Despite overwhelming evidence that the militia and minutemen were fully outfitted for war—carrying packs, blankets, bayonets, and cartridge boxes—a few stubborn holdouts continue to dismiss the facts. Worse yet, they cite Doolittle Plates I and III as proof that militiamen carried little more than a musket and perhaps a cartridge box.
The Doolittle Plates present a conundrum. While certain elements of the illustrations are remarkably accurate, other details are crude and demonstrably incorrect.
So, what is the story behind the Doolittle Plates?
Amos Doolittle and Ralph Earl were two Connecticut artisans who played a crucial role in documenting the first battle of the American Revolution through their engravings of Lexington and Concord. Doolittle, a silversmith and engraver from New Haven, sought to establish himself by producing prints of historical events. At the same time, Earl, a self-taught portrait artist, had experience capturing likenesses but little knowledge of engraving. Their collaboration arose because Doolittle needed an artist to create line drawings for his engravings. Despite his Loyalist sympathies, Earl was the only professional artist available in New Haven. Together, they embarked on a journey to the battle sites, gathering eyewitness accounts and sketching the landscape to create an accurate visual record of the conflict.
The Doolittle Plates present a conundrum. While certain elements of the illustrations are remarkably accurate, other details are crude and demonstrably incorrect.
So, what is the story behind the Doolittle Plates?
Amos Doolittle and Ralph Earl were two Connecticut artisans who played a crucial role in documenting the first battle of the American Revolution through their engravings of Lexington and Concord. Doolittle, a silversmith and engraver from New Haven, sought to establish himself by producing prints of historical events. At the same time, Earl, a self-taught portrait artist, had experience capturing likenesses but little knowledge of engraving. Their collaboration arose because Doolittle needed an artist to create line drawings for his engravings. Despite his Loyalist sympathies, Earl was the only professional artist available in New Haven. Together, they embarked on a journey to the battle sites, gathering eyewitness accounts and sketching the landscape to create an accurate visual record of the conflict.
.jpg) |
| Close up image of Doolittle's Plate I: The Battle of Lexington |
Despite the challenges of working in a war zone, Earl and Doolittle captured key battles' key moments. Earl made rough sketches on-site, often using Doolittle as a model to depict soldiers in action, while Doolittle later engraved the images onto copper plates. These prints, which included detailed representations of buildings, fences, and trees, were among the earliest artistic depictions of the Revolutionary War. However, the final images appeared somewhat crude, possibly due to Earl’s lack of proper tools and the rushed nature of their work. Nevertheless, their efforts resulted in four engravings that documented the battle and served as propaganda for the Patriot cause. The prints were widely distributed, posted in public spaces, and sold in plain and hand-colored versions, making them an essential part of Revolutionary-era visual culture.
However, despite their historical importance, Doolittle’s prints contain several inaccuracies, likely due to the artist’s artistic limitations, reliance on secondhand accounts, and the inherent challenges of reconstructing battles visually.
One of the main inaccuracies in Doolittle’s prints is his portrayal of British and American troops. Both Doolittle and Earl interviewed eyewitnesses to the events of April 19, 1775, and as a result, achieved a degree of accuracy regarding troop placement at different moments of that fateful day. However, their depictions of the combatants are often simplistic and anachronistic, with both sides appearing in neatly arranged formations and wearing attire that doesn't always match historical records. British soldiers are drawn wearing full-length coats instead of light infantry coatees, and their headgear is sometimes inconsistent with known styles worn by British regiments in 1775. Colonial militia members are erroneously depicted more uniformly, with most of the militia and minute men dressed in blue and brown frock coats. Provincial equipment, even the most essential items, like a shot pouch or cartridge box, are missing from many men. This omission is inconsistent with the supporting documentation of the day. As Lieutenant Colonel Smith noted in his report to General Thomas Gage, the men of Lexington consisted of “a body of the country people drawn up in military order, with arms and accoutrement, and, as appeared after, loaded.”
Did we mention that Major Pitcairn’s horse appears to have a human face in Plate I?
Another issue with Doolittle’s work is the exaggerated orderliness of battle scenes. The Battle of Lexington was a chaotic skirmish, with militia members scrambling for cover as British lights surged forward without orders. Doolittle, however, shows a more conventional battlefield arrangement with British soldiers standing in neat lines as if engaging in European-style warfare. Surviving Lexington militiamen are depicted in Plate I as withdrawing in a semi-orderly fashion. This misrepresentation may have been influenced by artistic conventions of the time, which favored structured compositions over the raw disorder of actual combat.
