Who Shot First at Lexington?

[FiremanBob]

There is an interesting discussion in the comments on this article: http://allthingsliberty.com/2014/04/who-shot-first-the-americans/#_edn11. The author is convinced that someone behind a wall or in Buckman's Tavern shot at the Regulars first. I am not convinced by the evidence he cites. So far it's pretty lively, although many of the comments are not exactly on the point. Perhaps other Appleseeders can contribute clearer points than those in the discussion so far.

[Unbridled Liberty]

It's a moot point.  What happened next is what is more important.  What happened next is a no-brainer; with 8 dead and 9 wounded colonial militia, and 1 redcoat with a slight flesh wound, it is clear that the redcoats fired the first shots.

Let me put it another way.
Possibility #1: The Buckman's Tavern/Stone Wall colonist fires one shot.  Result- The redcoats open fire into the backs of the dispersing training band.

Possibility #2: Adair or Pitcairn have a negligent discharge.  Result- The redcoats open fire into the backs of the dispersing training band.

UL

[Moylan]

I don't think I'll go and post in the comments there, but it does seem to me that the author of that piece has seriously overstated his case, and he's badly misunderstood the value of the evidence he cites.  The author's argument can be more or less summarized as claiming that the British testimony on the matter of who fired first at Lexington is actually worth more than the American testimony, since (a) the Americans were obviously waging a propaganda war in their testimony at the time, (b) the Americans changed their story 50 years later (c) the British were right on the scene and very clear about what happened, and (d) the British admitted to firing first at the North Bridge--if they were honest about that, why not be honest about who fired first at Lexington?

Point (a) is granted, though one would of course also point out that the British troops had propaganda-based, as well as military-discipline-based reasons to blame the incident at Lexington on the Americans, and so had their own motivations for massaging the facts.  I'll return to that when I get to point (d).

Point (b) is simply not established by the author at all.  The author cites two sets of claims made by the American Sgt. Munroe.  The first, taken in 1775:

We were faced towards the Regulars, then marching up to us, and some of Company were coming to the parade with their backs towards the Troops, and others on the parade began to disperse, when the Regulars fired on the Company before a gun was fired by any of our Company on them; they killed eight of our Company, and wounded several, and continued their fire until we had all made our escape.

In 1825, Sgt. Munroe's "changed" testimony was:

They immediately... fire[d], when our company began to retreat, and, as I left the field, I saw a person firing at the British troops from Buckman's back door, which was near our left, where I was parading the men when I retreated. I was afterward told, of the truth of which I have no doubt, that the same person, after firing from the back door, went to the front door of Buckman's house, and fired there. How many of our company fired before they retreated, I cannot say; but I am confident some of them did.

The author's point here is twofold.  First, this change in Munroe's testimony gives support for point (a) above: Munroe's motivations in 1775 were related to the need to make the Americans innocent victims--in 1825, he wanted to make the Americans into bold patriots standing up to oppression.  Second, in changing his story, Munroe's account came to more resemble the British accounts--after all, the British accounts mention someone shooting from Buckman's Tavern.  Here's what the author says:

Munroe admits fifty years after the fact that the Americans fired into the British, something none of the early American depositions of 1775 explicitly admit. And, while Munroe still holds that the British fired first, his 1825 deposition admits that at least two American shots were indeed fired from near Buckman Tavern, which only helps to corroborate the original British claims.

But this is all wrong.  Munroe's first deposition doesn't explicitly admit that any Americans fired.  But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what this means: "the Regulars fired on the Company before a gun was fired by any of our Company on them..."  Munroe's 1775 testimony doesn't make any effort to hide the fact that the Americans fired, and strikes me as including the very plain assertion that the Americans did fire.  Since, however, this is not made explicit, of course he doesn't say where they fired from.  But there's no particular reason to be surprised that a retreating militiaman, finding himself being fired upon, would first hustle to a bit of cover nearby--say, a large house!--and then turn and fire himself.  Which is more or less what Munroe's 1825 testimony says.  Munroe also says he is sure some of his men fired before they retreated.  Which is common knowledge.  Some of his men stood and never did retreat at all.  None of this gives us any support for the idea that the Americans fired first--that is still denied by Munroe. 

