"A Glorious Morning"

[kDan]

Adams' comments to Hancock concerning the events of 4/19 are echoed at many an Appleseed. 

"O what a glorious morning it is."  To which Hancock absent-mindedly and half-annoyedly replies about the weather.  Adams finds the need to elaborate, "I mean what a glorious morning for America."  O...  yeah...  right...  that too

A glorious day indeed with citizens laying about in puddles of blood before their own burning houses, and with the British Lion about to turn after having its tail pulled by folks most of whom had had little or no inclination in this direction just hours before.  A poll taken at the scene may have found some in agreement with Adams, but only as an after-thought, a revelation, or a knee-jerk reaction.  Most were concerned with the immediate tasks at hand.  Adams seems to have been a bit ahead of the curve, and was probably the only person in Massachusetts to look around and pump his fist, "YESSS!"  Hold on to your wig as you chest-bump.

I have just re-read Arthur B. Tourtellot's account, "Lexington and Concord" (W.W. Norton, NY), and was again struck by a theory he puts forth that John Parker - being a sensible and concerned leader not of a regular military unit, but of a community of locals, family and friends; and being also an experienced Indian fighter, well conditioned to the fighting techniques that would prevail amongst the militia of the day and throughout the rest of the war - would perhaps not have been individually inclined to line his men up in what was certainly a provocative, and arguably a suicidal formation in front of the British Regular Army.  Was this bravado the idea of a sensible country gentleman, or done at the insistence of a big-city rabble-rouser, a lawyer and loud-mouth, known and largely disliked through-out the colonies for his obnoxious behavior and incendiary rhetoric? 

We know that Hancock and Adams met with Parker at Buckman's Tavern during the period between the first alarm and the actual arrival of the Regulars three hours later.  This is the time period in which Paul Revere was busy with the separately craving Dr. Prescott (love) and Major Mitchell (names).  Is this the topic Hancock and Adams were debating when Revere returned to find them still in the town?  Did Hancock want to stand with Parker, but Adams think he was too important to be used in this way?  Save this piece for later, maybe?  Our country is thought to have several fore-fathers, but one or two seem to stand above and beyond the rest.  Way above and beyond.

Did Adams put Parker up to it?  If so, it doesn't change much, or really anything, but certainly it is worth noting.  Can this relate to our mission?

[Big H]

I have just re-read Arthur B. Tourtellot's account, "Lexington and Concord" (W.W. Norton, NY)

The full text of the previous edition of this book, "William Diamond's Drum," is available online at the Universal Library
http://www.archive.org/details/williamdiamondsd012886mbp

[kDan]

I'm bumping this because I really hope someone has something to say.  This is a very interesting interpretation!  I've never heard anyone discuss this at an event, besides myself, and find it hard to believe that none of our history buffs has an opinion on the topic.

And not just because I'm a big city loud-mouth.

[SamD]

Personally I have always thought it was a put up job, precisely timed for maximum PR benefit and in accord with a devious plot to push independence.

I have absolutely no evidence to support that mind you but that's my thought.

Sam

[kDan]

The evidence seems to be pretty circumstantial, but worth a nod. 

Would Parker have lined up his friends and family without "orders".  I agree with Sam and say "probably not."

I'm stalled in contemplating what this might mean for us.  Since we look at this day as almost a divine or pre-ordained series of necessary and unavoidable events that stand alone almost in world history, at least as far as establishing the modern ideal of individual and collective rights and liberties, it's a dangerous topic really. 

I know it's not our mission, and would be counter-productive to getting wives and kids and cooks into the dirt, but looking at the history of this battle and April 19th as a turning point, how should one address the idea of agitators.  Honest to goodness trouble-makers.  I guess we ignore them and maintain a distance because Appleseed is a respectable program and we're not trying to over-throw anybody. 

It is just interesting to think that deviousness may have played a part in the birthing of the greatest nation on earth.  Politics as usual I guess.   

[TaosGlock]

The evidence seems to be pretty circumstantial, but worth a nod. 

Would Parker have lined up his friends and family without "orders".  I agree with Sam and say "probably not."

I'm stalled in contemplating what this might mean for us.  Since we look at this day as almost a divine or pre-ordained series of necessary and unavoidable events that stand alone almost in world history, at least as far as establishing the modern ideal of individual and collective rights and liberties, it's a dangerous topic really. 

