"A truer heart did not bleed at Thermopylae" - The 250th Anniversary of the Death of Jonas Parker

This Saturday is the 250th anniversary of the Battles of Lexington and Concord.

As part of the celebration, the Nerds will participate in the Battle of Lexington reenactment. At the event, we will represent Jonas Parker, one of the eight Massachusetts men killed at the engagement.

This is his story.

Jonas Parker’s ties to Colonial Massachusetts can be traced back to his ancestor, Thomas Parker, who departed from London, England, on March 11, 1635. Upon arrival in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, Thomas initially settled in Lynn. His family later established residence in Reading. On August 3, 1664, Jonas’ grandfather, John Parker, was born. John married twice: first to Deliverance Dodge of Beverly, and second to a woman known only as “Sarah.” The first marriage produced eight children, including Jonas’ father, Andrew. All of the children were born in Reading. The second marriage produced no children.

On June 25, 1712, John Parker purchased land in the southern part of Cambridge Farms (future Lexington) from John Cutler. The property was described as “one small Mansion house and about sixty Acres of Land more or less, and is bounded - Southerly upon sd Watertown Line.” He and his family subsequently settled on the property.

John Parker and his son Andrew served as the town’s “fence viewers” and constables. It appears that in the early 18th Century, the family was considered prominent, as the Parkers occupied the second row of pews in the town meeting house.

On August 2, 1720, Jonas’ father married Sarah Whitney, the daughter of Isaiah and Sarah Whitney. Jonas Parker and his twin sister Sarah were born in Lexington on February 6, 1721. The twins were the oldest of twelve children. In total, he had seven sisters and four brothers. On June 30, 1745, the Parker and Munroe families united when Jonas married Lucy Munroe. At the time of the wedding, Lucy was already pregnant with their first child.

Their daughter, Lucy, was born on October 9, 1745. Sadly, she was born “deaf and dumb”. By 1761, Jonas and Lucy had nine more children. Four were boys, and the remaining five were girls. In 1775, the oldest child was thirty years old, and the youngest, Mary, was fourteen.

According to the Reverend Theodore Parker’s 19th-century genealogical account of the Parker families of Lexington, Jonas and Lucy “removed to Holden, where he purchased a farm and saw-mill, but returned to Lexington after a few years.”

Photo Credit: Jennifer Heim

 

Primary and secondary sources indicate Jonas and his family, upon return, resided on Bedford Road north of the Lexington Common and immediately next door to the Reverend Jonas Clarke. A review of Jonas’ estate inventory supports that he was both a woodworker and a yeoman by trade. Some of the tools and materials owned by him on the eve of the Battle of Lexington included “Ruff timber in the shop, 5 hubs and spokes for woollen wheels, Timber for foot wheels, turned timber for wheels, 54 feet of joyce, 2 new screws, 2 lathes, New beadstead, Screw bench [and] wooden vice.” Parker appears also to be an avid reader as he owned a “Psalm book, old bible [and a] number of other books.” Jonas was described as a tall, muscular man, much like his younger brother, Amos. He was considered the best wrestler in the town.

Unfortunately for Jonas, his financial status in Lexington was significantly lower than that of his father and grandfather. Although Parker was not poor, he was not wealthy either. A review of Lexington’s tax valuations of 1774 reveals Jonas’ personal and real property was taxed at a rate of two shillings, eleven pence. By comparison, the wealthiest resident of Lexington, William Reed, Esq., was assessed 16 shillings, one pence. The town’s poorest resident, Ephraim Winship, was assessed a mere ten pence. Parker owned one house, at least twelve acres of land, three cows, and two pigs. His farm produced approximately one ton of “fresh meadow hay” and one ton of “English hay” per year.

Although there are no records of Jonas Parker serving at the Siege of Louisbourg or the French and Indian Wars, he was undoubtedly a member of the town’s militia company and was likely assigned to the alarm list.

Despite popular belief, Lexington’s militia was not known in 1775 as the “Lexington Minute Men.” Instead, the militia company either retained its Puritan title and was known as the “Lexington Training Band” or was called “Captain John Parker’s Company.” Period documents from the town suggest that the unit was officially known as the “Training Band,” and its soldiers were referred to as “training soldiers.” However, depositions from Lexington militiamen in the aftermath of the Battle of Lexington refer to their town militia not as the Lexington Training Band but as “Captain Parker’s Company.” It is possible that both unit designations were used interchangeably.

The organization consisted of one hundred and thirty men, four officers, seven non-commissioned officers, one clerk, one fifer, and one drummer. Six of the town’s families furnished a total of twenty-nine. The oldest militiaman was sixty-three, while the youngest was a mere fourteen. Fifty-five men were over the age of thirty, and only twenty-eight had seen combat during the two previous French wars. At the Battle of Lexington, Jonas held the rank of private.

