Battle of Lexington reenactment draws early-morning crowds for 250th anniversary
By Hillel Italie and Michael Casey
LEXINGTON — Thousands of people came to this Massachusetts town Saturday just before dawn to witness the beginnings of the American Revolution.
Amid a hail of gunfire, they watched as British soldiers confronted an overmatched group of Lexington Minute Men on Lexington Battle Green. The battle, which left eight Americans dead and 10 wounded, marks the 250th anniversary of the Battles of Lexington and Concord. The day offers an opportunity to reflect on this seminal moment in history but also consider what this fight means today.
'It's truly momentous,' said Richard Howell, who portrayed Lexington Minute Man Samuel Tidd in the battle.
'This is one of the most sacred pieces of ground in the country, if not the world because of what it represents,' he said. 'To represent what went on that day, how a small town of Lexington was a vortex of so much ... Lexington was the first town that was able to anywhere muster men and were the first to face the onslaught of the British.'
The semiquincentennial comes as President Donald Trump, the scholarly community and others divide over whether to have a yearlong party leading up to July 4, 2026, as Trump has called for, or to balance any celebrations with questions about women, the enslaved and Indigenous people and what their stories reveal.
The history of Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts is half-known, the myth deeply rooted.
Reenactors may with confidence tell us that hundreds of British troops marched from Boston in the early morning of April 19, 1775, and gathered about 14 miles northwest on Lexington's town green.
Firsthand witnesses remembered some British officers yelled, 'Thrown down your arms, ye villains, ye rebels!' and that amid the chaos a shot was heard, followed by 'scattered fire' from the British. The battle turned so fierce that the area reeked of burning powder.
By day's end, the fighting had continued around 7 miles west to Concord and some 250 British and 95 colonists were killed or wounded.
But no one has learned who fired first, or why. And the revolution itself was initially less a revolution than a demand for better terms.
Woody Holton, a professor of early American history at the University of South Carolina, says most scholars agree the rebels of April 1775 weren't looking to leave the empire, but to repair their relationship with King George III and go back to the days preceding the Stamp Act, the Tea Act and other disputes of the previous decade.
'The colonists only wanted to turn back the clock to 1763,' he said.
Stacy Schiff, a Pulitzer Prize winning historian whose books include biographies of Benjamin Franklin and Samuel Adams, said Lexington and Concord 'galvanized opinion precisely as the Massachusetts men hoped it would, though still it would be a long road to a vote for independence, which Adams felt should have been declared on 20 April 1775.'
But at the time, Schiff added, 'It did not seem possible that a mother country and her colony had actually come to blows.'
The rebels had already believed their cause greater than a disagreement between subjects and rulers. Well before the turning points of 1776, before the Declaration of Independence or Thomas Paine's boast that 'We have it in our power to begin the world over again,' they cast themselves in a drama for the ages.
The so-called Suffolk Resolves of 1774, drafted by civic leaders of Suffolk County, prayed for a life 'unfettered by power, unclogged with shackles,' a fight that would determine the 'fate of this new world, and of unborn millions.'
The revolution was an ongoing story of surprise and improvisation. Military historian Rick Atkinson, whose 'The Fate of the Day' is the second of a planned trilogy on the war, called Lexington and Concord 'a clear win for the home team,' if only because the British hadn't expected such impassioned resistance from the colony's militia.
The British, ever underestimating those whom King George regarded as a 'deluded and unhappy multitude,' would be knocked back again when the rebels promptly framed and transmitted a narrative blaming the royal forces.
'Once shots were fired in Lexington, Samuel Adams and Joseph Warren did all in their power to collect statements from witnesses and to circulate them quickly; it was essential that the colonies, and the world, understand who had fired first,' Schiff said. 'Adams was convinced that the Lexington skirmish would be 'famed in the history of this country.' He knocked himself out to make clear who the aggressors had been.'
Neither side imagined a war lasting eight years, or had confidence in what kind of country would be born out of it. The founders united in their quest for self-government but differed how to actually govern, and whether self-government could even last.
