Chapter II: The Conflict Precipitated (3)

From _Political Mag._ (London, 1780), vol. i. p. 171,—somewhat reduced. Carrington notes (p. 176), as dated Aug. 31, 1776, and belonging to the _North Amer. Pilot_: "An exact plan of Charleston and harbor, from an actual survey, with the attack of Fort Sullivan on the 26th June, 1776, by his Majesty's squadron, commanded by Sir Peter Parker." Cf. no. 37 of the _American Atlas_ (Faden's), and the _Amer. Military Pocket Atlas_, 1776, no. 5. Mr. Courtenay, in the _Charleston Year Book_, 1883 (p. 414), gives a folded fac-simile of a broadside map, _A plan of the Attack on Fort Sullivan ... with the disposition of the King's land forces, and the encampments and entrenchments of the rebels, from the drawings made on the spot. Engraved by Wm. Faden_, by whom it was published Aug. 10, 1776. The dedication to Com. Parker is signed by Lieut.-Col. Thomas James, royal regiment of artillery, June 30, 1776. It has a corner plan of the "Platform in Sullivan's Fort", by James, on a larger scale. Appended to the map are a list of the attacking ships, and extracts from Parker's and Clinton's despatches. The channel between Long and Sullivan's islands is given as seven feet in the deepest part. The original MS. of this Faden map is in the Faden Collection in the library of Congress (no. 41), where is also a MS. map of Charleston and its harbor, a topographical drawing, finished in colors (no. 40). Cf. _Plan de la Barre et du hâvre de Charlestown d'après un plan anglois levé en_ 1776. _Rédigé au dépôt général de la marine_ [Paris], 1778. (_Brit. Mus. Maps_, 1885, col. 764.)

These are the different English maps. In the same _Charleston Year Book_, p. 478, is an account of the successive forts on the same spot. A view of Charleston is in the _London Mag._ (1762, p. 296), and one by Thomas Leitch, engraved by S. Smith, 1776, is noted in the _Brit. Mus. Map Catal._, 1885, col. 764.]

Their ships threw shot at the fort all day, which did very little damage, while the return fire was rendered with a precision surprising in untried artillerists, and seriously damaged the fleet,[504] of which one ship was grounded and abandoned.

From the copperplate in his _Memoirs of American Revolution, on far as it related to States of N. and S. Carolina and Georgia. Compiled from most authentic materials, the author's personal knowledge of various events, and including an Epistolary Correspondence on Public Affairs, with Civil and Military Officers, at that period_. (New York, 1802, two volumes.) The likeness in the _National Portrait Gallery_ (New York, 1834) is Scriven's engraving of Trumbull's picture.

There is a portrait in the cabinet of the Penna. Hist. Soc., no. 58. See the paper on General Moultrie in South Carolina in _Appleton's Journal_, xix. 503, and Wilmot G. Desaussure's _Address on Maj.-Gen. William Moultrie_, before the Cincinnati Society of South Carolina, 1885.]

The expected land attack from Clinton's troops, already ashore on Long Island, was not made. A strong wind had raised the waters of the channel between that island and Sullivan's Island so high that it could not be forded, and suitable boats for the passage were not at hand.[505] A few days later the shattered vessels and the troops left the neighborhood, and Colonel Moultrie had leisure to count the costs of his victory, which was twelve killed and twice as many wounded. The courage of Sergeant Jasper, in replacing on the bastion a flag which had been shot away, became at once a household anecdote.[506]

CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

THE earliest attempt with any precision to enumerate the various sources of information upon the whole series of military events about Boston during 1775 and 1776 was by Richard Frothingham, in the notes of his _Siege of Boston_ (1849), where, in an appendix, he groups together the principal authorities. Later than this, Barry (_Massachusetts_, iii. ch. 1), Dawson (_Battles_, vol. i.), and others had been full in footnotes; but the next systematized list of sources was printed by Justin Winsor in 1875, in the _Bulletin_ of the Boston Public Library. This last enumeration was somewhat extended in the _Bunker Hill Memorial_, published by the city of Boston,[507] and still more so by the same writer in his _Handbook of the American Revolution_, Boston, 1879. It is condensed in the _Memorial Hist. of Boston_, iii. 117.

* * * * *

Salem, because of a little alleged pricking of bayonets when Leslie's expedition was harassed there in February, 1775, has sometimes claimed to have witnessed the first shedding of blood in the war. The principal monograph on the subject is C. M. Endicott's _Account of Leslie's retreat at the North Bridge in Salem, on Sunday, Feb. 26, 1775_ (Salem, 1856).[508] Early resistance to British arms, and even bloodshed in the act, had undoubtedly occurred before the affair at Lexington, and writers have cited the mob at Golden Hill,[509] in New York, and the massacre at Westminster, in the New Hampshire Grants, when an armed body of settlers arose against the authority of the king, as asserted in favor of the jurisdiction of New York in March, 1775.[510]

The precipitation of warfare, however, can only be connected with the expedition to Lexington and Concord. Every stage of the affair has been invested with interest by discussion and illustration. The ride of Paul Revere to give warning has grown to be a household tale in the spirited verse of Longfellow; but, as is the case with almost all of that poet's treatments of historical episodes, he has paid little attention to exactness of fact, and has wildly, and often without poetic necessity, turned the channels of events. In literary treatment, the events of Lexington and Concord form so distinct a group of references that they can be best considered in a later note (A), as can also the sources of information respecting the fight at Bunker Hill (B).

Of the siege of Boston, the chief monograph is Frothingham's, already referred to. Other contributions of a monographic nature are the address and chronicle of the siege by Dr. George E. Ellis in the _Evacuation Memorial of the City of Boston_ (1876); W. W. Wheildon's _Siege and Evacuation of Boston and Charlestown_ (Boston, 1876, pp. 64); and the chapters on the siege in Dawson's _Battles of the United States_, vol. i., and Carrington's _Battles of the Revolution_ (1876).[511]

Among the general historians, Bancroft has made an elaborate study of the siege, devoting to it a large part of his vol. viii. (orig. edition), and all the histories of the United States, Massachusetts, and Boston necessarily cover it.[512]

The principal of the later British historians is Mahon, in his _Hist. of England_, vol. vi. Lecky (_England in the Eighteenth Century_, ii. ch. 12), while he goes little into details, gives an admirable account of the two respective camps. _The Life of Burgoyne_, by Fonblanque, is the fullest of the biographies of the actors on the British side.