I know it's not our mission, and would be counter-productive to getting wives and kids and cooks into the dirt, but looking at the history of this battle and April 19th as a turning point, how should one address the idea of agitators.  Honest to goodness trouble-makers.  I guess we ignore them and maintain a distance because Appleseed is a respectable program and we're not trying to over-throw anybody. 

It is just interesting to think that deviousness may have played a part in the birthing of the greatest nation on earth.  Politics as usual I guess.   

Don't know all of the answers you ask, but I find our history/heritage fascinating...all aspects of it.

For the most part, people attending an AS have little or no clue of the details surrounding the years/days on and around April 19th, 1775. Most have heard bits and pieces of the 3 Strikes as we tell it. That said, we have had a couple of AS participants who were well informed historians sit around with us after hours and discuss April 19. But they are so impressed that we are telling the story/our message, that the more "seedy undertones" (as in any Revolution) surrounding April 19th are not relevant to our message. Most AS instructors have likely read plenty of books well beyond Fischer and like you and me, start asking more questions surrounding the specific incidents of that day.

I just finished re-reading Hallahan's, The Day the American Revolution Began". After the "glorious day for America" quote, Halahan said: "For the price of a few dead farmers, Adams had his Revolution".
I about fell out of my chair the first time I read that statement. What does that mean and how does that relate to our 3 strikes I wondered.

Adams, PR and the SOL, and their various sympathetic "mobs" were all involved in tar and feathering, burnings, hangings, mysterious disappearances of tax collectors, et. al, assorted mayhem, even murder to push the agenda for Independence. He was a brilliant speaker and didn't just use talk to win for their "hearts and minds" as we oft quote his cousin John Adams, but raw muscle as well. No doubt much of this was justified. But unfortunately, even if a Whig was accused/suspected of sympathizing with the Crown, the wrath of the "mob" often fell upon them and their families.

Adams knew the rich, the powerful, the educated, as well as the common man and all those from all social levels.  He could incite them all (especially large crowds) to anger and unhappiness against the Crown in minutes. They all became part of his inner circle.

"Exchanging ideas, planting ideas, networking endlessly. Nudging everyone closer to his concept of liberty."

He was brilliant and later called the Father of Revolutionary Tactics. Some however, called him our first domestic terrorist.

The "hearts and minds" of the colonies were already aligned on Independence, but Sam Adams was impatient and was also driven by revenge. Revenge for how his father and his estate (read inheritance) were ruined by both the Crown's and Hutchinson's policies 15 years previous.

Like SamD said, and as Hallahan implies in his book, it was likely a "put up job" and Parker was there to just "stand his ground".
But Adams knew full well that Parker and his men (who had every right to be there anyway) just simply standing there would very well likely cause/provoke an incident (either intentionally or unintentionally) which could be blamed on the British even if there was any type of controversy involved. Adams now had his fuse.  It was quickly stuffed into the Revolutionary cannon as soon as he knew the troops were going to march to Concord thru Lexington.  His timing would turn out to be perfect. 

As far as Adams was concerned it was a "gloroius day" because Lexington was the match to the fuse.  After Lexington, his fuse to the RW was lit and had exploded.

We often say at the end of our first strike, "if nothing else had happened that day", to state the RW would not have happened.  But knowing Adams, he could well have used that incident alone to later start/incite the RW.

When all is said and done, this makes great insight into our history, but the Strikes as we do them, are as you imply, are "more on mission".
TG

[kDan]

Thanks TG,

That's exactly the insight I was looking for.  And it looks like I've got some more reading to do.

-d-

[EEL]

I, too, looked at Lexington from a militarily tactical perspective, as if I were Adair.   I am marching towards Concord.  I see 80 ish armed men lined up in battle formation.  If I continue towards Concord, I expose my flank to this line.  There-by putting my men in serious peril.  My first and foremost concern is the safety of my men.  

I cannot, in good conscience, allow this to happen.  My only option is to meet the perceived threat head-on and cause them to disperse.  Remember, I have little respect for these farmers.  Pitcarin takes the next tactically correct move.  His actions support the "assult" group and flanks the perceived threat, protecting the men marching head-on.  The result is as you would expect.  Parker, no fool, sees his predicament.  He,too, has his men's safety as his main concern.  He is experienced enough to know the outcome if the shooting begins.  Out numbered and out flanked, he wisely has his men disperse.

