Lt. William Sutherland’s Wild Ride

Yesterday I quoted (Alexander Cain quoting) Lt. William Tidd of the Lexington militia company on how a mounted British officer had chased him off the common on 19 Apr 1775.

I suspect that officer was Lt. William Sutherland, and he wasn’t chasing anyone. Here’s his description of the shots at Lexington, prepared for his commanders in Boston a few days afterward:

When we came up to the Main body who were drawn up in the plain opposite to the Church when several Officers called out, throw down your Arms & you shall come by no harm, or words to that effect

which they refusing to do, instantaneously the Gentlemen who were on horseback rode in amongst them at which time I heared Major [John] Pitcairns voice call out Soldiers dont fire keep your ranks and form & surround them,

instantly some of the Villains were got over the hedge, fired at us, & it was then & not before that the Soldiers fired which sett my horse agoing who gallopped with me 600 yards or more down a road to the right amongst the middle of them, at last I turned him and in returning a vast number who were in a wood at the right of the Grenadiers fired at me, but the distance was so great that I only heared the Whissing of the Balls, but saw a great number of people in this Wood,

in consequence of their discovering them being there our Grenadiers who were then on our flank and close to them gave them a very smart fire.

The main point of Sutherland’s narrative was that the provincials fired first—even before the British vanguard reached the Lexington common and again there. These weren’t a few peaceful subjects but a large mass of armed rebels. Sutherland emphasized how his sudden ride took him “amongst the middle of them,” with men on the common to his left, more around the Buckman tavern to his right, and “a vast number” in the woods further along.

Meanwhile, how did Sutherland’s behavior look to the men of Lexington? In the midst of the soldiers’ first volley of shots he charged “600 yards or more down a road to the right”—i.e., the road toward the Lexington parsonage, which militiamen had been out guarding all night. Sutherland’s horse had bolted, but the locals didn’t know that. (This moment might even have produced the wild story that British soldiers actually did raid the Lexington parsonage.)

The Lexington men also saw Sutherland turn and ride swiftly back to the regulars under fire. Like Lt. Tidd, they might have assumed that their shots had forced him back from his goal when in fact Sutherland never wanted to go down that road—it was all his horse’s idea.

Lt. Sutherland made it back to the army column unscathed and continued on to Concord, where he was also present for the exchange of fire at the North Bridge. Quite a day for an officer who hadn’t even been assigned to the march—Sutherland rode along as a volunteer.

“At wch time they took from him his gun”

Over at Historical Nerdery, Alexander Cain found a new source about the fight of Lexington: the claims that militiamen from that town made to the Massachusetts legislature seeking compensation for items lost in the skirmish.

Specifically, they complained about having lost guns. Cain writes:

As we reviewed the legislature’s response to these petitions, we discovered several claims from Lexington militia men or their family asserting that in the aftermath of the battle, British troops looted the dead and wounded of their arms and equipment.

For example, John Tidd asserted “on the 19th of April he received a wound in the head (by a Cutlass) from the enemy, which brought him (senceless) to the ground at wch time they took from him his gun, cartridge box, powder horn &c.” Thomas Winship, who was wounded in the engagement, sought compensation for a “sum of one pound for shillings in full for a gun lost in the Battle of Lexington.”

And there are other examples as well.

As Cain notes, these petitions suggest that the Lexington militiamen weren’t lightly armed, as some authors assumed. Some had bayonets. They also depict the British soldiers grabbing weapons from the ground after the shooting, making it safer for them and their comrades to pass by.

Sometimes when I see the Massachusetts government respond to such petitions for property lost in battle, I suspect that the payments aren’t really driven by the value of the property. Instead, the legislature might have seized on that channel as a simple way to recompense petitioners for other sorts of sacrifices. There were no pensions established for veterans or survivors yet.

About one example, Cain writes:

Lieutenant William Tidd, who also escaped the engagement unharmed, submitted a petition asserting his “losses by the Kings troops on the 19th of April 1775 … [included] ... a musket cut as under &c.” In a deposition years later, Tidd recalled being chased from the green by an officer on horseback. He claimed “I found I could not escape him, unless I left the road. Therefore I sprang over a pair of bars, made a stand and discharged my gun at him; upon which he immediately turned to the main body, which shortly after took up their march for Concord.”

It is possible Tidd lost his possessions as he hurdled over the fence. As for the “musket cut as under”, this appears to be a reference to a damaged gun. Whether this occurred at the battle or later in the day is unknown.

It’s indeed mysterious how Lt. Tidd could have effectively shot his musket at the mounted officer if it had been cut asunder. It’s also possible, I can’t help but note, that by 1824 Tidd’s story of driving that officer away had improved over time.

TOMORROW: The mounted officer’s story?