On the American side, the lives of leading officers all necessarily yield to those of Washington,[513] whose letters, as contained in vol. iii. of Sparks's ed. of his _Writings_, can well be supplemented by those of Reed, then his secretary.[514] Of the contemporary general historians, Gordon and Mercy Warren were familiar with the actors of the time. The _Journals_ of the Continental Congress and of the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts follow the development of events, and show how in some ways the legislation shaped them.[515] Contemporary records and comments are garnered in Almon's _Remembrancer_, Force's _Archives_, Niles's _Principles and Acts of the Revolution_, and Moore's _Diary of the Amer. Revolution_. The life and daily routine of both camps are to be traced in abundant orderly books, diaries, and correspondence, of which the register is given in the notes (C and D) following this essay.

Of the Canada expedition, in its combined movements by the Kennebec and Lake Champlain, the authorities for detail may well be reserved for later notes (G and H), but for comprehensive treatment references may be made to the general historians and a few special monographs. As respects the campaign in general, the only considerable special study is Charles Henry Jones's _History of the Campaign for the Conquest of Canada in_ 1776 (Philad., 1882). The book does not profess, however, to follow the movements before the death of Montgomery, nor to touch at all the coöperating column of Arnold before it had united with the other. A principal interest of its writer is, furthermore, to chronicle the share of Pennsylvanians in the campaign. The study is therefore but an imperfect one, and the author gives the student no assistance in indicating his sources. The reader most necessarily have recourse, then, for a survey of the whole campaign, to such general works as Bancroft's _United States_ (vol. viii.), Carrington's _Battles_ (p. 122), and other comprehensive and biographical works.[516]

The political aspects of the movement on Canada arise in the main from the mission of the Commissioners of Congress to the army, and their efforts to affect the sympathies of the Canadians. The sources of this matter are also traced in a subsequent note.[517]

NOTES.

=A.= LEXINGTON AND CONCORD.—The details of Revere's connection with the events of the 18th and 19th April are not altogether without dispute. Revere's own narrative was not written till 1798,[518] and was printed in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Collections_, vol. v., but not so accurately as to preclude the advisability of reprinting it in the same society's _Proceedings_, Nov., 1878. Richard Devens's nearly contemporary account of the signal lanterns is printed in Frothingham's _Siege of Boston_, p. 57.[519] The traditional story of the other messenger of that eventful night is told in H. W. Holland's _William Dawes and his ride with Paul Revere_.[520]

In a book which was published at Boston in 1873 as _Historic Fields and Mansions of Middlesex_, but whose title in a second edition, in 1876, reads _Old Landmarks and Historic Fields of Middlesex_, Mr. Samuel Adams Drake follows (ch. xvi.-xviii.) the route of the British troops from Lechmere Point to Concord and back to Charlestown, pointing out the localities of signal events in the day's course.

The provincial congress ordered depositions[521] to be taken of those who had participated in the events of the day, with a main purpose of establishing that the British fired first at Lexington. These were signed in several copies. One set of them, accompanied by a request from Warren to Franklin to have them printed and dispersed in England, was entrusted to Capt. John Derby, of Salem, who took also a copy of the _Essex Gazette_, in which an account of the fighting was printed, and sailed in a swift packet for England four days after Lieutenant Nunn, bearing Gage's despatches, had sailed from Boston (April 24). Derby reached Southampton on the 27th of May, and was in London the next day.[522] London had been stirred three weeks before with rumors of a bloody day with Gage's troops,[523] and now two days later the government felt called upon to announce they had no tidings; whereupon Arthur Lee, who, since Franklin had sailed for America, had succeeded to his place as agent of Massachusetts, and had received the papers, made a counter-announcement that the public could see the affidavits at the Mansion House.[524] The tidings spread. Hutchinson communicated the news to Gibbon, and he recorded it in a letter, May 31.[525] On the 5th of June Horace Walpole wrote it to Horace Mann. On the 7th, Dartmouth spoke of the "vague and uncertain accounts of a skirmish, made up for the purpose of conveying misrepresentation."[526]

Fac-simile of the original in the Arthur Lee Papers in Harvard College library. The fac-simile on the opposite page, relating to the action at Concord, is reproduced from an original in the same collection of papers.]

On the same day the friends of America, forming the Constitutional Society, met at the King's Arms in Cornhill, and raised a subscription of £100, to be paid to the widows and families of the provincials who had been killed.[527] On the 8th another vessel reached Liverpool, confirming the news, but giving no particulars. Finally, on the 10th, the official report of Gage, with the statements of Percy and Smith, reached the government.[528]

Meanwhile, both sides at home had been busy with circulating their pleas of vindications. The provincial congress at once despatched messengers south,[529] and the Rev. William Gordon, an Englishman settled in Jamaica Plain, drew up (May 17, 1775) for the patriots their authoritative _Account of the Commencement of hostilities_;[530] and various other contemporary accounts on the provincial side have come down to us,[531] and of importance among them are the narratives of the ministers of Lexington and Concord, the Reverends Jonas Clark and William Emerson.[532]

After a plan in Hudson's _Lexington_, p. 173. The British approached from Boston up the road, past the Munroe Tavern, still standing (C), past Loring's house and barn (I J); and opposite Emerson's house (H) they sighted, looking beyond the meeting-house (L), the Lexington militia, under Capt. John Parker, drawn up along the farther side of the triangular green, in front of the houses of Daniel Harrington (E) and Jonathan Harrington (D, still standing) (who was one of the killed), which were separated from each other by a blacksmith's shop (G). The house on the opposite side of the common (F) was Nathan Munroe's (still standing), and on the third side was Bucknam's Tavern (B, still standing), where Parker's company was mostly assembled when the order was given to form on the common. When the minute-men scattered, most of them ran across the swamp; but some fled up the Bedford road, in the direction of the Clarke House (A), still standing, where Adams and Hancock had spent the night, but from which they were now hurrying towards Burlington for better protection.

