British Leadership – Bunker Hill

On By Daniel DavisIn 1775, America 250, Armies, Battlefields & Historic Places, Battles, British Leadership, Campaigns, Emerging Revolutionary War, Memory, National Park Service, Northern Theater, Personalities, Revolutionary War1 Comment

After years of political unrest between Great Britain and her North American colonies, tension finally boiled over into armed conflict on April 19, 1775, at Lexington and Concord. The British expedition to capture arms and munitions held by the colonists at Concord disintegrated into a panic-ridden retreat to Boston as local militias struck the column as it moved through the Massachusetts countryside. As often happens in war, seeds planted during a battle often sow the next.

Rather than enter march through Boston Neck British officers diverted to Cambridge and proceeded to the Charlestown Peninsula. Bordered by the Charles and Mystic Rivers, the peninsula jutted out into Boston Harbor northeast of the city. As darkness settled in, exhausted British soldiers made their way onto 110-foot high Bunker Hill. This eminence, commanded Charlestown Neck, a narrow sliver of land connecting to the mainland, along with the surrounding landscape.

That night, Lt. Gen. Thomas Gage, the British Commander-in-Chief met with Vice Admiral Samuel Graves, head of the North Atlantic Squadron. Among other suggestions, Graves urged Gage to burn Charlestown and occupy Bunker Hill. Graves likely knew that his ships in the harbor could not elevate their artillery to reach the high ground. Additionally, Bunker Hill was out of range of the Copp’s Hill Battery located in the city’s North End.

Thomas Gage

Gage recognized the long-simmering pot would eventually boil over with the colonists. “If you think ten thousand men sufficient, send twenty; if one million thought enough, give two; you save both blood and treasure in the end,” he wrote the previous fall to his superiors in London. Now, seemingly distant from the tactical situation on the ground, the survivor of the Monogahela rejected Graves’ proposal, claiming “the weakness of the army.” One must wonder if this was a decision Gage came to privately regret.

The arrival of reinforcements at the end of May, along with Maj. Gens. John Burgoyne, Henry Clinton, and William Howe may have buoyed Gage’s spirits. He soon began making plans to break out of Boston. In consultation with his subordinates, Gage formulated a plan to strike first across Boston Neck to capture Dorchester Heights, which commanded the southern end of the city. A second attack would capture Charlestown then move the three miles to Cambridge to hopefully destroy the Massachusetts army. The offensive was slated to take place on June 18.

Read more: British Leadership – Bunker Hill

Unfortunately, Boston leaked like a sieve and Gage failed to maintain what is known today as operational security. His plans were soon known in Cambridge where the Massachusetts Committee of Safety authorized their own effort to occupy Bunker Hill ahead of the British. On the night of June 16, colonial units led by Col. William Prescott marched out of Cambridge toward Charlestown. Rather than follow his orders, Prescott moved to the 60 foot high Breed’s Hill, located slightly to the southeast of Bunker Hill. Prescott’s decision remains one of the great mysteries surrounding the battle. His men began construction of a redoubt.

Another question surrounding the engagement rests with Henry Clinton. Sometime on the evening of June 16, Clinton wrote he conducted a reconnaissance and claimed he witnessed Provincial activity. He did not, however, explain where he went nor reported the type of actions he saw. Additionally, visibility would be difficult in the growing dusk. Clinton further stated he reported his findings to Gage and Howe but Gage elected to wait for daylight.

Sunrise revealed Prescott’s men atop Breed’s Hill, hard at work on the redoubt, which threatened the northern end of the city. Gage and his officers quickly convened at his headquarters at the Province House. Howe, the senior officer, would be in command. Some thought was given to sail up the Mystic to land on Charlestown Neck well in the rear of the redoubt. This plan was quickly nixed for fear the force could be isolated and cut off by reinforcements from Cambridge and militia on Breed’s Hill. It was eventually decided Howe would land below and out of range of the redoubt. Orders soon went out for the mustering of the “ten oldest companies” the flank and grenadiers, each – along with several regiments to prepare for the operation.

