Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
Registered: February 25, 2007
Posts: 943
|
So this is a question I have been debating inside my head for sometime. No, I am not crazy. Who fired first at the Battle of Lexington and Concord? The men there were under pressure, scared, and unsure of what the future held. So did the British or Rebels fire the first shot, that ultimately started the revolution?
"With regard to exellence, it is not enough to know, but we must try to have and use it."-Aristotle
|
Registered: February 25, 2007
Posts: 943
|
So we will all never find out the truth. It was a colonial though. That all makes sense with the British soldiers. I forgot about some of the facts you mentioned amp. They said that all when I was at the battle field area.
"With regard to exellence, it is not enough to know, but we must try to have and use it."-Aristotle
|
Registered: February 22, 2004
Posts: 13958
|
It was definently a colonial, American lore besides the colonial troops at lexington and concord were not by any streatch of the immagination "soldiers" they weren't even the famous minutemen of later revolution years. They were a rag-tag bunch of farmers and shop keepers who had rifles for hunting and drilled with the militia to have an excuse to go in to town for a beer. Their turnips were likely more disciplined. The brits on the other hand were professional soldiers and some of the best of the world, they would not fire unless fired upon or ordered (maybe not even for the first one!) Because if the broke disicpline like that they were hanged or if they were lucky, flogged. The American troops as the defenders were also under far more pressure. call it a 99% chance that a colonial defender fired first
"The very existence of flamethrowers proves that sometime, somewhere, someone said to themselves, "You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done"."
|
Registered: February 25, 2007
Posts: 943
|
No one it should go in the list of theory's. I'll keep track in my brain. 1) 14 year old girl instigator.
"With regard to exellence, it is not enough to know, but we must try to have and use it."-Aristotle
|
Registered: January 15, 2006
Posts: 6150
|
quote: I woulda wanted to instigate.
My point exactly; I would've wanted to instigate too, so who's to say some kid a hundred years ago didn't?
And I would never feel pain / and never be without pleasure, ever, again / and if the reign stops, and everything's dry, he would cry just so I could drink the tears from his eyes...
|
Registered: February 25, 2007
Posts: 943
|
That is a very goos theory too. Its what I've been looking for. I woulda wanted to instigate.
"With regard to exellence, it is not enough to know, but we must try to have and use it."-Aristotle
|
Registered: January 15, 2006
Posts: 6150
|
Well didn't they both have that "Don't fire unless fired upon" policy? I mean, it easily could've been some 14 year old girl who wanted to instigate, and took her dad's gun when he wasn't looking and thought "Hmm, I should go fuck with those soldiers! Hahaha!" and then went and shot at them both and ran away before anybody saw her. Hey, it's just a theory.
And I would never feel pain / and never be without pleasure, ever, again / and if the reign stops, and everything's dry, he would cry just so I could drink the tears from his eyes...
|
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