On the return of the British from Concord, they met Percy's column on the road between Munroe's Tavern and Loring's. Percy now kept the provincials at bay by planting his field-pieces at M and N, while some of the wounded were carried into the tavern, which is still standing. The buildings (I J) were set on fire and burned down. Balls from Percy's cannon have been dug up since in the town. One went through the meeting-house (L). Several of these balls are preserved. While Percy was halting, General Heath arrived among the provincials and assumed the command. Cf. the plans in Josiah Adams's _Address at Acton_; Moore's _Ballad History of the Revolution_.

There are views of the Clarke House in Hudson's _Lexington_, 430; Drake's _Landmarks of Middlesex_, 364-368; Lossing's _Field-Book_, i. 523; and of the Munroe Tavern in Hudson, part ii. p. 161.]

The _Memoirs_ of General Heath are, of course, of first importance; for he was on the ground soon after Percy took the command on the British side.[533]

This follows a plan in Hudson's _Lexington_, p. 191. The British approached from Lexington by the road (1), and halted in the middle of the town (3). The provincials, who were assembled by the liberty-pole (2), retired along the road (5) by the Rev. William Emerson's house [Hawthorne's "Old Manse"], and across the North Bridge (between 5 and 8) to the high land (6), where they halted, and where reinforcements from the neighboring towns reached them. Colonel Smith, the British commander, now sent out two parties to seek for stores. One, which went by the road (4) to the South Bridge, found little. The other followed the road (5) by the North Bridge, and passing beneath the provincials at 6, turned to their right, and took the road (5) to Colonel Barrett's house, where they destroyed some cannon and other stores. This second party had left a detail at the North Bridge to secure their retreat by that way, for the road (10) did not then exist. The provincials, after the party bound to Colonel Barrett's passed on, descended from 6 to the North Bridge, when the detail defending it, who were near 8, recrossed the bridge. Here the first firing took place, and some were killed on both sides, the river being between the combatants. The British detail now retired towards the centre of the town, the Americans following them across the bridge, but immediately dispersing without military order. While thus scattered, the British party, returning from Barrett's house, recrossed the North Bridge without molestation, and rejoined the main body at the centre of the town. Here the British, after destroying other stores and delaying for about two hours, formed for the return march towards Lexington, the main body following the road (2), while a flanking party took the ridge of high land (2).

Cf. also the plans in Frothingham's _Siege of Boston_, 70.]

A few days after the 19th, John Adams tells us[534] he rode along "the scene of action toward Lexington for many miles, and inquired of the inhabitants the circumstances." He gives us no particulars, but what he learned was not calculated to diminish his ardor in the cause.[535]

The accounts on the British side are almost equally numerous, including the official reports of Gage, Percy, and Smith, already referred to. General Gage sent (April 29)[536] to Gov. Trumbull, of Connecticut, a statement, which was printed at the time in a handbill as a _Circumstantial Account_, and he refers to it "as taken from gentlemen of indisputable honor and veracity, who were eye-witnesses of all the transactions of that day."[537]

In 1779 there was printed at Boston a pamphlet containing General Gage's instructions to Brown and De Bernière,[538] from a MS. left in Boston by a British officer, to which is appended an account of the "transactions" of April 19, with a list of the killed, wounded, and missing,[539] and in 1775 there was printed at London a contemporary summary in _The Rise, Progress, and Present State of the Dispute_.[540]

The question of firing the first shot at Lexington was studiously examined at the time, each side claiming exemption from the charge of being the aggressor, and Frothingham[541] and Hudson[542] collate the evidence. It seems probable that the British fired first, though by design or accident a musket on the provincial side flashed in the pan before the regulars fired.[543] That some irregular return of the British fire was made seems undeniable, though at the time of the semi-centennial celebration certain writers, anxious to establish for Concord the credit of first forcibly resisting the British arms, denied that claim on the part of the neighboring town. The controversy resulted in Elias Phinney's _Battle of Lexington_, published in 1825,[544] with depositions of survivors, taken in 1822; and Ezra Ripley's _Fight at Concord_, published in 1827.[545] The parts borne by the men of other towns have had their special commemorations.[546]

From Andrews's _Hist. of the War_, Lond., 1785, vol. ii. A portrait engraved by V. Green is noted in J. C. Smith's _Brit. Mezzotint Portraits_, ii. 576. Cf. also _Evelyns in America_, 304; _Memorial Hist. of Boston_, iii. 57, 58; "Percy family and Alnwick Castle" in Jewitt's _Stately Homes of England_. In the _Third Report_ of the Hist. MSS. Commission there are (1872) various papers of the Percy family touching the American war. Some of these papers have been procured from England by the Rev. E. G. Porter, of Lexington. Several letters of Percy, addressed to Bishop Percy, sold not long since at a sale of the Bishop's MSS., were bought by a London dealer, and are now in the Boston Public Library. They are quoted from in this and other chapters. On July 30, 1776, a picture of Percy was placed in Guildhall, London, by the magistrates of the city and liberties of Westminster, in token of his services in America. Cf. also Doyle's _Official Baronage_, ii. 670.]

From Murray's _Impartial Hist. of the present War_, i. 382.]

