Two hundred years ago, in 1818, a shocking claim by a distinguished veteran of the Battle of Bunker Hill rocked America. A popular patriot hero and legendary symbol of the battle was questioned – one whose characterization had defined America’s struggle for independence. The evidence was overwhelming; General Israel Putnam did not stand proud before British steel and a hail of bullets. He did not inspire his men to fight on against all odds as they hurtled back assault after assault. He did not shout “do not fire until you see the whites of their eyes”. He did not aim cannon that plowed through columns of redcoats, nor cry out to save the life of an enemy and dear friend. And he did not try to rally the retreating Americans, boldly waving his sword in the face of certain death.
This eye opening claim, later backed by numerous veteran testimonials that challenged Putnam’s image of virtuous courage, was pretty conclusive. Old Put, citizen soldier and a tower of American pride had, in fact, throughout the battle, cowered safely from musket shot over six hundred yards from where a valiant American stand held firm before the British onslaught. The revelation of Putnam’s accused cowardice launched a national controversy. It drove Putnam’s friends and family to undertake an aggressive ploy to bury the evidence by embellishing his acts during the Battle of Bunker Hill with facts that never occurred. In a drive to salvage Putnam’s reputation, appease a shaken public, and satisfy the politics of the day, time proved that they were successful in their efforts. The critics were silenced. For the next two hundred years, the majority of historical texts repeated the family’s and friends’ take on Putnam’s role in the battle. With the advent of the internet and dozens of published articles and videos, Putnam is continually proclaimed to be the hero of Bunker Hill, buying into the fabled romantic antidotes that repeatedly swirl around a larger than life image. But for the most recent texts on the battle, through ignorance or intent, the overwhelming testimony by those who fought that day has been largely ignored.
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall (1755-1835), commented on the turmoil surrounding the General Putnam controversy, witnessing facts that were ignored and trod under by verbal attacks against those whose first hand accounts had professed to Putnam’s actions during the battle. “Is the time never to arrive when an honest man can tell the truth as to the events of the revolution? Are facts, in regard to the character and conduct of General Putnam, to be refuted by idle denials, and tales to be deemed veracious because they have been often repeated? I trust not, but that the time will come when the candid and impartial historian will do full justice to the men who were distinguished in the war for national independence.”
Why, when first confronted with sworn statements by veterans who attested to Putnam’s absence from the battle, many respected officers and leaders of the American defense that day, would the general public disbelieve the evidence. A majority responded to the news with denial and discontent that erupted into a verbal attack on those who continued to question Putnam’s actions. The answer, then as now, can be found in the American psyche, embedded in the simple farmer who grasps the family musket and steps forward to battle the giants of oppression. A laurel had been placed upon the sacred heads of the founding fathers. Putnam represented the raw courage and determination Americans saw in themselves. He became a legendary iconic figure embossed in classical imagery. Like the Roman farmer Cincinnatus, who took up arms to save his country, Putnam left his plow to lead fellow citizen soldiers in an epic struggle for independence. He became a powerful figure of unfaltering liberty embodied in pure revolutionary virtue that celebrated selfless sacrifice. Facts tossed to the wind, a young nation was not prepared to lose such symbols of identity. And over the years, that need has not tarnished. In many ways growing stronger as texts and articles continue to replicate the folklore surrounding Putnam, feeding into his acclaim as a heroic image beyond repute.
Over a hundred and seventy years ago, historian John Fellows cautioned the insurgence of historical fallacies. He had the foresight to write “objections are made [that] it is too late to correct erroneous statements of occurrences which happened so long ago as our revolutionary war… this principle acted upon would render history as worthless as romance.” He goes on to note, “If the history of our glorious revolution has been perverted by awarding undue honor to some, to the neglect of those more deserving; if the stories promulgated to the world by Col. Humphreys and others of the wonderful prowess and achievements of Israel Putnam are not true… I can see no reason why they should not be shown to be at variance with fact.”
This article will give a brief of the battle, examine the 1818 controversy that erupted concerning Putnam’s role during the action, present the sworn testimony, both pro and con, and examine romanticized antidotes that still embellish twenty first century accounts of the battle.
Brief of the Battle of Bunker Hill, June 17, 1775
“There strides bold Putnam, and from all the plains,
Calls the third host, the tardy rear sustains,
And, mid the whizzing deaths that fill the air,
Waves back his sword, and dares the following war.”
Joel Barlow, The Vision of Columbus, 1787
The Battle of Bunker Hill was a British victory, but achieved after a deadly cost in British killed and wounded. It was fought between entrenched rebel militiamen and a superior force of British regulars; light infantry, grenadiers, and marines – the finest troops among the British ranks. England could ill afford to lose such a high percentage of their best soldiers – so hard to replace when three thousand miles from home. By the time the Americans’ ammunition ran low and the works compromised, forcing the rebels to retreat, nearly a thousand British troops lay dead or with serious wounds, nearly half of the redcoats who fought that day, including a large number of officers.
By mid June, 1775, two months after the Battle of Lexington and Concord, Americans had gained information that the British were about to occupy Dorchester Heights to the south of Boston and Charlestown Peninsula to the north. Doctor and General Joseph Warren and other members of the Committee of Safety (early patriot assemblies) decided to take the offensive and occupy the Charlestown Peninsula, fortifying the heights just outside the town. This would deny the British from obtaining a strategic position while rebel artillery could threaten shipping. On the night of June 16, 1775, Colonel William Prescott and General Israel Putnam, along with 1,200 militiamen, assembled in Cambridge with the intent to construct a redoubt on Bunker Hill on the Charlestown Peninsula. General Putnam, second in command after having relinquished the overall command to Colonel Prescott, had procured the entrenching tools and materials needed to build the redoubt. They were loaded in wagons and along with engineer Colonel Richard Gridley, they marched over the Charlestown Neck and onto Bunker Hill.
After discussing the original plan to build the redoubt on Bunker Hill, the choice was made to place the fortification on Breed’s Hill, over six hundred yards further south. Accounts vary as to who was principal in this decision, either Putnam concurring with Gridley, or Prescott. The choice would prove to be closer to the British landing on the southern tip of the Peninsula and England’s attempt to assault the works. Putnam and Gridley would also begin a secondary and lesser fortification on Bunker Hill. By midnight, the men, mostly farmers and merchants, were hard at the grueling task of constructing an earthen fort and entrenchments. At dawn, with the redoubt nearly complete, the Americans were discovered. British commander General Thomas Gage awoke to the HMS Lively lobbing cannon shot onto the surprising fortification. Gage consulted with his officers and decided that the new rebel presence, so close to the city, would not last the day. He ordered General William Howe to assemble the necessary troops to dislodge the Americans. By 2 PM, General Howe had ferried approximately 2,000 regulars across from Boston and landed on the flats south of Breed’s Hill. A marine detachment would also disembark at Charlestown just to the west of Breed’s Hill.
