for not being at a post to which he was not ordered, and where he had no command. If his troops were in the Battle and in the hottest of the fight-if they suffered more from the enemy than even these of the gallant Stark's, then the charge is rash and unsupported. Or if he was personally at the post of danger, and was among the last to retreat, the charge is equally unsustained and wanton. We believe that all these points can be made out by evidence irrefragable; and that the testimony adduced by General Dearborn has no tendency to weaken its force. It will be found that, if examined by ordinary rules adopted on such occasions-rules founded in the highest equity and the soundest logic-none of General Dearborn's evidence has a legal bearing against General Putnam, on either of these essential points. a trial. In this way he accounts for no notice having been taken of the subject during the last century, and until the present is very considerably advanced. The very respectable gentlemen of the Clergy of Groton and Pepperell also confirm, from the testimony of their parishioners who were in the action, that General Putnam was not present, either the night before or during the action. Now, though this is directly opposed to the fact, sufficiently and perfectly proved, (not, however affecting their veracity, as their testimony is derived from channels which may be incorrect) yet, if true, and General Dearborn adduces it as such, it proves that Putnam could not, without a dereliction of duty and violating the rights of others, have advanced from his position on Bunker'shill. We have shown the gross inconsistency of the General's evidence with his charge against the venerable Putnam. In his "Account of the Battle," he considers Putnam as having shamefully deserted his duty, and as deserving to be shot, or rather, he represents Colonel Prescott as having said so; and, in his defence, he proves by two witnesses, that Putnam had no command on that day, and of course could be liable to no censure for not undertaking to command Prescott and Stark, of the Massachusetts and New Hampshire Lines. It is certainly true, as suggested by President Adams and Judge-advocate Tudor, that there could not, in the nature of the case, have been any authorized commander. The troops were volunteers from three different States, under probably Royal commissions, perhaps no commissions at all. The latter was certainly the case with Stark, who was chosen by his troops after their arrival at Medford. But, although Putnam could have no legal right to command, we shall show, in the sequel, that he was, in fact, the Commander of that detachment, and by his orders were the works executed; that they were obeyed as if he were the rightful Commander; and that Dearborn's own Regiment, (that of Colonel Stark,) acted and fought under his immediate command, and in his presence, that day. In short, before the evidence is half through, it will be seen that there is at present more proof of General Putnam's active, bold, courageous exertions in the hottest of that Battle, in the very front of danger, than there is that Dearborn, or even Colonel Stark, were in it. As to the first point, it is a little, and indeed very, curious, and shows the utter want of judgment in General Dearborn and his friends, that they have endeavored to make it out that Putnam had no legitimate command on that great and memorable day. If this fact, which they have endeavored to prove in the loose and unsatisfactory way in which they have conducted the whole of this defence against the charge of calumny, be true, then General Putnam ought not to have been on the ground to take away the command from Colonel Prescott. It will be observed that we do not admit the fact to be so; but it goes to the credit of the defence; and shows of what weak and discordant materials it is composed. Let us now hear the witnesses to this point. First, Major Stark, in his letter to Wilkinson, states that he never could learn that there was any officer appointed to the general command. He further remarks, that there ought to have been a simultaneous occupation of Bunker's-hill as well as of Breed's-hill, in order to protect the retreat of our troops. If Major Stark is a judicious military man and this opinion is sound, why undertake to censure Putnam for retaining his forces on Bunker's-hill? We deny the fact that he did; but, to those who censure him for it, it is surely a sufficient answer to say that his very accusers assert that it was a very suitable measure, and might have prevented, what Major Stark says would have been the ruin of the detachment, the occupation of Bunker's-hill, in the rear of our troops. Judge Parker, a New Hampshire Judge of Probate, a very flippant witness, says there was never any proof to his mind, that Putnam was ordered to take the command; and that he was only a volunteer, and, of course, in his ideas of military law, not subject tonal conduct. HIST. MAG. VOL. III. 28. It