All three of these men responded in a manner that was tactically correct for the events as they were layed out before them.  Could it be that "the shot" was from someone that didn't want this golden opportunity to be squandered?  That Parker and his men were, indeed, pawns and that a peaceful resolution was not in the "master plan"?  

I have stated at an Appleseed or two that the RW started because numerous events happened at the same time, at the same place, with certain personalities in attendance.  Had they happened in separate places or at different times, or maybe with different players.....We might all be talking with a funny accent.

You might call it fate.  Perhaps the RW was inevitable.  Maybe this was merely a catalyst.  Maybe "they" were upset that the Boston Massacre didn't light things up.  Or maybe this was the plan from the onset.  The plan from the Most Supreme.  To see how committed our forefathers were to being free men before He would allow blood to be shed and lives changed forever.  He needs to know your true convictions if He is to intervene on your behalf.  Our cause is noble and just.

EEL

[funfaler]

The "fallacy" of the "put up job" perspective.

If Lexington were the beginning of the long trains of abuses by King and parliament, then perhaps you could view this as Parker being swayed by a smooth talker.

What about the 40 to 60 thousand men under arms marching to the defense of Boston after the Sept 1, 1774 powder raid?   Did a smooth talker do that?

Remember, Parker's men had trained and prepared for such an event, over the course of 6 months to a year, or more.....All due to a smooth talker?

Nah, this notion of Adams or others "putting" Parker up to this is hog wash.   Parker was too smart, the New England culture too individualist to allow for simple swaying by talk.   Only smoke from their town lead the men in Concord to march upon the Red Coats, and this after a debate.

Parker and his men were NOT there to start a war.   They were there to protect their homes, their Freedoms, their families.   This explains why they may have been willing to face an overwhelming force.   Maybe this quote from Winston Churchill might sum up what Parker faced:

If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

Our Founding Generation started on the road to revolution in the early 1760's, when the Parliament and Crown put them on that road by disregarding the Colonial Constitutions and Charters the Colonials had been living on for 150 years.   The Colonials tried everything they could think of to get course of the Colonies back on the original track, in line with their Constitutions and Charters.   It was the King and Parliament who "fired the first shot".   It was King and Parliament who urged Parker and his men to muster in the pre-dawn of April 19th, 1775, it was not a "loud mouth smooth talker". 

While I have little doubt there were many emotions in play on that day, the decisions made on that day were far from emotional.   These men understood the severity and gravity of their choices, the choices which had them facing the most powerful army in the world, of the most powerful nation in the world.   While they may have been standing on the Green with their shoes still wet from the dew, the ink on their decision to stand there had dried months to years earlier.   This was not a hasty decision, not a emotional decision, but calculated, long thought out, long decided reaction to King and Parliament's decision to treat our Founders as slaves rather than freemen.   

.....They were not manipulated, they were Freemen, living as such.

[Fred]

    Every so often it's good to take some time from bailing, and relax a bit with friends - which is what this thread is about.

     Good points, cogent ideas, nice stuff to read.

     Maybe I'll throw in my suspicion the Redcoats got the blame for "being out of control" while volleying on Lexington Green. Maybe some officers decided after the smoke cleared away to cover their rears by blaming "those worthless animals in the ranks" - who could doubt it to be the truth?

     "Who could doubt the word of an English officer and gentleman?" (I could.)

     And en passant let's note we all and always want to know, "What really happened?"

     When "what really happened" is what really happened - the facts. (Even as I lodge my own suspicion the redcoats may not have been to blame for firing first - strikes me as much more likely they were following orders - and we have American testimony that British officers gave the "FIRE!" command.)

      Pass me another pint of bitter, please, as I sit back in anticipation of more to read...

[EEL]

Fred,
Because of our forefathers.......make that a nice COLD pint. 

Clearly, war was inevitable.  No way around it.  As stated, the war was already won in the hearts and minds of our forefathers.  Sadly, the only necessary part of the equation missing was the actual war itself. 

While intruiging, I think probing around possible "conspiracy theories" for the truth is going to be fruitless.  So much time has passed.  So many versions.  So many perspectives.  The facts, however, are the facts.  The how's or why's can be speculated on till the sheep come home. (they stay out later than the cows !)

