Now such efficient, uncontrolled, command—without, however, this discrimination—is positively asserted by the contemporary evidence and sustained by subsequent depositions. Thus James Thatcher says: "The incomparable Colonel Prescott marched at the head of the detachment, and though several general officers were present he retained the command during the action." John Pitts says: "No one appeared to have any command but Colonel Prescott, whose bravery can never be enough acknowledgedand applauded." Peter Thatcher says that he "commanded the provincials." William Tudor says "Colonel Prescott appeared to have been the chief." To this may be added subsequent statements. I select, here, only two. Judge Prescott states that no general officer "ever exercised or claimed any authority or control over him, before or in the battle;" and the anecdotes he gives, as woven into the narrative in the Siege of Boston, harmonize with this independent command. Several of the soldiers mention his efficiency in glowing terms. Thus the brave Captain Bancroft, in the redoubt, says: "He continued throughout the hottest of the fight to display admirable coolness and a self-possession that would do honor to the greatest hero of any age. He gave his orders deliberately, and how effectually they were obeyed I need not tell." What the estimate of his services by his contemporaries was, may be gathered from the enthusiastic remark of Samuel Adams, (Sept. 26, 1775,)—"Until I visited headquarters, at Cambridge, I never heard of the valor of Prescott at Bunker Hill." "Too much praise," Heath also says, "can never be bestowed on the conduct of Colonel William Prescott."
Colonel Prescott continued in the service through the year 1776; distinguished himself again at the memorable retreat from the city of New York, and served under Gates at the capture of Burgoyne. He died at Pepperell, Oct. 13, 1795. A simple tablet over his grave marks the place where his ashes repose. It is time that a monument worthy of his deeds should be erected to his memory.
Such were the parts which general officers, on or off the field, performed in this memorable battle. ColonelPrescott, acting under written orders, was regularly detailed for the service of fortifying Bunker Hill, and, from the time he ordered ground to be broken until he ordered the ground to be abandoned, he kept at the original entrenchments, and acted the part of a commanding officer, no general officer giving him an order, and none having been ordered to supercede him; GeneralWarren, a volunteer in spite of the affection that would have kept him from the field, without having any special command, remained in the redoubt and fought side by side with Prescott; GeneralPomeroy, fighting with a bravery worthy of his veteran renown, but with no special command, remained at the rail fence; GeneralPutnam, in the regular command of the Connecticut troops stationed at Cambridge, was active, energetic and fearless throughout, ordering them on to the field, giving orders to other troops, and aiding and encouraging, as a patriotic volunteer, wherever his services seem to have been required; and GeneralWard, keeping at his headquarters, having frequent communication with the battle field, directed the general movements of the troops to such a degree that, at the time, he was regarded as the responsible general commander. Such seems to be the conclusion which the evidence warrants.
But if to no one can be assigned a general command of all the troops in the battle, yet to all may be justly and gratefully assigned the award of having done a great work, which made an immediate mark on events. The Americans were victorious enough to answer every purpose that was necessary for the good of their cause—the British were not beaten badly enough to prompt the ministry to resolve upon a crushing blow. Indeed, the importance of this service can hardly be overrated. The Americans, with defences, soon to become so formidable, hardly commenced, for there were but slight defences on Cambridge road, and slighter still at Roxbury—with their inefficient organization—with their scanty supply of ammunition—were hardly in a condition to act either offensively or defensively; while the ten thousand veterans in Boston, supplied with every art of war, were in high discipline, arrogant in their confidence, and exasperated at the presumption of the "rebel" force in pretending to hold them in a state of siege. Suppose Prescott, and Warren, and Pomeroy, and Putnam, had been of less resolute hearts; suppose the patriot band instead of their steady valor, and wonderful execution, had made but a feeble defence and left the works; suppose about three o'clock on the memorable seventeenth of June a panic had commenced on Breed's Hill—what might not have been the disastrous result! The whole British army in Boston was under arms and ready for any service. Only about a third of it, say three thousand, was in the first attack. Had Howe gone uninterruptedly forward, instead of the astounding repulse, and rushed over Bunker Hill, and so onward, General Gage would have seen that no more of his troops were needed there; and the seven thousand remaining in Boston, with Clinton and Burgoyne to lead them, would have been ready for other work. It was no chimera of General Ward that the enemy might concentrate his force in Cambridge.
