the quote was taken from the
The "Tree of Liberty" letterFrom Thomas Jefferson to William SmithParis, November 13, 1787
DEAR SIR, -- I am now to acknoledge the receipt of your favors of October the 4th, 8th, & 26th. In the last you apologise for your letters of introduction to Americans coming here. It is so far from needing apology on your part, that it calls for thanks on mine. I endeavor to show civilities to all the Americans who come here, & will give me opportunities of doing it: and it is a matter of comfort to know from a good quarter what they are, & how far I may go in my attentions to them. Can you send me Woodmason's bills for the two copying presses for the M. de la Fayette, & the M. de Chastellux? The latter makes one article in a considerable account, of old standing, and which I cannot present for want of this article. -- I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: & very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: & what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent & persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order. I hope in God this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted. -- You ask me if any thing transpires here on the subject of S. America? Not a word. I know that there are combustible materials there, and that they wait the torch only. But this country probably will join the extinguishers. -- The want of facts worth communicating to you has occasioned me to give a little loose to dissertation. We must be contented to amuse, when we cannot inform.
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/issues/96oct/obrien/blood.htm
No. They violated league rules regarding the location of side line cameras.
The Patriots are the group of colonists that faced hostility.
1. encouraged or promoted in growth or development 2. provided with parental care and nurture especially by a surrogate or surrogates Familiarity information: FOSTERED used as an adjective is rare.Meaning:Encouraged or promoted in growth or developmentSynonyms:fostered; nourishedContext example:dreams of liberty nourished by the blood of patriots cannot easily be given upSimilar:supported (sustained or maintained by aid (as distinct from physical support))
The Patriots started in 1970 as the Boston Patriots in the AFL
Super Bowl XX Patriots vs Bears (Patriots lose), Super Bowl XXI Patriots vs Packers (Patriots lose), Super Bowl XXXVI Patriots vs Rams (Patriots win), Super Bowl XXXVIII Patriots vs Panthers (Patriots win), Super Bowl XXXIX Patriots vs Eagles (Patriots win), and Super Bowl XLII Patriots vs Giants (Patriots lose).
Yes. The team was known as the Boston Patriots from 1960 to 1970. After that they were the Bay State Patriots, and then the New England Patriots.
" victory " is from patriots " toil", patriots " sweat "patriots tears and patriots " blood.
Boston patriots were the old name of the patriots.
" victory " is from patriots " toil", patriots " sweat "patriots tears and patriots " blood.
Please go to Miguels Salary Cap Page. It has all the information regarding the New England Patriot Players salaries. http://patscap.com/
The Patriots hail from Foxboro, MA.
Patriots believed in Freedom
The Patriots of course.
The loyalists hated the patriots because the patriots were always tarring and feathering them.
"Patriots" are people who love, support, and defend their country. The "blood of patriots" is the blood/life spilled by patriots defending their cause and country.
The last ten meetings between the Patriots and Broncos - 2002 - Broncos 24, Patriots 16 2003 - Patriots 30, Broncos 26 2005 - Broncos 28, Patriots 20 (regular season) -- Broncos 27, Patriots 13 (playoffs) 2006 - Broncos 17, @ Patriots 7 2008 - Patriots 41, Broncos 7 2009 - Broncos 20, Patriots 17 OT 2011 - Patriots 41, Broncos 23 (regular season) -- Patriots 45, Broncos 10 (playoffs) 2012 - Patriots 31, Broncos 21
The Boston Patriots 1960-1970, Bay State Patriots February and March 1971, and the New England Patriots 1971-present
The patriots chose patriots because they did not want to obey the British Parliament (or king?) and the Parliament's laws were to harsh and unfair. hope this helps!
You can see a full roster of the New England Patriots at wikipedia.org, and search New England Patriots.
patriots would debate about freedom with patriots
They saw that France had allied with the patriots and knew that the Patriots had a chance of winning.
what does the Revolution represent for the Patriots?
What have in common the Patriots and the Loyalists?
the patriots are 13 and 3
100% of patriots were killed