=B.= BATTLE OF BUNKER HILL, _June 17, 1775_.—There are four sufficient authorities for tracing all that is known respecting the battle of Bunker Hill, even to minute particulars, especially with respect to the testimony of those who, from nearness to the event, or from opportunity, are best entitled to be considered in the matter. The earliest master of the literature and records of the fight was Richard Frothingham, who through life was identified with the story of Bunker Hill, and who has on the whole, in his _Siege of Boston_ and in his _Life of Joseph Warren_, given us the amplest details.[547] His latest gleanings were included in _The Battlefield of Bunker hill: with a relation of the action by William Prescott, and illustrative documents. A paper communicated to the Massachusetts Historical Society, June 10, 1875, with additions._ (Boston: printed for the author. 1876. 46 pp.)[548]

In June, 1868, Henry B. Dawson, in a special number of the _Historical Magazine_, entered into an elaborate collation of nearly all that had been published up to that time, making his references in footnotes, which serve as a bibliography of the subject.[549]

From the _Massachusetts Magazine_ (Boston, 1794). Four views (12 X 18 inches, on copper) of different aspects of the day's fight were drawn by Earl, a portrait painter, and engraved by Amos Doolittle shortly afterward. They are reproduced in the centennial edition of Jonas Clark's _Narrative_; in Frank Moore's _Ballad History_; in _Potter's American Monthly_, April, 1875; in _Antique views of y^e Town of Boston_; and separately, with an explanatory text, by E. G. Porter, as _Four Drawings of the Engagement at Lexington and Concord_ (Boston, 1883). The view of the attack on Lexington Green was drawn from Daniel Harrington's house (see plan), and was reduced by Doolittle himself for Barber's _History of New Haven_. (W. S. Baker's _Amer. Engravers_, Philad., 1875, p. 45.) It has also been redrawn several times by others. See Lossing's _Field-Book_, i. 421, 524; Hudson's _Lexington_, p. 183; the Centennial edition of Phinney, etc.

Earl and Doolittle were soldiers of a New Haven company, which reached Cambridge a few days after the fight.

There is a view of Concord taken in 1776 in the _Massachusetts Mag._, July, 1794, which is reproduced in Whitney's _Literature of the Nineteenth of April_.

There is an early but fanciful picture of the "Journée de Lexington" in François Godefroy's _Recueil d'Estampes representant les different événemens de la guerre qui a procuré l'indépendence aux États Unis de l'Amérique_.

An account of Jonathan Harrington, the last survivor of the fight, is in _Potter's Amer. Monthly_, April, 1875, and in Jones's _New York during the Revolution_, i. 552.

In fiction, mention need only be made of Cooper's _Lionel Lincoln_, and Hawthorne's _Septimus Felton_.

In 1875 there was an exhibition of relics of the fight at Lexington, and some of them are still retained in the library hall. A printed list of them was issued in 1875. A musket taken from a British soldier was bequeathed by Theodore Parker to the State of Massachusetts, and now hangs in the Senate Chamber. Cf. _Hist. Mag._, iv. 202 (July, 1880).]

In 1875 Justin Winsor published first in the _Bulletin_ of the Boston Public Library a bibliographical commentary on all printed matter respecting the battle, grouping his notes by their affinities; and this was enlarged in the _Celebration of the Centennial Anniversary of the Battle_, published by the city of Boston in 1875; and still further augmented in a section of his _Handbook of the American Revolution_ (Boston, 1879).

In 1880 James F. Hunnewell, in his _Bibliography of Charlestown and Bunker Hill_ (Boston), grouped everything alphabetically under such main headings as monographs, maps and plans, contemporary newspapers, American statements, British accounts, French accounts, anniversaries. His enumeration is more nearly exhaustive than Mr. Winsor's, though this may still supplement it in some particulars.

* * * * *

The earliest printed accounts which we have of the battle are in the newspapers, and of these a full enumeration is given by Mr. Hunnewell.[550]

What may be called the official statements on the American side were speedily placed before the public, but, strange to say, neither of the two officers who have been held to have directed the conduct of the Americans vouched for any of the early accounts. From Putnam we have nothing. Prescott made no statement, which has come down to us, earlier than in a letter addressed to John Adams, Aug. 25, 1775,[551] though he is said to have assisted the Rev.

After a steel plate kindly furnished by Mr. Frothingham's son, Mr. Thomas Goddard Frothingham. There is a memoir of Mr. Frothingham, by Charles Deane, in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proceedings_, Feb., 1885, and separately. Mr. Frothingham was born Jan. 31, 1812, and died Jan. 29, 1880. Remarks made to the society at the time of his death are in the _Proc._ (Feb., 1880), xvii. 329. Cf. R. C. Winthrop's _Speeches_ (1878, etc.), p. 125.]

Peter Thacher in a narrative which was prepared within a fortnight, Thacher himself having observed the fight from the Malden side of Mystick River.[552] This Thacher MS. was made the basis of the account which the Committee of Safety, by order of the provincial congress, prepared for sending to England.[553] There have been preserved a large number of letters and statements written by eye-witnesses or by those near at hand, some of them conveying particulars essential to the understanding of the day's events, but most adding little beyond increasing our perceptions of the feelings of the hour.[554]

After the painting belonging to Yale College. Cf. photograph in Kingsley's _Yale College_, i. 102; engravings in Hollister's _Connecticut_, i. 234, and _Amer. Quart. Reg._, viii. 31, 193; and memoir in Sparks's _Amer. Biog._, xvi. 3, by J. L. Kingsley.]

To these may be added various diaries and orderly-books, which are of little distinctive value.[555] There are other accounts, written at a later period, in which personal recollections are assisted by study of the recitals of others, and chief among them are the narrative in Thacher's _Military Journal_ (Boston, 1823), where the account is entered as of July, 1775, and chapter xix. of General James Wilkinson's _Memoirs_ (1816), embodying what he learned in going over the field in March, 1776, with Stark and Reed. Col. John Trumbull saw the smoke of the fight from the Roxbury lines, and gave an outline narrative in his _Autobiography_ (1841).[556] The account in General Heath's _Memoirs_ (Boston, 1798) is short.[557] A few of the earlier general histories of the war were written by those on the American side who had some advantages by reason of friendly or other relations with the actors.[558] Of the still later accounts, Frothingham and Dawson have already been referred to for their bibliographical accompaniments. The diversity of evidence[559] respecting almost all cardinal points of the battle's history has necessarily entailed more or less of the controversial spirit in all who have written upon it, but for thoroughness of research and a fair discrimination combined, the labors of Frothingham must be conceded to be foremost. Dawson is elaborate, and he reveals more than Frothingham the processes of his collations, but his spirit is not so tempered by discretion, and an air of flippant controversy often pervades his narrative. Of the more recent general historians it is only necessary to mention Bancroft[560] and Carrington. The former gave to it three chapters in his original edition, in 1858, which, by a little condensation, make a single one in his final revision, but without material change.[561] The account in Carrington[562] is intended to be distinctively a military criticism.[563]

The troops of Connecticut[564] and New Hampshire[565] were the only ones engaged beside those of Massachusetts.