But the work done on Breed's Hill stopped all this. In less than an hour and a half more than a thousand gallant British veterans, who certainly behaved with remarkable courage, lay maimed or dead, on this bloody field. Such an unlooked for, astounding result, shook out of the British generals their arrogance and confidence, and changed boldness into timidity; while it filled the Americans with nerve and resolution. Contemporary language, uttered in the camp, shows best the effect of the action—"The battle has been of infinite service," writes one; "Our troops are in high spirits and their resolution increases," writes another; "I wish we could sell them another hill at the same price," writes a third. William Tudor, (June 26, 1775,) tells the whole in a few words—"The unanimous voice is, if the continent approve and assist, we will die or be free. The sword is drawn, and the scabbard thrown away, till it can be sheathed with security and honor." So true is the remark of Daniel Webster, that when the sun went down that day there could not be peace except on the basis ofAmerican Independence.
Note.—Mr. Swett has made much account of the entry in Stiles's Diary of June 20, 1775. I therefore print that portion of it relating to the Bunker Hill Battle:—
"June 20, 1775. Mr. William Ellery came in last evening from Providence, and showed me a copy of His Excellency Gen. Ward's letter of Saturday morning last, to the congress, informing the landing of the king's troops. Also a letter from the Chamber of Supplies, and another from Gen. Greene to Lieut. Gov. Cook, dated on Lord's day evening, giving an account of the battle. Gen. Greene saysGen. Putnam with 300 men took possessionand entrenched on Bunker Hill on Friday night the 16th. The Chamber of Supplies says thatSaturday morning early, the king's troops landed on the bank of that hill, under discharge of cannon from the ships of the line drawn up before Charlestown, and from the battery on Copp's Hill in Boston. That afterwards they attacked General Putnam, who defended himself with bravery till overpowered and obliged to retreat—that the loss was not ascertained, but more of the enemy was killed than of us. Gen. Greene says that Gen. Ward had published from headquarters that our loss was about 40 killed and 100 wounded, and that the enemy's loss was judged three times as much. Greene seemed to doubt this at first, but from after enquiry, and considering that Putnam fired from the trenches, and that it was said the dead of the enemy covered an acre of ground, Gen. Greene seemed rather to credit the superior loss of the regulars.Upon news of the action or landing, the congress instantly broke up, and those who had arms repaired to the field of action. Hence Dr Warren's being in the action where he fell dying gloriously. Others went off each way into the towns to rally and convene the militia, which poured in vast multitudes to sustain the army if necessary. A cannonade was also began from the Neck, firing red-hot balls, &c. upon Roxbury. And this firing was continued all Saturday, Lord's day and yesterday, and was heard at Dighton, Warren, &c. Mr. Cook, of Tiverton, came from the camp, where he yesterday morning was on Winter Hill, and there saw Gen. Putnam entrenching and in good spirits, being fully reinforced. All are expecting another action."
"June 20, 1775. Mr. William Ellery came in last evening from Providence, and showed me a copy of His Excellency Gen. Ward's letter of Saturday morning last, to the congress, informing the landing of the king's troops. Also a letter from the Chamber of Supplies, and another from Gen. Greene to Lieut. Gov. Cook, dated on Lord's day evening, giving an account of the battle. Gen. Greene saysGen. Putnam with 300 men took possessionand entrenched on Bunker Hill on Friday night the 16th. The Chamber of Supplies says thatSaturday morning early, the king's troops landed on the bank of that hill, under discharge of cannon from the ships of the line drawn up before Charlestown, and from the battery on Copp's Hill in Boston. That afterwards they attacked General Putnam, who defended himself with bravery till overpowered and obliged to retreat—that the loss was not ascertained, but more of the enemy was killed than of us. Gen. Greene says that Gen. Ward had published from headquarters that our loss was about 40 killed and 100 wounded, and that the enemy's loss was judged three times as much. Greene seemed to doubt this at first, but from after enquiry, and considering that Putnam fired from the trenches, and that it was said the dead of the enemy covered an acre of ground, Gen. Greene seemed rather to credit the superior loss of the regulars.