Each British regiment consisted of ten companies, eight line, with two flank and grenadier companies. The flank companies consisted of men who were often the shortest and fastest, who could operate in open order tactics, moving quickly to engage and skirmish with the enemy. The grenadiers, identified by their bear skin hats, were often the tallest men in the regiment and were used as the shock troops during an attack. By the time of the American Revolution, they were no longer carrying hand grenades but the name remained. Oftentimes these companies were separated from their regiments and placed in their own battalions.

Howe disembarked from Long Wharf, going over himself in the second wave, that afternoon. The British landed at Moulton’s Hill, near the modern Navy Yard. Stepping ashore, Howe observed his objective. “On first view it was clearly seen that the rebels were in forced and strongly entrenched upon their right in the Redoubt that had been seen from the town at daybreak,” he reported. “Their left and center were covered by a breastwork which reached from the Redoubt to the Mystick, the space from the Redoubt to that river being about 380 yards, and the whole extent they occupied about 600 yards”. The extent of the defenses compelled Howe to call for reinforcements.

Toward the middle of the day, the British launched their assault. Although Howe’s second in command, Brig. Gen. Robert Pigot was present and directed the left of the line, Howe also decided to take a stronger role and led the center himself on foot. Howe directed his light infantry to advance along the beach of the Mystic, likely with the hope in mind of getting behind the redoubt. This attack was met and repulsed by New Hampshire militia under Col. John Stark. So too were Howe’s and Pigot’s attacks. Watching his men come stumbling back after the failed attempt prompted Howe to later write “it was a moment I had not felt before.”

In the second assault, Howe attempted to further squeeze off the redoubt, pulling the light infantry from the beach to augment his center. At the same time, Pigot sent the 1st Marine Battalion and the 47th Regiment of Foot to get between Charlestown and the redoubt. During the assault, which also failed, the light infantry fired into the rear of the grenadiers, inflicting casualties.

Once again, the British lurched forward, determined to overwhelm the redoubt by a sheer force of numbers. This time, luck was with them as the militia were running out of ammunition. Francis, Lord Rawdon, an officer in the 5th Regiment of Foot who would go on to distinguish himself in the Southern Campaigns recalled “our men grew impatient, and all crying Push on, Push on, advanced with infinite spirit to attack the work with their small arms. As soon as the rebels perceived this, they rose up and poured in so heavy a fire upon us that the oldest officers say they never saw a sharper action. They kept up this fire until we were within ten yards of them…there are few instances of regular troops defending a redoubt till the enemy were in the very ditch of it.”

The British infantry swarmed into Prescott’s redoubt. Somewhere in the maelstrom was British lieutenant and adjutant of the 1st Marines, John Waller. “Nothing could be more shocking than the carnage that followed the storming of this work,” he wrote “We tumbled over the dead to get at the living who were crowding out of the gorge of the redoubt…’twas streaming with blood and strewed with the dead and dying men, the soldiers stabbing some and dashing out the brains of the others.” The colonials managed to retreat across Charlestown Neck, the British too exhausted to give chase.

Bunker Hill became the first of many pyrrhic victories for the British over the course of the American Revolution. Still, there were a number of shortcomings. Howe, rather than oversee the attacks from Moulton’s Hill, led the assaults himself. Perhaps he needed to inspire his men or he recognized the importance of the situation but he reverted to being a battalion commander. One must wonder whether the initial attacks could have been more effective had he delegated authority and used more of a guiding hand. Howe’s experience that day may have influenced him for the remainder of the war. Rather than rely on frontal assaults, he utilized flanking maneuvers such as those at Long Island and Brandywine. The friendly fire casualties can be attributed to inexperience amongst the ranks. Gage, along with his subordinates also share, the blame for not maintaining operational security and letting their plans slip out of Boston. Additionally, Gage failed to heed the advice of Graves and secure Charlestown Peninsula in April when he had the opportunity. The result nearly two months to the day resulted in over 1,000 British soldiers killed and wounded, a high cost of blood and treasure, in a war that would lead to the independence of the United States.