There is no primary account that professes to Putnam overseeing the redoubt’s construction. According to most later reports, Putnam was scarcely seen at the redoubt before and after the small fort was built on Breed’s Hill. It had been noted that late in the morning or early afternoon, prior to the attack, he made a brief appearance at a rail fence that stretched east from the redoubt and down towards the Mystic River’s edge. That morning, Putnam rode to Cambridge to request additional provisions and reinforcements. He would do so a total of three times, the last at approximately 1:00 in the afternoon. General Artemas Ward commanded the rebel army prior to Washington’s later appointment. After agreeing to fortify Charlestown Peninsula, he was reluctant to send additional troops for fear of a British attack across the bay. After Putnam’s persistent pestering, he did relinquish reinforcements to the peninsula, including a portion of Colonel John Stark’s 1st New Hampshire Regiment, the largest unit in the growing army, and Colonel James Reed’s 3rd Regiment, also of New Hampshire. These two regiments, along with Captain Thomas Knowlton, commanding Connecticut company detachments numbering two hundred men who had been posted along the rail fencing, would prove to be critical to the successful defense of the American line. This additional force would bring the total number of Americans who would ultimately man the lines during the British assault to around 1,600 troops.
Colonel Prescott commanded the redoubt and earthen entrenchments along with his 9th Massachusetts Regiment, Col. James Frye’s 10th Mass. Regiment, Colonel Ebenezer Bridges’ 11th Mass. Regiment, Col. Jonathan Brewer’s 13th Mass., Col. William Heath’s 21st Mass. Regiment, and a pair of companies from Parson’s and Spencer’s Connecticut regiments. Also present were portions of regiments under Colonels Ephrain Doolittle, Thomas Gardner, Moses Little, and John Nixon. Putnam had a pair of companies from his 3rd Connecticut Regiment under Lt. Col. Storrs, stationed on Bunker Hill, about sixty or so men. They had originally manned the lines, but sometime shortly after 10 AM, were ordered back to Bunker Hill where they remained during the British assault. Prior to the first British attack, Putnam requested that Colonel Prescott detach men to carry the entrenching tools back to Bunker Hill so they would not fall in the hands of the enemy if the redoubt were to fall. Prescott at first balked at sending much needed men away from the fort’s defenses. Putnam reassured that he would return along with the men once the tools were safely delivered. Over two hundred men left the redoubt for Bunker Hill, six hundred yards in the rear of the redoubt. This left about eight hundred men to defend the small fort, the rest of the defenders lining entrenchments and the rail fencing that extended east to the Mystic River. Prescott’s worst fears played out; the two hundred men, nor Putnam would return, though Prescott had thrice sent urgent requests back to Bunker Hill for them to do so.
By 1 PM, New Hampshire Colonels Stark and Reed were on the road to reinforce the forces on Charlestown Peninsula. They arrived at Bunker Hill at around 2 PM, the time British troops began unloading from transports. Putnam, along with Colonel Garrish and his 25th Mass., including detached men from other outfits, were present on Bunker Hill – as many men as were manning the lines at Breed’s Hill. The general requested that Stark leave a detachment of men to assist in constructing fortifications on Bunker Hill. Stark did so before he and Reed advanced to the rail fence that ran from the redoubt down to the Mystic River. He and Reed would join Captain Knowlton’s men on the line, stuffing hay between the rails to fortify their barrier. Stark feared a flank attack along the beach which could result in an assault on their rear. He quickly lined three ranks of defenders behind a hastily built wall of rock and sand that reached the water’s edge. A precaution that bore out as General Howe would focus the first assault on the American far left, sending the Welsh Light Infantry along the beach where they were devastated by Stark’s men.
By 2 PM, Commanding British General William Howe had landed approximately 2,000 troops on the southern end of the peninsula. Militiamen had occupied the town of Charlestown and were snipping at the British. Howe ordered the village torched then assembled his troops at the base of the redoubt and along the fence to the beach along the Mystic River. A general assault was ordered, focused on flanking the rebel left. All fronts were beaten back by a massive barrage of accurate fire. A second attempt was made with the same disastrous result for the British. General Clinton had arrived with an additional contingency of marines who would join in the third and successful assault on the works, driving the Americans back. British losses for one battle would prove to be the worst during the war, especially among officers, 226 dead and 828 wounded – many succumbing to their wounds. Most of the American casualties occurred during the turmoil as British swarmed over the redoubt. As rebels escaped out the back of the small fort, British regulars, including marines, had flanked the right and poured shot onto the men scrambling back towards Bunker Hill. American General Warren (who had refused command, present only as a volunteer) was shot and killed during this hasty retreat. Those along the fence, men under Knowlton, Reed, and Stark, had far fewer casualties, drawing back steadily while keeping the enemy at bay. The Americans had 450 casualties in which 140 were killed. Thirty prisoners were taken; most had been grievously wounded and would later die.
General Israel Putnam (1718 – 1790)
Affectionately known as ‘Old Put’, Putnam was already a New England legend by the time hostilities erupted between the rebellious colonies and England. His celebrity status was established when, as a young farmer aged 24, he supposedly entered a den and killed a wolf. When the French and Indian War erupted, in 1755, he joined as a private and was later made captain, leading a company in Roger Rogers’ famed regiment of backwoods rangers. Putnam’s fame grew as he fought alongside the British at Fort Carillon, Montreal, and many skirmishes against French and their Native American allies.
He participated in the capture of Havana, Cuba and the Pontiac War in 1763. After the Seven Years War, he returned to farming and tavern keeper. With the advent of war with England, he offered his services and was given the commission of Brigadier General, promoted to Major General after the Battle of Bunker Hill. Putnam would command the American forces on Long Island resulting in the destructive rebel defeat. After General Charles Lee was captured, he and General Heath would command the forces safeguarding New England from British troops posted in New York City. Putnam’s actions prior to and after the British captured forts Montgomery and Clinton raised questions over the general’s leadership abilities. Putnam remained a favorite of Washington until after several questionable commands, when he was quietly discharged from the army, returning to farming until his death.
Captain Henry Dearborn (1751 – 1829)
at age 23, had organized and led his local militia troop of 60 New Hampshire men in Colonel John Stark’s 1st New Hampshire Regiment. Dearborn wrote a total of six journals detailing his experience during the Revolutionary War, from his earliest days as a militia captain until his discharge at war’s end. He also penned An Account of the Battle of Bunker Hill. After Bunker Hill, he volunteered for Colonel Benedict Arnold’s trek through Maine and the assault on Quebec on Dec., 31, 1775. He was captured and exchanged in March of 1777. As major, he led a battalion along with Colonel Poor and Daniel Morgan in the battles of Freeman Farm and Bemis Heights during the Saratoga campaign and General Burgoyne’s defeat in October, 1775. He would be at Valley Forge and participate in the battles of Monmouth and Wyoming. In 1781, he was appointed deputy quartermaster general and as Colonel Dearborn, commanded the 1st New Hampshire Regiment at Yorktown. After the war, Dearborn would remain in the military, rising to the rank of general. President Thomas Jefferson tapped him for Secretary of War in which Dearborn was active in establishing the Military Academy at West Point. During the War of 1812, he led the American Forces in their attempt to invade Canada, later recalled in 1813 as the offensive stalled. He was honorably discharged in 1815.
