Who was the Commander at Bunker Hill?: With Remarks on Frothingham's History of the Battle

In Short

This historical defense examines the command structure of the Battle of Bunker Hill to correct errors found in Richard Frothingham's history of the siege of Boston. The author, Samuel Swett, engages in a detailed textual debate against the notion that the early American forces fought as a disorganized mob led without a central commander. Drawing on contemporary diaries, official congressional reports, orderly books, and firsthand accounts from participants, the book argues that General Israel Putnam held actual command on the field. It has lasted as a passionate primary contribution to early American military historiography.

The Story

The inquiry opens with a retrospective look at the Battle of Bunker Hill and the author's decades-old commitment to recording the deeds of Revolutionary ancestors. Swett expresses respect for historian Richard Frothingham but immediately challenges Frothingham's depiction of the American forces at Cambridge as a headless mob operating without subordination. The argument examines the consolidation of New England troops under General Ward, framing the provincial army as a cohesive body rather than an unorganized alliance.

The progression moves into the tactical geography of the battle, analyzing the disputed breastworks, the spacing near the slough, and the specific positions held by American detachments. Swett refutes claims that key officers disobeyed orders, closely scrutinizing the cases of Colonel Sargent and Captain Callender. Through reports from the Massachusetts Congress and President Stiles's diary entries quoting General Greene, the narrative establishes that contemporary leaders recognized Putnam's active leadership on the ground.

Moving further into the mechanics of command, the text compares the structural organization of the Cambridge army with standardized military protocol, citing orderly book entries that demonstrate regular operations, courts-martial, and multi-colony cooperation. Swett details Putnam's intense preparations prior to the engagement, including securing tools, arranging horses, and constructing the vital rail-fence breastwork alongside Knowlton's men.

The argument reaches its climax by catalogoring Putnam's frantic movements during the battle—rallying regiments, threatening hesitant soldiers, and firing cannon when necessary. The overview concludes by synthesizing the distinct roles of the four figures who shared aspects of authority: Ward directing grand movements from headquarters, Warren volunteering on the field, Prescott holding the redoubt, and Putnam exercising actual field command as the central hero of the engagement.

How It Unfolds

• The opening challenge: The author reflects on his decades-old account of the battle and confronts Frothingham's characterization of the Cambridge forces as an unorganized mob.
• The geographical debate: The narrative examines the precise layout of the breastworks and the vulnerable space near the slough that served as the key to the American position.
• The defense of subordinates: Specific incidents involving Colonel Sargent and Captain Callender are re-examined using congressional reports to disprove allegations of widespread insubordination.
• The validation of primary sources: President Stiles's diary and letters from General Greene are introduced to prove that contemporaries firmly acknowledged Putnam's presence and leadership from the outset.
• The mechanics of the army: General Ward's orderly books are cited to demonstrate that troops from different provinces functioned as a unified, regularly consolidated force.
• The field actions of the general: Detailed testimony establishes Putnam's tireless physical activity during the battle, from building defenses to personally directing reinforcements under fire.
• The concluding synthesis: The text weighs the distinct responsibilities of Ward, Warren, Prescott, and Putnam to establish who truly wielded command during the engagement.

The People

• General Israel Putnam: Wants to lead and defend the American position effectively against the British. He faces skepticism from later historians who claim he lacked formal authority, but ends up established through firsthand accounts as the active, indispensable field commander of the battle.
• Richard Frothingham: Wants to provide a comprehensive historical account of the siege of Boston. His perspective is challenged by his view of the American forces as a headless mob, and his arguments are systematically dismantled by Swett's counter-evidence.
• Col. William Prescott: Wants to secure and defend the initial ground. He commands the redoubt bravely during the night and throughout the battle, immortalizing his name despite ongoing debates over overall command hierarchy.
• General Artemas Ward: Wants to organize and maintain a functioning army from headquarters in Cambridge. He oversees the grand movements and general dispositions of the troops, directing strategy from afar while lacking an extensive staff.
• General Joseph Warren: Wants to participate patriotically in the defense of his country as a volunteer. He declines to issue formal orders on the field, acting as a celebrated martyr whose ambiguous status contributes to historical confusion.

In Its Own Voice

According to him, the great Battle of Bunker Hill was fought, on our side, by a headless mob; and, to prove this, he adduces the most incontrovertible argument in the world, were it true,—that the army at Cambridge, which had been for two months collecting and organizing under the able and experienced Gen. Ward, assisted by a host of accomplished veteran officers, was itself a mob.

This line highlights the book's core point of contention against modern historical interpretations of early colonial forces.

Gen. Putnam was the actual, and, on Warren’s declining, the authorized commander of Bunker Hill Battle.

The author summarizes his central thesis regarding the true leadership structure during the heat of the engagement.

Without this defence, the overwhelming force of the enemy would have flanked, surrounded, and vanquished our ill–equipped troops instantly.

This statement emphasizes the critical tactical importance of the breastwork built under Putnam's direct supervision.

What It's Really About

The book is fundamentally an exercise in military historiography and the defense of historical reputation. It investigates the nature of command in a decentralized, nascent army that lacked traditional, rigid hierarchies. Beneath the surface of the plot lies a deeper question about how historical memory is constructed: how gaps in documentation, conflicting personal testimonies, and subsequent interpretations can obscure the truth of a pivotal national event. Swett argues against the professionalization of history when it discards the lived experience of eyewitnesses, asserting that military reality cannot be judged purely through abstract or technical legalisms.

Why Read It Today

Readers interested in the granular mechanics of the American Revolution and the historiographical debates surrounding its most famous battles will find this work fascinating. Reading it feels like sitting across from a passionate, opinionated veteran who is determined to set the historical record straight using primary documents, old diaries, and personal letters.

The book is not without its difficulties. Modern readers must navigate nineteenth-century polemical prose, dense nineteenth-century argumentative structures, and digressions into unrelated military campaigns, such as the author's personal reminiscences of the War of 1812. However, for those patient enough to wade through the dense apologetics, the reward is an unvarnished look at how early Americans argued over the legacy of their own founding mythologies. It stays with you as a testament to the fierce pride and argumentative rigor that characterized early attempts to write the history of the Republic.