Prince Estabrook was a slave who not only participated in the skirmish on Lexington Green on April 19, 1775 but was also one of the men wounded. How did this come to be? Why did Prince Estabrook's master, Benjamin Estabrook, allow him to not only be armed but also part of the militia? Do we know the opinion of his fellow militiamen of an armed slave amongst them? How did the participation of a slave in the militia come about in Lexington as opposed to Concord where slaves were effectively shut out of the militia (or rather, perhaps, as Robert A. Gross writes: "Concord had no desire to enlist them for war")?
Estabrook wasn't the only non-white^1 person who fought on Battle Road that day. We have the names of 21 men who fought at Battle Road (out of maybe 40 that fought that day). At Bunker hill something like 150 men fought, of whom we only have names of 103. In fact, not only was a black man one of the first to be wounded on April 19th, a black man was one of the last to be wounded.
A negro (the only one [who] was seen to fire at the King's troops) was wounded near the houses close to the [Charlestown] Neck, out of which the Rebels fired to the last.
(From a report by lieutenant Mackenzie of the Royal Welch Fusileers). We know that a black man named Caesar Augustus was taken prisoner by the British. Or this wounded black man firing may be someone whose name we don't know.
Five men fought at both battles.^2
Four men fought in the French & Indian War and either at Battle Road or at Bunker Hill.^3
As to why Estabrook was allowed to fight? It could have been several things. It should be understood that at this point the Provincial Congress had not passed any laws regarding the enlistment of black people (or Indian for that matter) into the town militias. It was left up to each town to decide the matter. I can think of three possible reasons:
Estabrook accompanied his master who wanted his slave next to him to do camp work/cooking/cleaning while in the field.
Estabrook was sent as a substitute by his master. Massachusetts law stated that all able-bodied men between the ages of 16-50 were to be enlisted into the militia, with a special company comprised of those 50+. It was standard practice to allow for substitutions, and it's possible that Estabrook was sent as a substitute for his master, Benjamin Estabrook.
It's possible that Estabrook was on the green that day because he believed in the cause. The Estabrook home was close enough to the green to allow wounded men (including Prince) to be taken there afterwards for treatment. (Among those doing the care was Joseph Estabrook, one of Benjamin's sons, and someone we know that was there on the green.) It's possible that he asked his master to be allowed to join the fighting that day.
Unfortunately Lexington is one of the few towns that didn't submit a muster roll of that day to the Provincial Congress, so we don't know if Benjamin Estabrook was mustered alongside his slave. Estabrook joined up as a militiaman several more times during the war (including the Saratoga campaign), which might suggest that Benjamin was using him as a substitute. By 1781 he was free. In June of 1781 he signed up for a three year term in the Army and was given a bounty and is on the payrolls. Had he still been a slave that money would have been paid to his master, not him.
Do we know the opinion of his fellow militiamen of an armed slave amongst them?
We don't have much from the time period regarding non-white men serving in the ranks. However, there are a few clues:
On October 25, 1775 General John Thomas (at the time commander of the troops in Roxbury) wrote a letter where he said "We have some negroes, but I look on them, in general, as equally serviceable with other men for fatigue; and in action many of them have proved themselves brave."
In November Washington issued orders to not recruit any black soldiers (even free ones), but rescinded those a month later:
"As the General is informed that numbers of free negroes are desirous of enlisting, he gives leave to the recruiting officers to entertain them, and promises to lay the matter before the Congress, who, he doubts not, will approve of it."
It seems to me that the only way Washington would have known about the desire of these men to enlist in the Continental Army (as opposed to remaining in the militia) is if their white officers had advocated for them.
Speaking of white officers advocating for their black soldiers, the only soldier to get a written commendation after Bunker Hill was a black man named Salem Poor. Poor was there as a servant to John Poor III of Andover. After the battle 14 officers (including Colonel Prescott) wrote to the Massachusetts Provincial Congress asking that Poor be given a reward. This is what they wrote:
The subscribers beg leave, to report to your Honorable House - which we do in justice to the character of so brave a man - that under our own observation, we declare that a negro man called Salem Poor, of Colonel Frye's regiment, Captain Ames' company, in the late Battle at Charlestown, behaved like an experienced officer, as well as an excellent soldier. To set forth the particulars of his conduct would be tedious, we would only beg leave to say that in the Person of this said negro centers a brave and gallant soldier. The reward due to so great and distinguished a character, we submit to the Congress.
It's notable that they said he behaved like an experienced officer (officers were chosen by the company), and that they called him "distinguished". There's no record of Poor receiving a reward, or of the Provincial Congress deliberating on the matter.
We have a petition from twelve days before Bunker that included a black man named Blaney Grusha. The petition states "...that they had enlisted to serve in Col. Nixon's regiment, but had been shifted to Col. Gardner's regiment, and requesting that they might be permitted to continue in Col. Nixon's regiment." So at least these men felt like a black man was on an equal enough level with them to sign a petition to get perceived wrongs righted.
Two of the non-white soldiers who fought on April 19th were members of minute companies, indicating that they were regarded as being among the best men in their militia units.
A man named Aaron Smith who fought at the rail fence on Bunker Hill gave this testimony of a "...man at his side, a negro, so crippled by a shot in the leg that he could not rise up to discharge his gun, but could load and re-load, which he continued to do, both Smith's and his own, and then hand them to Smith to fire, until their ammunition was expended, when he undertook to carry the negro off the field on his back, but was obliged to leave him to his fate"
A sixteen year old named John Greenwood recorded this in his journal after Bunker Hill:
Just as I came near the place, a negro man, wounded in the back of his neck, passed me and, his collar being open and he not having anything on except his shirt and trousers, I saw the wound quite plainly and the blood running down his back. I asked him if it hurt him much as he did not seem to mind it; he said no, that he was only going to get a plaster put on it, and meant to return. You cannot conceive what encouragement this immediately gave me; I began to feel brave and like a soldier from that moment, and fear never troubled me afterward during the whole war.
Are these statements representative of the general viewpoint? We can never be sure. It's possible that these statements are preserved because they were so unusual, but there doesn't seem to be many records indicating that there was large amounts of tension between black soldiers and white soldiers, at least in 1775.
1.) Using "non-white" here to mean someone who was black, native, black+native, black+white, or native+white.
2.) These men are:
3.) These men are:
Most of these details are from the absolutely fantastic report put together for the National Park Service titled Patriots of Color: 'A Peculiar Beauty and Merit', African Americans and Native Americans at Battle Road & Bunker Hill. It's available to read for free and is full of awesome information.