Talk:Battles of Lexington and Concord/Archive 1

"United States"
Is it proper to say "United States" for this battle and others that occur before July 4, 1776? -Joseph (Talk) 05:47, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)


 * Good point. "Contental Army" would also be wrong; this didn't exist until some months later.  I replaced U.S. with "Colonial America".  Any better ideas?  -- A D Monroe III 02:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Nope... Excellent thought! Well... what about "colonists"? That might describe it better...--Shark Fin 101 20:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Continental Army didn't exist until awhile later...right? So we should just call it Colonial America because they weren't the United States then either. They became the U.S. after the war. Please write back and tell me what you think!!! Lindsay Fore, Historian, Columbia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.197.194 (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Still vandalized?
I've tried to fix this, but with so much vandalism here, some of which wasn't noticed for weeks, and mixed with legit edits, I'm not sure the current article is right. Please review my corrections.

(What attracts vandals here? Is it the "DAMN YOU"? Maybe we should use lower-case.)

-- A D Monroe III 02:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

== ghis not to be censored, plus asterisks are simply repulsive in an encyclopedic document. Kade 01:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No idea. Looks like it was just drive-by censorship by an anon about a month ago:

okay hi whoever wrote this I just wanted to tell you its decent and everything except its really boring and dumb and Damn is not a nice word!!!!!!!!! meanie bo beanie fo feanie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.171.73 (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

New additions are good, but ...
Please be aware that you shouldn't re-link avery time you repeat an already-linked item, unless it is far removed from the original link. It makes the text less readable. Wikipedia also has specific formats for things like in a book. The "lead" paragraph should be a summary of the subsequent article, which I sort of just made it. Details such as names of the commanders of individual units are better left to the appropriate sections of the text. Sfahey 22:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Artical Critic: Loved it beatiful I love dolfins too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.171.73 (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

re: Length
Since the individual battles themselves were so short, I believe they go better together, as they are. The build-up and aftermath stories are of both. Nice work. Sfahey 21:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia article Critic: 0 stars uninteresting and hard to understand. Better luck next time<3333333333333

What happenened to this paragraph?

 * Pitcairn held the perimeter while Smith began to restore what order he could to his tired men, now low on ammunition. Here they met the reinforcement they had asked for. General Hugh Percy brought 1,000 men, fresh ammunition, and some cannon. Marching through Roxbury and Cambridge he met the returning troop at Lexington and took command. By 2:00 in the afternoon the expanded column continued, but so did the fighting. Sfahey 14:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I expanded upon the facts and deleted the errors. Fischer's scholarship emphasizes that no perimeter was held and there was little order until after they met Percy. Also, Percy most likely arrived in Lexington at around 2 but the rescue didn't occur until about 2:30 and the column didn't leave Lexington until about 3:30 and there were 2 cannon.  The details of Percy's rescue and the fighting are an important part of the battle and are expanded upon in this version. Flying Jazz 21:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * gotcha. i couldn't tell if it had been reworked as such. Sfahey 21:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

First Battle?
I hate to tell you this, but history will edit out things.(unsigned, 9/7/05)

In 1908 the US Senate decreed the Battle of Point Pleasant as a battle of the American Revolutionary War. The Battle of Point Pleasant occured October 10, 1774, prior to the Battle of Lexington and Concord.

Since the US Senate has decreed the Battle of Point Pleasant as a Revolutionary War battle, doesn't seem more accurate to describe the Battle of Lexington and Concord as "one of the first battles", rather then as "the first battle"?

If Wikipedia proclaims Lexington-Concord as "the first battle", doesn't comprehensive scholarship require notation that the US Senate has proclaimed Point Pleasant.

As quick, top-of-my-head background, to regarding Lexington-Concord as "one of the first battles", I will simply note that Lexington-Concord was without strategic significance. Lexington-Concord was essentially a defensive effort to perserve the fruits or prior offensive military action against British. After all, the British expedition to Concord was seeking to recover arms and powder taken by force of arms from British Army blockhouse in New Hampshire; and to avenge British casualties in the block house battle; and to assert British military dominion over rebel-held New England countryside: the rebels having driven British civil authority from the countryside into Boston. In this regard is seems that Lexington-Concord was secondary to other New England battles.

Moreover, where Lexington-Concord is without stratetic effect, Point Pleasant determined the strategic direction of the American Revolutionary War.

First, Virginia victory foiled British attempt to destroy military capacity of Virginia militia. The victory enabled Virginia to expell British by force of arms by end of 1775. Absent British expulsion from Virginia, would George Washington have abandoned his beloved Mt. Vernon to British occupation? With George Washington in Virginia defending his beloved Mt. Vernon, who would have commanded the Continental Army? Probably, someone from New England.

Second, expulsion of British from Virginia forced Britain into a dual theater war: North and South.

Third, Pt. Pleasant victory preserved peace on the frontier, depriving British of Indian allies necessary to create a third, Western theater of war.

Fourth, Pt. Pleasant victory obviated the Quebec Act. The Quebec Act had extended the Canadian Border south to the Ohio River, superceding Virginia sovereinty over present-day Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and the entire US Northwest and US North Central. Absent Pt. Pleasant Victory, Canadian border will still extend to the Ohio River.

Also recall that Lord Dunmore had served King George as Royal Governor of New York. As Royal Governor of New York, Lord Dunmore had maintained public support for the King. When Virginia began tipping into rebellion, King George moved Lord Dunmore to Virginia to preserve Virginia for the British Crown.

Lord Dunmore had directed the Virgnia militia to encamp within the triangular convluence of two great rivers. With the Virginia militia so encamped, the militia had no opportunity for retreat if attacked from the open rear, toward the rivers. With destruction of the Virginia militia, Lord Dunmore would have accomplished his mission of preserving Virginia for the Empire.

Lord Dunmore had promised to lead the British Army to Point Pleasant to join with the colonial militia into an expeditionary attack into what was now Canada. After King George had taken the northern Ohio valley from Virginia, why would his loyal governor attack into Canada to preserve the northern Ohio valley from Virginia. Does this make any sense?

Lord Dunmore took led the British Army from Alexandria toward Point Pleasant via For Pitt (Pittsburg). At Fort Pitt, Lord Dunmore had arranged a peace conference with the Iroquois Confederation. At this conference Lord Dunmore promised to keep Virginians from the Canadian Ohio Valley, if only the Indians could destroy the Virginia Militia.

