iMmaaBamSiammmmm r- r« '- ' ■ /^ 'A A ■ VAAA '^^«»:'!:^^^^/s;K( ^^A/c^/^A^/^/^Af Dims ..-^^^p^^ ^0^'^-/^ ^^....s*:f^«if'^»^^ n'^'%.'%.'%.<^ J'^S^^.'' *LIBRARY OF CONGRESS J ^ ' - - # I UNITED STATES OP AMEHICA. f^ A A A C ',' W A A A ^ .0 0'. Ai'^' A';/A)/^ A- >. ;' A'^,^^.<^<^A<^^'^A^,^* ■A'AAA^A,^_^Ay^^A:v:^AC #^/^ftftftAA^? /Pi/^^^^^/^^O/^/^^.^r;^ *\ /^ r* A •?! ';:;^ /^ "^ /^ -^l ^ '^ *■ '^- C ■*: A,«,#i ^AA'"' '^**^:;A^'^AApffion?^^??^*;^^?^ , ■ ..^'•^^Sf^S^^A^^" "?5?«p;'"^--^^'.-=i. .^^^.^^^ax^;,?^:;;-- ' -^ ^A... A :«.. f'^Kk tm^PmrP'f-' ' :• :"" "^^ f^kS^m 1&&:: ~' ,*W^^i^*»**^i';^*A''*s>' :,.,^ymm '^^.^r-'^^^R^K^' AA^^K. 'r^Kr^mi ^^A^^^^^^^^A^;^^^ ^..^^A ^i/^f'^^^^^f^^@#^r^^l?^C^^(?^^^^/ .^^A^^Or^^^"^ ^AA/^''^,'^/^''A-I^^cc^^^^'^^r^-^-'^ •^/^A^W: ii^tb.:-^'^.: vv/v^«^ww;,;;;-»..,,,i.vsgfgi >^,^^ :^^/^ MS-OTTLni .^ '^. U >' -^ A '"^ ■^' ' ^ '-■ -^ ^^^I^SM^Uu^^^uM «?^??«Sc»:SAiSS:E: SI^PPTaOai ^'''"'•^^/5^/^^/^,^, ^^WAAAijiiA-o"^W^-^^;^CC^(^"?^^%7 >^^AAi«A),^i^'^^'^^A'i/^'^''^i^^'^^ Aa.a^^^aa A,^-A/^^-j^ mmm^ wmimtm. ^'^^f'^^t^Ah, ^..: Jfe«^^?^C^O: ^ X^'^.C^i^iK,^'^ ^ '^ « C. *".- A -i ' G L E A ]S 1 N G S rnoM TiiK |(irtei4el^ ai gimerian fistora. HENRY B. DAWSON. PART VI. 'l PRAT YOU I.CT MK OLEA\ AND GATUEU AFTER THE REAPERS, AJIOXG THE ."-UKAVICS. MORRISANIA, N. T. : PRINTED, AS MANUSCRIPT, FOR PRIVATE CIRCULATION'. 1860. MAJOR-GENERAL ISRAEL PUTNAM. % Comspoukncc, on \\p Subject WITH THK EDITOR OF "THE HARTFORD DAILY POST," !Y "SELAU," or THAT CITY, C^^- ^ • G; ti'sw o M ^ HENEY B. DAWSON, OF WHITE PLAINS, N. Y. MORRISANIA: 18G0. A-" .i.*^ GEORGE HENRY MOORE, ESQ., LIBRARIAN OF THE NEW YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY, AND Sutfjor of "C^? Ettzean of iHafartfff nfral CfjstUjs Eff," ONK OF THE FKW WHOSK VENKRATION FOR "ESTABLISHKD RECUTATlON'b" DOES NdT OVERCOME HIS FIDELITY AS A HISTORIAN, AS A M E :M E N T O OF RESPECT FOR HIS OWN ICONOCLASTIC LABORS, AND OF REGARD FOR IIIAI, AS AN EARLY AND CONSTANT FRIEND, V>Y THE EDITOU. Mop.KiSA.MA, N. Y., ^I'tcmher 1, l^oO. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. During the past year, while engaged in the preparation of that portion of " The Battles of the United States" which relates, particularly, to the War of the Eevolution, my attention was, necessarily, drawn to General Israel PtTTNAM, of Connecticut, and to the part which he performed in ihat pro- tracted struggle. On Noddle's Island, on Bunker's Hill, on the heights of Gowanus, and in the Highlands of the Hudson, it had been said, this officer had displayed great courage and extraordinary abilities; and these reports, added to the stories of his attack on the she-wolf, of his exploits la the old French War, of his courage in sitting on a barrel of onion-seed, of his ride down the bank at Horse-Neck, and of other feats, equally wonderful and no less fabulous, had made his name a " household word," which was synonymous with desperate courage, undeviating patriotism, and unquestioned integrity. An examination of the cotemporary docu- ments, however, soon dispelled^ any illusion under A^hich I may nave labored before that time; and I satisfied myself that, if an example was required for the imitation of my countrymen, cither in courage, integrity, or patriotism, tlie very last who could be taken from among the officers of the Revolutionary Armies, for that purpose, would be General Israel Putnam. iln my examination of the affairs on Noddle's Island and on Breed's Hill, I said but little on the subject ; out in my account of " The Battle OF LoxG Island" (" Battles of the United States," Book I, Chap, xi, Vol. I, pp. 143-150), I devoted more space to this subject, from the fact that, in that case, General Putnam was, actually, the responsible commander. After describing, as fully as I was capable, the several movements in that series of disasters, I closed the narrative with these words: " The loss of the field, on Long Island, produced serious results in the American army. Nearly twelve hundred of the flower of the army were lost, a thousand of them being prisoners, among whom were Generals Sulli- van and Lord Stirling. This defeat also discouraged the inexperienced troops under General Washington, and crowds of them left the army. 10 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. spreading tales of terror wherever they went throughout the country, and working mischief, of the severest character, where its effect was most disastrous to the cause of America. ' ' There has heen much comment on this battle, both respecting the action itself and those on whom the responsibility of the loss should fall. It has been well said, by one whose means of judging were unusually fine, that ' Tlie strange oversight in leaving the Jamaica Eoad unguarded, and the neglect in procuring early and constant intelligence of the move- ments of the British army, were the immediate causes of the deplorable events of the day.' That there should be any doubt respecting the proper person to Avhom the loss of the battle of Long Island should be attributed, with these undisputed facts in view, is a matter of surprise to me. It is unquestionably the duty of the commander of a district to provide, not only the means of securing intelligence of every movement of his enemy, but for the protection of his position ; and, especially when any peculiar pass, or hill, or bridge, between him and the enemy, would secure advantages to that enemy, which would be dangerous to him, it is the unquestionable duty of the commander to occupy such position in force ; or, in case he neglects it, the disgrace is his, and the responsibility for any evil effects -arising from such neglect of duty devolves upon hm. In fact, the commander is a sentinel whom the commander-in-chief or the government has placed to guard the interests of the people; and, like any other sentinel, he cannot sleep on his post without committing one of the highest crimes known to the military law. "With these axioms before us, let us examine, as far as the evidence goes, who commanded, and who slept on his post. It is said that General Gbeene commanded on Long Island, that the defenses were thrown up under his direction, and that he was taken sick with a fever and left the island. It is said ^that General Sullivan then assumed the command ; that, notwithstanding the enemy was still on Staten Island, he employed moimted patrols, at an expense of fifty dollars per night, to mount guard on roads which he saw the enemy might use in approaching New York ; and that, on the twenty-third of August — the day after the enemy's army landed on Long Island — he was superseded by General Putnam. It is said, and has never been contradicted, that General Washington gave General Putnam positive instructions to guard the passes through the hills leading to Brooklyn ; it is said, also without contradiction, that General Sullivan, his predecessor and second in command, enforced the same measures on his attention ; it is known, that, although the enemy, in full force, was INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 11 encamped within four or five miles, opposite two of those very passes, General Putnam never reconnoitered that enemy's position- — in fact, that he never left Brooklyn ; and it is equally well known that, although the enemy was then encamped at Flatbush, the mounted patrols which General Sullivan had established, as well as the guards at some of the passes established by General Greene, were withdrawn, leaving the country clear for the enemy's secret movements, and the passes conve- niently unguarded for his especial accommodation. It is also a well- established fact, that no general officer was outside the lines at Brooklyn, on the night of the twenty-sixth, until the advance of General Grant was made known to General Putnam, at three o'clock, when Generals Sullivan and Lord Stirling Avere dispatched to Flatbush and the Bay Road, to oppose the movements in those quarters. ' ' From these facts, it appears conclusively that General Putnam paid no attention to the orders of General Washington, respecting the security of the passes; and that the advice of General Sullivan, on the same subject, was also disregarded, his patrols withdrawn, and the command outside the lines, where his knowledge of the ground rendered him peculiarly useful, taken from him and given to another ; that, with an enemy encamped iu full force within a few miles of his position, he quietly remained at Brooklyn without reconnoitering that enemy's position, or sending out a scout ; that he withdrew guards and failed to remount them, where they were essential to the safety of his position ; and, finally, that to his ignorant, self-conceited inefficiency, the enemy is indebted for one of the greatest victories of the war, and his country for one of the most disastrous defeats, both military and moral, which it ever experienced. ' ' Yet, in the words of a modern writer, ' Not in vain was even the defeat of Brooklyn ; not in vain, the anguish with which the usually calm spii'it of Washington was that day torn. Not in vain were those two anxious days and nights which he passed on horseback, and which saved from death or captivity nine thousand men. These, and more, were all needed. In the immortal letters and dispatches of the great commander, and in the painful annals of the time, we read the cost and the value of what we are now enjoying. Without these we had not fully known how inherent, how enduring and elastic, is the power of an earnest and virtuous patriotism. Without them, even the transcendent name of Washington could not have filled the mighty measure of his fame.' " In accordance with the plan of the work, I appended to this chapter the 12 INTRODUCTORY REEARKS. official reports of the several commanding officers and a short biographical slietch of General Putnam's life, the latter of which, from its connexion with the subject matter of tliis volume, I copj'. It is embraced in these words : "Israel Putnam was born at Salem, Massachusetts, on the seventh of January, 1718. Delighting more in the cultivation of those physical qualities which enabled him to surpass in feats of strength and agility, his mind was never cultivated, and he enterec" manhood without that solid practical information which, even at that early day, was withm the reach of every New Englander. At the age of twenty-one he removed to Pomfret, Connecticut, where he engaged in the cultivation of a consider- able tract of ground, which he had purchased. It was at this place that the tremendous "she-wolf," of which the world has heard so much, killed, it is said, in one night, seventy-five aheep and goats of his flock, besides wounding many of his lambs and kids ; and there also is the wonderful cave where this terrible beast found refuge, and in which Mr. Putnam so gallantly confronted and killed her. " When the French war broke out, he took the command of a company in Colonel Lyman's regiment of provincials ; and, with it, joined the army near Crown Point. In the following year he rejoined the army, and it was ir this campaign, while out on a scout near Ticonderoga, that the miraculous escape, so much spoken of and so well known, occurred : the folded blanket which he carried on his back, when opened, showing no less than fourteen bullet holes through it. In this campaign he appears also to have been taken prisoner by the Indians and carried to Montreal, from which he was exchanged through the assistance of Colonel Scuutlee. ' ' After the peace he returned to his farm, where he remained until the troublesome times at Lexington and Concord aroused the country, and all New England seized their guns for the redress of their grievances. When ' the news from Lexington ' reached Pomfret, Colonel Putnam was ploughing ; and, it is said, he unyoked his team, mounted his horse, and hurried off to Cambridge. The General Assembly immediately afterwards authorized the organization of six regiments of troops, and Colonel Putnam (who had been appointed a Lieutenant-colonel of militia in October, 1774) was appointed to the command of the Third, with the title of Second Brigadier-general of the Provincial Troops. He speedily filled up his regiment, and returned at its head to Cambridge ; a detachment from it, under the noble Captain Knowlton, having been among the troops ordered to Breed's Hill under Colonel Prescoit, and whose cup of honest INTRODUTTORY REMARKS. 13 renown was filled to overflowing by their undaunted bravery on the eventful seventeenth of June. " In a previous chapter, notice has been taken of the affair on Noddle's Island, and of the part which General Putxam did not take in it. It was his good fortune, however, to obtain the credit of that affair ; and, through the management of interested parties in Congress, whose opposition to the commander-in-chief was then in embryo, but not less virulent, this intelligence, then just received in Congress, was so used as to secure for him the appointment of Major-general of the Continental Army, in June, 1775, to the mortification of General Washingtox, and the disgust of the officers from Massachusetts and Connecticut. "At the battle of Bunker's Hill, he is said, bj' his eulogists, to have performed prodigies of valor. Those who were present, admit that he went on the ground with Colonel Prescott: and his party, on the evening before the battle, but they agree that he did not remain there. They say he returned on the following morning ; but they agree that he ordered the intrenching tools to be removed from the redoubt, in opposition to the remonstrances of Colonel Prescott, and for that purpose withdrew a large number of Colonel Prescott' s troops from the redoubt, at a time when the approach of the enemy showed that they were actually needed in the works. When the reinforcements under Colonel Stark came on the hill, they saw General Putxam and a large body of men quietly standing on the safe side of Bunker's Hill, beyond the range of the enemy's artillery ; and when the same body retreated, after the struggle at the works was ended, the General and his men were at the same place, and quietly joined in the retreat. For his ^gallantry" at Bunker's Hill, Colonel Prescott — the acknowledged hero of that engagement — some years afterwards, at an oflicial dinner with Governor Bowdoin, of Massachusetts, openly declared General Putnam deserved to be shot; but those who were not there, and whose information is generally acquired from less reliable sources, gene- rally suppose the venerable Colonel was mistaken in his conclusions, not- withstanding Colonel Gerrish, in whose company the General was, for this very offense (.?), was afterwards arrested for cotvardice, tried by a court- maiiial, cashiered, and universally execrated. "On the reorganization of the army, under General Washington, General Putnam was ordered to the ' reserve ' of the army. After the evacuation of Boston had relieved the colonies, for a season, of the presence of the enemy, General Putnam was sent forward to New York, to take the command there, and to continue the execution of the plan 14 INTEODUCTORY REMARKS. proposed by General Lee for the defense of that city, unless the general voice of the brigadiers and the engineers concurred in any slight change. "After General Washington assumed the command in New York, General Putnam remained there, without command, until the siclcness of General Greene afforded an opportunity for the display of any abilities he might possess in opposing the enemy's progress towards New York. Of the manner in which he discharged his duty in that important position, ' this chapter has furnished some evidence. ' ' After the retreat into the county of Westchester, and the battle on Chatterton's Hill, General Putnam was ordered to Philadelphia; and in January, 1777, he was ordered to Princeton, where he remained until spring. "In the spring of 1777, General Putnam was ordered to another of those quiet posts, where no particuliar abilities, beyond a strict obedience to orders, appeared to be required, — the command of the Highlands on the Hudson ; but here, too, misfortunes visited him. After withdrawing the troops under his command beyond the limits within which they could render any assistance to the garrisons of Forts Montgomery and Clinton, leaving the passes exposed, and without even a guard or a patrol — in direct violation of the orders of the commander-in-chief — Sir Henry Clinton, as he had done at Bedford, on the twenty- seventh of August) stole a march on the vigilant and talented Putnam, and carried off the prizes, which furnished the key to the Highlands. "In November, 1777, the situation of affairs in Pennsylvania rendered it necessary for General Washington to strengthen the army in that quarter. He accordingly dispatched Colonel Hamilton, with orders to General Putnam, then at New Windsor, to send forward the brigades of Continental troops under Generals Poor and Sullivan, and the brigade of militia under General Warner, to headquarters. But General Putnam had a desire to capture New York, and the commander-in-chief's orders were disregarded, until a letter, such as General Washington seldom wrote, brought the General to his senses. The result of this delay was the fall of Fort Mifflin, the evacuation of Eed Bank, the loss of the defenses on the Delaware, and the continued occupation of Philadelphia, through the succeeding winter, by General Howe. "In March, 1778, Congress ordered an investigation of the causes which led to the loss of the forts in the Highlands, and General Putnam was superseded in his command by General McDougal. The court of inquiry reported that, ' upon full knowledge and mature deliberation of INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 15 facts, on the spot, they reported the loss to have heen occasioned by icant of men, and not by any fault in the comvianders.' This indirect condemna- tion of the conduct of General Putnam, whose force had enabled him to supply the requisite number of men for the defense of the forts, was more positively confirmed by the action of General Washington, who ordered General Putnam to Connecticut, to ' suijerintend tlie forwarding on of the new levies,' — a post of far less importance than such a soldier as General Putnam is said to have been would have been placed in, at that important period, if those who knew the man, and who were fully competent to judge of his merits, had agreed with the popular opinion at the present day. ' ' It was during the General' s residence in Connecticut that the celebrated descent down the slope at Horse-Neck (now Greenwich) took place. It is proper to state, however, that historians, or rather eulogists, have done the General great injustice respecting this affair. The steep was not quite perpendicular, as some have supposed ; nor did his horse dash doM'u the hill, as picture-makers have taken for granted, but. General Putnam himself being the witness, ' the horse was well trained and sagacious, and came down the hill in a sliding manner, resting upon his haunches,' the General, meanwhile, being almost as comfortable as when in his easy-chair by his fireside. " General Putnam never afterwards enjoyed a separate command ; and in 1779 he was rendered incapable of active duty of any kind, by an attack of paralysis, which, to a considerable extent, deprived him of the use of his limbs on one side. ' ' The remainder of his days were spent in retirement, and on the twenty-ninth of May, 1790, he died, aged seventy-two years." In the preparation of these parts of my work, as in all others, I consulted nobody's taste or views but my own. My name was before the public as the author of the work ; and, in this case, as in all others, the exact truth, as I understood it, was the only subject which I considered. I had written the pages which preceded these, with the single object of making a series of narratives which would stand the test of a thoroughly critical examination; and had known, [unjustly, neither individual, nor party, nor country, in their preparation. Unknown beyond the imme- diate neighborhood in which I have lived and done business, from my boyhood, I was cheered onward, in this first attempt at book-making, by the words of approbation which I received from every quarter of the Union, and by the substantial evidences of confidence and respect which 16 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. were voluntarily tendered and forwarded to me by the most honored of those who have added most honor to our Historic Literature, and I had seen no reason — nor have I yet seen any — to change the great fundamental principle on which I acted. I made as thorough an examination of my subject as my means would admit ; and, after satisfying my own mind, with the same disregard of popular delusion and of professional chicanery which I have showed in all other parts of my work, I wrote and issued the lines which have been cited. I presented Israel Putnam as I found him, as I have endeavored to do in the case of every other officer who occupied posts of similar importance ; and if General Putnam does not occupy the same relative position in my work, which others have assigned to him, the fault, or the misfortune, was General Putnam's, not mine. The former of the two citations, involving the duties and responsi- bilities of a commander, soon after it appeared in print, was submitted, especially, to the critical examination of one of the most distinguished soldiers of our country, who has honored me with his friendship, and it met his full and unqualified approval. Sustained, as it has been, by the great weight of this authority, I have yet to learn that my conclusions are incorrect, or that in this, or in other parts of my work, I have exceeded my duty, as an humble laborer in the literature of our countrj'. About the time when the approval of my friend confirmed my own views on this subject, the first and only attack which has been made on my work, so far as I am aware, appeared, anonymously, in ' ' The Hartford Daily Post," a widely circulating daily, which is published at Hartford, Connecticut. Through the kindness of some unknown friend, a copy of the paper which contained it was forwarded to me ; and, in consideration of the personalities which the article contained, I determined to 'offer a reply. The respected publisher, J. M. Scofield, Esq. , readily allowed me a hearing ; and I attempted to avail myself of the privilege in a respectful and dignified manner. A short time afterwards, my anonjTnous opponent, in a strain of personal abuse, renewed the attack ; and a second hearing was asked for, obtained, and employed in reply. Without being con- tented with his former efforts, my opponent, after some delay, appeared a third time — in which he received the co-operation of "an older, if not a better, soldier;" and, a third time, I was subjected to the misrepresenta- tion and abuse of " Selah." With a degree of forbearance which entitles him to my grateful acknowledgments, Mr. Scofield, a third time, opened his columns, for my answer — appropriating upwards of a column, daily, for nearly two weeks, to my use— notwithstanding, with commendable INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 17 zeal, my opponents had meanwhile secured the public co-operation of a gallant corps of citizen soldiery — " The Putnam Phalanx" of Hartford ; and that of a body not less intelligent or gallant — the General Assembly of the State of Connecticut. This series of letters having attracted the attention of ' ' the reading public," some of my personal friends have desired, and, unsuccessfully, attempted to obtain, copies of ' ' The Post ' ' which contain it ; and, at their request, a few copies, for circulation among those who are particularly interested in the subject, have been printed in this form. In preparing this edition of the letters for the press, I have made no alterations, except to correct the typographical errors which had crept into viy own letters. Tliose of my opponent have been printed without any alteration whatever, from the fact that their author has declined my request for corrected copies of his letters, and I did not feel authorized to make any altera- tions without his approval. Desiring that this correspondence may receive that indulgence from the reader which the literary labors of all busi?iess men require ; and that " Selah" or myself, as our respective productions may merit, will receive the sympathy of " the masses of the people of Connecticut," with whom " the honor of Connecticut " can alone be confided with safety, I remain, Eespectfully yours, HENRY B. DAWSON. MoRRiSANiA, New York, September 1, 1859. "SELAH'S" FIRST LETTER. [From the "Hartford Daily Post," Jan. 27, 1859.] MAJOR-GENERAL PUTNAM. It is with feelings of genuine pleasure that we are made aware that there is yet a little of patriotism left in this State of honorable Revolutionary history, and that the spirit of justice and right has not quite all died out — as evinced by so glowing an address as was delivered, a few evenings since, by the Hon. Henry C. Deming, on the life and services of that worthy old hero— Major General Israel Putnam. We say that it is pleasant to thus witness a man of Mr. Deming's learning and position, coming out from the ranks of lukewarm lovers of heroism, and doing such gallant battle for so worthy an object — not so much for the matter of bandying words upon the subject, as to refute some of the miserably untrue statements that have been put for- ward by many of the would-be historians of the day, and hurl back in their teeth some of the myriad falsehoods and unkind sarcasms which have flowed so freely from their perjured pens. To our utter astonishment and sincere grief it was, that we came upon some remarks upon the services of General Putnam during the Revolution, in a new work, entitled 20 selah's first letter. " Battles of the United States by Sea and Land," by Henry B. Dawsox, that bear such unmistakable evidence of prejudice, rancor and malice, that are penned in such a cutting, sarcastic manner, and that have their paragraphs so thickly interspersed with italics, for the purpose of giving their envenomed dart a doubly poisoned point, that we cannot forbear giving a few extracts, for the purpose of allowing the public to see to what extent one man may disgrace himself in attempting to cast a stigma upon a character so shining and lustrous as was that of General Putnam. The following extracts are verhatim from the work itself, bearing the italics as there found. In speaking of the battle of Brooklyn Heights, Mr. Dawson, after charging upon General Putnam repeated and unpardonable blunders, and alleging that he disre- garded all the orders given him from both General Washington and General Sullivan, in reference to the security of the various passes and approaches to the Heights, as also the posting of guards and patrols, and the sending out of scouting parties to reconnoitre the enemy's positions-winds up his tirade in the following words: " And, finally, that to his ignorant, self-conceited ineffi- ciency the enemy is indebted for one of the greatest victories of the war, and his country for one of the most disastrous defeats, both military and moral, which it ever experienced." Is the above true ? We sincerely believe it has no foundation in truth, and base our belief on sound and undeniable historical facts, too numerous to mention in our brief space. Passing over many such paragraphs as the one we have selah's first letter. 