The 1934 Protest on Lexington Green and Contested Historical Meanings

Richard Kollen

Reprinted from the OAH Magazine of History
16 (Winter 2002). ISSN 0882-228X
Copyright (c) 2002, Organization of American Historians
 

This scenario may sound familiar. But it does not describe the Battle of Lexington--at least not the one that began the American Revolution. This April morning dawned in 1934, not 1775. The participants were not Lexington militia challenging their central government in London. Instead, these citizens were defying their central government in Washington. In their minds, however, these grievances made the protest's time and place stunningly apt. On 19 April 1934, as part of the Battle of Lexington's 159th anniversary, Lexingtonians read a petition condemning Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal policies. Specifically, they targeted expanding business regulations emanating from Washington during the Hundred Days. Flanked by battle reenactors dressed as eighteenth-century militia, they hoped to fire the first shot in a battle to halt the administration's oppressive direction. Like their ancestors, they balked at business regulations from afar that interfered with economic autonomy. In Washington, on the same day, Representative Edith Nourse Rogers introduced the petition in the House of Representatives. Rogers read the entire petition and the 1,200 names into the Congressional Record (2). Normally, due to the abundance of petitions, few ever merited more than a mention of their origin and purpose. Clearly, the petition's date and origin resonated with the House of Representatives.

Americans across the country learned about the protest through extensive newspaper coverage. In addition to reports, the action spawned editorials and political cartoons. Some viewed the protest as an initial salvo in a movement to stifle unnecessary federal expansion in the name of economic crisis, while others derided it as a conservative effort to subvert the good works of the New Deal. In Congress the next day, eight "minutemen" delivered a Lexington counterpetition, but the town leadership did not support it. Consequently, it did not attract the same attention from Congress or the press. A petition signed by citizens of Boston's North End and read by former Boston Mayor John F. Fitzgerald as he stood next to the Paul Revere House received more coverage, however. It invoked the names of Sam Adams, Paul Revere, and James Otis to condemn Lexington's actions (3). Differences over meaning notwithstanding, the public understood the Battle Green's meaning as the site from which to launch such an effort. Contested only was the appropriateness of the site's symbolism.

That history can be a cultural and political battleground has become more apparent to teachers and historians in recent years. Heated debates over National History Standards in 1994 awakened the public to history's political significance (4). Similarly, the interpretation of historic sites today often sparks controversy. In an increasingly multicultural nation, historic places such as Monticello, Plymouth, and the Alamo have been reinterpreted to include key participant groups formerly left out. Like text, historic sites can take on profoundly different meanings depending on perspective. Since public history reaches a wider audience than monographs, its role in the construction of public memory is even more critical. Consequently, these conflicts take on a greater intensity. Witness the controversy that led to the removal of the 1995 Enola Gay Exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum (5). Contested meanings of historic sites are not unique to the current Zeitgeist, however, though the cultural conflicts today have led to greater fervency and often bitterness.

Edward Linenthal has written, "The struggle for symbolic ownership of a battle site and its message usually involves attempts by those traditionally excluded from the story, or those who played the role of the villain" (6). This was not the case in Lexington. Opinions concerning the 1934 protest divided among traditional "owners" of the site—essentially over the meaning of liberty, a difficult concept upon which to reach consensus. By interpreting differently the freedoms gained by the Revolution, opposing political camps applied these perspectives to contemporary politics for their own purposes.

This lesson creates an opportunity for students to explore the notion of historic sites as contested symbols. It also requires students to consider the divergent meanings of liberty. Finally, it calls on students to envision historic sites that are more inclusive.

1. To examine the symbolic importance of a historic site.

2. To appreciate that the meaning of a historic site is subject to interpretation and can, therefore, be contested.

3. To analyze primary sources and place each within its historical context.

4. To discuss the tension between liberty and equality.

Teachers should allow three or four days for this activity.

As a venerated historic site, the Lexington Common (or Green) has slowly evolved since 1775. The site of the nation's first revolutionary monument, placed in 1799, the Green hosted sporadic commemorations of the Battle of Lexington, the first in 1822 and the most notable being the centennial in 1875. In the years between 1836 and 1865, no observances of 19 April took place. The Green essentially served the same purpose as most early New England town commons. As such, the meetinghouse and school stood on the Green at one point. Once the school was relocated in 1821, the Green was enclosed and leased as a cow pasture for fifteen dollars per year. The seven slain militia members' bodies were moved in 1834 to a stone vault in the foundation of the revolutionary monument (7). The centennial celebration in 1875 persuaded many town residents of the magnitude of the site's symbolic import to the nation. Accordingly, in 1884 Lexington charged a committee to improve the space's appearance. No longer could it be a venue for Lexington's baseball games or haying. By the time the Minuteman Statue was placed at the head of the Green (Figure One) in 1900 the Green had become hallowed ground. (The appropriateness of playing Frisbee on it, however, remains an ongoing debate today.)