would not be in the power of Washington's friends to prove that he was at the Battle of Monmouth, by stronger or more complete evidence than General Putnam's friends can produce to establish his audacious gallantry and coolness on Breed's-hill. But this evidence I shall reserve till I take up the third point of Putnam's perso- [II. -ON GENERAL PUTNAM'S ACTIVITY, IN THE the enemy and compelled them to retire with BATTLE OF BUNKER'S-HILL.] heavy loss. He adds, that he was sustained in his ment. the time the action begun, nor till long after." "He saw no other troops at the rail-fence, at intimate that the action began before they [This agrees with Dearborn's witnesses, who reached the fence.] "Of the officers on the ground, the most ac"nam, Colonel Prescott, and Captain Knowlton; "tive, within my observation, were General Put"but no doubt there were many more, equally "brave and meritorious, who must naturally "have escaped the eye of one attending to his own immediate command. The second question regards the charge of hav-retreat by two other Companies of Putnam's Regiing kept back his troops on Bunker's-hill, and not he had eleven killed and wounded, among the Out of his own command of thirty men, affording succor to the combatants on Breed'shill. rest, himself. Although one of Dearborn's witnesses says this is precisely what ought to have been done, yet, as it was intended as a reproach, and is certainly untrue, we shall proceed to disprove it. The Honorable Judge Grosvenor, of Pomfret, in Connecticut, is a witness of irreproachable credit. In comparing his testimony with that of Dearborn's witnesses, we shall not undertake to say that he is a more credible witness, under equal circumstances, but we do venture to assert, that, if his situation be considered, his evidence is of greater weight than that of all the witnesses introduced by Dearborn, put together. General Putnam was the Commander of all the Connecticut troops, and the immediate Colonel of the Regiment in which Judge Grosvenor served as a Lieutenant. To the men of Stark's Regiment, who were then stationed at Medford, Putnam must have been less familiar than to his own neighbors and soldiers. When the Battle began, it was impossible for Stark's or Colonel Prescott's men to know what was doing by the Connecticut troops and their officers, as well as they knew themselves. 1 There could be no mere boasting in Judge Grosvenor's endeavoring to make it appear that he was stationed where he was not; because he was wounded in the shoulder, as he says himself and as will be proved by others, and lost five times as many men of his command, in proportion, as Captain Dearborn did, and a larger porportion, as will be shown, than even the gallant Prescott. Judge Grosvenor, in his letter heretofore published, of the thirtieth of April, 1818, states that a part of his Regiment, under Putnam's command, with a larger number of troops under Colonel Prescott, were ordered on the evening before the Battle of Bunker's-hill, to Breed's-hill, "where, under the • immediate superintendence of General Putnam, "ground was broken and a redoubt formed. "On the next day, dispositions were made to "deter the advance of the enemy. General Putnam was extremely active, and directed princi"pally the operations. All were animated; and "their General inspired confidence by his exam<< ple." He then proceeds to say, "that, after the "British landed, a detachment of four Lieutenants "and one hundred and twenty men, selected the "preceding day, from General Putnam's Regi"ment, under Captain Knowlton, were by the "General ordered to take post at a rail-fence on "the left of the breast-work." [This is the very spot where Dearborn's friends claim all the honor.] He then describes the gallant conduct of the Connecticut troops, who opened a deadly fire on ،، "THOMAS GROSVENOR." In this last sentence are displayed a candid spirit and a knowledge of human nature. He does justice to others besides his own friends; and he doubts the possibility of any man, who did his duty, knowing, in the heat of battle, what was done by any but those immediately connected with him. Now, if Judge Grosvenor be believed, these two assertions, and round ones too, of General Dearborn, are proved to be untrue. The FIRST, "that no reinforcements were sent to the assistance of "the combatants; and, SECOND, "that Putnam re"treated with his whole force, without discharging "a musket." One hundred and twenty men of Putnam's force were in the whole action; were there before Dearborn was; suffered greater loss, and appeared to display at least as much gallantry; and two other Companies, "Clark's and Chester's," of Putnam's Regiment, were sent as a reinforcement. 