Lord Dunmore had promised to meet the Virginia militia at Point Pleasant on October 1. His army traveled down the Ohio River toward Point Pleasant, but he stopped the British Army six miles short. On October 9, Chief Blue Jacket, was observed in the British encampment. Blue Chief was principal deputy to Chief Cornstalk, commander of the Iroquios (principally Shawnee) forces.

During the night of October 9-10 Samuel Crowley (Croley) and James Crowley (Cawley), father-son longhunters serving as scouts for Virginia militia, observed Shawnee crossing the Ohio, noth of Point Pleasant, in front of the British encampment. Father Samuel was killed protecting son James's escape to warn the militia.

At dawn October 10, Shawnee attacked into the "V" intending to slaughter the sleeping colonials, or drive them into the rivers, where the colonials would become easy targets for younger bowmen stationed on the opposing river banks. The forwarned colonials met the assault.

The hotly-contested, close battle continued through the day. With the Indians and the Virginian intensly engaged, the British Army slowly closed the six miles between their emcampment and the battle. In late afternoon, the Virginians flanked the Shawnee. The Shawnee began to retreat. As the Shawnee retreated, the British approached in battle formation. The British allowed the retreating Shawnee passage through their lines. The British Army battle line continued toward the exhaused Virginians. The Virginians re-grouped to receive the British assault.

Then two companies of Virginia militia appeared behind the British. These two companies were late to the Point Pleasant assembly. They had traveled overland 16 miles toward the sound ot gunfire.

When Lord Dunmore saw that his army was sandwiched betwwen colonial lines, hiw battle line halted. It was late afternoon in October. Lord Dunmore sent an emmisary to the Virginians offering his assistance. Fighting ceased.

Over the next few days, Shawnee Chiefs took refuge within British Forts. To preserve their treachery, British murdered the Shawnee Chiefs.

In evaluating this battle, many historians limit their research to Lord Dunmore's battle report. Lord Dunmore's battle report was limited to the battle. His battle report did not encompass his prior peace conference and agreement with the Iroquis.

After Virginians expelled Lord Dunmore by force of arms, King George gave Lord Dunmore another, more stable governorship.

Also consider the political context of the battle of Point Pleasant. During the summer of 1774, in a meeting chaired by George Washington and attended by James Madison, Virginia had adopted the Fairfax Resolves, precursor to the American Declaration of Independence.

Proclaimation of Lexington-Concord as "the first battle" seems a very narrow view, with too much deference to Longfellow and Walt Disney.

(The above is from 68.106.99.133 00:43, 10 July 2005)


 * Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. I think most of this would go better in this and the Battle of Point Pleasant article, rather than this discussion page, as long as you cite your sources.  Consider becomming a member, and be bold!  --A D Monroe III 16:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * see Manufactured History: refighting the battle of Point Pleasant for a complete discussion of the history of this argument, why it occurs, and a series of comprehensive rebuttals. You're right that the course of history was dramatically changed by the battle of Point Pleasant with huge strategic consequences for the upcoming revolution.  But it was the last American Colonial battle.  Not the first battle of the revolution.  Simply put, the British Army and Virginians were on the same side, fighting against a common foe.  Maybe some historians consider this the first battle of the revolution and they certainly received congressional support a hundred years ago.  But some scientists think that human activity has nothing to do with global warming and they receive political support all the time too.  I think most people reasonably expect encyclopedias to call something a battle when the two opposing sides actually fight one other.  That's not a Walt Disney version of history.  Very often, a simple view when it comes to labels actually does reflect reality.  I hope you use your extensive knowledge of the Battle of Point Pleasant to expand the wiki of that battle instead of mislabeling this one.   Flying Jazz 16:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Casualty figures in recent edit
Do the battlebox figures include casulaties at Menotomy? If not, the recent description of Menotomy as way more bloody than L&C is overstated. Help needed. Sfahey 22:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. The battlebox includes casualties at Menotomy and the fact that the fighting at Menotomy (and Lincoln and Cambridge) is considered to be part of the Battle of Lexington and Concord.  Reference to multiple battles was reverted to a reference to multiple towns to make this more clear. Flying Jazz 16:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Who won again?
A few months ago, the battle result in the battlebox was listed as "Indecisive." I changed this to "Indecisive in terms of territory gained/lost. Defeat of British military objectives." Someone else has changed this recently to "American victory. British defeat." 1775 has changed a lot in the last few months.

I'm considering reverting to "Indecisive in terms of territory gained/lost. Defeat of British military objectives," but I'm looking for opinions. Here's mine:

The British Army won at Lexington. The Americans won at the North Bridge, but the British managed to follow all of Gage's orders in Concord and complete the specific mission of the expedition. However, their mission didn't accomplish much because the Americans had good intelligence. And the overall British objective of preventing rebellion failed miserably. The Return March has been called a retreat because the soldiers were coming back under heavy fire, but they really were engaging in a planned return to their base. They just hadn't planned on doing that under heavy fire. The British won the last large engagement of the day at Watson's Corner.

Before the day began, the British Army was just in Boston and after the day was over, they were still just in Boston, so I don't see how this could be considered a victory for anyone unless it's thought of as the beginning of a war of attrition where casualties are everything instead of a war for territory. The Americans won in terms of casualties, but I don't think that matters much. This is just about semantics, but semantics are important. I don't believe the Massachusetts militia thought of themselves as a force representing "America" at that time, so how could this be an American victory?

Encarta calls this battle "a strong American victory," so there's support for that view, but I think that's too simple. What do you think? Flying Jazz 17:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I would say that it was a defeat for the British. I would say the action at Lexington was a skirmish and pretty much everything from that point was fairly hellish for the British soldiers. They retreated all the way back to Boston whilst coming under constant attack from the rebels. The rebels aim was to start a war and inflict a defeat on the British, they achieved both. The next day the British awoke to find 10000 Rebels outside the city, they were hemmed in and remained that way. I am interested in the Revolutionary War from a British perspective and from where I'm standing Concord&Lexington sure looks like a defeat to me.

Defeat and victory can only be measured in terms relative to the objectives of the respective sides. If one force had no objective requiring the seizure and holding of terrain, then it isn't reasonable to judge its success based on their subsequently not 'gaining' terrain. This merely underscores the point that objectives - and measures of success - can be categorized in may forms other than retention of terrian. Objectives can also be tactical, operational or strategic in nature, and it is not unusual that multiple objectives at multiple levels exist simultaneouls.

