Leave it to Sarah Palin to turn Paul Revere’s ride intoÂ a statement about “gun-grabbing.”Â In a wonder of historical revisionism, she stated about Paul Revere, in one of her famous off-the-cuff blunders,
“He who warned the British that they weren’t gonna be takin’ away our arms by ringing those bells, and makin’ sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed.”
According to a professor of history, appearing on NPR, with the exception of the warning shots, Sarah Palin got her history right. I mean, seriously, who doesn’t know that General Gage was marching on Concord to seize one of the arms caches the colonials had there?
Prof. ALLISON: Yeah. She was making a Second Amendment case. But in fact, the British were going out to Concord to seize colonists’ arms, the weapons that the Massachusetts Provincial Congress was stockpiling there.
So, yeah, she is right in that. I mean, she may be pushing it too far to say this is a Second Amendment case. Of course, neither the Second Amendment nor the Constitution was in anyone’s mind at the time. But the British objective was to get the arms that were stockpiled in Concord.
BLOCK: So you think basically, on the whole, Sarah Palin got her history right.
Prof. ALLISON: Well, yeah, she did. And remember, she is a politician. She’s not an historian. And God help us when historians start acting like politicians, and I suppose when politicians start writing history.
Our opponents are either highly incredulous or ignorant to an astonishing degree. Maybe some combination of the two. Either way, the accusation that we’re attempting to rewrite history here is breathtaking in its ignorance, or outright hypocrisy.