Americans have never stopped debating the balance of powers, the rules of enfranchisement or how widely to apply the exhortation, 'All men are created equal.'
'I think it's important to remember that the language of the founders was aspirational. The idea that it was self-evident all men were created equal was preposterous at a time when hundreds of thousands were enslaved,' said Atkinson, who cites the 20th-century poet Archibald MacLeish's contention that 'democracy is never a thing done.'
'I don't think the founders had any sense of a country that some day would have 330 million people,' Atkinson said. 'Our country is an unfinished project and likely always will be.'
Is Harvard's resistance to Trump igniting a broader movement across higher ed?
'Free speech is in danger': Tufts student newspaper editor defends Rümeysa Öztürk
Judge orders that Tufts student who was arrested by ICE be returned to Vermont
Mass. Sen. Warren, husband report $925K in income in 2024
Senator points out glaring legal vulnerability of Trump deportations
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Corbyn says police ‘picked on him to silence democratic rights' as case dropped
Police were 'picking on' Jeremy Corbyn to 'silence the democratic rights of everybody in our society', he has alleged. The former Labour leader and John McDonnell were called for interview after a pro-Palestine protest in London earlier this year. Mr McDonnell revealed in the Commons that police had dropped their investigation into the pair, but said the Metropolitan Police had originally tried to charge them because MPs were held to have 'a greater culpability'. Raising a point of order, Mr McDonnell told the Commons: 'You may be aware that (Mr Corbyn) and I were called for interview by the Metropolitan Police following our participation in a demonstration in January calling for peace and justice for the Palestinian people and an end to the genocide in Gaza. 'It was alleged that we failed to follow police restrictions on the protest. This is untrue, and at all times we followed police instructions. 'We can now report that the police have dropped the case against us and there will be no charges.' Mr McDonnell alleged that 'the Metropolitan Police informed us that our case was referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) because as MPs we were to be held to have, and I quote, 'a greater culpability'.' The independent MP for Hayes and Harlington, who was once Mr Corbyn's shadow chancellor, added: 'This is an unacceptable practice which flies in the face of the principle that we are all equal before the law.' Mr Corbyn, now the independent MP for Islington North, said: 'I don't intend to let it rest just there.' He told MPs: 'If there are elements in the police and possibly in the Crown Prosecution Service who want Members of Parliament to be held to a different standard of account than the general public, that removes us from the normality of law in this country. 'And I think that would be a very, very bad step indeed.' He later added: 'We have to all – all of us – have the right to take part in public protest about human rights abuse, about war, about peace, about anything else. That is what democracy is about. 'And I saw this whole effort as being a means to try and silence the democratic rights of everybody in our society by picking on us two as Members of Parliament, and I'm grateful for the decision that's been made today.' Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh said he had 'not often taken part in demos in central London' but spoke to 'show that opinion in this House of Commons is absolutely united'. 'We've always proclaimed what is very much the British way that Members of Parliament are no different from any other member of the public,' the Conservative MP for Gainsborough said. 'If they do wrong, they will be held to account, but they not be subject to some greater test of culpability just because they're Members of Parliament.' The Metropolitan Police has been contacted for comment.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Suffers Major Blow in Attempt to Overhaul U.S. Elections
A federal judge blocked portions of a Trump administration order Friday that would have required voters to show proof of citizenship at the voting booth. In a 44-page memorandum, U.S. District Judge Denise Casper ordered that adding layers of difficulty to the voting process would only harm eligible voters by adding significant barriers before they can cast their ballots. Casper further noted that Donald Trump's order was an executive overreach and that the authority to set new election requirements rests with Congress. 'There is no dispute (nor could there be) that U.S. citizenship is required to vote in federal elections and the federal voter registration forms require attestation of citizenship,' Casper wrote. 