[Drlee]

You endlessly accuse others of being too lazy to read. Go back and read. I have apparently wasted enough time on you.

[Pants-of-dog]

You endlessly accuse others of being too lazy to read. Go back and read. I have apparently wasted enough time on you.

Are you talking to me?

Since you refuse to support your argument at all, I will ignore it from now on.

[Drlee]

Since you are too intellectually lazy to actually read the thread I will assume you are just trolling and not serious about considering the arguments of others.

[wat0n]

Of course he's not. I'm still waiting for @Pants-of-dog to provide primary sources to back his claims about the American Revolution, falsifying the work of historians who are specialized on the topic.

[Pants-of-dog]

Of course he's not. I'm still waiting for @Pants-of-dog to provide primary sources to back his claims about the American Revolution, falsifying the work of historians who are specialized on the topic.

Please specify a claim that you would like supported. Thank you.

————————

@Drlee

Have a nice day.

[wat0n]

Please specify a claim that you would like supported. Thank you.

I already did so, indeed, it's gotten to the point where you are playing dumb now that it's evident that you have no primary sources to back your claims up with.

[Pants-of-dog]

I already did so, indeed, it's gotten to the point where you are playing dumb now that it's evident that you have no primary sources to back your claims up with.

You put many claims in my mouth. I also made many claims.

I also supported many claims, so if there was ine that I did not support, please tell me.

Thank you.

[wat0n]

Read back into the thread.

I'm still waiting for you to post a primary source suggesting that the Virginia militia mobilized on April 20, 1775 because there was a fear that slavery was going to be abolished by the British.

[Pants-of-dog]

I'm still waiting for you to post a primary source suggesting that the Virginia militia mobilized on April 20, 1775 because there was a fear that slavery was going to be abolished by the British.

Thank you for he clarification.

I never made this claim.

My claim was that someone in Virginia mobilsed a militia in an attempt to stop Dunmore from moving some gunpowder on April 20th. He failed, because the militia did not mobilise until the 29th.

The only people who tried to stop Dunmore on the 20th were some townsfolk, some of whom happened to be militia, but this force was not strong enough to overcome the servants (i.e. not trained guards) protecting the house of Dunmore. In fact, the crowd dispersed peacefully when the governor claimed he was securing the gunpowder against a slave uprising.

Dunmore made a threat to burn Williamsburg to ashes and to free the slaves on the 22nd.

A week later, on the 29th, the militia in Virginia first heard of the Lexington affair. This, and Dunmore’s proclamation, spurred a militia led by Henry to get the gunpowder back. They got money instead. No violence occurred.

So, it is difficult to argue that this first and only mobilisation of militia before the Dunmore proclamation is evidence that Virginia was a significant part of the revolution. And it would be ironic to use this as an example of how little slavery meant to Virginians.

Dunmore officially proclaimed that loyalist slaves were to be freed on November 7th.

And the first actual military engagement between Virginia forces and British loyalists happened on December 9th, 1775: the Battle of Great Bridge.

Now, are there any errors in this?

[wat0n]

Thank you for he clarification.

I never made this claim.

My claim was that someone in Virginia mobilsed a militia in an attempt to stop Dunmore from moving some gunpowder on April 20th. He failed, because the militia did not mobilise until the 29th.

Are you sure? The Wikipedia article mentions the following:

...

By April 29, militia mobilizing in the countryside had learned of the battles at Lexington and Concord. Nearly 700 men mustered at Fredericksburg, and decided to send a messenger to Williamsburg to assess the situation before marching on the capital. Peyton Randolph advised against violence, and George Washington, a longtime leader of the Virginia militia, concurred. In response to their advice, the Fredericksburg militia voted by a narrow margin not to march.[9] However, militia from other parts of the colony did march to Williamsburg. The Hanover County militia, led by Patrick Henry, voted on May 2 to march on Williamsburg. Henry dispatched a small company to the home of Richard Corbin, who was the Deputy Collector of the Royal Revenue in Virginia, in a bid to force him to pay for the powder from Crown revenue in his possession; the remainder of the Hanover County militia, numbering about 150, marched toward Williamsburg, arriving about 15 miles (24 km) away on May 3.[10] That day Dunmore's family escaped Williamsburg to Porto Bello, Lord Dunmore's hunting lodge on the York River, and from there to HMS Fowey, lying at anchor in the York River.[11]

...

