"Don't fire unless fired upon..."

[Buckeye67]

"...but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here."

-Captain John Parker, Lexington Militia


Massachusetts Colony was a hotbed of sedition in the spring of 1775. Preparations for conflict with the Royal authority had been underway throughout the winter with the production of arms and munitions, the training of militia (including the minutemen), and the organization of defenses. In April, General Thomas Gage, military governor of Massachusetts decided to counter these moves by sending a force out of Boston to confiscate weapons stored in the village of Concord and capture patriot leaders Samuel Adams and John ******* reported to be staying in the village of Lexington.

April 19th, 1775 (http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/lexington.htm).

Additional reading:

http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/MilSci/BTSI/abs_lex.html

http://library.thinkquest.org/10966/data/lexnton.shtml

http://www.battleroad.org/

http://www.nps.gov/mima/

[PhillyMobster]

Wow. 230 years ago. God Bless America.

[pathfinder82]

On my birthday, 230 years ago. I swear the most thrilling and heartbreaking things happen on the 19th of april.

[Uhlan]

Whats this? Government troops searching for hidden weapons ambushed and fired on by armed militia insurgents. Later supported by a foreign power trying to destablise the legitimate goverment.

It all sounds chillingly familiar.

"...but the British, hearing the shot, fired upon the small group of militia, killing 8, and wounding 10 more. The militia then retreated into the woods to avoid the British fire."

Er, seasoned British regulars would not open fire first unless ordered to do so, whereas panicky farmers......

We wan't our continent back goddammit!

[Buckeye67]

Whats this? Government troops searching for hidden weapons ambushed and fired on by armed militia insurgents. Later supported by a foreign power trying to destablise the legitimate goverment.

More like an oppressive government out to disarm law-abiding abiding citizens who then exercise their original right of self-defense. Am I rite? ^_^

It all sounds chillingly familiar.

Yeah, just read any of Geezah's threads in the politics forums. p-)

Er, seasoned British regulars would not open fire first unless ordered to do so, whereas panicky farmers...

Actually, when you really get a look at what occurred you begin to see what a complex and comprehensive militia system the colonists had. That's how they were able to turn those "seasoned British regulars" on their heels and chase them back across Charlestown neck with their tails between their legs. :D

A great book on the subject is The Minute Men: The First Fight, The Myths and Realities of the American Revolution by Gen. John R Galvin. I'm currently rereading it. Interesting stuff. :)

We wan't our continent back goddammit!

Now, now... you already had your shot at that in 1812. You blew it. :P

We got two great songs out of it though. woot

[Uhlan]

" More like an oppressive government out to disarm law-abiding abiding citizens who then exercise their original right of self-defense. Am I rite? "

Hardly oppressive to expect colonists to pay something toward the protection the Motherland provided against the French and other European rascals.

Not very law abiding to take up arm against your elected betters, a triumph of the bullet over ballot box.

I often wonder how "American" the rebels were. I a lot of them could only have been 2 or 3 generation away from British. I doubt whether any of them would have spoken with the American accent we know and love today.

[Buckeye67]

Hardly oppressive to expect colonists to pay something toward the protection the Motherland provided against the French and other European rascals.

Not very law abiding to take up arm against your elected betters, a triumph of the bullet over ballot box.

You cheeky poms with your superiority complexes... our "betters"?

Yeah... right... you rage on there sparky. :hug:

I often wonder how "American" the rebels were. I a lot of them could only have been 2 or 3 generation away from British. I doubt whether any of them would have spoken with the American accent we know and love today.

Actually they weren't very "american" at all. They believed that they were fighting for their rights as englishmen. It's said that about a third of the people here supported independence, a third were against it and a third didn't care.

As for the accent, what I've heard from various linguist types is that the "american" accent is much closer to that of 18th century England than the way you english types speak today.

So you can put a feather in your cap and call it macaroni. p-)

[Uhlan]

Hardly oppressive to expect colonists to pay something toward the protection the Motherland provided against the French and other European rascals.

Not very law abiding to take up arm against your elected betters, a triumph of the bullet over ballot box.

You cheeky poms with your superiority complexes... our "betters"?

