USA > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Acton > An address delivered at Acton, July 21, 1835, being the first centennial anniversary of the organization of the town : with an appendix > Part 5
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6
" June 15, 1775. Mr. Hail, of Harvard, died at Concord, in my house. Written by David Brown, of Concord."
" On the 19th of May, 1780, was the uncommon dark day, that many people did light candles at noon day to see, and could not well see without."
" June 15, 1789. The water covered all the river meadows, so that I went to meeting, in my canoe, and landed near the potash place, beyond the inill brook. David Brown."
Capt. Brown was born March 12, 1733, and died May 22, 1802. Major Buttrick died, in his 60th year, May 16, 1791.
33
That the provincials, generally, who were engaged at the bridge, were again engaged in the afternoon, and that they are entitled to their full share of the honors of the pursuit, has never been doubted. But, that they had any particular agency, so as to entitle the whole to be denominated " the Battle of Concord," cannot be admitted, with- out something more than new assertions, backed up and countenanced by a motto from the anonymous newspaper article, known then, and now, as bearing any thing but truth on its very face.
The writer well knows, that, by some of the remarks already made, and by some which will follow, he will be exposed to the censure of those, who esteem it patriotic to exalt and extol, without a very scru- pulous regard to facts, whatever concerns the glory of the nation, and especially the virtues and exploits of the heroes of the revolution. His contempt for that notion is perfect and entire. It is the prevalence of the same feeling, in all countries, that has adulterated the pages of history, with the relation of facts, that never existed, and has sup- pressed others, which rightfully belong to its pages, and which the reader is entitled to know. It has, therefore, been deemed a duty, without regard to other considerations, to be strictly confined to estab- lished facts, and to correct errors wherever they are believed to exist.
A true regard for the memories of the military men of Concord, who were in office at the time of the Fight, did not require that an extra- ordinary effort should be made to exalt them to the dignity of military heroes, by pages filled with epithets, and titles, and all the varied forms of extollation. That they did as much, as, under such trying and appalling circumstances, might be reasonably expected of men, wholly unused to, and ignorant of, the art of war, is doubtless truc. A generous meed of applause was awarded them by the Nation; and historians have, long since, done them ample justice. That men of stout hearts should have hesitated, on that morning, to march into the village to meet such a force, is matter of no wonder, and of no dis- grace. If Major Buttrick, and the Captains of the Concord minute- men, had not the courage, or, if any one pleases to call it so, the rash- ness, of Col. Robinson, Captain Davis, and Adjutant Hosmer, they might still be good men, and good officers. These two gentlemen are thus mentioned, because, from all the circumstances, it seems reason- able to believe that they, and probably others, were endeavoring to in- duce a movement of some kind against the enemy, before the arrival of Capt. Davis. The public have long known, that the late Sheriff Hosmer was an ardent, high-minded man, and had no lack of courage ; and, with regard to Col. Robinson, he voluntarily assumed a post of danger, to which, as an officer, he was not called, and which he seems to have taken to encourage others. The circumstances, under which the foregoing address was written and delivered, and the conviction that the memory of Capt. Davis had been injuriously attacked, and his conduct misstated, may have occasioned the use of language, in regard to him, which may be thought to detract from the just claims of others. It is still believed, however, that, without his arrival, the ef- forts to induce any movement, in the forenoon, would have been un- successful.
5
34
One would think, that, without evidence to create an imperious du- ty, the historians of Concord would not have imputed to their " Great Council of War," resolutions, which it was impossible to execute, and which, if they were ever made, were very soon abandoned ; for no attempt was made to enter the village, till after the enemy had with- drawn, which was at least two hours after the fight. They tell us, (page 20,) " The bloody conflict at the bridge being over, and the Americans fatigued and hungry, having had no regular, if any break- fast, many of them improved this interval to take refreshment." This reminds one of the man in Washington Irving's Knickerbocker, who, being fully determined to jump over a hill, ran with great speed till he came to the foot of it, and then, having sat down to take breath, walked over at his leisure.