250 Years Ago Today: The Bloodiest Day of the Revolutionary War

On By Mark MaloyIn Uncategorized2 Comments

On June 17, 1775, exactly 250 years ago today, American colonists and British troops clashed in one of the most brutal and iconic battles of the Revolutionary War: the Battle of Bunker Hill. Though commonly named after Bunker Hill, most of the fighting actually took place on nearby Breed’s Hill, just outside of Boston. This early engagement proved to be the bloodiest single day of the entire war and signaled that the conflict would be far more deadly and drawn out than many on either side had anticipated.

Following the skirmishes at Lexington and Concord in April 1775, thousands of colonial militia surrounded Boston, trapping British forces inside the city. To break the siege, British commanders planned to seize the heights around the city to gain a strategic advantage. On the night of June 16, colonial forces under Colonel William Prescott stealthily fortified Breed’s Hill, constructing earthworks that overlooked Boston and its harbor.

By dawn on June 17, British General Thomas Gage recognized the threat posed by the colonial position and ordered a frontal assault to dislodge the rebels. British troops, led by General William Howe, launched multiple attacks up the hill and against a rail fence line near the Mystic River under intense colonial fire. The colonists, although poorly supplied and lacking bayonets, held their ground and inflicted staggering casualties on the British ranks.

The first two British assaults were repelled with heavy losses. Only on the third attempt, when the colonists had largely run out of ammunition, were the British able to overrun the position. In the retreat, Jospeh Warren, one of main leaders of the Patriots was shot in the head and killed instantly.

The human cost was enormous. British forces suffered over 1,000 casualties. More than 200 had been killed and more than 800 wounded. The American losses were around 400, with over 100 killed and about 300 wounded. Though technically a British victory because they captured the ground, the Battle of Bunker Hill was a strategic and psychological triumph for the American cause. It showed that colonial forces, mostly farmers, tradesmen, and volunteers, could stand and fight against the professional British army.

For many in the colonies, the blood spilled on Breed’s Hill made reconciliation with Britain increasingly unlikely. The battle hardened public opinion and spurred the Continental Congress to intensify preparations for a long war. Just days before the battle, Congress had appointed George Washington as Commander in Chief. News of the battle reached him as he was traveling north to take command, and it confirmed the scale of the challenge ahead.

Looking back 250 years later, the Battle of Bunker Hill stands as a defining moment in the struggle for American independence. It was not only the bloodiest single day of the war but also the moment when the Revolution became real, marked by sacrifice, courage, and a growing commitment to liberty. The legacy of that day continues to echo across the centuries as a symbol of resistance and the high cost of freedom. While there would be hundreds more battles and skirmishes over the following eight years, no day would see as many casualties in one day as June 17, 1775.

Be sure to check out our Facebook page and YouTube channel later today to see videos from Emerging Revolutionary War historians guiding you on the battlefield today.

250 Years Ago…Right Now-ish

On By Phill GreenwaltIn 1775, America 250, Battlefields & Historic Places, Battles, Emerging Revolutionary War, Memory, National Park Service, Revolutionary WarLeave a comment

Shortly after 11 p.m. on the night of June 16, Colonel (although the monument calls him general) William Prescott led approximately 1,200 Massachusetts soldiers toward the Charlestown Peninsula from Cambridge Common. These men would spend the night fortifying Breed’s Hill before spending the majority of the next day defending the earthen redoubt from successive British attacks. Although forced to evacuate due to low ammunition and the British breaching the redoubt, the defeat had a positive impact on the morale of the “Grand Army” as the New England militia soon-to-be-Continental Army.