21 copied above, occurring in various places, in reference to General Putnam in the several actions in which he was engaged, we proceed to make some extracts from a brief memoir of the General, in the same work. At the outset — " Israel Putnam was born at Salem, Massachusetts, on the seventh day of January, 1718 At the age of twenty-one, he removed to Pomfret, Connecticut, where he engaged in the cultivation of a considerable tract of ground, which he had purchased." Now, is it possible that General Putnam was twenty- one years of age when he removed to Pomfret, and yet none know of the occurrence ? The oldest inhabitants of Pomfret, and all of the town records, go to prove that he was horn in that town. Again: " It was at this place [Pomfret] that the tremendous ' she-wolf,' of which the world has heard so much, killed, it is said, in one night, seventy-five sheep and goats of his flock, besides wounding many of his lambs and kids; and there, also, is the wonderful cave where this terrible beast found refuge, and in which Mr. Putnam so gallantly con- fronted and killed her." We give the above extract, to show the vein of sarcasm and prejudice that pervades the whole article. As still another example of this humor, we have the following, in speaking of him after he had joined the army in the old French War : " It was in this campaign, while out on a scout near Ticonderoga, that the miraculous escape, so much spoken of, and so well known, occurred. The folded blanket which he carried on his back, ivJien opened, showed no less than fourteen bullet holes through it." It is certainly wonderful what a grim satisfaction Mr. 22 sblah's first letter. Dawson appears to take in pulling down all of our fair castles in the air, and dispelling those bright visions of a brave and gallant warrior in the form of " Old Put." And now read his words in reference to the battle of Bunker's Hill: " At the battle of Bunker's Hill, he is said, by his eulogists, to have performed prodigies of valor. Those who were present, admit that he went on the ground with Colonel Prescott and his party, on the evening before the battle, but they agree that he did not remain there. They say he returned on the following morning; but they agree that he ordered the intrenching tools to be removed from the redoubt, in opposition to the remonstrances of Colonel Prescott, and for that purpose withdrew a large number of Colonel Prescott's troops from the redoubt, at a time when the approach of the enemy showed that they were actually needed in the works. When the re-enforcements under Colonel Stark came on the hill, they saw General Putnam and a large body of men quietly standing on the safe side of Bunker's Hill, beyond the range of the enemy's artillery; and, when the same body retreated, after the struggle at the works was ended, the General and his men were at the same place, and quietly joined in the retreat." Here, then, we have the matter in a nut-shell. With any person at all conversant with the character and disposition of General Putnam, the above extract will unhesitatingly be pronounced a falsehood ! But, oh ! Sons of Connecticut ! does it not make the blood in your veins tingle and grow hot to thus have this Mr. Dawson publish to the world that a body of Connecticut men, led by a man whom you have all learned to look up to as a hero — that they were inactive, and " quietly standing on the safe SELAHS FIRST LETTER. 23 side of Bunker's Hill," on that ever-memorable day! It has always been a favorite belief in our mind that all the American troops on Bunker's Hill were in warm action, and that there were no drones or idlers in the ranks on that day. Must this theory be entirely evaporated by Mr. Dawson? We shall need the proofs first: and those he cannot bring ! One more, and the last. Not the last for want of material — for this work teems with such unjust remarks — but the last, for want of room, in which to enlarge more freely : " For his ' gallantry ' at Bunker's Hill, Colonel Pres- COTT — the acknowledged hero of that engagement — some years afterward, at an official dinner with Governor BowDOiN, of Massachusetts, openly declared General Put- nam deserved to be shot ! But those who were not there, and whose information is generally acquired from less reliable sources, generally suppose the venerable Colonel was mistaken in his conclusions [cool], notwithstanding Colonel Gerrish, in whose company the General was, and whose orders the Colonel was bound to obey, for this very offense, was afterwards arrested for coivardice, tried by a court-martial, cashiered, and universally execrated ^ This is all most pitiable ! Were there even a shadow of a doubt that General Putnam did not perform those brave and gallant deeds — that he did not, as the battle alarum came on the winds from the field of Lexington, leave the plow in the furrow, and hasten to the scene of strife, to mingle in the fray — that his heart did not warm and thrill with those generous impulses, and his spirit burn with an intense and unconquerable desire to serve his country, and do battle in an oppressed country's cause; 2-1 selah's first letter. in short, that he performed none of those brave and gallant actions, and was in no respect the hero that we have all loved to picture him — revolving incidents in his history, in our minds, with an undying admiration — looking at the relics that have been left to us, with a reverential awe, for their associations with him — speaking his name to our children, and teaching them to look up to him for a noble example of native bravery and courage, warm and patriotic attachment to a bleeding country's cause, indefatigable exertions in his command, and a spirit ever undaunted during the heaviest trials and under the most oppressive burdens of care and toil — we say, if there were a shadow of doubt that such was the case, and such the man, we would give that doubt its due weight and force. But there cannot be found anywhere, save in the garbled works of some prejudiced historians, or in the words and letters of those contemporary officers with Putnam, who felt a rancorous and venomous hate for him, because of his glowing actions — actions so unlike their own, in their undoubted justice, and gallantry, and zeal — there cannot be found, we say, the first line, or paragraph, or the first historical fact, to prove that General Putnam was that " ignorant, self-conceited " and " cowardly " man which Mr. Dawson labors so hard to represent him. Three-quarters of a century has rolled away, with all its various mutations and changes, its unrolling of records, and its decyphering of them, and its never-ceasing search into Revolutionary chronicles; yet nothing has been brought to light to detract one jot or tittle from General Putnam's well-earned glory — nor pluck one leaf from the laurel-wreath which encircles his brow, in our minds — or even to raise a just doubt of the validity of his claim to selah's first letter. 25 those words of praise, and those feelings of respect and admiration which all trne Americans so well love to accord him. On the other hand, many and many are the incidents- little as distinct and separate, but a Colossus as a whole— that have been dragged forth from the oblivion of some old manuscript or library, or been related by the feeble and faltering tongue of age, uttering reminiscences of childhood's days, when General Putnam was a companion and playmate— to speak in thunder-tones to prove the legitimacy of the claim for honor and glory for him " who dared to lead where any dared to follow '."—whose cool intrepidity and dauntless bravery wrought so much toward giving that terrible check to British arms at Bunker's Hill — whose presence and word of command inspired the troops, at Brooklyn Heights, to deeds of utmost daring — whose ready tact, consummate skill, and indomitable energy, lent a Herculean arm to the American cause throughout the war— and won for himself a lofty niche in the Temple of Fame, where every honest heart loves to behold him— and whose name is engraven on the hearts of all Americans, and inscribed on the immortal roll of patriots, in the great Temple of American Liberty ! SELAH. HENIIY I^. DAWSON'S FIRST LETTEH. [Fkom tiik '■H.\ritord Daily Post," Fkh. 14, 1S59.] White Plains, N. Y., Feb. 5, 1859. To the Editor of the Hartford Post : Through the kindness of a friend in New York, I have been favored with a copy of your daily of the 27th ult., in which an anonymous writer, " Seluh,'^ uses my name, motives, and labors with considerable spirit and freedom. Having had no doubt that your correspondent feels easier since your publication of his article, I would not have disturbed his quiet or encroached on your space or the time of your readers, had not his remarks found a place in the paper which " has the largest circulation of any daily paper in Connecticut," while they lack the most essential element in such an article — the unalloyed Truth. The remarks in which he has been pleased to attack me personally ; the general remarks of " prejudice, rancor and malice," " envenomed darts, " with " doubly-poisoned points," " tirade," " no foundation in truth," " falsehood," &c., with which he bespatters my motives and my pages ; and the empty declamation, without a single authority, with which he fills nearly two columns of the Post, have passed away with the winds which pass down tl:e valley of the Connecticut, and I shall not disturb their flight toward 28 Dawson's first letter. the ocean of oblivion. I may be pardoned, however, if I ask space to notice his specific charges, through the same medium in which they were made. My conclusions on General Putnam's character have been formed on " sound and undeniable facts,^^ each of which is given, at length, in the pages referred to by " SelaJi," with ample authorities, at the foot of each page, to sustain it, all of which, cmd many others, can be found in the Library of the Connecticut Historical Society, and in every respectable private library, in your city. When the worthlessness of these authorities shall have been estab- lished, the deductions which have been drawn therefrom will, of course, fall to the ground, and " Selah " be recog- nized as tJie great historical touchstone; until that time, your correspondent will, probably, remain what, so far as .this subject goes, he now is — an anonymous scribbler. My remarks, respecting the place of General Putnam's birth, appear to have disturbed " Selah's " repose ; and Pomfrct, Conn,, instead of Salem, Mass., is, indirectly, claimed as his birth-place. I have not had access to " the oldest inhabitants" of Pomfret, and " all the town records," which " go to prove that he [General Putnam] was hor7i in that town." That privilege has been reserved, solely, for " Selah," I presume; although he modestly conceals the special advantage which he has gained, under a general assertion. It has been my humble lot, not knowing of " Selah," or his aged friends, or more aged town records, to follow the Rev. Dr. Allen {Biograp)hical Dictionary, 3d ed., p. G85), Dr. Thatcher {3Iilitary Journal, Appendix, p. 387), Colonel David Humphrey's {Life of Putnam, p. 8), and the inscription on General Putnam's tomb at Brook- lyn, Conn., all of which say he was born at Salem, Mass., with which I have been, and am still, perfectly contented. Dawson's fiest letter. 29 " Selah " cites my remarks on the she-wolf and folded blanket, only " to show the vein of sarcasm and prejudice that pervades the whole article," without even attempting to deny their truth. I need only say that his zeal, to this extent at least, has been compelled to give way, unwillingly, to his discretion. While commenting on my remarks concerning General Putnam's questionable gallantry on Bunker's Hill, " Selah" becomes a falsifier ; and this, Mr. Editor, has mainly influenced me in asking the space in your columns which this note will occupy. / have never said, or thought, that " a body of Connecticut men, led by a man whom you have all learned to look up to as a hero, were inactive," and "quietly standing on the safe side of Bunker's Hill," as " Selah " falsely insinuates, and his pious ejaculations on the subject, like other parts of his story, pass harmlessly away. I have said that General Putnam was on the shady side of the hill, " with a large body of men," whom— as I say four or five lines above— he. had withdrawn from Colonel Prescott's force within the redoubt, in which^ after they ceased their labor, there had been 710 Con- necticut men, and from which, consequently, there could not have been any withdrawn. The Connecticut men were behind the ra?7/ence— not in the redoubt; and under the noble Thomas Knowlton, of Ashford, Conn., they did their duty there. I have now before me, in the hand- writing of that same glorious Thomas Knowlton— com- pared with whose deeds and patriotism those of Israel Putnam are but worthless trash.— the roll of that Ashford Company, which, under his command, on the banks of the Mystic, June 17th, 1775, secured for Putnam and Con- necticut what both have since enjoyed, but neither acknowledged. 30 Dawson's first letter. When I look on this interesting relic ; read the remarks which appear on the margin, opposite the names of those who fell on that memorable day; and examine the accounts, and receipts for pay, and, sometimes, for "' sarse-money " of the survivors; and then glance over "/S'e^a/i's" appeal to the " Sons of Connecticut," as the conservators of the honor of Connecticut, I cannot avoid the reflection that this same purely patriotic Knowlton, and many of the signers of these receipts, fell in a successful attempt to restore the honor of Connecticut, which had been trailed in the dust at Kipp's Bay; that they all now rest without a stone, or even a stake, to mark their burial places; and that " Selali " and his " Sons of Connecticut " (in their " reverential awe " of the " relics " of General Putnam) appear to have forgotten, if they ever knew, that Thomas Knowlton, John Keyes and Daniel Allen, and their men, ever lived or died for the honor of Connecticut. " Selah's " wonted discretion shows itself in the empty declamation with which he condemns my remarks on General Putnam's " gallantry " on Bunker's Hill, and it needs no particular notice from me. If it will gratify him, however, I may be allowed to say, that it is not true that General Putnam performed " those brave and gallant deeds" referred to by '' Selah,'' or any of them; that he did not, " as the battle alarm came on the winds from the field of Lexington, leave the plow in the furrow, and hasten to the scene of strife, to mingle in the fray;" that his heart did not " warm and thrill with those generous impulses, and his spirit burn with an intense and unconquerable desire to serve his country;" that no " works of prejudiced historians " or of envious contemporary officers, either " garbled " or complete, are required to establish " the Dawson's first letter. 31 ignorant, self-conceited inefficiency of General Putnam," or the truth of Colonel Prescott's charge against his gallantry at Bunker's Hill — nor will they be required for such a purpose, while the names and words of John Stark, David Wooster, John Sullivan, Geoi?ge Clin- ton, and George Washington are remembered ; or the slopes at Gowanus or the rocky heights on the Highlands remain undisturbed : and, finally, that until the connection between General Putnam and Majors Small and Mon- CRiEFFE of the Royal army, and the charges of a question- able intimacy with the enemy, which Robert R. Living- ston preferred against the General {Letter to General Washington, January 14, 1778), remain unexplained, as they now are, " Selah " might reasonably select some other, if not more fitting object, for his " hero-worship," and as the representative of Revolutionary Connecticut. I am a stranger to nearly all your neighbors — the only resident of Hartford with whom I am personally acquainted is, I believe, now in Rome — and I would be sorry to con- sider " Selah " a fair representative of that ancient and respectable town. An examination of my sentiments, and of the authorities which I refer to in support of them, as well as the production of evidence to disprove my state- ments, is invited and expected. I was not prepared, how- ever, to find in the columns of a widely-circulating journal, published in a distant city, a personal assault such as this; and I am consoled with the reflection that its author, conscious of his own dishonor, masks his identity under the cloak of the " Psalmist of Israel." With his acknowl- edged " reverential awe," when in the presence of the " relics " of such departed worthies as General Putnam ; with his steady rejection of the written authority, when it 32 Dawson's first letter. interferes with the traditions of the fathers ; with the customary multiplication of birth-places for his saint, as is usual with such people; and with his practical justification of the means in the accomplishment of the end, the locality of " Selah" is easily determined; and I leave him with his fraternity, and with your readers, to be rewarded as they may, severally, see fit. Respectfully, Yours, HENRY B. DAWSON. "SELAH'S" SECOND LETTER. [KnoM THE "Hariford Daily Post," FKiiRrARV '~3, 1S59.1 To the Editor of the Hartford Daily Post : In your issue of the 5tli inst., I find a letter from Mr, Dawson, in which he indulges to an excessive degree in gasconade and self-esteem, in an unavailing attempt to fortify an untenable position which he saw fit to take in his work, the " Battles of the United States by Sea and Land." In that work he took it upon himself to belabor and stigmatize, in an unjust and unwarrantable manner, the life and services of General Israel Putnam. In an issue of your paper for the 27th ult., I made reference to this spirit of prejudice and ill-will toward General Putnam, as evinced by Mr. Dawson in the compilation of his work, and gave several quotations from the same, upon which I took the liberty to make some strictures, commenting upon them, pronouncing them false in their sentiment and de- sign, and stating that no proof could be produced to verify his statements — as I do 72010, most emphatically. Mr. Dawson in his letter charges me with a personal attack upon him. I had hoped that he was a man of too good sense to be led away with so ridiculous an idea. Every man who issues from the press a work treating upon history, is resjjonsible for what he has said therein. And if his work will not bear the eye and pen of criticism, it is 5 84 ■ selah's second letter. worth but little. Now, if to comment upon the sentiments and tenor of that work is to " personally assault " the author of it, then I have assaulted Mr. Dawson ; and, if such be the effect of criticism, it is a thing entirely new to me. But enough of this. Mr. Dawson, after referring to several works, to be used as " authorities " to prove my statements false, and render the name of Putnam infamous, (some of which I shall refer to to prove the reverse,) he makes use of the following scandalous language : " If it will gratify him, however, I may be allowed to say that it is not true that Gen. Putnam performed ' those brave and gallant deeds ' referred to by ' Selah,' or any of them ; that he did not ' as the battle alarm came on the winds from the battle of Lexington, leave the plough in the furrow, and hasten to the scene of strife, to mingle in the fray ;' that his heart did not ' warm and thrill with those generous impulses, and his spirit burn with an in- tense and unconquerable desire to serve his country ;' that 710 ' works of prejudiced historians, or of envious cotempo- rary officers,' cither ' garbled ' or complete, are required to establish ' the ignorant, self-conceited inefficiency of Gen. Putnam,' or the truth of Col. Prescott's charge against his gallantry at Bunker's Hill." Now, this is so exceedingly absurd, so rankling with prejudice, and so overloaded with untruth, that it does really seem sheer nonsense to make any reply to it. Nor is this my opinion barely ; others, far better versed in the history of our country than I ever expect to be, look upon it in the same light, and express themselves in the same manner. But, lest some may read the sentiments of Mr. Dawson, and, being 'ignorant of the facts in the premises, r'o SELAH S SECOND LETTER. 35 accept tlicm as the law, I feel myself constrained to give a few quotations from undoubted authorities, and so allow the public to see what a mass of evidence and what a host of vouchers that gentleman has set his face against, for the purpose of carrying on his disgraceful war against the un- spotted reputation of a Hero of the Revolution, long since gathered to the dust of his fathers. The works from which I quote are to be obtained at any book-store and in any library, and all may refer to them, that they may satisfy themselves of the accuracy of my quoting, and the authority I have for pronouncing Mr. Dawson's statements utterly false and untenable. In reference to Putnam's adventures in the French War, I find the following in Dr. Allen's " American Biographi- cal Dictionary : " " During the French War, he was appointed to command a company of the first troops which were raised in Con- necticut, in 1755. He rendered much service to the arm) in the neighborhood of Crown Point. In 1756, while nea. Ticonderoga, he was repeatedly in the most imminent danger. He escaped, in an adventure of one night, ivith tiveJve huUet-hohs in Ms hlmd'efJ' Whereabouts in this paragraph, Mr. Dawson, does he say that the plurality of bullet-holes was occasioned by the folded state of his blanket ? Besides, the number of bullet-holes was hcelve, and not fourteen, as stated in your work. Mr. Dawson, you do not coi^y your work cor- rectly ! The author of " Washington and the Generals of the Revolution," in speaking of the above adventure, in which Putnam was accompanied by a comrade in arms, by the name of Durkee, who was wounded, says : 36 selah's second letter. " Amid a shower of bullets, they succeeded in reaching a spot of safety ; but, when Putnam came to oifer his can- teen of brandy to his w^ounded companion, he discovered that one of the enemy's balls had pierced and emptied it, and his blanket presented no less than twelve bullet-holes, received during their escape." In reference to the Battle of Lexington, Dr. Allen has the following : " He was ploughing in his field, in 1775, when he heard the news of the Battle of Lexington. He immediately un- yoked his team, left his plough on the spot, and, without changing his clothes, set off for Cambridge. He soon went back to Connecticut, levied a regiment, and repaired again to the camp. In a little time he was promoted to the rank of Major-General. In the Battle of Bunker's Hill he ex- hibited his usual intrepidity. He directed the men to re- serve their fire till the enemy was very near — reminded them of their skill — and told them to take good aim. They did so, and the execution was .terrible. After the retreat, he made a stand at Winter Hill, and drove back the enemy under cover of their ship." In reference to Gen. Putnam's coolness and bravery, as well as promptitude and unwavering decisiveness in cases of emergency, we have the following well-known incident' as related in Dr. Allen's work : " One Palmer, a lieutenant in the Tory new levies, was detected in the camp. Governor Tryon reclaimed him as a British officer, threatening vengeance if he was not re- stored. Gen. Putnam wrote the following pithy reply : ' Sir— Nathan Palmer, a lieutenant in your King's service, was taken in my camp as a spy ; he was tried as a spy ; he was condemned as a spy ; and he shall be hanged as a spy. P. S. — Afternoon. He is hanged !" selah's second letter. 37 So much for Dr. Allen', one of the " authorities " noticed by Mr. Dawson as helping to brand Gen. Putnam as a coward and poltroon. And now for Gen. Humphrey, in his " Life of Putnam," (another one of Dawson's " authori- ties,") who, referring to Putnam's exploit in the wolf-deni makes use of the following language : " Then it was that the master, [Putnam, in reference to his negro man,] angry at the disappointment, and declaring that he ivas ashamed to have a coivard in his family, re- solved himself to destroj^ the ferocious beast, lest she should escape through some unknown fissure of the rock," &c. In Botta's " War of the Independence," Vol. I, page 204, 1 find the following in regard to the Battle of Bunker's Hill, during which action Mr. Dawson asserts that Put- nam had no command, and took no part : " A few moments before the action commenced. Dr. Warren, who had been appointed a general, a personage of great authority and a zealous patriot, arrived with some reinforcements. Gen. Pomeroy made his appearance at the same time. The first joined the troops of his own pro- vince of Massachusetts ; the second took command of those from Connecticut. Gen. Putnam directed in chief/ and held himself ready to repair to any point where his presence should be most wanted." In another place, Botta affirms that the Connecticut troops, during that battle, were in the trenches, in the very thickest of the fray. Mr. Dawson declares that they were skulking behind rail-fences. Trying to dodge the bullets, eh ? Poor, " cowardly," " dastardly," " treacherous" Connecticut troops! Does your fate and your history hang at the point of Mr. Dawson's perjured pen ? God forbid ! 38 selah's second letter. The following is from the pen of Dr. Dwight, the elo- quent eulogist of Gen. Putnam : " It is not so extensively known as it ought to be that Gen. Putnam commanded the American forces at the battle of Bunker's Hill ; and that to his courage and con- duct the United States are particularly indebted for the advantages of that day ; one of the most brilliant in the annals of this country." In the work " Washington and the Generals of the Revolution," I fiid the following emphatic words, to strengthen my assertion as to Putnam's commandership at that battle : " After the full accounts given of this event, it is need- less to enter into details. Gen. Putnam was there, and Gen. Warren volunteered his services, and even offered to receive the orders of Putnam, who recommended him to the redoubt where Col. Prescott was stationed. In this most important conflict, in which the brave and lamented Warren fell, Putnam was the only general officer in com- mand, and the battle seems to have been conducted under his guidance ; nor is it too much to say that most of the in- fluence exercised by its results may be ascribed to his courage, zeal, and indefatigable efforts." The following is a piece of unquestioned proof, as the date and circumstances of it will vouch for. It is from the cotemporary press of the Revolution, and is found in Mr. Frank Moore's forthcoming " Diary of the Revolu- tion :" " June 17, 1775. — Last evening, Colonel Putnam took possession of Bunker's Hill, with about two thousand men, and began an entrenchment, which they had made some progress in, when, at eight o'clock this morning, a party of SELAIIS SECOND LETTER.- 39 regulars landed at Charlestown, and fired that town in different places. Under cover of the smoke, a body of about five thousand men marched up to the American en- trenchments and made a furious and sudden attack. They were driven back three times, and when they were making the third attack, one of the Americans imprudently spoke aloud that ' their powder was all gone ;' which being heard by some of the regular ofiicers, they encouraged their men to walk up to their trenches, with fixed bayonets, and entered them, on which the Americans were ordered to re- treat, which they did with all speed, till they got out of musket shot. They then formed, but were not pursued. [Extract of a letter from a gentleman in Providence to a gentleman in Philadelphia.] — Pennsylvania Journal, June 28, 1775. Mr. Dawson makes a jest and a jeer of Gen. Putnam's bold descent of the hill at Horseneck, now called " Put- nam's Hill." In the " Connecticut Historical Collections " I find the following very emphatic account of that daring feat : " On the approach of Gov. Tryon to this place, with a force of about fifteen hundred men, [Gen. Putnam planted two iron field-pieces by the meeting-house, without horses or drag ropes. Having fired his cannon several times, Putnam, perceiving the British dragoons (supported by the infantry,) about to charge, ordered his men, about one hundred and fifty in number, to provide for their safety, and secured his own by 'phinging doivn the j^reclpice at full trot ! The dragoons, Avho were but a sword's length from him, stopped short ; for the declivity was so abrupt that they dared not follow ! " 40 selah's second letter. Soon after the Battle of Bunker's Hill, Gen. Putnam was raised in rank above Generals Wooster and Spencer, who were of a superior grade. This supersedeas touched the feelings of those gentlemen, more especially Spencer, who resigned his commission. Gov. Trumbull, of this State, acting under instructions from the General Assembly, wrote to Congress, at Philadelphia, in regard to Spencer's resignation ; and from that letter I quote the following sentence, which speaks volumes in favor of Putnam's efficiency : " At the same time, they have the highest sense of Gen. Putnam's singular merit and services, and request, if it be practicable, that some method may be devised to obviate the difficulties that are apprehended." I might go on making quotations without end, for the material and authorities are almost endless ; but it must be evident to Mr. Dawson, as well as to all others, that such may not be the case — although my will is good enough to give every scrap and iota of proof that can bear upon the subject — that it is absolutely necessary that all articles that find their way into the columns of a daily paper should be brief as possible. Mr. Dawson called for the proofs of my assertions as to the falsity of his statements. Have I not given them ? True, many more to the point might be given ; but do not those that are to be found in this article suffice to prove my assertions ? I will now merely say that Gen. Putnam's numerous adventures and daring exploits are too well known and relied upon by the mass of people in this State, to have even a shadow of doubt thrown upon the truth of the records by any historical writer ivliatever ! and that, in regard to the part taken by him in the Battle of Bunker's Hill, we must say, with a selah's second letter. 