66 But, it may be said, "here is one witness against a cloud." If it were true, if Dearborn's witnesses were not, as they are, many of them, men of buckram, tittle-tattle-men, yet as they testify only to what they did not see, and what they did not know, and what they did not hear, thousands of them would be set aside against one credible witness, who tells what his eyes beheld and his ears heard. But Judge Grosvenor does not stand unsupported. We shall sustain his evidence by testimony which will make even the veteran Dearbor tremble, at his rash accusation of unquestioned valor and merit. Abner Allen, of Western, in the County of Worcester, having applied for a pension under the late Act, and being found to have fought at Bunker's-hill, freely gave the following affidaavit : "I, Abner Allen, of Western, in the County of "Worcester, Yeoman, do testify and declare, 1868.J 427 in reserve, some testimony still more calculated to gather paleness round the accuser's cheeks and substitute the lily for the rose-to wit, some of General Dearborn's old soldiers, who saw what he could not,-Putnam in the heat of Battle. of our subject. It was voluntarily sent by its "that I enlisted as a soldier in the Company "commanded by General Israel Putnam, of Pom"fret, in Connecticut, and Thomas Grosvenor, "as Lieutenant;" (meaning the Honorable Thomas Grosvenor, now Judge of Probate for the On the point of the activity of General Put"that I was at the Battle County of Windham] "of Bunker's-hill; and went on, the night before the nam's own troops, we have one other piece of tes'Battle, and worked at the breast-work. Put-timony, highly deserving of credit, on this part "nam was then and there called General, and "acted as such; and the Company was com"manded by Captain Knowlton, who was after"wards promoted to be Colonel, and killed at "Harlem Heights, when I was with him. "Our Company was posted at the rail-fence,' And I do know "till we had orders to retreat. "that General Putnam was in this engagement. "I saw him on horseback, riding backward and "forward, urging the men to fight with great "earnestness; and, when some of the men ap"peared to flinch a little, he used this expres"sion: God's curse you, drive on.' He was as "much exposed as any man engaged. Our "Company fought at about the centre of the line, "On the evening of June 16, Colonel William "between the breast work and the water; and I "Prescott and Colonel Bridge, with their Regi"do know that General Putnam did, on that occa"sion, all that a soldier and brave man could do."ments, under the direction of General Putnam, "took possession of Breed's-hill, and threw up The next forenoon, "a fort or intrenchment. "when it was perceived that the British were "preparing to attack them, orders were given to reinforce them. "ABNER ALLEN." Taken before one of the Judges of our Supreme Judicial Court, on the Circuit. Hard to digest as is the language of this brave veteran, it would seem, by his testimony, that Putnam fought as bravely that day as Captain Dearborn or Colonel Stark. Judge Grosvenor is thus fully supported in every point; and the two allegations of Dearborn, above referred to, are utterly disproved. In the County of Berkshire, another witness volunteered to the same effect: "I, Josiah Hill, of Tyringham, in the County "of Berkshire, do testify and declare that, in "May, 1775, I enlisted in the Company of Israel "Putnam, son of General Putnam. I was at the "Battle of Bunker's-hill, on the seventeenth of "June. Part of the Connecticut troops went on "over night, and part in the morning. I know "that General Israel Putnam was in that Battle. "I was on the left wing. I know that he took part in the engagement; and was as much ex'posed as any body in the Battle. 66 66 "General Putnam did all that man could do to induce the men to go on to the Hill. He led on Captain Knowlton, with a part of a Connect"icut Regiment. Esquire Putnam has given a "just account of the bravery of Knowlton and "his men."-[Alluding to the late account of Daniel Putnam, Esq.] The venerable author then proceeds to give the details of the Battle, not essentially differing from other accounts. He then adds : 66 "The officers who distinguished themselves "that day, were General Putnam, General Warren, Colonel Prescott, his Lieutenant-colonel, "John Robinson, (the man who, with Colonel "Buttrick, led the troops at Concord-bridge) "Major Woods, Colonel Bridge, and his Lieutenant "colonel, Parker, who was wounded and carried "into Boston, and died there. If the Returns of Killed and Wounded are preserved, they will "show the Regiments to which they belonged, and to whom the honor of that memorable day is "due. Colonel Prescott's loss was forty-nine "killed and forty-five wounded, out of four hun"hundred"-[Nearly four times as great as Dearborn's, though rather less than that of the The writer of Connecticut line.] "Colonel Bridge lost in the "this article was the intimate friend of Colonel "Prescott and Lieutenant-colonel Robinson; and "I then belonged to Coventry, in Connecticut. "JOSIAH HILL.” Here, then, are three eye-witnesses all engaged in action, one of them wounded, who prove that the Connecticut troops were on the ground before the New Hampshire