.jpg) |
| Doolittle's Plate II: A View of the Town of Concord |
Doolittle’s works also contain inaccuracies in architectural and geographical details. While John Warner Barber, a colleague of Doolittle, asserted years later that “These plates, though crude in execution . . . give a faithful representation of the houses, etc., as they appeared at that time,” some aspects of the illustrations of Lexington and Concord are incorrect. These inconsistencies include buildings that are misrepresented or inaccurately placed. In some instances, structures appear more refined or strategically positioned than they were in reality, possibly to enhance the clarity and dramatic effect of the scene. These discrepancies suggest that while Doolittle aimed to provide a visual record, his engravings were not entirely free from artistic interpretation and modification.
Historian and minister William Agur Beardsley best described the accuracy of the Doolittle Plates. In his 1914 essay An Old New Haven Engraver and His Work: Amos Doolittle, Beardsley stated, “These Plates are exceedingly crude in every way, and if they had to depend upon their artistic merit and skillful workmanship for their Value, they would come perilously near to being worthless. But their very crudity is perhaps their most valuable feature to the collector, or to anyone, for that matter. Aside from all that, however, an interest attaches to them as the earliest work of a man who was struggling with an art, of which as yet he knew practically nothing, and in which he never did rise to any high degree of excellence. And further, they have an historical interest. They cannot be regarded as accurate representations of the scenes depicted, of course, but still they were made by men who were portraying some things, at least, which they had seen with their own eyes.”
Nevertheless, Doolittle’s prints became valuable historical records, offering one of the first visual interpretations of the war. After completing this project, he continued engraving maps, banknotes, Yale diplomas, and scientific illustrations, making him an important figure in early American printmaking. On the other hand, Earl returned to Boston and later fled to England due to his Loyalist views. He eventually returned to America and resumed his career as a portrait artist.
Today, Doolittle’s Lexington and Concord engravings remain significant as artistic works and historical documents. They provide a rare contemporary visual account of the battles that ignited the American Revolution.
Historian and minister William Agur Beardsley best described the accuracy of the Doolittle Plates. In his 1914 essay An Old New Haven Engraver and His Work: Amos Doolittle, Beardsley stated, “These Plates are exceedingly crude in every way, and if they had to depend upon their artistic merit and skillful workmanship for their Value, they would come perilously near to being worthless. But their very crudity is perhaps their most valuable feature to the collector, or to anyone, for that matter. Aside from all that, however, an interest attaches to them as the earliest work of a man who was struggling with an art, of which as yet he knew practically nothing, and in which he never did rise to any high degree of excellence. And further, they have an historical interest. They cannot be regarded as accurate representations of the scenes depicted, of course, but still they were made by men who were portraying some things, at least, which they had seen with their own eyes.”
Nevertheless, Doolittle’s prints became valuable historical records, offering one of the first visual interpretations of the war. After completing this project, he continued engraving maps, banknotes, Yale diplomas, and scientific illustrations, making him an important figure in early American printmaking. On the other hand, Earl returned to Boston and later fled to England due to his Loyalist views. He eventually returned to America and resumed his career as a portrait artist.
Today, Doolittle’s Lexington and Concord engravings remain significant as artistic works and historical documents. They provide a rare contemporary visual account of the battles that ignited the American Revolution.
Update - March 15, 2025: Historian and engraver Andy Volpe provided feedback on our article in response to our post. Here's what he had to say - "As an engraver myself, there are other factors in the actual cutting of a copperplate that may have lead (Doolittle) to over-simplify the design and details. My work trying to replicate Revere's engravings has me putting in something like 60 hours of work engraving a plate. And, everything in printmaking is in reverse. And what happens if you make a mistake? You're looking at a few hours of painstaking work having to carefully scrape-out the mistake area, mark the back of the plate and carefully hammer the back to flatten out the divot you scraped off the face of the copper.... So people like Revere and I'm assuming Doolittle tried to avoid making mistakes and if they did, may not have cared enough to try and correct them, as of course, the other factor, time is of the essence and now you have to source the paper and press, hand-print each print (which is hours of work), and then find a way to sell them. Revere had an advantage with Edes & Gill. I wish I knew more about Doolittle."