End fact:  Our forefathers willingly sacrificed their futures so we might be free.  As Fun so clearly put it, these were not a bunch of dumb farmers easily swayed by a smooth talking politician.  Most were experienced war vets.  They knew the cost.  They knew the pains.  They knew the reward. 

They knew what had to be done......For US

The question that should be discussed is: 
Do we, , as a Nation, as their Posterity, fully understand our obligation to them?

EEL

[jimbtv]

Is there any chance Parker, (receiving information through Adams, Hancock and Revere) didn't really know the true size of the force headed for Concord?

Might he have thought it was substantially smaller?

I too might line up 60 - 80 friends in neighbors as a show of force, against a group of regulars around the same size. I would likely choose another tactic if I knew that I were to be outnumbered, 10 (or more) to 1.

We know that the secrecy of the operation had been compromised, but do we know the accuracy of that information that was divulged?

[funfaler]

Is there any chance Parker, (receiving information through Adams, Hancock and Revere) didn't really know the true size of the force headed for Concord?

We know that neither Paul Revere, nor William Dawes,  actually witnessed the troops either gathering or marching, so it seems logical that Parker had no useful intel on the size.   In fact, there was no confirmation that the Red Coats were actually coming until the second rider he sent out returned with the news that the Red Coats would be upon them any minute.   This is why Parker only had 70 some men vs. the 130ish he had earlier in the morning.

From the other "powder alarms", these 900ish Red Coats were indeed a larger force than had been used at the others.   So it may be that Capt. Parker expected only 300-500, but he MUST have known that the number would be vastly larger than his 70 some.

[SamD]

Just remember,
Anything we talk here is just speculation.

We do know the motivation, and the reasons, just not the mode of delivery.
After a little thought it is really immaterial.
It happened, and wither by chance or design, the outcome was  teh liberty we enjoy today as citizens of the  US of A.

Sam

[scuzzy]

We know that Hancock and Adams met with Parker at Buckman's Tavern during the period between the first alarm and the actual arrival of the Regulars three hours later.  This is the time period in which Paul Revere was busy with the separately craving Dr. Prescott (love) and Major Mitchell (names). 

Buckman's Tavern eh? My telling of the first strike involves beer and people that have had more than a few before the Redcoats arrived. The colonials after having a few brews, as well as being pissed off, may have contributed to a 'shot' or two going off that morning.

Maybe someone stumbled coming out of the tavern and set off a round accidentally. Or intentionally.

Nothing like some beer and bravado, heh? Hey men, let's say we have a couple before the Brits show up. It's five o'clock somewhere. heh.

Maybe someone after a few too many decided to take that first shot.

No matter though. It happened. And the rest is history. We'll never know the whole story.

At with that in mind, I lift my nearly empty beer in 'Salute.' hiccup.

PS - I would stay behind the trees myself. Ain't nobody getting a clear shot at me or mine. We are too dang short for that crazy stuff. Queen's rules be danged.

[AFTERMATH]

I too might line up 60 - 80 friends in neighbors as a show of force, against a group of regulars around the same size. I would likely choose another tactic if I knew that I were to be outnumbered, 10 (or more) to 1.

Not so much a show of 'force' but a demonstration of commitment and resolve, in the matter at hand.
It was time to take a stand!  And in a way that the Regulars would never have anticipated.  Right out on the Green.
Like a rattle-snake, that rattles before it strikes; it was a warning to the Regulars. 
Had it been a set-up job, it's only reasonable that Parker would have done something to avert a complete massacre... Maybe, kept a few men behind the trees.  Had they planned on starting something; it would only be reasonable to cover the retreat. 
It is quite amazing that only one Regular was wounded; considering the malay that followed the first shot(s)...  I could only assume, that had the militia not been caught completely off-guard by what actually happened; more would have put up a fight.  If only hand-to-hand, as the regulars began to run them down and through...  No, they did not expect it to actually start at that time.  They made their stand in defiance; and when Parker gave the order to disperse; they truly believed they were going home. 
Also, I should think that had they intended for the war to start then and there; it would provide more encouragement to future participants, had they stood and fought to the last man.  Just as the 300 Spartans provided enough of a moral boost to rally the Greek city-states against Persia.

[kDan]

This is gonna take a minute, but I'm gonna end in a different place than I'm beginning.  Just hear me out.