troops; that they sustained the brunt of the Battle; that they suffered loss; and that Putnam, so far from keep-"same proportion with Prescott. ing back his troops, gallantly led them on and exposed himself to the greatest dangers. But we have "from the mouths of those Heroes he had this "account of the Battle. He does not recollect "to have heard Captain Dearborn's name men"tioned, at the time nor after. Sometime in "May, (I believe) an armed schooner ran ashore "not far from the ferry-ways, directly opposite "the batteries on Copp's-hill. General Putnam, "with a party of men with small-arms, attack"ed and drove the men from their quarters, and "burnt her. When the Americans took posses"sion of Dorchester Heights, officers were select "ed to go down Charles-river and land on "Boston Common, if the British should attack "Dorchester Heights. Putnam was appointed to "the command, and was the foremost to move 'down to Sewall's-point. It is impossible for "" any man to show more activity and personal "bravery than General Putnam did on every "occasion, during the siege of Boston." The venerable gentleman then expresses a doubt as to the story of Colonel Prescott's conversation at Governor Bowdoin's table. He says, as we believe, that there is a sad anachronism and mistake of dates. He doubts whether Colonel Prescott was in sufficient health to be in public company after 1785, when Bowdoin was appointed. We, too, have heard it doubted whether the constitutional prudence, wisdom, and candor, of Colonel Prescott, as respectable as a citizen as he was as a soldier, would have permitted him to use language as unbecoming the one character as the other, in public company. But-But-all these things are of little moment. It seems by this imposing and overwhelming testimony, that General Dearborn was sadly mistaken in charging General Putnam with keeping back his whole force, and that he sent no reinforcement, and that his troops did not discharge a musket in the action. This is now utterly, and if this evidence is preserved, for ever, disproved. Were we the relations of Putnam, we should be grateful to Herven, (if not to the imprudent accuser) that we had an opportunity to bring him out, like gold twice assayed in the furnace. [III.-ON GENERAL PUTNAM'S PERSONAL CON DUCT AT THE BATTLE OF BUNKER'S-HILL. } We now pass to the third and most essential point: THE PERSONAL CONDUCT OF GENERAL PUTNAM, AT THE BATTLE OF BUNKER'S-HILL. Already we have arrayed the formidable mass of testimony in the depositions and statements of Judge Grosvenor, Abner Allen, Josiah Hill, and our venerable friend-whose account is not anonymous because he is well known, and its authenticity may be settled by reference as above proposed. We shall pass by, for the present, the unanswerable evidence of Colonel Trumbull as to Colonel Small's declarations, because, although we feel, as President Adams does, a sort of instinctive feeling of the truth of that anecdote; although it bears, on the face of it, evidence which thrills in the heart of every honorable man, yet there is a weakness too much cultivated in our country, which leads them to value less the testimony of an enemy, although no assignable motive could be invented for such a tale on the part of Colonel Small. But let it pass in order to introduce some of General Dearborn's own comrades, in his own Regiment, fighting by his side, whose eyes were not so blinded but that they could see Putnam in the hottest of the fight, even ordering Dearborn's troops. Perhaps Putnam came there at the unlucky moment when Captain Dearborn, quitting his sol-, diers, had retreated for the strange purpose of gathering up the scattered fragments of ponder to recruit their ammunition--a prudent and overflowing caution, which savors at least as much of discretion as of zeal. We take only his own account of it, that in the face of the enemy, and while actually pushed by them, he sauntered into the rear, inquired into the fate of Warren, and attempted to collect powder, leaving his troops without the example of his own determined and desperate courage. Reuben Kemp, now of Brooklyn, in Connecticut, but formerly of Goffstown, State of Ne Hampshire, deposeth on oath : 66 66 "That, in 1775, he was a soldier in Captain "Samuel Richard's Company and Colonel Stark's [Dearborn's] “Regiment; that, being quartered a 'Mystic, on the seventeenth of June, an alarm was given, and the Regiment ordered to parade "at the Colonel's Quarters, when ammunition was distributed, namely, ten bullets and a gill"cup of powder. We sorted our bullets as well as we could; and marched to Charlestown-neck. "After we arrived at the high ground, over the "Neck, we were ordered to parade our packs and 66 66 66 guns, and put sentries over them. Here we were "furnished with intrenching tools and began to "throw up a breast-work; but we had not been "more than ten or fifteen minutes at work before "the drums beat, and we were marched imme diately. An officer whom