By 1775, Parker, like many of his neighbors, believed war with the Crown was inevitable. As Hugh Earle Percy correctly noted, “things here are now drawing to a crisis every day. The people here openly oppose the New Acts. They have taken up arms in almost every part of this Province, & have drove in the Gov’t & most of the Council . . . A few days ago, they mustered about 7,000 men at Worcester . . . In short, this country is now in an open state of rebellion.” In the days leading up to the Battle of Lexington, Parker openly expressed his intent to fight if hostilities broke out. According to Elijah Sanderson, “some days before the Battle, I was conversing with Jonas Parker, who was killed, and heard him express his determination never to run from before the British troops.”

Based on town records and Parker’s estate inventory, he played a significant role in the community’s preparation for war. After Lexington purchased an iron cannon from Watertown in late 1774, he helped construct the carriage upon which the gun would be mounted. He was also responsible for cutting back the wood stocks of the fowling pieces of his fellow militiamen so socket bayonets could be slid over the barrels of their guns.

Given Jonas Parker’s proximity to the Lexington Common and the Reverend Clarke’s residence, he likely assembled with other elements of the town militia company after Paul Revere arrived in Lexington. As the Reverend Clarke recalled, “upon this timely intelligence, the militia of this town were alarmed, and ordered to meet on the usual place of parade.” According to Daniel Harrington, “the train band or Militia, and the alarm men (consisting of the aged and others exempted from turning out, excepting upon alarm) repaired in general to the common, close in with the meeting-house, the usual place of parade; and there were present when the roll was called over about one hundred and thirty of both.”  

As they gathered on the town common, Jonas’ cousin, Captain John Parker, addressed his men to “consult what might be done for our own and the people's safety; and also, to be ready for whatever service Providence might call us out to upon this alarming occasion, in case--just in case--overt acts of violence or open hostilities should be committed by this mercenary band of armed and blood-thirsty oppressors.” After some discussion, it was decided to confirm the accuracy of Revere’s message by sending scouts eastward to locate and observe the movements of the British regulars. “Two persons were sent, express, to Cambridge, if possible to gain intelligence of the motions of the troops and what route they took. The militia met, according to order, and waited the return of the messengers that they might order their measures as occasion should require.” Whether Jonas remained at Buckman Tavern or returned home after the company was dismissed is unknown.

Jonas Parker was present when the Training Band was reassembled hours later for the Battle of Lexington. Also on the Common with him was his son Jonas, Jr., his first cousins Captain John and Thaddeus Parker, and his nephew Ebenezer Parker. Other relatives in the ranks included Ensign Robert Munroe, Samuel Munroe, Jedediah Munroe, John Munroe, Stephen Munroe, Stephen Munroe Jr., Ebenezer Munroe, Nathan Munroe, Edmund Munroe, and Sergeant William Munroe.

According to Jonas’ son, “on the Morning of the Nineteenth of April Instant, about one or two o’clock, being informed, that a Number of Regular Officers had been Riding up and down the Road the evening and night preceding, and that some of the Inhabitants, as they were passing, had been Insulted by the Officers, and stopped by them; and being also Informed, that the Regular Troops were on their March from Boston, in order (as it was said) to take the Colony Stores, then Deposited at Concord, we met on the Parade of our Company in this town; After the Company had Collected, we were Ordered, by Captain Parker, (who Commanded us) to Disperse for the Present, and to be Ready to attend the beat of the Drum, and Accordingly the Company went into houses near the place of Parade. We further Testify and Say, that, about five o'Clock in the morning, we attended the beat of our Drum, and were formed on the Parade; we were faced towards the Regulars then marching up to us, and some of our Company were comeing to the parade with their backs towards the Troops, and Others on the parade, began to Disperse when the Regulars fired on the Company, before a Gun was fired by any of our company on them. They killed eight of our company, and wounded several, and continued their fire, until we had all made our escape.”

True to his earlier pledge to Elijah Sanderson, Jonas Parker stood his ground when hostilities erupted on the Lexington Common. After the British light infantry opened fire, they “made a huzza” and ran furiously towards the retiring militia. As the soldiers surged forward, Ebenezer Munroe remembered Jonas Parker “standing … with his balls and flints in his hat, on the ground between his feet, and heard him declare he would never run. He was shot down at the second fire . . . I saw him struggling on the ground, attempting to load his gun . . .As he lay on the ground, they [ran] him through with the bayonet.”

