Home : For The People : One Leg Men At Ass Kickin's :

Militiamen Of Lexington And Concord

On April 19, 1775, American colonists took up their muskets to defend their rights and freedom. But what happened after Lexington and Concord, the wholesale confiscation of firearms from the people of Boston, played a major role in determining the Founders' Second Amendment.

Disperse you rebels—Damn you, throw down your Arms and disperse!" shouted British Maj. John Pitcairn at the militiamen who were assembled on Lexington's common. "Upon which the Troops huzz'd, and immediately one or two Officers discharged their Pistols, which were instantaneously followed by the Firing of four or five of the Soldiers, then there seemed to be a general discharge from the whole Body." So went a widely published American account of that fateful day of April 19, 1775.

On April 18, British Gen. Thomas Gage appointed Lt. Col. Francis Smith of the 10th Regiment to head an expedition, with Maj. Pitcairn second in command, of some 700 soldiers to carry out the following orders: "Having received Intelligence, that a Quantity of Ammunition, Provision, Artillery, Tents and small Arms, having been collected at Concord, for the Avowed Purpose of raising and supporting a Rebellion against His Majesty, you will March with the Corps of Grenadiers and light Infantry, put under your Command, with the utmost expedition and Secrecy to Concord, where you will seize and destroy ... [them]."

The skirmish gave rise to numerous statements of eyewitnesses. John Robbins, one of the Lexington militiamen, would testify: "the company under Captain John Parker, being drawn up ... on the green or common ... there suddenly appeared a number of the King's troops, about a thousand as I thought, at the distance of about 60 or 70 yards from us, with three officers in their front on horseback and on full gallop towards us, the foremost of which cried, throw down your arms, go willing ye rebels, upon which said company dispersing, the foremost of the three officers ordered their men saying fire ...."

By contrast, Maj. Pitcairn wrote that, when his troops arrived and observed some 200 militiamen filing off toward some stone walls, "I instantly called to the Soldiers not to Fire, but to 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 shott at the Soldiers," wounding a soldier and the major's horse. "At the same time several Shott were fired from a Meeting House on our Left—upon this, without any order or Regularity, the Light Infantry began a scattering Fire ...."

The militiamen of Lexington and Concord consisted of all able-bodied males aged 16 through 60, from its gentlemen and yeomen to its laborers and apprentices, excluding the town's Harvard students and a dozen African-American slaves. All provided their own arms except for a few poor men who had to borrow them."

But when the Redcoats began their withdrawal back to Boston, the officer noted that the Americans ambushed them from houses and from behind walls and hedges. Some of the rebels would ride horses to get ahead of the troops, find a hiding spot, and take a shot—then repeat the maneuver to fire again. The officer conceded, "These fellows were generally good marksmen, and many of them used long guns made for Duck-Shooting." This attested to the shooting skills of the colonists and indicated that private arms designed for hunting were in common use. At the end of the day, the Americans would be victorious. While most British soldiers made good their retreat back to Boston, they gained a grudging respect for those previously regarded as armed rabble.

The British attempt to disarm the militiamen and other inhabitants at Lexington and Concord could be regarded as a milestone in Second Amendment historiography. It undoubtedly helped inspire recognition of the right to keep and bear arms. Indeed, virtually every citizen was a militiaman who owned and kept his firearms at home, and the British sought to seize these private arms, as well as the stores of gunpowder and cannon held by the towns or controlled by committees of safety.

But what transpired after the day of "the shot heard 'round the world" was perhaps more significant in some respects. That event was Gen. Gage's attempt to confiscate the arms of all the inhabitants of Boston. Disarming the militiamen in the countryside had a plausible purpose—the Crown was the "legitimate" government and the militiamen were engaged in rebellion. But to disarm every peaceable inhabitant of Boston without them having committed any unlawful act or threatening any transgression was conclusive evidence to the colonists, including many not yet committed to fight for either side, that their fundamental rights as Englishmen were being destroyed.

