Dearborn-Putnam controversy

The Dearborn-Putnam controversy erupted in 1818 when Henry Dearborn published a post-war account of General Israel Putnam's performance during the Battle of Bunker Hill in 1775. Both Putnam and the much younger Dearborn were present before and during the battle, with Dearborn at the front lines while Putnam was about the battle scene directing troops and overseeing the construction of fortifications before the fighting began. Accounts of Putnam's presence during the battle, however, have varied among veteran officers of the battle and some historians. During the battle, there was a fair amount of disorganization among the hastily assembled Continental Army and militia, making it difficult for any one participant to give an overall assessment of everyone's performance.

The actual controversy was sparked 43 years after the battle, when Dearborn published his account of the battle in a widely read political magazine accusing the deceased Putnam of failing to supply reinforcements, inaction, and cowardice. The sons of both Dearborn and Putnam defended their respective fathers' positions, while various Revolutionary War veterans also lent their support respectively. Along with Dearborn, both Republicans and Federalists, now bitter rivals, saw the controversy as an opportunity to advance their party and win the favor of the general public. Dearborn's efforts, however, were largely not well received and cost him his bid for the governorship of Massachusetts. His accusations resulted in a political and social controversy that was widely covered in the press and in several publications from officers present at the battle. Dearborn's accusations were also addressed by several notable public figures, including Daniel Webster. As such, the controversy remained prominent in the public eye for more than 30 years.

Putnam and Dearborn at the Battle of Bunker Hill

The Battle of Bunker Hill occurred on June 17, 1775, in the early stages of the American Revolutionary War, when the American forces as a whole were not yet a fully organized army. After the Siege of Boston, the British needed to secure control of the Charlestown Peninsula overlooking Boston from the north across the Mystic River, giving them command of Boston Harbor and ultimately Boston itself. The Committee of Safety learned a few days in advance that the British were going to try to occupy Dorchester Heights and Charlestown Peninsula. The Patriot forces decided to take the offensive, occupy the peninsula, fortify it, and deny the British the advantage of this important and strategic location. Moran, 1985,
Valley Compatriot Newsletter Word of British intentions spread fast among the colonies. Bobrick, 1997, p. 140 General Thomas Gage mistakenly assumed that taking the peninsula from untrained colonial "rebels" would be an easy task.

Preparation

Dearborn, at age 23, organized and led a local militia troop of 60 men from New Hampshire upon hearing the news of the battles at Lexington and Concord, and joined up with Colonel John Stark's 1st New Hampshire Regiment. They eventually arrived at Charlestown shortly after the British had begun firing their cannon at the American positions. General Putnam, second in command to Colonel William Prescott, Smith, 1976, p.511 and reportedly eager for battle, was already at Cambridge before the battle with 250 of his men from Connecticut. Ferling, 2015, pp. 127–129 During this time, he received a private proposal from British Commanding General Howe that, if he would relinquish the rebel forces under his command, he would be made a Major-General in the British Army and be compensated for his effort. Putnam kept the matter private, but pointedly rejected the offer.

On June 16, Colonel Prescott assembled 1200 men from various regiments and companies, Ferling, 2015, p. 127 acting on orders from General Artemas Ward, and departed from Cambridge at 9:00 that evening. Smith, 1976, p.512 Putnam had procured the various entrenching tools and materials needed for building the fortifications, had them loaded into wagons, and proceeded to Charlestown with Prescott. There was some disorganization among the colonial troops, some of them with no commanding officers to lead them, along with disagreement among some of the officers as to how and where to prepare for battle. After a two-hour meeting at Charlestown Neck, Putnam and Colonel Richard Gridley, an army engineer, had persuaded Prescott to fortify Breeds Hill rather than Bunker Hill as originally planned.

The American troops crossed Charlestown neck and proceeded up the gentle slopes of Bunker Hill. From there Prescott, for reasons that were never made completely clear, went against orders, assembled a separate party of 1200 men and continued on two hundred yards further down the peninsula to Breed's Hill and under cover of darkness began construction of a redoubt and a rail fence that extended to Mystic River, with Gridley in command of construction, while the secondary fortifications were constructed on Bunker Hill. McCabe, 1871, p.249 This later proved to be a major tactical error.

