Monday, June 17, 2013

Recommended reading: Bunker Hill -- A City, A Siege, a Revolution by Nathaniel Philbrick.

Today is the anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill, which as we all know was actually fought on Breed's Hill.
Recently my friend Stewart Rhodes sent me a copy of Bunker Hill -- A City, A Siege, a Revolution by Nathaniel Philbrick. It is, in short sentence, the best single work I've ever read on the battle, its prelude (including the Stamp Act, the Boston Massacre, the Tea Party, the Powder Alarm and Lexington and Concord) as well as its aftermath.
I most especially recommend it to those generally anonymous posters who quibble with my policy of "No Fort Sumters" and who dispute my contention that the Founders were smart men who understood the necessity of goading the Crown forces into firing first, thereby forcing them to cede the moral high ground to the forces of liberty. They did, in fact, leave us a template for future action to defend the Republic they bequeathed us. Even when they engaged in street violence, these were conservative men who sought to control events with the Boston mob. Their responses to British provocations were measured -- and maddening -- to both the Crown and the Tories:
The appearance of Joyce Junior (MBV: a masked mob leader who actually was the 26 year old son of Harvard professor John Winthrop and descended from THE Winthrops who had founded Massachusetts Bay Colony) in January 1774 appears to have been part of an effort by patriot leaders to control the aftermath of the Tea Party. Unwieldy mob eruptions such as the one that provoked the Boston Massacre inevitably made for bad publicity in both America and England. In an effort to depict the destruction of East India tea as an act of principle rather than of rage, the Tea Party had been minutely choreographed from the start. Joyce Junior was continuing this attempt to channel if not contain the violence.
So, on this anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill, get this book and sift its many lessons from the Founders. You will, I think, come to understand that the Founders themselves would have embraced the principle of "No Fort Sumters."
The Death of General Warren at Breed's Hill.


Kent McManigal said...

"No Fort Sumters" is well and good- and also irrelevant now. "They" have already been shooting.

So, the way I see it, it isn't about "No Fort Sumters", it's about not shooting back (because that is the reality of where we stand) until enough people are willing to shoot back with us to give us a shot (pun intended) at defeating the collectivist monsters.

Charles N. Steele said...

Whoever wins the support of the majority of the American people wins. Whoever starts shooting will scare the majority to the other side and thus lose.

Meanwhile, the mounting revelations of spying, corruption, and scandals are waking an increasing number of people. The statists may yet hang themselves. For now, I'm happy to enjoy the show.

Patience is virtue.

Anonymous said...

Every day red team grows stronger and blue team grows weaker and more fractured.

Your consul is a counsel of defeat, Mike.

Dutchman6 said...

Anon 11:50 -- So you would initiate the war? What makes you so bloody-minded, besides being shielded by anonymity? These are real lives we're talking about here and the stakes couldn't be higher. Besides, I disagree with your analysis, which is probably derived from a misplaced sense of powerlessness. On the contrary, every day we grow stronger, more folks rally to our cause out of their slumber and the regime continues to delegitimize itself at light speed.

Take not counsel of your fears. And for crying out loud read the damn book. The Founders won, the Confederates lost. What part of "moral high ground" don't you understand?