250 Years Ago Today George Washington Accepts Command

On By Mark MaloyIn UncategorizedLeave a comment

On June 16, 1775, George Washington stood before the Continental Congress in Philadelphia and accepted his commission as Commander in Chief of the Continental Army. Washington’s election was not just a military decision; it was a deliberate political and symbolic act, one that helped unify the colonies and provided the revolution with a face of leadership, dignity, and resolve.

On June 14, 1775, the Congress established the Continental Army, and the next day (June 15), delegates unanimously chose George Washington to lead it.

Why Washington? He was a Virginian, which brought balance to a cause that, up to that point, had been largely centered in New England. He was also widely respected as a man of integrity, with military experience gained during the French and Indian War. Just as important, Washington had been an early and vocal critic of British policy. His commitment to liberty, combined with a calm and dignified demeanor, made him the ideal figure to rally support across the colonies.

On June 16, Washington formally accepted the command. In a modest speech, he thanked Congress for their confidence but expressed sincere doubts about his own abilities. “I do not think myself equal to the command I am honored with,” he told them. He went on to pledge that he would accept no salary, only reimbursement for expenses. It was a powerful gesture, signaling that he was not seeking personal gain but was instead answering a call to duty.

On June 19, Washington received his commission in writing. It read, in part: “We, reposing special trust and confidence in the patriotism, valor, conduct, and fidelity of George Washington, do hereby constitute and appoint him General and Commander in chief of the Army of the United Colonies.”

Washington departed Philadelphia shortly thereafter and traveled north to take command of the troops besieging Boston. His arrival at Cambridge on July 3 marked the beginning of a long and arduous campaign. Throughout the war, Washington would lead with patience, resilience, and an unwavering sense of purpose.

The choice of George Washington as commander of the Continental Army would turn out to be one of the most important decisions made in American history. The wisdom of their choice was apparent on December 23, 1783, when Washington, at his zenith following the American victory in the war, he resigned and returned the every same commission to the Congress.

250 Years Ago Today the Continental Army is Created

On By Mark MaloyIn UncategorizedLeave a comment

On June 14, 1775, the Continental Congress met in what we call today Independence Hall in Philadelphia. While the delegates met, Massachusetts soldiers under General Artemas Ward were laying siege to the British army in Boston. They were just a few days away from fighting the bloody battle of Bunker Hill. At this point, the thirteen American colonies were carrying on their resistance to British tyranny individually. But with war underway in Massachusetts, an important event occurred on June 14, 1775. That day, the Continental Congress voted to adopt the Massachusetts army and add to it soldiers from Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia. This was the beginning of the Continental Army. The Continental Army would become the unifying force between the various colonies, and would ultimately secure American independence on the battlefield. Today, the United States Army claims June 14, 1775 as its birthday.

The journal of the Continental Congress recorded this for the day:

“Resolved, That six companies of expert riflemen, be immediately raised in Pennsylvania, two in Maryland, and two in Virginia; that each company consist of a captain, three lieutenants, four sergeants, four corporals, a drummer or trumpeter, and sixty-eight privates.

That each company, as soon as completed, shall march and join the army near Boston, to be there employed as light infantry, under the command of the chief Officer in that army.”

Of course, the chief officer of the army had not been selected yet. John Adams rose and nominated Colonel George Washington from Virginia. Washington immediately left the room as the Congress debated choice. While the Congress would not vote on Washington’s nomination until the following day, they had taken a momentous step in creating an army, even while they hoped for an ultimate reconciliation with Great Britain with their English rights preserved.

The Continental Congress prescribed the oath for enlisting Continental troops:

“I have, this day, voluntarily enlisted myself, as a soldier, in the American continental army, for one year, unless sooner discharged: And I do bind myself to conform, in all instances, to such rules and regulations, as are, or shall be, established for the government of the said Army.”

By mid-July the Virginia Continentals would already start marching towards Boston.

