Subjective Interpretation in the Battle of Lexington

History, as observed from official written documentation of specific events and/or actions, can vary greatly depending on the subjective interpretation of the recorder. This phenomenon, in dealing with American history, is exemplified by the Battle of Lexington which was documented differently by the persons of America and those of the opposing England.

The American account of the battle, written by Joseph Warren and officially adopted by the Provincial Congress at Watertown, Massachusetts, begins by trying to show the inhumanity of the English. As stated (in summary): English troops under the command of Colonel Smith secretly landed at Cambridge with the intent of destroying munitions held at Concord. Travelers who were harassed by the troops outside of Boston alerted Lexington where a group of colonists gathered. When the English arrived in Lexington, the colonists started to disburse but the English began hostilities by firing on them with extreme, killing eight and wounding several others. From here, the English made their way to Concord and immediately fired on a group of Americans there. Two were killed before the Americans could return fire. At this point, a day-long battle ensued where both sides lost several men, but at the end, the British retreated, killing, ravaging, and plundering everything in their path.

The English account of the battle comes from the report of Lieutenant-Colonel Smith to Governor Gage. In this version of the Battle of Lexington, the original intent of the English is the same as what the Americans had assumed: The troops, arriving secretly were to go to Concord to destroy the colonists supplies that could be used for warfare. Upon discovering the English, signals an alarms were raised by the Americans to let everyone know that the troops were marching. Detaching six light infantry companies to secure two bridges near Concord, they met up with "a body of the country people drawn up in military order with arms and accoutrements" in Lexington. Also noted were several men gathered in a nearby house. The English advanced on the men without any violent intentions and the colonists began to disburse, one of them firing immediately at the soldiers and three or four others after taking cover behind a wall. At this the English fired back, killing several. Gunfire was also exchanged between the troops and those gathered in the house. In Concord, the British saw many men gathered in different areas and at one of the bridges the Americans marched toward the English troops. On the approach, one of the King's men fired at the colonists and this was promptly returned. After the thick of th battle, the English retreated from the bridge, but noticed a they left a few Americans began to defile the bodies of the dead and severely wounded British. Upon leaving Concord, Americans attacked the troops behind cover constantly for eighteen miles. It is Smith's belief that the colonists' action was a pre-conceived scheme...to attack the King's troops on the first favorable opportunity that offered.

After reading these two differing accounts, it is noticeable that many of the extenuating circumstances are corroborative and major differences are in those parts depicting the intent of the men on both sides. What makes the accounts so different are the selective omissions made by both sides. Atrocities by fellow countrymen have been left out of the respected accounts as well as embellishments of the hostility of the opposing faction. This was felt necessary so the statements could be used as propaganda pieces to rally support for the appropriate governments. The differences in the accounts of the actual fighting are due to the limits of observation in such a fast and stressful situation. If more witnesses of the battle could be questioned, a more accurate representation of the truth could be composed.

History, in almost all respects, is nothing more than the subjective views of those who have recorded it and for the objective truth to be known, it is necessary to read several different view-points. Even with this, it is sometimes difficult to decipher the truth as personal opinion comes into play so that history remains a subjective science. IF not made subjective by the recorder, it will almost certainly be made so by the reader.