With construction of fortifications nearly completed Colonel Prescott offered General Putnam command in the redoubt, but he declined. Instead, Putnam kept busy riding between Bunker and Breed's Hill and about the rail fence acting as a guide and directing troops. Drake, 1875, p. 18 Middlekauff, 2005, p. 291 Just prior to the battle, General Putnam came back to the redoubt, and urged Prescott that the entrenching tools should be sent back and used to fortify Bunker Hill or they would be extremely difficult to secure or lost during the throes of battle. Prescott was concerned that if he sent men to carry them away they would not return. Putnam assured Prescott that they would all return. A large party was then sent off with the tools, after which Prescott's fears were confirmed—not one of the men returned, including Putnam. Coffin, 1831, p. 4

Battle

By daybreak the British became aware of the nearly completed redoubt and opened fire with cannon from ships and the floating batteries that almost surrounded Charlestown Peninsula, and from the battery on Copp's Hill, but with little effect. Middlekauff, 2005, p. 291 When it was certain that the British would attack soon, Putnam took flight to Cambridge on horseback to request badly needed supplies and reinforcements from General Ward, but since Charleston Neck was under heavy fire from British ships, and fearing that General Gage might make his principal attack at Cambridge, at this time Ward, not wanting to weaken his troop strength, only released one-third of Stark's regiment for deployment at Charlestown.

At 12:00 on July 17 British troops began crossing the harbor on barges from Boston and landed at Morton's Point on the peninsula, southeast from Breed's Hill. By 2:00 o'clock they had landed between 3000 and 4000 men, under the command of General Howe. Putnam's regiments then began marching for the peninsula across Charlestown neck under heavy cannon fire from British ships, where they arrived, fatigued from marching. At this point Colonel Stark and Captain Dearborn arrived with their troops from New Hampshire and joined in with Prescott's troops, increasing American troop strength to about 1600. Stark's regiment was positioned at the rail fence with Dearbonn in his right wing. Peckham, 2009, p. 5

The British Regulars made three attempts to take the fortified positions on Breed's Hill. The first two attempts proved to be a dismal failure with many British officers and infantry killed and wounded. Orders were given not to fire upon the advancing British regulars until they were within fifty yards of the rebel fortifications. Some of the rebels made concerted efforts to spot and pick off British officers. Dearborn was positioned on the right at the rail fence, which he claims gave him a fair view of the entire battle. Historian Richard Frothingham and Colonel Samuel Swett claim that General Putnam was at the redoubt during the first attack, but after the failed assault rode to the rear to call for reinforcements. Prescott, realizing ammunition was getting low and needed to be conserved, instructed his men to fire at the advancing British only when they could see the whites of their eyes. When ammunition began to run out fire from the colonials almost came to a stop, where the British regulars charged the fortifications, with fixed bayonets. The Americans, very few of them outfitted with bayonets, began a hasty retreat, many of them unable to escape as the British regulars were on them too quickly, and a bloody hand-to-hand combat ensued. The British continued a merciless fire on the retreating colonials. This is when Joseph Warren, shot in the face at close range, was killed. Middlekauff, 2005, p.298 The British had won a tactical victory but had suffered many more casualties than did the American forces.

Retreat

During the retreat Dearborn came upon Putnam behind the front lines at Bunker Hill who was still tending to the entrenching tools, one in hand, having them sent from Breeds hill before the battle had begun. Major Andrew McClary also saw Putnam on Bunker-hill during the retreat with a spade in his hand. Putnam was observed by several men in this capacity, including Major General William Heath, whose account of the battle he published in his memoirs in 1798. There are other historical accounts however that claim Putnam was covering the rebels retreating from Breed's Hill while he was at Bunker Hill, urging them to "make a stand here", and renew the fight at the unfinished breastworks.

Dearborn later contended that the battle could have been won if Putnam, who commanded a force approximately equal to that on the front lines, had advanced with his troops. He also maintained that the final advance by the British was with great difficulty and had the American forces at the front lines not run out of ammunition the British would have lost the greater part of their army, compelling them to lay down their arms. After the battle any chance of reconciliation with the British was now gone as the heavy losses they incurred only strengthened their resolve to crush the rebellion.