On point (c), it is false that the British reports were especially accurate.  Even among themselves, they strongly disagree, since one report claims there were 200 men on the green and another report claims there were 400.  Of course, there were less than half the smaller number.  (The claims are definitely about those who were drawn up in formation, so the obvious fact that there were townspeople around would enter into this and artificially inflate the numbers.  Or, alternatively, if the British witnesses can't distinguish between militiamen drawn up in formation, and townspeople observing the scene, then they're not likely to be super reliable witnesses in other respects either, are they?)  The fact that these witnesses more than doubled the number of opposing troops shows that there was some confusion about the events.  Perhaps they deliberately inflated the number, which would cast doubt on their veracity.  Perhaps the natural sense of fear that one would have when approaching a dangerous situation simply blew the numbers up in their minds, which again casts some doubt on exactly how reliable their reports on who fired first, and from where, would be. 

Moreover, while the author's citations of these British depositions shows that a few British officers agree that the Americans fired first, in fact the agreement is less than he recognizes.  Lt. Sutherland says:

We still went on further when three shots were fired at us, which we did not return, & this is sacred truth as I hope for mercy these 3 shots were fired from the corner of a large house [Buckman Tavern] to the right of the Church [Meeting House on Lexington Green] when we came up to the main body which appeared to me to exceed 400 in & about the Village who were drawn up in a plane opposite to the Church, several officers called out to throw down your arms & you shall come to no harm, or words to that effect which they refused to do. Instantaneously the [British] gentlemen who were on horseback rode amongst them of which I was one, at which instant I heard Major Pitcairn's voice call out 'soldiers don't fire, keep your ranks, form & surround them', instantly some of the villains who got over a hedge fired at us which our men for the first time returned...

So notice here that three shots were fired from Buckmans Tavern--which were not returned.  Then, later, shots were fired from behind a hedge, which were returned. 

Lt. Lister says:

we saw one of their Compys drawn up in regular order, Major Pitcairn... call'd to them to disperce, but their not seeming willing he desired us to mind our space which we did when they gave us a fire then run of[f] to get behind a wall.

So this testimony does not mention any shots from Buckmans Tavern, but does mention shots fired from on the Green, after which shots, the American shooters ran and got behind a wall. 

And Maj. Pitcairn says:

I instantly called to the soldiers not to fire, but surround and disarm them, and after several repetitions of those positive orders to the men, not to fire, etc. some of the rebels who had jumped over the wall fired four or five shots at the soldiers

So this time, we have Americans who had already jumped over a wall firing upon the British.  This meshes with Lt. Sutherland's claim that the Americans fired from behind something, though the Lt. tells us it was a hedge and the Major tells us it was a wall.  (Possibly, that comes to the same thing.)  But they both disagree with Lister.  And both Lister and Pitcairn disagree with Sutherland, insofar as neither of them mention the three shots from the Tavern.  Whatever else we can learn from these depositions, we know right off the bat that we're not getting a clear picture of the truth.   The accounts are inconsistent with one another. 

