Paul Revere lied!! (British soldiers died!!)

The Boston Herald: "Experts back Sarah Palin's historical account" - some more grudgingly than others.

McConville said he also is not convinced that Palin's remarks reflect scholarship.

"I would call her lucky in her comments," McConville said.

I'm inclined to believe her remarks reflect something she picked up from a tour guide or a pamphlet rather than scholarship or luck. But right she was, and like the folks at the Herald I've no problem with that.

But what of those folks who didn't have the benefit of knowledge, scholarship, luck or a tour guide? (And no time to Google?)

They'd already changed the narrative - here's an example from Forbes (no, not Esther Forbes...):

The first meme being pushed by the Palin acolytes is that Paul Revere did, indeed, warn the British as to the troop levels of colonists awaiting them.

Not true.

Actually, the point was that Revere warned the British - specific troop levels weren't the point at all. But for the record, Revere told them (his words follow) "I should have 500 men their soon."

Let's acknowledge up front that he was wrong. That number might have been an accurate guess as to how many were already moving at that point in time and within a very few miles of the place where he said it - but to fully appreciate his response we must first examine what Revere was doing on the road in the first place:

The ride of Revere, Dawes, and Prescott triggered a flexible system of "alarm and muster" that had been carefully developed months before... In addition to other express riders delivering messages, bells, drums, alarm guns, bonfires and a trumpet were used for rapid communication from town to town, notifying the rebels in dozens of eastern Massachusetts villages that they should muster their militias.... This system was so effective that people in towns 25 miles (40 km) from Boston were aware of the army's movements while they were still unloading boats in Cambridge.

Of course the British weren't privy to all that. So, Revere's "500 men" claim could be from his reasonable expectation of how many would be roused at that point, an estimate based on months of preparation. Certainly Revere nor anyone else could have had sure knowledge based on personal observation of widely dispersed troops moving to congregate through as broad an area as is involved here. That last point would be obvious to a military professional, but how the British interpreted that intel is open to modern interpretation - at least beyond their known actions. Word was sent back to Boston, and waiting reserves were dispatched - but the main body didn't wait for them and instead pressed on to Concord (via Lexington). Obviously Revere only knew with certainty how many men he could see at any given moment; at that moment in history he was in between Lexington and Concord surrounded by a handful of armed British troops.

Regardless, unless you provide your own definition of "soon" his estimate was a bit off. Forbes says he was lying - other folks who'd likewise been revealed as not quite as bright as Sarah Palin on this issue are eagerly (and pointlessly) embracing that theme. This comes as no surprise; having been demonstrably wrong on an historical fact they've simply re-written the history of this modern debate into an argument over something about which we can only have opinions, and declared that to have been the point all along.

But even here they've failed to do a smidgen of research. Back to the latest Forbes version of history:

What is true is that Revere was briefly captured... Revere was forced to answer the questions put to him. He answered by lying to his British captors, misleading them by overstating the number of armed colonists awaiting the arrival of the Regulars in an effort to give the enemy pause and confuse their mission.

At one point in the night, Revere was temporarily detained and interrogated by British soldiers at a roadblock. He intentionally provided them a falsely inflated description of the colonial militia's strength, though only in the most strained metaphorical reading could this be considered a "warning."

Forbes says "at no time did Revere warn his captors of anything..."

I believe - to be polite about it - they're getting into some very shaky ground on the definition of "warn" here. (Along with the definitions of "true" and "not true," for that matter.) But we all agree Revere was incorrect in his "500" number - because that's not open to opinion; we can examine those numbers. So by how much did he "falsely inflate" when "overstating the number of armed colonists awaiting the arrival of the Regulars"? Did he exaggerate just a little or by a lot?

Here's how many Americans had actually responded to those ringin' bells and firin' guns and were gathering to confront the British that day:

According to historical material provided by the Minute Men, about 4,000 Massachusetts militia and minute men took up arms and arrived in time to fight on April 19, 1775.

"By day's end, about 20,000 were on the march and maintained an encampment in Cambridge to force the British regulars to remain in Boston. ("Lincoln reenacts Paul Revere's capture by British" - Lincoln (Ma) Journal, 14 April 2010)

There's an abundance of amazing information on this topic available online for those who'd take a moment to find it. (Didja know: Revere's testimony - oft cited since Palin's comment - was actually suppressed by the rebels at the time. Being a man of truth he couldn't say the British fired the first shot as he had only heard it, not seen it. He also revealed more than the rebels wanted known about their level of preparation...) Twenty thousand may have been marching, but other reliable sources indicate somewhere in the neighborhood of 14,000 colonists were actually in the neighborhood of Boston by the end of the day that dawned with Revere responding to British questions. Perhaps math isn't taught in schools any more either - for the record, five hundred is actually less than that.

But I can't help but think that if ol' Paul had crossed paths with his former captors somewhere along their bloody way home during that long afternoon, he might have responded to any complaints they had about his wrong number with a hearty "well gentlemen, don't say I didn't warn you." (Delivered, of course, in his folksy nasal twang.)

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood,
And fired the shot heard round the world.

The foe long since in silence slept;
Alike the conqueror silent sleeps;
And Time the ruined bridge has swept
Down the dark stream which seaward creeps.

On this green bank, by this soft stream,
We set to-day a votive stone;
That memory may their deed redeem,
When, like our sires, our sons are gone.

Spirit, that made those spirits dare,
To die, and leave their children free,
Bid Time and Nature gently spare
The shaft we raise to them and thee.

    - Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Concord Hymn"

Postscript: Heh - the He-Man Palin Haterz Klub strikes back - ABC TV has found an expert, too.