The question of who commanded during the day has been the subject of continued controversy, arising from the too large claims of partisans. Though there is much conflict of contemporary evidence, it seems well established that Col. William Prescott commanded at the redoubt, and no one questioned his right. He also sent out the party which in the beginning protected his flank towards the Mystick; but when Stark, with his New Hampshire men, came up to strengthen that party, his authority seems to have been generally recognized, and he held the rail fence there as long as he could to cover the retreat of Prescott's men from the redoubt. Putnam, the ranking officer on the field, Warren disclaiming all right to command, withdrew men with entrenching tools from Prescott, and planned to throw up earthworks on the higher eminence, now known as Bunker Hill proper, and near the end of the retreat he assumed a general command, and directed the fortifying of Prospect Hill. It is not apparent, then, that any officer, previous to this last stage of the fight, can be said to have had general command in all parts of the field. The discussion of the claims of Putnam and Prescott has resulted in a large number of monographs, and has formed a particular feature in many of the general accounts of the battle, the mention of some of which has for this reason been deferred till they could be placed in the appended note.[566]

A list of officers in the battle, not named in Frothingham's _Siege_, is given in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, April, 1873; and an English list of the Yankee officers in the force about Boston in June, 1775, is in _Ibid._, July, 1874. The Lives of participants and observers add occasionally some items to the story.[567]

This follows the reproduction of an engraving in J. C. Smith's _Brit. Mezzotint Portraits_, p. 1716, which is inscribed: ISRAEL PUTNAM, Esq., _Major-General of the Connecticut forces, and Commander-in-chief at the engagement on Buncker's-Hill, near Boston, 17 June, 1775. Published by C. Shepherd, 9 Sep^r 1775. J. Wilkinson pinxt._ (Cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xix. 102.) There is a French engraving, representing him in cocked hat, looking down and aside, and subscribed "Israel Putnam, Eq^{re}., major général des Troupes de Connecticut. Il commandait en chef à l'affaire de Bunckes hill près Boston, le 17 Juin, 1775." Col. J. Trumbull made a sketch of Putnam, which has been engraved by W. Humphreys (_National Portrait Gallery_, N. Y., 1834) and by Thomas Gimbrede.

Cf. portraits in Murray's _Impartial Hist._ (1778), i. 334; Hollister's _Connecticut_; Irving's _Washington_, illus. ed., i. 413; and _Geschichte der Kriege in und ausser Europa_ (Nürnberg, 1778).

For lives of Putnam, see Sabin, xvi. no. 66,804, etc. For his birthplace, see _Appleton's Journal_, xi. 321; Miss Larned's _Windham County, Conn._ Cf. B. J. Lossing in _Harper's Monthly_, xii. 577; _Evelyns in America_, 273; R. H. Stoddard in _Nat. Mag._, xii. 97.]

After a copperplate by J. Norman in _An Impartial Hist. of the War in America_ (Boston, 1781), vol. ii. p. 210. The best known picture of Warren is a small canvas by Copley, belonging to Dr. John Collins Warren, of Boston, which has been often engraved, and is given in mezzotint by H. W. Smith in Frothingham's _Life of Warren_. The picture in Faneuil Hall is painted after this, and Thomas Illman has engraved that copy. A larger canvas by Copley, painted not long before that artist left Boston for England, is owned by Dr. Buckminster Brown, of Boston, and was engraved for the first time in the _Mem. Hist. of Boston_, iii. 60, where will be found accounts of various contemporary prints and memorials of Warren (pp. 59, 61, 142, 143), including his house at Roxbury, the manuscript of his Massacre Oration, etc. Cf. Frothingham's _Warren_, p. 546; _Hist. Mag._, Dec., 1857; Loring's _Hundred Boston Orators_, p. 67; Mrs. J. B. Brown's _Stories of General Warren_; _Life of Dr. John Warren_; the _Warren Genealogy_; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Sept., 1866. The earliest eulogy was that by Perez Morton in 1776 (Loring's _Hundred Boston Orators_, 327; Niles's _Principles and Acts_, 1876, p. 30), and the earliest memoir of any extent was that by A. H. Everett, in Sparks's _Amer. Biography_ (vol. x.). There are reminiscences in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, xii. 113, 234, which were based by Gen. William H. Sumner on some letters published by him in 1825 in the _Boston Patriot_, when, as adjutant-general of the State, he arranged for the appearance of the Bunker Hill veterans in the celebration of that year, and derived some reminiscences from them respecting Warren's appearance and action during the fight. All other accounts of Warren, however, have been eclipsed by Frothingham's _Life of Warren_ (Boston, 1865). In the _Boston Medical and Surgical Journal_ (June 17, 1875), Dr. John Jeffries (son of the surgeon of the British army who saw Warren's body on the field) published a paper on his death. Cf. also R. J. Speirr in Potter's _Amer. Monthly_, v. 571; Frothingham's _Warren_, pp. 519, 523; Barry's _Massachusetts_, i. 37, and references.

The grateful intentions expressed by the Massachusetts House of Representatives (April 4, 1776), by the Continental Congress (April 8, 1777; Sept. 6, 1778; July 1, 1780,—see _Journals of Congress_), and by the Congress of the United States (Jan. 30, 1846,—_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, ii. 337), have never been carried out. Benedict Arnold manifested a special interest in the welfare of Warren's children (_N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, April, 1857, p. 122). The Freemasons erected a pillar to his memory on the battlefield in 1794, which disappeared when the present obelisk was begun in 1825. There is a view of the pillar in the _Analectic Mag._, March, 1818, and in Snow's _Boston_, 309. Cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xiv. 65. A statue of Warren, by Henry Dexter, was placed in a pavilion near the obelisk in 1857. Cf. G. W. Warren's _Hist. of the Bunker Hill Monument Association_; Frothingham's _Warren_, p. 547.]