Historians and Second Amendment scholars alike have all but ignored the disarming of the people of Boston. The following provides a detailed account of this episode and its perceived significance throughout the colonies. Boston's citizens well anticipated that they would pay a price for Lexington and Concord. John Rowe noted in his diary on April 21: "This afternoon Several Gentlemen met with the Selectmen to Consult on Our Situation & chose a Committee to draft a Memorial to Gen Gage—vizt—The Selectmen, James Bowdoin, Henderson, Inches, Alex Hill, Edward Payne & Jos Barrett—they adjourn'd until tomorrow Ten of Clock."

The next day, Rowe recorded the following entry: "The Same Company met & Reported upon which the Inhabitants were called together. After much Debate & some Amendments they Passed two Votes which were presented to the General by the same Committee & on delivery they asked the General to Grant their Prayer—he in some measure Complyed but made some other Proposalls."

The official proceedings of the meeting with Gage reveal little, other than Gage's statement to Boston's selectmen that "there was a large body of men in arms" hostilely assembled and that the inhabitants could be injured if the soldiers attacked." But Gage's fears included Boston's inhabitants, as suggested by historian Allen French: "knowing that many of the Boston householders had arms, he was afraid the town would rise at his back." Gage reported to Secretary of State for America, William Legge, Earl of Dartmouth, that same day: "The whole Country was assembled in Arms with Surprizing Expedition, and Several Thousand are now Assembled about this Town threatning an Attack, and getting up Artillery. And we are very busy in making Preparations to oppose them."

Not the least of those preparations would be the disarming of the inhabitants of Boston. Gage promised to the town committee at their meeting the next day, April 23, "that upon the inhabitants in general lodging their arms in Faneuil Hall, or any other convenient place, under the care of the selectmen, marked with the names of the respective owners, that all such inhabitants as are inclined, may depart from the town ... And that the arms aforesaid at a suitable time would be return'd to the owners." This benign promise that the confiscated arms would be subject only to temporary safekeeping, if sincere, was utterly naive and must have been greeted with skepticism.

Yet many of the inhabitants yearned to flee Boston, given the flare-up of hostilities, the military occupation and the scarcity of provisions. Gage calculated that by offering release from being held essentially as hostages, the inhabitants would have the incentive to surrender their arms, which would supposedly be carefully secured for their owners.

The committee minutes relate, "The town unanimously accepted of the foregoing report, and desired the inhabitants would deliver their arms to the Selectmen as soon as may be." John Rowe added more details about the events of April 23 in his diary: "The Inhabitants met again this morning & after some Debate they came into the Generall's Measures— which was to deliver up their Arms to be deposited in the hands of the Select Men & such of the Inhabitants as had a mind to leave the Town might go with their Effects." Similarly, John Andrews wrote in a missive the next day: "Yesterday, though Sunday, we have town meetings all day, and finally concluded to deliver up all our Arms to the Selectmen, on condition that the Governor would open the avenues to the town, which is to be comply'd with tomorrow when if I can escape with the skin of my teeth, shall be glad, as I don't expect to be able to take more than a change of apparell with me ... ."

While the agreement called for the temporary safekeeping of the arms in the hands of the selectmen, Gage planned all along to have his soldiers seize them. British Lt. John Barker recorded in his diary on April 27, the day the arms were surrendered: "The Townspeople have to day given up their Arms to the Select Men, who are to deliver them over to the Gen[era]l. I fancy this will quiet him a little for he seemed apprehensive that if the Lines shou'd be attack'd the Townspeople wou'd raise and assist; they wou'd not give up their Arms without the Gen[era]l promising that they shou'd have leave to quit the Town as many as pleased."

Gage promised the people of Boston, commented one writer, "that if the inhabitants of Boston would give up their arms and ammunition, and not assist against the King's troops, they should immediately be permitted to depart with all their effects, merchandise included; finally, the inhabitants gave up their arms and ammunition—to the care of the Selectmen: the General then set a guard over the arms." Having seized the arms, Gage refused to let the inhabitants and merchandise leave Boston. In reaction, "the same day a town meeting was to be held in Boston, when the inhabitants were determined to demand the arms they had deposited in the hands of the select men, or have liberty to leave town."