It was said, in the Address, that the numbers sent to the bridge, and to Col. Barrett's, had been so variously stated, that none could be safely named. But Mr. Shattuck's book has explained that matter ; for, although he agrees with the History of the Fight, in saying that the force at the north bridge, and that sent on to Col. Barrett's, con- sisted of " three companies" each,-yet the depositions of Capt. Nathan Barrett and twenty three others, published by him to prove that the first resistance was made at Concord, (page 347, &c.) show that the whole consisted of but about two hundred, and that about one half re- mained at the bridge. The authority for calling them " six compa- nies," appears to be derived from the deposition of Lt. Gould, publish- ed also by Mr. Shattuck. Both these histories affirming that there were " six companies," and no where intimating the number included in cach, has given the natural, though erroneous impression, that they consisted of about sixty-four men-being about four hundred in all. Even the learned author of the pamphlet before noticed has been led into the error, and affirms outright, (page 6,) that " the attack was made upon the Infantry at the north bridge-four hundred and fifty to two hundred men." The opinions of Mr. Thorp and Mr. Smith, as to the numbers of the two detachments, are substantially confirmed by the depositions referred to. The two old soldiers were very tenacious of their own recollections, and smiled at each other when they were told that they had been represented as firing on three companies of the British, and that three companies more were in their rear, at Col. Barrett's.
It is amusing to observe the different manner in which these seve- ral authors dispose of the remainder, after sending one half of the eight hundred to the north bridge, and to Col. Barrett's. The anonymous writer evidently believes his own story. He makes square work. He appears to be rather short of men, but the sum proves to a charm. He disposes of the remaining " six companies of grenadiers" by posting two at the south bridge, three at the principal depot, (in the village,) and the other is a corps de reserve.
The historians of 1827 are not so particular. They avoid numbers altogether. They send " a party, under Capt. Pole," to the south bridge, and say nothing of the forces left in the village, except, that " A part of the Americans rushed over the bridge, and pursued the British, till they saw a large reinforcement advancing, when they turn-
35
ed to the left, and ascended a hill east of the main road." Mr. Shat- tuck sends "Capt. Mundy Pole, of the 10th regiment," to take pos- session of the south bridge, and leaves the reader to fix the number of his forces. He then leaves the subject, by merely saying that " the grenadiers and marines, under Smith and Pitcairn, remained in the middle of the town." But the writers are all careful to have " six com- panies of light infantry" immediately connected with the engagement at the north bridge, and as careful to say nothing of the number of the men. If Mr. Shattuck had been as wary, in 1835, as in 1827, we should not have had all the depositions as published by the Congress. Independent of the testimony of Smith and Thorp, Mr. Shattuck at last proves that his " six companies" consisted of " about two hundred" men ; and that " about one half" remained at the north bridge.
The disposition to exaggerate, as to the numbers of the British, is manifest, even in the Charter of the Concord Artillery Company, grant- ed in February, 1804. It thus begins : " Whereas, Major John But- trick, and Captain Isaac Davis, with a party of the armed yeomanry, did, on the birth-day of our Revolution, attack and defeat a superior number of the invaders of our country, who were most advantageously posted, at the north bridge of Concord; it is Ordered," &c. This was thirty years ago. It was too early, then, to deny that Capt. Davis had a particular agency in the Concord Fight ; and the Charter was accepted, without any complaint that Maj. Buttrick was represented as dividing the command with ONE of his Captains. In 1775, Concord " never took the trouble to have the particulars published to the world ;" in 1804, she was willing that Buttrick and Davis should share the honors ; in 1827, the companies were " commanded by Col. James Barrett, and led on by Major John Buttrick," (see page 40 ;) and in 1835, Mr. Shattuck comes forward with divers other preten- sions, some of which have been noticed.
There is another subject, which, though most unpleasant, must not be shunned. On the authority of the depositions of Mr. Thorp and Mr. Smith, it was stated in the Address, that one only of the enemy was killed at the bridge. That two were killed at the bridge, is cer- tainly true; and it is true too that historians have published to the world, that they were killed in the engagement. It is true also that a monument is about to be placed over them, on the spot, to perpetuate the fame of American valor.
The manner in which one of them met his death, as disclosed in these depositions, namely, by a hatchet, after he was wounded and left behind, was well known at the time. It was the act of an excited and thoughtless youth, who was afterwards sufficiently penitent and miserable, and whose name, therefore, will not be given. But the at- tempts to conceal the act from the world, which were made at the time, and have been since continued, cannot be approved. It would surely have been better to have given it to the world, accompanied by the detestation and horror which it merited and received. The char- acter which the Americans maintained, during the war, for humanity and kindness, in their treatment of prisoners, has never needed sup- port, either from misrepresentation or concealment.
The inhuman act was, of course, reported by the British, and was
36
published in a Boston paper, with considerable exaggeration ; and the following is given by Mr. Shattuck, in his History, (page 350,) as be- ing taken from a pamphlet, published by an order of the Provincial Congress, passed May 28, 1775.