Captain Dearborn’s Role in the Battle
Captain Dearborn’s company arrived the morning of June 17, 1775 after the redoubt and entrenchments had been built. His unit was positioned along the fence that lead from the entrenchments down to the beach on the Mystic River, on the far right of Stark’s position. From where he was posted, Dearborn wrote that he had a full view of the American line and battle from the Mystic River, along the fence, and to the redoubt on the hill’s summit. He recorded the battle afterwards in a brief he entitled An Account of Bunker Hill. The first British assault, approximately 3 PM, attacked along the line, with the main push on the American left. This included the rail fence and beach along the Mystic River. British General Howe intended to flank the Americans, expecting his Light Infantry to easily push past the hastened barricades. Under deadly and accurate fire, the first attack failed dismally with row upon row of redcoats, including their officers, mowed down. A second charge resulted in the same. A third assault was successful against the redoubt as the defenders had run out of ammunition. With the redoubt taken, those along the fence and beach, including Dearborn’s company, faced an unattainable position. An immediate organized retreat was initiated that, unlike the redoubt, resulted in fewer American casualties along that portion of the battlefield.
1818 Dearborn/Putnam Controversy
In 1818, General Henry Dearborn ran for governor in Massachusetts. He faced another veteran of the Battle of Bunker Hill, the incumbent Governor John Brooks who had been a major in Colonel Bridges’ Regiment posted in the redoubt. Dearborn was a republican running for office in a largely federalist state. During the election process, to draw voters away from the retired general, the federalists questioned Dearborn’s abilities as commander and his overall role in the American Revolution and War of 1812. Dearborn was unsuccessful and lost his election bid. Later that year, he was asked by The Port Folio, a Philadelphia based publication and leading political journal, to write an article for the April 1818 publication about his experiences as a young captain during the Battle of Bunker Hill. Perhaps he was feeling some residual hurt over his treatment by the federalists, waging a campaign by proxy against Brooks by targeting a war hero. For whatever reason, he unleashed, some would later claim, a revengeful tirade on one of the federalists’ favorite hero’s, General Israel Putnam. Dearborn published fourteen pages including a portion of his journal as evidence, accusing Putnam, then deceased, of incompetence, cowardly leadership, and failing to provide support for the retreating American troops.
What began as a presentation of fact erupted in a dispute by the deceased Putnam’s family, particularly Putnam’s son, countering with direct personal attacks on Dearborn. Veterans were sought after to give their versions supporting both sides of the controversy. Politics became embroiled in the dispute. Each sought to advance their party’s popularity with the public, clouding any hope to resolve the issue through factual research. As historian Fellows explained, “At length the dispute took a political party complexion, abuse was substituted for reason, and truth no longer considered essential to the support of the argument.” Putnam’s son shouted his outrage across the page, hammering Dearborn for slandering the memory of his father, allegedly furnishing a ‘pound of rhetoric to an ounce of fact.’
General Dearborn suffered profoundly in the negative press that blossomed after he made public an excerpt of his journal written during the war that questioned the sacred hue surrounding Putnam. He was accused of ulterior political motives for his exposure of Putnam’s actions during the battle and labeled an outright liar. Though several more veterans came forward to support Dearborn’s revelations about Putnam, a few countered the opposite. However, those who stated that Putnam was present at the front line during the British assaults, upon close examination, were either second hand accounts or had obvious discrepancies that questioned the veracity of those claims.
Sides Taken
General Putnam’s son, Colonel Daniel Putnam, was mystified then angered by what he regarded as a personal and unprovoked attack upon his deceased father. He came to his father’s defense three months after Dearborn’s article by a publication of his own in the July issue of The Port Folio writing: “What, Sir, could tempt you at this distant period to disturb the ashes of the dead, and this, n the face of truth, to impose on the public such a miserable libel on the fair fame of a man who ‘exhausted his bodily strength, and expended the vigor of a youthful constitution in the service of his country’? What, above all things could induce you to assail the character of General Putnam… to impeach with cowardice, a man always foremost in danger, of whom it was proverbially said… He dared to lead where any dared to follow.”
Likewise Colonel Henry A. S. Dearborn responded by vigorously supporting his father’s claims. Both families began gathering veterans’ sworn testimony and collected depositions to validate their claims. Others entered the debate including the up and coming writer Daniel Webster who published a pro Putnam article in the North American Review. Governor Brooks, Dearborn’s rival for the governorship of Massachusetts and Bunker Hill veteran, staged a public tour of the battle site proclaiming Putnam’s presence throughout the battle in direct refute of General Dearborn’s account. While several known authors joined the band wagon in praising Putnam, including secondary accounts from known officers who were not at Bunker Hill such as Colonel Trumbull, Washington aide, and Colonel Humphreys who was Putnam’s and later Washington’s aide. Those who said they did not see Putnam among the troops on the front line during the battle, or were presented by those who bore witness to what they said, numbered some of the major commanders that day including Colonel Prescott, Colonel Stark, General Heath, Benjamin Pierce, James Wilkinson, and Captain Dearborn among a slew of others.
Pro Putnam Account
Testimonials that supported Putnam’s presence along the American line on Breed’s Hill when the British attacked were few compared to those which insisted he was far from the action on Bunker Hill. Of every primary account, none specifically placed him in the heat of action – some insinuated his presence which could be construed to have occurred prior to the British attack. Others were second hand accounts by those not present in the battle, repeating antidotes in which the validity and reasoning was suspect. Also character witnesses were used as a protective shield to support Putnam, the most important being that of Washington, but again, none of these could attest to Putnam’s presence on the American line when the British attacked. Veterans who supported Putnam were Thomas Grosvenor, British Colonel John Small, and Alexander Davidson. However only Colonel Small spoke of Putnam’s presence during the British assault to Colonel Trumbull in London after the war, subsequently influencing Colonel Trumbull to include Small in his masterpiece.
Thomas Grosvenor, veteran of the battle, does not emphatically declare that Putnam was present when the British attacked, only that he was active in the area of the redoubt and fence. Some accounts place Putnam on Breed’s Hill, but only earlier in the day before the first assault. Grosvenor contended that the most active officers at the area about the redoubt and the rail fence were General Putnam along with Colonel Prescott and Captain Thomas Knowlton. He went on to declare that Dearborn’s accusations were based either on ignorance or misrepresentation. Dearborn and other first hand accounts of Putnam’s actions during the battle do not contest the fact that Putnam was not present on Breed’s Hill. Eye witnesses placed him at least once in the redoubt and one other time on the rail fence about five hours before the first British assault. The fact remains that the question as to Putnam’s presence when the British attacked was not convincingly addressed by Grosvenor.
Colonel David Humphreys was an aide to Major General Putnam and later General Washington. He enlisted in the 2nd Connecticut Regiment in July, 1776 and was not at Bunker Hill. He would later publish a glowing biography of Putnam that established his subject as a legendary and heroic figure. He wrote, “In this battle, the presence and example of General Putnam, who arrived with the reinforcement, were not less conspicuous than useful. He did everything that an intrepid and experienced officer could accomplish. The enemy pursued to Winter Hill [on the mainland across from Charlestown Neck] Putnam made a stand, and drove them back under cover of their ships.” Author John Fellows, for his 1843 text on Putnam, examined primary accounts of those present during the British attack and the retreat afterwards and came to this conclusion: “It is affirmed…Gen. Putnam s presence and example, upon the occasion, was not on the battlefield, at Breed s Hill, but at Bunker Hill proper, among those who took no part in the contest. Putnam’s reinforcements, unfortunately, never came into action. That; “he did every thing that an intrepid and experienced officer could accomplish”; means nothing, specification is wanting; and, that he drove the British from Winter Hill, under cover of their ships, is decidedly untrue.” There was no pursuit of the British beyond Bunker Hill. Gen. Stark entrenched his men on the mainland to thwart any attempt by the British to do so. Primary accounts do state that Putnam was present during the fortification of Winter Hill.
