American Revolution
No event in American history exemplifies the United States' determination to persevere quite like the American Revolution. Despite being heavily outnumbered and lacking the manpower, technology, and experience of the British redcoats, American militiamen managed to compel the British into submission. While numerous causes and events contributed to the American Revolution, many experts agree that the rebellion officially began with the battles of Lexington and Concord. However, a closer examination reveals that these battles were not significantly different from the many skirmishes that occur daily around the world. For instance, the Boston Massacre can be likened to Lexington, yet it did not spark a revolution or uprising. In contrast, the Battle of Bunker Hill emerged as the pivotal event that propelled both American and British forces into full-scale war. In other words, it marked the point of no return; both America and Britain could not cease fighting until one side emerged victorious. However, two months after the skirmishes at Lexington and Concord, the Battle of Bunker Hill truly thrust British and American forces into war. This conflict embodied all the hallmarks of battle, featuring a direct confrontation between British and American troops. While many experts and scholars regard Lexington and Concord as the official start of the American Revolution, the evidence suggests that these skirmishes were merely the final sparks in a series of conflicts leading to the war's true ignition at Bunker Hill. The roots of the American Revolution had been taking shape for decades before the first shots were fired. As America rapidly expanded its frontier and grew its population throughout the 18th century, British policies of oppression fueled rising animosity among the colonists, ultimately culminating in outright rebellion. The British policy of colonialism expected American colonists to supply a wealth of raw goods and materials to the Empire with little to no compensation in return. The colonists were even compelled to pay inflated prices for the manufactured goods they helped produce. While this mercantilistic approach benefited the citizens of Great Britain, it overlooked the struggles of the American people. Laws and orders were enacted by the British Parliament without any American representation, fostering a deep sense of anger and helplessness among the colonists. Meanwhile, the British government reaped the rewards of the colonists’ hard work. The decade leading up to the revolution intensified tensions between America and Britain, setting the stage for war. In his book Origin of the American Revolution: 1759-1766, Bernhard Knollenberg asserts, “My conclusion and thesis are that, while the British Stamp Act of 1765 significantly contributed to and ignited the colonial uprising of 1765-1766, the colonists had already been pushed to the brink of rebellion by a series of provocative British measures from 1759 to 1764. Most of these grievances persisted even after the Stamp Act was repealed in 1776, fueling the growing colonial discontent that ultimately led to the American Revolution of 1775-1783.”1 Knollenberg highlights several key events that played a role in sparking the revolution, including the Privy Council’s refusal to grant total self-government, a 1761 issuance allowing English customs officials to search homes and stores for contraband, and the unfavorable American outcomes of the Treaty of Paris.2 With countless issues widening the rift between England and America, many escalated into violence or unrest, exemplified by the Boston Massacre, the Boston Tea Party, and Bacon’s Rebellion. The confrontations at Lexington and Concord shared more similarities with these earlier skirmishes than with the battles that later defined the revolution. While Lexington and Concord marked the culmination of a series of repressive policies and events, the Battle of Bunker Hill is often regarded as the true beginning of the revolution. William Hallahan, in his book The Day the American Revolution Began, reflects a common perspective among scholars when he states, “Historically, it [the American Revolution] began after dawn on Wednesday, April 19th, 1775, in Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts.”3 However, the mere occurrence of gunfire and casualties does not necessarily signify the official start of a war. The primary sources from the revolution empower readers to form their own conclusions about the battles, rather than simply accepting the textbook narrative. The accounts from Lexington and Concord present conflicting perspectives that challenge the conventional understanding, depicting soldiers who were firing their weapons yet did not perceive themselves as engaged in battle. General Thomas Gage, the highest-ranking British commander stationed in Boston, believed that Britain and the colonists could still resolve their differences through dialogue or a display of force. In a letter to London, he expressed the prevailing sentiment of the time, highlighting the divisive atmosphere in America, where people were taking sides under the influence of a significant British presence: “If you think ten thousand men sufficient, send twenty; if one million is thought enough, give two. You will save both blood and treasure in the end. A large force will terrify and encourage many to join you; a middling one will only provoke resistance and gain no allies.” General Gage clearly believed that the Americans were unprepared for war and had yet to formulate a coherent strategy. His primary aim was to intimidate the rebellious colonists into abandoning their cause and quelling the insurrection