" A paper having been printed in Boston, representing that one of the British troops, killed at the bridge at Concord, was scalped, and the ears cut off from the head, supposed to be done in order to dishon- or the Massachusetts people, and to make them appear to be savage and barbarous, the following deposition was taken, that the truth may be known :-
" We the subscribers, of lawful age, testify and say, that we buried the dead bodies of the king's troops, that were killed at the North Bridge in Concord, on the nineteenth day of April, 1775, where the action first began, and that neither of those persons were scalped, nor their ears cut off, as has been represented.
" Concord, May 11, 1775.
ZACHARIAH BROWN. THOMAS DAVIS, JR."
If there be any one left to advocate such a proceeding, he will say, that the deposition was true, to the letter. But, alas! it was in the letter only. It had the most essential characteristic of falsehood, - the intention to make a false impression, in regard to what was known to be the subject of inquiry ; to have it believed, that both the men were " killed," in the engagement.
In Botta's History of the Revolutionary War, (vol. 1. p. 267,) this transaction is thus noticed :-
" They (the English) even related-a thing horrible to repeat-that one of the wounded English, being left behind, and endeavoring, with great efforts, to rejoin his corps, was assailed by a young American, who ferociously split open his skull with an axe, and forced out the brains for his sport. We dare not affirm the truth of this abominable fact, although we find it related by authors worthy of credit. But we can, at least, attest the falsehood of a report, which had, at the time, much currency. It was rumored that the inhabitants of New Eng- land, imitating, in their fanatical rage, the barbarity of the savages, their neighbors, had severed the scalp, torn out the eyes, and cut off the ears of many English soldiers, both wounded and dead. It is pleasing to think, and authorities are not wanting to affirm, that these imputations are excessively exaggerated, both on the one part and on the other ; and if any excesses were committed in the heat of battle, it is certain that, after the action was over, humanity recovered its rights. It is known, with perfect assurance, that the wounded, who fell into the hands of the provincial militia, were treated with all the cares und attentions in use among the most civilized nations. The Ameri- cans even gave notice to Gen. Gage, that he was at liberty to send sur- geons to dress and attend the wounded, that were found in their hands."
The enemy, doubtless, committed outrages and barbarities, in their retreat, in the afternoon, which cannot be justified, on any principle, and considering their extent and enormity, are very little palliated by their knowledge of what had taken place at the bridge.
In a note to Mr. Shattuck's work, (page 351,) it is announced, that
37
a monument is to be erected " where the first British soldier was kill- ed and buried ;" and the monument already appears, in advance, on the map, which accompanies the book. This may be the secret of some confused and contradictory statements, which will now be no- ticed.
At page 112, Mr. Shattuck gives us the news, that " three British soldiers were killed ;" and, on the same page, it is stated, " two of the soldiers, killed at the bridge, were left on the ground, where they were afterwards buried by Zachariah Brown, and Thomas Davis, Jr., and the spot deserves to be marked, by an ever-enduring monument, as the place where the first British blood was spilt-where the life of the first British soldier was taken."
Thorp and Smith both testify that they saw the two that were left by the British, and they know that but one of them was killed in the engagement ; and it is well known how, and by whom, the other was killed, after he was wounded and left behind. But, (this testimony apart,) how could the historians of 1827 be mistaken ? They inform us, that when the British troops, which had gone to Col. Barrett's, re- turned, " they saw two of their fellow-soldiers dead near the bridge; they appeared very much alarmed, and ran with great speed. It was a sight evidently unexpected to them, and led them to anticipate the danger and bloodshed that followed. Their conduct was observed by the Rev. Mr. Emerson, and his family, who had witnessed the whole tragical scene, from the windows of his house, near the battle-ground." Mr. Shattuck says, (page 340,) "Notwithstanding the distinguished part Concord acted on that occasion, her citizens never took the trou- ble to have the particulars published to the world. This is partly to be ascribed to the premature death of that devoted patriot, the Rev. William Emerson. He and several others left matters in manuscript which has aided me in this work."
Mr. Emerson's testimony should certainly be highly valued ; and the public would be much gratified to see it published entire. But were not his manuscripts as accessible to Dr. Ripley, who married his widow, and to his associates, in 1827, as to Mr. Shattuck, at any time since ? Yet they tell us, (page 19,) that " two of the British were killed, and seve- ral wounded ;" and, on the same page, they give the passage above quoted, referring to Mr. Emerson, for their authority. Has Mr. Shat- tuck found any better authority than Mr. Emerson's manuscripts, on which he ventures to say that three were killed ?