So in to point (d): why would the British lie about Lexington, and tell the truth about Concord?  This point makes no sense.  In Lexington, there were very clear and repeated orders not to fire.  Moreover, in Lexington, the British regulars were walking up on an ordered group of militia who were standing in their own town square: in effect, in Lexington the regulars were the aggressors.  If a British soldier or officer fired first in Lexington, that would pretty clearly have been a serious matter.  But at the North Bridge, the regulars were on the bridge, simply holding their ground, and American militia were advancing on them in what must have been a fairly warlike manner.  In this case, you can definitely view the Americans as the aggressors.  (They were right to be aggressive, of course.  Being the aggressor doesn't always mean you're in the wrong!)  The British at the North Bridge, anyway, could clearly make the case that they were defending themselves against an armed attack.  Don't forget that Isaac Davis's militia was armed with bayonets.  This wasn't a group of farmers standing on their own town green.  This was a well armed group in military formation advancing on the British position.  Different situation.  No comparison to Lexington.  Point (d) is a failure.  (Note that this doesn't give us any positive reason to believe that the British did lie about who fired first at Lexington.  That's not the point.  The point is just that the fact that they didn't lie about the North Bridge doesn't give us any reason to think they didn't lie about Lexington.) 

Frankly, for myself, I'd have to say that I think it's highly probable an American fired first.  (Sorry to go against the Appleseed view!    )  But this article doesn't give me any reason to think it.  It's very thin. 

[Two Wolves]

Perhaps one should consider not where that first shot actually came from but who was the aggressor in this situation.

After reading the above post I must add this comment. If the regulars left Boston to disarm or take from the colonist, they, in my opinion were being the aggressor. The colonist militia who were awaken by the alarm riders i.e. Paul Revere, were on the green as defenders.

Had not the regulars marched on the colonists we wouldn't be discussing the first shot.

[Moylan]

Perhaps one should consider not where that first shot actually came from but who was the aggressor in this situation.

After reading the above post I must add this comment. If the regulars left Boston to disarm or take from the colonist, they, in my opinion were being the aggressor. The colonist militia who were awaken by the alarm riders i.e. Paul Revere, were on the green as defenders.

Had not the regulars marched on the colonists we wouldn't be discussing the first shot.

I completely agree.  Even in regards to the engagement at the North Bridge, where I said you could view the Americans as the aggressors, there's room to argue about that, since the regulars were apparently engaged in tearing up the bridge, which the Americans had every right to defend.  I was only trying to draw a distinction--at least a distinction that I think might well have been very important in the minds of the British--between the question of why they'd admit to firing first at the North Bridge, but not in Lexington.  The author of that piece puts a lot of weight on that point, and I think it's just confused.  It's an apples to oranges comparison.

[Moylan]

I just spent a little bit of time looking at some of the comments, and I noticed that the author sort of changed gears a little bit.  At one point, he writes this:

Given I am as interested in this subject as every other JAR reader, I'm happy to hear any counterargument. After all, there are many gaps in our knowledge. But I think the evidence I laid out in the main article is pretty substantial, and even if some points can be successfully refuted, all of the others must also be fully addressed in order to provide a satisfactory counterargument of the events. For instance, it is not enough to argue and give support that the British fired first without also arguing that the British reports were false about their record of Lexington, even though they were honest about Concord's North Bridge (where the British admit they fired first). Likewise, we cannot omit the evidence that one American did indeed attempt to fire on Pitcairn's lead scouts, though his gun misfired (flashed in the pan). And most importantly [my emphasis]: we cannot ignore that the British conscripts really didn't care much emotionally about what was at stake: though the Americans passionately did... discipline was most likely broken down by these sways of passion. If both sides were equally disciplined, the passionate Americans were most likely to fire without orders. Given the lack of pure facts, this reality of human nature must be addressed.

I don't remember the author actually pushing this "most important" point in the body of his article, which is surprising if he in fact thinks it is the most important point.  But again, it really doesn't carry much weight.  Annoyed regulars who were tired, grumpy, disdainful of those militiamen they were facing, and maybe pretty jumpy about what was going on, might not care much about the politics of the thing, but they might be just as ready for a fight as any of the Americans.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more it seems to me that the author is really misunderstanding the dominant psychology of the Americans at this point.  They have quite a record, by April 19th, of trigger discipline.  At Salem, the men goaded the regulars and really just dared them to fire.  At the event that became the Boston Massacre, more or less the same thing happened (as I understand it): namely, Americans pushed the regulars until the regulars fired.  But the Americans were very deliberate about not firing first.  The regulars, while disciplined, and generally submissive, could be prompted to fire--as the Massacre shows. 