British Colonel John Small claimed Putnam was on American Line. Colonel John Trumbull soldier, renowned painter, and aide to Gen. Washington, threw his hat into the ring claiming support for General Putnam. He was not in the Battle of Bunker Hill, however after the war Trumbull befriended British Colonel John Small who was. While in London, in 1786, Trumbull created the famed painting that depicted the battle. Colonel John Small, British officer and veteran of the battle, viewed the painting as Trumbull was putting the finishing touches to his masterwork. Small noted that he was not represented in the painting and shared two antidotes with Trumbull; information which he had never mentioned before to fellow officers nor in publication. He indicated that Putnam, an old friend from the French and Indian War, needed a more prominent position in the painting. In a romantic spin, Small told Trumbull that Putnam had saved his life during the battle. He also shared with Trumbull the events that revolved around American General Warren’s death. He was so persuasive that Trumbull illustrated Small, front and center, in his painting – fending off a fellow British soldier as he tried to spear a dying Warren.
In 1818, Trumbull shared the details of what Colonel Small told him in a letter of support for Putnam’s presence during the British assault. Small wove a chivalrous tale that while leading his men during the second assault on the redoubt, all were shot down but him. As he stared death in the face, Putnam appeared and with his sword, swatted up his men’s muskets before they could fire. In the heat of battle, Putnam called out “for God’s sake, my lads, don’t fire at that man, I love him as I do my brother.” Trumbull reported that Small told him, “I [Small] bowed, thanked him, and walked away unmolested.” Author David Lee Child reminded his readers in 1818, that it was customary for British officers to march behind rank and file, especially when they are advancing and preparing for a charge with fixed bayonets as they would not want to spear their commanding officer. Small’s claims, when taken into context, including a fanciful description of Warren’s death, has been dispelled by American veteran accounts.
Colonel Samuel Swett & Mason Weems Muddy the Waters
The debate surrounding Putnam spurred writers to chase down veterans and print their versions. Unfortunately, only those sources that boosted the case for a particular stance on the issue were published, meaning that some of the accounts had possible dubious intent in their formation. Samuel Swett’s History of Bunker Hill Battle, first published in 1818 and reissued in 1826, supported the assumption that General Putnam was in the thick of the fighting. The testimonials related to Putnam that were presented in the later publication seemed to focus on three themes that in of themselves are highly questionable – more romantic in origin than factual. First, that just before the British assault, Putnam told the soldiers not to fire until they see the whites of their [British] eyes. This account is shared by three of Swett’s testimonials. Another is that Putnam was seen riding his horse along the line during the fighting encouraging men to hold. And lastly, at one point during the battle, tears open cannon cartridges and loads the guns, firing them more than once.
All three did not happen as they are related. The line, not to fire until the whites of their eyes, was first attributed to a popular 1808 publication, a best seller if you wish, by Mason Weems, the same fictional historian who came up with Washington cutting down the cherry tree. By 1818, all these men would have read the fanciful version of Weems’ description of the battle, including attributing Putnam to Weems’ catchy phrase, perhaps a bastardized version based on veterans reports that they were told to aim at the regulars’ half-gaiters as muskets were famously for being aimed too high. There were no reports prior to the 1818 controversy that confirmed any American officers were mounted on their horse during the British assault. In the contrary, veterans concurred that all were on foot. The British famously shot too high, as was the case during the battle, why there were so few casualties along the fence (even during the retreat) and few along the redoubt until it was stormed. Anyone sitting a mount during the assault would not have remained long in the saddle. And lastly, only two cannon achieved the fence, both later in the battle. They were ineffectual, reported that the canister was of the wrong caliber, and soon drawn off, losing one to the enemy’s rapid advance after the third and final assault.
Many of the testimonials in Swett’s publication are suspect under closer examination. Most were from Putnam’s own regiment in which only a portion were present at the battle, between 60 and 120 men. Their accounts are contradictory for individuals placed the regiment on Bunker Hill, in the redoubt, along the earthen embankment to the left of the redoubt, and manning the rail fence further to the left, all at the same time. Besides encouraging troops to fight and loading and firing cannon, braving the enemy’s assault at nearly every portion of the line, he was active in striking down soldiers with the flat of his sword and even spearing one in the arm to get him to fight; truly a soldier of super human qualities. Several of these soldiers reported by Swett had been with Putnam for years through the previous French and Indian War. Strong evidence to suggest that their support concurred out of loyalty to the general. Still others may have been swayed to join a bandwagon of others’ positive testimony. Most were well aware of the controversy that brewed around Putnam and cognizant to previous testimonies. Veterans congregated then as now and shared war stories and experiences. It would have been difficult for an aging soldier to counter a popular view of his fellow mates so to speak. Swett’s published accounts are bulleted:
- Alexander Davidson’s deposition placed Putnam at the rail fence, instructing Captain Ford to bring two field pieces to the rail fence. However, Colonel Prescott and the official report by the Committee of Safety to Congress indicated two field pieces were ordered to the fence by Prescott, but it was reported to them that they never made it, assuming that they were drawn back to Bunker Hill. Veteran accounts state that Stark and Knowlton’s men drew off two field pieces during their retreat from the rail fence, one falling into enemy hands. Both pieces had not been fired during the assault. Statements of reasons ranged from incorrect caliber of shot to inexperience in manning the guns.
In August,1825, from Brooklyn, Connecticut, Putnam’s son Colonel Daniel Putnam wrote a letter to the Bunker Hill Monument Committee, those in charge of the 1825 dedication ceremony to the battle. He described Putnam’s activities prior to the battle in detail, however glossed over Putnam’s actions during the British assault, simply stating that his father was superior in command through rank and that, like Lafayette and Washington at Yorktown, from beginning to end of the action, “exercised all the properties of command.” In his mind the matter was laid to rest; evidence, proof, and details mattered not as he asked, “…why then should there be any disposition manifested to place him somewhere not in the foreground of the picture?”
Pro Putnam Authors
Several early texts on Putnam and the battle established Putnam’s heroic character as a fearless soldier who was present throughout the Battle of Bunker Hill, leading the American line during the British assaults on Breed’s Hill. This became the standard for the next two hundred years. Mason Weems colorful 1808 best seller of fanciful fables highlighting the founding fathers favored Putnam with heroic quotes of gallantry and chivalrous outbursts. This solidified the mainstream of public sentiment that affected both the populace and historical authors for the next several generations. David Humphreys, former aide to Putnam and Washington, wrote a biography of Putnam, giving him high praise for his role in the battle. Richard Frothingham, in 1850, wrote a comprehensive text on the battle entitled, The command in the Battle of Bunker Hill…” He wrote that Putnam was at the redoubt during the first assault, but rode to the rear to call for reinforcements. Does not include veteran accounts that prior to and during the assault, thrice Colonel Prescott requested Putnam to return to the fort which he did not. Colonel Samuel Swett, 1818 Sketch of Bunker Hill Battle, claimed that Putnam was present in the redoubt during the British attack. This text did not include testimonials by veterans, however it was republished in 1827 with an appendix dedicated to Putnam that included statements by both veterans and character witnesses. In 1847: Humphreys & Swett’s publication Heroic Exploits of Israel Putnam upheld the character portrayal of the legendary soldier. Among other accounts of Putnam during the battle was a romanticized documentation without evidence that Putnam, on horseback, put himself between the charging British and retreating Americans, commanding that the rebels stay and renew the fight. Alden Bradford’s History of Massachusetts…”, published in Boston in 1822, wrote that Putnam was on the field of action towards the close of the battle, but had no specific command. William Cutter’s 1847 text placed Putnam on the front line. He listed all the heroic antidotes including having Putnam personally aiming cannon and plowing swaths of destruction through the British ranks. Putnam is in charge of the retreat, imploring those racing by to defend Bunker Hill.