In a note to the History of the Fight, (page 20,) it is told, that " the two British soldiers, that were killed near the bridge, were buried near the spot where they fell, both in one grave. Two rough stones mark the spot where they were laid. Their names were unknown. Several others were buried in the middle of the town." When, where, or how these several others came to their end, is not stated ; but prob- ably it is meant to refer to some of the killed and wounded in the af- ternoon.
How much Mr. Shattuck had to do with that publication, is best known in Concord, where he lived at the time, and some years before. But, in his own book, (page 349,) he publishes, for a different purpose, the deposition of Bradbury Robinson and two others, of Concord, and
38
James Adams, of Lincoln, taken in 1775, who swear, " We returned the fire on them, which killed two of them, and wounded several." At pages 113, 114, 116 and 117, we have an account of the manner in which the wounded, and those of them who died, were disposed of ; but not a word about the third soldier, who was killed at the north bridge. It cannot be the soldier who was " buried near where Mr. Keyes's house stands ;" for he was " wounded" and " died," and could not, therefore, be " killed."
It is now asked, what became of him? The British did not carry him away, in their retreat from the bridge; and they did not return there. The party from Col. Barrett's did not take him. For some reason, he was not buried with the other two. Brown and Davis seem to have buried all that were killed, though they do not say how many. What became of him? Something must have been done with him ; somebody must know where he was buried ; and somebody must tell us.
If a monument is to be erected, by the authority of a town, one of the most respectable in the county of Middlesex, let it be seen to, that its inscription contain " the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, relative to the subject matter thereof."
This subject will be dismissed, by the inquiry, whether, if Major Buttrick had been killed, thus " dying in the attempt" to march into the village, and Capt. Davis had lived, without being again seen or heard of during the day, the site of the monument would not rather have been selected on the other side of the river.
A few remarks will be made in conclusion, relative to the contro- versy between Concord and Lexington, as to the fact that Capt. Par- ker's company returned the fire of the British, at the latter town, and whether any thing, that should be called actual resistance, was done there in the morning. It appears to the writer that these are inde- pendent and distinct questions. The appearance in armor at those places on that day prepared for action ; within gun-shot of the enemy ; with the manifest intention of doing, and actually performing all, which the union of courage and prudence could require, WAS OPEN, AND AC- TUAL RESISTANCE, whether blood was spilt, a gun fired, a prisoner taken, or not. This doctrine will of course be disputed. But if it be true, there was actual resistance at Lexington, even on the supposition that no guns were fired, and no prisoners taken by the Americans. And there would have been actual resistance at Concord, even if it had not been judged prudent to advance to the bridge. Either case would have amounted to much more than what is construed to be an overt act, in indictments for treason.
But the questions, principally agitated, have been, whether the com- pany at Lexington, or any of them, and how many, returned the fire ; and it appears also to have been thought necessary to prove that the firing took effect-that blood was spilt. To prove the negative, sun- dry extracts from depositions were published in the History of the Fight, and are published entire by Mr. Shattuck. Among others, are those taken April 25, 1775, by order of the Provincial Congress. The object, also, in taking these depositions, was to convince the world, and the people of Great-Britain in particular, that the Ameri-
39
cans were in the right, and the British in the wrong, because they gave the first fire. None of the witnesses testified that the Americans did not fire. The question evidently was, which fired first. And the language is such as to preclude the possibility of its being then under- stood, that no guns were fired by the Americans. These deponents are more than fifty in number. Nathaniel Mulliken, and thirty-three others of the company, at Lexington, testified that "not a gun was fired by any person in our company on the regulars, to our knowledge, BEFORE THEY FIRED ON US." Nathaniel Parkhurst, and thirteen oth- ers, of the same company, testified that " the regulars fired on the com- pany, BEFORE A GUN WAS FIRED BY ANY OF OUR COMPANY ON THEM." Timothy Smith, William Draper, Elijah Sanderson, Simon Winship, John Robins, Benjamin Tidd, and Joseph Abbot all testify, in separate depositions, and use substantially the same language in regard to the firing. On hearing these depositions read for their signatures, would not these witnesses have gazed at each other, and have exclaimed that they never heard that any of the company fired at all, if the fact were so ? And, if indeed it were so, why insert such qualifying lan- guage in all these depositions ? The Congress made the best of them, by omitting to say in their address whether the Americans fired or not ; but surely they would have preferred to have been supported by the evi- dence, in stating directly that they did not fire. Besides, these witnesses. were subject to be tried by the English law, for treason, (than which nothing at that time was more probable,) and they would doubtless take care to use language, which should convict them of nothing more than was true.