I'd suggest the following approach. The British had the following objectives: 1) Unstated but implicit, to demonstrate and preserve the freedom of movement by British forces, and thereby conduct an effective show of force, throughout their colonies.  While not stated in the orders received by LTC Smith, this is what is now termed an implied objective.  This objective is essentially tactical in nature.  2) Stated in Gage's orders to LTC Smith was the objective to sieze militia stores. This is a tactical objective (seizing the stores) with operational significance as well (defanging the military capacity of the growing rebel movement). In this, the British forces were only partly successful. 3) An unstated but obvious strategic objective of all of Gage's activities - indeed, his very purpose as Governor - was the maintenence of the King's Peace and Authority. The fact that the result of his raids on Lexington and Concord resulted in open and sustained civil war by definition is an admission of a serious strategic defeat.

At the end of the day, the British had an open civil war on their hands and they were besieged in Boston. Despite success in a number of small firefights, their Regulars been hustled out of the countryside by militia (admittedly the militia outubered them by a bit over 2-1 odds, but the British Army had a habit of beating colonial armies against much greater odds), and they suffered by far the worse of the casualties. In return, most of the damage they inflicted on militia stores was rectified within days, and anyhow, that damage was wholly insuffieicent to preculde the widescale armed uprising that followed.

Analyzing Patriot objectives is a little more difficult as their operations were generally spontaneous and lacking in overall command. Those who wanted a war certainly secured a big step in that direction. Many thought the objective of the British was to sieze Adams and Hancock, and they did succeed in preventing their capture (though it appears the raiding force made no real effort to search for the two). If their objective was to prevent the loss of militia stores, this was largely accomplished days before the battles when stores were removed from the Barrett farm. Indeed, the arrival and commitment of Patriot militia occurred after the British left Concord, so their objective at this point must have been 'force-oriented', which is to say, nothing more than the defeat/destruction of the British force (as opposed to preserving resources, or gaining or defending terrian). Clearly the British were forced to retreat, were virtually out of ammunition and at one point considering surrender. Their eventual escape does not mask the tactical defeat.

I'd suggest that the British success in a couple of firefights in no way justifies the label of a victory when their failure in so many other respects is so manifest.

Anyhow, just my opinions.

Boston context?
I added one sentence in the opening paragraph to place the area in a modern geographical context. But this has been removed without explanation. For someone not familiar with the subject, and especially global readers, not mentioning "Boston" early on is an omission IMHO. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jd2207 (talk • contribs) 2 May 2006 (UTC)

BIASED?
I am not sure sure about this but it sounds a little biased to the British side. It might be because I've been so used to hearing it as the American view, but, like I said, I'm not sure. Correct me if I'm wrong, but please don't "attack" me.

-Wolfie001 21:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you be more specific about the parts of the article that seem biased? Flying Jazz 23:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is because a lot of the editors (over the course of this page's history are not American. There's nothing that can be done except to have it re-edited by someone who isn't associated with either country--and has no interest in the politics of either country as well.  Almost Famous 20:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * (Wolfie001's post copied from my talk page) "Well, I dunno, see, if you read the article, it seems as if it was towards the British side. Nothing written that could provide proof, only the feel, i guess. Um, if you haven't seen a compliant like this before, i wouldn't worry about it, like i said, it might only be because i am so used to hearing the US side. No worries -Wolfie001 20:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC) P.S. Many other reputible webpages have the number of British soldiers that marched as around 700, not 900. I dunno what you wanna do with that..." Flying Jazz 01:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I wrote most of this article during this time period about a year ago. Before my edits, the article contained lies from a British source such as "The British drove most of the Minutemen from their towns."  That pissed me off, so I wrote this factual version which looks neutral to me.  I based the article on a great book: "Paul Revere's Ride" by David Hackett Fischer.  Fischer's number of 900 in Smith's force included both British soldiers and British marines.  Published estimates of 700 may have only included the army.  Fischer's book is a good read and also very scholarly with ample references.  He backs up his numbers.  Fischer and I are both Americans and we both live near sites of the battle.  Please stop making assumptions about the backgrounds of the editors here and assumptions about who can and cannot write something neutral, and please talk about specific items in the article itself.  One thing I noticed about the current article version is that the portraits are all of the British participants, and the American participants are all represented by statues (less life-like, more cold).  This may give the visual appearance of bias.  I'll be adding portraits of Revere, Heath, and maybe Warren to correct that.  Of course, citizens from any nation should make any edits needed to improve this article's neutrality, but I still hope someone who thinks the current article isn't neutral can come up with a single example to back up their opinion.  This battle is so entrenched in the psyche of many Americans that an NPOV article about the facts may appear biased towards the British side to many American readers. Flying Jazz 02:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Mistake?
If Colonel Timothy Pickering was against the Patriot movement, as it says in his article, why did he lead two mililtias in this battle?


 * Few things are as cut-and-dried as "for" vs "against" when it comes to complicated politics. Also, Pickering did not lead his troops into battle as indicated in the last paragraph of the Menotomy to Charlestown section. Flying Jazz 14:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that to some readers an even handed approach to both sides can be seen as bias from American eyes as many Americans have had a distorted narrative presented to them over the years. Then when seeing something that doesnt tally with what is perceived to be the truth they feel it is biased against the Americans.

Also the Concord history is wrong a battle actually occured, not just observation. Sorry got no time to fix.

