Patriot's Day
When The Revolution Began
Here we are at another celebration of Patriot's Day, April 19th. The date of the battle of Lexington and Concord in 1775, the beginning of the American Revolution and the beginning of being an independent country, even though the Declaration of Independence was not signed until over a year later.
,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriots%27_Day
As noted by left leaning Wikipedia, it's now celebrated in Massachusetts on the third Monday of April so as to provide a three day weekend.
Around the Boston area there are celebrations and re-enactments of the battles at Lexington Green and the Old North Bridge at Concord, and the Boston Marathon is run on Patriot's Day. They are no doubt rightly proud of their heritage, at least those not from families that were later arrivals.
Descriptions of the battle are here:
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/revolutionary-war/battles/lexington-and-concord
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord
Apparently denizens of Massachusetts don't see the irony. The battles were fought over the fact that the British had decided that the American colonists needed to be disarmed, while now Massachusetts is a leader in the battle to disarm their own citizens. We were taught in history class about the main causes of the Revolution, taxation without representation, warrant less searches and etc., but often given short shrift is the fact that the British intended a general disarmament, not merely to seize the cannon in Concord.
In 1777, William Knox, the British Colonial Office Undersecretary of State, made the following proposal:
“The Militia Laws should be repealed and none suffered to be re-enacted, & the Arms of all the People should be taken away, & every piece of Ordnance removed into the King’s Stores, nor should any foundry or manufactory of Arms, Gunpowder, or Warlike Stores, be evre suffered in America, nor should any Gunpowder, Lead, Arms or Ordnance be imported into it without License; they will have but little need of such things for the future, as the King’s Troops, Ships Forts will be sufficient to protect them from any danger.”
https://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1422
The American colonists had not yet been subjugated, but that was clearly the plan of Undersecretary Knox. It makes one suspicious, as today in so many areas, the extent to which this fact is so often glossed over, and it leads to the situation that writers and producers leave out that information simply because they do not know about it. Many in America don't seem to understand the importance, but evidently Knox, and presumably most of the rest of the British hierarchy as well as the king, did. The British wanted warrant less searches and to be able to take away any rebels with no trouble, and expected the colonists would be all right with it since the king's army would protect them.
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself." ~ George Washington
There is a school of thought that it makes no difference if the populace is armed, and after all, you can't fight a tank. We might be told that in the revolution it was similar in that you could not fight against a cannon, and our current president incorrectly claims that civilians could not own cannon at the time. These types of things seem to miss the point. Can a small group of soldiers come into a small town and completely dominate everyone there? If hostilities begin, can the British army move around the countryside at will, scooping up supplies? If there are few if any private firearms there the answer is yes.
“Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms? - James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46.
Suppose the population of a small town is one thousand, and a hostile force have sent twenty soldiers. In America you would expect the twenty soldiers to be facing between two hundred and five hundred rifles, whereas the European model is that the soldiers would be able to come into the town and treat the people as they wish, up to and including executing the entire population, as was often done in World War Two.
https://drp314.substack.com/p/do-you-need-an-f15
Now we are facing an influx of millions of illegal immigrants, many of whom are no doubt soldiers, orchestrated by the United Nations as part of the plan to bring in Agenda 2030. It seems that we may be facing significant unrest as the globalist forces move to eliminate the United States as we know it and replace it with a world wide totalitarian nightmare.
https://drp314.substack.com/p/they-who-would-be-kings
For a long winded but interesting discussion on what is probably going on, here is a panel of former military officers. (Start at 3 minutes.)
https://rumble.com/v4q0occ-roundtable-discussion-4-17-24.html
What if they gave a war and nobody came? Then the war will come to you.
"The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves." ~ George Washington
True again.
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize,... The people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear arms." ~ Tench Coxe
Stay Brave, Stay Free
"...the irony. The battles were fought over the fact that the British had decided that the American colonists needed to be disarmed."
Good point. The British troops were literally on a mission to seize American armaments. The irony, indeed. It's like making fireworks to celebrate freedom illegal.
Great post. Practically no one is aware the line in the sand was outrage that free Englishmen with a right to bear arms since 1689 were going to have their weapons and powder seized by the government.
We need to keep spreading the word. Time is short!