This actually suggests an interesting way of putting the flash in the pan event.  Possibly, it was a rogue American really trying to take a shot at the British column.  But here's another explanation: the American was goading the British troops.  He did not load the firearm, he simply primed the pan, aimed and shot.  If the firearm wasn't loaded, he could hardly be viewed as having fired the first shot.  But he might prompt some return fire from the British, and it seems to me that various Americans had a habit of trying to draw fire. 

I'm not saying that's necessarily the best way to interpret the flash in the pan.  Obviously, I have no evidence for my speculation.  I'm just saying that since the author puts a lot of weight on that event, too, he ought to consider all the possibilities, and put them in context.

[asminuteman]

Perhaps one should consider not where that first shot actually came from but who was the aggressor in this situation.

After reading the above post I must add this comment. If the regulars left Boston to disarm or take from the colonist, they, in my opinion were being the aggressor. The colonist militia who were awaken by the alarm riders i.e. Paul Revere, were on the green as defenders.

Had not the regulars marched on the colonists we wouldn't be discussing the first shot.

I completely agree.  Even in regards to the engagement at the North Bridge, where I said you could view the Americans as the aggressors, there's room to argue about that, since the regulars were apparently engaged in tearing up the bridge, which the Americans had every right to defend.  I was only trying to draw a distinction--at least a distinction that I think might well have been very important in the minds of the British--between the question of why they'd admit to firing first at the North Bridge, but not in Lexington.  The author of that piece puts a lot of weight on that point, and I think it's just confused.  It's an apples to oranges comparison.

Pardon me,
by what Military logic does a commander send 300 soliders "ACROSS" a bridge (heading to Barrett's farm), THEN send 200 soliders to defend said bridge, (in case thee 300 under go an exit in haste) ..... Then while those folks are out away from thee company,. NOW tear up thee bridge? .... force of just over 800 entered Concord, 500 of which are "away".... thee company is now divided into 3 separate groups.....!

reading this thread, has me believing some stories have gotten crossed ......

[Moylan]

Pardon me,
by what Military logic does a commander send 300 soliders "ACROSS" a bridge (heading to Barrett's farm), THEN send 200 soliders to defend said bridge, (in case thee 300 under go an exit in haste) ..... Then while those folks are out away from thee company,. NOW tear up thee bridge? .... force of just over 800 entered Concord, 500 of which are "away".... thee company is now divided into 3 separate groups.....!

reading this thread, has me believing some stories have gotten crossed ......

I'm not really sure I'm the right one to ask, since I didn't give any commands at the North Bridge. 

But if what you're meaning to say here is that I am confused about the incident, then while that might be true, I have heard at every Appleseed I've attended that the regulars started to pull up the bridge.  That fact is reported on the Wikipedia page on Lexington and Concord, as well, though admittedly that page only refers to one regular pulling up boards.  The wikipedia page also relates that Major Buttrick yelled out for the regulars to stop tearing up the bridge.  I imagine he yelled this out because they were tearing up the bridge. 

But suppose I had made a mistake, and mixed up my engagements.  It certainly could be.  I wrote an awful lot of stuff in this thread today.  Possibly, I made more than one error.  It's been known to happen.  A polite correction would be appreciated.  Headbanging is really uncalled for.

[asminuteman]

Bezon Moylan,

Thread wasn't accually directed at you,.... how ever I can see as were "I" may have made it seam as such...
and it is my hope that would accept my humblest apologizes for that alone.

It (thy thread) and others like it are thee source of my angst......
There are so many resourses available, but alas folks still get thee history incorrect.....
So it was not you, nay, but my outburst in frustration.....this is not thee only thread, that "has" historical issues.