Upon news of the action or landing, the congress instantly broke up, and those who had arms repaired to the field of action. Hence Dr Warren's being in the action where he fell dying gloriously. Others went off each way into the towns to rally and convene the militia, which poured in vast multitudes to sustain the army if necessary. A cannonade was also began from the Neck, firing red-hot balls, &c. upon Roxbury. And this firing was continued all Saturday, Lord's day and yesterday, and was heard at Dighton, Warren, &c. Mr. Cook, of Tiverton, came from the camp, where he yesterday morning was on Winter Hill, and there saw Gen. Putnam entrenching and in good spirits, being fully reinforced. All are expecting another action."
FOOTNOTES[A]Mr Swett, on the publication of the Siege of Boston, favored me with the following note, which, in another note written subsequently to the publication of his pamphlet, he informed me was intended for publication. Under the present circumstances I hope to be excused for printing it:—"Richard Frothingham, Jr., Esq.,—My dear Sir: For your history of the Siege of Boston I am very much obliged to you. Without time to have read it critically, I find it a remarkable monument of diligent and successful research, candor, impartiality and judgment. It is a very valuable addition to history. The subject of Bunker Hill battle I thought I had exhausted thirty years ago, but your additional information is interesting and important. We differ on one point only I believe worth mentioning, and that important only as a matter of curiosity, the commander in the battle, which we may discuss hereafter.With friendly regard and respect,S. Swett."[B]I am indebted to Hon. Charles Francis Adams for the three letters from which these extracts are made.[C]Here I quote an extract from p. 169 of theSiege of Boston. To sustain the statement I have before me several pages (MS.) in which the notices of General Putnam's movements to be found in the soldiers' statements, are compared with such contemporary notices of his conduct as I have been able to glean. I see no cause to alter a line of it:—"The mass of matter relative to General Putnam's movements on this day presents the following account of them as the most probable. On the evening of June 16, he joined the detachment at Charlestown Neck; took part in the consultation as to the place to be fortified; returned in the night to Cambridge; went to the heights on the firing of the Lively, but immediately returned to Cambridge; went again to the heights about ten o'clock; was in Cambridge after the British landed; ordered on the Connecticut troops, and then went to the heights; was at the rail fence at the time the action commenced; was in the heat of the battle, and during its continuance made great efforts to induce the reinforcements to advance to the lines; urged labor on works at Bunker Hill; was on the brow of this hill when the retreat took place; retreated with that part of the army that went to Prospect Hill, and remained here through the night. He was on horseback, and in a few minutes' space of time could be not only in any part of the heights, but even at Cambridge. It is not, therefore, at all strange, that statements made by the soldiers as to the time when, and the place where, they saw the general, amid the confusion of so terrific a scene, cannot be reconciled; and more especially as these statements were made after an expiration of forty or fifty years."