How many and what types of arms were confiscated? John Rowe wrote in his diary: "This day the Inhabitants carried in their Arms. The number 2674 ...." According to Richard Frothingham, "the people delivered to the selectmen 1778 fire-arms, 634 pistols, 973 bayonets, and 38 blunderbusses." The "fire-arms" were muskets (to which the bayonets attached) and other shoulder arms, with pistols being listed separately. "Blunderbusses" were short-barreled shotguns. Frothingham's figures show a total of 2,450 firearms of all kinds seized, that is, one for every 5.6 inhabitants of the town's population of 15,000. Using a slightly different estimate of the number of people in Boston, historian Page Smith commented that these quantities of arms surrendered "were a very substantial armory for a city of some 16,000, many of whom were women and children. If we take into account those weapons that had already been taken out of the city by patriots, it is probably not far off the mark to say that every other male Bostonian over the age of eighteen possessed some type of firearm."

Even this estimate was probably low, because the above statistics reflect only the numbers of arms actually surrendered; it cannot be determined how many arms were hidden. The recorded lists of names of persons who surrendered arms and the descriptions of the arms are not known to be extant. Many inhabitants may have feigned compliance by turning in obsolete or inoperable arms while secreting their valuable weapons.

On the same day as the arms surrender, Bostonians were told at a town meeting that Gage would permit them to leave by land or sea and that they must apply to Gen. Robertson for passes. A sample of one of the passes reads: "Boston, May, 1775. Permit [name illegible], together with his family, consisting of seven persons, and their effects, to pass over the lines between sunrise and sunset. By order of his Excellency the Governor. No arms nor ammunition is allowed to pass nor merchandize."

In 1789, Dr. David Ramsay published his History of the American Revolution. Ramsey's account of grievances leading to the Revolution was apropos, particularly in regard to what became the Second Amendment: "To prevent the people within Boston from cooperating with their countrymen without in case of an assault which was now daily expected, General Gage agreed with a committee of the town, that upon the inhabitants lodging their arms in Faneuil-hall or any other convenient place, under the care of the selectmen, all such inhabitants as were inclined, might depart from the town, with their families and effects. In five days after the ratification of this agreement, the inhabitants had lodged 1778 fire arms, 634 pistols, 273 bayonets and 38 blunderbusses. The agreement was well observed in the beginning, but after a short time obstructions were thrown in the way of its final completion, on the plea that persons who went from Boston to bring in the goods of those who chose to continue within the town, were not properly treated. Congress remonstrated on the infraction of the agreement, but without effect."

Gage was not so gullible as to believe that the inhabitants turned in all of their arms and used such assumed failure to comply as an excuse to prevent the inhabitants from departing Boston. Ramsay noted: "The select-men gave repeated assurances that the inhabitants had delivered up their arms, but as a cover for violating the agreement, general Gage issued a proclamation, in which he asserted that he had full proof to the contrary. A few might have secreted some favourite arms, but nearly all the training arms were delivered up."

On April 30, the committee of Selectmen who had continued to meet with Gage reported to the town: "The committee waited on his Excellency General Gage with the papers containing the account of the arms delivered to the selectmen, and the return made to them by the constables of the town relative to the delivery of the arms in their respective wards." Gage now had both lists of the firearms and their owners, as well as possession of the firearms.

The Provincial Congress sent the following angry but polite protest to Gage on May 10, complaining that the agreement between Gage and the selectmen that the inhabitants could leave Boston was not being followed: "We think it our duty to remonstrate to your excellency, that, from the papers communicated to us by the said selectmen, it appeared, that the inhabitants were promised, upon surrendering their arms, that they should be permitted to leave the town, and carry with them their effects. The condition was immediately complied with, on the part of the people; since which, though a number of days have elapsed, but a very small proportion of the inhabitants have been allowed to take the benefit of your covenant. We would not affront your excellency by the most distant insinuation, that you intended to deceive and disarm the people, by a cruel act of perfidy. A regard to your own character, as well as the fatal consequences which will necessarily result from the violation of your solemn treaties, must [suggest] sufficient reasons, to deter a gentleman of your rank and station from so injurious a design. But your excellency must be sensible, that a delay of justice is a denial of it, and extremely oppressive to the people now held in duress."