Controversy

The controversy began in 1818, 43 years after the Battle of Bunker Hill, when Henry Dearborn, who at the time was a Major General, published an account of his experience as a young captain at Bunker Hill in the April 1818 edition of ''The Port Folio'', a Philadelphia-based publication and leading political journal. At the time Dearborn was running for governor of Massachusetts against the incumbent John Brooks. Being a Republican in a largely Federalist state, Dearborn badly needed favorable press on his side. When Charles Miner, the editor of ''The Port Folio'', asked Dearborn to verify and edit a British soldier's map depicting the Battle of Bunker Hill, he jumped at the opportunity. However Dearborn went further than that and gave a 14-page account of the battle. Covart, 2013 In the process he accused the now deceased General Putnam, a popular patriot and Revolutionary War veteran, of incompetence, cowardly leadership and failing to provide support for the retreating American troops. Cray, 2001, p.23 Dearborn's accusations were completely unexpected and generally frowned upon, causing a political and a soon to be social controversy throughout New York and New England that lasted generations.

Putnam's son, Colonel Daniel Putnam, angered by what he regarded as an unprovoked attack on his deceased father's character, came to his defense in a later issue of ''The Port Folio''. Colonel Henry A. S. Dearborn, the General's son, in like fashion responded by assisting his father and supported his position. Both families earnestly collected veterans' depositions to substantiate their claims. Others entered the debate, including the popular Daniel Webster who published a pro-Putnam account in the ''North American Review'', while Massachusetts Governor Brooks, a veteran of the battle at Bunker Hill, toured the battle site to refute General Dearborn's account of the battle.

For Dearborn, who recently suffered defeat as a Republican gubernatorial candidate, the controversy provided an opportunity to regain political prominence, while Federalists saw it as a way to besmirch Dearborn, embrace Putnam, and regain lost political favor for their party. Cray, 2001, p.25

There was general disagreement regarding individual contributions during the battle—many somewhat contradictory accounts had to be considered.

Dearborn's 1818 account

During the battle Dearborn served under Colonel John Stark at the front lines, near the right end of the rail fence. Willey, 1903, p. 161 In his controversial account published in ''The Port Folio'' on April 29, 1818, Dearborn directly attacked the integrity of Putnam's involvement at the Battle, maintaining:

Daniel Putnam's account

The most frequently published response to the accusations levied at the late General Putnam by Dearborn was from his son Colonel Daniel Putnam which was first published in the July 1818 issue of ''The Port Folio'', approximately two months after Dearborn's article appeared there. The younger Putnam, apparently perplexed as to Dearborn's motives, expressed:

The younger Putnam's article attempted to present a point by point refutation of Dearborn's account. Claiming that "like an assassin in the dark cowardly mediated this insidious blow against...a character as much above your level, as your base calumny is beneath a Gentleman and an Officer." Kosiorek, 2006, p. 56

Dearborn's account of General Putnam's conduct was based upon his personal memories of the battle at Bunker Hill, some 43 years previous, whereas the younger Putnam, though not present at the battle, consulted and collected depositions from past veterans of the battle. He also presented a letter of thanks from George Washington to his father, written at the end of the war, with the idea that the greatly loved Washington, whose fame and reputation served as a protective shield, would never thank a man that acted as Dearborn had contended.

Among the depositions was one from Thomas Grosvenor, present at the battle, contending that the most active officers at the area about the redoubt and the rail fence were indeed General Putnam along with Colonel Prescott and Captain Thomas Knowlton. Dearborn, Putnam, 1818, p.9 and that Dearborn's accusations were based either on ignorance or misrepresentation.

Historical accounts of the battle

Henry S. Commager, a scholar of the Revolutionary War, maintains that the best American accounts of the battle were recorded by ordinary soldiers and from civilian onlookers. British accounts however were primarily recorded by British generals such as Generals Howe, Gage and Burgoyne. He further maintains that the British accounts, although well written and chronicled, seemed as if they were prepared to be read in Parliament. The American accounts of the battle, though generally lacking in formal presentation, were direct and definitive, and possessed no sense of defeat or despair, though somewhat lacking in overall organization, reflecting the unconventional fighting style of the Americans. The witness accounts of both the Americans and the British naturally lent themselves to a fair measure of national pride respectively. Commager, 1958, p.129

Veteran accounts

Veteran accounts of Putnam's involvement in the battle materialized at different times in the years that immediately followed Dearborn's initial accusations as published in ''The Port Folio'' in 1818. Veteran accounts of the battle often consisted of letters or depositions chronologed and published under one cover. Kosiorek, 2006, p. 55 Occasionally witness accounts of those caught up in the horror and confusion of battle would subsequently present themselves with a varying degree of inconsistency with other such accounts. Some of the accounts supported Dearborn's perspective while others supported the idea that Putnam was much more active and enthusiastic. A fair number of these accounts however claim that when the actual fighting began Putnam was not on the front line at the rail fence, where Captain Dearborn and Colonel Benjamin Pierce and his companies were positioned. Several of the accounts about Putnam have him overseeing the effort to fortify Bunker Hill behind front lines or making rides to nearby Cambridge to request reinforcements.