without resorting to violence. Gage was more focused on either winning over the rebels or demonstrating the futility of resisting the British Empire through a show of force. Psychological warfare was his main tactic, and at this juncture, he was ill-equipped to confront the American colonists directly. The Earl of Dartmouth shared a similar perspective, viewing the conflicts in America as little more than protests. His plan to arrest the key conspirators in an effort to suppress the rebellion reflected a common governmental approach to insurrection, which has often proven effective. Although the Earl was not in America at the time, he shared the mindset of many Britons: show the Americans the might of the British Army, and the rebellion would surely come to an end. Little did he realize the magnitude this insurrection would ultimately reach. In a letter to General Gage, the Earl expressed his views on the current conditions in America. "The only consideration that remains is how the forces you command may be employed. The first essential step toward re-establishing government would be to arrest and imprison the principal actors and supporters in the Provincial Congress. Any efforts by the people, unprepared to face a regular force, cannot be very formidable. While such actions may signal the start of hostilities, it would be far better to engage in conflict on these terms than to wait until the rebellion has fully matured." As British military commanders and leaders in England deliberated over the rebellious actions in America, General Gage was given a critical mission. The British objective at Lexington and Concord was straightforward: "to seize and destroy the rebel stores and then return as soon as possible." General Gage appointed Lt. Colonel Francis Smith was appointed to lead the expedition, with the reliable Major John Pitcairn serving as his second-in-command. General Gage worked diligently to keep the raid under wraps, hoping to avoid conflict. However, in Boston, the information network established by Paul Revere and Sam Adams ensured that Gage's plans were known to the colonists before he could act. By the time Lieutenant Colonel Smith departed with his troops at 10 PM on April 18th, the Americans were already alerted and had begun relocating their supplies. Moreover, the town of Lexington had been forewarned and was fortified with seventy troops under the command of Captain John Parker. Understanding that confronting a 700-man British force would be tantamount to suicide, Parker was prepared only to make a stand, signaling to the British that resistance would be forthcoming. As the British troops appeared on the horizon, Major Pitcairn rode ahead and shouted to the Americans, “Throw down your arms! Ye villains, ye rebels.” Many of Captain Parker’s men... Parker’s men gradually began to disperse, aware that their presence was merely a symbolic gesture of resistance. However, as the militiamen made their way home, a shot rang out, leaving it unclear which side fired first. Each group accused the other of initiating the conflict, but the British responded with a coordinated volley against the disorganized Americans, resulting in the deaths of eight men. Major Pitcairn later reported to Gage: "When I arrived at the edge of the village, I observed nearly 200 rebels drawn up on a green. They began to file off toward some stone walls on our right flank. The light infantry, noticing this, ran after them. I immediately called to the soldiers not to fire, but to surround and disarm them. Some rebels who had jumped over the wall fired four or five shots at the soldiers, wounding a man from the Tenth Regiment. My horse was also wounded in two places from some direction, while several shots were fired from a meeting house on our left. In response, without any order or organization, the light infantry began to fire sporadically, continuing in that manner for some time, despite my repeated orders and those of the other officers present." When Major Pitcairn confronted the Americans in Lexington, he had no battle strategy in mind. He did not intend to launch an organized attack on the rebels; instead, he aimed to dissuade them from fighting so he could proceed with his true mission: the seizure of arms. The errant shot that rang out was an unintended accident, leading to a breakdown in British discipline—a breakdown that would be witnessed again at Concord. According to numerous eyewitnesses, Lt. Col. Smith arrived on the scene just in time to save many American lives, as the battle at Lexington was unnecessary and hindered their progress toward the main objective. Had Smith been ordered to seize American land or weaken the rebels, he likely would have allowed the slaughter to continue. It is clear that his sole mission was to raid Concord, not to ignite a war. Furthermore, the British common soldiers were unaware of the mission at the time. For all they knew, their objective could have been anything from taking Lexington to capturing Concord or overrunning a fort. It wasn't until after the events at Lexington that Lt. Col. Smith informed the officers that their mission was to proceed to Concord and seize a cache of weapons. At that moment, the officers realized they were heading into harm's way—especially after the raid on gunpowder stores in September 1774 had drawn 20,000 militiamen to the cause. However, Smith insisted that the march continue, and Major Pitcairn echoed his sentiment, stating, “I am satisfied that one active campaign, a smart action, and burning two or three of their towns will set everything to rights.” With their swift victory at Lexington, the British forces were riding high on morale and had yet