So let us start fresh, shall we?
To start ...*above*..."bezon" is a shawnee greeting from that day an age (pronounced bay/zone)
I'm Ken, alphabet soup behind name
But thee one to take notice of is "Registered Living Historian with thee National Parks Service"
I teach, breath, and yes live 18th century....its a life style
those are my clothes in thee avatar, NOT as you might think, a "costume" in some Shakespearen play

If I may be of service to you, please feel free to ask

your most humble and obedent servant *cough*
Master Doyle, pvt 11th Virginia Regment (Morgan's Rifle Company)

[Two Wolves]

WOW! There really is a time machine!!   

[Moylan]

Bezon Moylan,

Thread wasn't accually directed at you,.... how ever I can see as were "I" may have made it seam as such...
and it is my hope that would accept my humblest apologizes for that alone.

It (thy thread) and others like it are thee source of my angst......
There are so many resourses available, but alas folks still get thee history incorrect.....
So it was not you, nay, but my outburst in frustration.....this is not thee only thread, that "has" historical issues.

So let us start fresh, shall we?
To start ...*above*..."bezon" is a shawnee greeting from that day an age (pronounced bay/zone)
I'm Ken, alphabet soup behind name
But thee one to take notice of is "Registered Living Historian with thee National Parks Service"
I teach, breath, and yes live 18th century....its a life style
those are my clothes in thee avatar, NOT as you might think, a "costume" in some Shakespearen play

If I may be of service to you, please feel free to ask

your most humble and obedent servant *cough*
Master Doyle, pvt 11th Virginia Regment (Morgan's Rifle Company)

Thanks, Ken.  I appreciate the nice note. 

I'm still a bit unclear here, though.  Is it the case that there was no tearing up of boards at the North Bridge?  If so, can you help me out with a good source on this?  I'll pass the information along to the cadre here in NC. 

I was just at the shoot on April 19th, and the claim that the troops were tearing up the North Bridge was made yet again, keeping alive my streak of hearing this claim at every appleseed I've attended.  If it's a mistake, we here in NC need to including it in our telling of the second strike.  Thanks! 

[FiremanBob]

On page 210 of my paperback edition of Paul Revere's Ride Fischer says that some of the Regulars began to tear up bridge planks as they were falling back across the bridge after the Americans began their march from Butterick's farm towards town. He quotes Amos Barrett recalling Maj. Butterick's statement, "If we were all of his mind he would drive them away from the bridge, they should not tear that up. We all said we would go."

Apparently the Regulars believed they would stop the Americans and deal with the away team's return afterwards.

[Moylan]

Thank you, FiremanBob!  I thought I remembered having seen that in Fischer's book, but for some reason I couldn't put my finger on it the other day. 

[ItsanSKS]

My good friend Ken,  here is where you've been lead astray by your otherwise astute mind:

...by what Military logic...

You see, you are attempting to use logic to explain the actions and characteristics of a situation that defies logic itself; to whit:  by what logic whatsoever does it make sense to send an armed band of soldiers to disarm the citizenry?  If there is no logic to be found in that effort, then one cannot expect to find a logical explanation for the actions of the men tasked with performing this illogical task. 

[fisherdawg]

Mr. Derek Beck makes many errors in his presentation, but I think the fundamental one is the relative weight he gives the British testimony over the American. And he completely misunderstands the psychology on both sides.

The British MURDERED the Americans at Lexington Green.

It may have been Second Degree Murder, but is was Murder.  And yet Mr. Beck, bless him, believes the British had LESS motivation to lie, distort and justify & rationalize their actions that lead to an overwhelming Military and Political disaster on Battle Road?

Sutherland is not very credible.  He was on a fractious horse that some sources report (Concord Chamber of Commerce "Battle Road Hour by Hour" pamphlet) bolted 600 yards down the Bedford Road before he stopped, apparently at the first shots on the Green.  He was a supernumerary who came along because he wanted to see the action.  As for his 'flash' in the pan report, isn't it just as likely a signal shot?