According to a petition for financial compensation submitted by Lucy Parker a year after the Battles of Lexington and Concord, British soldiers pillaged the dead, including her husband, stealing their muskets, cartridge boxes, bayonets, and other arms and equipment that they had carried during their earlier muster morning.

As the regulars left the onslaught behind, wives, children, and spectators emerged from hiding and made their way to the common. Many were overwhelmed with emotion and grief at the sight of husbands, sons, brothers, cousins, and neighbors lying dead or wounded on the field. As they began to tend to the wounded, over two hundred men from Woburn’s militia and minuteman companies arrived in Lexington. Disturbed at what they saw, the men halted and assisted the Lexington residents in treating the wounded and carrying the dead into the meetinghouse. Afterward, the Woburn men reassembled and resumed their march toward Concord.

The Reverend Clarke’s daughter, Elizabeth, described the original burial of Jonas Parker and the seven other men killed at the Battle of Lexington. “Father sent [us] down to Grandfather Cook's to see who was killed and what their condition was, and, in the afternoon, Father, Mother, with me and the baby went to the Meeting House. There was the eight men that was killed, seven of them my Father's parishioners, one from Woburn, all in Boxes made of four large boards nailed up and, after Pa had prayed, they were put into two horse carts and took into the grave yard where some of the neighbors had made a large trench, as near the woods as possible and there we followed the bodies of those first slain, Father, Mother, I and the baby, there I stood and there I saw them let down into the ground, it was a little rainy but we waited to see them covered up with clods and then for fear the British should find them, my Father thought some of the men had best cut some pine or oak bows and spread them on their place of burial so that it looked like a heap of brush.”

Following Jonas’s death, the remaining members of the Parker family, who lived in Lexington, struggled to remain intact. It is possible that Jonas’ wife could not care for Lucy and the two youngest Parker girls, Elizabeth and Mary. Guardians were appointed to look after the three young women. Lucy and Elizabeth departed Lexington to live with their guardians in Princeton (MA) and Billerica. Dr. Joseph Fiske was appointed as Mary's guardian. She stayed in Lexington until her marriage in 1782.

What happened to Jonas’s wife after 1778 remains a mystery. Unfortunately, she has entirely vanished from all town and regional records.

Due to the Battle of Lexington's negative impact on the family, Jonas’s estate was not probated in the Middlesex Courts until 1788. A partial review of his estate reveals the following items and their respective value:

Ruff timber in the shop, kitchen chamber 0 4 7 0
small sugar box, 2 great buttery, toster 0 2 0 0
5 hubs and spokes for woollen wheels 0 4 7 3
Timber for foot wheels, part wrought 0 10 4 3
turned timber for wheels, foot wheel __?__ 0 14 8 0
54 feet of joyce, 2 new screws in the shop 0 7 8 3
New beadstead in the shop ___?___ 0 7 0 0
Blue great coat, blue strait bodied coat 2 15 4 0
Camblet coat, pair of knit breeches l 3 4 0
Green jacket, white jacket, dark sustion coat 0 9 2 0
Gray wooling coat, stript lining, wooll jacket 0 7 4 0
Leather breeches, fine shirt 0 10 0 0
Silk handkerchief, lowered pocket handkerchief 0 3 0 1
Cheked handkerchief, bewer hat, wigglet 0 12 4 0
Pr calf skin shoes 0 7 4 0
Blue tow stockings, blue grey stockings 0 3 8 0
Pr of leggings, read cap, pr of new gloves 0 3 0 1
Yearling calf, burrow, a sow 3 8 0 0
2 woollen spinning wheels, foot wheel 0 16 8 0
5 earthen plates and 2 earthen bowls 0 1 4 3
Psalm book, old bible, number of other books 0 2 7 3
Small hollow plain, 2 lathes 0 9 8 0
Screw bench, wooden vice 0 7 10 l
Barrel tub, 2 washing tubs 0 2 1 2

On the 60th Anniversary of the Battle of Lexington, Jonas Parker and the other seven men killed at the engagement were removed from the town’s burial ground and reinterred in a ceremonial vault located underneath the oldest monument on the Lexington Common. During the ceremony, the famed statesman Edward Everett highlighted the sacrifice and courage of Jonas Parker. At the height of his speech, he simply declared, “History, — Roman history, — does not furnish an example of bravery that out shines that of Jonas Parker. A truer heart did not bleed at Thermopylae.”

"They Would Come Perilously Near to Being Worthless" - The Doolittle Plates of 1775

With mild interest, the Nerds have been following a discussion on a Facebook page regarding the arms and equipment carried by Massachusetts provincials at the Battles of Lexington and Concord. 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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."