By the late 19th and early 20th century, dozens of published accounts praised Putnam’s actions during the battle, for example: George Hill’s General Israel Putnam (Old Put) A Biography, 1858, Samuel Drake, General Israel Putnam the Commander at Bunker Hill, 1875, William Livingston, Israel Putnam, Pioneer, Ranger, & Major General, 1901. The legends surrounding Putnam proved far more attractive than dashing fanciful exploits. Readers wanted action and identified with the courageous, stroking the romantic and glorious aspects of war. But more so, all this helped sell books. The number of pro Putnam publications dwarfed the early accounts that questioned an undying hero. To this day, the top internet searches all lay laurels on Putnam, repeating the antidotes and glorified spectacle of farmer/soldier ‘Ole Put’ standing firm and leading a new nation to its historical future.
Anti Putnam Accounts
Several veterans reported that they saw Putnam on Bunker Hill at the start of the British assault and on the same spot during the American retreat, about an hour and twenty minute time frame. A main difference between those who questioned Putnam’s presence and those who confirmed that the general was on the firing line, was the credibility of those testifying. They included the major players that day, the leaders who directed the fight and were exposed to the British onslaught. Also noticeably different from pro Putnam accounts is the level of plain talk, leaving aside romantic antidotes and glorified pageantry. Accounts vary from point black statements that Putnam just wasn’t there, that they’d seen him in the same place far from the British assault, and those withdrawing during the attack, some wounded and sent back to the relative safety of Bunker Hill. The accounts that placed Putnam either on Bunker Hill and not along the American line when the British attacked included General Henry Dearborn, Colonel Benjamin Pierce, Major General James Wilkinson, Major Andrew McCleary, Major General William Heath, Major Thompson Maxwell, Captain Trevett, Dr. Thomas Kittridge, General Michael McCleary, including sworn statements from several rank and file.
General Henry Dearborn, Capt. Dearborn commanded a company of approximately 60 men in Colonel Stark’s Regiment during the battle. He published his scathing account of Putnam’s inaction in 1818 as taken from his journal of the battle. He accused Putnam of cowardice and blamed him for the American defeat, claiming had Putnam sent the reinforcements from Bunker Hill to the redoubt as Colonel Prescott requested, then the redoubt could have beat off the third and decisive British attack. The line along the fence to the Mystic River did hold against the British third assault. He claimed that there where as many men were safely assembled on Bunker Hill, out of the line of musket fire, than on Breed’s Hill where the British attack fell. Stark’s regiment, and Dearborn, left Cambridge around 1PM the day of battle, arriving at Bunker Hill an hour or so later as the British continued to land their forces.
Stark’s regiment passed Bunker Hill and Dearborn reported the first he’d seen of Putnam, “we had reached the top of Bunker Hill, where General Putnam had taken his station, the regiment halted for a few moments for the rear to come up… we found General Putnam with nearly as many men as had been engaged in the battle…” “I heard the gallant Colonel Prescott (who commanded in the redoubt) observe, after the war, at the table of his Excellency James Bowdoin, then Governor of this Commonwealth, that he sent three messengers during the battle to General Putnam, requesting him to come forward and take the command… but that he [Prescott] received no answer, and his [Putnam’s] whole conduct was such, both during the action and the retreat, that he ought to have been shot. He [Putnam] remained at or near the top of Bunker Hill until the retreat, with Colonel Gerrish by his side; I saw them together when we retreated. He not only continued at that distance himself during the whole of the action, but had a force with him nearly as large as that engaged. No reinforcement of men or ammunition was sent to our assistance; and, instead of attempting to cover the retreat of those who had expended their last shot in the face of the enemy, he retreated in company with Colonel Gerrish… General Putnam rode off, with a number of spades and pick axes in his hands, and the troops that had remained with him inactive during the whole of the action, although within a few hundred yards of the battle ground, and no obstacle to impede their movement but musket balls and his whole force…without discharging a single musket; but what is still more astonishing, Colonel Samuel Gerrish was arrested for cowardice, tried, cashiered, and universally execrated; while not a word was said against the conduct of General Putnam, whose extraordinary popularity alone saved him, not only from trial, but even from censure.”
Reverend Daniel Chaplin and Reverend John Bullard, both of Groton, Massachusetts, had been with Prescott at the redoubt and during the retreat. They testified in a letter dated June 5, 1818, of a conversation they heard between Prescott and Putnam that occurred after the redoubt fell and the Americans pulled back. Accordingly, Prescott came upon Putnam at Bunker Hill and asked of Putnam, “Why did you not support me, General, with your men, as I had reason to expect according to agreement?” Putnam answered, “I could not drive the dogs up.” Prescott pointedly replied, “If you could not drive them up, you might have led them up.” The two reverends added to their statements, “We have good reason to believe further, from declarations of some of our parishioners… that General Putnam was not on Breed’s Hill the night preceding, or on that day, except that just before the attack was made, he might have gone to the fort and ordered the tools to be carried off, that they might not fall into the hands of the enemy in the even to f his carrying the works, and holding the ground, and that he and his men, with Colonel Gerrish, remained on the side of Bunker Hill towards the neck during the whole action.” The side referred to was protected from British shelling.
Colonel John Stark did not record a testimonial, however he discussed the matter with friends. Colonel William Bentley, in 1810, wrote of a meeting he had with Gen. Stark. They discussed Putnam in which Bentley recorded Stark’s response: “you know my opinion of that man,” Stark said, “had he done his duty, he would have decided the fate of his country in the first action…” Bentley wrote, “He then told me where he saw Gen. Putnam and what was done on the occasion, and his remarks were as severe…” In relation to Stark, The New Hampshire Patriot published on May 1, 1810, a report that stated Stark’s disillusionment of Putnam’s actions during the battle. That, “…as Stark proceeded to the rail fence in full view of Putnam, seen conversing with Colonel Gerrish, the Connecticut General supplied ‘no direction’ to Stark. A view shared by a consensus that Putnam exercised no command and failed to take any initiative during the battle.
General Benjamin Pierce, father of the Franklin Pierce, 14th President of the U.S., was a private present during the battle. He contacted Dearborn replying, “I have read your ‘Account of the Battle of Bunker’s-hill,’ and consider it to be more like the thing itself, than any statement I have ever seen.” Though native of New Hampshire, he was in Captain Ford’s Company of Chelmsford, Mass. He arrived at Bunker Hill at 11 AM. He wrote, “I saw there two pieces of cannon, and two or three soldiers standing by them, who said they belonged to Capt. Callender’s company, and that the officers had run away [Callender would later be court-martialed and cashiered out of the service]. Gen. Putnam sat there upon a horse. I saw nobody else but him and the before mentioned soldiers.” Putnam ordered Ford’s men to draw the cannon to the front lines. The men grabbed the tow lines and drew the two pieces to the rail fence.” Two pieces made it to the rail fence under Captain Samuel Trevett, however did not do so until late in the battle. This cannon in question was not fired, the cartridges and shot being of the wrong caliber for the guns, according to Callender. Pierce was on the line by around 11:30 AM. He wrote that he saw Putnam at the rail fence before the action looking for something he had lost. He wrote that he never heard Putnam give orders except at Bunker Hill: “I remained at the rail fence until all the powder and ball were spent. I had a full view of the movements of the enemy… I did not hear him give any orders, or assume any command, except at the top of Bunker Hill, when I was going to the field of action.”