to encounter serious resistance. They did not anticipate a full-scale battle at Concord, expecting instead a situation similar to Lexington. They believed that America was not in a position to pit its untrained militiamen against the most powerful army in the world, unaware of the fierce opposition that awaited them in Concord. With the supplies relocated from the cache in Concord, the American forces were tasked solely with protecting the citizens of the city, rather than the munitions themselves. Additionally, Col. Smith and Gen. Gage were unaware of the transfer, rendering the confrontation in Concord largely irrelevant to their mission. When Smith arrived in town, the militiamen had already secured the high ground of Punkatasset Hill, which offered a commanding view over the British regulars. In the city, there was little resistance; the British troops moved freely, ordering food, drinking rum, pillaging, and even celebrating in the early hours of April 19, 1775. However, they found only three cannons and seemingly little else, as militia members began to flood in from the surrounding areas. In a moment of frustration, Smith set fire to wood and small amounts of contraband, inadvertently igniting the courthouse. An elderly woman named Mrs. Mouldoun vehemently urged Gage to extinguish the flames, and he was keen to avoid further angering the citizens of Concord. He ordered a team of soldiers to put out the fire and regroup, preparing to return to Boston. However, the militia was assembling in the path of the British retreat, and the tide had turned—British forces were now outnumbered two to one. As the colonists opened fire on the regulars, panic ensued among the British troops; many fired indiscriminately or fled in disarray. Their retreat transformed into a twenty-mile-long ambush, with militiamen lying in wait to pick off the British as they ran. The American fighters aimed with deadly precision, targeting officers and higher-ranking soldiers. Had it not been for the timely arrival of Brigadier General Hugh Earl Percy, armed with cannons and fresh troops, the British would have faced utter devastation. Hours later, the remaining British forces reached Boston, narrowly escaping the horrific ambush. The events at Concord significantly dampened British morale, leading many soldiers to acknowledge for the first time that the Americans were a formidable adversary. General Lord Percy, for instance, remarked: "Whoever views them as an irregular mob will be gravely mistaken. Among them are individuals who know precisely what they are doing, having served as rangers against the Indians. Moreover, many display a remarkable spirit of enthusiasm; several advanced within ten yards to fire at me and other officers, fully aware that they were likely to face death in an instant." The recorded evidence from Concord raises questions about whether this battle can truly be considered the beginning of the revolution. There was no official “head-to-head” combat, and the British believed they were merely skirmishing with a group of rebels who would “surely be brought down soon.” In fact, the confrontation at Concord did not even take place in the town itself but rather unfolded as a continuous ambush over a span of twenty miles. Militia groups arrived and picked off targets while the British troops rushed about in disarray. Neither side had a clear strategy beyond killing British soldiers or seeking safety, resulting in chaotic fighting. The Battle of Concord devolved into a kind of target practice, with no real leadership guiding either side. The British aimed to seize munitions, while the Americans sought to defend their ground or avenge British atrocities. Essentially, the conflict at Concord consisted of a series of ambushes that inflicted heavy casualties on the British and boosted the morale of the colonists. However, it did not mark the official beginning of the war, as it failed to pit American and British troops against each other in any organized manner. Each side fought for their country, but the British lost their discipline and fled without leadership, while the American militia operated as a collection of uncoordinated units. Concord, in no way, constitutes a genuine battle and cannot be regarded as the war's first engagement. Both Lexington and Concord played significant roles in the American Revolution, but neither can be considered the true beginning of the conflict. They were merely the final straw in a series of skirmishes that preceded Britain's campaign to reclaim rebellious territories and re-establish control. It was the Battle of Bunker Hill that officially marked the start of the American Revolution. This battle was a pivotal event that altered both American and British perceptions of the war. Following the retreat from Concord, the British were able to recover from their harrowing experience and regain some semblance of the pride they once held. However, while the British regrouped, the militiamen began to devise a strategy to gain an advantage over them. Boston, being a peninsula, was vulnerable to the surrounding elevations. In a miscalculated move, General Gage ordered his troops to abandon their posts in the nearby areas, inadvertently giving the Americans the opportunity to exploit their advantageous position. Under the cover of night on June 16, 1775, just over a thousand Americans fortified Breed’s Hill, effectively putting the city of Boston under siege. The elevation they gained allowed them to rain fire upon the British troops, forcing General Gage to confront the necessity of taking Breed’s Hill. To restore the sense of security that Boston once enjoyed, he entrusted the mission to General William