"A Tangible Link to the Past" - Jess Bruce's Journey to Recreate the Obadiah Mead Jacket

Last Fall, the Nerds posted an image of the Obadiah Mead jacket on our Facebook page. This 18th-century jacket is in the Greenwich, Connecticut Historical Society collection. The striped linen jacket survives with the provenance that it was worn by a man or older teen named Obadiah Mead on the day he was killed by British soldiers who raided Greenwich during the Revolutionary War.

Shortly after our post went live, Jess Bruce, a talented reenactor and all-around fantastic person, contacted us. Jess informed us that they had been working closely with a historical tailor and 18th-century historian to reproduce the coat and wanted to share their research on the coat and the story of Obadiah Mead with us. 

The Nerds are HUGE fans of Jess’ work so naturally, we said, “Heck yes!” We invited Jess to participate in a Q&A to discuss recreating the Obadiah Mead jacket.

So, without further delay, let’s take a deep dive with Jess to learn about the jacket and the efforts to reproduce this vital piece of American history.

Tell the Nerds a little about yourself and your activities within the Living History and Historical Research communities.

I have been fascinated with history, particularly its darker, more unsettling aspects, for my whole life. I am drawn to the macabre, disturbing stories often overlooked in traditional historical narratives. The 17th and 18th centuries, with their blend of religious fervor, social upheaval, and burgeoning scientific inquiry, offer a vibrant tapestry for exploration.

My research has taken me down some unusual paths. I've delved deep into the anxieties surrounding Onanism (self-pollution) during this period, exploring how religious and social pressures shaped individual behavior. I've investigated the brutal persecution of homosexuality, a time when sodomy was punishable by death, and sought to understand the societal and legal frameworks that underpinned such harsh punishments.

But my interests extend beyond the morbid. I'm deeply fascinated by the everyday lives of ordinary people during the American Revolution. I've spent countless hours researching epidemics, the realities of slavery in colonies like Massachusetts and New Hampshire, and the experiences of civilians caught in the upheaval of a war that wasn't always fought on grand battlefields. I'm particularly drawn to the civilian experience, the stories of those caught in the crossfire of a war that wasn't always fought on grand stages, and the narratives of individuals whose lives were irrevocably altered by the events of the Revolution.

The Obadiah Mead Jacket. Photo Credit - Greenwich (CT) Historical Society

 

I strive to bring these historical figures and experiences to life within the living history community. You might find me portraying a Canadian corvée during Burgoyne's Campaign, struggling to survive in the harsh winter conditions, or perhaps I'll be a sailor, navigating the treacherous seas and facing the perils of life at sea. I've also enjoyed portraying a print seller, sharing news and gossip from the bustling streets of colonial towns, and even a refugee, fleeing the turmoil of the war and seeking safety in uncertain times.

One of my most cherished experiences was participating in the 250th Anniversary of the Devil and the Crown re-enactment. Witnessing a ten-foot-tall devil parade through the streets of Boston was a truly unique and unforgettable spectacle. It was a powerful reminder of the fierce resistance to British authority, a testament to the spirit of defiance that fueled the American Revolution. With its vibrant energy and immersive atmosphere, this event truly brought the past to life and left an indelible mark on my understanding of this pivotal period in American history.

Who is Obadiah Mead? Could you explain the circumstances that led to his demise?

Obadiah Mead was a young boy who unfortunately became a casualty of the American Revolution. His family, the Meads, were staunch Patriots residing in North Greenwich, Connecticut, a region that experienced significant Royalist activity. The Meads were frequent targets of raids by British soldiers and their Loyalist allies.

During one such raid, Obadiah, driven by a youthful sense of defiance, refused to surrender when cornered by the enemy. His refusal to comply cost him his life. The soldiers, enraged by his resistance, shot him dead. This tragic incident serves as a stark reminder of the war's human cost, highlighting the devastating impact on civilians caught in the crossfire of the conflict.

The Meads' story is poignant and reminds us that the American Revolution was not merely a series of battles fought on grand stages. It was a conflict that deeply impacted the lives of ordinary people, tearing families apart and leaving lasting scars on the communities where it was waged.

The events that unfolded serve as a microcosm of the more significant conflict. Like many other families throughout the colonies, the Meads were caught between opposing forces, their lives disrupted, and their safety threatened by the ongoing struggle for independence. Obadiah's tragic fate powerfully reminds us that war starkly contrasts the sanitized narratives often dominating historical accounts.

What can you tell us about the Obadiah Mead jacket? Where is it located? Can it be viewed publicly? Why is it so essential to preserve this artifact?

