Posted on 04/18/2012 5:42:57 AM PDT by Hemingway's Ghost
I, William Munroe, of Lexington, on oath do testify, that I acted as orderly sergeant in the company commanded by Capt. John Parker, on the 19th of April, 1775; that, early in the evening of the 18th of the same April, I was informed by Solomon Brown, who had just returned from Boston, that he had seen nine British officers on the road, travelling leisurely, sometimes before and sometimes behind him; that he had discovered, by the occasional blowing aside of their top coats, that they were armed.
On learning this, I supposed they had some design upon [John] Hancock and [Samuel] Adams, who were then at the house of the Rev. Mr. [Jonas] Clark, and immediately assembled a guard of eight men, with their arms, to guard the house.
About midnight, Col. Paul Revere rode up and requested admittance. I told him the family had just retired, and had requested, that they might not be disturbed by any noise about the house. “Noise!” said he, “you’ll have noise enough before long. The regulars are coming out.” We then permitted him to pass.
Soon after, Mr. Lincoln came. These gentlemen came different routes. Revere came over the ferry to Charlestown, and Lincoln over the neck through Roxbury; and both brought letters from Dr. [Joseph] Warren in Boston to Hancock and Adams, stating, that a large body of British troops had left Boston, and were on their march to Lexington. On this, it was thought advisable, that Hancock and Adams should withdraw to some distant part of the town.
The Redcoats were marching to seize arms and gunpowder stored in the powder house in Concord. They had already seized the Powder House in Charlestown. To be precisely clear, this was the government attempting to seize private arms. If anyone doubts the Founders’ ideas about the right to keep and bear arms they need to explain what the shooting was about at Concord and Lexington.
btw, check my profile for a pic of Capt. Parker at Lexington.
I want to thank you for the post because it revealed to me another great website for American History—the Boston 1775 blogspot which seems to have a whole lot of articles I want to take the time to read.
So much history, so little time. [sigh]
Years ago I wrote a letter-to-the-editor about how the newspaper failed to note what day it was.
***At Menotomy, the 2d inst. [i.e., this month] Capt. SAMUEL WHITTEMORE, Æt. 99.***
When I read the title to this thread I thought of this old man. rejected by the militia as too old, he went on a one man attack on the British.
Discharged his weapons, himself shot and bayoneted, left for dead he survived and NEVER regretted his actions that day.
Damned vigilante! Wonder if the Brits had skittles. sarc/off
Good to hear. Our families are much the same. I couldn't be prouder of my two college age kids.
They will be leaders among their addle-minded, mush-brained peers. I prepare and stand stalwart for them. We have given them the tools and the education on what this nation is built on. I pray for them daily. I weep for the country they may inherit. To my last breath I will fight to keep that from happening.
No doubt that was one of the dual goals of the lobsterback's journey out into the countryside. Thankfully the arms in Concord were well-hidden, nor were they able to find Hancock or Adams (S) in Lexington.
Were it not for Percy's relief, and Pickering's inexplicable delay in arriving on-scene, where he could have cut the British off on their retreat, the day would have been a complete rout for the British.
A Dr. Tufts, I believe (seems like the Tufts family had a ton of physicians), had him brought into a tavern or a private home on a makeshift stretcher---a door---and considered his wounds so grave he didn't bother to do too much for him. But the old bastard survived to see the US Constitution go into effect and more. In Whittemore you have a fascinating character; a man who fought bravely for the English in King George's War, then the French and Indian War (probably where he got the antique weapons he used that day), and then ended up fighting against the English on April 19th.
Reading Washington's Crossing now.
A fact that is emphasized at every Appleseed shooting event put on by the Revolutionary War Veterans Association.
We must not lose sight of this. Our own governments continue to do that which our Founders fought a war over.
Well, to be completely fair, and as unbiased as possible, I'd put forward the following argument:
It wasn't an issue so much of the notion of private citizens owning guns and other forms of weaponry, military or otherwise. I don't think the British were making the claim that private citizens could not legally possess guns. Rather, the issue was more about who owned the guns/weaponry: the Crown or the people of Massachusetts by way of their provincial government. The Crown would argue that the weaponry to be confiscated---cannon and powder---were the property of the "legitimate" General Court, which was nominally British and loyal to the King. The radicals would argue that the old rules no longer applied: the MA government was no longer represented by the old guard but by the provincial government, and therefore, they owned the munitions.
All of this, of course, doesn't really matter, because possession is nine tenths of the law.
So while yeah, Lexington and Concord was a gun grab, it wasn't a "gun grab" in the way we use the concept today.
I would expect to hear that argument but I don't believe it is correct. I can't lay my hands on the references now (my books are all boxed up) but I believe the cannon were privately owned. The powder was probably a mix of private and gov't. The powderhouses worked a bit like a bank. You could store your powder there retaining a chit to retrieve it as desired. It was safer that way as the old black powder was a bit unstable.
You can bet there was a surge in private stockpiling of ammo then just as there is now.
God knows I love my country...
... and I am deeply saddened to see her in such a sad state of affairs...
Like Daniel... and Nehemiah.... I find myself praying often...
Sovereign Lord, this mess we are in...
...it's my fault!....
...for myself and my country I confess...
...we have not been faithful to you....
... nor held fast to your Word...
Please forgive us-- our great and grievous sins...
Deliver us-- only by your great love... deliver us, Oh God!
I feel like I, myself...despite teaching my kids, and proudly serving her in uniform...
...and my "baby-boom" generation likewise..
...have mostly failed to impart to the incoming generations the correct history... the principles and precepts that made her great...
And the accounting of true courage--married to genuine and personal faith in One True God-- that purchased her Freedoms... and until very recently-- vigorously defended our liberty unto the present day...
Family, Loved Ones, fellow Patriots....
It is time for another "ride"...
...to awaken every patriotic heart in the land....
... to call them to arise and exercise the franchise of our liberties at the ballot...
...as well as speaking fearlessly in her defense---and "loud enough" -- on the town square and every appropriate public forum.
Now-- like then....
Our [ideological] adversaries are "quartered among us"...
-- and remain fully intent on taking our liberties and confiscating the fruit of our labors for their own gain and control.
May God forgive us...
...strengthen our resolve....
...and help us do what He as called us to do...
"... TO SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY..."
In Your Great Mercies, Lord... Hear our prayer!
Even though we don't deserve it....
Lord, with a genuine revival of our Christian faith heritage....
...and renewal of our national values and purpose...
...God bless the USA.
Everyone have a good day.
Agreed, and I think those actually were the arguments the radicals put forward. Don't get me wrong; I wasn't trying to argue the British case for the win, but merely trying to present it as it was.
And to agree that while it was, technically, a gun grab, it wasn't a gun grab in the sense we use the phrase today. It was nothing short of a strategic military move that backfired terribly.
You’re right, the crown wasn’t concerned with the ownership of guns per se, they acted because the townships in the colonies, especially those in new england, had begun forming and drilling militias for the first time since the French Indians wars. With the rising tensions between them and the mother country it wasn’t hard to figure out why.
Exactly correct. Before 1765 or so, Training Days were town festival days where everyone gathered to socialize and watch the men play at soldering for awhile before they went to drink in the taverns. Around 1770, they probably got a bit more serious about it, and by 1773-4, we’re talking Minute Man time.
For even more clarity I would have worded this: "... this was THEIR OWN government attempting to seize THEIR private arms."
The call to arms was not, "The British are coming", but "the Regulars are coming", meaning the regular army troops occupying Boston. It was their own army coming to disarm them.
Quite so.
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.