In support of Dearborn's position, Pierce in 1818 maintained: "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. 2015, ''Boston 1775'' News letter

General Francis V. Green who was present during the battle maintained, "No one exercised general command" and "Putnam did practically nothing as a commanding General."

Colonel Samuel Swett later maintained that Putnam came upon Captain Ford and his company and directed them to bring deserted field pieces to the rail fence and bring them to bear on the British advance.

Contemporary publications

Reviewing the controversy as it unfolded and was printed in the ''North American Review'', the nationally popular Daniel Webster followed both Dearborn and Putnam, and said of the controversy that the issues concerned duty and character. Webster suggested that Dearborn stepped beyond the line of common decency by attempting to reprehend a widely respected war veteran who gave much of his life serving his country and who had long since been dead. In support of Putnam, Webster also provided several depositions from Colonels John Trumbull and Thomas Grosvenor along with various testimony from lesser known soldiers present at the battle, all of whom offered a different account of Putnam from Dearborn's.

:The New Hampshire Patriot on May 1, 1810, reported Stark's disappointment with Putnam: "...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. Hence, Putnam exercised no command and failed to take any initiative, a view roughly resembling Dearborn's comments.

:Trumbull - Colonel John Trumbull served as a military artist during the Revolution and was present during the Battle of Bunker Hill. After reading Dearborn's account in ''The Port Folio'', Trumbull wrote a letter to the late General Putnam's son, Daniel, expressing his regrets and disappoint over Dearborn's accusations, defending the general's character and role in the battle. Trumbull maintains that Putnam was at the redoubt and saved the life of British officer, Colonel John Small, and old friend of Putnam's who fought together during the French and Indian War, by ordering colonial soldiers not to fire at him in his defenseless state. His letter was later published, along with other veteran accounts, in the 1818 Munroe & Francis publication of Dearborn's and Putnam's accounts.

:Humphreys – In 1818, Colonel David Humphreys, once an aide de camp to Washington and once on the staff of General Putnam, published his book, entitled ''Israel Putnam'' where he roundly lends support to the character of Putnam in several incidents during the battle.

*Essay on the Life of Israel Putnam

:Swett – Colonel Samuel Swett published an account about the Battle of Bunker Hill which covered many of the activities of Putnam. His ''Sketch of Bunker Hill Battle'', published in 1818, was presented as an appendix to Colonel David Humphreys' book, ''Israel Putnam'' which was addressed to the ''State Society of the Cincinnati in Connecticut''. The account of Swett has been substantially followed in Rand, Avery & Co.'s Bunker Hill Centennial. Swett's first publication was criticized by David Lee Child, in the Boston Patriot, Nov. 17, 1818, claiming that General Putnam was not engaged in the actual battle. Child's article was later reprinted as an Enquiry into the "''Conduct of General Putnam''". Winsor, 1880, p.51 In 1826, Swett published his second book ''History of Bunker Hill battle: With a plan''. The 19th century contemporary historian Alden Bradford in his book ''A Particular Account of the Battle of Bunker'' claims some accounts of the battle were partial and incomplete and maintains that Colonel Swett's account is "the most correct and perfect account" he has ever read. Both the publications of Humphreys and Swett present accounts of Putnam's involvements that tend to undermine Dearborn's accusations:

:Humphreys and Swett – In 1847 Humphreys and Swett published a book entitled. ''The Life and Heroic Exploits of Israel Putnam'' which upheld the character of Putnam altogether. Among the accounts of Putnam during the battle is one which has him on horseback, putting himself between the charging British and the retreating Americans, commanding that they stay and renew the fight.

:Child – In 1819 David Lee Child published an account that contained and critiqued various depositions of witnesses of Putnam's involvement and found several significant inconsistencies regarding Putnam's whereabouts during the retreat. Child notes that the deposition of Heuben Kemp places Putnam at Breastwork, while the deposition of Alexander Davidson has Putnam during the same time at the rail fence, instructing Captain Ford to bring two field pieces to the rail fence, and then claims that after they were fired a number of times the British advance came close the musket firing commenced and Putnam disappeared during the firing, smoke and confusion. Child also rebukes claims made by Colonel Samuel Swett's publication of 1818, ''Historical and topographical sketch of Bunker Hill battle'', maintaining that he had ''proved Col. Swett misrepresented entirely the statement of Davidson...''