The British Regulars, the privates in the ranks, seethed at the treatment they had received for many months at the hands of of the Bostonians -- fist fights, tar & feathers etc.  The Rank & File were not apathetic about the 'country people' -- many returned hate for hate.

The Americans, the Colonists, on the other hand knew that they had to justify their actions to the world at large.  They knew they were in a battle for the Hearts & Minds of their neighbors and the Public in Britain. This is something other than mere 'propaganda.' The also knew that their actions were an Appeal to Heaven and these progeny of the Puritans knew they had to be in the right.

To anachronistically apply modern attitudes and amoral relativism to the actions of April 19th, 1775 is to repeat the errors of historiograhy that Fischer set out to correct.

We must seek to understand what happened on the terms of their time, not ours.

I am glad Mr. Beck cares to bring the story to light, but I cannot subscribe to his conclusions.  I hope to find the time for some refutation at JAR.

[asminuteman]

*Chuckles*@ Eric......

to my point:
"On page 210 of my paperback edition of Paul Revere's Ride Fischer says that some of the Regulars began to tear up bridge planks as they were falling back across the bridge after the Americans began their march from Butterick's farm towards town. He quotes Amos Barrett recalling Maj. Butterick's statement, "If we were all of his mind he would drive them away from the bridge, they should not tear that up. We all said we would go."

in short 
-Col Barrett (farm owner)
-Major John Butterick (mill owner)
-300 Regulars were at thee farm... not thee Colonist's
-Massing Colonial Miltias on Punkatasset Hill, began a march toward Concord due to "smoke", from fire started by British in Concord....."when young LT Joseph Homser challenges Barrett,"will you let them burn the town down"!
------------------------------------------------
Captain Davis "I haven't a man afraid to go"
The Regulars, "astonished by thee miltias orderly march....fall back across bridge, 3 things occur simultaneously:
-several regulars pull at thee bridge in an attempt to quickly remove planks -Regulars attempt to form "street fire formation" - several shots ring out
exchange of gun fire (whole story) Isaac Davis," Luther Blanchard, "fire men for gods sake fire as fast as you can"
--------------------------------------------------
-200 Regulars reteat (confusion.... )
-Miltias now in control of bridge (war crime occurs at this time)
-300 Regulars from farm, must walk though Miltia holding bridge

Now..... you can argue with thee printed documents (modern), in addition to thee first hand record.....
However, both tell a simular story............"SMOKE" began thee march,
Colonist did not march from thee farm.....
Punkatasset Hill is to thee north of thee bridge, and thee farm is to thee west

I'm quoting from multiple sources to include, AS guide posts, Mr Fisher, National Parks services handouts, Thee Battle road map.......and haven't even touched thee heavy reading titles


It doesn't really matter at this junction....... my only gripe is uniformity....
You tell it however you want..........

[FiremanBob]

Thank you, asminuteman. My only quibble with your last post is that the farm directly on the north side of the bridge is not Barrett's farm, but Butterick's. Butterick was standing on his own land when he advised his comrades to prevent the Regulars from tearing up the bridge.

And it's "Hosmer" but you knew that...

Fisherdawg, your last post was excellent. Mr. Beck was rash in jumping to his conclusion. I firmly believe he is incorrect. Now if I could find that talking horse named Liberty...perhaps I could deliver all the real facts...

