The head of Boston’s Old North Church who gave Sarah Palin a history lesson about Paul Revere says she “misplaced facts” in her infamous video interview about Revere’s midnight ride.
I’ll confess that I’d never heard the word vicar before today. Apparently, a vicar is a clergyman in charge of a chapel. Yesterday Reverend Stephen T. Ayres, vicar of Boston’s Old North Church, wrote a letter about his experience hosting Sarah Palin the week before last.
In his letter the Reverend makes a confession of his own: he was the one who put the historical ideas about Paul Revere in Palin’s head. But, he said, “I will not take the blame for the odd order those factoids came out.”
In reflecting on the media storm that swelled around Palin’s version of the Paul Revere story, Ayres writes, “Lots of pundits berated Governor Palin’s grasp of history. Many of them have made their own mistakes.”
But make no mistake: she goofed. “Perhaps it was too much information in too short a period of time to digest properly,” Ayres wrote. “Maybe if we climbed to the top of the steeple and viewed the lanterns, the governor wouldn’t have focused on the bells. Who knows? [She] provided us with priceless free publicity by misplacing a few facts when quizzed on her visit.”
What exactly qualifies a vicar as an authority on Paul Revere’s ride? He’s not a history professor or even an academic. But as the steward of this historical icon, Ayres does seem particularly well versed in the legacy of his predecessors. “The truth be told,” he writes, “my predecessor, the Rev. Mather Byles, Jr. left the employ of the church the morning the lanterns were hung and cannot be blamed for the unfortunate rebellion that ensued.”
At any rate, according to Ayres, Palin was wrong in her claim that Paul Revere rode to warn the British that “we were gonna be secure and we were gonna be free.” This directly contradicts Palin’s statement on Fox News the following Sunday that she “didn’t mess up on Paul Revere.” It’s understandable that she wouldn’t admit to such a dubious grasp on the kind of American history that every 5th-grader knows, especially when her entire campaign (or non-campaign, as the case may be) depends on laying unique claim to America’s founding—and therefore purist—principles.
In the end, this story of Palin’s revisionist history (and her fans’ attempt to subsequently alter Paul Revere’s Wikipedia page accordingly) is about truth and subjectivity. Ayres astutely points out that the facts surrounding Revere’s midnight ride have been colored by subjectivity for centuries. He claims Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, who canonized Revere around the time of the Civil War, was himself a partisan with an agenda rather than a clear-eyed historian.
Ayres divulges a likely partisan slant by inserting a Stephen Colbert reference into his conclusion: “What is truth, or is it truthiness?” Absolute truths may be tough to divine, but there’s still no question that Palin takes special liberties with her history. And no matter what she tries to tell us, not all liberties are good.
[via Newser]
June 13, 2011 at 7:05 pm, Billofrights said:
the question was not about the ride but what she would take away from the visit. look at the history of the whole event and then tell us she was wrong!
June 13, 2011 at 11:29 pm, Butchp333 said:
is that you Sarah??
June 14, 2011 at 1:48 am, Justin Sekara said:
Not only was she dead wrong, she came off sounding downright stupid and ignorant.
June 13, 2011 at 7:50 pm, Bill of Wrongs said:
The question was what would she take away from the visit. A person who can think on their feet would say something like, “I came away with a deeper appreciation for the sacrifices these patriots made during the fight to gain freedom from the British.” But her answer not only made her sound confused; she sounded downright stupid as well.
June 13, 2011 at 11:39 pm, Anonymous said:
She absolutely twisted what the Vicar had told her. He attributes her twisted statements to “TOO MUCH INFORMATION FOR HER TO ABSORB AT ONE TIME”. Then she should have paid better attention. Either that or admitted she made a mistake. Now that I could have accepted!!!
June 13, 2011 at 11:39 pm, Anonymous said:
She absolutely twisted what the Vicar had told her. He attributes her twisted statements to “TOO MUCH INFORMATION FOR HER TO ABSORB AT ONE TIME”. Then she should have paid better attention. Either that or admitted she made a mistake. Now that I could have accepted!!!
June 13, 2011 at 11:39 pm, Anonymous said:
She absolutely twisted what the Vicar had told her. He attributes her twisted statements to “TOO MUCH INFORMATION FOR HER TO ABSORB AT ONE TIME”. Then she should have paid better attention. Either that or admitted she made a mistake. Now that I could have accepted!!!