Numbers and times
A few things I noticed, the number 900 is subject to question. The National Park Service, along with a large number of scholarly authors give the number of 700 to 800 at most. This number between 700 and 800 is more logical, because if one studies the muster rolls of the regiments stationed in Boston on April 18, 1775 one would see that by taking each company of light infantry and genadiers the highest number that could possibly be reached was around 800 to 850. Taking into account that some soldiers were on leave for illness, the most Lt. Col. Smith could have taken is 800. It can also be noted, that the times in the article are off as well. Smith called his officers to the Province House, at 8pm to inform them. At 9pm Smith and Pitcairn both had return to their quarters to be ready, and the orders for the had been written in advance and already sent off to the adjuant of each regiment, because the troops were woke up at 9pm and told to be assemblied on the far end of Boston Common by 10pm. The location that the soldiers left from in their boats to Phipps Farm is in about the middle of St. Charles St. in Boston, between the common and public gardens. The timing is important, because upon orders from the Province House, all town folks out between 9pm and dawn were detianed by sentries, in a hope that the Patriots would not be able to pass the word of the movement along. We of course know this failed because of Paul Revere, and William Dawes. The troops departed Phipps Farm where they landed at 2am. At 4am word was sent back to Boston that the countryside was alarmed, and they reinforcements were needed. It was only at this point that Smith divded the troops in half, sending the light infantry head with Pitcairn, and keeping the grenadiers with himself. The actual skirmish occured between 5am and 6:30 am. According the the re-enactment held on Lexington Green each year, old belfry is rung at 5:30am and the re-enactment occurs at 6am. This is followed by the arrival of the British in Concord at 7:30am and the skirmish at North Bridge occuring at 8:30am. At 9am in Boston Lord Percy along with the 1st Brigade, leave for Lexington over the Boston Neck. The delay in movement is because when word first arrives at the Province House from Smith, new orders needed to be written off for each regiment. The orders were sent to the adjuant of the 1st Brigade. Lord Percy was told to have his men under arms at 5am, but at they were not actually assemblied until 7:30. The delay was with the Marine Battalion. A officer at Province House forgot that Pitcairn the marine commander was off with Smith's party and sent the orders to his house in North Sq. next the home of Paul Revere. It was not until 6:30 that new orders were sent to the adjuant of the marine battalion and they too were assemblied. At 7:30 the 1000 man relief column was ready, but their was a dispute as to whether food and extra powder should be provided. The troops were give the food and powder, and the brigade set off to the tune of "Yankee Doodle Dandy" at 9am. It should be noted the 1000 men were only the line companies of the regiments of the 1st brigade, because all of the light infantry and grenadiers were already with Smith. The total force to return to Boston, some time around 7:30 pm that evening over the Charlestown neck was 1800. (Historybuff483s) July 4, 2006 @ 13:43


 * Welcome to Wikipedia, and I'm glad you're here. The more people that care about an article, the better it will be. I took the liberty of refactoring your comment below so it appears at the bottom of the page.  The comment above about "new additions" is from last year, so I removed your reply. I hope you don't mind. If you finish a post with four tildes "~" in a row, Wikipedia will automatically sign your name and the time of your post. Flying Jazz 01:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Numbers
You are right that if one takes the muster rolls for each company of light infantry and grenadiers the highest number that could possibly be reached was around 800 to 850. However, this company-by-company data is absent for the marine battalian until 1777. If one assumes that marine grenadiers and light infantry companies were about the same size as the army's then one gets an estimate closer to 800. But there are two pieces of evidence arguing for a larger number:
 * 1) The size of the total marine battalian in Boston on April 1, 1775 was 122% of the mean army regiments.
 * 2) The same marine battalian as of 1777 (when roster numbers are available) had grenadier+light infantry companies that were 194% of the size of the mean grenadier+light infantry companies in the army as of April 1775.

Fisher (1994) uses these two facts to estimate Smith's total Concord expedition at between 841 and 909 men (hence roughly 900 is better than roughly 800). From January to June of that year, attrition due to non-combat losses in all ranks was only 1.9% and a special effort was made to transfer men from the line companies into the grenadiers and light infantry to keep those companies at full strength. Fischer's book came out over 10 years ago, and I'm not familiar with how well-accepted his numbers are in recent articles about the subject. Flying Jazz 01:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Times
British are woken up (9 pm, not 10) and assemble (10 pm, not 11): Good catch. I should have checked these out before reverting you. My apologies. Smith divides troops/sends word to Boston:According the Fischer, these two events didn't happen at the same time, but it does seem unlikely that they were separated by an hour. First, Smith ordered Pitcairn ahead with the light infantry, and then he "halted the grenadiers, and ordered an aide to ride back to Boston..." at around 4 AM. Lexington: Many eyewitnesses on both sides testified that the regulars arrived at Lexington Green at sunrise. That's 4:57 Eastern Standard time and 5:22 apparent local standard time (Fischer) Arrival at Concord: Fischer takes a look at a lot of sources and computes distances and foot speed to estimate this at 9 am, not 7:30 am as you write above. Fight at North Bridge: Couldn't be at 8:30. Probably closer to 10. Return over Charlestown Neck: Many sources say this occured at sunset. That's 6:30 pm Eastern Standard time and 6:55 pm apparent local standard time. 7:30 pm would be daylight savings time. Flying Jazz 01:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirect
This article has a redirect called Battle of Lexington. There were two civil war battles that are called the Battle of Lexington (Battle of Lexington I and Battle of Lexington II), so I think the redirect page should be changed to a disambiguation page for all three battles. Does anyone have any thoughts about this? --Rballou 23:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have changed the redirect page to a disambiguation page for all three battles. -Rballou 00:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Stolen cannons
I recall a PBS program that showed pretty conclusively that the weapons the British were attempting to seize were cannons that had been stolen from them recently. Anyone have details? --JimWae 20:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Excerpt
 * http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/LandmarkGeek/ --JimWae 18:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/pdf/305_cannon.pdf --JimWae 18:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/pdf/206_cannon.pdf. --JimWae 18:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Here are copies of some of Gage’s correspondence. Some of the pages are in French and I’ve had them translated. They are intelligence reports and were probably written in French to hide their contents. This is interesting. This is from a royal spy in Worcester, MA, another place where rebels had arms. And it says here “the brass cannons which were once in Mr. Paddock’s hands never got here and are probably presently in Concord”. This is huge. Jim told us the stolen cannons had belonged to Paddock’s group of the militia – so they really were in Concord and Gage knew it. But did he send troops there specifically for the cannons? I think I may have found our answer…This is a copy of Gage’s marching orders to seize weapons in Concord: four brass cannon and two mortars with a number of smaller arms in the cellar or outhouse of Mr. Barrett, so they were marching to Kate’s ancestor’s farm in Concord and the cannons were on the top of the list. But wait, it’s only a draft, I’ve found the orders that were actually given and they’re a bit different. He puts ammunition, and provisions before cannons. So we can’t say the stolen cannons were the only motivation for the march - but they were there and they were on Gage’s mind.