41 contemporary press, that, " outside of Boston, vre presume there are few persons, of common intelligence, who enter- tain any doubt about it." In regard to Dawson's charge of " self-conceited inefficiency," the very charge is so at variance with all the authorities quoted, and so evidently tinctured with the plague of prejudice, that it cannot be entertained by any reasonable mind for an instant. In re- gard to the character of the hero, the words of Dr. D wight speak a volume of eloquence and truth. He says : " Every employment in which he engaged he filled with reputation. In the private circle of life— as a husband, father, friend and companion — he was alike respected and beloved. In his manners, though somewhat more direct and blunt than most persons who had received an early polished education, he was gentlemanly, and very agree- able. In his disposition, he was sincere, tender-hearted, generous and noble. It is not known that the passion of fear ever found a place in his breast. His word was re- garded as an ample security for anything for which it was pledged ; and his uprightness commanded absolute confi- dence. His intellect was vigorous, and his wit pungent, yet pleasant and sportive. * * * During the gayest and most thoughtless period of his life, he still regarded religion with profound reverence, and read the Scriptures with the deepest veneration. In the decline of his life, he publicly confessed the religion of the Gospel, and, in the opinion of the respectable clergyman of Brooklyn, Rev. Dr. Whiting, from whose mouth I received the informa- tion, he died hopefully a Christian." On his tomb-stone I find the following beautiful inscrip- tion, a fitting tribute to the memory of a departed hero : 6 42 selah's second letter. " Passenger, if thou art a soldier, go not away till thou hast dropped a tear over the dust of a Hero, who, ever tenderly attentive to the lives and happiness of his men, dared to lead where any dared to follow. If thou art a Patriot, remember with gratitude how much thou and thy country owe to the disinterested and gallant exertions of the Patriot who sleeps beneath this marble. If thou art an honest, generous, and worthy man, render a sincere and cheerful tribute of respect to a man whose generosity was singular, whose honesty was proverbial, and who, with a slender education, with small advantages, and without powerful friends, raised himself to esteem, and to offices of eminent distinction, by personal worth, and by the diligent services of a useful life ! " In concluding this article, I must remark that I presume many will make the inquiry — " But what motive has Mr. Dawson in thus attempting to villify the fame and charac- ter of Gen. Putnam ? " Of this I have no absolute know- ledge ; I can only conjecture the general reason (which has actuated one or two other New York historians, as well as Frothingham, and others, of Massachusetts,) of envy ! " Envy of what ?" you will ask. Envy of Gen. Putnam's fair fame as a Connecticut ma n; jealousy of the noble part taken by a Connecticut man, and by Connecticut troops, on the soil of Massachusetts, on the one hand, and a bitter feeling engendered in the hearts of New Yorkers, at the fact that Connecticut troops, under the gallant Gen. Lee, preserved the city of New York from being given up to the enemy by its Tory inhabitants, as also the preservation of the Highlands, and the whole Hudson valley, by the troops from Connecticut, posted there throughout the war. Selah. HENRY B. DAWSON'S SECOND LETTER. [From the " IIaktford Daily Post," March 11 and 12, 1859.] White Plains, N. Y,, March 4, 1859. To the Editor of the Hartford Post : I HA.VE been favored with a copy of the second article which " /S^eZa/i " has addressed to you respecting my state- ments concerning Gen. Israel Putnam, and I respectfully ask a renewal of that indulgence with which you have heretofore favored me, in being allowed a hearing in reply. I am not surprised that " Selah " affects ignorance of the difference between a ^^ critic ^^ and a ^^ personal assailant,^' in his commendable desire to be recognized as the one, rather than to bear the brand of the other. If the charges of " prejudice," " rancor," " malice," " falsehood," " per- jury," &c., with which I have been assailed, in " Selah's " first article, are truly specimens of legitimate "criticism " and do not constitute a " i^ersonal assault" I confess I did not before know what constituted either the one or the other. An examination of the statements contained in a work, and a like examination of the motives which influenced the writer in making them, constitute two entirely distinct subjects which should not be confounded, even by " Selah." In fact, these two are so entirely independent, that a posi- 44 Dawson's second letter. tive untruth can be written and published with the most honorable and honest purposes, while the matter itself is still imtrue, and can never be made to possess any other character. I leave the subject, however, for other and more interesting portions of " Selali's " letter. In his first article, he claimed indirectly that Gen. Put- nam was born in Pomfret, Connecticut, and, in my reply, I cited Dr. Allen, Dr. Thatcher, Col. Humphreys, and the General's tomb, to establish the truth of my statement that he was born in Salem,^ Massachusetts, and for no other purpose whatever, as an examination of my remarks will fully prove. With the greatest coolness, worthy of his great examplar, " Selah " says I employed them " to render the name of Putnam infamous," and " as helping to brand Gen. Putnam as a coward and poltroon." If an establish- ment of the fact that Gen. Putnam was born at Salem, Massachusetts, likewise established, simultaneously, that he was " a coward and poltroon," or " rendered -the name of Putnam infamous," as " Selah'' intimates, it would appear that the natives of Salem — oven those who emigrated to Connecticut and received her homage — were predestinated to infamy and dishonor, an idea from which I entirely dis- sent. It may be proper to add, in this connection, that as Gen. Putnam was really horn in Salem, (" Selah' s " " oldest inliabitants " and " town records " to the contrary notwith- standing,) and therefore — " Selah " being my authority — was " a coward and poltroon," and an " infamous " charac- ter, it would appear, from his own confession, that my in- genuous opponent has become the voluntary friend and the recognized " champion " of disreputable characters, a class of people which is always the most noisy respecting its honor, without ever shoiving that it possesses any. Dawson's second letter. 45 I am happy in having been the means of diyerting " Selah's " attention from less worthy objects to the study of the history of his country and the " epitaphs of her sons ;" and it affords me pleasure to find that, from the bluster of empty words, he has so far descended from his airy flights that he has been enabled to cite some " authori- ties" to sustain his positions. I thank him for this display of the riches of his library, and the extent of his reading, taking the liberty to suggest, however, that a few " un- doubted authorities," besides those to which he has refer, red, may possibly be found " in any library and in any book store," and " Selah " may be edified and possibly en- lightened by a continuation of his investigations. To my denial that " Gen. Putnam performed those brave and gallant deeds," &c., " Selah " opposes the General's services in the French War, and cites Dr. Allen and Dr. Geiswold ; the wolf story, sustained by Col. Humphreys ; his services on Bunker Hill, with Botta, D wight, Gris- woLD, and "a gentleman in Providence" as authorities; and his Horse-neck affair, sustained by Barber's Histori- cal Collections. To my remarks respecting the General's leaving his plough in the furrow and hastening to Lexing- ton, he interposes Dr. Allen's Dictionary ; to my impeach- ment of the General's patriotism, he interposes Dr. Dwight and the General's epitaph ; and these, with some few minor interludes, constitute the whole of " Selah^s" re- sponse. In asking space to notice these several points, I disclaim any fear that " SelaJi " will " be taken as the law," regretting that I cannot reciprocate his good opinion of my last letter in that respect. My only object is to estah- Ush the truth ; and if the testimony which I propose to sub- mit to " the mass of the people of Connecticut "—in this • o^ 46 Dawson's second letter. case the umpires between " SelaJi " and myself — is less re- liable or less weighty than that adduced by my opponent, none will submit with a better grace, or retire from the contest with greater satisfaction than I. It is a work of but little pleasure, and certainly of no profit, to strip from the brows of those who have worn them, the laurels which they have stolen from other and better men ; yet the duty which falls upon all who pretend to write the history of their country, leaves no other course for them to pursue ; and I trust that I will not be found wanting either in my respect for " established reputations," or in the discharge of my duty in connection with them. But to a brief notice of " Selali^s " article. I. Respecting the General's services in the French War, my authorities will be brief, but, I trust, conclusive. An examination of the reports of the scouting parties, in 1755, will show that, during that year, Captain Israel Putnam was sent out on four several scouts — twice as a subordi- nate with Major Rogers, and twice with independent com- mands. Three of these, as will be seen by the Reports, dated Oct. 9, Oct. 22, and Nov. 15, were not productive of any honor, because Capt. Putnam kept out of all danger ; the other, which was commanded by Major Rogers, has at- tracted more attention. On the second of November, while Capt. Putnam was concealed on the margin of the lake, watching two canoes, which had been sent out on his front as decoys, especially for that purpose, the main body of the Indians— like Sir Wm. Howe and Sir Henry Clinton, some years afterwards — stole upon his rear, and then, as in later times, he found safety in running. It was in this affair the Indians " Shot Thro' his Blanket in Divers Places," and, by reference to the document {Report of Capt. Dawson's second letter. 47 Rogers eg Co., " Camp at Lake George, Nov. 3, 1755,") " Selah " may possibly determine whether there were twelve or fourteen holes in it ; and, by extending his investigations, he may also possibly determine whether the Captain's face or his back was toward the enemy, when his blanket was thus perforated. I may also be permitted to invite " Selah' s " attention to Humphreys' Life of Putnam, Ed. Phila., 1798, pp. 20, 21, respecting my correctness in copying. The author, after describing, in his peculiar manner, the exploit of Nov. 2, 1755, to which I have referred, and the apocryphal ad- venture with Lieut. Durkee, says : " There they betook themselves to a large log, by the side of which they lodged the remainder of the night. Before they laid down, Put- nam said he had a little rum in his canteen, which would never be more acceptable or necessary ; but on examining the canteen, which hung under his arm, he found the enemy had pierced it with their balls, and there was not a drop of liquor left. The next day he io\m^ fourteen bullet holes in his blanket." Any school-boy can tell " Selah " that a soldier's blanket is always folded and carried on his hack, during the day and during action ; and, while that fact is known, no other evidence is required to prove that the blanket was shot through while it was folded, and while its owner had his back to the foe. Without occupying your space with unnecessary details, allow me to pass from 1755 to 1759— from Cajjt. Putnam's exploits as a new recruit, in his first campaign, which we have just noticed, to Lieut. Col. Putnam, a veteran of five years' active duty, and, if " Selah " is correct, of brilliant achievements. In 1759, we find him in camp among his old associates, and his gallant services, if he had performed 48 Dawson's second letter. any, could not have failed to have secured for him the con- fidence of his commander. Under any circumstances, he would have been assigned to duties which corresponded, in character and importance, with his intellectual and profes- sional abilities ; and the records will show how the veteran was employed. The Order Books of the army {After Orders, Fort Edioard, 19th June, 1759,) show that he was ordered to take the command of " eight hundred working Men for mending the Roads to the 4 Mile Post." At the same time, however, Lieut. E,ebier was ordered to " attend to direct the Work," the Commander of the Expedition — evidently supposing that Putnam had not sufficient intelli- gence to " direct the work" of an ordinary country road- master, in filling the ruts and gullies — leaving to the Lieut. Colonel no other duty than that of sitting on a log, whit- tling a stick, and hurrying onward those of his party who were disposed to be idle. On the 15th of July, in the same year, two hundred working men were assigned to " Lieut. Col. Putnam to finish his Garden," with permis- sion "to take what Tools he directs." {General Orders, Lake George, 15th July, 1759.) And, on the 8th August, " with 334 Provincialls," he was sent out of the camp to cut loood, and in this employment he continued during the remainder of the season. If " Sclah " desires the details of this wood-cutting hero's campaign during the latter part of 1759, he can find them in the Order Books of the army, {General Orders, Aug. 8, 12, 13, 20, 27 ; Sept. 3, 10, 17, 24 ; Oct. 1, 6, 9, 22, and 30, 1759 ;) and if he and " the mass of the people of Connecticut," for whom he assumes to speak, are content to worship such an idol as this, it is their own business, not mine ; yet I may be allowed to remark, that the noble School Fund of that State leads those who are disinterested to hope for a different result. Dawson's second letter. 49 II. Respecting tlie wolf stoiy, I had supposed that it had been so far exploded that none at this late day would seriously offer it as an evidence of the bravery of Gen. Putnam. I shall not insult your readers so far as to repeat the refutations which have already appeared, most of which will be obvious to any intelligent person who reads the story. I cannot deny myself the privilege, how- ever, of copying, for " Selah's " especial benefit, a descrip- tion of " the wonderful cave where this terrible beast found refuge, and in which Mr. Putnam so gallantly confronted and killed her." The Historical 3Iagazine, Vol. 2, page 20, after describing a visit of the writer with a party of students from Providence, to this locality, and repeating the substance of Col. Humphreys' description of the cave, says : " Now, in reality, it is all of three feet square at the mouth, and descends, at a small inclination, for about twenty feet. Here the rocks are entirely closed up, and no opening could be found, though, for at least half an hour, we dug earnestly. The tradition among the people is, that it extends much farther into the hill." As this de- scription is confirmed by others, who have also visited the spot, I leave it for " Selah " to determine how long the "rope" must have been which was said to have been tied to Putnam's legs when he crept into this remarkable den. III. Respecting the part which Gen. Putnam took on Bunker Hill, " Selah " appears to be peculiarly sensitive ; but we are not indebted to his " undoubted authorities " alone for our knowledge of that subject. Botta, an Italian writer, who never saw America, after having passed through the filter of an American translation ; Dwight, 7 50 Dawson's second letter. whose sermons and theology are more reliable than his history ; Griswold, whose forte was not historical re- search ; and " a gentleman in Providence," who does not pretend to anything bnt " hearsay evidence," and whose errors are manifest to every one, are well enough as far as they go, and would have been better had we no other and more reliable evidence to contradict their statements. Can " Selah" possibly suppose that all that relates to Bunker Hill and its heroes is concentrated in Botta' DwiGHT, Griswold, and " the gentleman in Providence?" Let us see what those who were personally present, and the contemporary writers say on the subject. The Provincial Congress of Massachusetts, under whose authority Bunker Hill was occupied, in its official communication on that subject to the Continental Congress {In Provincial Con- gress, Watertoion, June 20, 1775,) and in its reply to the Albany Committee of Safety, when the latter body in- quired for the details of the engagement {Minutes of the Congress, Wednesday, June 28, 1775) ; the Massachusetts Committee of Safety, (in its very full " Account of the late battle at Charlestoivn," dated July 25, 1775) ; Capt. Elijah Hide, of Lebanon, Connecticut, who was a spectator of the scene, {Account of an engagement near Charlestoicn, &c.) ; Governor Jonathan Trumbull, of Connecticut, of whose facilities for obtaining correct information concerning pass- ing events " Selah^' can easily satisfy himself {Letters to the Baron J. D. Van der Cajjellan," Lebanon, 31 August, 1779," in which he also assigns the command of the troops to " the brave Gen. Warren'^) ; the author of the " Narrative of the action, ivhich ivas in Cambridge, Mass., June 22, 1775 ;" General Folsom, of New Hampshire, in his report to the Committee of Safety of that Province, {Letter dated, " 3Ied- Dawson's second lettee. 51 ford, June 22, 1775"j; Isaac Lathrop, at Watertowu, {Let- ter to Thaddeiis Burr, Fairfield, Conn., dated " June 22, 1775," and by tlic latter on the 25tli sent to General Wooster) ; Governor John Brooks, of Massachusetts, who was a Captain in Col. Bridge's regiment, and a volunteer with Col. Prescott, during the whole of Friday night and until the close of the action (" Particulars respecting the action,^' &c.) ; Col. John Stark, who commanded a regiment behind the rail-fence during the battle, {Letter to the Provincial Congress of Neiu LLampshire, " Medford, June 22, 1775"); Captain John Chester, who commanded a company of Connecticut troops behind the fence during the battle, {Letter to Eev. Joseph Fish, " Cambridge, July 22, 1775 ") ; Peter Brown, a private in Col. Prescott's regi- ment, on the hill in the battle, {Letter to his mother, " Cam- hridge, June 25, 1775 ") ; Samuel Gray, who from his lan- guage appears to have been on the hill in the battle, {Letter to Mr. Dyer, " Boxhury, July 12, 1775") ; Col. William xy Prescott, the illustrious " hero of Bunker Hill," {Letter to John Adams, '^ Camp at Cambridge, August 25, 1775"); Chief Justice Marshall, an officer of the Revolutionary army, {Life of Washington, Edit. London, 1804, 2, pp. 289- 297) ; General Henry Lee, of Virginia, also an officer of the same army, {3Iemoirs, Edit. Washington, 1827, pp. 33- 34) ; Mrs. Mercy Warren, the sister of James Otis, and the wife of President James Warren, {IList. of American Eevolution, 1, pp. 217-222) ; to say nothing of more recent writers, make no allusion whatever to Putnam, in connex- ion with the battle of Bunker Hill ; while some of them assign the command, either in part or altogether, to other persons. These citations prove what I desire them to prove — that " in the times which tried men's souls," and 52 Dawson's second letter. among those who were present on Bunker Hill, or imme- diately connected wdth it, Putnam was not considered a prominent actor in that engagement, in any capacity, or entitled to " special mention " in the narratives of that event. From this branch of the subject let us turn to another chapter in the history of Bunker's Hill. On the 17th of March, 1776, James Wilkinson— afterwards a Major- General in the Army of the United States — walked over the field of action, with Colonels John Staek and James Reed, of New Hampshire, who, with Thomas Knowlton, of Connecticut, commanded the troops who were behind the rail-fence in the battle ; and, on their authority, he states {3Iemoirs of his own Times, vol. 1, pp. 32-3 ; 841-7) that when the reinforcements, under Colonel Stark, came to the ground, before the battle. General Putnam was stand- ing on the safe side of Bunker's Hill, with entrenching tools slung across his horse, and Colonel Gerrish by his side ; that they remained there inactive, and with a large body of men, while the battle continued ; and that, when the troops retreated, the General, and those who were with him, quietly fell into the current and retreated with the others, without attempting to cover the retreat, or to as- sist the fugitives. The account is too long to be copied here ; but its substance appears in the following words of General Henry Dearborn, who was a Captain in Colonel John Stark's regiment, marched over Charlestown Neck by the side of his Colonel, and fought on the extreme right of the line which occupied the fence : " In the battle of Bunker's Hill, he (General Putnam) took post on the de- clivity toioards Charlestoivn Nech, where Isaio him on horse- back, as we passed on to Breed's Hill, with Colonel Ger- Dawson's second letter. 53 RiSH by his side. I heard the gallant Colonel Prescott (who commanded in the redoubt) observe, after the war, at the table of his Excellency James Bowdoin, then Governor of this Commonwealth, ' that he sent three messengers dur- ing the battle to General Putnam, requesting him to come forward and take the command, there being no general present, and the relative rank of Colonel not having been settled ; but tliat ho received no answer, and his whole conduct was such, both during the action and the retreat, that he had ought to have been shot.' He remained at or near the top of Bunker's Hill until the retreat, with Col. Gerrish by his side. I saw them together when we re- treated. He not only continued at that distance himself during the whole of the action, but had a force with him nearly as large as that engaged. No reinforcement of men or ammunition was sent to our assistance ; and in- stead of attempting to cover the retreat of those who had expended their last shot in the face of the enemy, he re- treated in company with Colonel Gerrish, and his whole force, without discharging a single musket ; but what is still more astonishing. Colonel Gerrish was arrested for cowardice, tried, cashiered, and universally execrated, while not a word was said against the conduct of General Putnam, whose extraordinary popularity alone saved him, not only from trial, but even from censure." * * * " When General Putnam's ephemeral and unaccountable popularity subsided or faded, away, and the minds of the people were released from the shackles of a delusive trance, the circumstances relating to Bunker's Hill were viewed or talked of in a very different light, and the selection of the unfortunate Colonel Gerrish as a scape-goat, considered as a mysterious and inexplicable event." There is also ample 54 Dawson's second letter. corroboration of this in General Heath's words {3Iemoirs, p. 19). " Just before the action began, General Putnam came to the redoubt, and told Colonel Prescott that the entrenching tools should be sent oif, or they would be lost. The Colonel replied that if he sent any of the men away with the tools, not one of them would return. To this the General answered, ' they shall every man return.' A large party was then sent off with the tools, and not one of them returned," as General Stark, Wilkinson and Dear- born have related. There is still another chapter in the history of Bunker's Hill which " Selah " may study with profit ; and after hav- ing opened that, and noticed a little interlude connected with the battle, I propose to dismiss the subject. In chap- ter V. of " The Battles of the United Statesj" I have given to Colonel Prescott the chief command ; while Generals Warren, Pomeroy and Putnam, as volunteers, without command, are also said to have been on the field before the action. The two former remained there during the day — one iii the redoubt and the other behind the fence ; but Putnam retired before the battle began, taking with him the intrenching tools and part of Colonel Peescott's men, to carry them— neither the men or the General appearing afterwards. The retirement from the field and subsequent inactivity of General Putnam having been already noticed, I need only call " Selali's " attention to the following " un- doubted authorities," from contemporary evidence, respect- ing the question of the commander : Governor John Brooks, Generals William Heath, Henry Lee, James Wilkinson and Henry Deaeborn, whose several testi- monies have been already referred to ; Rev. John Martin, "who was in the thickest of it," {Communicated to Prest. Dawson's second letter. 55 Stiles, of Yale College, and entered in his Diary, June 30, 1775) ; Hon. John Pitts, an influential member of the Committee of Safety, {Letter to Saminel Adams, " JVatertotvn, July 20, 1775 ") ; Dr. James Thatcher, of the Revolution- ary army, {Military Journal, pp. 26, 29) ; Hon. William Tudor, Judge Advocate, who tried Colonel Gerrish and other delinquent officers, {Columbian Centinal, July 11, 1818) ; Dr. William Gordon, whose personal acquaintance with the New England officers at that time gave him great facilities for obtaining correct information {Hist, of Am. Revolution, Ed. London, 1788, 2, p. 39), Chief Justice Mar- shall, {Life of Wasliington, Ed. London, 1804, 2, p. 289) ; and Daniel Webster, North American Be vietv, July, 1818) ; to say nothing of the complete work of Mr. Frothingham, {Siege of Boston), and other modern writers — all sustain me in assigning to Colonel Prescott the chief command, and in claiming for him the honor of having been " the hero of Bunker's Hill." The interlude to which I have referred is that in which " Selah " tries " to keep his courage np," by whistling over the rail-fence. His assertion that I had " declared " that "the Connecticut troops were skulking behind rail fences," does not affect me in the least ; and, if it was not perfectly evident that " Selah " is ignorant of the details of the ac- tion, I should pass the subject, with the silent contempt Avhich it merits. I am not surprised, however, that " Selah " is ignorant of the locality of the rail-fence on the banks of the Mystic, where Thomas Knowlton, and such of the Connecticut troops as did their duty, were stationed, and where William Cheney, Ashel Lyon, and Benjamin Russ laid down their lives for the defense of their country. That spot is holy ground, rendered sacred by the presence 56 Dawson's second letter. and the blood of patriotic yeomanry, who battled nobly, and, in some instances, as nobly died, not only for " the honor of Connecticut," but for the honor and the rights of their entire race. This post of danger was too holy for Israel Putnam to take comfort in ; and as he aban- doned it, and those who were standing there, in June, 1775, so those who are his disciples and imitators, in 1859, assume to be as ignorant of its existence, and of the names of those who fought there, as they are ignorant, in reality, of the virtues, the bravery, the honor, and the patriotism of Thomas Knowlton, John Chester, William Coit, and their associates, from Connecticut, who stood behind the homely structure and battled with the enemy. IV. Respecting the Horse-neck affair, so completely has it been exposed that I need not occupy your space further than by citing the words of Mr. Lossing {Field Book of the Revolution, 1 p. 413), who, after describing the ground, and giving a view of it, says : " The feat was perilous, but, under the circumstances, not very extraordinary ;" and by appealing to every person who has seen the side hill over which the General took his zig-zag sliding course, re- specting the entire truth of Mr. Lossing's statement. V. To my denial that " as the battle alarm came on the winds from Lexington, General Putnam left the plough in the furrow and hastened to the field of strife," &c., " Selah '' interposes Dr. Allen's Biographical Dictionary. As an essential modification of this story, allow me to refer the attention of my opponent to Bancroft's United States, 1 pp. 315. VI. To my denial of General Putnam's "intense and unconquerable desire to serve his country, " Selah " parades, in reply, Dr. Dwight's eulogy and the GeneraVs epitaph ! Dawson's second letter. 