Among the anniversary discourses upon the battle, a few will bear reading. The earliest was by Josiah Bartlett in 1794, published by B. Edes, in Boston, the next year. Daniel Webster made a famous address at the laying of the corner-stone of the monument in 1825, which can be found in his _Works_, i. 59. (Cf. _Analectic Mag._, vol. xi.; A. Levasseur's _Lafayette en Amérique_, Paris, 1829.) The same orator, at the completion of the monument in 1843, embodied little of historical interest in his Address. (_Works_, i. 89.[568]) Alexander H. Everett's _Address_ in 1836 was subsequently inwoven in his _Life of Warren_. The Rev. George E. Ellis began his conspicuous labors in this field in his discourse in 1841. Edward Everett spoke in 1850 (_Orations_, etc., iii. p. 3), and Gen. Charles Devens, at the Centennial in 1875, delivered an oration, which was published by the city of Boston. The most noteworthy address since that time was that of Robert C. Winthrop at the unveiling of the statue of Colonel William Prescott, June 17, 1881.[569] This statue, of which an engraving will be found in the _Mem. Hist. of Boston_ (iv. 410), stands near the base of the monument.[570]

* * * * *

We turn now to the accounts on the British side. The orderly-books of General Howe are preserved among Lord Dorchester's (Carleton's) Papers in the Royal Institution, London. Sparks made extracts from them, now in no. xlv. of the _Sparks MSS._ in Harvard College library. Extracts relating to the dispositions for the day of the battle, and for subsequent days, are given by Ellis (1843) p. 88.[571] Cf. _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, 1885, p. 214. The more immediate English notes and comments on the battle can be best grouped in a note.[572]

During 1775 there were two English accounts, aiming at something like historical perspective. One of these was, very likely, by Edmund Burke, and was in the _Annual Register_ (p. 133, etc.). The other was _An Impartial and Authentic Narrative of the Battle fought on the 17th of June, 1775, between his Britannic Majesty's Troops and the American Provincial Army on Bunker's Hill near Charles Town in New England_. The author was John Clark, a first lieutenant of marines. He gives a speech of Howe to his men, representing that it was delivered just as he advanced to the attack, but this and much else in the book are considered of doubtful authenticity.[573]

In 1780 there appeared in the _London Chronicle_ some letters by Israel Mauduit, which were republished the same year as _Three letters to Lord Viscount Howe: added, Remarks on the battle of Bunker's Hill_ (London, 1780), which in a second edition (1781) reads additionally in the title, _To which is added a comparative view of the Conduct of Lord Cornwallis and General Howe_. There was among the Chalmers' MSS. (Thorpe's _Supplemental Catal._, 1843, no. 660) a writing entitled _Some particulars of the battle of Bunker's Hill, the situation of the ground_, etc. (8 pp., 1784), which Chalmers calls a "most curious paper in the handwriting of Israel Mauduit, found among his pamphlets, Jan. 23, 1789."

In 1784 William Carter's _Genuine Detail of the Royal and American Armies_ appeared in London. Carter was a lieutenant in the Fortieth Foot, and his book was seemingly reissued in 1785, with a new title-page. (Brinley, no. 1,789; Stevens, _Bibl. Amer._, 1885, nos. 80, 81; Harvard Coll. lib., 6351.16.)

NOTE.—The fac-simile on this page is of a handbill, printed in Boston, giving the tory side of the fight at Bunker Hill,—after an original in the library of the Mass. Hist. Society.]

In the _Mass. Magazine_, Sept., 1789, there is a view of Charlestown, showing Bunker's and Breed's hills, with their original contours. It is reproduced in _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 554, with a note upon other early views. Frothingham (_Siege_, p. 121) gives one from an early manuscript which closely resembles the topography of the Rawdon sketch; and again (_Centennial_, etc.) another which is in fact the perspective sketch of the town at the edge of Price's view of Boston (1743), converted into a panoramic picture (_Mem. Hist. of Boston_, ii. 329).

The _Gentleman's Mag._, Feb., 1790, has a view of Charlestown, with the tents of the British army on the hill, taken after the battle, and from Copp's Hill. It shows the wharves and ruins of the town. (Cf. note in _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 88.)]

The account of the loyalist Jones (_N. Y. during the Rev._, i. 52) has his usual twist of vision, though he is severe on Gage for "taking the bull by the horns" in making an attack in front.

Sketched from a plan by Montresor, showing the redoubt erected by the British, after June 17, on the higher eminence of Bunker Hill. The original is in the library of Congress, where is a plan on a large scale of this principal redoubt.]

The long list of general histories on the British side, detailing the events of the battle, begins with Murray's _Impartial Hist. of the War_ (London, 1778; Newcastle, 1782), and is made up during the rest of that century by the _Hist. of the War_ published at Dublin (1779-85); Hall's _Civil War in America_ (1780); _The Detail and Conduct of the Amer. War_ (1780); Andrews's _Hist. of the War_ (1785, vol. i. 301,—quoted at length by Ryerson, _Loyalists_, i. 461); Stedman, _Hist. Amer. War_ (London, 1794, vol. i. 125). The best of the later historians is Mahon (_Hist. of England_, vi.), who was forced to admit, when pressed upon the question, that the American claims of victory, which he says they have always held, appear only in the reports of later British tourists (vol. vi., App. xxix.). Lecky, in his brief account (_England in the Eighteenth Century_, iii. 463), makes an intention of Gage to fortify the Charlestown and not the Dorchester heights the incentive to the American occupation of the former. Edw. Bernard's _History of England_ (London) has a curious "View of the Attack on Bunker's Hill, with the burning of Charlestown."

Something confirmatory, rather than of original value, can be gained from the histories of various regiments which took part in the battle, as detailed in the series of _Historical Records_ of such regiments.[574]

* * * * *

The battle almost immediately found commemoration in British ballads (_Hist. Mag._, ii. 58; v. 251; Hale's _Hundred Years Ago_, p. 7), and the slain were commemorated in elegiac verses, as in M. M. Robinson's _To a young lady, on the death of her brother, slain in the late engagement at Boston_ (London, 1776). The same year there appeared at Philadelphia _The Battle of Bunker's Hill, a dramatic piece in five acts, in heroic measure, by a gentleman of Maryland_.