"No King But Jesus"
I've read in several places the claim that the command from Maj. Pitcairn was to "law down your arms in the name of George the Soverign King of England" and that the response from a Jonas Clarke was that "We recognize no Soverign but God and no King but Jesus". I'm not sure if this is apocryphal; but I notice that, either way, it's not mentioned in this article. Does anyone know if this is story true? And, if it is, shouldn't it be added? Lordjeff06 19:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Fort William & Mary
Before my most recent edit, this page stated that the Battles of Lexington & Concord were the second engagement of the American Revolutionary War, after the storming of Fort William and Mary. After doing some research on the storming of the fort and the events that followed immediately thereafter, I have decided to remove this statement. While the storming of the fort is no doubt a significant event in New Hampshire history, and represents an act of colonial defiance against the Crown, to state that it was the beginning of the American Revolution is not NPOV. A series of defiant conflagrations (including the Boston Massacre and the Tea Party, along with the storming of the Fort) represent a lead-up to the Revolution, but the vast preponderance of historians agree that Lexington & Concord led directly to the outbreak of the armed conflict. The American Revolutionary War article unequivocally states the same: "with the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the war had begun." The opening paragraph of this article agrees that "The battles marked the outbreak of open armed conflict between Great Britain and its thirteen colonies in the mainland of British North America." Absent some serious historical rebuttal, beyond that offered by New Hampshire partisans, these battles must be recognized as the beginning of the Revolution. Venicemenace 04:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

project
I am doing a project for school on the battles of lexington and concord. The project is do in January and I have to have 50 facts. Does anyone know any other sites on the subject? How do the people of time know everything about history? WHen did someone take the time to go and look at the specific dates and times of every single little thing wasn't it confusing?
 * I hope you check out a book from the library for your project instead of using internet sites. Some good books are listed here. I like Fischer's book best. Historians of today learn about history from primary sources. Those sources usually agree about dates and important people, but times and details about every little thing can be different and then it can get very confusing, like the discussion above about numbers and times. Taking the time to try to find out what really happened is what historians do but they can still disagree. One historian can say one thing happened using one primary source and another historian can disagree because they like a different primary source better. But finding 50 good facts should be easy with a book about the battle. Flying Jazz 01:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more with Flying Jazz: "Paul Revere's Ride" by David Hackett Fischer is *the* go-to book for this little slice of history. Venicemenace 01:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

scan of a newspaper dated may 27, 1775
coming later tonight. i have no clue how to work the scanner

Images
I have today uploaded new versions of two images in the article, from not the NY Public Library digital archive but from a Colonial Williamsburg site, much better resolution. I will do two more later. --Dumarest 20:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done --Dumarest 03:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Damn you"
An anonymous IP editor is editing the quotation of Pitcairn's words to the militia at Lexington - to be specific, removing the phrase "damn you". I don't know if this anon finds the word "damn" offensive, or if these edits are simply outright vandalism, of which this page has plenty. Regardless, these edits are inappropriate. The man said "damn you", and unfortunately he said it right smack in the middle of a fairly significant statement that belongs in the article. Not only is "damn" an extremely low-level obscenity (acceptable on network TV), the edits are being done without edit summaries or talk page discussion. The only semi-valid argument is that the entire quotation should be excluded (which I would oppose); butchering the quotation is unacceptable. Venicemenace 11:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wacky Crap
The top of this page is messed up. Somebody (preferably somebody who knows what they're doing, i.e. not me) fix it.

plz 152.23.196.162 17:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC) LOL THATS A FUNNY TITLE!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.6.27 (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Lexington Militia Inconsistency
The first part of the article makes several references to "Lexington militiamen" and then says that Lexington didn't have a militia. This could make sense if "Lexington militia" simply mean militiamen from other towns who gathered at Lexington. In the Lexington section of the article, however, states that "One wounded man, Prince Estabrook, was a black slave who served in the town's militia" - which clearly implies Lexington militia. Not all of these statements, as currently expressed, can be true.

I don't know enough about history to be able to argue which statements need rewriting or what sources to use, but I can tell you that this inconsistency sounds awful.

Reply: Read it again, please. The article says that Lexington never chose to follow the Provinicial Congress' recommendation to set aside one-quarter of its town militia forces to into minute companies, unlike Concord, Lincoln and other towns in Middlesex and other counties of Massachsusetts.

It did, however, have a militia, as did all towns, and this is stated in the article. The word "minutemen" nowadays is a catch-all term for the militia, but back then, the militia and minutemen were viewed as separate entities, with different purposes.

Most militiamen were not minutemen. The minutemen were the better-trained, better-equipped companies of the militia, composed of volunteers from the rest of the compulsory militia. When there was a general alarm, they were first on the scene to confront trouble. Militia and minute companies were town-based and supported, but they were all part of county militia regiments.

Only the Lexington militia (Lexington Training Band) stood on Lexington Common on April 19, 1775 to confront the British column marching to Concord. Lexington never had any minutemen, only militiamen. 95thfoot 17:19, 7 June 2008

NPOV/Accuracy Tags
I added NPOV and accuracy tags to this article because (1) this article seems to me to be heavily biased toward the British side, (2) there are contestable and uncited claims in this article that Parker ordered the militiamen to stand down and (3) uncited claims that Lexington didn't have "minutemen" to begin with. 69.58.224.75 04:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Any controversy there was initially seems to have subsided; no further discussion in more than a month's time. If I hear no objections, I will go ahead and remove the tags three days hence. Hertz1888 06:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

>>(1) this article seems to me to be heavily biased toward the British side,<<

How so? Be specific.

>>(2) there are contestable and uncited claims in this article that Parker ordered the militiamen to stand down<<

Going by the historical record, using primary sources, he did not order them to stand down, but rather to stand fast, and prepare to disperse. This is in his own testimony, which is included, with sources.

>>(3) uncited claims that Lexington didn't have "minutemen" to begin with. 69.58.224.75 04:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)<<

See: Gross, Robert, "The Minutemen and Their World"; Galvin, John, "The Minute Men : the first fight : myths & realities of the American Revolution"; Fisher, David Hackett, "Paul Revere's Ride", as well as Tourtellot, Arthur, "William Diamond's Drum: The Beginning Of The War Of The American Revolution".95thfoot 00:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi guys. I am doing a project for school, and I need an online source, preferrably Wikipedia, on the battle of Lexington and Concord. I just want to know if this article is true or not. Please reply promptly. Thanks. :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.198.97 (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hertz1888: In my opinion, 95thfoot has adequately addressed the specific concerns cited by the anon IP. I disagree with the general statement that the article is "heavily biased". I think the tags were applied spuriously and should be removed ASAP. Venicemenace 15:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Venicemenace (!), thanks for your constructive perspective and support. I would go ahead & remove the tags immediately, but having proposed three days comment period, will wait out the remaining time. Hertz1888 16:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Gone. Hertz1888 19:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the perception of bias toward Britan is the bizzare and confusing habit of referring to each side as British Shouldn't "The British colonists" be either American colonists or simply colonists?. Seems there ouught to be a bit more clarity as to who is who. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiker 22 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply: It is fair to refer to the colonists in Massachusetts as "British" or English", since to them, the terms were synonymous. They did not usually refer to themselves as Americans, since America was where they lived, but they saw themselves as Englishmen, fighting to get back their civil rights as Englishmen. To them the army was called the "Regulars". i.e., their own army.