Obadiah Mead's jacket, with its visible bullet holes, stands as a poignant testament to the brutality of the war. This artifact, now housed at the Greenwich Historical Museum in Connecticut, offers a tangible connection to the past, a chilling reminder of the violence experienced by ordinary families during the American Revolution.

Preserving this jacket is crucial for several reasons:

• Historical Significance: It provides irrefutable evidence of the war's impact on civilians, offering a glimpse into the terrifying realities faced by families like the Meads. It allows us to connect with the past on a visceral level, to understand that this wasn't merely a series of battles fought on distant fields but a conflict that had profound and often tragic consequences for ordinary people.
  
  

• Research Value: A detailed examination of the jacket, including its materials, construction, and bullet holes, can yield invaluable insights into 18th-century clothing, the realities of wartime violence, and the daily lives of those who wore these garments. Textile analysis can provide clues about the fabric's origins, the techniques used to construct the jacket, and the social and economic status of the wearer.
  
  

• Educational Potential: The jacket can serve as a powerful teaching tool, helping to bring the history of the American Revolution to life for audiences of all ages. It can spark conversations about the human cost of war, encourage critical thinking about historical narratives, and foster a deeper understanding of the past.

We are not merely preserving a piece of cloth by preserving this artifact. We are preserving a piece of history, a tangible link to the past that allows us to connect with the experiences of those who came before us. It is a responsibility we owe to future generations, a chance to ensure that the lessons of the past are not forgotten.

 

Jess Bruce. Photo Credit - Elizabeth Sullock

 

You decided to recreate this jacket. Why? Is there any personal reason?

The jacket's unique design, with its striking blue and white stripes, captivated me from the moment I first encountered it. It was more than just a piece of clothing; it was a tangible link to a specific person, a young boy whose life was tragically snuffed out by the war.

I felt deeply connected to the project and wanted to recreate this jacket. I felt a responsibility to honor Obadiah Mead's memory and bring this piece of his past back to life. It was a way of paying tribute to him, his family, and all those who suffered during the American Revolution.

The project also resonated with a deeper personal level. As a historian and living historian, it's crucial to connect with the past on a visceral level. By engaging in this hands-on project, I hoped to gain a deeper understanding of 18th-century clothing and textile production and to develop a stronger connection to the people and events of that era.

The process of recreating this jacket has been a profoundly enriching experience. It has forced me to think critically about the materials used in 18th-century clothing, the techniques employed by 18th-century tailors, and the social and economic context in which these garments were created. It has been a journey of discovery, a chance to delve deeper into the details of the past and appreciate our ancestors' craftsmanship and ingenuity.

How did you go about creating a pattern for the jacket? Did you consult any historians or historical tailors while crafting the pattern? Any sage advice they offered to you?

I knew that recreating this jacket would require expertise beyond my own. I was fortunate to have the support and guidance of master tailor Henry Cooke.

With the gracious permission of the Greenwich Historical Museum, Henry meticulously examined the original jacket, noting every detail of its construction. He measured the fabric, analyzed the stitching, and carefully documented the intricate details of the garment's design.

Henry's expertise was invaluable. He brought a wealth of knowledge about 18th-century tailoring techniques, historical fabrics, and the nuances of garment construction to the project. He patiently explained the intricacies of the pattern-making process, sharing his insights and answering my countless questions.

One of Henry's most valuable pieces of advice was to pay close attention to the details. He emphasized the importance of understanding the purpose of each seam, stitch, andeach design element. "Every detail tells a story," he would often say. "By understanding the 'why' behind each design decision, we can gain a deeper appreciation for the craftsmanship and ingenuity of the past."

I also consulted with historian Tyler Putnam, who provided invaluable insights into the jacket's history and offered valuable observations about its construction and details. Tyler's meticulous research and insightful analysis provided crucial context for the project, helping me understand this remarkable artifact's historical significance.

Describe the process you used for selecting the fabric and any difficulties you encountered in obtaining the fabric.

I was determined to recreate the fabric as authentically as possible, eschewing modern synthetics in favor of traditional methods. This led me to collaborate with master weaver Justin Squizzero. Justin, a true artisan, meticulously hand-wove the striped linen using techniques that would have been familiar to weavers in the 18th century.

Have you started making the jacket? If so, describe your process so far to the readers of Historical Nerdery. Will the jacket be hand-sewn or machine-sewn?

The jacket's creation is a collaborative effort. With his unparalleled skill and expertise, Henry Cooke will hand-sew it. He will painstakingly bring this historical garment back to life using the meticulously crafted pattern and authentically reproduced fabric.

Hand-sewing is essential for this project. It ensures the highest level of authenticity, mirroring the techniques that would have been employed during the 18th century.

Once completed, will you use it for any interpretive program? 