57 The " lionor of Connecticut " must be greatly endangered wlien the characters of lier heroes have no other standard THAN THEIR OWN EPITAPHS. In this selcction " Selah " has done well, and evinced his zeal for the honor of his State. A theologian and an epitaph ! Let us see what the facts are. Putnam entered the service as Second Brigadier General of the Connecticut troops— Wooster and Spencer, being his superiors in everything but dishonesty. Soon afterwards a skirmish took place on Noddle's Island, in which Colonel John Stark, with some New Hampshire troops, and some unknown officer, with a party of Massa- chusetts troops, displayed great abilities and firmness. A reinforcement was afterwards sent from Cambridge to strengthen Colonel Stark, and Doctor Joseph Warren and General Putnam accompanied them ; but as there were no Connecticut troops among them. General Putnam pos- sessed no authority, and exercised none. The first news of the skirmish reached the Congress while that body was consulting on the subject of the General officers ; and his friends, ever ready to seize any little circumstance which might benefit their own clique, claimed the victory for 7mw, and, by pushing the subject, secured his appointment as Major-General, before the truth could reach the Congress. This result caused great dissatisfaction in the army, and drove from it some of its most able officers — all of which this " Christian Patriot " was fully advised of— yet he not only retained his appointment, to the injury of his country's cause, but, when General Washington desired to retain all the commissions, in order that the Congress might be en- abled to reconsider the appointments, pro bono puhlico, Putnam frustrated the design, by securing, htj sharp prac- 8 58 Dawson's second letter. tice, tlie commission which had been filled with his name. " Selah " may find other details of this afi"air in Roger Sherman's Letter to General Wooster, (" Phila., June 23, 1775,") and General Washington's Letter to the President of Congress, (" Camj) at Camhridge, lOtJi July, 1775.") Shortly afterwards, the Battle of Bunker Hill was fought, and, as has been seen, this patriotic officer, a second time, attempted to appropriate, to his own advantage, the honors which others had gained. As " Selah " has informed us, Putnam was subsequently sent to the city of New York ; but with such positive instructions, that he could do but little harm. {Orders and Listructions to Major-General Putnam, March 29, 1776.") While there, however, he re- ceived into his family the daughter of Major Moncrieffe, the distinguished British engineer, then on duty at Staten Island. " Not long after, a flag of truce arrived from Staten Island, with letters from Major Moncrieffe, demanding her ; for he now considered her as a prisoner. General Washington would not acquiesce in this demand, saying, ' She should remain as a hostage for her father's good be- havior ! ' When General Washington refused to give her up, tlie nohle-minded Putnam, as if it were by instinct, laid his hand on his sword, and, with a violent oath, swore that * her father's request should be granted.' " The " noble- minded Putnam " — " Selah's " patriotic and Christian-like hero — notwithstanding his " sword " and his " violent oath," did not secure the female spy from General Washington's grasp ; and if " Selah " desires to pursue the investigation he will find the details in Davis' " Meinoirs of Aaron Burr, 1 pp. 86-90, and in the " Memoirs of 3Irs. Margaret Coghlan, (Daughter of the late 3Iajor ^loncrieffe). Edit. New York, 1794, pages 35-40." Passing thence, over Putnam's ex- Dawson's second letter. 59 ploits in the action on Long Island, at Philadelphia, and in the Highlands of the Hudson, in all of which " Selah " needs some light, I need only allude to his refusal to send forward the troops, when General Washington ordered them, which resulted in the loss of the forts on the Dela- ware, and the occupation of Philadelphia in 1777 ; and to the action of General Washington, when an attempt was made in the Congress, in 1773, to send Putnam to Rhode Island, which called forth that letter from Yalley Forge, March 6, 1778, in which, after referring to Putnam, the illus- trious chief uses these words : " With such materials as I have, the work must go on ; whether well or ill, is another matter. If, therefore, he and others are not laid aside, they must be placed where they can least injure the service." An opportunity to " lay him aside " soon occurred. The Congress had been, before, compelled, by the " higher power " of public opinion — the vox populi — to order an in- vestigation of the causes which led to the loss of the Forts Clinton and Montgomery, {Journal of Congress, Nov. 28, 1777,) and, soon afterwards, grave charges were made against his fidelity to his country. One of these {Robert R. Livingston, to General Washington, " 3Ianor of Living- ston, 14 January, 1778,") contains these words : " Your Excellency is not ignorant of the extent of General Put- nam's capacity and diligence ; and, how well soever these may qualify him for the management of this work, a most important command, the prejudices to which his imprudent lenity to the disaffected, and a too great intercourse ivith the enemy, have given rise, have greatly injured his influ- ence. How far the loss of Fort Montgomery, and the sub- sequent ravages of the enemy, are to be imputed to him, 60 Dawson's second letter. I will not venture to say, as this will necessarily be deter- mined by a Court of Inquiry, whose determinations I would not anticipate. Unfortunately for him, the current of po}»ular opinions, in this and the neighboring States, and as far as I can learn, in the troops under his command, runs strongly against him." If " SelaJi " can find comfort in the answer which this serious charge elicited from Gene' ral Washington, I shall take pleasure in comforting him. In his letter to Mr. Livingston, (" Valley Forge, 12 3Iarch, 1778,") after acknowledging the receipt of the above, the General says : " It has not been an easy matter to find a just pretense for removing an officer from his command, where his misconduct rather appears to result from want of capacity, than from any real intention of doing wrong ; and it is therefore, as you observe, to be lamented th^^t he cannot see his own defects, and make an honorable retreat from a station in which he only exposes his own weakness. Proper measures are taking to carry on the inquiry into the loss of Fort Montgomery, agreeably to the directions of Congress ; and it is more than probable, from what I have heard, that the issue of that inquiry will afford just grounds for a removal of General P. But whether it does or not, the prejudices of all ranks in that quarter against him are so great, that he must, at all events, be prevented from returning." As General Putnam was di- rected to proceed to Connecticut, soon afterwards, on re- cruiting service, and subsequently, it is said, joined the church, it has not appeared necessary to pursue this branch of my investigation. His subsequent conduct, on the recom- mendation of Mr. Whiting — whose funeral sermon over the General's remains was the commencement of the con- troversy on the subject of the command at Bunker Hill — Dawson's second letter. 61 has been endorsed to the public by Dr. Dwight, the Gene- ral's tomb-stone, and " Sclali " / and I am not disposed to disturb its repose. YII. " Selah " appears to desire notoriety, and he boldly asks a question respecting my motives in making the re" marks on General Putnam, which he condemns ; and as boldly he answers it : " Fools rush in where angels fear to tread," and " Selah " may yet live to learn that, for the motives which actuate men, they are not accountable to man. If it will gratify him, however, I may suggest that his answer is not correct. General Putnaii was not a Connecticut man, but a Massachusetts man ; and that, of itself, would prove his error. I beg to suggest, however, that General Putnam never presented any trait of character which New York had any necessity to " envy." While he was in com- mand of this post, there ivas no " enemy " in the country, to whom the city could be " given up " by its Tory inhabit- ants, or any other power; and if it had not been so. General Putnam could have done but little. General Charles Lee, subsequently a traitor, had formed plans for the de- fense of the city ; and when General Putnam succeeded him, the latter was so tied down by orders, that no change could be made, except with the general consent of his Brig- adiers and Engineers, and then only in minor matters. (Orders and Instructions to Major-General Putnam, 31arch, 29,1776.) What does ''Selah'' suppose New York has occasion to " c?ry?/" in General Putnam, while the slopes of Goirannvs arc daily before her eyes, and the Highlands within two hours' ride of the homes of her inhabitants ? Does " Selah" suppose that his hero's manoeuvres at the 62 Dawson's second letter. former place were so attractive that Philip Schuyler, orEiCHA^RD Montgomery, Alexander McDougal, or John MoRiN Scott, Marinus Willett, or John Lamb, James Clinton, or Nicholas Herkimer, George Clinton, or Benjamin Tallmadge, Alexander Hamilton, or Aaron Burr,* could not have produced a result quite as profitable to the country, under similar circumstances ? or which of these officers could not have been quite as successful as Putnam was, in his defense of the Highlands, Oct. 6, 1777 ? In conclusion, I beg to remark that " Selah^' manifests great uneasiness respecting the "honor of Connecticut," and "the Connecticut troops"— as much so, in fact, as if General Putnam was a Connecticut man ; the only source of the honor of Connecticut ; or the only soldier she ever produced. I beg " Selah" will keep perfectly cool. My business has not been, and is not now, with Connecticut men, the honor of Connecticut, or the troops she sent to the field. All these need no eulogy either from " Selah " or from me ; nor can the detraction of either the one or the other seriously affect them. I have been, and still am, dealing solely with a Massachusetts man, known as General Israel Putnam, and a nondescript known as * Colonel Burr, the least popular of tliese officers, was an aid-de-camp in General Putnam's family in 177G ; and Colonel Ricuard Platt, a distinguished officer of the Revolutionary army, thus compares the services of both these officers : " From my knowledge of that General's qualities and the Colonel's, I am very certain that the lat- ter directed all the movements and operations of the former.'" — (Letter to Commo- dore Valentine Morris, JSfeio York, Jan. 27, 1814.) In the same letter the same officer " presents Burr in contrast with his equals in rank, and his superiors in com- mand," by comparing General Putnam's defeat in the Highlands, with two thousand men under his command, and Colonel Burr's successful movement, with one hundred and fifty men, in defending the west side of the river, below the Highlands, against the same enemy. The entire letter can be found in Davis' Memoirs oj' Aaron Burr, (N. Y., 1838) 1 pp. 175-181. Dawson's second letter. 63 "SelahJ^ Tlic former, by intrigues, and possibly by had liquor dispensed over his own counter,* supplanted sundry Connecticut officers, whose services could be but poorly spared in exchange for his ; did more than all others to dis- grace Connecticut by his official incompetency, and by his selfish desire for the emoluments of office ; and, by his disre- gard for every " generous impulse " which springs spon- taneously from every honest man's breast, stole, for his own purposes, the glory which belonged to other and bet- ter men : the latter by a process peculiarly his own, seeks to keep the bubble inflated, and to conceal the deception which has so long been practised on the people. Tlie for- mer of these has gone to his reward : the latter, in the name of the mass of " the people of Connecticut," but without their authority, elevates " the relics " of his saint, and seeks the homage of the world. It has been my lot to refuse obedience to this demand ; and if, in my humble en- deavors to defend myself, I have been instrumental in drawing the attention of any to the evidences of the fraud; or if the memory of Thomas Knowlton and his gallant associates has awakened a single sympathetic sigh, my labors have not been spent without a full and satisfactory reward. Sincerely, Yours, HENRY B. DAWSON. * General Putnam, before he entered the service, had kept a covntry tai'ern, in the town oCPcmifret. My readers, whetlier in Connecticut or New York, will recogijize in the evil practice referred to in the text, one of the most usual and iuliiieutial, but dis- reputable means by which ambitious and unscrnpvilous office-seekers, sudi as Putnam. ?ofl.s, have ever endeavored to secure the votes which their own lack of merit could never command. ^'SELAH'S" THIRD LETTER. [FU IM TUB " lUuTIOUD DAILY I'OST," AVKIL IS, I'.t, 20, 21, 2.3, 2.'), 1809,] " 8o prnvc it. That the probation bear no hinge nor loop, To hang a doubt on." To the Editor of the Hartford Post : In your issue for the 23d of February, appeared an article from my pen, " In Reply to Mr. Dawson," which was called out by statements made by that gentleman, in a previous issue of your paper, in reference to the Life and Services of General Putnam. To this article Mr. Dawson made reply in your issues for March 11 and 12, wherein he attempts to establish his statements by publishing an inter- minable list of references to " private letters," and in which also he does General Putnam the great injustice of adding still more epithets and inuendoes to the already long list which he had previously attached to the name and memory of that hero, both in his published work and in his former letters in your columns. To refute these unjust and calumnious statements has been my great desire, since reading his last letter ; but, through a great lack of time on my part, and also through the crowded state of your columns, for the past two or three weeks, I have been unable to fulfill the promise I had SELAIl's THIRD LETTER. 65 made myself, of giving to the public a few facts in regard to this affair, and showing them how little of impartial his- tory lies in Mr. Dawson's sketch of General Putnam's life. In my former article, I substantiated the various deeds of honor and renown appertaining to General Putnam by such authorities as Dr. Allen, Dr. Griswold, Colonel Humphrey, Dr. Dwight, Rev. Dr. Whitney, M. Botta, and Mr. Barber— all of whom rank high in historical litera- ture, and have been oft quoted as undoubted authorities. Mr. Dawson, however, affects to laugh at them ; casts them aside as worthless trash ; claims them to be without au- thority ; sets himself up, with his budget of " private let- ters," as the great " historical touchstone ; " and, with all the complacence in the world, reels off seven mortal long columns, in the commendable purpose of giving the public a startling array of letter " titles," written, perAops, by some one, and, 2^erha]}S, at some time, now to be found, per- haps, somewhere — where, probably Mr. Dawson knows far better than any one else. Suffice it for my purpose to use one of these much vaunted " private letter " authorities as a test for the whole. I have had a note handed me within a few days, from a gentleman of this city, who had read Mr. Dawson's letter, from which I was requested " to in- sert, in my next article," the following pertinent extract, with which request I take a particular pleasure in comply- ing. Here we have it : — " A gentleman of this city will give ten dollars for a duly authenticated copy of the letter from Governor Trumbull, of Connecticut, to Van der Capellan, in which the former informs the latter that General Putnam did not command at Bunker^ s Hill ! " That 9 66 selah's third letter. is certainly fair enough ; all that is required is a " duly au- tJcenticated copy " of the letter, to be deposited in the hands of the Secretary of this State, in this city, and the money will be forthcoming. It will j)ciy ^i'* Dawson to copy that letter, and forward the same. He claimed, in his last, that Governor Trumbull wrote to John Derk, Baron Van der Capellan, that " General Putnam did not com- mand at Bunker's Hill." If that letter is in existence, Mr. Dawson can establish his authorities ; otherwise they all fall to the ground. Mr. Dawson, in referring to the exploits of Putnam in the wolf-den, at Plorseneck, and in the French War, ad- duces nothing to refute them that has a semblance of valid- ity or argument. In fact, what he does say in regard to them is simply an acknowledgment of his performance of those daring feats, but a denial of there being any special merit or bravery in their performance. His sole object seems to be to detract from General Putnam's reputation as a man, a soldier, and a patriot. And in this endeavor he has touched most severely on his actions in the Battle of Bunker's Hill. Now, it is on the part he took in that battle that I would form a test. And it is also with the evidence that I will adduce in reference to General Put- nam's position in that battle that I will build up at once a monument of that hero's glory and of Mr. Dawson's shame. And first, in regard to the part taken by General Put- nam in the occupation of the heights of Bunker's Hill and the construction of the redoubts. It is a well known fact that Putnam held a regularly commissioned command of the Continental troops previous to the battle of Bunker's Hill. The official certificate of SELAH S THIRD LETTEE. 07 Mr. Day, Secretary of tlie State of Connecticut, still on record, states that Putnam was appointed Brigadier-Gene- ral over tlie forces of that colony, by the General Assem- bly, in April, 1775. Pie went to Cambridge immediately after the battle of Lexington, {Notes to Colonel SweWs " History of the BunJcer's Hill Battle," p. 20.) On the 27tli of April, 1775, Colonel Huntington, of the Connecticut troop, wrote Governor Trumbull, from Cambridge, {3Ias- sachusetts Historical Library,) " General Ward being at Roxbury, General Putnam is commander-in-chief at this place." The Journal kept by Governor Trumbull, ( Tr urn- hull Papers, 31ass. Hist. Lib.,) states that Putnam, "after learning of the battle of Lexington, rode over to him [the Governor] for instructions ; and that he [the Governor] bade him " repair at once to Cambridge, and take charge of the troops, and he would make out his commission and send it on after him." Thus we have abundant evidence that General Putnam was the commander-in-chief of the American troops before the battle. Now, taking this for granted, it is but fair to suppose that he also commanded them in the battle. When the subject of fortifying the heights of Bunker's Hill was first discussed in the American camp, the respec- tive capabilities of the raw militia of the Colonies and the well-disciplined royal army were, of course, much canvas- sed, and many objections were raised as to the feasibility of a project which certainly seemed to promise a poor re- sult to the brave but ill-disciplined militia, in their pro- posed passage at arms with a large force of roj^al troops, who, both officers and men, formed a selected section from Britain's military arm. General Ward and Dr. Warren, both brave and gallant men, saw only destruction in the 68 selah's third letter. movement. Not so Putnam ; lie had served many long years, side by side, with Britain's cohorts, and knew that, though brave and efficient, they were not invincible. When Ward and Warren made objection that the enterprise would lead to a general engagement, Putnam answered, (related by the General himself to his son, after the battle,) '' We will risk only two thousand men ; we will go on with these, and defend ourselves as long as possible ; and, if driven to retreat, we are more active than the enemy, and every sfone-ivaU shall he lined tvith their dead I and, at the worst, suppose us surrounded, and no retreat, ice ivill set our country an examjjle-qf icldch it shall not he ashamed, and teach nfiercenarics what men can do determined to live or die free ! " Dr. Warren walked the floor — leaned on his chair : " Almost thou persuadest me, General Putnam," said he ; " but I must still think the project rash ; if you execute it, however, you will not be surprised to find me by your side." " I hope not," responded General Putnam ; " you are young, and j^our country has much to hope from you, in council and in the field ; let us, who are old, and can be spared, begin the fray ; there will be time enough for you hereafter ; it will not soon be over ! " The primary object of fortifying Bunker's Hill, [or, more properly, Breed's Hill, on which the battle was fought, although it was a part of Putnam's plan to throw up earth- works on Bunker's Hill also, so that, in case of being driven from Breed's Hill by the enemy, they might make another stand on Bunker's Hill,] was to draw the enemy out of Boston," on ground where they might be met on equal terms. It was Putnam's favorite plan to erect breastworks on those heights, for, said he, (as reported by Governor Brooks, of IMassachusetts,) "The Americans were not selah's third letter. 69 afraid of their heads, though very much afraid of their legs ; if 3'ou cover tliose, they will fight for ever." On the 16th of June, 1775, " General Putnam {Col. Sweth p. 19,) having the principal direction and superintendence of the expedition, and the chief engineer, Colonel Gridley, accompanied the detachment on to the heights," where > during the ensuing night, earthworks were thrown up with surprising rapidity, and of which the enemy knew nothing until the following morning. After Putnam had seen " the men quietly at their labors," {Col. S if ett, ip. 21,) he "re- paired to his camp, to prepare for the anticipated crisis, by bringing on reinforcements and to be fresh mounted — his furious riding requiring a frequent change of horses." After performing these duties, " General Putnam, {Froth, ingham^s Siege of Boston, p. IS-i,) ivJio had the confidence of the ivhole army, again rode on to the heights, with the in- tention of remaining, to share their labors and perils ! " Still further, in reference to this part of the affair, we have evidence of the most reliable nature from Dr. Stiles, afterwards President of Yale College, as noted down by him at the time, in his diary, and from which we will give the following extracts : — '• June 18th, 1775. — Nine o'clock this evening, a gentle- man came to town from tlie camp, which he left this morn- ing, and informs us that Colonel Putnam is encamped at Charlestown, Bunker's Hill, and has lost some of his best men, but is determined to stand his ground, having men enough. "June 19th, 1775. --We have various accounts: some that General Putnam is taken and surrounded by the King's troops, some that he repulsed them, and had, by the assistance of others coming up, placed the regulars between 70 selah's third letter. two fires. At nine o'clock at night, tlie news was that General Putnam was forced from his trenches on Bunker's Hill, and obliged to retreat, with the loss of forty men killed and a hundred wounded. " June 20th, 1775.— Mr. William Ellery came in, last evening, from Providence, and showed me a letter from the Chamber of Supplies, and another from General Greene, to Lieutenant-Governor Cooke, (both at Roxbury,) dated on Lord's day, giving an account of the battle. General Greene says, ' General Putnam, with three hundred men, took possession and entrenched on Bunker's Hill on Friday night, 16th instant ; ' the Chamber of Supplies says, ' The King's troops attacked General Putnam, who defended himself with bravery, till overpowered and obliged to retreat.' " Judge Grosvenor, of Pomfret, Connecticut, states, in an affidavit, that " he was in the Connecticut regiment," who, with " a much larger number of Massachusetts troops, under Colonel Prescott, were ordered by General Putnam to march, on the evening of the 16th of June, 1775, to Breed's Hill, where, under the immediate superintendence of General Putnam, ground was broken, and a redoubt was formed." We have also the words of Rev. Mr. Whitney, the per- sonal friend and intimate acquaintance of Putnam, who says, " The detachment was first put under the command of General Putnam, With it he took possession of the hill, and ordered the battle from beginning to end. These facts General Putnam gave me soon after the battle, and also repeated them to me after his Life was printed." [His Life, by Colonel Humphrey, Mr. Whitney refers to. Colonel Humphrey's "Life of Putnam" was published when the General was still alive. It was written at Mount selah's third letter. 71 Vernon, without any communication with Putnam on the subject, and without his knowledge. It is not, therefore, remarkable that the Colonel should have erred in the single matter of commandership, where he assigns to his hero everything else that is great and honorable.] We have, still further, Major Daniel Jackson's entry in his Journal, dated June 16, 1775, where he says, " Gene- ral Putnam, with the army, went to entrench on Bunker's Hill." And John Boyle, who also kept a diary at that time, and entered therein, under date June 16, 1775, " General Putnam, with a detachment of about one thousand of American forces, went from Cambridge, and began an entrenchment on an eminence below Boston." And, most reliable evidence, an extract from Riyington's " New York Gazette," for 3d of August, 1775, stating that " Put- nam, on the evening of the 16th of June, took possession of Bunker's Hill, and began an entrenchment." Thus it seems to be conclusively proven that the detach- ment went on to the liciglits under the command of General Putnam, and began there those entrenchments which were to serve so good a purpose on the following day. It is vouched for by such witnesses and documents as the above, all of whom agree in the main point of who commanded, and differ only in the simple matter of the numbers com- posing the detachment taken on to the field, which, under the circumstances, is not to be wondered at. When the morn broke upon the heights of Bunter's and Breed's Hills, and upon the shipping in the harbor, and the town of Boston, what was the amazement of the British at seeing those heights covered with earthworks and alive with continental troops — all the work of one night, as if wrought by the hand of some powerful genii. The British 72 selah's third letter. ships immediately opened their fire upon tlic redoubts, as did also batteries lining the wharves in Boston. How high must have beat the mingling hopes and fears of those brave men, on those imperiled heights, upon whom all- powerful Britain was soon to unleash and hound " the dogs of war." They had worked almost miracles during the season of darkness that had just passed ; but there was much left undone, through sheer want of time and men, and on the completion of which depended, to a great ex- tent, the success of the enterprise. The commanding sum- mit of Bunker's Hill, of vital importance, in case of a retreat, was not yet fortified, " though Putnam," (says Col. Swett, p. 28,) " mortified at the neglect of a position on which his success and reputation dejjended, had been inces- sant and unwearied in his efforts to have it accomplished ; but in vain, as no reinforcements arrived." " On seeing the preparations of the enemy for an attack," continues Colonel Swett, " General Putnam again has- tened to Cambridge for reinforcements, and had to pass through a galling, enfilading fire of round, bar, and chain- shot, which thundered across the Neck, from the Glasgow frigate, in the channel of Charles River, and two floating batteries hauled close to the shore." He, on arriving at Cambridge, learned from General Ward the orders which had been sent to the New Hampshire troops at Medford, and immediately returned to his post on the field of battle. Tliis New Hampshire regiment, under Colonel Stark, arrived on the field between two and three o'clock in the afternoon, and " General Putnam {Frotkingham, p. 134,) ordered part of them to labor on the works begun on Bunker's Hill, and part to the redoubts." "Putnam was now joined {Col. Sivdf, p. 31,) by Dr. selah's third letter. 