Paul Revere, when riding out from town to town, called out, "The regulars are out!". He did NOT say, "The British are coming!", since nobody would have understood what he meant, since, he, like everybody else in Massachusetts, was British. In 1843, 91-year-old Levi Preston, from Danvers, was asked by a young historian why he had fought against the regular troops in the Lexington Alarm. "Was it the Stamp Act, the Tea Act, perhaps the treatises of John Locke?" “No, sir,” He replied. He had not seen any stamps, sipped any tea, or read anything other than the Bible, the catechism, and Watts’s Psalms. “What we meant in going for those Redcoats was this: we always had been free, and we meant to be always free. They didn’t mean we should.”

Free Englishmen. User:95thfoot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.216.208 (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of Re-Enactment
I have photos I took of the 2008 Patriot's Day re-enactment of the Battle of Lexington. Would they be beneficial to this article? ...Andy120... (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Escalation at Meriam's Corner?
I teach cultural anthropology, and as such, am not a specialist in military history of any sort. I sought out this article to clarify the timeline of events for Lexington/Concord in response to a student inquiry, and I was very pleased by the quality of the article. One point that confuses me is this: In the "after the fight" subheading, the article emphasizes the restraint practiced by both Barrett's men and by LTC Smith's men following the North Bridge incident. Yet only a short time later, quoting the article, "To cross the narrow bridge [at Meriam's Corner], the army column had to stop, dress its line, and close its rank to a mere three soldiers apiece. As the last of the army column marched over the bridge, colonial militiamen from Billerica and Chelmsford fired, the regulars turned and fired a volley, and the colonists returned fire." Presumably Smith's men were still practicing the restraint they demonstrated following North Bridge. Why did the colonists attack? Were they provoked?

Based on the article as written, I conclude that the Meriam's Corner incident was the first colonial offensive action of the war. Is this conclusion correct? Thank you for the clarification. Bwilreker (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply: As far as we can determine, your proposition is correct. One diarist on the colonial side, upon encountering the British column at Meriam's, thought the Redcoats they saw were a provincial militia artillery company from Charlestown, and others give no indication as to whether they knew what had happened in Concord at the bridge a few hours before, or even at at Lexington before dawn. In short, it is quite possible the colonists fired upon the returning British column without cause or provocation, other than from the fact that the regulars were there, and they shouldn't be there. Companies from Reading, Billerica, and others as well as some men from Concord and Lincoln intercepted the British troops as they were leaving Concord on their way back to Boston. Wise use of flanking troops meant that the British light infantry should have gone ahead, seized the perimeter and buildings at Meriam's Corner (There were several houses at Meriam's Corner- only one today) to ensure the passage of the troops through this narrow frontage and bridge. They did not, for reasons still unexplained. Why Smith did not see to this, I don't know.

As for the restraint in Concord center after the fight, remember that the British commanders were not there to fight a war, but to destroy military items that could be used against them, and the colonists were not blessed with a unified command structure or a communication system, other than one for general alarm. There was no colonial general in charge that day, and the decentralized command structure was flexible, but not coordinated. In other words, nobody knew what to do after the intial shooting had subsided. They had to either have another council of war on the colonial side, or allow individual company actions, such as at Meriam's Corner. Couple that with the confusion of the "fog of war" and the general rage on both sides, the shooting was bound to happen again. Other than some of the older men, both sides had little collective experience of combat, and the lessons learned from it. They would be getting it on the way back to Boston, however.95thfoot 16:50, 07 June 2008

Army National Guard takes responsibility?
While waiting for a movie to start, I saw an advertisement for the Army National Guard with a song stating, "I fired the shot that started a revolution." When this line is heard, a person dressed in colonial attire is shown. This would seem to imply that the U.S. government has taken responsibility for firing the Shot Heart 'Round the World. If I can find a video or some other source, I'll add it to the talk page so people here don't think I'm a complete idiot. Seeing as how there was/is disagreement over who fired the first shot, an implicit admission from the U.S. of starting the war seems relevant. -- 97.113.118.238 (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The National Guard, as the militaries belonging to the individual states rather than the federal government, are seen as the modern continuation of the local militias such as those who fought in these battles. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't sound like taking responsibility or an admission of anything, so much as a promotional gimmick with macho overtones. Its value as a reliable source of information on what happened back then is zero.  We will probably have to go on not knowing who fired the first shot for another two-plus centuries or more. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm with Hertz. this is just ad copy by someone who doesn't know their history. I think most historians actually agree on who fired the first shot at Concord (which is the one Emerson wrote about, and called the shot heard 'round the world: one of the British soldiers.  I think they would also agree that there is insufficient consistent, reliable testimony to determine with any sort of finality who fired the first shot at Lexington.  The story that seems to hang together most consistently is that the shot was fired by a bystander, not someone in either of the lines.  Magic ♪piano 04:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reading too much into or overanalyzing armed forces recruiting campaigns is an exercise is sillyness. And I'm in the Army National Guard... Jersey John (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV language
How come the Patriots had "effective intelligence gathering," and a "confidential source of ... intelligence", but the British had to rely on "Loyalist spies"? Hardly NPOV. 60.240.41.159 (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This was me WookMuff (talk) 10:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

British North America
This sentence is historically inaccurate.....

". The battles marked the outbreak of open armed conflict between the Kingdom of Great Britain and its thirteen colonies in the mainland of British North America."

There was no such place as "British North America" until the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783. Up until 1783, the 13 rebellious colonies and their 5 Canadian colonies were simply known as "British America."

British America = up to 1783 (13 American Colonies + 5 Canadian Colonies) British North America = 1783 to 1867 (Canadian Confederation)

So the sentence should read....