While I haven't finalized any specific plans, the completed jacket can be a valuable tool for education and interpretation. It could be incorporated into presentations and living history demonstrations, helping to bring the story of Obadiah Mead and the American Revolution to life for audiences of all ages.

I envision using the jacket to spark conversations about the human cost of war, to highlight the experiences of civilians trapped in the crossfire, and to foster a deeper understanding of this pivotal period in American history.

Fabric and Supplies. Photo Credit - Jess Bruce

Tell us about your blog and where my readers can follow you as you document this project.

I've created a blog titled "Obadiah Mead's Coat" to document the progress of this project. I'll share updates, insights, and photographs as the project unfolds. You can also follow along with updates on the Facebook page "Progressive Re-enactors."

After this project is complete, what project is next in Jess's world?

Completing the jacket will undoubtedly be a significant milestone. However, my passion for history and living history will lead me to exciting new projects.

I'm particularly interested in delving deeper into my family's Revolutionary War history. My ancestors played a role in Lexington's Alarm, and I'm eager to learn more about their experiences and contributions to the fight for independence.

While I may not actively participate in the 250th-anniversary celebrations at Minute Man National Historical Park, I plan to attend as an observer and immerse myself in this momentous occasion.

This project has been a profoundly enriching experience, a journey of discovery that has profoundly connected me to the past. By sharing this story, I hope to inspire others to explore their historical connections and appreciate the rich tapestry of our shared past.

The Nerds would like to express our profound appreciation to Jess for sharing their journey of honoring Obadiah Mead and recreating his jacket. Jess put a tremendous amount of work into this blog post, and the notes and documentation they shared with us in preparation for this interview are a master class in progressive interpretative activities. 

Please click the link here to access her full interview. It’s a fantastic educational journey!!

Jess is a valued member of this hobby, and we are fortunate to have the opportunity to share their amazing adventures with our followers! Stay tuned as we suspect we’ll be collaborating with Jess very soon!!

"They Marched Quite Fast to the Music of a Fife and Drum" - April 19, 1775 Child Witness Charles Handley

It is no secret that the Nerds are fascinated by research studies and reports exploring the civilian experience of the American Revolution. Retelling essential and mundane events from the perspective of child witnesses is of particular growing interest.

Admittedly, the Nerds are unaware of any primary accounts from children documenting the Battles of Lexington, Concord, or Bunker Hill. Instead, most, if not all, of the accounts from children first surfaced in the early to mid-19th Century. Similarly, by the middle to late 19th Century, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of eyewitnesses began to share the stories of their elders.

Many historians rightfully argue that these 19th-century accounts may be tainted by either fading memories or a desire to exaggerate or sensationalize one’s role during the early months of the American Revolution. As 19th Century Massachusetts historian George E. Ellis noted, many veterans and witnesses who claimed to have participated in the Battle of Bunker Hill, "Their contents were most extraordinary; many of the testimonies extravagant, boastful, inconsistent, and utterly untrue; mixtures of old men's broken memories and fond imaginings with the love of the marvellous. Some of those who gave in affidavits about the battle could not have been in it, nor even in its neighborhood. They had got so used to telling the story for the wonderment of village listeners as grandfathers' tales, and as petted representatives of 'the spirit of '76’, that they did not distinguish between what they had seen and done, and what they had read, heard, or dreamed. The decision of the committee was that much of the contents of the volumes was wholly worthless for history, and some of it discreditable, as misleading and false."

Photo Credit Rory Nolan

Considering that context, the Nerds would still like to highlight a third child witness account we came across about a month ago. 

Previously, we discussed the observations of Lexington child witnesses Lucy Clarke and Anna Munroe. Both women described in some detail the aftermath of the Battle of Lexington and the arrival of British relief forces in the town. In 1850, attorney Josiah Adams of Framingham published a letter to Lemuel Shattuck of Boston. Shattuck was a politician and publisher of several books, including The History of Concord, which minimized the role of Captain Isaac Davis of Acton and his minute company during the Battle of Concord. In response, in 1850, Adams wrote a letter to the publisher defending Davis and his men's role at the engagement.

Entitled Letter to Lemuel Shattuck, of Boston, from Josiah Adams, of Framingham in Vindication of the Claims of Capt. Issac Davis, of Acton, to His Just Share in the Honors of the Concord Fight. Also Depositions of Witnesses, Stating the Facts on which the Claims are Founded and Other Interesting Papers, the work staunchly defends Davis’ role. Several eyewitness depositions and hearsay accounts support it, including one from an eyewitness witness named Charles Handley, who was thirteen years old at the Battle of Concord.