June 14, 2011 at 3:48 am, Sally said:
What she should have done was make a general statement that answered the general question she was asked. But no, she has to make herself sound smart, and thus, we got the convoluted ride of Paul Revere, Palin style. I’m glad she didn’t want to become a teacher.
June 14, 2011 at 2:31 am, Nguyenrobin89 said:
you guys are all narrow-minded.What Sarah means is the action (riding) of Paul Revere warned the British,not he rode to warn the British face to face.Be genious!
June 14, 2011 at 3:50 am, Sally said:
Are you makin’ up those Shakespeare words like Sarah? She said that he was ‘ringing’ those bells and shootin’ those warning shots to tell the British’ blah, blah blah. He didn’t. He wasn’t. She’s wrong. Genius.
June 14, 2011 at 4:55 am, Michael Wiley said:
This is a bald-faced lie. I saw and read the article myself, and kept the gist of the remark:
Rev. Stephen T. Ayres, the vicar of the Old North Church , agrees with Palin that her critics are playing “gotcha” with her statements about Revere. Ayres admits:
“I knew where all the factoids she cited came from and take responsibility for putting them in her head . . . I will not take the blame for the odd order those factoids came out.”
Yet even if they were a bit out of order, Ayres argues Palin’s understanding was correct. He not only instructed Palin on the “one if by land, two if by sea” lesson, but also taught Palin how Revere warned the British that the Americans already were alerted to the fact that the British were coming. Ayres thinks Palin is “an easy target” and doesn’t like the fact that this incident is used by some to suggest Palin is not intelligent.
You people are entirely disgusting.
June 14, 2011 at 5:34 am, Mark H. Schultz, Sr. said:
Historically, Palin was correct. On the night of 18 April 1775, Paul Revere, William Dawes, and Samuel Prescott set out surreptitiously from Boston to alert the Revolutionary Militia in Lexington and Concord that the British Regulars were marching on them. Enroute the trio was stopped and detained by a British Patrol. Dawes and Prescott escaped and went on their way, but Revere was interrogated at gunpoint. He warned the Soldiers that the British Regulars would be in danger due to the number of militia assembled at Lexington. The soldiers took Revere with them as they approached Lexington. About one-half mile from Lexington, a shot rang out. Revere claimed it was a signal to alert the whole countryside. Continuing on, the town bell began clanging, and Revere advised that the whole town was alerted and the soldiers were “…all dead men…” The soldiers decided to cut Revere loose, but took his horse and turned back East to warn the British Regulars. Revere, on foot, later joined up with John Hancock and Samuel Adams in Lexington.
I would counsel those in the media to properly research the historical material before they pass judgement. Sarah Palin did describe the fact that Paul Revere warned not only the countryside that the British were coming, but warned the British Patrol that they and the British Regulars would be doomed if they went to Lexington and Concord. She did describe the bell ringing, which it did. Shame on all who unfortunately don’t know the whole story. I suggest they read the difinitive historical summary yourselves.
markhschultzsr@comcast.net
June 14, 2011 at 6:12 am, Anonymous said:
If she is so wrong then why did three prominent historians stand up and defend what she said? And of course, at the end of the article it finally shows us that the “Reverend” has his own bias. Get real, no…get a real story. This is hogwash.
June 14, 2011 at 11:19 am, john charles webb jr said:
Sarah said that they had THREE LANTERNS :
1 if by land and
2 if by sea
_________
3 lanterns total
June 14, 2011 at 2:14 pm, Uncle_pauls said:
This is a terribly written story. What were the facts she ‘misplaced’? Nothing is listed. When other stories exonerate her, there needs to be some semblance of facts here to explain what she got wrong. This is just anothet effort to make her appear dumb.
June 14, 2011 at 7:29 pm, Anonymous said:
A mountain out of a mole-hill. You liberals are so desperate to be knit-picking like this. We’ve had plenty of Harvard types running this country to no avail. We now need someone with common-sense. Sarah, your common-sense has made you filthy rich, I know you’ll do the same for America. Drill baby drill! Liberals, PLEASE promise me you’ll leave the country if Sarah wins.
June 15, 2011 at 4:28 pm, Bill of Sale said:
One of the many, many problems with Sarah Palin is that she cannot think on her feet. When she is asked a question, it is painful to watch her try to formulate her answer. Another problem with Palin is that once she begins to form her answer, she does not express herself like an articulate, intelligent person. She expresses herself like a 12-year-old.
In this clip she sounded like a kid trying to b.s. her way through an oral history exam where she was unsure of the answer.
http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/06/04/the-palin-apologists-strike-back/