". The battles marked the outbreak of open armed conflict between the Kingdom of Great Britain and its thirteen colonies in the mainland of British America." --74.47.111.177 (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

High importance for US History
The battles, the events during the retreat of the British, and the subsequent propaganda efforts by Dr. Joseph Warren and others are the beginning of the American Revolution. I am not sure about importance=high and importance=top, but I increased it from mid to high. Comments? --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The British "Retreat"?
This topic seems to have missed possibly the most shocking events of that particular day which immediately followed the battles in Concord. The British retreat back to Boston, through Lexington and Arlington (Menotomy) was a horrific scene for both the British regulars and the residents of these two towns. There were scalpings of British soldiers. Women and children abandoned homes and dispersed into the woods. Homeowners were shot and killed in front of their families (Jason Russell). Others went to the area of Spy Pond where more atrocities happened. These events had a significant impact on the colonists which furthered their cause. As a current resident of Lexington, and having grown up in Arlington, I think this article must be expanded.70.19.172.172 (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Umm, Jason Russell is already mentioned. The alleged scalping of a British soldier at the North Bridge is included, and there are accounts of noncombatants being killed in the article.  It also says that Menotomy was the scene of the worst fighting (and that houses along the road were cleared).  How much more needs to be added? (Note also that accounts of the day were at times exaggerated -- this is also in the article.)  Magic ♪piano 03:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC) (former 15-year Lexington resident)

My mother's family lived in Arlington/Lexington for generations. She is a descendant of Solomon Peirce who was wounded at the Battle of Lexington and later ironically lived in the Jason Russell house (purchased by S. Peirce's son, Jonas Peirce. ) I agree that the carnage that took place in Menotomy is too underplayed in this artiCle. The reference to Jason Russell and Whitmore is not enough. I may be accused of having too much of an interest in this issue as I am also a descendant of Benjamin Locke, the leader of the West Cambridge militia. David Hackett Fischer does much more justice to Capt. Locke and the citizens of Menotomy than this Wikipedia article.

See also Town of Arlington: Past and Present, by Charles S. Parker, dated 1907 for more information.

The following is a synopsis I wrote for my ancestry.com entry on Benjamin Locke, based on the Town of Arlington book:

"The present city of Arlington was initially called Menotomy (the Indian name), then the Second Precinct of Cambridge. It was incorporated as a separate city only in 1807, at which time it was called West Cambridge. The name was changed to Arlington in 1867-no one knows why this particular name was chosen.

The reason I am going through this history of Arlington is that it explains in part why Arlington's role in the Rev War has been underplayed. Unlike Concord and Lexington, the city was not incorporated, so the city's participation in the war fell through the cracks. In an effort to rectify this and provide some background on Benjamin Locke, here's a synopsis of Benjamin's role in the events of 19 April 1775, as well as a general description of the participation of the citizens of what became Arlington on April 19-19, 1775, according to The History of Arlington and David Hackett Fischer's book "Paul Revere's Ride."

General Gage sent his troops marching up what is now MASS Ave on the night of April 18, 1775. Their goal was to capture the traitors Samuel Adams and John Hancock and grab the military supplies the rebels had stored at Concord. The lobsterbacks reached Menotomy at 2 AM. The inhabitants were wakened by the ruckus and the Menotomy minutemen took off up Mass Ave to warn Lexington and Concord of their approach.

The following is from the book, published in 1903, "Town of Arlington" (on ancestry.com) page 182:

"The marching troops were hardly out of sight before Capt. Benjamin Locke was able to muster his company, enlisted April 6, 1775 (less than 2 weeks before), and then followed in the wake of the "Regulars" on the watch for a chance to strike a blow in defense of home. For all the time Mr. B. Delmont Locke was treasurer [of Arlington], the original roll of Menotomy men, as well as the musket Captain Locke carried, was in a conspicuous place in his office at Arlington Town Hall. The list numbers fifty, but as there were residents of Boston, Stoneham, Lexington, Woburn, Charleston (two or three each) in addition to the men residing [in Menotomy], there re no means of knowing how many were in service under Captain Locke on that day."

Capt. Locke and his troops harrassed the Brits on their way to Lexington and probably participated in the Battle of Lexington.

Meanwhile, back in Menotomy, a collection of "old men" who were considered too old to fight stayed behind and captured 18 regulars, as well as as cartloads of military material which they distributed in Menotomy and neighboring towns, horses and all.

Samuel Whitemore, aged 80, was one of the old men left behind. He was lame. There's a monument to him in Arlington (corner of Mystick and Chestnut Streets), which reads as follows:

"Samuel Whitemore, 80 years old, killed 3 British, was bayoneted and left for dead, survived and died at 98."

Samuel had a pistol in each hand and hid behind a stone wall. He was lame and couldn't run when he ran out of ammunition, so the regulars clubbed and bayoneted him and left him for dead. He survived against all odds and lived another 18 years.

In David Hackett Fischer's excellent book "Paul Revere's Ride" there is story about an old man and his wife in Menotomy who in the middle of the night got up when they heard the brits marching and started melting down their pewter plates and dishes for use as bullets. Their house was broken into by the Brits, but they looked like harmless old folks and the Brits didn't realize what they were doing, so they were left unmolested.

Few records of the details of the regulars' march up to Lexington survive but there is diary of a British regular which relates the harrassment the people of Menotomy levied on the troops traveling though Menotomy to Lexington in the middle of the night. [EDITOR'S NOTE: this "diary" cited in "Town of Arlington" is NOT sourced.] "They kept an incessant fire on us..." "We were totally surrounded with such incessant fire as it is impossible to conceive."

When the regulars started their march back toward Boston down Mass Ave. The first two miles were quiet and then they got to Menotomy where there was "very heavy fire." By this time, late in the afternoon of Apr. 19th, the Minutemen of Salem and Marblehead had arrived in Menotomy to add to the fire power. The rebels were shooting from everywhere, houses, trees, behind fences. The regulars were easy targets in their red coats marching in formation down Mass. Ave. As the number of minutemen from nearby towns increased, the number of British casualties increased dramatically. The brits also began to run out of ammunition.

The regulars went into houses from which people were firing and killed all the occupants, without regard to age or sex. [Fortunately, most of the women, old people and children in Menotomy were sent to hide in the woods.] There is the famous Jason Russell House in Arlington which still stands. When I was a child I remember being taken to it and being shown the bullet holes in a door which has been preserved from the event.

The brits broke into a church in Menotomy and stole the communion silver which they pawned in Boston. It was later retrieved.

More from the UNSOURCED British soldier's Diary: "Thus ended the expedition, which from the beginning to the end was ill-planned and ill-executed as it was possible to be." From the British standpoint, this whole expedition was a disaster. Their casualties were staggering, they never caught Sam Adams or John Hancock and they started the Revolutionary War.

Aftermath in Menotomy: The physical devastation of Menotomy was considerable. More minutemen were killed within the precincts of Menotomy than in any other town (including Concord and Lexington) during the Lexington Alarm. 22 men were killed and many more wounded. The 22 dead were buried in a mass grave, later honored by a monument. The wounded had to be hidden from the red coats.