It was not until 1934, though, that political conflict would return to the Green. Like many Massachusetts towns, Lexington in 1934 was predominantly Republican. In the 1932 election Herbert Hoover garnered 67 percent of the town's vote (8). Consequently, their patience with Roosevelt's New Deal was thin at the outset. Much of Lexington's Democratic vote was likely comprised of the descendants of Irish and Italian immigrants who migrated there in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Most officeholders and leading businesspeople voted for Hoover and numbered among the 1,200 signatories of the petition. The chairman of the board of selectmen read the petition on the Green; the moderator delivered it to Congress; and the town newspaper endorsed it (9).

A special target of Lexington's opposition to the New Deal was the National Recovery Administration (NRA), created by the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA). In an effort to prevent overproduction and unfair competition, the NRA oversaw the creation of price codes and production quotas for each industry. Another NRA provision created federally regulated minimum wages and maximum hours. FDR privately admitted to an advisor that he was moving away from "the philosophy of . . . laissez-faire," feeling that Hoover had proved that philosophy "to be bankrupt" (10). By 1934 the NRA was being attacked by both large and small businesses, as well as by labor. Section 7(a) of the NIRA granted businesses exemption from antitrust laws but obliged management to engage in good faith bargaining with workers. Unions felt this was not happening.

The Lexington petition, however, argued the business perspective. Just as economic regulations had aroused the inhabitants of eighteenth-century Lexington, the NRA angered citizens of 1934 by limiting free enterprise at the expense of federal regulation. A Lexington Minuteman editorial the week before the demonstration asked, "When Uncle Sam drives individuals out of business by selling below the cost of production, who pays the taxes of the 'evicted businessman'?" Many Lexington residents saw the NRA as part of a bloated New Deal bureaucracy, harmful to the businessperson. In reference to the NRA eagle, a symbol of compliance, the same editorial stated, "We're patriotic, but we'd still prefer gold eagles to blue ones" (11).

The indefinite extension of these measures, designed ostensibly for emergency purposes, was another criticism cited in the petition. Implicit in this was the belief that the emergency was over. Indeed, Lexington did not appear to be suffering the extreme effects, just the constraints. The town's 1934 annual report boasts that Lexington remained in excellent financial shape, with one of the highest credit ratings in the state (12). The petition, it seems, spoke for many or even the majority in town. Nevertheless, some in Lexington and nationwide deemed the protest's timing and location to be inappropriate, because they believed the New Deal to be consistent with the principles of the Revolution.

Once Lexington Green took on a more conscious symbolic meaning, its use as a site for political expression continued. A couple subsequent events are notable for their contested interpretation. On Memorial Day weekend in 1971, the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) sought permission to camp on Lexington Green as part of a protest against the country's military involvement in southeast Asia, but this request was denied permission by a 5-0 vote of the selectmen. Before the event, the VVAW issued a broadside in Lexington that offered its interpretation of the historical site's relevance to their cause. It read, "[Lexington] could be a South Vietnamese or Laotian village." It compared the South Vietnamese guerillas to Lexington's militia two hundred years earlier, "for each were simply fighting for the privilege to determine their own destiny" and "exist apart from foreign domination" (13). Citing fear of violence, the selectmen obtained a restraining order directing the VVAW to vacate the Green after 10 p.m. After remaining beyond curfew, 410 people--168 of whom were Lexington residents--were arrested in what was the largest mass arrest in Massachusetts's history. The event divided the town over the use of the Green for weeks after. In the Lexington Minuteman on 10 June, letters to the editor encompassed four pages, and most pertained to the arrests. In the same edition of the paper, a story reported an overflow crowd at selectmen's hearings about their decision (14). Lexington Green was once again contested ground.

In 1971 Pat Buchanan was working in the Nixon White House and most certainly did not share the sentiments of the VVAW. But he believed the Green an appropriate platform for his message of economic nationalism and U.S. sovereignty. Consequently, he chose this site for a speech during his 1996 presidential campaign, but was greeted by protestors who held signs and disrupted the event. The reaction provided stunning proof of the contested nature of the Green's meaning. By 1996 Lexington was a very different town from what it had been in 1934. More diverse and more Democratic in their political leanings, many Lexingtonians objected to Buchanan's views. Route 128 now connected the town to Boston and Cambridge by car, bringing college professors and other professionals to Lexington. Prior to 1970, the number of Asian families did not amount to 1 percent of the population, but by 1995 Asians comprised 7.4 percent of Lexington's population. Today they are 16.7 percent of the town population (15). In addition, a substantial Jewish population worships at the three synagogues in town. In 1968, registered Democrats surpassed Republicans for the first time and the gap has widened since (16).