Howe. Howe was a capable general with combat experience from the Seven Years' War. However, he had only recently arrived in Boston and was not fully aware of the situation when he began his mission. Many of his conversations and journal entries reveal that, prior to this battle, he was confident and planned to engage the Americans in a formal confrontation, intending to annihilate the rebels on Breed’s Hill. When he mobilized his men, he relied more on the reputation of the British Army than on sound tactics and maneuvers. Howe's first frontal assault ended in disaster; the British advanced within ten yards of the American fortifications before the Americans opened fire, sending most of the British scrambling back toward their boats. After officers threatened the terrified soldiers with swords, the troops reluctantly formed up for another frontal attack. This wave unfolded much like the first, resulting in yet another chaotic retreat to the boats. Yet, with even more forceful persuasion, the officers managed to line up a third and final wave. Although the British ultimately captured the fortifications at Breed’s Hill, their victory was largely due to the Americans' dwindling ammunition. The militiamen's retreat from Breed’s Hill proved to be a costly triumph for the British, with over 1,154 British troops killed or wounded by the battle's end—a staggering 52 percent casualty rate. General Howe's hard-won victory at Breed’s Hill instilled a cautious mindset that would influence his strategies throughout the Revolutionary War. However, it was the countless soldiers who fought against the Americans who felt the most profound impact of this costly engagement. Many British observers regarded the militiamen as brave and formidable, and public opinion shifted to one of respect for their resolve. One might wonder what distinguishes the Battle of Bunker Hill from the earlier confrontations at Lexington and Concord. The primary difference lies in the nature of the fighting that took place. Lexington was a one-sided affair, marked by chaos and a lack of organization. The American forces had already disbanded and were on their way home when the British troops executed a coordinated volley. This encounter was more a symbolic act of defiance than a genuine plan for battle, yet the British exploited the situation, firing upon those who were simply trying to leave. Few Americans were able to turn and fire back at the British, and the incident bore a striking resemblance to the Boston Massacre. Both events unfolded by chance, triggered by errant shots from an unknown source. Although the Americans were armed, they were retreating and had already dispersed. It was largely a one-sided conflict that the British exploited. The clash at Concord mirrored that of Lexington; there was no organized battle where cohesive units engaged directly. When the British arrived in the town, they encountered virtually no resistance or weapons and soon began their retreat. As the Americans began their retreat back to Boston, they took aim at numerous British officers, driven largely by a desire for revenge for the events at Lexington and Concord. Although the British were in retreat, the Americans fired without a unified strategy among the various militia commanders. Militia groups would appear seemingly out of nowhere, taking potshots at the British as they dashed by, often without the other groups even realizing they were present. Each militia unit operated like a renegade band, loosely united in their fight for America, and their ambushes effectively pushed the British back toward Boston Harbor. Moreover, the British had no intention of capturing Lexington or Concord; their mission had devolved into one of search, seizure, and ambush. In examining any major battle throughout history, one can see that there is typically a clear purpose behind the conflict—often centered on gaining control of a territory. Bunker Hill, on the other hand, had a clear mission: to reclaim land from the Americans. As Richard Ketchum notes in his book Decision Day, “Bunker Hill, in other words, forced Great Britain to commit itself to war, and after the battle, the relationships between the mother country and the colonies were never the same again.” This was a direct confrontation where an American force faced off against a British contingent, each with a distinct goal—either to defend or seize the territory. Unlike the skirmishes at Concord, Bunker Hill had well-defined parameters. There were only two opposing sides in this battle, rather than multiple groups operating independently in ambush. Although General Howe did not employ many tactical maneuvers, the engagement was far more formal, showcasing the strength and strategy of both armies. The ramifications of Bunker Hill were far more significant than those of Lexington and Concord, as it represented a full-scale battle with specific objectives. The American Revolution resonated profoundly across the globe, inspiring movements like the French Revolution. Its impact is still felt today, having secured independence for America. While numerous causes and events propelled Britain and America toward war, it was the conflicts of 1775 that ignited full-scale offensives by the British and a coordinated defense by the Americans. Although the Battles of Lexington and Concord were pivotal, a closer examination reveals them more as skirmishes than true battles. These initial conflicts set the stage for the Battle of Bunker Hill, which more accurately marks the beginning of the war. In essence, it was the Battle of Bunker Hill that truly launched the American Revolution, rather than the earlier skirmishes at Lexington and Concord.