[A]Mr Swett, on the publication of the Siege of Boston, favored me with the following note, which, in another note written subsequently to the publication of his pamphlet, he informed me was intended for publication. Under the present circumstances I hope to be excused for printing it:—"Richard Frothingham, Jr., Esq.,—My dear Sir: For your history of the Siege of Boston I am very much obliged to you. Without time to have read it critically, I find it a remarkable monument of diligent and successful research, candor, impartiality and judgment. It is a very valuable addition to history. The subject of Bunker Hill battle I thought I had exhausted thirty years ago, but your additional information is interesting and important. We differ on one point only I believe worth mentioning, and that important only as a matter of curiosity, the commander in the battle, which we may discuss hereafter.With friendly regard and respect,S. Swett."[B]I am indebted to Hon. Charles Francis Adams for the three letters from which these extracts are made.[C]Here I quote an extract from p. 169 of theSiege of Boston. To sustain the statement I have before me several pages (MS.) in which the notices of General Putnam's movements to be found in the soldiers' statements, are compared with such contemporary notices of his conduct as I have been able to glean. I see no cause to alter a line of it:—"The mass of matter relative to General Putnam's movements on this day presents the following account of them as the most probable. On the evening of June 16, he joined the detachment at Charlestown Neck; took part in the consultation as to the place to be fortified; returned in the night to Cambridge; went to the heights on the firing of the Lively, but immediately returned to Cambridge; went again to the heights about ten o'clock; was in Cambridge after the British landed; ordered on the Connecticut troops, and then went to the heights; was at the rail fence at the time the action commenced; was in the heat of the battle, and during its continuance made great efforts to induce the reinforcements to advance to the lines; urged labor on works at Bunker Hill; was on the brow of this hill when the retreat took place; retreated with that part of the army that went to Prospect Hill, and remained here through the night. He was on horseback, and in a few minutes' space of time could be not only in any part of the heights, but even at Cambridge. It is not, therefore, at all strange, that statements made by the soldiers as to the time when, and the place where, they saw the general, amid the confusion of so terrific a scene, cannot be reconciled; and more especially as these statements were made after an expiration of forty or fifty years."
[A]Mr Swett, on the publication of the Siege of Boston, favored me with the following note, which, in another note written subsequently to the publication of his pamphlet, he informed me was intended for publication. Under the present circumstances I hope to be excused for printing it:—
"Richard Frothingham, Jr., Esq.,—
My dear Sir: For your history of the Siege of Boston I am very much obliged to you. Without time to have read it critically, I find it a remarkable monument of diligent and successful research, candor, impartiality and judgment. It is a very valuable addition to history. The subject of Bunker Hill battle I thought I had exhausted thirty years ago, but your additional information is interesting and important. We differ on one point only I believe worth mentioning, and that important only as a matter of curiosity, the commander in the battle, which we may discuss hereafter.
With friendly regard and respect,S. Swett."
[B]I am indebted to Hon. Charles Francis Adams for the three letters from which these extracts are made.
[C]Here I quote an extract from p. 169 of theSiege of Boston. To sustain the statement I have before me several pages (MS.) in which the notices of General Putnam's movements to be found in the soldiers' statements, are compared with such contemporary notices of his conduct as I have been able to glean. I see no cause to alter a line of it:—"The mass of matter relative to General Putnam's movements on this day presents the following account of them as the most probable. On the evening of June 16, he joined the detachment at Charlestown Neck; took part in the consultation as to the place to be fortified; returned in the night to Cambridge; went to the heights on the firing of the Lively, but immediately returned to Cambridge; went again to the heights about ten o'clock; was in Cambridge after the British landed; ordered on the Connecticut troops, and then went to the heights; was at the rail fence at the time the action commenced; was in the heat of the battle, and during its continuance made great efforts to induce the reinforcements to advance to the lines; urged labor on works at Bunker Hill; was on the brow of this hill when the retreat took place; retreated with that part of the army that went to Prospect Hill, and remained here through the night. He was on horseback, and in a few minutes' space of time could be not only in any part of the heights, but even at Cambridge. It is not, therefore, at all strange, that statements made by the soldiers as to the time when, and the place where, they saw the general, amid the confusion of so terrific a scene, cannot be reconciled; and more especially as these statements were made after an expiration of forty or fifty years."
Transcriber's notesClear printer's errors were corrected, but original spelling was not modified.
Clear printer's errors were corrected, but original spelling was not modified.