So, who really did fire first on that fateful day on Lexington Green on April 19, 1775? Some say the Brits, others, the Yanks. Discuss...

I think the minutemen would have because they would have been less experienced so they would shoot as soon as they see something move.

I reckon some joker shouted "Fire!" and both sides reacted accordingly.

Ahhh. Well, many say the British fired first, even though the officer Pitcairn ordered them not to.

The British were a highly trained and disciplined group of individuals. They would not fire unless ordered to do so (barring the Boston "massacre").

It has been said that the minutemen did not have their guns cocked and thus unloaded. So their mere presence was more of a deterrant / bluff / stand than a mass itching for a war.

So I cannot formulate one conclusion or another. CruddyLeper has point. It reminds me of the Johnny Trumain movie (created by Disney) where an outside shot was fired, and the rest is history.

Well, I just visited Lexington and it is still unclear. After the first shots were fired, many of the redcoats, in spite of Pitcairns orders, charged the minutemen, with bayonets flailing. It is true that the 70 or so minutemen who were there were mainly for show (many of them dispersed eventually, after Pitcairn ordered them to) many were shot in the back as they were retreating. However, their guns were loaded, for one Brit was wounded in the leg, and another shot in the hand.

Apperantly, the Regulars disobeyed orders because of the strong animosity between the opposing sides in the conflict, and they wanted to have a go at the "wretched, ungrateful colonials".

Well I wasn't there, so I can't say for certain ;)

However, without wasting alot of time and space, my evaluation of the situation leads me to say it likely was the minutemen.

I would have to say that a half trained minuteman with an itchy trigger finger fired first. either that or some third party fired a shot and got the whole thing going.(in the long run does it really matter)

Not my period of expertise but i'd have to agree with others that the minutemen are far more likely to have done it, the British army was kinda strict about disobeying orders back then and the troops were damn well trained.

Yeah, that's probably right, however, once it started, the Regulars couldn't stop.

I thought one of the muskets malfunctioned, somehow.

edit: I'm better at U.S. history form 1890's and onward.

IMO, I beleve the Redcoats fired first.

Damn straight! :D

But seriously, has anyone heard anything in regards to solid proof? It doesn't have to be, but I'm sure someone's heard something, right?

I could far more easily understand a minuteman deciding to fire than a British Regular, in terms of a motivational level, the British Regular would have had far less interest in doing so and were on the whole used to firing only on order.

Furthermore it was the Americans who were clearly up for a fight that day, the British to seize and destroy an arms store in Concord.

But the Americans were there merely as a presence, and nothing else (well, little else) There were 70 Americans on Lexington Green that morning of the 19th, while there were 700 Redcoats. I just came back from a trip to Lexington, and they have a fabulous museum thing there. It outlines the events of the day and such. Truly fascinating stuff.

The 7000 or so rebels that gathered to attack the British soon after had been ready to act before the incident at Lexington Green, they weren't called from their farms to act after hearing of an outrage. They were forewarned, prepared and eager to engage in battle, I can well believe one of them fired for than an individual British Regular firing against orders.

I agree there were many in the countryside heading in that direction, but only 70 were present at the battlesite. Many more were at Concord and again at Lexington while the British fell back to Boston. And many many more on the road leading back to Charlestown.

I'd say the colonials fired the first shot, I doubt that in a team of such high discipined people as the british redcoats would have disobeyed orders or become jumpy enough to fire.
I guess I'll buy the "grassy knoll" idea too. Someone fired but it wasn't either group that did so.

-Alex

eh... probly some jerk just making pop corn

"The Shot Heard 'Round the World"

I hate this sort of selfish exaggaration.

Sorry. I'll return to less pointless activities now.

who nows or cares

Originally posted by Stefan Haertel
I hate this sort of selfish exaggaration.

Sorry. I'll return to less pointless activities now. I sort of agree - at first, I thought this was going to be some great article. :(

Changing title... :p

The number of wouds on the two side indicate that the militia fired hardly at all, much less first. There were only 2 bullet wounds amonst the Brits.

Yeah, that's what I said. One got hit in the thigh, another in the hand. I believe it was 9 colonials who were killed (?) and a few more injured (maybe 7?).

Originally posted by XIII
I sort of agree - at first, I thought this was going to be some great article. :(

Changing title... :p

I agree that this is pretty much a pointless discussion as there is no evidence whatsoever to prove that either side fired first. However, as the de facto beginning of the American Revolutionary War and American independence, the events at Concord and Lexington certainly had worldwide ramifications. Moreover, the first shot has also been immortalized as 'The Shot heard around the World' in American lore, and the phrase has been around for centuries.
As such, I would say that there was no need to change the thread title (and my apologies if this should have been in a PM, but I think that calling it 'The Shot heard around the World' is really not too much of an exaggeration. And I'm not even American ;) ).