On April 19, 1775, Handley “lived at the tavern kept by Mrs. Brown, nearly a mile northwest of the North Bridge.” As historian J. L. Bell noted that the teen had likely been put out to work and was employed as a servant at the Concord establishment, located on the same side of the Concord River and en route to the target of the British expedition - Barrett’s Farm.

 After a detachment crossed the North Bridge and searched Barrett’s Farm, the officers and soldiers marched back to rejoin the main body of troops but halted outside Brown’s tavern. Handley later testified, “At the time of the fight, the British, consisting of about one hundred, had returned from Col. Barrett's as far as the tavern, and three or four officers were in the house, taking some drink. The soldiers were sitting by the roadside, and some drink was carried out to them. The officers offered to pay, and Mrs. Brown declined; they told her not to be afraid, for they should do her no harm, and paid for their drink.”

While the officers and soldiers were relaxing on the tavern’s lawn, fighting at the bridge erupted. Surprisingly, Handley heard the exchange of fire, but the regulars he was tending to did not. “I heard the guns at the bridge, but the British did not appear to hear them. They marched on very soon but were in no haste. It was always said that they had no knowledge of the fight till they passed the bridge, and saw the men that had been killed.”

The teen also recounted allegations that a Massachusetts militiaman had committed a war crime by scalping a wounded regular. According to his testimony, Handley later spoke with the alleged perpetrator of the attack. “I heard, at the time, and many times since, that one of the two British, who were killed at the bridge, was killed, with a hatchet, after he was left wounded. The young man who killed him told me, in 1807, that it had worried him very much, but that he thought he was doing right at the time.”

Handley’s deposition appears in Adams’ work because of his statement on Issac Davis’s Company entering the field before the Battle of Concord. The teen testified under oath, “I saw Captain Davis's company, as they came from Acton. I first saw them coming through the fields north of Barrett's mill, and they kept the fields till they came to the road at Mrs. Brown's tavern. They there took the back road leading to the bridge. They marched quite fast to the music of a fife and drum. I remember the tune, but am not sure of its name; think it was called the “White Cockade.”

 

Photo Credit Acton Minute Men

 

The statement describing Davis’ Company is interesting for two reasons. First, it is one of many accounts from the early 19th century of towns claiming their men played “The White Cockade” as they marched to intercept the British column. (Local tradition suggests that John Parker’s Company also played the “White Cockade” as it reentered the fight in the aftermath of the Battle of Lexington.) In 2013, J.L. Bell examined the song and its ties to April 19, 1775. The article can be found here.

More critical is Handley’s description of Davis’ Company moving quickly as it advanced toward the North Bridge. A growing collection of evidence, including a pair of period newspaper articles and a commentary at the end of a “Boston Edition” copy of the 1764 Crown Manual, encouraged Massachusetts militia to adopt rapid movements on the field. Handley’s observations may corroborate the recommendation.

Of course, if this was the case, the Acton fifer and drummer should both be praised for being able to belt out a tune while moving at a run!

The Nerds Went and Did Something - The Battles of Lexington and Concord Eyewitness Database

Whelp, the Nerds did it.

Several months ago, in anticipation of the 250th Anniversary of the American Revolution, we announced our intention to create an online database of eyewitness accounts of the Battles of Lexington and Concord.

We are pleased to announce that we have just completed the first round of this project and have formally launched The Battles of Lexington and Concord Eyewitness Database.

 

This database contains over 100 period accounts regarding April 19, 1775. This database includes journal entries, depositions, newspaper and military reports, letters, legislative records, and more.

We have placed in one location accounts from British soldiers and officers, militia and minute men, civilians caught in the storm of war, loyalists, and child eyewitnesses. 

Each account is accessible by clicking on the link embedded in the database. We suspect there may be a few down links due to the recent hack of the Internet Archives, and we are working to resolve the issue.

Why are the Nerds doing this? It's really simple: We want the stories of April 19, 1775, to be shared far and wide.

This database serves as a central repository for students, teachers, historians, and researchers who wish to access primary and secondary accounts detailing the events of April 19, 1775. The Nerds intend to offer all visitors free of charge access to this database. 

Of course, we always look for additional historical primary accounts of the Battles of Lexington and Concord. If we overlooked a historical record or document, please let us know! We would love to add it to this database.

To access The Battles of Lexington and Concord Eyewitness Database, click this link.

Enjoy!

"Consisting of the Aged and Others Exempted From Turning Out" - Massachusetts Alarm Lists Revisited

Last year, the Nerds discussed the role of alarm lists within the Massachusetts militia system.

As you may recall, we noted that Massachusetts colonial laws required men between the ages of sixteen and sixty to serve in their local militia company. Every town maintained at least one militia company, and the units were organized into county-level regiments based on location within the geographic jurisdiction.

