Talk:The Midnight Ride

American Ethnic Identification

The American colonists were not so disillusioned with the British treatment of them—which, by the way, was not as evil, mean, wicked and nasty as elementary textbooks make it out to be, and this is coming from a proud American citizen—that they would refuse to identify the fact that they were predominantly English in national origin. As a matter of fact, much of the objection to British taxation and consolidation of power was based on the American colonists' respect for English common law and their English heritage. Additionally, actual historical accounts, including words from Revere himself, explicitly state that he identified the British soldiers as regulars, not "the British", so even discounting American colonists' opinions of their heritage, the line is, in fact, a mistake. TigerShadow (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2014 (MDT)

1: The British indeed were badly mistreating the Americans, doing things such as forcing themselves into people's homes to sleep, and there was one time when British soldiers shot and killed a young man. Even if the books were wrong, how did you find out that it "was not evil, mean, wicked and nasty," huh?

2: Them refusing to obey horrible laws such as the Stamp Act, was not out of "respect:" that makes no sense whatsoever.

3: Even if Revere called them regulars, that may have been very early on, before the many imposing laws.

4: What are your sources for this illogical argument? Wikipedia? Unreliable for many things, and no, I am not saying all things, but many things. I apologize if I am coming of slightly rude. - Sunnys <BIBLE|-- ~Talk~

(I'm a history geek and am therefore going to get historically nitpicky here for a minute, so admins, please bear with me.)

1. The Americans also deliberately goaded the British into attacking, such as the infamous King's Street Shooting—better known as the Boston Massacre—which started not because a few redcoats had a hissy fit, but because the said redcoats were being harassed by some Boston citizens with rock-hard, packed snowballs that in a few cases had rocks in them. The Americans were not by any means innocent victims. I'm not justifying all of the things that Britain did—I agree with you that the Quartering Act and its later amendment were excessive; even if their purpose was to get Americans to support the war like people back in England had to, there's a reason why the Third Amendment exists. What I'm saying is that the British were not horrible monsters and Americans were not the poor tortured victims, especially considering that the way that they fought back could in some cases be quite cruel (i.e. tarring and feathering, which, while not applied as liberally as people tend to think, was still an incredibly nasty form of torture). How did I find out that there's more to the story than black and white? I took an actual course on the subject with textbooks that actually presented American history instead of dramatizing it.

2. How much do you know about the Stamp Act? All it was was a direct tax on the colonies for the purpose of raising revenue, which had never happened to the colonies before. The purpose wasn't to brutally torment the colonists, and it wasn't a horrible law—the British had just gotten through fighting several major wars, both in Europe and in North America, and they had racked up a massive amount of debt. They needed money, and under the mercantilist philosophies of Great Britain, their colonies were supposed to be beneficial to the colonies' mother country—Britain. The idea was that the colonists should finance for their own protection instead of being all take and no give, and it should be noted that even under the Stamp Act, the colonists paid significantly less to refinance Britain's budget than people who actually lived in Britain, so I wouldn't call that a "horrible law". The United States today taxes for the purpose of raising revenue, so does that make our government horrible?

3. The laws you're talking about were passed in the early 1760s at the earliest, and Revere's ride was in 1775. We're debating Revere's ride, not his personal biography. And the accounts of Revere's ride in 1775 all clearly state that he called the soldiers "regulars".

4. What are my sources? Aside from an education that extends beyond middle school, multiple sources online can tell you this. Yes, I originally found it on Wikipedia, but I also looked into it on multiple other sites as well, such as the History Channel website and the Paul Revere House website published by the Paul Revere Memorial Association, both of which are legitimate sources. And though I admit that this is a weaker leg on which to stand, I must also add that Wikipedia articles have to cite their sources; I looked at the one cited for this particular bit of information, and it checks out as a legitimate historical source supported by the Massachusetts Historical Society. I must therefore ask where you are getting your erroneous information. TigerShadow (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2014 (MDT)

While I do recognize the fact that on several occasions, the Americans did provoke soldiers, they did badly mistreat the Americans. The Stamp act required a stamp on all documents or papers or even playing cards, etc. and while a tax is not necessarily bad, they were required to send the money to England. Think of it this way, You're a black person living in slavery times with your family, and you are a free family, having just run away from an oppressive owner. But, they catch up with you, and put you back to work. Your son throws a rock at your owner, and they sell him to someone else. They require you to give a percentage of your food back to them, and they try to force you to call yourself their last name. You wouldn't do that, would you?

I am also offended that you think I only have middle school education. While some parts of the story may have been exaggerated, this fact makes sense: Paul Revere and many other Americans did not identify themselves as British. I have read many books, I have done research, and I used common sense. Paul Revere said "The British are Coming!" - Sunnys <BIBLE|-- ~Talk~

Re: educational level—I wasn't talking to you specifically; I was talking about the tendencies of the American educational system in general to water things down and paint things in a black and white scenario instead of the shades of gray that things always are (though I apologize for the fact that I made it sound that way; that's on me).

But why was the Stamp Act, the very first of the regulations that was passed before Revolutionary philosophies got fully kickstarted, so cruel and oppressive on its face? It was just a revenue tax; our government issues them all the time. Your slavery analogy falls flat because, to put it succinctly, the British were hardly enslaving the Americans. Making them pay for the protection of the British army as citizens of the Crown back in England also had to do at the time is not an unreasonable demand or a form of enslavement, considering how much the regulars did for the American soldiers in the French and Indian War and other conflicts as well as the fact that under the charters for the colonies, the colonists were still British citizens and should have expected to have to pull their own weight in supporting the Crown—it's hardly fair to expect to be defended or supported with no sacrifice on the part of your people while others have to give up part of their own paychecks. The Americans didn't even have to pay as much as people back in England did. Where's the horrible torture and enslavement in that? Slaves in the South were stripped of far more rights than American colonists were under Parliamentary rule.

Can you point me to any specific sources at all? I just gave you a link to two relevant, knowledgeable, reputable sources, and you have given me nothing besides "I've read a lot". Until you can give me solid, undeniable proof, I will not believe you when you say that colonists didn't consider themselves British. I'm not discounting you having read or researched—as a matter of fact, I believe that you have, you're clearly knowledgeable—but I'm not going to believe you until I see proof positive that you're right. TigerShadow (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2014 (MDT)

I have read many pages of many books and websites, but I suppose my most reliable source is a book written by Rush Limbaugh, as he is a Christian as well as a good and reliable source for American history. Thank you for believing I have indeed done a lot of research, and for calling me knowledgeable.

The slavery thing was a medifore; I wasn't stating factually that the British were putting the Americans into slavery, but they did mistreat them in many ways. Sunnys <BIBLE|-- ~Talk~

Hmm...my only problem with such a source is that Rush Limbaugh is also well known for being, quite frankly, a real jerk, and he's been criticized by multiple people and groups for inaccuracy. He may be a scholarly source, but I'm reluctant to believe what he has to say over what more neutral groups like the History Channel have written and over my own learning from the AP curriculum. But I suppose that at this point, we've both said what we needed to say, and I don't think that either of us is likely to convince the other, so this is really something that we'll have to wait for the admins to work out. (Though I think we can both at least agree that this is a far less relevant issue than the deal with the "very nice site" users, so this will probably have to be put on hold.) TigerShadow (talk) 11:24, 3 June 2014 (MDT)