I had never sec [He was in the condition of Dearborn and all Stark's troops, who never had seen Putnam] and "whom they called General Putnam, seemed to "have the ordering of things. He charged the men not to fire till the enemy came close to the "works; and then to take good aim, and make "every shot kill a man. But there were a few "pieces discharged before the order was given to "fire. General Putnam appeared very angry; and passed along the lines quickly, with his sword drawn, and threatened to stab any man thi "fired without order. The enemy kept firing as "they advanced, and when they had got pretty near the works we were ordered to take good "aim and fire. At this time, General Putnam was "constantly passing backward and forward, from "right to left, telling us, the day was our own if "we would stick to it; and it was not many "minutes before the enemy began to retreat." Upon being questioned whether he had afterwards known Putnam, and recognized him to be the same officer who so gallantly distinguished himself, he said, "I saw him often after, for he commanded on Prospect-hill; and I knew him "to be the same that was in the fight. 66 Sworn to before me "JOHN PARISH, 66 REUBEN KEMP. "Justice of the Peace." Pray where was Captain Dearborn, that he could neither see this gallant officer nor hear his orders to Dearborn's own Regiment? 66 To the host of unanswerable witnesses, already adduced, we add the following: We have also a deposition of another of Dearborn's comrades in Stark's Regiment, who volunteered his testimony. Ebenezer Bean, of Conway, New Hampshire, says, "The following are "the most prominent facts which came under " 'my observation, at the Battle of Bunker's-hill, "relative to the conduct of General Putnam in "that action: I was a private in Captain Kins"man's Company, in Colonel Stark's Regiment. "A detachment, under Captain Kinsman, was "ordered on to the Hill, in the fore part of the "day. We arrived at the redoubt about twelve "o'clock; and continued there through the ac"tion. The rest of Colonel Stark's Regiment "arrived on the Hill just before the action 66 commenced. When we arrived at the re "active: he was urging the men on, giving orders, "riding from one end of the line to the other, as "far as I could observe, and continued active "through the action, and in my opinion fought with great bravery, 66 "EBENEZER BEAN. "CONWAY, N. H. May 29, 1818." Here is another contradiction of General Dearborn, by his own soldiers. This disproves two assertions:-"that Putnam remained inac"tive during the Battle," and that "no officer was "Isaac Bassett of Killingley, in the County "of Windham, and State of Connecticut, de"poseth, that he was a private soldier in Gener"al Putnam's Regiment, in 1775. The day "previous to the Battle of Bunker's-hill, a de"tachment had been made from that Regiment; "and, under the command of Captain Knowl-"doubt, General Putnam was there, and very "ton, composed part of the force that first occupied Breed's-hill. On the morning of the "17th June, another detachment from the same "Regiment, under the command of Ensign "Sprague, marched from Cambridge, either to "relieve or reinforce the party which went on "the hill over night. To this last detachment "the deponent belonged, and arrived on the "Hill, at the redoubt and breast-work, just as the "action commenced. Here he saw General Put"nam with his sword drawn, encouraging and "animating the troops. One of the Company. "Benjamin Grosvenor by name, was wounded" mounted on that day." "in the shoulder; and the deponent's father, Amos Barns, of the same Town, swears that "who was also a soldier in the same Regiment, he was in Captain Abbot's Company, in Stark's was leading him from the field of action. Regiment. "When we arrived at Charlestown"General Putnam stopped him; and, pricking "neck, we passed Gerrish's Regiment. Colonel "his arm with his sword, told him the wound- "Stark marched in front, over the Neck; and I "ed man could walk of himself, and not a sol- "was the third man from him. Captain Abbot "dier should leave the ground. This happened "marched next to Colonel Stark; and no other "at the breast-work leading from the redoubt,"officer." [This, though unimportant, contra"where our party took post. I saw General Put-dicts General Dearborn, who says he marched in "nam in the hottest of the fight, calling on the แ men to stand their ground; and I am sure he was at this post when the enemy scaled the "walls of the redoubt. I did not, myself, hear the "order given; but it was often said by the sol"diers of our Regiment, that General Putnam "ordered them 'not to fire on the enemy till front with Stark. One of the witnesses must be mistaken. We may, hereafter, learn which; but it serves to show the confusion of the accounts of such battles.] "When we got on to the top of the "Hill, I saw one or two field-pieces which had "ceased firing. Putnam was on his horse, near 'them; and when we passed him, he urged Col แ |