Major General John Wilkinson, in 1816, like Colonel Humphreys, published a secondary account of the battle in which he was critical of Putnam’s actions. This was two years before Dearborn’s publication that sparked the controversy surrounding Putnam. He wrote that General Putnam and a Colonel Gerrish took post with about 1,500 men on and around Bunker’s Hill. He lamented that Putnam never reinforced Prescott claiming that “…if General Putnam had moved up with Colonel Gerrish and the men who remained stationary within 600 yards of the combat, which lasted an hour and a half, the triumph of the provincials would have been decisive, and those of the British corps who were not killed must have surrendered, which would probably have terminated the contest.” He stated that Prescott had requested Putnam’s help to no avail, “I understand from high authority [though he doesn’t give his source] that it was in vain Colonel Prescott sent messenger and messenger to entreat General Putnam to come to his succor; he [Putnam] rode about Bunker’s Hill, while the battle raged under his eye with a number of entrenching tools slung across his horse but did not advance a step, and who passed, with Col. Gerrish at his side, by Stark and Dearborn, as they retreated, near the spot where they saw him when they advanced; and for this conduct Colonel Prescott never ceased to reprobate the General.” Wilkinson continued that “all the reinforcements which arrived at Bunker’s Hill, after Colonel Stark had passed, halted and kept company with General Putnam and Colonel Gerrish. The Colonel was cashiered, but the General, being distinguished for his popularity, his integrity, and patriotism, served as third in command at the termination of the American Revolution.
General William Heath, in his memoirs of the war that was published in 1798, related that Putnam and a large body of men hauled away entrenching tools from the redoubt, and that they never returned to fight. Heath wrote, “Just before the action began, Gen. Putnam came to the redoubt, and told Col. Prescott that the entrenching tools must be sent off, as they would be lost; the Colonel replied that if he sent any of the men away with the tools, not one of them would return; to this the General answered, they shall every man return. A large party was then sent off [approx. 200 men, leaving less than 800 men to man both the redoubt and entrenchments down to the rail fence] with the tools, and not one of them returned; in this instance the Colonel was the best judge of human nature.
Jesse Smith, of Salem wrote that he was at the fence. After firing 16 rounds, he returned to Bunker Hill to repair his musket, “Going up Bunker Hill, saw Colonel Gardner wounded, and saw Gen. Putnam on his horse riding about frothing at the mouth, urging the men there down to the line of battle; returning to the line, retreat began.” Maj. Caleb Stark, son of Colonel Stark, testified to author Swett that he had arrived at the top of Bunker Hill, “saw Gerrish, and Putnam. I was told it was, standing together. Gen. Putnam performed no part in the operation at Breed’s Hill. The battle commenced about the middle of the afternoon.” Swett recorded that Caleb Stark added, “I believe Col. Reed was not in the action.” This last statement is inaccurate as all reports placed Reed commanding his regiment at the rail fence. Robert Wilkins of Concord, New Hampshire stated, “saw Putnam and Gerrish about a hundred rods from our line, as I was going to rail fence, before firing with small arms commenced; just before the retreat of the enemy from the fort, passed on to Bunker Hill, where I found Putnam and Gerrish again. Major Thompson Maxwell was present at Bunker Hill and insisted that Putnam was neither present at the redoubt nor engaged in the fighting. Major Andrew McClary had viewed Putnam on Bunker Hill during the retreat with a spade in his hand.
Captain Samuel Trevett of Richard Gridley’s artillery regiment left Cambridge with his company at around 1 PM. He reported that he had soon witnessed Putnam race by towards Cambridge on horse. Twenty minutes later Putnam tore by him again as he headed back towards the Charlestown Peninsula. Trevett arrived at Bunker Hill just as the battle started. He states, “I there saw General Putnam dismounted, in company with several others. I halted my company, and went forward to select a station for my pieces, and on my return, saw General Putnam as before; the American and English forces being then engaged. I proceeded on with my company, and soon after joined that part of the American force at the rail fence, towards Mystic River, when the Americans commenced a general retreat.” Of the six guns present, according to Trevett, only two under his command made the American line, the other four remained on Bunker Hill. Though second hand accounts in historical texts describe the two field pieces as having played a significant role during the British assault, according to Capt. Trevett, by the time he had arrived, the Americans at the fence were pulling back, the redoubt having been overwhelmed by British forces. He would retain one of his guns during the retreat, losing the other. He resumed, “As I was descending the northwest side of the Bunker Hill, I again saw General Putnam in the same place, putting his tent upon his horse…”
Deacon Samuel Lawrence, in Prescott’s regiment, constructed and fought in the redoubt. He reported that he’d never seen Putnam. “General Putnam was not present either while the works were erecting, or during the battle. I could distinctly see the rail fence and the troops stationed there during the battle, but General Putnam was not present as I saw.” He also witnessed General Warren’s death, stating that there was no British soldier within forty yards of the doctor when he was shot during the retreat. Interesting that author Samuel Swett’s pro Putnam account of the battle included Lawrence’s testimonial adding, that the gentleman’s recollections were impaired by age. Robert Bradford Wilkens was a private from concord New Hampshire. He was in Reed’s regiment stationed on the fence. Prior to the battle, he was sent back to the mainland on an errand. As he returned, he saw Putnam and Garrish, “I saw General Putnam with Colonel Gerrish, as near as I could judge, one hundred rods from the line and troops I had left; that the firing with small arms commenced after I returned the second time; that in the action the enemy were three times repulsed…” He was wounded during the second assault and withdrew from the fence to Bunker Hill. He wrote, “that in the interval between the second and third repulse, I received a severe wound from a musket ball in my right elbow-joint… I then left the field of battle just before the retreat of the Americans from the fort, and passed on to Bunker Hill, where I found General Putnam and Colonel Gerrish in nearly the same place where I first saw them…”
Lt. Colonel Experience Storrs was second in command in Putnam’s regiment. His account places his men, on Bunker Hill during the British assault. He wrote that he had gone to the line at 10 AM, that Putnam was there, but they were ordered back up Bunker Hill. He wrote that he’d heard reports that the enemy landed around 2 PM. They were turned out, but did not reinforce those fighting on Breed’s Hill. Having learned that the Americans were pulling back, his men covered their retreat. “… about 10 went down the Hill [Bunker] “…about 10 went down the Hill [Bunker] to Genl. Putnam’s Post, who has the command. Some shot whistled around us…[British artillery]. Tarried there a spell and returned to have my company in readiness to relieve them. One killed and 1 wounded when I came away. [the British were cannoning the position at the time – troops having not landed yet]. About 2 o’clock there was a brisk cannonade from the ships on the battery or entrenchment [the redoubt and entrenchments along the American left]. Received orders to repair with out regiment to No. 1 and defend it. No enemy appearing [as no enemy appeared – No. 1 must be the number given to the original planned position of the redoubt – Bunker Hill] orders soon came that our people in the entrenchment were retreating and for us to secure the retreat. Immediately marched to their relief… The regulars [British] did not come off from Bunker Hill… “ He wrote that they entrenched all night on Winter Hill [mainland across from Charlestown Neck] under Putnam’s directions [entrenchment was 100 sq. feet] and manned the post with little sleep that night.