73 Warren, to whom he observed, ' I'm sorry to see you here. General Warrkx. I wish you had left the day to us, as I advised you. From appearances, we shall have a sharp time of it ; but, since you are here, I'll receive your orders with pleasure.'" Warren replied, ' I came only as a volun- teer ; Iknorv nothing of your dispositions^ and will not in- terfere with them. Tell me where I can be most useful ! ' Putnam, intent on his safety, directed him to the redoubt, observing, ' You will be covered there.' ' Don't think,' said Warren, ' I came here to seek a place of safety ; but tell me where the onset will be most furious.' Putnam again pointed to the redoubt ; ' That,' said he, ' is the enemy's object ; Prescott is there, and will do his duty, and if it can be defended, the day is ours ; but from long experience of the character of the enemy, I think they will ultimately succeed, and drive us from the works ; though, from the mode of attack they have chosen, we shall be able to do them infinite injury ; and we must be prepared for a brave and orderly retreat, when we can maintain our ground no longer ! ' " As soon as the British lines came into full view to the Americans, and within musket range, it was with great difficulty that Putnam could restrain his men, especially the good marksmen, from firing upon them. " He rode through the lines," {says Col. Swett, p. 33,) " and ordered * " SelaW' would have done well had he explained v:hy the " commauder-in-chief of the American troops before the battle " {vide page G7) oflercd to " receive " Wakren's " orders with pleasure," as here stated. Was it because the military abilities of this Boston physician, a mere novice in military affairs, were superior to his own ; or did he suppose General Wakkkx — a Major-General in the Massachusetts militia, without his commission — had ranked ^him ? A pretty " commander-in-chie ■ of the^]; American troops," in either case, was such au officer.^ H. B. D. 10 T4 selah's third letter. that no one should fire till the enemy were within eight rods of the breastworks ; nor any one then even, until he had given the word. ' Powder/ said Putnam, ' was scarce, and must not be wasted. They should not fire at the enemy till they saw the whites of their eyes, and then fire low ; take aim at their waistbands. They were all marks- men, and could kill a squirrel at a hundred yards ; reserve their fire, and the enemy were all destroyed. Aim at the handsome coats ; pick off the commanders.' " " Putnam now," {saj/s Col. Stceit,) " with the assistance of Captain Ford's company, opened his artillery upon them. He had on this day performed every species of service, and now turned cannonier, with splendid success, and to the highest satisfaction of his countrymen. He pointed the cannon himself, the balls took effect on the enemy, and one case of cannister made a lane through them ! " On came the British columns, in close order, with most martial appearance and imposing array. On, on they came, the glory of war kindling in their eyes, and vengeance breathing from their lips, at the " cursed rebels," who had thus " dared " to beard the lion in his den. On, on they came, until the breastworks were almost gained, and hopes of an easy and speedy victory swelled their bosoms. On tliey came, till the " whites of their eyes " were seen by those firm, dauntless, almost breathless militia men ; and then there was a fearful lowering of those " deadly tubes," a keen glance along their shining sides — a moment of breathless suspense — a deep, full word of command— a vivid flash and a sullen roar, as from heaven's artillery — V quick successive volleys, each following each more dread- ful than the former : and, above all the din of this awful selah's third letter. 75 battery, rose the sliricks and wails of the wounded and dying ! Nothing of mortal make could withstand this awful tide of fire and death ! They faltered — they wa- vered — they broke, and fled adown the hill. Down that hill, up whose verdant sides they had but just swept, a glorious sight, in their pride and confidence, in their pomp of equipage and their glory of strength and invinci- bility ! It was after this first retreat of the enemy that General Ward dispatched re-enforcements from Cambridge to the field of strife. But the fire from the British ships, across the Neck, over which they would have to pass, was now so terrific that, raw recruits as they were, they wavered in the attempt. " Putnam," {says Col. Sivefi, p. 35,) " flew to the spot to overcome their fears, and hurry them on before the enemy returned. He entreated, encouraged and threat- ened them ; lashing his horse with the flat of his sword, he rode backward and forward across the Neck ; the balls threw up clouds of dust around him, and the soldiers were perfectly convinced that Jie was invulnerable, but were not equally conscious of being so themselves." Some of these troops, however, ventured over. It was while on his return from the Neck, that General Putnam came upon Colonel Gerrish and his regiment — the Colonel Gerrish whom General Dearborn, and Mr. Dawson after him, have con. verted into such a large sized bug-bear. Colonel Gerrish confessed to General Putnam that he was very much exhausted, owing to his great corpulency and the fatigues of his late march. " General Putnam," (says Frothingliam, page 143,) " endeavored to rally these troops. He used entreaty and command, and offered to lead them into ac- tion, but without effect." They were in a most complete 76 SELAIl's THIRD LETTER. state of insubordination, arising from the condition of their commander, and their not having had previous know- ledge of the rank of General Putnam, and consequently doubting his authority. Much confusion prevailed in other sections of the troops' arising principally from the lax discipline of the men — the insufficient number of officers, many of whom knew little or nothing of the duties assigned them — the impromptu nature of the whole affair, and the consequent want of that thor- ough study of the plan of the battle, and the requisite con- forming of means and material to the circumstances ; and, sorest want of all, an inadequate supply of ammunition, much of which, too, was unfitted for the purposes for which it was intended, inasmuch as many of the cartridges for the field-pieces were too large. Colonel Swett tells us that Putnam, observing that some of the field-pieces had ceased their fire, inquired tlie cause, when they gave the reason of their inability to load the guns with the cart- ridges, they being too large. Upon which " Putnam broke open the cartridges, and loaded the guns with a ladle, and sighted and fired them several times himself." " The artillery companies, under Callender and Grid- ley, {says Col Sicetf, pp. 29, 30,) " were just enlisted from the infantry, and grossly ignorant of their duty." He goes on to say that Gridley drew off his company, with their pieces, to the rear ; " and Callender w^as marching off over Bunker's Hill, to secure a place for preparing his am- munition in safety, when Putnam met him, and was fired with indignation at this appearance of a retreat. He ordered him instantly to his post ; Callender remon- strated ; but Putnam threatened him with instant death if he hesitated, and compelled him to return." The above is- SELAH S THIRD LETTER. 77 also verified by a Report made to the Massachusetts Pro- vincial Congress, in 1775, in which it is stated that, on the day of tlie battle, " Putnam met Captain Callender, of the artillery, retreating down the hill ; Putnam ordered him ' to stop and go back.' " In the meantime, the British had formed anew, at the bottom of the hill, and once more were marching up, over the bodies of their fallen comrades, into the very face of those terrible marksmen. True, they came not, this time, with that show of conscious and undoubted strength, and that triumphant flash in their eyes ; but on they came, with a look of determination — the determination which speaks either of death or victory. Again were they met by that murderous fire, opening upon them from the whole Ameri- can line, and again they wavered, turned and fled. In- domitable and unyielding, in their scorn of the idea of defeat, as well as their deep desire to mete out revenge upon the slayers of their comrades, again they form, again return to the fray, and effect a lodgment within the works of the Americans. The ammunition of the Americans had failed. There was not the means wherewith to pour in that awful fire upon the advancing columns for the third time. They clubbed their muskets, and with nerves of iron and feelings of deep, unutterable despair, dealt blows, thick and powerful, upon the invaders of their country and their country's rights. But alas ! what are clubbed muskets when arrayed against British bayonets ? Nothing. There was but one tiling to be done — and that, to retreat. Even when the Americans were driven from the breast- works, and forced to retreat, the British lines were not in much better condition. They were entirely exhausted by 78 selah's third letter, -v^' tlieir desperate efforts, under a blazing sun, and were dreadfully broken by the well-directed fire of the Ameri- cans. To such an extent were their ranks broken and confused, that their right and left wings were facing each other, with the Americans between ; thus would their fire have slain alike friend and foe. While they endeavored to form anew, the Americans also collected, and made a brave and orderly retreat. At this juncture, " Putnam," {says Col. Sivetf,]). 46,) "put spurs to his foaming horse, and threw himself between the retreating force and the enemy, who were but twelve rods from him. His countrymen were in momentary expectation of seeing this compeer of the immortal AVarren fall. He entreated them to rally, and renew the fight — to finish his works on Bunker's Hill — and affain give the enemy battle on that unassailable . position, and pledged his honor to restore to them an easy victory." " During the retreat," {says FrotMngltam, p. 152,) " which, for the most part, lay over the brow of Bunker's Hill, where was the place of the greatest slaughter, General Putnam rode to the rear of the retreating troops, and, re- gardless of the balls flying about him, with his sword drawn, and still undaunted in his bearing, urged them to renew the fight in the unfinished works." " Make a stand here," he exclaimed, {Frothingham, p. 152 ; also affidavits of Col. Wade, Major Eliliu Lyman, and Anderson lliner,) " we can stop them yet. In God's name, form, and give them one shot more 1 " " The enemy pressed on them, and they were, in turn, compelled to retire. Putnam covered their retreat with his Connecticut troops, and others just / arrived ; and, in the rear of the whole, dared the utmost fury of the enemy, who pursued with little ardor, but SELAH S THIRD LETTER. 79 poured in their tlnmdering volleys, and showers of balls fell like hail around the General. He addressed himself to every passion of tlic troops, to persuade them to rally, to throw u}) his works on Bunker's Hill, and make a stand there ; and threatened them with the eternal disgrace of deserting their General ! He took his stand near a field- piece, and seemed resolved to brave the foe alone. His troops, however, felt it impossible to withstand the over- whelming force of the British bayonets; they left him. One sergeant alone dared to stand by his General to the last. He was shot down ; and tlie enemy's bayonets were just upon the General when he retired.'' (FrotJimgham, p. 152 ; Col. Sicett, p. 47 ; also Affidavits of Gov. Brooh, Col. Wade, Judge Grosvenor, Maj. Elihu Lyman, Col. JVehb, Anderson Miner, Joshua Yeomans, Simeon Noyes, and many others.) Thus have I followed up tlie authorities bearing upon this subject, from the first planning of the battle at Cam- bridge, through the awful strife that followed, and the re- treat of the Americans over Charlestown Neck, back to their camp at Cambridge. There is no one particular point or action, in reference to the whole affair, in which we do not find Putnam participating, and even leading the way. History has mingled his name with the relation of every salient point in that fearful conflict. In addition to the mass of authorities already given, we find Judge Gros- venor stating that " Putnam ordered Knowlton to his position ;" Judge Winthrop's statement, in an article in the " North American Review," for July, 1818, that he " saw Putnam here [Breed's Hill] just previous to the first attack ;" and Simeon Noyes, taking oath, in an affidavit in 1825, that " Putnam rode up to the company he was in,' 80 selah's third letter. and said : ' Draw off 3^oiir troops here,' pointing to the rail-fence, ' for the enemy's flanking us fast.' " We have, too, from a letter written by Colonel Samuel Ward, of Rhode Island, under date 20th of June, 1775, the statement that " Putnam had a sore battle on Satur- day." Ethan Clark writes to Colonel Ward, " We hear that Putnam is defeated, and Dr. Warren slain." Dr. Aaron Dexter, in a statement written out from memo- randa, made by himself at the time, and by him preserved, says, " The day after the battle, I was at General Ward's quarters, and was informed by the officers there that Gene- ral Putnam had command of all the troops which were sent down over night, and which might be ordered there the next day." Captain Trevett, senior captain of artil- lery, acting under Major Gridley, who had chief command of the artillery on that day, [Col. Sicett, i>. 21,) inquired officially of the Major " who had command of the troops ? " and was informed by him that " General Putnam had ;" upon which Captain Trevett remarked, " Then there is nothing to fear," and immediately applied to Putnam for orders, and received them. And William Williams, the son-in law of Governor Trumbull, and a member of the Continental Congress at Philadelphia, in a letter addressed to that body, under date " Lebanon, Connecticut, June 20th, 1775, 10 o'clock at night," says, " I receive it that General Putnam commanded our troops ; perhaps not in chief."* I have oftentimes wondered how any man can be so per- fectly devoid of all common reasoning as to accept the blind and scandalous statements of General Dearborn, * As General PrxxAM ivas the commander of " oia- " — the Connecticut — " trooxii^,'' Mr. Williams" supposition was nearer correct than " Selau's " assertion ; but why my ojiponent added the last paragraph , which so pointedly discredits his theory respecting the chief command, is beyond my comprehension. H. B. D. SELAII'S THIRD LETTER. 81 when there is lying in every historical collection so much that gives his statements such a strong coloring of untruth. I can go to many, many places to find evidence, in the original, of all that has been claimed in Putnam's favor, but know not where (aside from Dearborn's assertions, and their reproduction by others, who have either igno- rantly or maliciously accepted them as truth,) I could go to procure evidence of "vileness," "cowardice," "insuf- ficiency, or criminality," in that hero. Among all the evidences of the part taken by Putnam in the Bunker's Hill battle, no insignificant one may be found in a colored portrait, on paper, of the General, published by " C. Shepherd, Sept., 1775," only three months after the battle, which bears on its margin the following words : " Israel Putnam, Esq., Major-General of the Connecticut forces, and commander-in-chief at the engagement on Bunk- er's Hill, near Boston, 17th of June, 1775." This picture is in this city, and has been seen by many of our citizens. Dr. James Thatcher, in his " Military Journal," says that " on the American side. Generals Putnam, Warren, Pomeroy, and Colonel Prescott, were emphatically the heroes of the da}^, and their unexampled efi^orts were crowned with glory." In this extract it will be seen that Thatcher places the name of Putnam first, thus seeming t^ give liim precedence also in command. We even have the evidence and testimony of the British in reference to this matter, and all of which goes to estab- lish Putnam's claims to the honor, not only of commander- ship, but of having taken a brave and daring part in the strife. From a letter written by a British officer, in the army in Boston, to a friend in England, dated June 25th, 11 82 selah's third letter. ] 775, and which may be found in the " American Archives," vol. II., p. 1093, we quote the two following passages : "After the skirmish of the 17th, we even commended the troops oi^ Putnam, who fought so gallantly, jjro aris etfocis.^' And again, " So very secret was the late action conducted, that Generals Clinton and Burgoyne knew not of it till the morning ; though the town did in general, and Putnam in particular." Colonel Abercrombie, who commanded the British grenadiers, was killed in the engagement. " He had been a personal friend and a warm one," {says Col. Swett, p. 42,) " to General Putnam in bygone days." And, continues Swett, " So dear was Putnam to him as a soldier, patriot and friend, that, dying, he remembered him, and enjoined it on his countrymen, who surrounded him, ' If you take General Putnam alive, don't hang him ; for he is a brave fellow ! ' " It will be noticed that I have made frequent reference to Colonel Swett's work, the " Account of the Bunker's Hill Battle." I have taken him to be as good and impartial authority in this case as can be obtained, for several reasons. Colonel Swett was in the staff of Governor Brooks, of Massachusetts, and enjoyed his friendship to an extraordinary degree. Consequently he received the Go- vernor's hearty co-operation and aid in the compilation of his work. The battle was probably never understood by any one better than by Governor Brooks. " He was with the troops on the battle-field," (.sa?/.s Col. Sivett) " from the first to the last ; and certainly enjoyed an extraordinary opportunitj of gathering information, which, joined to a deep desire to inquire at the time, and ever after, into the occurrences, allowed of no chance for aught of importance to escape him." Colonel Swett, in his work, gives some selah's third letter. 83 sixty affidavits, taken before magistrates and .uaers, all V conferring on Putnam the honor of commanding the troops in the battle, and also of taking a brave and nolile part throughout the contest. These affidavits "vvere taken, many of them, at the instance of Colonel Swett, and may all of them he relied on. Frothingham says of them that they " are statements chiefly taken by Colonel Swett, whose high sense of honor is a guaranty of their fidelity ! " Depositions were taken (which depositions are preserved) from the iollowing individuals, all of whom were me:i in high standing for truth, and whose credibility was never impeached — men, too, who had ample means of knowing what they swore to, inasmuch as they all were either on or near the battle-field on the day of the action. Among these men were Josiah Cleveland, of Canterbury, Con- necticut, in Putnam's regiment ; Joshua Yeomans, of Nor- wich, also in Putnam's regiment ; Governor Brooks, of Massachusetts, in the action ; Judge Grosvenor, of Pom- fret, Connecticut, in the action ; Abner Allen, of West- ern, in the action ; Josiah Hill, of Tyringham, in Putnam's regiment ; the Rev. Army Chaplain ; Thomas Cooke, Esq., member of the Massachusetts Congress, and a signer of " Sivord in hand money f^ Reuben Kemp, of Brooklyn, Con- necticut, one of Colonel Stark's men ; Isaac Bassett, of Killingly, in Putnam's regiment ; Ebenezer Bean, of Con- way, in Stark's regiment ; Judge Advocate Tudor ; Pre- sident Adams, Sen. ; Captain John Barker, of Pomfret, Connecticut, in Reed's New Hampshire regiment ; Major Elihu Lyman, of Greenfield, a lieutenant in the battle; Anderson Miner, in Major Lyman's company ; General Keys, for many years Adjutant General of Connecticut, and who served in the battle, as a first lieutenant in Put- 84 selah's third letter, nam's regiment ; Abiel Bugbee, of Pomfret, Connecticut, in Putxam's regiment ; John Dexter, of Pomfret, Ver- mont, in Putnam's regiment ; Alexander Davidson, of Edgecombe, in Ford's company ; Colonel Ebenezer Ban- croft, Esq. , of Tyngsborougli, a captain in Bridge's regi- ment ; Captain James Clark, who commanded one hun- dred men in Putnam's regiment ; Major John Burnham, of Londonderr}', a lieutenant in Little's regiment ; Colo- nel Putnam, a son of the General, who was in his father's regiment ; General Peirce, of Hillsborough, in Ford's company ; Richard Gilchrist, of Dublin, in Stark's regi- ment ; Benjamin Mann, a captain in Reed's regiment ; Israel Hunt, of Dunstable, in Bridge's regiment ; Joseph Trask, of Billerica, in Gardner's regiment ; Francis Davidson, of Londonderry, in Ford's company ; Job Spaf- FORD, of Berlin, a sergeant in General Ward's regiment ; Jesse Smith, of Salem, a private in the action ; A. Dicker- son, of Amherst, in Woodbridge's regiment ; William French, of Dunstable, a private, and one of those engaged in throwing up the redoubts ; Russell Dewey, of West- field, a private in the action ; Benjamin Bullard, of Hop- kinton, a captain in Brewer's regiment ; Enos Lake, of Ringe, in Reed's regiment ; Wm. Low, of Gloucester, in the action ; Philip Bagley, in Frye's regiment, and, after the war, a deputy-sheriff in the city of Newburyport for nearly thirty years ; Thomas Davis, of Holden, in the action ; John Holden, of Leicester, in Doolittle's regi- ment ; Samuel Jones, of Sudbury, in Doolittle's regi- ment ; Nathaniel Rice, of East Sudbury, in the action ; Simeon Noyes, of Salem, in Little's regiment ; Wm. Harden, of Portsmouth, in Gerrish's regiment ; Amos Foster, of Tewksbury, in the action ; Colonel Wade, of selah's third letter. 85 Ipswich, a captain in Little's regiment, and afterwards treasurer of Essex County, Massachusetts ; Johx Stevens, of Andover, in Frye's regiment; George Leach, of Salem, in Whitcomb's regiment ; David Brewer, of Framingham, in the action ; Elijah Jourdan, of Bucksfield, in the ac- tion ; Colonel J. Page, of Atkinson, in the action ; Aaron Smith, of Shrewsbury, in the action ; Ezra Eunnels, of Middleborough, in Gridley's artillery company ; Colonel Joseph Whittemore, of Newburyport, a lieutenant in Little's regiment ; Philip Johxson, Esq., of Newbury- port, in Little's regiment ; Samuel Bassett, in Stark's regiment ; Deacon Millar, of Charlestown, in Gardner's regiment ; Enoch Baldwin, of Milton, in Gardner's regi- ment ; Judge WiNTHROP, in the action ; John Hopkins, of Templeton, in Gardner's regiment ; Mr. Thompson, of Charlestown, in Gardner's regiment ; Wm. Dickson, of Charlestown, in Gardner's regiment ; Major Daniel Jackson, of Xewton, in Foster's artillery company; Cap- tain Francis Greene, of Boston, a sergeant in Foster's company, and, after the war, one of the assessors of the city of Boston. These depositions were taken, some before Judges of the Supreme Court; some before " General Sullivan, and other Directors of the Bunker's Hill Monument Association, as- sisted by Judge Thatcher and others ;" some before Colo- nel Samuel Swett ; some before Adjutant-General Sum- ner ; and others before Wm. Stevenson, Esq., of Canter- bury, Connecticut ; B. Merrill, Esq , of Salem ; Samuel F. Brown, Esq.. of Bucksfield ; John Vose, Esq., of At- kinson ; S. D. Ward, Esq., of Shrewsbury ; Wilkes Wood, Esq., of Middleborough ; Hon. Ebenezer Moseley, of Newburyport ; and other highly respectable magistrates. 86 selah's third letter. In their depositions they all agree that Putnam was on Bunker's and Breed's Hills, both on the night of the 16th and during the day of the 17th of June, 1775. They all agree, too, that he there performed the duties devolving upon a commander ; and that they, as well as their com- rades in arms, " always considered him their commander," on that day. They all agree as to his conduct on the battle-field on that occasion ; and, in their affidavits, speak with a confidence and freedom that proclaims for them a thorough knowledge of what they speak of, and an honesty of purpose in their statements. They, in many cases, use words of the highest import in reference to the subject in hand ; and I cannot deny myself the pleasure of giving a few quotations from these affidavits. Governor Brooks testifies to Putnam's daring and reck- less bravery, when, with a sergeant only, he stood by the guns till the sergeant was shot down, and the British bay- onets nearly pressed his own bosom ere he retreated. Judge Grosvenor says that, " under the immediate super- intendence of General Putnam, ground was broken and a redoubt was formed ;" that " the General directed, princi- pally, the operations of the succeeding day ; " and that " he inspired confidence hy Ms exampley Mr. Allen says that " he saw Putnam on horseback, urging the men to fight, with great earnestness. Mr. Hill says, " I know that General Putnam was in the battle, took part in the engagement, and was as much exposed as any one in the battle." Mr. Cooke, a member of the Massachusetts Con- gress, says that Putnam " did all that man could do to get on the men to Breed's Hill ; he appeared firm, resolute, and tlioughtless of personal danger ; his praise was in the mouth of every one at that time ; he never heard a disre- selah's third letter. 87 spcdful icord against Mm ! " Mr. Kemp says, " General Putnam seemed to have the ordering- of things." Mr. Bas- SETT savs, " I saw General Putnam in the hottest of the fight, calling on the men to stand their ground." Judge Advocate Tudor, who presided at the court martial that followed the battle, says, '' In the inquiry which those trials occasioned, / never heard an inshmaiion against the conduct of General Putnam ! " President Adams, Senior, says, '■ This I do say, without reserve, I never heard the least insinuation of dissatisfaction ivith the character of Gene- ral Putnam during his ivhole life ! " Major Elihu Lyman says, " General Putnam was present directing the retreat, riding backward and forward hetween lis and the British, and appeared cool and deliberate, frequently speaking to the men." Colonel Bancroft, who served with Putnam in the old French war, says, " he had seen him often in the midst of danger ; his courage could not be doubted, nor his character impeached." And, in reference to the Bunker's Hill affair, where he assisted in throwing up the redoubts, he says " The lines were marked out by Put- nam." Mr. Miner " saw General Putnam riding through the American ranks, amidst showers of balls, undaunted, with his sword drawn, exhorting the troops, ' in the name of God,' to form and give the British one shot more, and then they might retreat." Mr. Burnham says that Put- nam " appeared busily engaged in giving directions to the troops as they came up," and that the company to which lie belonged received their orders from Putnam. Mr. Yeomans statcc, that he " was well acquainted with Gene- ral Putnam ; saw a great deal of him in the action, en- couraging the men. He saw him ride along the whole line, and crying out, ' stick to your posts, men, and do 88 selah's third letter. your duty ;' he was greatly exposed." Mr. Bagley " saw General Putnam pass up and down the line on horseback, during the battle, encouraging the soldiers. The shot were very thick where he was ; he had a very calm, en- couraging look. Knew him because I bad seen him at Cambridge." Mr. Jones " saw General Putnam, and spoke with him ; he encouraged us very much, and rode up and down behind us ; his horse was all of a lather, and the battle was going on very hotly at the time." Colonel Wade says of Putnam, " He was the only officer I saw on horseback. He seemed busily engaged in bringing on troops." Mr. Jourdan says, " I perfectly well remember that General Putnam was in the entrenchment very fre- quently during the engagement, giving orders as com- mander-in-chief." Mr. Smith says of Putnam, " He ap- peared to me to have, and I always understood he had, the command of the troops." Mr. Johnson states that, "just before the action began, he saw General Putnam on horse, back, very near him, and distinctly heard him say, ' Men, you know you are all marksmen — you can take a squirrel from the tallest tree. Don't fire till you see the whites of their eyes.' " He again says that, " immediately after the first retreat of the British, General Putnam rode up and said, ' Men, you have done well, but next time you will do better ; aim at the officers.' " Colonel Whitmore says that " on the retreat, he was wounded in the thigh ; he soon after saw General Putnam ; and well knowing the Gene- ral, and the General knowing him, he said, ' General, shan't we rally again ?' to which Putnam replied, ' Yes, as soon as we can ; arc you wounded ? ' " Mr. Rice says that ho " saw Putnam riding round, encouraging the people to the utmost, both before the battle and durins: the battle." The selah's third letter. 