Revere

Why would Paul Revere...?

Legal Insurrection makes an observation, and then forwards a question.

In fact, as pointed out at Conservatives4Palin, Revere did in fact tell the British that the colonial militias, who had been alerted, were waiting for them. Here is the original historical text written by Revere (spelling in original, bold added):

I observed a Wood at a Small distance, & made for that. When I got there, out Started Six officers, on Horse back,and orderd me to dismount;-one of them, who appeared to have the command, examined me, where I came from,& what my Name Was? I told him. it was Revere, he asked if it was Paul? I told him yes He asked me if I was an express? I answered in the afirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and aded, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River, and that There would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up. He imediately rode towards those who stoppd us, when all five of them came down upon a full gallop; one of them, whom I afterwards found to be Major Mitchel, of the 5th Regiment, Clapped his pistol to my head, called me by name, & told me he was going to ask me some questions, & if I did not give him true answers, he would blow my brains out. He then asked me similar questions to those above. He then orderd me to mount my Horse, after searching me for arms.

Palin's short statement on the video was less than clear; that sometimes happens but the part of the statement which has people screaming -- that Revere warned the British that the colonial militias were waiting -- appears to be true.

I've learned something new today, about Paul Revere.

The leading lights of the left-blogosphere have made fools of themselves, as have people who are not of the left-blogosphere. I presume they all will be apologizing.

Update: Aaron Worthing at Patterico has a round-up of all the hyperventilated left-blogospheric reaction, including by Think Progress, which writes:

It’s hard to imagine why Revere would warn the British of anything, or why he’d do it with bells and gun shots.

As to the question, I will answer it: the reason is that this was before the modern age of war. The modern understanding is that war is won with a combination of maneuver and concentrated firepower. The interplay of these elements has varied at times in the modern period, but the elements have remained consistent. Thus, concealing your maneuvers is a crucial part of modern warfare.

That was not always true in earlier periods (or, indeed, the current period: contemporary war has been much less about maneuver and concentrated firepower, and much more about intelligence and a judicious use of force). Consider the famous chevauchee, the heavy cavalry raid that was intended to force the enemy to acknowledge your position and do something about it. This tactic, used in the Hundred Years war to force the French to abandon fortifications and come to the field, was also used by us in Iraq. Our famous "Thunder Run" into Baghdad was a heavy cavalry raid intended to force the enemy to abandon their hiding places and come into the field. It worked beautifully on the Fedayeen Saddam, as we all recall.

Some medieval mercenary armies in Italy and Germany were professional fighters who preferred on the whole to win by maneuver alone. For that reason, once a good maneuver had been achieved, it was wise to notify your enemy so that he might retire without the need for everyone getting killed. You could win the point, and the field, without losing strength by having your force damaged in battle. (Reference Sun Tzu, on the wisdom of generals who win without fighting.)

That's what Revere was doing here: telling the British they might as well give it up, because the country is already alarmed and hot. As history knows, the British didn't choose to listen.