:Child maintains that the only proof that Putnam was at the redoubt during the action is letter written by John Trumbull, who, years after the battle, had a conversation with British Colonel John Small in London. Small had claimed that he was in the advancing British line during the second attack on the redoubt and that almost everyone in front was killed or wounded by a volley fired from within the redoubt. Small says he was not hit but thought for sure he was about to be killed as several of the rebels trained their muskets on him, at which point Putnam reportedly shouted to the rebels "For God's sake lads, don't fire at that man; I love him as I do my brother!" Child dismisses the story that Small was out in front of the line, knowing at the time that the rebels had proved to be excellent marksman and were earnestly picking off British officers, and because 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.

:Coffin – The controversy was kept alive when in 1831 Charles Coffin compiled and published several accounts from American generals present at the Battle of Bunker Hill under one cover, entitled: ''History of the Battle of Breed's Hill''. The publication contained the individual accounts of Major Generals William Heath, first published in 1798, Henry Lee, 1812, James Wilkinson, 1816, and Henry Dearborn, 1818, who were all doubtful of Putnam's overall performance during the battle.

* Extract from the Memoirs of Major-General William Heath, 1778

*Account of James Wilkinson, 1816,

:Fellows – The controversy was renewed again in 1843 when John Fellows, present at the Battle and former aide-de-camp to George Washington, published his book, ''The Veil Removed'', where he introduces numerous letters and statements from veterans of the Battle regarding Putnam's performance and Dearborn's estimation of the battle overall. Several of the depositions were from notable people, further fomenting public attention, and generally consented to Dearborn's claims. Peckham, 2009, p. 6

*Letter of Daniel Chaplin of Groton, and Rev. John Bullard of Pepperell, Groton, June 5, 1818, present with Prescott during the American retreat when he came upon Putnam and asked. In their statement of , they write of Prescott's encounter with Putnam:

*Letter of the Hon. Abel Parker, May 27, 1818, Judge of probate

*Letter of General Michael McClary's, Epsom, May 10, 1818

Aftermath

Dearborn's accusations were not well received with most of the voters throughout New England. In his attempt to garner positive press coverage he committed a serious error by assaulting the honor of someone who was considered a notable war hero and who had long been deceased: Putnam had died in May 1790. Subsequently, Dearborn lost his bid for the governorship of Massachusetts and major controversy over Putnam's conduct followed which was covered frequently in the press. The controversy prompted a review of the battle which materialized in a number of publications for more than thirty years.

On June 17, 1825, the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill, the scheduled cornerstone ceremony heralded the emerging consensus about Bunker Hill. During the ceremony no controversy clouded the event and no rancor over historical rankings materialized. Many thousands of citizens came to hear Daniel Webster dedicate the memorial cornerstone. Putnam was only mentioned once, along with John Stark, John Brooks, and others as among the original survivors of the battle, while William Prescott received special mention as a brave commander who presided over the American forces.

See also

* Siege of Boston
* Douglas Putnam (Grandson of Israel Putnam; Colonel in the American Civil War; Member of General Ulysses S. Grant's staff)
* Timeline of the American Revolution
* Bibliography of the American Revolutionary War
* List of American Revolutionary War battles

Notes

References

Bibliography

*
*
*, 553 pages
*
* , 56 pages
*
*
eBook (Vol 2)
*
*
*
*
*, 282 pages
*
*
*
*, 432 pages
*
*
*
*
*, 325 pages
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* , 65 pages
*, 38 pages
*
*, 288 pages
*, 88 pages
*, 190 pages
*
*

*
* , 328 pages

Further reading

*, 480 pages
*
*
*{{cite book , title=Who was the Commander at Bunker Hill?: With Remarks on Frothingham's History of the Battle , last=Swett , first=Samuel , year=1850 , publisher=John Wilson publisher (reprinted in 2014) , url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OGRHBQAAQBAJ&q=Frothingham,+The+command+in+the+battle+of+Bunker+Hill , ref=Swett2014, 39 pages

American Revolution
History of Boston
Military history of New England
1775 in Massachusetts
Massachusetts in the American Revolution
American Revolutionary War casualties
1818 in Massachusetts