89 Rev. Army Chaplain, who makes a statement of facts, under oath, in reference to the gallant conduct of Putnam on the field of 17th of June, 1775, closes his deposition by stating that " he was the intimate friend of Colonel Pres- COTT and Lieutenant-Colonel Robinson, and/rom the mouths of these heroes he had this account J^ What a mass of testimony is here presented. Testi- mony, too, that may be relied on, coming, as it does, from men of the greatest respectability, and some of them in higli stations in life, and all making their statements under an oath, " to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." And what have General Putnam's detrac- tors ever brought forward to rebut this mass of authority ? Why, of all the evidence adduced by them at various times, and their affidavits, taken from persons sworn, as they claim, only one makes the assertion, bold and bare-faced, that General Putnam was not on the field, nor took any part in the battle ; and he, in the intricate mazes of liis own fabricated testimony, blunders and stumbles in a man- ner most pitiful, and at the same time most amusing. In regard to the difficulty between Colonel Prescott and General Putnam, out of which Mr. Dawson has at- tempted to make a great deal of capital, I have searched the authorities in vain to find evidence of a quca^r el hetween them. The only occurrence on which any one might find ground to build such a supposition, is in the simple fact that " General Putnam, (Frothingham, p. 129,) who was on his way to the heights when Major Brooks was going to Cambridge, rode on horseback to the redoubt, and told Colonel Prescott (G^e?ie7'a?^ea^7i'sil/emoiVs, p. 19,) that the entrenching tools must be sent off, or they would be lost ; 12 90 selah's third letter. to which the Colonel replied, that, if he sent any of the men away with the tools, not one of them would return : to tliis the General answered. ' They shall every man return !' A large part of these tools were carried no farther than Bunker's Hill, where, by General Putnam's order, the men began to throw up a breastwork. Most of them fell into the hands of the enemy." How any one can twist the above conversation into a quarrel, I cannot conceive. The above facts are not only vouched for by the two eminent authorities mentioned in parenthesis, but also by a state- ment of Mr. Joseph Pearce, in 1818, and by a MS. letter by Colonel Ebenezer Bancroft, written December 7th, 1824. General Dearborn was the first to make the statement — which Mr. Dawson has copied into his published work almost verbatim — that Colonel Prescott, at a dinner given by Governor Bowdoin, of Massachusetts, denounced Gene- ral Putnam as " a self-conceited, inefficient man, and de- serving to be shot." It is too late now to question whether Prescott ever made use of these words, as in fact it was, even at the time that Dearborn published his work — both Putnam and Prescott then being in their graves. But it has most generally been regarded, by sober-thinking, sen- sible men, as a misconception — either intentional or other- ^yige — of Colonel Prescott's true words and their mean- ing. Who can for a moment reconcile any such occurrence with the well-known fact that Prescott and Putnam ever stood on the most friendly terms, the one with the other ? How little weight may be attached to General Dearborn's statements, in regard to the affairs of the Bunker's Hill battle, may be conceived, when it is known that the posi- tion held by himself in the battle was that of a platoon SELAH S THIRD LETTER. 91 officer, commanding some twenty to thirty men, and was engaged, like them, in loading and discharging his musket. Any one may readily perceive that a man in that position could not possibly be familiar with the actions and conduct of a commanding officer, nor of anything that was trans- piring in another quarter of the field from that in which he was posted. Yet he had the cool effrontery to write a work, purporting to be a correct mirror of that battle, and in it condemns and berates General Putnam in the most unjust and unkind manner, and has— oh! when will won- ders cease ? — won over adherents and disciples to his here- sies, among whom Mr. Dawson numbers himself. When the court martial was held, after the battle, before which the cases of Colonel Gerrish, Captain Callender, Colonel ScAMMANS, Lieutenant Woodward, Major Grid- ley, and other officers, were tried on a charge of coward- ice, a committee was appointed by Congress to inquire into the facts of the case. This committee reported that " They had made inquiry of General Putnam, and other officers, ivJio icere in the hottest of the battle, and that Gene- ral Putnam charged Captain Callender and another artillery officer with infamous cowardice — one of the prin- cipal causes of the defeat— and informed them that he would quit the service if these officers were not made an example of, and that one of them ought to be shot." How very like is the wording of the last sentence of this report of the committee of Congress to that sentence of condem- nation which Dearborn has made Colonel Prescott utter against the character of General Putnam ; and how very ikely is it, too, that the Colonel was referring to the same report of the committee, and using their language, with its same purport, which General Dearborn, with eager pen, 92 SELAHS THIKD LETTER. turned into a charge by the Colonel against Putnam him- self. Colonel ScAMMANS, soon after the trial, published a re- port in a newspaper, of the court martial held on himself, in which he stated that General Putnam was not engaged in the battle at all. And yet, it appears in evidence, dur- ing the trial, from witnesses under oath, that this very Colonel Scammans, while the battle was going on, sent Jiis sergeant to General Putnam to see if lie (Scammans) ivas ivanted ! and this very sergeant was in the court during the trial, and took oath that such tvas the case. In a former letter by Mr. Dawson, he attempts to throw over the connections of Colonel Small and Major Mon- CRIEF (both of the royal army) and General Putnam the coloring of duplicity and treason on the General's part ; and goes so far as to say that, had not this connection been watched, and its results prevented. General Putnam would have proved another traitor Arnold ! When the facts of this connection are thoroughly known, the deep injustice of this charge by Mr. Dawson will be seen and duly ap- preciated. Colonel Small was intimately acquainted with General Putnam previous to the Battle of Bunker's Hill, having served with him during the war in Canada, from 1756 to 1763. Colonel John Trumbull, the painter, and a son of Governor Trumbull, of this State, while painting a picture of the battle of Bunker's Hill, during a residence in London, in the summer of 1786, was visited at his studio one day by Colonel Small. The Colonel remarked to the painter, looking at the picture, " I don't like the situation in which you have placed my old friend, Putnam ; you have not done him justice. I wish you would alter that part of your picture, and introduce a circumstance which selah's third letter. 93 actually happened, and which I can never forget. When the British troops advanced, the second time, to the attack of the redoubt, I, with the other officers, was in front of the line, to encourage the men ; wc had advanced very near the works, undisturbed, when an irregular fire, like a feii-de-joie, was poured in upon us ; it was cruelly fatal. The troops fell back ; and, when I looked to the right and left, I saw not one officer standing. I glanced my eye to the enemy, and saw several young men leveling their pieces at me ; I knew their excellence as marksmen, and considered myself gone. At that moment my old friend, Putnam, rushed forward, and, striking up the muzzles of their pieces with his sword, cried out, ' For God's sake, my lads, don't fire at that man ; I love him as I do my brother.' We were so near each other that I heard his words dis- tinctly. He was obeyed ; I bowed, thanked him, and walked away unmolested." Colonel John Trumbull says of Colonel Small that " he had the character of an honor- able, upright man, and could have no conceivable motive for deviating from the truth, in relating the circumstances to me. I therefore believe them true ! " The above is also vouched for by Colonel Daniel Putnam, who states that " his father related the same circumstance to him, soon after the battle ; and that there was also an interview be- tween Colonel Small and General Putnam, on the lines, between Prospect Hill and Bunker's Hill, not long after the action, solicited by the Colonel, for the purpose of re- newing their old acquaintance, and of tendering his thanks to the General for preserving his life." Colonel SwETT also, in speaking of this aff'air, in his work, page 39, says, that when the muskets were leveled at the Colonel, and Putnam appeared, " each recognized in V 94 selah's third letter. the other an old friend and fellow-soldier ; the tie was sacred : Putnam threw up the deadly muskets with his sword, and arrested his fate. He begged his men to spare that officer, as dear to him as a brother. The General's humane and chivalrous generosity excited in them new ad- miration, and his friend retired unhurt." In regard to Major Moncrief, and his connections with Putnam, I find a relation of the whole affair in Frothing- ham^s work, pages 111 and 112, as follows : " On the 6th of June, an exchange of prisoners took place. * Dr. War- ren {Essex Gazette of that date) and Brigadier- General Putnam, in a phaeton,' together with other officers of the American army, and the prisoners, the whole escorted by the Wether sfield company, Captain Chester, entered the town of Charlestown, and marched to the ferry, when, upon a signal being given. Major Moncrief landed from the Lively, in order to receive the prisoners, and see his old friend. General Putnam. Their meeting was truly cordial and affectionate. The wounded privates were soon sent on board the Lively ; but Major Moncrief and the other officers returned with General Putnam and Dr. Warren to the house of Dr. Foster, where an entertain- ment was provided for them." At three o'clock, the ex- change of prisoners took place ; and, between five and six o'clock. Major Moncrief and General Putnam parted com- pany, and returned to their respective camps. " The whole was conducted," {says Frotliingliam) " ivith the utmost de- cency and good humor ! " Thus are two instances of a renewal of old acquaintance, and the tendering of brotherly sympathy and courtesy in a " truly cordial and affectionate " manner, twisted by Mr. Dawson into acts of treason ; and General PutnaM; SELAHS THIRD LETTER. 95 the noble old hero, who, in the midsC of hostilities and bloodshed, could not altogether forget the comrades of other days, and could not stifle all of his feelings of bro- therly friendship, nor fail to pay it homage, even on the battle-field, must be branded with the charge of being a second traitor Arnold ! It is thus that General Putnam's detractors have ever proceeded : turning his acts of cour- age into acts of cowardice ; his sympathy and tenderness into evidences of treason ; his great, and almost herculean, efforts and energies into sluggishness and lax energy ; and his well-deserved fame into disgrace and ignominy ! In Mr. Dawson's letter, he makes reference to letters written, as he claims, by General Washington, wherein that General censures Putnam, and speaks disparagingly of him as a military ofl&cer. Of this I know not what to think. I cannot take oath that General Washington did not write such letters, nor can I bring myself to believe that he used deceit and prevarication in the premises. But it is withal an undeniable fact that there is a letter now in existence, in General Washington's own hand- writing, dated January 30, 1776, in which he says, " Gene- ral Putnam is a valuable man, and a fine executive officer ! " And General Washington also wrote General Putnam a very affectionate letter, after the close of hostilities, and, therefore, at a time when Washington would have a cor- rect opinion of Putnam, if ever, gathered from a full know- ledge of his whole actions, throughout the war. This let- ter is dated June, 1783, and reads as follows : " Dear Sir — Your favor of the 20th of May, I received with much pleasure ; for I can assure you that among the many worthy and meritorious officers with whom I have had the happiness to be connected in service through the course of 96 selah's third letter. this war, and from whose cheerful assistance in the various and trying vicissitudes of a complicated contest, the name of a Putnam is not forgotten ; nor tvill it he, hut tvith that stroke of time which shall obliterate from my mind the re- membrance of all those toils and fatigues through which we have struggled, for the preservation and establish- ment of the rights, liberties, and independence of our country ! " Such are the sentiments of General Washington at tlie close of the Avar — a time when, if ever, he should be per fectly conversant with all the actions of Putnam, and when he could draw a correct, unbiased opinion of him. We have also a letter from Joseph Reed, Washington's private secretary at the time of the siege of Boston, in which he writes to Washington, under date March 15, 177G, in reference to the contemplated siege, and uses the following words : " I supposed Old Put was to command the detachment intended for Boston, on the 5th instant, as I do not know any officer but himself ivho could have heen depended on. for so hazardous a service ! " This letter may be found in " Reed's Life," vol. II., p. 172. Says Froth- INGHAM, " No higher military testimony than this can be adduced ; for Reed was a soldier, and as capable of judg- ing as any* person in the army ! " I might go on, and fill the columns of this paper, for days yet, with such evidences of General Putnam's . great gallantry and courage, combined with rare abilities and military tact, and an ever-burning zeal and ardor for the cause of American liberty ; but it may not be. I feel that I have already overstepped the usual bounds of newspaper communications, and must bring this article to a close. But I cannot, in conclusion, refrain from giving an extract selah's third letter. 97 from the coliiinns of the Connedicut Couranf, wherein (in an article published soon after tlie battle of Bunker's Hill, in 1775) is clearly shown the popular feeling in regard to General Putnam in those " days that tried men's souls." The extract reads as follows : " In this list of heroes, it is needless to expatiate on the character and bravery of Major-General Putnam, whose capacity to form and exe- cute great designs is known through Europe, and whose undaunted courage and martial abilities strike terror through all the hosts of INIidianites, and have raised him to an incredible height in the esteem and friendship of his American brethren ; it is sufficient to say, that he seems to be inspired by God Almiglity with a military genius, and formed to work wonders in the sight of those micircum- cised Philistines, at Boston and Bunker's Hill, who attempt to ravage this country, and defy the armies of the living God ! "^ I have given these facts — gleaned from many and reliable sources — to the public, that people may not fall into Mr. Dawson's way of thinking, in regard to General Putnam's character and services, without hearing both sides of the subject. If sound evidence, drawn from pure and unques- tionable sources, is the thing needed to set at rest, for ever, General Putnam's detractors, then surely my article has not been written in vain, and will find a ready response in the hearts of the people, who have ever loved to revere " the name of a Putnam ! " I sincerely hope Mr. Dawson will relieve himself of that passion which he has shown in his writings, and Avhich, to use the mildest expression, cer- tainly savors strongly of prejudice — and that in defiance of al] historical facts — and come over to the ranks of the 13 98 selah's third letter. " true defenders of the faith." I am certain he will feel better himself—feel as if the hands of the people, the hearts of the people, the " vox populi'' were with him, and not against him, in his labors as a historian. I am, sincerely, Your humble servant, " SELAH." H. B. DAWSON'S THIRD LETTER. [From the "Hartford Daily Post," August 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, 1859.*] White Plains, N. Y., May 19, 1859. To the Editor of the Hartford Daily Post : Mr. Editor : Your kind intentions, in attempting to fiirnisli me witli a copy of " Selah's" last letter, having been frustrated by some sympathizing friend and follower of General Putxam, I have been unable, until last night, to find even a portion of that extended production which ap- peared between April 20th and April 25tli, and, in conse- quence of that mishap, I have been compelled to defer making any answer to it until this late date. With your permission, Mr. Editor, I propose to notice some of the peculiarities of this elaborate performance — running through six numbers of the Daily Post — not with any liopcs of convincing " Selah/' or his coadjutor, who have produced it, of their error ; but for the purpose of showing, to " the mass of the people of Connecticut," who * Dawson vs. Selah. — We shall to-morrow commence the publication of Henry B. Dawson's reply to " Selah, '^ relative to the life and services of General Pi'tnam. Owing to its length, we have been obliged to delay its appearance, from time to time, to make room fc)r other, and to iis^more interesting matter. In justice to Jlr. Dawson, we would state, that his reply has been awaiting publication ever since the first of May. Some important matter has been added to it of subsequent date, however — Hartford Daily Poi>t, August Isf, 1S59. 100 Dawson's third letter. they arc who have impudently assumed to themselves the honor of vindicating " the honor of Connecticut ; " and of exposing, before an outraged people, the manner in which they have discharged that self-imposed, but important duty. Before proceeding to that duty, however, I may be per- mitted to congratulate Connecticut on the good sense which " Selah " has displayed, first, in surrendering, with- out a struggle, as he had previously done in respect to Putnam's birth-place, and other fictions, six out of seven of the positions he had taken in his second letter ; and, SECONDLY, in securing the assistance of so able and so nimble an auxiliary as he whose handiwork, in such marked contrast to his own, is so apparent in the extended letter which is now before me. With such a " Champion " as this, in the person of the squire, added to the profound skill, the high-toned honor, the chivalrous bearing, and the untiring love of enterprise which mark the character of the Might, " the honor of Connecticut," one would suppose, must now, if ever, be perfectly secure ; and the good name of Putnam, in such a Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, must, at last, have found an appropriate, if not an irresistible protection. In that portion of the letter which has been contributed by my old friend, " Selah,^' I find, for a wonder, nothing which is new. He has evidently desired to fall back on the laurels which he had previously gained ; and, as a veteran of two campaigns, and in humble imitation of his great exemplar, Putnam, he now leaves to his subordinate the labor of fighting the battle, while he holds himself in readiness either to join in the retreat or to claim the honors, as circumstances may warrant. Dawson's third letter. 101 As I have said already, I find, in the first part of the let- ter, nothing which is new. The same strain of personal abuse ; the same malignant perversion of language and of facts ; the same deliberate falsification of the record ; the same sneaking inuendoes, which, from the beginning, have marked " Selah^s " course, are conspicuous in the beginning of this letter, and tell at once the story of its origin and the character of its author. It betrays the workmanship of him who manufactured " town records " and " opinions of the oldest inhabitants " to prove that Putnam was born in Pomfret, Connecticut ; of him who, from a reference to the gallantry of Knowlton's command in the action near Bunker's Hill, forged a charge that I had asserted they " skulked behind rail-fences," to dodge the bullets ; of him who paraded the authorities which I had cited on one sub- ject, as my witnesses on other subjects in which I had never examined them. With that peculiar kind of assurance which none but the most unprincipled ever disi^lay in public, he attempts, also, by inuendo, to invalidate the authorities by which I have met and exposed his falsehoods— sneering at what he pleases to term my " budget of private letters," " written, perhaps, by some one, and, perhaps, at some time, now to be found, perhaps, somewhere." I need only say, in answer to this elegant sentence, that I have cited no "private letters ;" that the names of the writers of nearly all of them, the dates when, and the places where they were written, were all cited in full — the space which would have been necessary to print the entire documents forbid- ding any more extended reference to them. As " Selah's'^ faithful squire can tell him, if that is necessary, they have all been published, in such a form that no court in Con- necticut can, legally, exclude tliem, should they be offered 102 Dawson's third letter. in evidence ; besides wliich, as an additional proof of " SelaWs " duplicity, I have the most indisputable evidence that authentic copies of these identical letters were before him while he was writing this very communication. In unison with this, also, is the blustering offer of ten dollars, which " Selah " makes, in behalf of the Secretary of State, for " a duly authenticated copy of the letter of Governor Trumbull, of Connecticut, to the Baron Van der C APELLAN, in which the former informs the latter that Gene- ral Putnam did not command at Bunker's Hill ;" and the as- surance that " the money will be forthcoming." I have not referred to any such letter ; and if I had done so, the assurance of " Selah " that ten dollars would be given for " a duly authenticated copy," would furnish but a poor guarantee that his draft would be honored. I cited a let- ter from Governor Jonathan Trumbull, dated " Lebanon, August 31, 1779," and addressed to " Baron J. D. Van der Capellan, Seigneur du Pol, Mertibre des Nobles de la Pro- vince d'Overysul, &c.," in answer to a letter which the Baron had addressed to him from " Zwol, 1th December, 1778," in which the Governor uses these words : " On the 16th June, 1775, it was resolved to form a post on that part of the high grounds of Charlestown nighest to the town of Boston ; from which we should have the power of annoying the enemy, both in thfe town and har- bor. The plan for the execution of this determination ^cas not ivell formed ; and the executive part, dependent on ofl&cers and troops unacquainted with discipline, was still more inattentively prosecuted. About six hundred men, with arms and entrenching tools, were marched down in the evening, and broke ground at twelve o'clock. The en- trenchments, for want of engineers, were in a similar stvle Dawson's third letter. 