'The issue here is whether the president can require documentary proof of citizenship where the authority for election requirements is in the hands of Congress, its statutes … do not require it, and the statutorily created [Election Assistance Commission] is required to go through a notice and comment period and consult with the states before implementing any changes to the federal forms for voter registration.' One of five provisions in the executive order blocked by Casper mandated that the Election Assistance Commission collect and record information on provided documentary proof of citizenship in the national voter registration form. Casper's ruling also intervened in a White House decree that ordered the secretary of defense to update the absentee application for overseas voters or Americans in the military, which under Trump's direction would have required such voters to provide proof of citizenship as well as proof of eligibility to vote in their respective states. 'Neither the Constitution nor any statute grants the president the authority to enact' such an order, the judge wrote. Since Trump lost the 2020 election, he and his allies have obsessed over contrived claims of voter fraud—a statistical nonissue in U.S. elections. For instance, a statewide audit out of Georgia, the epicenter of Trump's baseless theory, revealed in September that just 20 noncitizens out of 8.2 million residents existed on the state's voter roll. Out of those 20, only nine participated in elections, years ago, before ID was required as a part of the voter verification process. The other 11 individuals were registered but never actually voted, according to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. Critics argue that restrictions on the front end of the electoral process—such as one-day voting and requiring day-of voter ID, which Trump pledged to apply in December—would minimize voter turnout and limit the democracy's ability to represent its constituents. This would especially be true in high-density areas like the nation's biggest cities, where those stipulations would significantly drain resources (i.e., boost the number of volunteers required) and require more time to process, potentially leading to delays. Trump's continued focus on the nativist nonissue belies the fact that it is, of course, already illegal and impossible for noncitizens to vote in U.S. elections, including in Georgia, where the individuals who fell through the cracks in the system accounted for just 0.00024 percent of the state's voting population. Meanwhile, Trump has said nothing about campaign finance reform, an electoral issue that has, over the last few decades, increasingly placed politicians in the pockets of major corporations and billionaire donors. Instead, the president's allies have actually lobbied him to loosen campaign finance laws, raise limits on campaign contributions, and oppose Federal Election Commission reforms that would help the agency enforce the laws regarding the country's elections.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr team forced Medicaid officials to reveal the immigration status on millions of enrollees to DHS: report
The Trump administration has handed over the personal data of immigrant Medicaid enrollees to deportation officials, the Associated Press reports. Included in the data are the immigration statuses of millions of Medicaid enrollees, which could be used to identify individuals for deportation as part of President Donald Trump's hard-line immigration crackdown. This has caused notable concern among officials in California due to the raids in Los Angeles by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, supported by troops, which have ignited protests and civil unrest. An internal memo and emails obtained by the AP show that Medicaid officials unsuccessfully attempted to block the data transfer, citing legal and ethical concerns. They were overruled by two top advisers to Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr., who ordered that the dataset be handed over to the Department of Homeland Security, the emails reveal. The data consists of the details of people living in California, Illinois, Washington State, and Washington, D.C., all so-called 'sanctuary states' that permit non-U.S. citizens to enroll in Medicaid programs funded solely by state taxpayer dollars. California Governor Gavin Newsom's office expressed concern that the data would be used for immigration raids supported by the National Guard troops and Marines that President Trump deployed in Los Angeles. 'We deeply value the privacy of all Californians,' a statement said. 'This potential data transfer brought to our attention by the AP is extremely concerning, and if true, potentially unlawful, particularly given numerous headlines highlighting potential improper federal use of personal information and federal actions to target the personal information of Americans.' Department of Health and Human Services spokesman Andrew Nixon said the data was shared legally, 'to ensure that Medicaid benefits are reserved for individuals who are lawfully entitled to receive them.' The data includes addresses, names, Social Security numbers and claims data for enrollees in those states, the AP reported, based on details of the memo and two people familiar with what the states sent to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Officials at CMS were given just 54 minutes on Tuesday to comply with the RFK Jr. team's directive, the outlet reported. The AP states that Nixon wouldn't answer questions about how Homeland Security would use the data, and DHS officials did not respond to requests for comment.