Hon. Abel Parker was on Breed’s Hill. He cast doubt on Putnam’s presence on the line and British Colonel Small’s account that Putnam saved his life. Dated May 27, 1818, Parker wrote, “As I was in the battle on Breed’s Hill, otherwise called Bunker Hill, on the 17th day of June, 1775, and there received one ball through my leg, another having passed through my clothes, all accounts of that battle which I have seen published, have been to me extremely interesting. But I have never seen any account which I considered in any degree correct, until the one published by Gen. Dearborn.” Parker was in the redoubt. He wrote that he saw Putnam for the first time that day along the north wall of the fort when the British troops’ boats appeared. “Prior to that, the field pieces were drawn from the fort, and Putnam at or near the same time left the fort.” Parker was wounded at the breastwork and remained in the fort until the order to retreat. He observed that Prescott was the only one in command. He never saw Putnam during the three British assaults. As to Trumbull’s sharing what was told him by British officer Small, he wrote, “I have no hesitation in declaring, that the story told by Col. Small to Col. Trumbull, concerning General Putnam’s saving him from the fire of our men at that time, is altogether unfounded…”
General Michael McClary was a lieutenant in then Captain Dearborn’s company. In a letter to Dearborn’s son dated May 10, 1818, he claimed that Putnam was not on the American line and did not see the general until their retreat, passing him on Bunker Hill. He wrote, “I was in the battle from its commencement to the end, and have no recollection of seeing General Putnam in or near it. I was the principal part of the time the action continued near Col Stark, who commanded the regiment to which I belonged, and on our retreat from Breed’s Hill, in ascending Bunker Hill, I well remember seeing Gen. Putnam there on his horse, with a spade in his hand. Being an officer in the company under your father’s command, I had an opportunity of knowing the circumstances generally attending the battle, and if Gen. Putnam had been there, that is, taken any part in it, I should have known it.” Dr. Thomas Kittridge was a surgeon in Col. Frye’s regiment posted at the redoubt. During the initial attack by the British, Kittridge left the fort with the first wounded. He recalls seeing Putnam between the redoubt and Charlestown Neck – perhaps the northern slope of Bunker Hill. He wrote, “He [Putnam] was under a tree, with, as I supposed, about thirty or forty men. I made a halt, when I came against him, of three or four minutes; and while I was there, I heard Gen. Putnam request some of the men to go up to the fort, and endeavor to get some of the entrenching tools.”
The following early historical authors were most critical of Putnam’s actions during the battle: David Lee Child in Boston Patriot, Nov. 17, 1818, and later The Conduct of General Putnam, 1819. It was most critical of Putnam’s actions, including various depositions of witnesses of the general’s involvement. He included several significant inconsistencies regarding Putnam’s whereabouts during the retreat. The Boston Patriot reviewed Swett’s 1827 essay that supported Putnam’s presence during the assaults and argued that it was ‘wholly gratuitous’, reliant upon contradictory veterans’ depositions. Charles Coffin, History of the Battle of Bunker Hill, 1831, reopened the controversy surrounding Putnam’s role during the battle, presenting several officers accounts that were critical to Putnam’s actions. And the most damning for Putnam including a stain on his general character, not just during the Battle of Bunker Hill, but contesting the legends and heroic stories surrounding Putnam’s life, John Fellows, The Veil Removed, 1843. Fellows was the nephew of General John Fellows who was also at the battle. His text followed Putnam from a youthful farmer throughout his military career that spanned two wars, presenting highly critical examinations of the many legends and antidotes surrounding Putnam’s life. A large portion of the text was devoted to Putnam’s actions during the Battle of Bunker Hill.
Colonel Samuel Gerrish, who commanded the American cannon, was subjected to a court martial for his cowardice actions. Putnam was not held accountable for his absence from the battle.
Colonel Gerrish had kept his regiment on Bunker Hill during the British assault. Except for Stark’s and Reed’s reinforcements, all others that arrived just before and while the battle raged, remained out of musket shot, over six hundred yards behind Breeds Hill on Bunker Hill. Putnam was by Gerrish’s side during the British attack. After the battle, Gerrish would under go a court-martial for not reinforcing Prescott at Breed’s Hill. He would be found guilty of cowardice and cashiered out of the army. Why was Putnam not subjected to the same inquiry and scrutiny given Gerrish since the two ignored all requests to come forward with their men during the attack? The obvious answer was that ‘Ole Put’ was too large a figure of symbolic importance to the American cause. Any grumble as to his inaction during the British assault was quickly buried. However, author John Fellows offers what may be the answer. Prior to the battle, Putnam had relinquished command to Prescott. Similar to General Warren who made his appearance just before the British attack and turned down Prescott’s offer of command at the redoubt. Colonel Gerrish was ordered to the field of action and was charged with disobedience after ignoring the order. Putnam, though requested, and the key here is that he was requested, by Prescott a total of three times, to bring his forces forward to assist the garrison, and in each instance failed to do so, was not guilty of disobedience. He escaped censure and Gerrish’s fate by the fact that he was not under any command during the day and therefore could not be ordered. A simple twist of military decorum, but adequate for the powers to be behind the American cause to justify letting Putnam off the hook.
SUMMERY
Having read through the dozens of testimonies concerning Putnam’s actions during the Battle of Bunker Hill, one aspect is clear; a desperate attempt by both sides of the issue, propagated by the sons of Putnam and Dearborn, established a character image of symbolic importance to a new nation’s self esteem based on untruths and manipulation. Does it matter if Putnam stood on the line of fire, directing American shot that poured into British bodies advancing up the hill and over the field toward the rail fence? General Horatio Gates received accolades for his performance at Saratoga, never having been closer than a mile or more to musket shot, tucked safely behind his redoubts on Bemis Hill. He also remained 600 yards behind the action at Camden, only to be rightfully vilified for his ‘ungallant’ escape on horseback at the start of the battle. Washington often viewed battles from afar, issuing orders as he had done at the Battle of Long Island, though putting his life on the line at Kip’s Bay, Princeton, and Monmouth. Moving to the 20th century, no one recalls Commanding General Eisenhower parachuting behind German lines on D Day.
But a new nation that needed heroes. The truth wasn’t good enough – that Putnam remained on Bunker Hill and kept himself busy preparing another fortification for those defending Breed’s Hill. It would be accepted among military circles as a wise precaution. However, for those who propagated a legend that would draw others to stand gloriously before their assertion of British aggression, Putnam needed to face a hail of bullets and come out smiling. He could not be seen far behind the American line, safely out of harm from the British assaults. He had to be placed high upon a gold plated podium of courageous valor. Never mind he did not have command that day, just give it to him in print long after the battle was over. To those who cherished his memory, symbolic of American courage and defiance, it didn’t matter that somehow he uttered a quote invented and made famous by a Mr. Weems, over thirty years after the last shot fired that day, June 17, 1775; a quote that was forever associated with the battle. Facts be damned, Putnam was the hero at the Battle of Bunker Hill, then, and now, as a search on the internet will prove ad nauseum.