103 witli tlie preparatory steps, sufficiently wjiidicmis. At day- break, of the 17tli of June, we were discovered by the enemy, and a cannonade immediately commenced, which continued, with little interruption, though as little execu- tion, till afternoon. Meantime the unfortunate six hun- dred, fatigued with labor and want of sleep, and quite inadequate in number to the defense of the post they had been employed to form, were not only -not relieved by fresh men, but not even furnished with provisions and liquors for their refreshment, or the extraordinary ammunition which they must necessarily expend. In this situation they were attacked, at three o'clock p.m., by twelve hundred British troops, under the command of General Howe. Yet even when thus unsupported hy their brethren, exposed to the fire of several ships of war and batteries, and the attack of double their number of men, they maintained their post with determined firmness, and repeatedly forced the enemy to give -way ; till General Howe, being strongly reinforced, and finding themselves still abandoned to their fate, their am- munition exhausted, their commanding officer, the brave General Warren, and near half their number killed or wounded, the remaining few fled, and left the enemy mas- ters of the field. To add to the horrors of this ?mv scene, the town of Charlestown was set on fire, and reduced to ashes. Perhaps there have been few more obstinate battles ever fought ; near one half the troops engaged, on each side, being either killed or wounded ; that is, of the British, eleven hundred, and of the Americans more than three hundred." I have cited all that Governor Trumbull said on this subject, in order to show what the people of Connecticut thought on the subject in 1779 ; and '' Selah'' and the Sec- 104 Dawson's third letter. retary of State are welcome to all they can make out of it for the glorification of General Putnam. I beg to remind the Honorable Secretary, at the same time, that the originals of both the Baron's letter and the Governor's answer are in the Library of the Massachusetts Historical Society ; that my copy of the document, formerly ow^ned by the DwiGHTS of Connecticut, and " duly authenticated,^^ cost me seventy-five cents ; that the same opportunity still exists to obtain copies ; and that nine dollars, or thereabouts, may be saved from the reward which he offered, and may be in- vested in Charter Oak charms, for the consolation of " Selahy When Governor Trumbull wrote this letter, and for many years afterwards, it was not pretended that Putnam commanded in " the Battle of Bunker's Hill," nor had his name been used, in any manner, as a prominent actor in that engagement ; and the writer was no more called on to say that Putnam did not command at Bunker's Hill, than I am to say that " Selah " is a gentleman and a scholar, or to mention any other fact or fiction which is foreign to the suljject. It is a very significant fact, how- ever, that while the Governor condemns the management of the affair, and the failure to strengthen the foi'ces and to supply them with ammunition, he never mentions Gene- ral Putnam's name, but, on the contrary, calls " the brave General Warren " " their commanding officer." Passing thence to " SelaKs " next subject — that " in re- ferring to the exploits of Putnam in the wolf-den, at Horse- neck, and the French War," I have " adduced nothing to refute them that has a semblance of validity or argument." I do not feel called upon to enlarge on those subjects. A discriminating public has already decided between " Selah" and myself, in the evidence which each has adduced : and DAWSON S THIRD LETTER, 105 my opponent, in spite of liis inclinations to the contrary, lias prudently bowed to its verdict, without appeal, and discontinued the discussion. On one subject, however — tltat of Bunker's Hill — he has received a fresh supply of am- munition and a. reinforcement, in which respect he has fared better than the gallant troops of whom he pretends to speak ; and, taking courage from that circumstance, he proposes to make that subject " a test ;" and, from ". the evidence " which he adduces "in reference to General Put- nam's position in that battle, to build up, at once, a monu- ment of that hero's glory and Mr. Dawson's shame." I confess I did not, before, suppose I possessed so much con- sequence as to secure so handsome a compliment. Israel Putnam and Henry B. Dawson receiving, at the same time, from the same hands, the honor of an undivided " monu- ment!'' It is true that to idm it is to be a monument of " glory'' while to me it is to be one of " shame ; " yet it is to be " a monument ;" and when it is remembered that epi- taphs generally speak falsely, and that both sides of a subject are seldom looked at, now-a-days, by the same persons, it matters but little what is on the other side, and an eulogy of Putnam might as well appear there as any other inscrip- tion. Would it not be well, in this connection, for " Selah " to take counsel of the past, and to recollect the monument of *' shame " which Haman erected for Mordecai ; and, hav- ing done so, to inquire to what use that " monument " Avas actually put, and to take warning ? I have now come to the second part of the communica- tion, signed " Sdah " — that in which the ingenuity of his faithful squire has been so elaborately employed. We may readily know a man from the company he keeps ; and this 14 106 Dawson's third letter. assistant '* Champion" of Putnam's character differs but little, except in scholarship, from his veteran cliief. If I do not mistake, he also is a soldier of fortune, and ready to cast his services in support of that cause which pays the "best — alternately " flaunting ' Sustinet qui transtuJet ' " in the eyes of Governor Tryon, in behalf of the injured Woos- TER ; and filling the columns of the Hartford Courant with eulogistic essays on the greatness and goodness of Put- nam, while the communication now under consideration shows that, like " Selah," he does not hesitate to manufac- ture testimony to support his cause, when he fails to find it ready for his use. He opens his part by asserting that " it is a well-known fact that Putnam held a regularly commissioned command of the Continental troops previous to the battle of Bunker Hill " — a falsehood, to begin with, which any school-boy of your common schools can refute. It is true that during the session in April, 1775, {April 26,) the Assembly of Connecticut, "finding it prudent and necessary to make open preparation, passed ' An act for Assembling, Equip- ping, &c., a number of the Inhabitants of the Colony, for the special defense and safety thereof ;' " and it is equally true that Israel Putnam was appointed Captain of the First Company of the Third Regiment, Colonel of that Regiment, and Second Brigadier-General — Generals Woos- TER and Spencer being his superiors in ofiice : but that appointment did not give him " a regularly commissioned command of the Continental troops," or any other com- mand beyond those to which I have referred — the Connec- ticut troops, who had been raised " for the special defense and safety of that colony." If Mr. Day's official certificate shows anything more than this, it shows a falsehood ; for Dawson's third letter. 107 where did the Assembly of Connecticut, from which he re- ceived all the power he possessed, receive any authority to legislate for the government of any person beyond the limits of that colony ? and how could the commission, which the government of that colony had issued, authorize him to command the Continental troops, which had never been heard of when he received that commission ? In fact, he was, like the officers whom Connecticut commissions at the present day, an officer of the Connecticut troops, while they are on duty in Connecticut, or under her au- thority, and nothing more. In due course of time portions of these troops and their officers, by order of the General Assembly, at its April session, went " to the relief of the people at the Bay," and Putnam went with them. His commission, however, was as so much white paper the moment he crossed the line which separated Connecticut from Rhode Island, except among the Connecticut troops, by whom alone his authority was recognized ; and not a shadow of authority did he possess or exercise over the troops of any other colony. The extent of the authority which these officers exercised, even among their own people, while outside of Connecticut, is evident from the fact that, after a few days' experience, " a large portion of these minute men," who had proceeded to Massachusetts from Connecticut, " soon returned to their homes." (Froth- ingJiam^s Siege of Boston, p. 100.) On the other hand, " al- though the orders of the day were copied by all the troops, and a voluntary obedience, it is stated, was yielded to General Ward by the whole army, as the commander-in- chief ;" {Frothingham, I). 101,) that obedience was not gen- eral, and difficulties ensued. In fact, at the time of the action on Bunker's Hill, the only troops which General 108 Dawson's third letter. Ward had any authority to command were those of Mas- sachusetts and New Hampshire -Connecticut, tlirough its Committee of War, retaining the command of her's until June 19, [Blinufcs of the Committee of War, Monday, June 19, 1775, A.M.,) and Rhode Island that of her " army of observation," until June 28, {Minutes of the General Assem- bly, June 28, 1775,) and this accounts for the fact that the only troops wdio could be sent by General Ward, to strengthen the detachment on Bunker Hill, were the New Hampshire troops, under Colonels Stark and Reed.* Such was the standing of Israel Putnam on the 17th June, 1775, wdien "the battle of Bunker Hill" was fought— a * The following extract from an interesting letter, written by Hon. John Adams, many years after the battle, will show the well-settled opinion of that great man on the subject now under consideration : Ql-in'cy, Jl'ne 19, 1818. Dear Sir : I have received your letter of the 16th. My letter to Colonel Daniel PcTXAM, of the 5th, is at his and your disposal. You may publish any part of it, or the whole, at your discretion. I wish the young gentlemen of the age would undertake an analytical investigation of the constitution of the army at Cambridge, and of the detachment fiom it at Bunk- er's Hill and Breed's Hill, on the Kith and 17th of June. The army at Cambridge loas not a national army, for there was no nation. It was not a United States army, for there were no united colonies ; for, if it could be said in any sense that the colonies were united, the centre of their union— the Congress at Philadelphia— had not adopted or acknowledged the army at Cambridge. 11 icas not a Wew England army ; for New England had not associated. New England had no legal legislature, nor any common executive authority, even upon the principles of original authority, or even of original power in the people. Massachusetts bad hei- army, Connecticut her army. New Hampshire her army, and Rhode Island her army. These four armies met at Cambridge, and imprisoned the British army in Boston. But who was the sovereign of this united, or rather, congregated army, and who its commander-in-chief? It had none. Putnam, Poor and Greene, were as independent of Ward as Ward was of them. None of them but Ward was subject to the orders of the Massachusetts Provincial Congress. I desire to know from whom Putnam received his commission, and from whom Poor received his commission ; and I pray let the commissions of Ward, Putnam, Poor and Greene be all produced. * * * * * But, sir, I must suppress a thousand questions, and conclude. Your humble servant, George Brinley, Esq. JOHN ADAMS. DAWSON S THIRD LETTER, I(;9 Colonial General, exercising no legal autliority, except over the Connecticut troops ; and, with them, recognizing the right of no man or body of men outside of the Con- necticut Committee of War, to issue orders for their government. On the 19th of Juno— two days after the action, and the same day on which the Committee of War had ordered him to yield obedience to General Ward — he was appointed a Major-General in the Continental service ; and it was not until General Washington had reached Cambridge that he received his commission. With these/acts he/ore Jam at the time when he penned the para- graph in question, as icas the case, what can be said in favor of one who could deliberately falsify tlie record to support his favorite theory ? This is shown from the fact that " Sdah " cites, in another part of this letter, from the very work which contains the printed records referred to. I repeat, therefore, that General Putnam was not a Conti- nental officer previous to, or at the time of the battle of Bunker Hill ; that he recognized the authority of no one but the Committee of War in Connecticut, to issue any orders for the government of the troops of that colony ; and that he possessed no authority (and could enforce none) over the troops of either of the other colonies. The next subject which is introduced is a statement that Governor Trumbull ordered Putnam to " repair at once to Cambridge, and take charge of the troops, and he would make out his commission, and send it on after him ;" that " thus we have abundant evidence that Putnam was the commander-in-chief of the American troops before the battle ;" and that, " taking this for granted, it is but fair to suppose that he also commanded them in the battle." In the perusal of this paragraph, I have been at a Jnsg 110 Dawson's thied letter. "whether to attribute it to the ignorance or to the dishon- esty of the writer. As I have shown already, Putnam was an officer of the colony of Connecticut, commanding the Third Regiment of Connecticut troops, and subject only to the orders of the General Assembly, or the Committee of War in that colony. He had marched to Boston, by order of the Governor, in conformity with law ; and as the superior officer, had also orders " to take charge of the troops there." But is any one so void of common sense as to suppose that Governor Trumbull issued such an order, with the expectation or desire that the New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island troops would recognize Putnam as their commander-in-chief ; or even that Putnam so understood it? At the period in question, Massachu- setts had eleven thousand five hundred men in the field, under the veteran Ward ; New Hampshire, one thousand two hundred, under the same officer ; Connecticut, two thousand three hundred, thus placed under Putnam, in the absence of his superiors ; and Rhode Island, one thousand, under General Greene, (Frothingham, 101,) and he must be ambitious of honor who would assume, as this writer has done, that Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Hamp- shire would so tamely submit to the dictation of Connecti- cut, or yield the command of their' troops to an officer of her appointment, who had not even received his commission from the hands of her Governor. Next comes a melo-dramatic account of a supposed coun- cil, wherein General Ward, Doctor Warren and General Putnam are represented as discussing " the subject of for- tifying Bunker's Hill," with all " the effect" which excites, to so great a degree, the admiration of the pit in the old Bowery. In answer to this silly interlude, it is only neces- Dawson's third letter. Ill sary to say that this measure was adopted in the Commit- tee of Safety of Massachusetts, of which neither Ward nor Putnam were members. A fac-simile copy of the original order, signed by "Benja. White, Chairman,''^ may be found in Frothixgham's Siege of Boston, page 116, and the entire proceedings, at length, appear in the Minutes of the Committee of Safety, June 15, 1775. I miglit also refer to the impossibility of Putnam conducting such a conversation as is here described ; and in evidence of his accomplish- ments, I refer to the following correct copy of an order which he issued while commanding in the city of Philadel- phia in 1776 : head quartors, ye 14 of December, 1776. All ofisors and solders boath Thoas that are Newly in- listed into the contenontol sarwis Thosof the flieing Camp the melishey and all the Inhabitence of this City are re- quested to parad to morrow morning at 9 o'clock at the Markit to go on fitig to fortify this city and so on Every morning tel farther orders. Israel Putnam. Before proceeding to an examination of the main ques- tion, on its own merits, allow me to inquire what testimony has been adduced by my opponents to prove that General Putnam was present, either in the redoubt or behind the rail-fence, during the action of June 17, 1775. First. We have the jottings down of floating rumors, by President Stiles, of Yale College, all of which were disproved by his subsequent entry, on the 23d June, which was made on General Putnam's own authority. Second. We have a false quotation from Judge Gros- venor's letter to Daniel Putnam — " ' he was in a Connec- ticut regiment,' who, with a much larger number of Mas- sachusetts troops, under Colonel Prescott, were ordered 112 Dawson's third letter. by General Putnam to march on the evening, etc." The original, which is now before me,^" reads thus : " Being under the command of General Putnam, part of our regi- ment, and a much larger number of Massachusetts troops, under Colonel Prescott, w^ere ordered to march on the evening, &c." Any school-boy can see that, while in the original letter the authority of General Putnam and that of Colonel Prescott were equal, each commanding liis own party only, the interpolation of " by General Putnam," at the close of the ixiragraph, by " Selah,^' makes a cool, deliberate falsehood, and brands the author of the fraud with all the shame which attaches to him who feloniously removes his neighbor's land-mark. Third. We have an extract from Mr. Whitney's fune- ral sermon — the very first claim which was ever made in behalf of General Putnam. As General Putnam never claimed any such honor while he lived, even when he was relating his services as a basis for a claim on his country — his acknowledged occupation of Prospect Hill having sat- isfied him, even in that emergency — I do not feel called upon further to show the worthlessness of this authority. Fourth. The extract from Major Jackson's diary is such that I do not object to it as authority, inasmuch as it does not disprove any statement which I have made. Fifth. We have a reference to John Boyle's diary, which, " Selah^^ says, " was kept at that time.'" While the statements extracted therefrom do not disprove anything I have said, why does " Sdah " unnecessarily tell a false- hood in connection with the book ? If he knows enough about this diary to quote from it, he knows it was not * The letter here referred to can be found by the reader, if he desires to contiiine the investigation, in the Portfolio, fifth series, vol. 6, pages 9-11. Dawson's third letter. 113 " kept at that time," nor for many montlis afterwards ; and even then, that it was mostly a compilation from the news- papers of the day, and in the language of these nseful but rather uncertain publications. By this special clause did " Selah " propose to repeat the same fraud on the public which he attempted in the case of Judge Grosvenor's let- ter, already referred to, or was it done for my especial benefit, in the present discussion ? Sixt/i. Eivington's "JYew York Gazette'' may serve a very good purpose when it is sustained by more reliable authorities ; yet I very much question if it proves anything in opposition to the testimony of those who were eye-wit- nesses of the circumstances in question, unless, it may be, the very great necessity under which " Selah " labors for a little evidence to sustain his errors. Those who know the character of Eivington's Gazette, in all which relates to the jJojndar cause, need not be told that it cannot be re- lied on— the Boijal Printer, in New York, having been poor authority on all popular movements which transpired in Boston. Seventh. " Colonel Swett " is cited and lauded as a very paragon of authenticity. My opinions of this gentle- man's works on Putnam are already before your readers ; and, with the fact before me, that it was he who besmeared a historical fact with the filth and slime of partisan malig- nity, I do not hesitate to say that I cannot discriminate between his word, on this subject, and the documents which he has mutilated for party purposes, and all are alike dis- carded as unworthy of confidence. Eighth. We have allusions to " affidavits of Governor Brooks, Colonel Wade, Judge Grosvenor, Major Lyman, 15 114 Dawson's third letter. Colonel Webb, Anderson Miner, Joshua Yeomans, Sim- eon Notes, and many others," to prove the exploits of Putnam in covering the retreat of the Americans. I beg leave to say that Judge Grosvenor makes no allusion to Putnam in this connection, his words being, " which our brave Captain Knowlton perceiving, ordered a retreat of his men, in which he was sustained by two companies under the command of Captains Clark and Chester." Yeomans makes no allusion to the retreat. Notes says, " When we were retreating, he rode up to us with his tent and tent- poles on his horse, and asked " why we were retreating? " Colonel Wade speaks of the retreat, without referring to any very remarkable conduct on the part of Putnam. Ninth. We have the hearsay testimony of Colonel Wade, Ethan Clark, William Williams, and the pub- lisher of an anonymous portrait — none of whom possessed any peculiar advantages for acquiring information over their neighbors in Providence, Lebanon, or London, and all of whom have been contradicted by those who were en- gaged in the action, as well as by the records of the trans- actions, connected therewith, to which their testimony relates. Tenth. Dr. James ThaaJher is cited to prove that Putnam commanded at Bunker's Hill — " on the American side, Generals Putnam, Warren, Pomerot, and Colonel Prescott, were emphatically the heroes of the day, and their unparalleled efforts were crowned with glory ! " In this extract, " Selah " says, " It will be seen that Thacher places Putnam first, thus seeming to give him precedence also in command." I have before me a copy of " The Mili- tary JournaV — the work from which the above is taken — and find " Selah," or his squire, has imitated their leader DAWSON S THIRD LETTER. 115 in this controversy, by mutilating the text, in order to sus- tain a falsehood. Thacher says (page 26), " It was deemed important that our troops should possess them- selves of this eminence {Bunker^s Hill) before the enemy could occupy it. Accordingly orders were given to Colonel Prescott, a veteran of the last war, with one thousand men, to march silently in the evening of the 16th June," &c. Again, on the same page, without assigning the command to either of them, he says, " Generals Putnam, Warren and PoMEROY animated and encouraged the troops with their presence." But, on page 29, appear the words, with little variation, as cited by " Selah," followed, however, by these important remarks, which he has suppressed, in order to make Dr. Thacher support what he has expressly de- nied — " 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. He displayed a native, daring bravery altogether unrivaled, and infused the conquering spirit of a soldier into the hearts of all who were under his command, and crowned himself with immortal honor." Such, Mr. Editor, is the manner in which my opponents are conducting this investigation ; and in this manner have your readers been imposed on by these self-constituted guardians of " the honor of Connecticut." Eleventh. " Selah " next favors us with extracts from the letter of a nameless officer of the British army, in Boston, to his friend in England, which he coolly says, " all go to establish Putnam's claims to the honor, not only of com- mandership, but of having taken a brave and daring part in the strife." Your readers need but see the words of the officer to be convinced of the deception which my opponents 116 Dawson's third letter. have employed. "After the skirmish of the 17th, we even commended the troops of Putnam, who fought so gallantly, 2^1-0 avis et focis." Putnam's troops did " fight gallantly, jyro avis et focis," but Knowlton led them, while Putnam, as we shall presently show, was not present — the paragraph in question making no allusion whatever in support of Putnam's " coramandership," or Putnam's " presence in the strife." Again, the officer, speaking of the secrecy with which the expedition was conducted, says, " Generals Clinton and Burgoyne knew not of it till the morning, though the town did in general, and Putnam in particu- lar." I confess I do not see wherein this sentence, over which " Selah" manifests so much pleasure, has any bear- ing on the questions at issue ; or wherein it proves or dis- proves anything which either " Selah " or I have asserted. As General Putnam gave the orders to the Connecticut troops, on the evening of the 16th, and as he accompanied them on their " secret" and silent march — leaving them at work on the hill at one o'clock — I can see no reason why he should " not have known of it," in particular, nor have I ever supposed or argued differently. I have no desire to limit the pleasure either of "Selah" or his squire, however; and if they find comfort in these extracts, let them enjoy the feast, Tivelfth. " Selah " refers to sundry ex parte affidavits which Colonel Swett and his associates, under the direc- tion and at the expense of the Federalists of Boston, pre- pared and caused to be executed and verified, in or about 1818, for the purpose of securing the defeat of the Demo- cratic candidate for Governor of Massachusetts, Major- General Henry Dearborn, who had fearlessly exposed the true character of General Putnam a short time before. Dawson's third letter. in Colonel SwETT " devoted two months of his life, night and day, to this subject," {Letter of Colonel Sivett to Ballard (f: JVrigJd, 1819,) to say nothing of like services by other party hacks, who were equally zealous and not less un- scrupulous ; and when the principles, or rather the want of principles, which actuate all such gentlemen, when thus employed, are considered, the peculiar character of these papers— especially that of those of them which were exe- cuted by men who could neither read writing or sign their own names — will be readily appreciated. In another part of this letter I shall examine the contents of these affidavits ; and if your readers will refer to that division of my subject, they will see that " SelaJi" has added to the interest which attaches to these affidavits per se, when he or his squire, says, " they all agree that Putnam was on Bunker's and Breed's Hills, both in the night of the 16th, and during the day of the 17th of June, 177^. They all agree, too, that he there performed the duties devolving upon a commander ; and that they, as well as their com- rades in arms, always considered him their commander on that day." Thirteenth. We have Mr. Frothingham's " Siege of Bos- ton " produced as evidence to show that Major Moncrieffe and General Putnam were intimate friends in 1775 ; and that at that time they met, in the exchange of prisoners, and parted " with the utmost decency and good humor." From this " Selah " affects to prove that I have " twisted " an incident which occurred before Boston, in 1775, into " an act of treason " in the city of New York, in 1776. I beg my opponents will not thus abandon their favorite. It was the fact of Major Moncriepfe's acquaintance with Putnam, and his knowledge of the General's weakness, 118 Dawson's third letter. which led that distinguished officer to dispatch his own daughter as a spy into New York, and to intrust her within the General's family. No father would thus have hazarded the life of a talented daughter, had he not felt assured, beforehand, that she would be safe ; and in no hands could he have more properly placed her, than in those of a personal friend, whose patriotism was deposited in his pocket-book ; and whose interest, in the cause of the United States, fluctuated with his pecuniary interests. Lastly. We have extracts of letters from General Washington and Joseph Reed, and of an editorial in " The Connecticut Courant,^^ which " Selah," like a dealer in quack medicines, parades as certificates of the wonderful character of his article. It will become my duty, before closing this letter, to invite the attention of your readers to the opinions of these same officers, and others, respecting Putnam, as shown by their acts, during the dark days of our country's history. Until that time I shall let these extracts pass unnoticed. We come now to the first grand division of my opponents' labors — the occupation of the heights in the night of June 16, 1775 — in the examination of which I propose to be as brief as possible, consistent>with my desire that " Selah " and his assistant may have no just excuse for misrepresenting me, or of misunderstanding my meaning. I. Why, and by whom, was the occupation of the heights near Charlestown originally ordered? My friends in Hartford say it " was to draw the enemy out of Boston, on ground where they might be met on equal terms ;" and, on that hypothesis, they build up the bombas- tic conversation which, as they assert, took place " in the American camp," between Generals Ward and Putnam DAWSON 8 THIRD LETTER. 119 and Doctor Warren, to which allusion has heretofore been made. In assigning this as the reason, however, my oppo- nents have been only the faint imitators of their leader, Colonel SwETT, in his " History of the Bunker Hill Battle, A.D. 1827," page 14, forgetting, as he forgot, that "the American camp " was not the origin of the subject ; that Doctor Warren had no voice in " the Council of War," and could not, therefore, have taken part in its discussions ; and that as Generals Ward and Putnam held no seats in " the Committee of Safety," where it did originate, they could not have taken part in the discussion of the subject before that body — where alone, if anywhere. Doctor Warren could have taken the part which has been assigned to him. As the records, previously cited, show that my opponents have mistaken the character of the body from whence the project of the occupation of the heights proceeded, so they have also erred in their theory respecting the purpose of that movement. Instead of desiring thereby " to draw the enemy out of Boston," as my opponents maintain, the records show that the very reverse of this was the object. The resolutions of the Committee of Safety— the original authority in the premises— open with this preamble, " In Committee of Scfety, Cambridge, June 15, 1775. Where- as, it appears of Importance to the Safety of this Colony that possession of the Hill, Called Bunker's hill in Charles- town be Securely kept and defended ; and allso some one hill or hills on Dorchester neck be likewise Secured. Therefore, Resolved Unanimously," the orders of the Council of War to occupy the heights of Charlestown, and who commanded in the redoubt on the day of the battle." Deacon Samuel Lawrence, a soldier on the hill, in the deposition which has been cited in the last division of this subject, says, " I assisted in throwing up the work, and in forming a redoubt, under Colonel Prescott, who directed the whole of this operation." Other authorities might be cited to support this assertion, were it necessary ; but I will close with in- vitins: the attention of " Selah " to his friend, Colonel DAWSON S THIRD LETTER. 