Historical thinking is the ability to look at a piece of “historical information” and question its legitimacy. It allows a reader to look deeply into the information and cross reference it with other truths to ensure only the highest quality information is being taught and passed down. Upon reading the primary sources, it is unsure of what truly happened on April 19th because the primary sources/firsthand accounts simply do not match up. In the colonists account they claim that they were fired upon while they were still attempting to organize their men. On the other hand, the British lay claims that the colonists fired first without warning, leading the British soldiers to release fire in order to defend themselves. What the two do have …show more content…
It is difficult to determine exactly what happened on that morning. Yet, there are different details that may be taken into account, for example, the diary of Lt. John Barker could very easily have been written after the encounter as a way to protect himself in the event of an issue with the law. Note that in Barker’s diary he blames his men’s attack on the colonists – after the colonists fired first – out of his control, therefore relieving himself of blame. On the other hand, in the account given by John Robbins of the Lexington Militia, he says “Captain Parker’s men, I believe, had not then fired a gun”, this gives John Robbins the ability to shy away from the actual truth in the event his account is proven false. By saying “I believe” he is no longer claiming that the following words were definitively hard facts. Upon reading both sources the question that still remains may be the most important: Who fired first? The specified ignorance lies in the sense that the reader does not know just how credible the sources are, the diary could have been written in order to protect the lieutenant in the event of being brought to court. While the account given by the Minutemen, under oath, could have been their own perception of the event but not necessarily the