NOTE.—The references in the corner of this cut, too fine to be easily read in this reduced fac-simile, are as follows:—

"_A A._ First position, where the troops remained until reinforcements arrived.

_B B._ Second position.

_C C C._ Ground on which the different regiments marched to form the line.

_D D._ Direction in which the attack was made upon the redoubt and breastwork.

_E E._ Position of a part of the 47th and marines, to silence the fire of a barn at E.

_F._ First position of the cannon.

_G._ Second position of the cannon in advancing with the grenadiers, but stopped by the marsh.

_H._ Breastwork formed of pickets, hay, stones, etc., with the pieces of cannon.

_I I._ Light infantry advancing along the shore to force the right of the breastwork _H_.

_L L._ The "Lively" and "Falcon" hauled close to shore, to rake the low grounds before the troops advanced.

_M M._ Gondolas that fired on the rebels in their retreat.

_N._ Battery of cannon, howitzers, and mortars on Copp's Hill, that battered the redoubt and set fire to Charlestown.

_O O O._ The rebels behind all the stone walls, trees, and brush-wood, and their numbers uncertain, having constantly large columns to reinforce them during the action.

_P._ Place from whence the grenadiers received a very heavy fire.

_Q._ Place of the fifty-second regiment on the night of the 17th.

_R._ Forty-seventh regiment, in Charlestown, on the night of the 17th.

_S._ Detachments in the mill and two storehouses.

_T._ Breastwork thrown up by the remainder of the troops on the night of the 17th.

_Note._ The distance from Boston to Charlestown is about 550 yards."]

Its author is said to be Hugh Henry Brackenridge, and the frontispiece, "The Death of Warren", by Norman, is held to be the earliest engraving in British America by a native artist (Hunnewell, p. 13; Brinley, no. 1,787; Sabin, ii. 7,184; xiv. 58,640). In 1779 there was printed at Danvers, _America Invincible, an heroic poem, in two books: a Battle at Bunker Hill, by an officer of rank in the Continental army_ (Hunnewell, p. 13). In 1781 an anonymous poem was published in London, known later to be the production of George Cockings, and called _The American War, in which the names of the officers who have distinguished themselves during the war are introduced_ (Brinley, no. 1,788; Hunnewell, p. 14). Of later use of the battle in fiction, it is only necessary to name Cooper's novel of _Lionel Lincoln_ and O. W. Holmes's _Grandmother's Story of Bunker Hill Battle_ (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, 1875, p. 33).

* * * * *

The chief enumerations which have been heretofore made of the plans of the battle of Bunker Hill are by Frothingham, in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xiv. 53; by Hunnewell in his _Bibliog. of Charlestown_, p. 17; and by Winsor in the _Mem. Hist. of Boston_, iii. (introduction). The earliest rude sketches are by Stiles in his diary (Dawson, p. 393), and one formed by printer's rules in _Rivington's Gazetteer_, Aug. 3, 1775 (Frothingham's _Siege_, p. 397, and Dawson, p. 390). Montresor, of the British engineers, very soon made a survey of the field, and this was used by Lieutenant Page in drawing a plan of the action, which he carried to England with him when, on account of wounds received while acting as an aid to Howe, he was given leave of absence (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, June, 1875, p. 56). In the Faden collection (nos. 25-30) of maps in the library of Congress there are Page's rough and finished plans, drawn before the British works on the hill were begun, and also plans by Montresor and R. W., of the Welsh Fusiliers. Page's plan, as engraved, was issued in London in 1776, and called _A Plan of the Action at Bunker's Hill_.[575]

Page's, however, was not the first engraved. One "by an officer on the spot" was published in London, Nov. 27, 1775, called _Plan of the battle on Bunker's Hill. Fought on the 17th of June_, which was issued as a broadside, with Burgoyne's letter to Lord Stanley on the same sheet. The central position of the Americans is called "Warren's redoubt." This is reproduced in F. Moore's _Ballad History of the Revolution_.

Another contemporary British plan—discovered probably "in the baggage of a British officer", after the royal troops left Boston in March, 1776, but not brought to light till forty years later, when it was mentioned in a newspaper in Wilkesbarre, Penn., as having been found in an old drawer—was one made by Henry de Bernière, of the Tenth Royal Infantry, on nearly the same scale as Page's, but less accurately.

(_Impartial History_, _etc._, 1781.) ]

It was engraved in 1818 in the _Analectic Magazine_ (Philad., p. 150), and a fac-simile of that engraving is annexed. The text accompanying it states that its general accuracy had been vouched for by Governor Brooks, General Dearborn, Dr. A. Dexter, Deacon Thos. Miller, John Kettell, Dr. Bartlett, the Hon. James Winthrop, and Mr. [Judge] Prescott. General Dearborn and Deacon Miller thought the rail fence too far in the rear of the redoubt, having been really nearly in the line of it. Judge Winthrop and Dr. Bartlett thought the map in this particular correct. There was the same division of belief regarding the cannon behind the fence, Dearborn and Miller believing there were none there, Brooks and Winthrop holding the contrary. Other witnesses represented to the editor of the _Magazine_ that there was no interval between the breastwork and the fence, but that an imperfect line of defence connected the redoubt with the Mystick shore, as represented in Stedman's (Page's) map.[576]

In the _Portfolio_ (March, 1818) General Dearborn criticised the plan (Dawson, p. 406), and, using the same plate in his separate issue of his comments, he imposed in red his ideas of the position of the works, and this was in turn criticised by Governor Brooks.[577] Mr. G. G. Smith made a (plan) _Sketch of the Battle of Bunker Hill by a British Officer_ (Boston, 1843), which grew out of the plan and the comments on it. Bernière's plan was also used by Colonel Swett as the basis of the one which he published in his _History of the Battle of Bunker Hill_ (1828, 1826, 1827), which has been frequently copied (Ellis, Lossing, etc.). The latest attempt to map the phases of the action critically is by Carrington in his _Battles of the Revolution_ (p. 112), who gives an eclectic plan. Plans adopting the features of earlier ones are in the English translation of Botta's _War of Independence_, Grant's _British Battles_ (ii. 144). A plan of the present condition of the ground, by Thomas W. Davis, superposing the line of the American works, is given in the Bunker Hill Monument Association's _Proceedings_ (1876). A map of Charlestown in 1775 with a plan of the battle was prepared and published in 1875 by James E. Stone. A plan of the works as reconstructed by the British, and deserted by them in March, 1776, is given in Carter's _Genuine detail_, etc. (London, 1784), which is reproduced in Frothingham's _Siege_, p. 330. Other MS. plans of their works on both hills are in the Faden maps in the library of Congress.