This year the United States Army will be doing numerous events to celebrate the momentous event. The National Museum of the US Army in Fairfax County, Virginia also has a special exhibit on display to mark the 250th. Remember the tens of thousands of men who fought in the Continental Army over the eight year war, and the thousands who died in its ranks for our freedom.

“Rev War Revelry” The Battle of Bunker Hill

On By erwpostIn 1775, America 250, Battlefields & Historic Places, Battles, Emerging Revolutionary War, National Park Service, Personalities, Revolutionary War1 Comment

On Tuesday, the 250th anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill, fought on Breed’s Hill on Charlestown Peninsula, will be remembered. On June 17, 1775, the last major engagement before George Washington arrived in Massachusetts to take command was fought between militia under Colonel William Prescott and British forces under General William Howe. Although a defeat for the patriots, resulting in the death of Dr. Joseph Warren, the victory was a pyrrhic one for the British.

Join Emerging Revolutionary War historians as they discuss the engagement, the personas, and the ramifications of the Battle of Bunker Hill. Also, stay tuned until the end for an announcement as well.

So, two days before the 250th, grab your favorite beverage and tune into our Facebook page at 7 p.m. EDT and have your questions ready. If you are unable to attend the live on Sunday evening, don’t fret, the video will be posted to YouTube by the anniversary and to our podcast channel as soon as possible

When the Legend Becomes Fact: Brady’s Leap?

On By Eric SternerIn Battlefields & Historic Places, Memory, Personalities, Western FrontierLeave a comment
Brady’s Leap. Unknown. (Wikipedia Commons)

The American Revolution on the frontier produced its share of stories and legends.  In many ways, the heroes in those tales were more relatable than the men who led the war east of the Appalachians. They were not land-owning generals like George Washington, political organizers like Sam Adams, world-renowned scientists like Benjamin Franklin, inspiring speakers like Patrick Henry, or political philosophers like Thomas Jefferson.  Instead, they were farmers turned amateur soldiers, trappers and hunters turned scouts, family men turned avenging marauders.  In at least one case, even a quasi-fugitive from the law could become a symbol of protection and security.

By the 19th century, names like Daniel Boone, Simon Kenton, Ebenezer Zane, Lewis Wetzel, Issac Shelby, and Samuel Brady were known to every schoolboy west of the Appalachians. Some of their reputations faded with time as the frontier moved west onto the Great Plains and into the Rocky Mountains.  Still, the stories remained, mostly to sit in in aging volumes on a library bookshelf, but occasionally to be dusted off for works of historical fiction.  Like most stories, they occasionally morphed and evolved over time in the retelling.   Sometimes they hold up quite well on close examination and can be verified.  

Sometimes a little more skepticism may be in order.  Samuel Brady’s leap over a river is one such story.  There are two versions of the story.  In one he leaped to the opposite side of a rocky Cuyahoga River chasm.  In the other, he leaped entirely across a deep ravine through which Slippery Rock Creek ran.

Continue reading “When the Legend Becomes Fact: Brady’s Leap?” →

Review: Matthew E.  Reardon, The Traitor’s Homecoming: Benedict Arnold’s Raid on New London, Connecticut, September 4-13, 1781.

On By erwguestIn Battlefields & Historic Places, Battles, Book Review, British Leadership, Continental Leadership, Emerging Revolutionary War, Memory, Militia (Patriot) Leadership, Personalities, Revolutionary WarLeave a comment

Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes guest historian Riley Sullivan, Professor of History at San Jacinto College in Houston, Texas.

While many might be familiar with famed engagements at places like Bunker Hill, Saratoga, and Yorktown during the Revolutionary War, few are familiar with the actions that took place near New London, Connecticut in September of 1781. However, for the people of Connecticut, the battles that took place near Groton Heights and New London have been immortalized as a campaign highlighted by treachery and massacre. Largely, this interpretation has been adopted due to the commander of the British forces who engaged in this raid, Benedict Arnold.