Within this militia system were the alarm lists. Alarm lists were essentially the "home guard" or the last line of defense for a community. Generally speaking, most alarm list members were over sixty. However, we have seen hints that some Middlesex and Essex County communities transferred men as young as fifty-five into the alarm list.

In addition to “older” males, alarm lists often included male residents between the ages of sixteen and sixty who did not serve in the town’s militia system. Most likely, these would have included males who were temporarily infirm or disabled or men ordered by the selectmen to serve in the alarm lists.

As we previously mentioned, by 1776, Massachusetts had revised its militia laws. It reduced the age of those men eligible to serve within the alarm list from sixty to fifty and capped service at sixty-five. Those over sixty-five were excused from any form of service.

Photo Credit: Tommy Tringale

However, this wasn’t the first time the age of alarm list men was reduced. In conjunction with Minute Man National Park, the Nerds have been researching the role of alarm lists during the Battles of Lexington and Concord. We recently came across evidence of several towns in 1775 reducing the requisite age for a militiaman to be transferred to an alarm list. From the documentation we’ve reviewed, the typical age was decreased to at least fifty-five, although we have seen a reduction as low as fifty.

For example, at a town meeting in March 1775, Billerica approved a resolution to form a committee to “perfect the alarm List; the Rule to go by is, all above the age of fifty-five." Newton reorganized its alarm list in April 1775. Several thirty-seven men in the reserve unit were between fifty-five and fifty-nine. Five were between the ages of fifty and fifty-four. Chelsea, Methuen, and Medfield reduced their alarm list ages to fifty in 1775.

This brings us to Lexington’s Alarm List. Based on surviving records, there is some evidence that its alarm list age had also been reduced to at least fifty-five. Minute Man National Park and the Nerds have examined the role of alarm lists and artillery. There is evidence that in 1775, several communities, including Westborough and Concord, were turning recently acquired iron guns over to alarm lists to be used by them in the event hostilities broke out with England. In short, the alarm lists were being converted into artillery units, at least on paper.

Lexington was no exception. When it acquired a pair of iron cannons in 1774, it formed a committee charged with repairing the gun and mounting it onto a carriage. The entire committee comprised men between fifty-five and seventy, implying that Lexington’s alarm list would serve as an artillery unit if an armed conflict began.

Of course, Lexington’s cannons never saw action on April 19, 1775. This is likely due to the guns not being fully repaired or lacking ammunition. Instead, elements of the alarm list joined Parker’s Company on the town common immediately before the Battle of Lexington.

So, what do we know about Lexington’s alarm list? According to the Reverend William Gordon, the alarm list mustered in full force with Parker’s Company shortly after midnight.

According to the minister, “Before Major Pitcairn arrived at Lexington signal guns had been fired, and the bells had been rung to give the alarm: Lexington being alarmed, the train band or militia, and the alarm men (consisting of the aged and others exempted from turning out, excepting upon an alarm) repaired in general to the common, close in with the Meeting house, the usual place of parade; and these were present when the roll was called over, about one hundred and thirty of both, as I was told by Mr. Daniel Harrington, Clerk to the company, who further said, that the night being chilly, so as to make it uncomfortable being upon the parade, they having received no certain intelligence of the regulars being upon the march, and being waiting for the same, the men were dismissed to appear again at the beat of drum. Some who lived near went home, others to the public house at the corner of the common.”

The Nerds suspect that upon Parker dismissing his men, many of the alarm list men rushed home to assist their families in evacuating from the British line of march. While there may have been an intention to return, some may have elected to watch over their families, while others were incapable of returning due to familial commitments. 

 

List of some of the alarm list me from Newton, Massachusetts c. 1775

According to statistical research by historian David Hackett Fischer, when Parker mustered his men for a second time shortly before the Battle of Lexington, almost a dozen of the seventy-seven men were from the alarm list. Ensign Robert Munroe, who was sixty-three years old, was the senior-most alarm list officer present. He was also one of three alarm list men who were killed that day, the other two being Jonas Parker, who was shot and bayonetted on the green, and Jedediah Munroe, who was wounded at the morning engagement and killed at Parker’s Revenge that afternoon.

Parker regrouped his battered company and the alarm list in the aftermath of the Battle of Lexington and successfully motivated them to re-enter the fight with over one hundred men. It is likely that a significant portion of the alarm list joined the fight at “Parker’s Revenge” and continued to pursue the British regulars as they retreated toward Boston.

The Nerds are still compiling a running list of men who qualified for Lexington’s alarm list. We will keep you posted with what we find!