What if it had been Nun's Life?..............
Posted on 06/21/2019 8:56:25 AM PDT by bort
He fought with distinction, historians say, in two of this country's formative wars. He was given a medal of valor by one of the world's great generals. He met a president and at least on president to-be.....
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
Now there’s some irony for you. One of the most radical, far left states in the country that is always finding new ways to suppress freedom at every opportunity is honoring an original freedom-fighter.
The two have drawn on sources — census reports, news items, a Boys’ Life magazine article, a history of Elmwood, even a newly rediscovered 64-page memoir Robinson narrated in 1858
One of their primary sources is a Boys' Life magazine article? Okay, I'm very skeptical.
This war “hero” has FRAUD written all over him. His account was published in 1858 by Abolitionists in Chicago. Miraculously, this slave/war hero was with George Washington at Yorktown in 1781, with Andrew Jackson at the Battle of New Orleans in 1815, met President Franklin Pierce in DC, had a medal pinned on him personally by Revolutionary War hero LaFayette, etc. Only a PC reporter from a major newspaper would publish this story.
From Wikipedia:
American Revolutionary War (1775–1783) Oldest veterans:
Daniel Frederick Bakeman (1759–1869) — Continental Army. Last veteran drawing a pension awarded by Congress; granted a pension in 1867 even though he could not prove his service.
John Gray (1764–1868) — Continental Army. Last verifiable veteran. Served at Yorktown. Six month service period was too short to qualify for pension. Granted a pension in 1867.
Samuel Downing (1761–1867) — Continental Army. Fought at Saratoga.
Lemuel Cook (1759–1866) — Continental Army. Served with the 2nd Light Dragoons at Brandywine.
Elijah Churchill (1755–1841) — Continental Army. Last Badge of Military Merit recipient.
The subject of the thread lived from 1753-1868. Born before all of these others, outlived all but one of them. Not likely. And as you point out, he was conveniently in all the right places at the right times and met all the right people. It's like Forest Gump. I'm not buying it.
So let Wakanda put his face on their twenty panther bill.
It is possible what we have here is a case of another ‘Intrepid’ where the author William Stevenson did spend hours with his subject Sir William Stephenson ‘interviewing’ him about all the no records, eyes only operations he ran in W#W2. Unfortunately Stephenson was virtual senile at the time of the ‘interviews’. These seemed to consist of Stevenson saying things such as; ‘Now Sir William, you were involved with both capturing a German Enigma Machine and thwarting the Nazi A-bomb, were you not?’ Sir William, a bit dazed and sleepy “Uh-Huh, ah yes.”
Sir William was an important figure in British intelligence but he was not Winston Churchill's alter ego being played by James Bond. So this man may well have been someones personal slave who did go to war with his master. There were quite a few of those in the WBTS. By being a slave he would not appear on any muster role. If true, he was an old man when this ghosted memoir appeared and the hack who put it together could easily of ‘hotted it up’ as they said in the 19th century by adding lots of fake action. This is a case that deserves close attention and would be great if found to be only partially true.
“This guy lived to be 115? I’m somewhat skeptical.”
The man lived until 1868.
By oral tradition, and here it gets sketchy, he is said to perhaps been a guide that led Stonewall Jackson’s column on the long march to attack Hooker’s flank at Chancellorsville.
Well, it could have happened that way.
What if it had been Nun's Life?..............
I do not know about this particular guy, but Americas of African descent who helped win the American Revolution are not so few in number as some people are inclined to think.
Remember, if a liberal feels something is true, it is. At least in their minds and media outlets.
The article failed to mention that he was present at Appomattox when Lee surrendered and that he charged up San Juan Hill with Teddy Roosevelt and was on the grassy knoll when John Kennedy was assassinated.
One of the tragedies of our War for Independence is that many veterans of that war, especially those who were Privates, were never recognized and properly rewarded. Records, excepting certainly Continental Line Regiments, are very spotty to begin with and were destroyed over the years for various reasons. Many states did not have the money to pay their soldiers, so bounty lands were offered as substitute, in many cases years after the war. Many soldiers never filed the application, or the application was denied for lack of documentation. This is especially true for Black soldiers.
It’s very difficult for African Americans to obtain membership in the Sons of the American Revolution or Daughters of the American Revolution for the only reason that it’s very difficult to find evidence of the Patriot’s service and to prove the descent to the applicant. Beyond this glaring fact, the rest of this story cannot be believed. Only a handful of Revolutionary War veterans were present for all of these battles and almost all of them who were still alive in 1832, applied for a pension when the pension law was passed, and therefore have a deposition of their service.
IOW, Democrats are entitled not only to their own opinions but to their own facts.“The media” (wire service journalism) makes this possible - and it could not do so without the understanding that Republicans can’t sue for libel.
The understanding that Republicans can’t sue for libel derives from a 1964 Warren Court decision, New York Times v. Sullivan. The Sullivan decision was unanimous - but then, but for then-freshman justice Antonin Scalia, Morrison v. Olson would have been unanimous, too - and Sullivan every bit as wrong asMorrison.
The fallacy in Sullivan is not so much in the actual victory of the Times, but in the flights of fancy in that decision which are much easier to see now than in 1964. The Sullivan case was a suit by a Southern Democrat official against the NYT for publishing an advertisement.
As such the fact that the wire services systematically and predictably ("People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices” - Adam Smith) make journalism a unified political enterprise did not come up at all.
Nor did the fact that journalism’s claim that “journalists are objective” is not merely wrong but the opposite of the truth.
Nor did the fact that Democrats (racist Southern Democrats such as Mr. Sullivan excluded) systematically go along and get along with journalism’s inherent slant - and that therefore Democrats don’t get libeled. And that therefore a rule preventing public officials from suing for libel is a rule that Republicans can’t sue for libel.
The authors of Sullivan and its concurrences were all enthusiastic about their conceit that they were defending freedom of the press. But freedom of the press exists to “Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred thoughts contend” - and the fact monopoly wire service journalism aligns itself with a Party of Big Government while proclaiming its own objectivity works to precisely the opposite effect.
President Trump has spoken about getting a law passed to make it easier for government officials to sue for libel. But to my mind that is a fool’s errand. Either SCOTUS would strike such a law down, or not - but if not, they would just as easily overturn Sullivan by being brought a case which offered the opportunity. At least we know that Justices Gorsuch and Thomas would understand your argument if you brought it . . .
Truth is one thing; outright fiction another.
“Liberators” was a propaganda fluff piece floated around the time of the Crown Heights riots; it portrayed black troops liberating a concentration camp. BS through and through, yet still accepted as “truth” by those who need to believe it...
Just because a libtard is promoting it doesn’t necessarily mean it was a lie. The fact is that hundreds of black soldiers fought for our side during the American Revolution. Some even fought on the Confederate side during the War Between the States, including in combat positions.
Undoubtedly; blacks fought for the colonists in the Revolutionary War and the both sides of the Civil War.
Skeptics are questioning this particular individual’s biography; I think they should take it with a grain of salt, and provided an example as to why they should.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.