Yeah... right... you rage on there sparky. :hug:

I often wonder how "American" the rebels were. I a lot of them could only have been 2 or 3 generation away from British. I doubt whether any of them would have spoken with the American accent we know and love today.

Actually they weren't very "american" at all. They believed that they were fighting for their rights as englishmen. It's said that about a third of the people here supported independence, a third were against it and a third didn't care.

As for the accent, what I've heard from various linguist types is that the "american" accent is much closer to that of 18th century England than the way you english types speak today.

So you can put a feather in your cap and call it macaroni. p-)

Interesting, I heard that garbage and a lot of words we consider American was an old 18C word as well :D

[wiking]

The day that started the end of the British Empire :(

A sad day in history. The world would have been such a more peacefull place today if the British empire had been maintained. (no Napoleonic war, since the British could pull supplys, build ships and train soldiers in America/same reason for WW1, and then there would have been no WW2/no genocide in sudan/no Saddam in Iraq and it just goes on)

^^My personal oppinion, if you've got proof to say it's wrong, then piss off. i don't want to hear it. :D ^^

Treason against King and Country.
The buggers who signed the declaration of independence, if caught, would have been tortured beyond imagination to find out why, publicly executed by being drawn in quart or hanged at traitors gate.

[S'13]

The day that started the end of the British Empire :(


I thought WW1 started the end of the British empire.

After the American Revolutionary War the British Empire grew in Asia and Oceania, and also became stronger.

[wiking]

The day that started the end of the British Empire :(


I thought WW1 started the end of the British empire.

After the American Revolutionary War the British Empire grew in Asia and Oceania, and also became stronger.

Still, it did undermine the British empire to some extent, and it was atleast the birth of the end of the colonial era as a whole.

[Thucydides]

Well there was this one guy.. name of Washington...

[pistol]

On my birthday, 230 years ago. I swear the most thrilling and heartbreaking things happen on the 19th of april.

Yea. Its my birthday too and I've been saying the same thing for years.

[Sir Zach of R.]

I got an A- on my Chemistry test, I guess that saying holds truth.

[oldsoak]

Colonial rule didnt stop there. If anything it grew in places like India. What changed was how the colonies were governed ( white colonies, anyway ). Hence the formation of dominions such as Canada. What would have been interesting what if there had been representation in exchange for taxation ? There were those in the UK who saw this as a reasonable demand. Unfortunately, there were not enough in the right places. The whole thing was mishandled - not least because of the time it took to get a bloke carrying a message on horseback and sailing ship from A to B. The American colonies were the most liberally treated of any European colony of the time, but it was also the most radical in terms of politics. The home government had very little feel for the water temperature in the colonies - despite the best efforts of Ben Franklin ( who liked England ) to educate them otherwise.

[Geezah]

Hardly oppressive to expect colonists to pay something toward the protection the Motherland provided against the French and other European rascals.

Not very law abiding to take up arm against your elected betters, a triumph of the bullet over ballot box.

You cheeky poms with your superiority complexes... our "betters"?

Yeah... right... you rage on there sparky. :hug:

I often wonder how "American" the rebels were. I a lot of them could only have been 2 or 3 generation away from British. I doubt whether any of them would have spoken with the American accent we know and love today.

Actually they weren't very "american" at all. They believed that they were fighting for their rights as englishmen. It's said that about a third of the people here supported independence, a third were against it and a third didn't care.

As for the accent, what I've heard from various linguist types is that the "american" accent is much closer to that of 18th century England than the way you english types speak today.

So you can put a feather in your cap and call it macaroni. p-)

Interesting, I heard that garbage and a lot of words we consider American was an old 18C word as well :D

I've heard the same, that the American English of today is closer to the English language of days gone by ;)

[wiking]

Hardly oppressive to expect colonists to pay something toward the protection the Motherland provided against the French and other European rascals.

Not very law abiding to take up arm against your elected betters, a triumph of the bullet over ballot box.

You cheeky poms with your superiority complexes... our "betters"?

Yeah... right... you rage on there sparky. :hug:

I often wonder how "American" the rebels were. I a lot of them could only have been 2 or 3 generation away from British. I doubt whether any of them would have spoken with the American accent we know and love today.

Actually they weren't very "american" at all. They believed that they were fighting for their rights as englishmen. It's said that about a third of the people here supported independence, a third were against it and a third didn't care.

