Our town seal clearly states that Concord was founded on September 12, 1635, and this is the date we now celebrate as her birthday. This tradition not withstanding, that date can be called into question on a number of grounds. To some, this may be just a meaningless historical footnote. But to us, it raises a debate about colonial history and our relationship to the past.

The late Ruth Wheeler, Concord historian and the author of Concord: Climate for Freedom, gathers the information about the founding date of Concord quite well in that volume. The order for incorporation was passed during a General Court session which began on September 2, 1635, and marks the "founding" of the town.

September second?! How did that get to be the 12th? Well, the Julian calendar was in effect at that time, and when we switched to the Gregorian calendar in 1752, changes were made to rectify the two systems. Generally, historians added 10 days to all 17th century dates to bring things up even.

Ah, you say: now it makes sense. It IS the 12th of September after all. But wait! The court session BEGAN on September second, but the actual granting of the incorporation was after midnight, the prior day's proceedings closing around 8:00 am on the third -- a legislative all-nighter, if you will. So does that mean it's the third? Think of it this way: say a woman goes into labor on September second but doesn't give birth until the next day. The baby's birthdate is...what? The third, of course. Add 10 days, and we come to the 13th of September.

Ok, so, should be we be satisfied that our town seal is only a day off? Heck no: there is still another issue to consider and weigh. It wasn't until some time later -- 1636 or 1637 (see column at right) -- that the settlers actually met with the native people in the area and made a "trade" for the land. The Musketaquid Indians in all likelihood did not believe the land was theirs so they may not have understood that some sort of ownership had passed from them in this trade. And with this the Crown would have agreed: the land was the King's property to do with as he willed. From the European standpoint, this was the colonizing order of the day.

But we suspect that the natives would have understood the trade as an acknowledgement of an agreement they entered into. This allowed the newcomers to settle and use the natural resources in the area and affirmed the natives' hunting rights. The settling familes considered their agreement to be with the Crown. Yet, they still traded a consideration for some sort of rights with the natives as this was required by the terms of the order of incorporation. The trade was not a meaningless act.

Celebrating the founding of Concord as from ANY date in September of 1635 is to assume that the English Crown was, indeed, a properly and rightly vested owner of the land. In the centuries which have passed since 1635, many of us have come to acknowledge the colossal arrogance of such an assumption. Certainly, the indigenous people did not (and in many cases, still do not) recognize this European authority. And many non-natives feel also it wrong that Europeans should have believed colonialism their God-given right. It therefore gives us pause to celebrate any date which affirms the practice of colonizing other peoples' homes.

But then again, after more than 360 years, is the actual date important? Perhaps not: but it IS on our town seal and as long as that is so, we have to take account of what this date actually represents. So, blow out those candles on behalf of our town, and perhaps make a wish for clarity, reassessment, and better understanding of the meaning of Concord's birthday celebration.