131 SwETT, who, in his '' History of Bunker's Hill Battle," third edition, page 18, tells us that, "with the advice of the Council of War, General Ward issued orders to Colonel William Prescott, Colonel Bridge, and the commandant of Frye's regiment, to be prepared for an expedition, with all their men fit for service, and one day's provisions. The same order issued for one hundred and twenty of General Putnam's regiment, and Captain Gridley's com- pany of artillery, with two field-pieces. With these troops Colonel Prescott was ordered to proceed to Charlestown in the evening, take possession of Bunker's Hill," &c. Again, on the next page, he says, " Not an officer in the army could have been selected better deserving the honor of the appointment, or more able to execute the arduous enterprise, than Colonel Prescott. In this veteran, age already began to display its ravages ; but the fire of his youth was undamped." Lastly, on page 20 of the same work, he says, " Gridley laid out the works immediately with skill, which would honor any engineer in the highest advance of military science." With these evidences of the unsoundness of " SelaWs " theory of the origin, means, and direction of the expedition of the 16th of June, I submit this part of the subject to the judgment of your readers. I have never denied that Put- nam, when present, was the commandant of his own regi- ment, nor do I now deny it ; and I have yet to learn that in refusing to extend to him an authority which he did not possess, until some weeks afterwards, I am either injuring the reputation of Putnam or the " honor of Connecticut." If I maybe allowed to judge, however, from cause to effect, I can easily perceive how those who seek to obtain honors for Putnam and for Connecticut, which belong to other 132 Dawson's third letter. men and to other States, may readily excite tlie alarm of others, and commit a wrong which Putnam, if living, would condemn, while Connecticut herself gains nothing from the controversy. Before proceeding to an examination of the second grand division of " Selah^s " elaborate letter, two subjects require a brief examination, not only for the confirmation of my views of the occupation of the Hill, but for the correct understanding of the truth, and of " Selah's " errors, on the matter of the action of the succeeding day. I. Did Putnam remain on the heights during the WHOLE OF THE NIGHT ; AND IP NOT, WHY DID HE LEAVE THE expedition? Mr. Frothingham (Siege of Boston, page 124,) says, " General Putnam, after the men were at labor, returned to Cambridge." Colonel Swett {History of Bun- leer Hill Battle, page 21,) says, "The men quietly at their labors, General Putnam repaired to his camp to prepare for the anticipated crisis, by bringing on reinforcements, and to be fresh mounted ; his furious riding requiring a frequent change of horses." Accepting these statements as true — of which I should have no doubt, since "Selah''s " assist- ant endorses them — I would respectfully inquire if it was the duty of the commander of the expedition — the part which my opponents have assigned to Putnam — to aban- don his command, in order to seek reinforcements ? and whether it was not the usual practice of " the commander- in-chief of the American troops," which dignified office " Selah " and his squire have claimed for Putnam, to em- ploy an aid-de-camp in all such duties ? I would also in- quire from my Hartford friends, if this was the object of Putnam's mission to Cambridge, why Major Brooks, at 9 o'clock, a.m., was sent after him on the same errand? r Dawson's third letter. 133 Why, in view of the authority with which Putnam is said to have been vested, lie did not succeed in obtaining the re- inforcements he went after? Why lie was returning to the Hill, without the desired assistance — a powerless " com- mander-in. chief " — when Major Brooks met him, between 9 and 10 o'clock the next morning? And, finally, why, under these circumstances, the latter officer, also, did not re- turn to the Hill, but continued on his course to Cambridge, for the same purpose for which he had been despatched, by Colonel Prescott, from Breed's Hill ? I would also most respectfully inquire from " Selah " and his attendant where " the furious riding " had taken place, which compelled Putnam to repair to Cambridge, whence the detachment had just come, for " a change of horses," as soon as "the men were quietly at work ;" especially since the marcli from that place had been conducted with the greatest possible silence ? Can my opponents also oblige me by explaining why the regiment of New Hampshire troops, under Colonel Stark, was not ordered to Charlestown by General Putnam, instead of by General Ward, (Col. Stark to N. H. Committee of Safety, June 19, 1775,) if the former held the supreme command ? These questions are all pertinent to the issue, and " Selah " may enlighten me, and possibly himself, by ascertaining and communicating the true answers, with references to his authorities. I will not trouble him to copy the authorities at length, as, notwithstanding I live in the country, I presume I have the works on my shelves. n. How WAS General Putnam employed from the TIME HE left THE MEN AT WORK, IN THE NIGHT OF JUNB 16tH, to THE OPENING OF THE ENGAGEMENT ON THE FOLLOW- ING AFTKRNOON ? As has been shown, " General Putnam, 134 Dawson's third letter. after the men were at labor, returned to Cambridge." As it was " about twelve o'clock " when " the men began to work," (FrofJiingham, page 124 ; Sivett, page 21 ; Bancroft, 7, page 409 ; Thacher's Military Journal, page 26,) and as the General was mounted (Sivett, page 21,) it could not have been later than one o'clock when the latter reached his camp ; so that from and after one o'clock in the morn- ing of June 17th, until the commencement of the action, on the afternoon of the same day, is the period of time which is now under consideration. The most zealous friend of Putnam makes no pretense that he did anything after he arrived at Cambridge, (about one o'clock,) until daybreak — about four o'clock — when, it is said, he " di- rected Lieutenant Clark to send to General Ward for a horse ;" and of this no contemporary evidence is adduced, nor does any appear, in the numerous affidavits and letters which the long-continued discussion on Bunker Hill has drawn forth. Admitting, therefore, the truth of Colonel Swett's assertion, for the argument's sake, not less than three hours of that eventful night were spent by Putnam, " Selah's " incomparable commander-in-chief, in his camp at Cambridge, in some private, untold occupation — " pre- paring for the anticipated crisis," it is said ; while Pres- cott and Knowlton and their men, in a different style, were also " preparing " for that event, with spade and pick- axe and crow-bar, within. the lines on the heights of Charles- toAvn. History has recorded the determined, uncompro- mising patriotism of the latter ; and the story of their zeal, their sufferings and their bravery, will go down to future ages with constantly increasing glory; while gen- erations yet unborn will associate the names of Warren and Prescott, Knowlton and Stark, with the great prin- Dawson's third letter. 135 ciples for which they fought ; and in giving thanks for the blessings with which they will be surrounded, they will not forget to mention those through whose instrumentality they have been secured. I have said that Colonel Swett — " Selah's " great leader — states that " at day-break, Putnam directed Lieutenant Clark to send to General Ward for a horse ;" but the Colonel, and " Selah" after him, wisely declined to draw the curtain, and show the whereabouts and occupation of Putnam from one to four o'clock on that morning. With- out doing more than pointing out to your readers the peculiar situation of Putnam at day-break, compared with that of Prescott at the same moment, I might rest my case, and safely leave to their judgment the determination of the matter at issue. On the one hand, we have the " tall and commanding " figure of Prescott, with " countenance grave, ardent and impressive as his character ;" " and, with his formidable sword, he needed no uniform to distinguish him as a leader'" (Swetfs BunJcer Hill Battle, page 19.) " In a simple calico frock he had headed the detachment which left camp at dark " (Ibid.) ; and now, with " these braw- ney yeomen," " instructing and stimulating " them, he was " working for their lives as well as their liberties," on Breed's Hill ; or, " watchful as Argus," was cautiously providing for their safety (Sivett, page 21). On the other hand, we have Putnam, a " rugged son of Mars," (Ibid., page 7,) the assumed "director and superintendent of the expedition," {Ibid., 19,) " Turning his sides, his shoulders, and his heavy head," in his camp at Cambridge, several miles distant from the men of whom he is claimed to have been the " direct- 136 DAWSON'S THIRD LETTER. or," and of the works of which, in that case, he would have been the " superintendent." Like a ynnident man, he had left the scene of danger, his men and the works, three hours before, in order that he might " prepare for the an- ticipated crisis," by securing, in a safe place, a comfortable nap. The guns of the Lively, which had just opened their fire on the works which Putnam had not " superintended," and on the men whom he had not " directed," at the time in ciuestion, had aroused " the American Samson" {Swett, page 6,) (as they had also aroused General Gage in Bos- ton,) from the slumbers into which he had fallen ; and he hastened to complete the " preparations," which had been so successfully commenced. At once, therefore, rubbing open his eyes, and unrolling himself from the blanket in which, for three hours, he had been " preparing for the anticipated crisis," the glorious " commander-in-chief," like Richard of old, could only cry out, in his confusion, " A horse, a borse, my kingdom for a horse !'' before he returned to his slumbers ; and, for five hours more, he was as busily occupied in completing his " prepara- tions," before leaving the camp, on his return to the hill.* As I said before, like a prudent man, he had sought safety and comfort in Cambridge ; your readers, Mr. Editor, can judge, therefrom, of his qualifications for the post of " com- mander-in-chief of the American forces, before the battle," as well as of the true character and extent of his authority on Breed's Hill. But to proceed. Colonel Swett says that " at daybreak," Putnam was at Cambridge, calling for a horse ; and that * He was met onCharlestowu Neck by Major Brooks, at between nine and ten o'clock in the morning— his first appearance— on the 17th of Jane. Dawson's third letter. 137 he " flew to join his men on the hill," (page 24.) Strange to say, however, not a single soldier has been found who was willing to swear he saw him there after tlio Lively opened her fire, at which time he had not left Cambridge ; nor can one be found who will venture to say anything about him, until between 9 and 10 o'clock, more than four hours later, when Major Brooks, then on his way to Cani- l)ridge to ask for reinforcements, met him on the Neck, riding toward the hill. In the absence of any corrobora- tive testimony on this subject, " Selah^' must pardon me for the rejection of Colonel Swett's assertion that Putnam visited the works before 10 o'clock. I have no doubt that " Selah " has good reasons for endorsing the trustworthi- ness of that venerable friend of Putnam ; I have reasons, which are satisfactory to myself, at least, for rejecting everything which he says on Putnam, unless it is supported by other and better authorities. I cannot forget that this gentleman, for party purposes, in order to influence a popu- lar election for Governor of Massachusetts, embarked in a Putnam crusade, " devoting two months of his life, night and day, to this subject f^ and that, with all the malignity of party spirit, immediately after the close of the last war with Great Britain, he gathered, garbled and published the testimony to which " Selah " refers. I cannot forget that it was he who, in 1818, edited an edition of "Humph- rey's Life of Putnam," with an appendix, on page 212 of which he gravely asserted that Putnam remained on the hill all night,t notwithstanding the contrary was proved by * " Tbe reviewer should devote two mouths of his life, night and day, to this subject, as the author hoi^, before he makes his strictures with such overweening confidence."— Col. Swctl to Ballard & Wright, in answer to " i.," 1818. t " Tlie men quietly at their labors, Gen. Putnam, in the morning, repaired to the 18 138 DAWSON'S THIRD LETTER. the testimony which he possessed at the time ;* nor do I fail to remember that he was compelled to correct that statement in subsequent editions.! He it was, too, who mutilated the depositions of Reuben Kemp and Alexander Davidson, and the statements of Judge- Advocate Tudor, and the Hon. Mr. Cooke, of Doctor James Teacher, Colonel Sargent of New Hampshire, and the Rev. John Martin, compelling them to appear in the character of witnesses for Putnam, while they really testified against his claims ; and when, in this connexion, the fact is borne in mind that the strongest testimony which " Sdali " pro- duces, in support of Putnam's pretensions, are depositions of soldiers who had been influenced by fees and gifts, at the expense of the Federalists of Boston, for the purpose of de- feating General Dearborn ; that they were made by men, a great number of whom could not sign their own names, or read for themselves, what others had written for them ; and that they were prepared and verified in the presence of onl}^ one party, for the use of that party only the amount of credibility which attaches to Colonel Swett's unsupported assertions will be readily perceived, and some of the reasons for my rejection of all such testimony as unworthy of the name of history. If Putnam was on the hill between one and ten o'clock, it appears strange that no testimony has yet been found to camp to prepare for the anticipated crisis," &c. — Sketch of Bunker Hill Battle, in App. to Humphrey's Putnam, 1818. * " At day-break, Gen. Putnam ordered Lieut. Clark to send and request of Gen. Ward a horse for liim (o ride to Bunker Hill." — Ihe same work, page 217. f Without attempting to reconcile the inconsistency of his remarks, that Putnam re- mained on the Hill " until morning,^' although he was said to have been at Cambridge " at day-break," in the third edition of the " Sketch," (page 21) Col. Swett has omitted the words " in the morning" from the description of Putnam's departure from the Hill. DAWSOX's THIRD LETTER. 139 prove it ; and if he was at Cambridge during those hours, or during any portion of the same period, what was he doing there ? The " preparations " which he had made during that time have received no notice, even from his most particular friends ; and all that we know of his move- ments, during the nine hours which he was absent from the hill, was the visit which he made to Prospect Hill, " early in the morning," to order Doolittle's regiment to march to the Hill " by 9 o'clock," {Deposltmi of Captain John Hblden, Adjutant of the day,) which, being com- posed of Massacbusetts men, it did not obey —Major Moore, who commanded the regiment, having joined the troops who had thrown up the works, "just previous to the action," {Frothingham, page 136 ; Sivetfs Bunker Hill Battle, page 30; Bancroft, 7, page 418), and then only as volunteers, or under orders from General Ward, who alone was his legal commander. He reached the works, then, about ten o'clock, and busied himself in attempting to find men who would obey his orders, and throw up some defensive works on Bunker's Hill. In this undertaking — a very proper one at that time — he appears to have met the same resolute disobedi- ence which had troubled him before ; and at eleven o'clock, when Doctor Thomas Kittredge left the Hill, Putnam was at the foot of Bunker's Hill, requesting some of the by-standers to go to the fort, and see if they could get some of the intrenching tools, (Dr. Kittredge's Deposition.) General Benjamin Pierce, of New Hampshire, (father of ex-President Pierce), also saw Putnam about 11 o'clock on Bunker's Hill, {Deposition of General Pierce.) At a later hour — during which interval we find no mention of his whereabouts in any contemporary document or authority — 140 DAWSON .S THIRD LETTEE. lie went in p«\so??, " and told Colonel Prescott that the intrenching tools must be sent off, or they would be lost ; the Colonel replied, that if he sent any of the men away with the tools, not one of them would return ; to this the General answered, ' they shall every man return.' A large party was then sent off with the tools, and not one of them returned," (General HeatJts dlemoirs, i>. 20.) With this party, increased by others, who, like himself, preferred to be more distant from danger than the positions which Prescott and Knowlton occupied, Putnam returned to Bunker's Hill, and there he remained, with but little, if any interruption, until the action commenced. Among the earliest of the reinforcements which reached the peninsula was Colonel Gerrish's regiment, one of whose men, Wil- liam Marden, says that on reaching the top of Bunker's Hill, he saw General Putnam on horseback, riding back- ward and forward, urging the men onward to the charge, and presently saw him ride down the hill toward the works, (Deposition of JVilUam 3larden.) Colonel Stark's regi- ment came up about two o'clock — having left Medford, four miles distant, '' about one o'clock" — and, " as it passed on to Breed's Hill," when near the summit of Bunker's Hill, General Putnam was seen " on the declivity towards Charlestown Neck, with Colonel Gerrish by his side." (Statement of General Henry Dearborn.) Major Caleb Stark, of the same regiment, (Letter to General Wilkinson, Nov., 1815,) says, "His (Putnam's) station was on Bunker Hill, and he performed no j^ortion of the operations at Breed's Hill." Reuben Kemp, of the same regiment, also speaks of the work on Bunker^s Hill, as well as other sub- jects connected with the action, which will be noticed in their proper places. (Deposition of Reuhen Kemp.) That Dawson's third letter. 141 portion of Colonel Bridge's regiment whicli Captain Ford commanded, " reached the Hill just before the action be- gan," (FrotJiingJiam, p. 176,) yet even then Putnam was on Biml'er^s Will. — "As we were going on to the lines, and had gained the hill hack of Breed's Hill, General Put- nam came up to Captain Ford, and told him that two pieces were left," &c. [Deposition of Alexander Davidson, of Ford's Companij.) General Benjamin Pierce, (father of ex-President Pierce,) who also served in Ford's Companj^, says, " Putnam did not give any orders, or assume any command, except on Bunker's Hill, as they were going to the field cf hattle." (General Pierce's deposition.) Colonel Moses Little, at the head of three of his companies, marched to the hill, and took their station on the right of the breast-work, immediately before the battle commenced, (Frothingham, p. 177; Deposition of Benjamin Webber) ^\\A Webber, one of his men, a friend of General Putnam, says, and swears to it, that " passing over Bunker's Hill, we saw General Putnam, who rode up to Captain Warner, and said, " My brave fellows, march forward to the breast- work on Breed's Hill," {Deposition of Benjamin Wehher.) Captain James Clark, of Putnam's regiment — one of our hero's own ofi&cers— says, that while he was crossing Charlestown Neck, the firing commenced, and that, at the same time, he saw General Putnam on horseback, at, or near the same place. Captain Trevett, of Gridley's ar- tillery, also " arrived on Bunker's Hill, and saw General Putnam ; halted, and went forward to select a station for his company; returned, and saw Putnam in the same place as before. At this time the action had commenced." {De- position of Captain Trevett.) I need not pursue this 1)ranch of my inquiry any farther, 142 DAWSON S THIRD LETTER. although an abundant supply of material yet remains un- employed. Your readers will perceive that I have used but few witnesses who had not already been introduced to their notice by "yS'eZa/i" and his assistant, in their last communication ; and I take pleasure in referring to the fact that they embrace men of the highest character in their respective regiments. From this testimony— and there is none which can contradict it with any force — it is clear that Putnam was asleep in his tent, or otherwise withdrawn from public life, until the guns of the Lively aroused the entire army near five o'clock on the 17th ; that from that time until about nine o'clock, he was riding about the encampments, seeking for some Massachusetts or New Hampshire regiment, which would receive his orders and march to the Hill, in which he found that none were so mean as to do Mm reverence ; that about nine he started toward the Hill, meeting Major Brooks, and that he reached Bunker's Hill soon afterward ; that he again re- newed his effort to find a command, in which, after securing the aid of the venerable Pomeroy, {Deposition of William French) he so far succeeded, that Colonel Prescott was deprived of the greater part of his force ; that with these, and such poltroons as Gerrish, he commenced to throw up a breast-work on Bunker^s Hill ; that he was on that Hill immediately before the action commenced ; and that he was on the declivity of the same Hill, toward the Neck, or on the Neck itself, at the moment when the action com- menced, on the other side the Hill. This brings me to the second grand division of my op- ponents' communication — the part which Putnam per- formed IN the engaCxEMent of the 17th June. In this, as in other branches of the subject througli which I have passed. Dawson's third letter. 143 I propose to separate the examination of each part from that of the others, not only for my own convenience, but for that of your readers in following me through the confusion into which the party hacks, forty years ago, have thrown this simple historical subject. To my own satisfaction, at least, I have directed the attention of your readers to the occu- pation of PuTXAM, on the 17th of June, 1775, before the commencement of the action ; and I now proceed to inquire : I. Ix WHAT MANNER WAS HE ENGAGED, AND WHERE WAS HE DURING THE FIRST ATTACK BY THE ENEMY? It will bc remem- bered the enemy landed at Morton's Point, on the eastern extremity of the peninsula on which Breed's and Bunker's Hills are situated, {Sicetf, p. 26,) that this point is upwards of nine hundred yards, in a straight line, from the redoubt and the rail-fence, while that portion of Charlestown Neck which is nearest to the works on Breed's Hill and to the rail-fence, is not less than the same distance, in a direct line, from the scene of the action, {Maj) in SiveiVs History^ and the scale on it.) It will also be remembered that the rail-fence was from one hundred and ninety to two hundred yards distant from the entrenchments, at the points where they most nearly approached each other, {Frothingham, p. 135; Sicett, p. 27;) that this position was occupied by Captain Knowlton, after the enemy had landed at Mor- ton's Point, (Frothingham, p. 134 ; Sicett, p. 26,) and that the period of time embraced in the first attack on the works — that is, from the first fire, on either side, to the flight of the assailants — did not exceed five minutes. With these facts before us to start with, let us examine the evidence, and inquire " where Putnam was, and what he was doing, during these eventful five minutes ? " The 144 Dawson's third letter. testimony already adduced shows that a few minutes be- fore the action began, he was on Bunker's Hill, between the redoubt and Charlestown Neck, and his own most ardent friends have never asserted the contrary. Captain James Clark, of Putnam's Connecticut regiment, was on Charlestown Neck when the firing commenced, and Put- nam, on horseback, was at or in sight from that place, as Captain Clark " saw General Putnam as he was crossing the Neck," wdiich would seem impossible— Bunker's Hill intervening — if Putnam had been on or near the scene of the action. Captain Trevett, of Gridley's artillery, in the deposition already cited, testifies that Putnam was on the north-west side of Bunker's Hill, toward the Neck, and opposite. from the scene of action, while " the action was then going on." I cite this from Colonel Swett's synop- sis of the deposition. {Notes, (itc.,i^.S.) Deacon Miller, also an ensign in Colonel Gardner's regiment, " said, re- peatedly, that he saw Putnam on Bunhcr's Hill when the action commenced." Samuel Bassett, of Style's company, Stark's regiment, left the camp after the regiment had marched, and testifies that he " arrived at Ploughed Hill, near the Neck," (now Mount Benedict, on the main land,) " a few minutes before the fire commenced. In about fifteen minutes, General Putnam came up on the gallop, and said, " Up, my brave boys, for God's sake ; we drive them." {Deposition of Samuel Bassett.) As, by the testimony previously adduced, it has been shown that, before the battle, Putnam, with the coward Gerrish, occupied the north-west slope of Bunker's Hill, out of harm's way, so, by the positive testimony of eye- witnesses—Captains Clark and Trevett, Ensign Miller and Stephen Bassett — it is quite as certainly shown that Dawson's third letter. 145 he remained there during the first attack, and until he rode over the Neck toward Cambridge, with the intelli- gence of the repulse of the enemy. It is true that, for political purposes, Reuben Kemp, of Stark's regiment, has sworn that he was posted, with his company, " at the re- doubt and breastwork, which was thrown up the night before ;" that they " remained there till the enemy came to the attack;" and that "General Putnam seemed to have the ordering of things," &c. It is equally true, how- ever, that garbled and mutilated copies of this deposition, changing its character, have been circulated by the friends of Putnam to support a bad cause ; {compare Colonel SivcU's Notes, 2Kiges 4, 5, tvith the original) that Stark's regiment was not posted in the works " which was thrown up the night before," as Kemp pretends, but at the rail-fence, near the Mystic river, {General Dearborn's letter to the Port- folio, page 175.) and that Judge Winthrop, of Cambridge, Judge Abel Parker, of New Hampshire, and Deacon Lawrence, of Groton — father of Hon. Abbott Lawrence — all of whom were present, testify positively that Putnam was not in that part of the field. It is also true that Isaac Bassett, of Putnam's rco-i- rncnt, testifies that he, too, " arrived at the redoubt and breastwork just before the battle began, and saw General Putnam there encouraging the troops," &c. It is equally true, however, that all the Connecticut troops were with Knowlton at the rail-fence, {Stcett, page 26 ; Frofhingham, page 134,) instead of being at the redoubt and breastwork; that the evidence of those who were ut the latter works positively disprove the statement ; and that another wit- ness in the same cause — Alexander Davidson — asserts positively that at the same time he is said to have been on 19 146 Dawson's third letter, the Hill, he was present behind the rail-fence, near the Mystic. But, as if to prove the frailty of all that is human, Gen- eral Putnam himself has settled the question, as the follow- ing extract from President Stiles' MS. Diary — that valu- able receptacle of the current news of the day — will fully prove : " June 23, 1775. — Messrs. Ellery, Chang, ^/^r^/^A^A kAi'£i£iiia^synU^i ^A,AAf-^^pA:;^0■^S^A'OC(^.Ao:?AA^^pA^ /f (' a/>AA' A ;^'nO;f ^-^^/^A^/^AA^A/^AA^AAAA^AA^^^,^;..0|J|§,^^|,«,|^^ kU If UJJilinM r^"-...^.^ rjj«nAWAWATAMAM ^^.^,/^^A.,^./^/^' rvAA^A^^^'S <3> C -^ - y^ ^ A nrii!!! MMif ffinr ' ; " ' A '?' ^ /^ A' ^ S 12* ,» /?, ^3>- w I* A ,1s«|=!««:«A '*f«1 ,^A^ AO,/^,h^^^.-^.^^.;^,..^ ,^^^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^ ^^ >/^PO'Ar\i A^A,rAA^^ft^^^/^^A^/^AAfl/Y*A^^;AA;;A/^^^;:AH;^;:?|pc:r--^^ :-:.'^l?|?ssc^««^^QPpOAAp;^A,^AA.AA,,A^.,;^-^^^;;^,,^AA.Anmn^^^^^^^ ■;' J«' aiSaaa ^^'^a..^n. A..JJJ.V-:,. ^^mss, r ■ ■• ■ ^ • " =; ?i'Ay ■.^. 'mtmmSiMiamijJiim^lala^ 'AA^^AaA/ iJmimlij^^m'lAW^^aM '^^m.f^'r:'^^;^:; k^^'^mm^r^riAJYirify^f .:,... •^ ^'-^ ■^■:■■•"^'>p(^^W^AAWA''nAAAAl;,^ ^/^«A.A«.?''^^-'^^^AAAAAAAAAA!A«-^^-«A-«r!fi8»?^. aM5o5«S#^ '^A^^^inA^i.w-^.r-y -^^'/^^^^^^^^^M^' ^;iA^0A/3AA2 ^■,«,i?^<^^i jpKwrvf^^v*^-- LIBRARY OF CONGRESS II III! Illllllll IIIIMII1 011 801 045