As for the accent, what I've heard from various linguist types is that the "american" accent is much closer to that of 18th century England than the way you english types speak today.

So you can put a feather in your cap and call it macaroni. p-)

Interesting, I heard that garbage and a lot of words we consider American was an old 18C word as well :D

I've heard the same, that the American English of today is closer to the English language of days gone by ;)

The wors spoken, maybe. pronounciation - bloody unlikely

[Buckeye67]

The wors spoken, maybe. pronounciation - bloody unlikely

No, not just the words spoken and some idiomatic expressions but sometimes even the actual accent itself - speech patterns, pronunciation &c.

Or is that too shocking a proposition for your euro-paradigm? :P

Here's a link with some info about it:

http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/vajda/ling201/test3materials/AmericanDialects.htm

One island of early Scotch-Irish English speech was left behind and preserved during the push west. This special, archaic variety of English is known as Appalachian English. It preserves many archaic features that date back to earlier stages in the development of English in Britain. Forms thought to be substandard today are actually the outmoded standard of yesterday. A good example is the use of double negatives such as 'not nobody.' Linguists have dubbed this variety of English as "American Old English" or "American Anglo Saxon". Other mountainous, relatively isolated areas of the American East show a similar preservation of archaic speech. Mario Pei, a popular writer on linguistics, said that "The speech of the Ozarks comes closer to Elizabethan English in many ways than the speech of modern London."

Derived from the speech of settlers moving west of the original 13 colonies into the Ohio valley and beyond. These people were of Scotch-Irish origin rather than upper class English, which explains the differences between Middle American and New England. The post-vocalic [r], which dropped out in the speech of the upper British classes, was retained in the English of the Scotch Irish and other originally Celtic speaking peoples of Britain

and another:
http://www.wordorigins.org/histeng.htm

American English

Also significant beginning around 1600 AD was the English colonization of North America and the subsequent creation of a distinct American dialect. Some pronunciations and usages "froze" when they reached the American shore. In certain respects, American English is closer to the English of Shakespeare than modern British English is. Some "Americanisms" that the British decry are actually originally British expressions that were preserved in the colonies while lost at home (e.g., fall as a synonym for autumn, trash for rubbish, frame-up which was reintroduced to Britain through Hollywood gangster movies, and loan as a verb instead of lend).

[Geezah]

The wors spoken, maybe. pronounciation - bloody unlikely

No, not just the words spoken and some idiomatic expressions but sometimes even the actual accent itself - speech patterns, pronunciation &c.

Or is that too shocking a proposition for your euro-paradigm? :P

Here's a link with some info about it:

http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/vajda/ling201/test3materials/AmericanDialects.htm

One island of early Scotch-Irish English speech was left behind and preserved during the push west. This special, archaic variety of English is known as Appalachian English. It preserves many archaic features that date back to earlier stages in the development of English in Britain. Forms thought to be substandard today are actually the outmoded standard of yesterday. A good example is the use of double negatives such as 'not nobody.' Linguists have dubbed this variety of English as "American Old English" or "American Anglo Saxon". Other mountainous, relatively isolated areas of the American East show a similar preservation of archaic speech. Mario Pei, a popular writer on linguistics, said that "The speech of the Ozarks comes closer to Elizabethan English in many ways than the speech of modern London."

Derived from the speech of settlers moving west of the original 13 colonies into the Ohio valley and beyond. These people were of Scotch-Irish origin rather than upper class English, which explains the differences between Middle American and New England. The post-vocalic [r], which dropped out in the speech of the upper British classes, was retained in the English of the Scotch Irish and other originally Celtic speaking peoples of Britain

and another:
http://www.wordorigins.org/histeng.htm

American English

Also significant beginning around 1600 AD was the English colonization of North America and the subsequent creation of a distinct American dialect. Some pronunciations and usages "froze" when they reached the American shore. In certain respects, American English is closer to the English of Shakespeare than modern British English is. Some "Americanisms" that the British decry are actually originally British expressions that were preserved in the colonies while lost at home (e.g., fall as a synonym for autumn, trash for rubbish, frame-up which was reintroduced to Britain through Hollywood gangster movies, and loan as a verb instead of lend).

Cool, many thanks for the great links ;)