Gage saw the world quite differently. After all, he was governor of Massachusetts and commander of the British forces, which were besieged in Boston by armed rebels. He explained to Lord Dartmouth in a May 13 letter: "All Supplys from the Country have been stopped, and the Inhabitants of the Town desired to remove out with their Effects, which was consented to, but it was demanded that they should immediately deliver up their Arms. ...."

Gage received a letter from Dartmouth on May 25 from the hands of Gen. Howe, who with Gen. Clinton and Gen. Burgoyne had just arrived in Boston with fresh troops from England, "to prevent the Abettors of Rebellion in their dangerous designs of leading forth the People, in the four New England Governments, to oppose in Arms the Restoration of the Public Tranquility & Constitutional Authority of Government." In addition to securing all forts that the rebels might attack, Dartmouth ordered: "That all Cannon, Small Arms, and other military Stores of every kind that may be either in any public Magazine, or secretly collected together for the purpose of aiding Rebellions, should also be seized and secured, and that the persons of all such as, according to the Opinions of His Majesty's Attorney and Solicitor General, have committed themselves in Acts of Treason & Rebellion, should be arrested & imprisoned."

This was an order to seize both public and private arms to prevent use thereof by the rebels, who must also be apprehended. Gage knew this to be easier said than done. On June 12, he wrote to Dartmouth: "The Skirmish that happened on the 19th of April, has shewn the general Disposition of the Provinces in a Manner not to be mistaken. All have armed, and tho' there are people no doubt in all, who disapprove of Violent Measures, and some who would join Government had they Opportunitys, they are now borne down by Force and Numbers."

These experiences demonstrate how the encroachments of the Crown on the liberties of the subjects would later influence adoption of the Bill of Rights, particularly the Second Amendment. The Founders considered a ban on importation of firearms and ammunition to violate the right to obtain and possess arms. Imposition of martial law only exasperated the belief that they must keep and bear arms for parity against an oppressive standing army. The patriots' aversion to the governmental policy of searching persons, places and houses, and then seizing firearms demonstrates the close connection between the Second Amendment right to keep arms and the Fourth Amendment prohibition on warrantless searches and seizures. Gage's trickery in inducing the inhabitants to turn in their arms for "temporary safekeeping" and then in seizing those arms, never to be returned, gave rise to the traditional American skepticism toward benevolent rulers who promise only limited infringements on their rights.

The dogs of war were now unleashed. For the Crown, this was an imperial war to be waged by a standing army and mercenaries against a colonial populace. But for the Americans, this was a Revolutionary War of the armed people for independence.

Stephen P. Halbrook, Ph.D. The Shot Heard Round The World, A Cruel Act Of Perfidy. American Rifleman. October 2008.

The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms The U.S. Supreme Court's recent hearing of arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller—which may overturn the capital's ban on handguns—signals a general re-evaluation of the Second Amendment. The trend is toward an unlimited individual right rather than a restricted, collective one applying only to government militias. Halbrook, a research fellow at the Independent Institute in California, is firmly of the former school and investigates the nature of the ideas underlying the Second Amendment during the Revolutionary generation (between 1768 and 1826). How did the founders regard the issue of gun control? What prompted them to define the right to bear arms as fundamental, second only to freedom of speech? Basing his research on contemporary newspapers, political resolutions and private correspondence, Halbrook delves deeply into the importance of firearms during the Revolution, finding that attempts by search-and-seizure to control the flow of guns was regarded as the typical tyrannical behavior of a standing army. Liberty hinged on free ownership.

---

top of page

back a page