All Americans owe honor to the courage, toughness and moral fiber of the citizens of Menotomy during the Lexington Alarm." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.196.107.145 (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

On the size of stamp images
The images of commemorative stamps do not significantly enhance our understanding of the subject matter of this article. They do not need to be large, nor should they (or any other images, like the picture of the statue) be sized using absolute pixel sizes. See WP:IMGSIZE, and Picture_tutorial on how to use the upright parameter. I do not object to the stamp images being on the page, but please try to bring a sense of proportion and relevance to the placement and size of the images you place.  Magic ♪piano 22:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

People whose participation is non-notable
The recent (twice now) addition of references to Baxter Hall are not particularly useful, unless it can be established that Mr. Hall did something notable in these events; simply being a drummer in a called-up company is not sufficient. (Imagine what the article would be like if every drummer from every company that mustered received that level of prominence.)  Magic ♪piano 13:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Biased?
Colonists 'sensible, tactical withdrawal into the woods'

British 'retreat in disarray, leaving their wounded'

hmmmm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiolablu3 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong date
I checked multiple sources and IT WAS ON THE 18TH, NOT THE 19TH!Datecorrectorellen (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Separate battles
does anyoen else think that these two battles shoul;d be seperated into different articles?208.138.54.28 (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No! These two battles and the events during the British retreat are all part of the same story. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

NO! The reason the second battle happened was because of the first! Datecorrectorellen (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Sayings in the Battles of Lexington and Concord
In the Battles of Lexington and Concord, England and America told stories of it,

"The troops came in sight just before sunrise.... Gen. Pitcairn told the militia in effect, Disperse Ye Rebels I say, and immediately 1 or 2 officers discharged their pistols, were instantly of 4 or 5 soldiers and then seemed to be a general discharge from the whole body. Eight of our men were killed, and nine wounded." Salem Gazette April 25th, 1775 (Salem, Massachusetts) "Six companies of light infantry.... at Lexington found a body of militia under arms. Upon the King's troops marching up to them, in order to inquire the reason so assembled they went off in great confusion. Several guns were fired upon the King's troops from behind a stone wall, and also from the meeting house and other houses.... In consequence of this attack by the rebels, the troops returned fired and killed several of them". London Gazette June 10th, 1775 (London, England) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.174.0 (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Mistake
At the top of the article, it refers to Civil War battles - the First Battle of Lexington and the Second Battle of Lexington. These are not Civil War battles at all. Plus, the Lexington matter was not a battle but more like a skirmish and there was no "second" battle of Lexington even if the first skirmish could be considered a battle.

Thank you for all your good work. This is the first time I have ever noticed an error in Wikipedia. Thank you again.

Charles Pickett 04/05/2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.120.81 (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You should follow the links themselves. They are articles about Civil War battles in Lexington, Missouri. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"British occupied"?
I can kind of understand the use of the word occupied, after the declaration of independence, but this article says the British army " "occupied" Boston since 1768 ". The Colonies officially belonged to Great Britain until 1783, so how can it use words like occupation, when refering to Britain before the start of the revolution? it was their land —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voucherman (talk • contribs) 03:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If your hometown was placed under military rule over political protests, and armed forces from the opposite end of your country were brought in to protect authorities from the citizenry, with some of them quartered in private residences over owner objections, you'd probably feel occupied too.  Magic ♪piano 03:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The North American colonists were only British settlers anyway. (92.7.13.71 (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC))

Use of term "Redcoat"
According to Wikipedia's own page on "redcoat", the term was not in use during the American Revolution. The article says they were "nicknamed 'red coats'", but then says the colonists called them something else. That's a bit confusing. It would be better just to call them "regulars" and state that "redcoat" was not in use during this time period. I'll probably change it. --UnneededAplomb (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"Redcoat", used as a term to denote British soldiers, goes back to Cromwell's time, if not before. It was certainly in use in the American Revolution.

"redcoat." "British soldier," 1520, from red (1) + coat. Especially of Cromwellian troops in the English Civil War.

Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. 21 Sep. 2008. See: .--95thfoot (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

British troops were more commonly called "lobsterbacks" during the Revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.50.240 (talk) 20:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 September 2013
Based on a quote from the history book published in 1842 entitled History of the United States from their First Settlement as Colonies to the Close of the War with Great Britain in 1815. I request a change in the wikipedia page from:

Both Parker and Pitcairn ordered their men to hold fire, but a shot was fired from an unknown source.[50]

To the quote found on page 147, paragraph 32: Major Pitcairn, riding forward, exclaimed, 'Disperse, you rebels; throw down your arms and disperse.' Not being instantly obeyed, he discharged his pistol and ordered his men to fire."

Scientist mom (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a reason why we prefer to refer to modern historians: they tend to synthesize their accounts of historical events from a wider variety of sources (and identified sources) than early historians. The book you reference (Google Book link to the relevant page) was, unsurprisingly based on its title, published in 1825.  We do not know what sort of sources its author relied on, but s/he may have relied on either eyewitness accounts (of which many were published), or recollections from witnesses still alive (of which a significant number are also known).  S/he may have uncritically accepted one account that attributes those words and actions to Col. Pitcairn, but there are other accounts that say different things.  So someone more recent (like David Hackett Fischer) correctly observes that we cannot know what happened with certainty.  Fischer even points out that later recollections sometimes disagreed with testimony taken from the same witness not long after the event.


 * We have no reason to uncritically accept the source you cite.  Magic ♪piano 20:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I will accept whatever decision you/the other editors think, but I do want to probe a little further into this. What other sources/witness accounts are there? Are there any? How many corroborate? Also, if that book were fact checked and no errors/very few errors found, couldn't it be regarded as a reliable source? Also, given that it's an important piece of history and the answer isn't "known" shouldn't we present the most plausible/prominent theory and source and the reader can decide for himself the legitimacy of it. Scientist mom (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I recommend you read Fischer; in particular his end matter and notes in which he discusses sources and historiography. That will give you some background, as well as a pointer to further materials.  Magic ♪piano 13:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

In The Legacy section we need a gun rights section
From my understanding the redcoats went down there to take the peoples guns & did not succeed and this was one of the main reason for the second amendment, according to quotes dating back to that time. ChesterTheWorm (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC) ChesterTheWorm


 * They went to seize a variety of military supplies, including weapons; whether this has anything to do with an individual right to bear arms is debatable. As far as any specific (rather than general) connection to the development of the 2nd amendment, we'll need some sources that document the association.  Magic ♪piano 23:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is an interesting article about one of the potential causes http://www-tc.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/static/media/transcripts/2011-04-21/206_cannon.pdf Gaijin42 (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)