[asminuteman]

in short 
-Col Barrett (farm owner)*this property to thee west*.....This is where miltias goods are stored-Major John Butterick (mill owner) *does NOT own a farm......* this property is to thee north*


Punkatasset Hill is to thee north of thee bridge, and thee farm is to thee west

[asminuteman]

when young LT Joseph Homser challenges Barrett,"will you let them burn the town down"!

yep knew that.... quoted it also

[Moylan]

*Chuckles*@ Eric......

to my point:
"On page 210 of my paperback edition of Paul Revere's Ride Fischer says that some of the Regulars began to tear up bridge planks as they were falling back across the bridge after the Americans began their march from Butterick's farm towards town. He quotes Amos Barrett recalling Maj. Butterick's statement, "If we were all of his mind he would drive them away from the bridge, they should not tear that up. We all said we would go."

in short 
-Col Barrett (farm owner)
-Major John Butterick (mill owner)
-300 Regulars were at thee farm... not thee Colonist's
-Massing Colonial Miltias on Punkatasset Hill, began a march toward Concord due to "smoke", from fire started by British in Concord....."when young LT Joseph Homser challenges Barrett,"will you let them burn the town down"!
------------------------------------------------
Captain Davis "I haven't a man afraid to go"
The Regulars, "astonished by thee miltias orderly march....fall back across bridge, 3 things occur simultaneously:
-several regulars pull at thee bridge in an attempt to quickly remove planks -Regulars attempt to form "street fire formation" - several shots ring out
exchange of gun fire (whole story) Isaac Davis," Luther Blanchard, "fire men for gods sake fire as fast as you can"
--------------------------------------------------
-200 Regulars reteat (confusion.... )
-Miltias now in control of bridge (war crime occurs at this time)
-300 Regulars from farm, must walk though Miltia holding bridge

Now..... you can argue with thee printed documents (modern), in addition to thee first hand record.....
However, both tell a simular story............"SMOKE" began thee march,
Colonist did not march from thee farm.....
Punkatasset Hill is to thee north of thee bridge, and thee farm is to thee west

I'm quoting from multiple sources to include, AS guide posts, Mr Fisher, National Parks services handouts, Thee Battle road map.......and haven't even touched thee heavy reading titles


It doesn't really matter at this junction....... my only gripe is uniformity....
You tell it however you want..........

Ken, I'm not following you, I'm afraid.  Are you thinking I claimed that the Americans marched towards the North Bridge because the regulars were tearing up the boards?  If so, I would simply point out that I neither said nor implied any such thing.  Quite the contrary, I would say it was rather obvious the regulars were tearing up the bridge because the Americans were advancing on them. 

My comment about the tearing up of the boards was an offhand one, on a peripheral issue, and has nothing to do with what I was actually doing in this thread.  Which was to systematically undermine Beck's arguments in the piece linked in the OP.  To recap the relevant thought: Beck had claimed that the British did not lie about having fired first at the North Bridge, and that their honesty on that point gives us reason to trust them when they claimed to NOT have fired first at Lexington.  I argued that Beck's claim here is indefensible: the situations are dissimilar enough so that no such inference can be legitimately made.  And then, in case anyone got antsy about my claim that the British at the North Bridge might reasonably have viewed the advancing Americans as the aggressors (unlike the case in Lexington), I just threw out the thought that the British exacerbated that situation by beginning to take apart the bridge in the face of the militia.  That was all.  It was a passing thought.  Not an explanation for why the Americans marched on the North Bridge.  The reason why the Americans marched towards the North Bridge is very clear and not in dispute.

Anyway, hopefully now it will be clear that nobody here is disagreeing about the actual course of events at the North Bridge, and we can get back to the discussion of the topic of the thread. 

[FiremanBob]

Asminuteman, according to this local history source, the mill was also owned by Barrett and Buttrick was a farmer:

http://www.ma-roots.org/books/roof/chapter11.html

At the opening of the Revolution, their son James was established, with a large family, in one of the three homes; and his older brother, Deacon Thomas, born 1707, was occupying the other home with his large family.
      These, with the mill, made up a Barrett settlement, of much importance at that time, and remained in the family many years; but at present only the original homestead remains in the name...