Perhaps no other name in American History brings about more scorn than that of Benedict Arnold. Having defected to the British cause late in the Revolutionary War, for Americans at the time–and even today–he is viewed as a modern day Judas. However, with such infamy ultimately comes much misinterpretation of this historical figure and the events he was involved in. In Matthew E. Reardon’s recent study The Traitor’s Homecoming, he attempts to undo much of this misinterpretation. Drawing on previously unused primary sources, Reardon constructs an engaging argument that challenges the traditional view of Arnold’s conduct in the New London raid.

To construct this narrative of the New London raid, Reardon attempts to place into context the setting of the New London raid. By this stage in the war, the conflict in New York had been a state of stalemate for the previous few years. However, with Generals Washington and Rochambeu’s combined Franco-American forces on the move, the British commander in the region, Henry Clinton—informed by faulty intelligence as Reardon demonstrated—was convinced that an attack on New York was imminent. As a result, to divert Washington’s attention away from a possible attack on New York, Clinton authorized Arnold to lead a contingent of British troops to attack the vulnerable Connecticut coastline.

New London made the ideal target for a British raid as it had been a hotbed for commerce and privateering for the Patriot cause. To conduct such a raid, Clinton turned to Arnold as he was both a native of Connecticut and familiar with the New London area. Largely only being contested by militia behind a number of forts that guarded approaches to both the town and the Thames River, Arnold’s combined force of Loyalists, Hessian Jaegers, and British regulars made quick work of the Patriot militia throughout the campaign. Even with New London in their hands, outside events–notably Clinton’s realization that Washington was moving on Cornwallis at Yorktown–led to Arnold having to relinquish his gains. However, with the high casualties suffered by both sides during the raid, coupled with the burning of much of the town, the events “cemented Benedict Arnold’s reputation for villainy.” (x)

When considering the traditional interpretation of Arnold’s raid on New London, Reardon makes it clear throughout his work that a “distorted interpretation” of the events had emerged (ix). From veterans to the Groton Battle Monument at Fort Griswold Battlefield State Park, the events that took place in Connecticut in 1781 have been enshrined as a massacre of Connecticut militia at the hands of Arnold. However, when looking at contemporary letters, diaries, and later pension records, Reardon demonstrates that there are some noticeable gaps within the traditional account of this campaign. In particular, when examining the death of Colonel William Ledyard–who was alleged to have been killed while attempting to surrender–Reardon concluded that through these sources, the traditional accounts accepted proved to be inconsistent with contemporary accounts of the campaign.

But, even with these inconsistencies, this is not to say that the fighting at Fort Griswold and the subsequent burning of New London was less than brutal. Reardon wrote that “the immediate reaction of the community was shock” and that “for many it was beyond comprehension.” (339) To no surprise, this sheer shock of the fighting coupled with Arnold’s involvement led to this distorted narrative of the campaign.

Through the examination of contemporary letters, diaries, and later pension applications, Reardon is able to reconstruct in great detail the events of Arnold’s New London raid and offer an unbiased narrative. By providing these fresh sources in The Traitor’s Homecoming, Reardon effectively builds on the existing literature of the subject and demonstrates how public perception can lead to the misinterpretation of historical events like that of the New London raid.

Details:

Matthew E.  Reardon, The Traitor’s Homecoming: Benedict Arnold’s Raid on New London, Connecticut, September 4-13, 1781. Published by: Savas Beatie LLC. Summer 2024. 448 Pages.