I agree, the term is used to describe that one shot, and it was called such by Ralph Waldo Emerson in his poem (which I think has the same name). That said, the thread title is fully appropriate for it was the "shot heard 'round the world" (I am surprised that so few knew that, we learned all about that over here, however, my Junior High was called named after Emerson ;)).

It was the opening shot of the first true war of independence by any nation in the New World. It truly did shake the capitals of the European nations to their foundations, from Spain to the Netherlands. Since the thread deals with said shot, why shouldn't it be called that?

Secondly, the British soldiers were not that tremendously trained. Many of the soldiers sent to the "unfortunate post" in the colonies were conscripts who were given the choice of going to prison or entering the army. The immense "control" the British regulars had can be seen in the absolute devastation they wreaked on their return march from Concord, destroying every farm along the way, in retaliation for the constant sniping by continental sharpshooters. In my opinion, it is most likely that some arrogant British soldier fired the first shot, offended by teh very presence of the rebels - not comprehending the far reaching effects it would have.

I think that is just as likely as any other option :D

However, the British demonstrated their organization and morale during the attack on Bunker Hill (Breeds Hill, actually ;)). They had three waves of attacks, all in the same way as the one before it. The colonials generally aimed for the officers, and many officers died, but the Brits still came. The Americans would have won that day, except they ran out of ammunition and had to retreat. When they did retreat, many of the day's casualties were caused by shots to the back :(. The Brits lost some 1500, I believe, while the Americans lost half that amount, plus the Americans outnumbered the Brits and thus had more men to die, however, the whole "don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes" was a brilliant order and kept the "victory" small for the British.

Originally posted by jack merchant
I agree that this is pretty much a pointless discussion as there is no evidence whatsoever to prove that either side fired first. However, as the de facto beginning of the American Revolutionary War and American independence, the events at Concord and Lexington certainly had worldwide ramifications. Moreover, the first shot has also been immortalized as 'The Shot heard around the World' in American lore, and the phrase has been around for centuries.
As such, I would say that there was no need to change the thread title (and my apologies if this should have been in a PM, but I think that calling it 'The Shot heard around the World' is really not too much of an exaggeration. And I'm not even American ;) ). Title changed to give a better idea of what the discussion thread is about. Nothing wrong about the title itself. A technical matter.

Title would have been great for an article written on this subject. :) *HINT* *HINT*

Discussion threads do not deserve grand-sound titles; only articles do. :p

Oh, ok. Thanks for clarifying that. I'll do what I can about that *hint*, if you know what I mean ;).

our history books say the Redcoats fired first, but i'm not sure. i think the Redcoats fired first since they wanted the Patriots to pay for disobeying the King. how could the Patriots have fired first if only two shots hit the Redcoats. even if they weren't trained very well, they still hunted to get their food most of the time so they knew how to use a musket.

I see it as this:

Colonials firing first: Eager to fight, untrained, angry, no command structure to guide them

British firing first: Officer wanting to crush armed revolt orders troops to fire

Colonials/British misfire: unlikely

Third party: There isn't really a third party. Anyone with a gun there was either a Brit or a colonist. So the "third party" would be a colonist with a gun.

I really don't give a hell, the battle was really insignificant in the outcome of the war.

It wasn't an officer (Pitcairn), as mentioned earlier. It would've been a soldier. Pitcairn was trying to stop the shots once they had started.

Originally posted by wildWolverine
... the British soldiers were not that tremendously trained. Many of the soldiers sent to the "unfortunate post" in the colonies were conscripts who were given the choice of going to prison or entering the army. The immense "control" the British regulars had can be seen in the absolute devastation they wreaked on their return march from Concord, destroying every farm along the way, in retaliation for the constant sniping by continental sharpshooters. While the British troops at Lexington and Concord may not have been battle hardened veterans, they weren't quite the "dregs" you make them out to be. The troops were from fully trained, regular British army units, some recently arrived from Europe and were certainly representative of what was considered the best army in the world at the time.
As far as the devastation on the return march, it was likely ordered by Lt. Col. Smith, the overall commander of the expedition - Pitcairn was in charge of the Marines and a few other units present. Considering the Brits were under fire most of the way back to Boston, I don't think their reaction was more than you might have expected.