The 1818 Putnam-Dearborn controversy prompted Americans to debate the social context of Revolutionary memories and commemoration of military heroes. Figures such as Putnam embodied selflessness and valor who courageously sacrificed themselves on the battlefield. America identified itself by its universal acceptance of the sacredness of the founding fathers in an almost god-like worship of their acts as well as their character. Putnam became the staple of folklore as the man who fought with Rogers’s Rangers, the villager who singlehandedly confronted a wolf in his den, and like Quinctius Cincinnatus, the Roman peasant called upon to save the republic from invasion; the farmer who left his plow to fight the redcoats.
Pitted against such an icon of American liberty the accuser, Henry Dearborn, inspired no classical metaphors of legendary heroes. He was a simple, unimposing, hardworking New Englander who picked up a musket to lead men into battle. A New Hampshire doctor turned soldier, he commanded sixty men at Bunker Hill, invaded Canada alongside Benedict Arnold, suffered imprisonment, bravely fought alongside Daniel Morgan at Saratoga, led a brigade at Valley Forge, and by Yorktown, served on Washington’s staff to war’s end. His character was not cast in a republican mold that anchored Putnam’s pedestal in the national pantheon.
Dearborn countered this heroic persona forcing Americans to re-evaluate patriotic icons and threatened a rewrite of history. Those who claimed Putnam was out of harms way on Bunker Hill, keeping all reinforcements along with him, did so in plain simple talk. Veterans who voiced this viewpoint were the majority in command – men who stood and faced the onslaught of the British advance. Absent were the romantic antidotes that appeared in many of the later accounts that placed Putnam on the line. They had the general positioned at every portion of the line and at Bunker Hill, all at the same time, ordering cannon and men forward, bravely sitting his horse under a barrage of bullets, manning and loading cannon, running through those who skulked under fire, and all the while cursing and shouting courageous and catchy lines that helped sell text books printed over the next two hundred years.
Eventually the controversy became the impudence behind the memorial ceremonies on Bunker Hill on June 17, 1825, fifty years to the day after the battle. By 1825, a truce had been established between the warring factors pertaining to Putnam. A testament to an event, rather than a particular person, could permit partisans to close ranks and promote the “sectional nationalism” that validated New England’s identity as a torchbearer of the American Revolution. Over 100,000 people and 190 veterans of the battle attended the event addressed by Daniel Webster which included a laying of the cornerstone for the Bunker Hill Monument.
Putnam was and remains a powerful personification of civic virtue. His mystique became a sacred icon of biblical proportions that seeped into the very fabric of a nation’s desire for identity. An American psyche embedded in the New England minuteman that is still present in a society that boasts the right to bare arms. Facts aside, a young nation was not then, as now, not prepared to lose such a symbol that bolstered the self proclaimed image of unfaltering liberty that embodied selflessness and sacrifice. Interestingly, two hundred years after the controversy died down, American politics’s practices to manipulate the masses has not changed much from a time where truth remained unessential to the support of an argument.
Want to learn more about the Battle of Bunker Hill and Folkhero Israel Putnam? Check out these books on Amazon’s free preview.
Also on Revolutionary War Journal
1776: List of Battles and Skirmishes of the American Revolution in Chronological Order
SOURCE
Beck, Derek. The War Before Independence 1775-1776. 2016: Sourcebooks, Inc., Naperville, Illinois.
Bell, J. L. Who Said Don’t Fire Until You See the Whites of Their Eyes. 2007: Web Article Boston 1775.
Bradford, Alden. History of Massachusetts from 1764 to 1775 When General Washington Took Command of the American Army. 1822: Richardson & Lord, Boston, Massachusetts.
Bunker Hill Monument Association. Proceedings of the Bunker Hill Monument Association at the Annual Meeting. 1905: Bunker Hill Monument Association & John Wilkins & Sons, Boston, MA.
Child, David Lee. An Enquiry into the Conduct of General Putnam, in Relation to the Battle of Bunker or Breed’s Hill… 1819: Thomas G. Bangs, Boston, Massachusetts.
Coffin, Charles. History of the Battle of Breed’s Hill. 1831: Printed by William J. Condon, Portland, Maine.
Cray, Robert E. Jr., “Bunker Hill Refought: Memory Wars and Partisan Conflicts, 1775-1825”. Historical Journal of Massachusetts, Volume 29, No. 1 (Winter 2001).
Cutter, William. The Life of Israel Putnam… 1847: George F. Cooledge & Co., New York, NY.
Dawson, Henry B. Battles of the United States by Sea and Land… in Two Volumes, Vol. I. 1858: Johnson Fry & Company, New York, NY.
Drake, Samuel Adams. General Israel Putnam the Commander at Bunker Hill. 1875: Nichols & Hall, Boston, Massachusetts.
Fellows, John. The Veil Removed; Reflections David Humphreys Essay on the Life of Israel Putnam. Also, Notices of Oliver W. B. Pebody’s Life of he Same, S. Swett’s Sketch of Bunker Hill Battle. 1843: James D. Lockwood, New York, NY.
Frothingham, Richard. The Command in the Battle of Bunker Hill… 1850: Charles C. Lewis & James Brown, Boston, Massachusetts.
Heath, Major General William. Memoirs of Major General William Heath… 1798: I. Thomas & E. T. Andrews, Boston, MA.
Heitman, Francis B. Historical Register of Officers of the Continental Army During the War of the Revolution. 1914: The Rare Book Shop Publishing Company, Inc., Washington D. C.
Hill, George Canning. General Israel Putnam (Old Put) A Biography. 1858: E. O. Libby & Co., Boston, Massachusetts.
Humphreys, Colonel David. An Essay on the Life of the Honorable Major General Israel Putnam…. Sketch of Bunker Hill Battle by S. Swett. 1818: Samuel Avery, Boston, Massachusetts.
Humphreys, Colonel David. The Life and Heroic Exploits of Israel Putnam by Colonel David Humphreys… 1847: Silas Andrus & Son, Hartford, CN.
Johnston, Henry Philips. Connecticut. Adjutant-General’s Office. Record of Service of Connecticut Men In the I. War of the Revolution, II. War of 1812, III. Mexican War. Hartford. 1889: Case, Lockwood & Brainard Co, Hartford, CN.
Livingston, William Farling. Israel Putnam, Pioneer, Ranger, and Major General. 1901: Knickerbocker Press, New York, NY.
Putnam, Colonel Daniel. Colonel Daniel Putnam’s Letter relative to the Battle of Bunker Hill & General Israel Putnam. 1860: Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford, CN.
Schultz, Emily L. New Hampshire in the American Revolution. 2010: Society of the Cincinnati in the State of New Hampshire, Text of Exposition at Anderson House, Washington, DC.
Swett, Samuel. An Essay on the Life of the Honorable Major General Israel Putnam… With Sketch of Bunker Hill Battle… 1818: Samuel Avery, Boston, MA.
Swett, Samuel. History of Bunker Hill Battle… 1827: Munroe & Francis, Boston, MA.
Swett, Samuel. “Reviewed Work: Notes to His Sketch of Bunker Hill Battle.” The North American Review, Vol. 22, No. 51 (Apr. 1826), pp 465-467. Published by Univ of Northern Iowa.