*Check out Emerging Revolutionary War’s YouTube page as well for a “Rev War Revelry” interview with author Matthew E. Reardon.*

Captain James Wallace’s Tumultuous June 1775 in Narragansett Bay

On By Eric SternerIn 1775, British Leadership, Navy4 Comments
Katy in her later service as the Continental Navy ship Providence. “Sloop Providence under Sail by Kristopher Battles” (Naval History and Heritage Command)

Since his brief visit in November 1774 and his longer term stay commencing in December, Captain James Wallace of the British ship Rose (20 guns), had patrolled Narragansett Bay to enforce the Coercive Acts and prevent Britain’s rebellious colonies from importing gunpowder and armaments.  Loyalists had taken heart and rebels had been frustrated with his presence.   Not only were his patrols interfering with local commerce by seizing ships and their cargos—his main mission—but he created a more visible symbol of Britain’s ability and willingness to force its colonists to comply with Parliament’s laws.  

                One of the loyalists encouraged by the Royal Navy presence in Narragansett Bay was a Newport merchant named George Rome.  Wallace had visited Rome and was dining with him when a breathless messenger warned the captain that a mob was out to tar and feather him back in December, 1774.  In the moment, nothing came of it, but Governor Joseph Wanton warned Wallace that the town was not safe for British officers, sailors, or loyal subjects.  Things remained at a low simmer that winter and spring, including the initial weeks after the Lexington and Concord.  Tensions, however, could not help but rise.  Diarist Ezra Stiles, recorded on May 23 that some 90 Rhode Island soldiers under the command of Captains [John] Topham and [Thomas] Tew marched from the Newport courthouse and through town beating up volunteers to join the nascent American Army.  Wallace was dining in town that day and no doubt heard the racket.[1]  Stiles wrote, “The Tories were greatly mortified to see the daring Boldness of the Rebels as they called them.   The Tories had said that the Men o’War would fire the To[wn] if any Soldiers were raised in it.  But there was no Molestation.”  From Stiles’ version of events, the march appears as nothing less than a provocation to determine whether the rumored threat of Wallace and his ships to Newport proper was a bluff.  The lack of an immediate response may have demonstrated that it was.  In truth, a significant portion of Newport’s population opposed the rebels and voluntarily supplied Wallace and contracted for grain to provide to the British army.

Continue reading “Captain James Wallace’s Tumultuous June 1775 in Narragansett Bay” →

Blue and Gray Education Society Announces “Cradle of the Revolution” Tour with Emerging Revolutionary War.

On By Rob OrrisonIn 1774, 1775, America 250, Battlefields & Historic Places, Boston Tea Party, Lexington and ConcordLeave a comment

We are excited to announce that ERW historians Rob Orrison and Mark Maloy will be leading a four day tour of Boston and sites associated with the opening of the American Revolution. Part of BGES’ Field University Program, this tour is part of a series of tours that BGES is hosting focusing on the American Revolution.

From the BGES website: “Long considered the “Cradle of the Revolution,” Boston, Massachusetts, was home to many of the era’s leading figures—Dr. Joseph Warren, Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, John Adams, and many more. Its streets and wharves fostered the revolutionary spirit that would ignite a continent. In December 1773, tensions escalated dramatically when dozens of Bostonians and others boarded three ships at Griffin’s Wharf and dumped East India Company tea into the harbor in defiance of the Tea Act. Parliament soon responded with the punitive “Intolerable Acts,” placing Massachusetts under military control.

The powder keg exploded on April 19, 1775, when British Regulars and American colonists clashed on Lexington Green, spilling the first blood of the American Revolution. That day, a running battle raged from Concord to Cambridge—an opening salvo immortalized as the “shot heard ‘round the world.”

Join us during this 250th anniversary year for a multi-exploration of Boston and the nearby villages of Lexington and Concord. We’ll visit the pivotal sites and relive the moments that launched the Revolution, concluding with the dramatic engagements along the now-famous Battle Road.”

To purchase tickets, visit: https://blueandgrayeducation.org/tours/cradle-of-the-revolution-boston-to-lexington-and-concord/ Blue and Gray Education Society is a 501c3 created in 1994 to promote understanding of battlefields and other historic sites through the conduct of field study tours and seminars. BGES has sponsored many education and interpretive focused projects across the country.