The mobilization had already begun by April 29th.

The only people who tried to stop Dunmore on the 20th were some townsfolk, some of whom happened to be militia, but this force was not strong enough to overcome the servants (i.e. not trained guards) protecting the house of Dunmore. In fact, the crowd dispersed peacefully when the governor claimed he was securing the gunpowder against a slave uprising.

But that did not stop the unrest and indeed led to the mobilization of the militia elsewhere in Virginia as well.

Dunmore made a threat to burn Williamsburg to ashes and to free the slaves on the 22nd.

As an attempt to scare them.

A week later, on the 29th, the militia in Virginia first heard of the Lexington affair. This, and Dunmore’s proclamation, spurred a militia led by Henry to get the gunpowder back. They got money instead. No violence occurred.

Nope, the militia had already mobilized.

So, it is difficult to argue that this first and only mobilisation of militia before the Dunmore proclamation is evidence that Virginia was a significant part of the revolution. And it would be ironic to use this as an example of how little slavery meant to Virginians.

That's not what I said. I said the mobilization was not due to some odd threat to the institution of slavery.

Dunmore officially proclaimed that loyalist slaves were to be freed on November 7th.

Patriot, not Loyalist.

And the first actual military engagement between Virginia forces and British loyalists happened on December 9th, 1775: the Battle of Great Bridge.

Yes, and it didn't begin earlier because some cooler heads, like George Washinton's, prevailed on April as they believed the time wasn't due for a conflagration.

Now, are there any errors in this?

Yes, you are claiming the militia mobilized on April 29th, 1775 when it was already mobilized by then.

The gunpowder incident in Virginia was very similar to one that took place in Massachusetts in September 1774, and there the British had to surrender the powder. 7 months should be enough time for Virginians to have learned about the incident and deduced similar things could happen in that colony by April 1775.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

The militia may have been moving around before that, but they did not mobilise against Dunmore in any military capacity until after he had threatened to free the slaves twice.

So, again, my argument is correct.

You are making the inaccurate argument that Virginia had mobilised against Dunmore as part of the revolution before he threatened abolition, when the mobilising that did occur was not significant nor violent.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

The militia may have been moving around before that, but they did not mobilise against Dunmore in any military capacity until after he had threatened to free the slaves twice.

So, again, my argument is correct.

You are making the inaccurate argument that Virginia had mobilised against Dunmore as part of the revolution before he threatened abolition, when the mobilising that did occur was not significant nor violent.

Please show that is the case and not that Virginians were fearing that a scenario like what happened in Massachusetts would repeat itself in their own colony. Indeed, please explain why was there unrest over Dunmore's attempt to take over the gunpowder to begin with - note such unrest began before anything had been said about slavery.

[Pants-of-dog]

Please show that is the case and not that Virginians were fearing that a scenario like what happened in Massachusetts would repeat itself in their own colony.

I already showed my argument is based on historical fact.

Whether or not Virginians were also worried about something that happened in Massachusetts does not contradict what I claimed.

It is very plausible that more than one factor was important. So I could easily believe that both are true.

Indeed, please explain why was there unrest over Dunmore's attempt to take over the gunpowder to begin with - note such unrest began before anything had been said about slavery.

The reasons for the gunpowder incident do not change the fact that the Virginians did not rise up in arms until Dunmore threatened abolition.

[wat0n]

I already showed my argument is based on historical fact.

Whether or not Virginians were also worried about something that happened in Massachusetts does not contradict what I claimed.

It is very plausible that more than one factor was important. So I could easily believe that both are true.

I see, so how do you explain the temporal inconsistency in the slavery angle?

The reasons for the gunpowder incident do not change the fact that the Virginians did not rise up in arms until Dunmore threatened abolition.

Mobilization of troops is as much of rising up in arms as one could possibly think of.

[Pants-of-dog]

I see, so how do you explain the temporal inconsistency in the slavery angle?

I already pointed out the temporal inconsistencies in your arguments. Would you like me to repeat them?

Mobilization of troops is as much of rising up in arms as one could possibly think of.