The reader is also referred to the depositions of Lt. Gould, Thomas Fessenden, John Bateman, and Thomas R. Willard. That of Capt. Parker will be noticed hereafter.
This evidence is published by the advocates of Concord. Whoever reads it, and the depositions of Benjamin Tidd, William Munroe, John Munroe, Ebenezer Munroe, Nathan Munroe, Amos Locke, Elijah Sanderson, and Abijah Harrington, which were taken in 1824, and 1825, and published the same year, by Elias Phinney, Esq. in his " History of the Battle of Lexington," and the other depositions, published in the " History of the Fight," will find it impossible to doubt that there was firing on both sides, at Lexington, in the morn- ing. But it is said, by the Concord writers, that, even if it were so, it was no actual resistance, because none of Capt. Parker's company fired till they had orders to disperse, and were actually dispersing. From some of the depositions just mentioned, there seems good reason to believe that the fact was not so. But, supposing it to be so, if firing without any particular order, under such circumstances, is to destroy the merits of the act, and make it no resistance at all, there was no merit, and no resistance, in much of what was done, in the retreat, in the afternoon. Besides, the same order was given at Lexington as at Concord-" not to fire unless fired upon ;" it was, therefore, a com- pliance with the order, to fire as they were dispersing, and after they had dispersed, if they were not "fired upon," till the order to disperse had been given. If they fired at all, they must of necessity have done so, without a repetition of the order from Capt. Parker.
It is not forgotten, that Capt. Parker testified, that he ordered his
40
company to disperse, and " not to fire." But, in this last particular, he is unsupported by all the other witnesses. He probably thought it might be of service to him, on a trial for having ordered firing on the king's troops ; and, if this were his motive, he of course understood that firing had actually taken place.
In regard to the dispersing, the difference between Concord and Lexington seems to be, that, in the latter case, a much superior force was advancing and firing ; and, in the former, the enemy were greatly inferior in numbers, had ceased to fire, and were retreating " by quick step." If " after a little respite, Col. Barrett and others rallied, and encouraged their armed brethren to pursue their retreating enemy," in the afternoon, that enemy had no sooner entered the bounds of Lexington, than they were " attacked by Captain Parker's company, from the woods on the south of the road." (See History of the Fight, pages 20 and 21.)
As to the order " not to fire unless fired upon," it was, to say the least, quite as proper at Lexington as at Concord. The numbers were vastly more disproportionate ; the occasion did not call for self-defence, as at Concord ; the enemy had committed no murders on their way ; they were only to pass through the town ; and it would have argued no want of courage in Capt. Parker, if he had not faced the enemy at all ; and, in the History of the Fight, page 26, it is frankly and fairly said, " That a single company should parade, in an opposing attitude, di- rectly in the face of nearly one thousand of the picked troops of Great- Britain, places their courage and firmness beyond all controversy. Some may think they were not so wise in council, as fearless in dan- ger,-not so prudent in action, as zealous in patriotism." The au- thors here admit, and they abundantly, though unintentionally, prove, that Capt. Parker paraded his company for action; for, in the deposi- tion of Sylvanus Wood, of Woburn, taken at Concord, in 1826, and published by them, (page 35,) Capt. Parker is represented as saying to his men, " Every man of you, who is equipped, follow me ; and those of you, who are not equipped, go into the meeting-house, and furnish yourselves from the magazine, and immediately join the company." In another deposition, on the same page, Robert Douglas swears, that he heard Capt. Parker call his drummer, and order him to beat to arms ;- that they marched on to the common, near the road leading to Bedford ; that some one of the company observed, "there are so few of us, it would be folly to stand here ;" and that Capt. Parker re- plied, " the first man, who offers to run, shall be shot down." And yet, in the same book, (page 37,) Capt. Parker's deposition, taken soon after, by order of the Provincial Congress, is published, and used as evidence to prove that his company were only called together to con- sult, and did not intend to be seen by the enemy ! The deposition proves too much, and therefore proves nothing. The reader will be surprised to learn, that Capt. Parker swore, on that occasion, in these words :- " I ordered our militia to meet on the common in said Lex- ington, to consult what to do, and concluded NOT TO BE DISCOVERED, nor meddle nor make with said regular troops, (if they should approach,) unless they should insult or molest us ; and upon their sudden APPROACH, I immediately ordered our militia to disperse, and not to fire ; immedi- ately said troops MADE THEIR APPEARANCE, and rushed furiously, fired
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.