I've been thinking a lot lately about changes to the site.  I was away for about a month and I get back and it's all AAR's and Mission Specifics.  Fred's comment that it's okay sometimes for us to "take a break from bailing, and relax a bit with friends - which is what this thread is about" got me noticing them even more.  I appreciated this amicable, friendly take on the subject matter, but I was kind of surprised.  I had posted this thinking it was very much an Appleseed issue.  It's in the History section, it's a way of looking at the events, and maybe it's even a bit MORE information - relevant information - that we have a DUTY to report.

Like I said, I've been thinking about the site.  As always, most posts are related to a specific event, or specific task.  But unlike the old days (September?), there is not a lot of off-topic (OT) discussion.  Rifle related, personal, political, or just plain fun.  Joking around talking about ninja squirrels and assault monkeys and bad soup.  Not that it was ever encouraged or a good idea, but it is just about gone now and a discussion of alternate views of the historical events can fall under the heading of "Things to discuss when drinking beer".  We're getting too big to mess around.  I get it.  Hold on a sec.  Need a cold one.  That's better.

I'm sitting in my chair right over there, and thinking about how this happened and what it means.  Now, I'm not one to complain.  I may not be your typical patriot, and I may "over-share" some times, but I do what I'm told and keep my mind on the mission.  So, I'm sitting in my chair, lamenting some of the humor and personality that used to come through a bit more on this site.  Full disclosure - I'm not a web guy, this is the only site I visit.  Seriously.  I know there are plenty of places most people go to relax and unwind with friends, but I don't do it.  Visiting this forum and responding to pm's and staying on top of things is a part-time job as far as I'm concerned.  I can respond to e-mails on my giant terrifying phone and could do without the internet if it weren't for Appleseed and Netflix instant watch movies.  This is where I come to work AND unwind before I fall asleep to a pixellated movie on my laptop.  Like a lot of you, it's my home page, but I found it in a magazine.

So I'm sitting in my chair when it hits me.  We have a very short period of time to get this done.  We have a lot to do.  We need to represent a system that it is possible to follow around the country, around the clock.  We can't slow down and we need standards.  There are points to be made at an Appleseed event.  These points are pretty standard across the board.  They NEED to be.  Steady Hold Factors, 6 Steps, Empty Chambers - a lot of stuff!  Then there's the History, arguably the meat of the program.  While it's interesting to talk about what may and may not have been on the minds of individuals at the time, the simple facts are these:

- the British Army marched
- the colonists stood
- the colonists were shot
- the colonists responded, and beat the British Army
- a nation was born that reached its apex with Steely Dan, but...

...and NOW - there's Appleseed.

Betwixt and between these facts are plenty of names and stories, none of which really matter (yikes - I'm gonna get it for that one!).  But seriously, if there's one thing I frown on as a Shoot Boss, it's when more knowledgeable instructors step on newer folks correcting their history when not asked.  A pause is a pause, and even a correct name is forgotten three minutes later.  It doesn't help anybody to embarrass an instructor and show off in front of a bunch of regular folks.  There I goes, getting OT again... 

Now let us not assume that kDan did not know that this was a working site, or understand what that means.  Let's just say that, while this kind of discussion is edifying, and important, even just for making us better people, the last thing we need to do is clutter the story with cross-referencing foot-notes that lead us around and around like Adams and Hancock deciding how to cook a fine great salmon.  Just stick it in the fire and blow hard, you blowhard!  I will still talk about this during my history presentations, because it makes for a good story, and I'm pushing my First Strike over the one hour bench-mark in oh ten.  Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

This stuff is worth discussing.  KEEP TALKING!!  We should all continue to research and improve ourselves.  But Appleseed is pretty dang near perfect as far as I'm concerned.  All we need to do is continue to recruit good people (the only kind that join) and help them fit into this system of standards.  We need standards, National Standards, and we need to stick to them or everything will eventually fall apart and we'll just be a bunch of jerks pointing at each other.  Nickle said it, or at least he said it to me, "Don't fix blame; fix problems."

This discussion is not threat to AS or to Standards, but it did get me thinking.  Maybe I should start a new thread.  Where would I put my personal discussion of National Standards, under New York? 

IBC this week-end folks. 

[jimbtv]

BULLSEYE, Mr. KDan.   

Now talk about the advantages of the new "xyz" sites, or the latest load... open forum.