources.

More recently, innovations in technology and energy allowed the “hockey stick” effect to come into play.

The video was produced by Machine Thinking last year.

While some may quibble about which particular machine produced this miracle The larger point is that the machines of the industrial age profoundly changed what people could produce.

As the video noted the average person in 1600 was no better off economically than someone thousands of years earlier. This is what is called the Malthusian trap and for seven thousand years, it was inescapable no matter what we did.

Machine tools such as this changed all of that, one person could produce what had taken many. This surplus could outpace births, allowing the economy to grow at an incredible pace as seen in the chart. All from the genius of the mind undergirded by the Economic liberty of the free-enterprise system. This is why this is vastly superior to the societal slavery of socialism.

Boost This Post

Get this story in front of tens of thousands of patriots who need to see it. For every $30 you donate here, this story will be broadcast to an addition 7000 Americans or more. If you’d prefer to use PayPal, please email me at jdrucker@reagan.com and let me know which post you want boosted after you donate through PayPal.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

Education

Congress tries to force schools to make girls compete against biological males

Published

1 week ago

April 12, 2019

Lorie Wimble

Congress tries to force schools to make girls compete against biological males

Every Democrat in the House of Representatives but one were joined by two Republicans to sponsor the Equality Act, an amendment to the Civil Rights Act that would add “sexual orientation and gender identity” as protected characteristics under federal anti-discrimination law. The controversial component of the act is how it would force schools to allow biological males who identify as females to compete in girls’ athletics.

The two Republicans who joined the Democrats were Reps. John Katko of New York and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania. The lone Democrat who didn’t sponsor the bill was Illinois Rep. Dan Lipinski, the only pro-life Democrat left in the House.

234 House Democrats, 2 Republicans Co-Sponsor Bill Forcing Schools to Let Male Athletes Compete on Girls Sports Teams

Opinion

The left loves to talk about “settled science” when it comes to climate change, evolution, and other issues that pertain to politics, culture, and religion. Here’s a taste of science that is actually settled. Males are physically superior to females when it comes to athletic events. They are stronger. They are faster. They are larger.

Let’s not even go into the patently obvious reality that these transgender girls will dominate the sports. It’s continuously well documented; we’ve talked about it ourselves a few times.

Instead, let’s discuss two other important issues: safety and the political ramifications. Is it safe for a biological male who identifies as a girl to wrestle biological girls? How about a biological female who is using hormones to transition to become a male? Texas wrestler Matt Beggs won the state girls’ wrestling championship two years in a row. Watching the video, it’s clear the girls had zero chance of winning, but more importantly they were in more physical danger than they would have been had they been wrestling someone who had not been given male hormones.

The other aspect, and perhaps the only silver lining to all this, is the hope that common sense is still alive and well in America. If the GOP can make this an issue in the 2020 elections, they have an opportunity to highlight the leftist lunacy that’s spreading across the Democratic Party. I find it hard to believe a majority of Americans believe biological males should compete with biological females based on how the males identify.

Then again, this could demonstrate that America really has lost its way. If I’m wrong and a majority really doesn’t see anything wrong with this, then perhaps our fates are already sealed.

Quote

“Very disappointed in @RepBrianFitz and @RepJohnKatko for sponsoring the Equality Act. Have you ever seen a biological male wrestle a girl? If not, I’ll spoil it for you. The one with male musculature wins every time and it’s not even close. Put science over your feelings, guys.” – JD Rucker

Very disappointed in @RepBrianFitz and @RepJohnKatko for sponsoring the Equality Act. Have you ever seen a biological male wrestle a girl? If not, I'll spoil it for you. The one with male musculature wins every time and it's not even close. Put science over your feelings, guys.

— JD Rucker (@JDRucker) April 12, 2019

Final Thoughts

The line needs to be drawn immediately. This isn’t just about the unfairness of biological males dominating female sports. It’s about the safety of these young ladies. Identifying as females doesn’t change the reality that they’re bigger, stronger, and faster, period.

This story was updated to demonstrate the proper sex of Matt Beggs.

Conservatism

Conservative Michael J. Knowles attacked with ‘odorous substance’ during campus speech

Published

1 week ago

April 12, 2019

JD Rucker

Conservative Michael J Knowles attacked with odorous substance during campus speech

The ongoing campaign of intimidation and violence against conservatives speaking on college campuses took an ugly turn last night as Daily Wire show host Michael J. Knowles was sprayed with an “odorous substance” made to seem like bleach during a YAF speech at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. He was hit in the face but wasn’t concerned, thinking it was paint or even milk. Later, he realized it was possibly bleach but was told by police it was not.

He was giving a speech titled “Men are Not Women” when the attack took place.

Here is a better angle to see the attacker and subsequent law enforcement take-down:

Great speech Michael, I was in the front row and caught the whole thing on video. pic.twitter.com/fVeaXs0Q4p

— Collin Tuso (@collin_tuso) April 12, 2019

Masked antifa terrorist storms into @michaeljknowles college talk.

Could have been deadly.

Video via @collin_tuso. pic.twitter.com/EK4T06K3G6

— Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich) April 12, 2019

Here’s what was left from the water gun used by the attacker:

Michael J Knowles Attacked

Opinion

Where do we begin? This represents an escalation of tactics that seems to be becoming more prevalent over the last couple of years. It wasn’t too long ago when leftists on campus would simply protest. They learned that these protests didn’t get the kind of attention they wanted and did very little to stop conservatives from speaking on campus, so they turned to more aggressive forms of protests that could actually disrupt the speakers.

The assault on Knowles wasn’t the first time physical violence was employed and it won’t be the last. But since it won’t work to actually stop most speakers from appearing, the next stage of escalation could turn deadly. That’s the real fear and why law enforcement is unfortunately required in order to keep the speakers and those in attendance safe from the unhinged progressives.

As I’ve noted before, this isn’t a question of freedom of speech. It’s about freedom of thought. As college progressives attempt to make their campuses “safe” from the ideas that conservatives spread, what they’re really doing is stifling the types of thoughts that could free some student from a life of helplessness, victimhood, and declining personal responsibility. Many if not most conservative speakers invited by organizations like YAF offer viewpoints that these students will not hear in classrooms or in the cafeteria with friends. The concepts being quashed are driven by the philosophy that made America a great nation, the concepts that desperately need to be heard by a generation that is growing increasingly lost in their own servitude to the leftist mindset.

It’s imperative for conservatives to keep speaking, for students to start listening, and for the radical progressives to stop shouting down the ideas that could actually keep this generation from destroying the United States of America.

Quote

“If a masked idiot came at me during a speech he better hope there’s campus police to take him down and not this pissed off preggo mama. @michaeljknowles has more restraint than I.” – Elisha Krauss

If a masked idiot came at me during a speech he better hope there’s campus police to take him down and not this pissed off preggo mama. @michaeljknowles has more restraint than I.

— Elisha (@ElishaKrauss) April 12, 2019

Final Thoughts

The escalation of suppression techniques used against conservative speakers on campus is scary. Before, it was the heckler’s veto. Today, it’s odorous substances. Tomorrow, it could be more deadly. The left can’t win with thoughts so they rely on anger.