    William [Buttrick], the head of the family, was born in England about 1617. He was a co-worker with Rev. Peter Bulkeley, Hon. Thomas Flint, and others of that little company who pushed out from tide-water, and began that settlement at Musketaquid (Concord) in 1635.
          In the record of 1635, twelve lots of 215 acres are credited to William Buttrick. The homestead of the present comprises a portion of that territory, and is one of the very few estates that have never been sold out of the family name in the historic town.
          William Buttrick had a share of the "Commons" in the first allotment, where he established his home on the southerly slope of the hill, beyond the river, to which his meadows extended. Here his descendants of the seventh generation enjoy a prosperous home, and cherish the acres of their illustrious ancestors.
          In the course of family descent and settlement of estates, divisions of the original territory have necessarily been made; but a good portion remains, and every visitor to the Old Battleground treads upon a portion of the Buttrick farm, which was given by Stedman Buttrick, and on which the Minute-Man stands.
          It was Deacon Jonathan Buttrick, of the third generation, whose memory is perpetuated by the epitaph upon his gravestone. He died March 23, 1767, aged 77, and "was followed to the grave by his widow and thirteen well-instructed children." Four of these sons and several grandsons were in arms on the morning of April 19, 1775, for the Colonial cause.
          The sixth son of Deacon Jonathan Buttrick was John, who was in command at the battle of Concord, and was the "hero of the fight." He led the gallant band to meet the invading enemy at North Bridge.
          His words of command, uttered within sight of his own hearthstone and in the presence of his anxious family, are too familiar to need repetition here. Major John's son and namesake, then nineteen years of age, was a fifer in the battle of Concord; and Jonas, too young to enter the ranks, viewed the memorable scene from behind a buttonwood-tree that stood near the present dwelling.
          Major John Buttrick divided his estate between his sons John and Jonas. The latter occupied the site of the present dwelling, where his son Stedman maintained the family integrity, and transmitted estate and good name to the present owners, who occupy the old homestead, and continue the enviable reputation of the fathers.
          In the last will of Major John Buttrick is a good example of the manner in which the head of the family, one hundred years ago, provided for his wife in her years of widowhood. Besides giving her the use of his dwelling, he provided that his sons should "bring into my wife and their mother, 100 pounds of beef, well fatted; six bushels of Indian corn; six bushels of rye, ground into meal if she desires it; one bushel of malt; one bushel of salt; one barrel of cider; one barrel of good winter apples; two pounds of tea; 14 pounds of sugar; six pounds of candles; together with two silver dollars yearly, and a sufficiency of sauce of every kind at all seasons of the year; and firewood cut fit for the fire sufficient for one good fire, and carried into the house.
          "In case of sickness or indisposition of body, to provide for her necessaries in such case, also keep one cow summer and winter for my wife, and drive and fetch said cow from pasture in the summer; and she shall have a horse with suitable tackling to ride when and where she pleases."
          No costly monument marks the resting-place of him who led the Provincials at Old North Bridge, but thousands of patriotic tourists annually seek out the humble grave, and read: --

    IN MEMORY OF

    COLONEL JOHN BUTTRICK,
    WHO COMMANDED THE MILITIA COMPANIES WHICH MADE
    THE FIRST ATTACK UPON THE BRITISH TROOPS, AT CONCORD
    NORTH BRIDGE, ON THE 19TH OF APRIL, 1775.
    Having with patriotic firmness shared in the dangers which led to American Independence, he lived to enjoy the blessings of it, and died May 16, 1791, aged 6o years. Having laid down the sword with honor, he resumed the plough with industry; by the latter to maintain what the former had won. The virtues of the parent, citizen, and Christian adorned his life, and his worth was acknowledged by the grief and respect of all ranks at his death.

Here is another interesting bit of trivia related to the British invasion of Barrett's farm:

One of the British soldiers, named Thorpe, who aided in searching the house on that memorable morning, deserted from the king's army, visited the Barrett home, and was later employed on the farm, where he fully appreciated that food which he so hastily sampled in the absence of the master of the house.