No. Or at least, I might have a greater breadth of imagination when it comes to revolutionary actions.

I do not see an impromptu street protest to be equivalent to repelling a British attack to capture a bridge. I think they are significantly different.

If you wish to see these two as the same, feel free. In terms of inaccuracies to teach children, I think it would be more inaccurate to argue that the Gunpowder Incident was just as important and threatening to British forces as the Battle of Great Bridge.

If that is what you are resting your justification for supporting the Florida law censoring the 1619 project, that is as inaccurate as the supposed inaccuracies in said project.

[wat0n]

I already pointed out the temporal inconsistencies in your arguments. Would you like me to repeat them?

As long as you don't try to sneak in that the militia was initially mobilized on the 29th, go ahead.

No. Or at least, I might have a greater breadth of imagination when it comes to revolutionary actions.

I do not see an impromptu street protest to be equivalent to repelling a British attack to capture a bridge. I think they are significantly different.

If you wish to see these two as the same, feel free. In terms of inaccuracies to teach children, I think it would be more inaccurate to argue that the Gunpowder Incident was just as important and threatening to British forces as the Battle of Great Bridge.

If that is what you are resting your justification for supporting the Florida law censoring the 1619 project, that is as inaccurate as the supposed inaccuracies in said project.

Militia mobilization is not "an impromptu protest". That implies more than just a riot or something similar.

I'm still waiting for you to produce primary sources showing historians like Leslie M. Harris and Sean Wilentz are wrong.

[Pants-of-dog]

As long as you don't try to sneak in that the militia was initially mobilized on the 29th, go ahead.

The first organised militia movement against Dunsmore in reaction to the gunpowder movement was on the 29th.

One week after Dunsmore first threatened abolition.

Militia mobilization is not "an impromptu protest". That implies more than just a riot or something similar.

Then the first mobilising of militia, according to this definition that impromptu protests do not count, happened on the 29th.

An impromptu and non-violent gathering at Dunsmore’s house happened on the 20th, but Patrick Henry (the leader of one of the Virginia militia) did not mobilise his militia in response to the gunpowder movement until the 29th.

I'm still waiting for you to produce primary sources showing historians like Leslie M. Harris and Sean Wilentz are wrong.

Please quote where I said Prof. Harris was wrong. Or where I supposedly said Prof. Wilentz was wrong. Thank you.

[wat0n]

The first organised militia movement against Dunsmore in reaction to the gunpowder movement was on the 29th.

One week after Dunsmore first threatened abolition.

No, the text says quite clearly that the militia was already mobilized by April 29th.

Then the first mobilising of militia, according to this definition that impromptu protests do not count, happened on the 29th.

No, the text says quite clearly that the militia was already mobilized by April 29th.

An impromptu and non-violent gathering at Dunsmore’s house happened on the 20th, but Patrick Henry (the leader of one of the Virginia militia) did not mobilise his militia in response to the gunpowder movement until the 29th.

Nonviolent but which threatened to become violent and needed to be placated it seems

Please quote where I said Prof. Harris was wrong. Or where I supposedly said Prof. Wilentz was wrong. Thank you.

It's implied by your defense of the 1619 Project as far as historical facts are concerned.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

The claim that Virginia was involved in the revolution before Dunsmore threatened abolition is even more inaccurate than the claim that slavery was an important reason for this revolution.

If you need to rely on a greater inaccuracy in order to dispute the smaller inaccuracy, then it is clear which version should be taught.

That is really what this is: a justification for banning the 1619 Project by claiming it is inaccurate, and using even more inaccuracies to do so.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

The claim that Virginia was involved in the revolution before Dunsmore threatened abolition is even more inaccurate than the claim that slavery was an important reason for this revolution.

If you need to rely on a greater inaccuracy in order to dispute the smaller inaccuracy, then it is clear which version should be taught.

That is really what this is: a justification for banning the 1619 Project by claiming it is inaccurate, and using even more inaccuracies to do so.

Stating something is inaccurate, despite the evidence showing it's not, is not an argument. Where are your primary sources to falsify the criticism of the 1619 Project's account of the primary reasons for the American Revolution by historians like Leslie M Harris and Sean Wilentz? Will you finally post them?