As Table One shows, the Battle Green's use as a forum for political expression has continued. A virtual consensus exists on its significance as a hallowed symbol of liberty. Since liberty takes on divergent meanings, however, the site's symbolism will continue to be appropriated by groups of different political stripes. In some ways, the Green becomes a mirror reflecting who we are.

Lesson I: The Petition

1. Direct students to examine Document A and derive the document's purpose and intended audience.

2. Explain to students that the protesters consciously followed New England colonial precedent, where town meetings drafted resolutions to higher levels of government expressing the citizens' wishes regarding laws. Examine the petition's format. Into what three parts is the text of the petition divided? Inform students that the petition's form adheres to that used by Lexington colonists in protests directed at the government--the preamble, the protest, and the resolve.

3. Next, address the document's message and context. Which rights do the signatories believe the federal government is violating? What are the specific policies to which each protest refers? How are these issues similar to those that caused the Revolution? How are they different? At this point students might consult resources that deal with the first year of the New Deal, or they can work from what they already know.

4. All documents contain assumptions connected with their form, purpose, and intended audience. What are the assumptions of this document? Be sure that students include the assumption that a petition from Lexington to be read on 19 April would merit attention. Due to the public memory of the beginning of the Revolution, the petitioners thought the influence of Lexington should be greater. Do you think it should?

5. As with all documents, this one raises questions. Ask students to pose questions the document elicits.

Lesson 2: The Green as Political Background

1. Begin a discussion on the inherent conflicts between ideals of liberty and equality. When do freedom and equality conflict? Give some present-day examples. How might these ideals have conflicted in the New Deal era?

2. Distribute Documents B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J to student groups of five for analysis. Ask students to read the reactions to the petition and organize the information by completing the chart below (page 30). The number of handouts may be limited depending on time available.

3. Students should discuss the diversity of views in groups.

4. Debrief as a class. Why the difference of interpretation? Do you think everyone in Lexington agreed with the petition? Why isn't there consensus on the meaning of the Battle of Lexington? How does each side define freedom?

5. Ask students to respond to the appropriateness of the petitioners' claims that they were acting in concert with their forebears. An essay might be assigned.

Lesson 3: Historical Sites as Contested Memory

1. Lead a discussion about historic sites today that differ in meaning depending on perspective. While the Lexington Green protest led to different political interpretations, many controversial sites today catalyze cultural/political disputes. Some examples include Monticello, Plymouth, Haymarket Square (Chicago), and the Alamo. For which groups does each site have meaning? Why do these interpretations matter? In each case, how might the site be made inclusive? (Note: Attempts for inclusion have been made at each of these sites.)

2. Students can research other sites. For an overview of historic places and their interpretation, James Loewen's Lies Across America is an excellent resource.

1. Petition, Lexington Minuteman, 18 April 1934, 1.

2. Congressional Record, 73d Cong., 2d sess., 19 April 1934, 78, pt. 85: 7119-222.

3. "Mr. Fitzgerald Attacks Lexingtonians," Boston Transcript, 26 April 1934, 1.

4. See Gary Nash, Charlotte Crabtree, and Ross E. Dunn, History on Trial: Culture Wars and the Teaching of the Past (New York: Knopf, 1998).

5. Phillip Nobile, ed., Judgment at the Smithsonian (New York: Marlowe and Co., 1995).

6. Edward T. Linenthal, Sacred Ground: Americans and Their Battlefields. (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1991), 40.

7. Tom Sileo, Historical Guide to Open Space in Lexington. (Acton, MA: Concepts Unlimited, 1995), 2.

8. Annual report, Town of Lexington, Massachusetts, 1932, 110.

9. Editorial, Lexington Minuteman, 25 April 1934, 2.

10. David M. Kennedy, Freedom from Fear (New York: Oxford University Press), 151.

11. "Your Bread and Butter," editorial, Lexington Minuteman, 12 April 1934, 2.

12. "Report of the Board of Selectmen," annual report, Town of Lexington, Massachusetts, 1934, 172.

13. Flyer, "Operation P.O.W., Lexington Green, 29 May 1971," Vietnam Veterans Against the War, VVAW-MASS Pax Office, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

14. "Residents Air Views before Packed Selectmen's Hearing," Lexington Minuteman, 10 June 1971, 1.

15. Mansi Singhal, Asian Immigration to Lexington: Chinese and Indians, unpublished paper, 8; Cindy Rodriguez, "An Educated Move: Top School Systems Draw Asians to Wealthy Suburbs," Boston Globe, 7 May 2001, B1, B4.

16. "Dems Outnumber GOP Here," Lexington Minuteman, 17 October 1968, 4.

Richard Kollen teaches United States history at Lexington High School and Northeastern University. The archivist for the Lexington Historical Society, he also teaches a high school Lexington history course, in which his students do original research.