BY RICHARD FROTHINGHAM, Jr.,
AUTHOR OF A HISTORY OF THE SIEGE OF BOSTON.
BOSTON:
CHARLES C. LITTLE AND JAMES BROWN.
1850.
PRINTED AT THE OFFICE OF THE BOSTON POST, NO. 21 WATER STREET.
The preparation of a History of Charlestown—the occupation ofleisure hours—led to large collections relative to the military eventswhich occurred in the neighborhood of Boston at the commencementof the war of the revolution; but as a full account of them did notappropriately belong to so local a publication, and as no work had beenissued containing a narrative, in much detail, of these interesting events,it was thought best to prepare the volume now before the publicentitled History of the Siege of Boston. The old subject of the battleof Bunker Hill was so directly in my way that it could not be avoided;and as an apology for adding another to the narratives of this event, I determinedto construct it, as much as possible, from contemporary materials.
In a faithful history of the battle, the question of command cannotproperly be avoided. If it is not of the importance which many attachto it, still it is a curious question, about which there is much interest. Itmay be well, in the outset, to state clearly the matter at issue. Thepoint is, was there a general officer detached to exercise a general commandin the battle? There is great incongruity in the statements relativeto this. It is stated (by Dr Whitney) that the detachment thatfortified Breed's Hill was first put under the command of Gen. Putnam,that with it he took possession of this hill, and "ordered the battle4from beginning to end;" or as another (Hon. John Lowell) statesit, "General Putnam was detached for the purpose of fortifying it(Bunker Hill,) and Colonel Prescott was placed under his orders." Onthe other hand it is stated, that the orders to fortify Bunker Hill weregiven to Colonel Prescott, that the redoubt was raised by troops underhis command, and that at no time during the whole affair did he actunder, or receive an order from, a general officer. These statements areconflicting and cannot both be true. It is these rival claims as to Putnamand Prescott that constitute the delicacy and difficulty of the question.
Whoever investigates this subject must determine the kind of evidencethat will be allowed to influence, mainly, the decision. There arenumerous statements of soldiers who were in the battle, which weremade forty years or more after it took place; after antipathy or gratitudehad biassed them against or for their old commanders; after what theyhad heard and had come to believe, had unconsciously become interwovenwith impressions of what they saw; and at a time of life, too, whenexactness as to details of what took place so long before in such a scene,could not reasonably have been expected. These relations bear, in somepoints, the characteristics of tradition. They mostly harmonize as to themovements of companies or regiments,