Before the war closed a plan was engraved by Norman, a Boston engraver, which is the earliest to appear near the scene itself. This was a _Plan of the town of Boston with the attack on Bunker's Hill, in the peninsula of Charlestown, on June 17, 1775_ (measuring 11-1/2 × 7 inches), which is, however, of no topographical value as respects the action. It appeared in Murray's _Impartial History_ (1778), i. p. 430, and in An Impartial History of the War in America (Boston, 1781, vol. i.), and a reduced fac-simile of it is annexed.[578]

=C.= THE AMERICAN CAMP.—A variety of journals and diaries have been preserved, the best known of which is that of Dr. Thacher, a surgeon on Prospect Hill.[579]

The daily life of the Cambridge camp is best seen in the letters sent from it, and foremost in interest among such are those of Washington.[580] From the Roxbury camp there are letters of General Thomas in the _Thomas Papers_, where is one of Dr. John Morgan, the medical director. Several from Jedediah Huntington are preserved in the Trumbull Papers, and are printed in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, xlix.[581] The principal letters from the Winter Hill camp are those of General Sullivan,[582] and a few have been printed written at the Prospect Hill camp.[583]

Something of the spirit prevailing in Watertown, where the Provincial Congress was sitting, can be seen in the letters of James Warren and Samuel Cooper.[584]

There are in the library of the Amer. Antiq. Soc. at Worcester several orderly-books of the siege,[585] and others are preserved elsewhere.[586]

* * * * *

=D.= THE BRITISH CAMP.—The condition of Boston during the siege must be learned from various sources. The _Boston News-Letter_ was still published, but numbers of it are very scarce for this period, and no other of the Boston newspapers continued to be published in the town.[587] It was a convenient vehicle for the British generals, and any morsel of news likely to be distasteful to the patriots, like the intercepted correspondence of Washington and John Adams, was pretty sure to reach the American lines through its columns. The correspondence of the generals is preserved in the British Archives and in the papers at the Royal Institution (London), and occasionally some few letters, like those of Percy in the Boston Public Library, have been found elsewhere. It is charged that Gage's papers were stolen in Boston.[588] Some new glimpses were got when Fonblanque published his _Life of Burgoyne_.[589] The best accounts of the succession of events in the town and the daily life are found in Dr. Ellis's "Chronicles of the Siege",[590] and in Mr. Horace E. Scudder's "Life in Boston during the Siege", a chapter in the _Memorial Hist. of Boston_, vol. iii.,[591] which may be consulted (p. 154) for various sources respecting the details of the privations and amusements of the people and the garrison, and of the vicissitudes of its buildings and landmarks.[592] An account of the British works in Boston is given in Frothingham's _Siege of Boston_, and the _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 79. The current record of the outposts, etc., is noted in Moore's _Diary of the Rev._, 109, etc. Carrington (_Battles_, 154) refers to a MS. narrative of experiences in the town by one Edw. Stow. Some of the correspondence of the Boston selectmen with Thomas, at Roxbury, is in the _Thomas Papers_. It is, however, to the diaries, letters, and orderly-books which have been preserved that we must go for the details of life in the beleaguered town.[593]

=E.= BOSTON EVACUATED.—The letters of Washington[594] best enable us to follow the movements, but they may be supplemented by other contemporary accounts.[595]

Howe's despatch to Dartmouth, dated Nantasket Roads, is in Dawson, i. 94.[596] His conduct of the siege is criticised in _A view of the evidence relative to the Conduct of the American War_ (1779). Contemporary dissatisfaction was expressed in an ironical congratulatory poem published in London (Sabin, iv., 15,476).

One Crean Brush,[597] acting under orders of Howe, endeavored to carry off the merchandise from the stores of the town, so far as he could, on a vessel put at his disposal. Howe's proclamation in his favor is in fac-simile in the _Mem. Hist. of Boston_, iii. 97. Brush's vessel was later captured by Manly (_Evacuation Memorial_, 166). Similar experience in trying to escape with his merchandise was suffered by Jolley Allen, as portrayed in his _Account of a part of his sufferings and losses_, ed. by C. C. Smith, given in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Feb., 1878, and separately. Allen's narrative was reprinted in the spelling of the original MS. in _An Account of a part of the sufferings and losses of Jolley Allen, a native of London, with a preface and Notes by Mrs. Frances Mary Stoddard_ (Boston, 1883). An inventory of the stores left by the British is in the _Siege of Boston_, 406.[598] In the cabinet of this society is a handbill adopted by the freeholders of Boston, Nov. 18 [1776?], calling upon all who had suffered in property in Boston since March, 1775, to report the same to a committee.[599]

Washington's instructions (April 4, 1776) to Ward are in the printed _Heath Papers_, P. 4. The Mass. legislature, April 30, 1776, ordered beacons to be set at Cape Ann, Marblehead, and Blue Hill, ready to be fired in case of the enemy's reappearing, which was for a long time dreaded. Ward writes to Washington of his measures in progress.[600]

The correspondence of John Adams and John Winthrop (_Mass. Hist. Coll._, xlv.) shows constant anxiety lest the defences should not be prepared in case of need.[601]

The westerly half of the map in the octavo atlas of Marshall's _Washington_, which is a reduction of the map in the earlier quarto atlas (1804). It is reproduced in the French translations of Marshall and of Botta.]

The cut on the title of the present volume represents one side of the medal given by Congress to Washington, to commemorate his raising the siege of Boston.[602]