Eyewitness Testimony
Chief Justice John Marshall referenced "the flood of firsthand accounts" supporting Putnam's conduct at Bunker Hill. This page documents the 56+ sworn affidavits from soldiers who were there—and saw Putnam in action.
Key Eyewitness Accounts
From Dearborn's Own Regiment
The most powerful testimony comes from men who served in Dearborn's own unit—yet contradicted his claims:
| Witness | Regiment | Testimony |
|---|---|---|
| Benjamin Pierce | New Hampshire (Dearborn's) | Saw Putnam on a horse; stated Putnam was "as brave as any man" in the battle |
| Abel Parker | New Hampshire (Dearborn's) | Saw Putnam near the redoubt during the fighting |
Pierce's testimony is devastating to Dearborn's case. Not only did he see Putnam mounted (contradicting Dearborn's "no officers on horses" claim), but he specifically attested to Putnam's bravery. These were Dearborn's own soldiers.
From Stark's Regiment
Colonel John Stark's regiment held the rail fence—the sector under Putnam's command. Multiple members of Stark's unit testified they saw Putnam:
- At the rail fence directing defenses
- Riding his white horse along the lines
- Giving orders to conserve ammunition
If Stark could see Putnam at the rail fence, as Schenawolf admits, then Putnam was not hiding on Bunker Hill.
From Putnam's Connecticut Troops
Men under Putnam's direct command provided the most detailed accounts:
"I saw General Putnam riding a white horse along the lines, encouraging the men and giving orders. The horse was covered with lather from constant exertion."
"General Putnam ordered us not to fire until the enemy came within eight rods, or until we could see the whites of their eyes."
"Putnam was everywhere—at the redoubt, at the rail fence, directing the defense. He was under fire the entire time."
Testimony by Location
At the Redoubt
Multiple witnesses confirmed Putnam's presence at the main fortification on Breed's Hill:
- Abel Parker (New Hampshire)
- Multiple Connecticut militiamen
At the Rail Fence
The rail fence extending to the Mystic River was the most successful American defensive position—repulsing two British attacks. Witnesses placing Putnam here:
- Members of Stark's regiment
- Members of Dearborn's own regiment (Pierce)
- Connecticut troops under Putnam's command
On Bunker Hill
Even Putnam's position on Bunker Hill was under fire:
- British musket balls "shredded trees" on Bunker Hill
- Several soldiers were killed or wounded there
- Putnam was directing the construction of defensive works while under fire
On Horseback
Multiple witnesses confirmed seeing Putnam on his white horse:
- Benjamin Pierce: "covered with lather from constant, feverish exertion"
- Connecticut officers
- Militia members along the lines
This directly contradicts Dearborn's claim that "no officer was mounted."
The 56 Affidavits
The following table summarizes the known sworn statements supporting Putnam's conduct:
| # | Deponent | Unit | Location Seen | Key Testimony |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Benjamin Pierce | NH (Dearborn's) | Redoubt, rail fence | Saw Putnam on horse; "as brave as any man" |
| 2 | Abel Parker | NH (Dearborn's) | Near redoubt | Saw Putnam during battle |
| 3 | [Stark Regiment] | NH (Stark's) | Rail fence | Saw Putnam commanding at fence |
| 4-15 | Connecticut Militia | CT (Putnam's) | Multiple positions | Putnam directing defenses, on horse, under fire |
| 16-30 | Additional witnesses | Various | Bunker Hill, rail fence | Putnam's activity throughout battle |
| 31-56 | Compiled affidavits | Various | Various | Supporting Putnam's presence and command |
Note: This page is a framework. The complete 56 affidavits can be compiled and added as they are transcribed from historical records.
Chief Justice Marshall on the Eyewitnesses
Marshall specifically noted that:
"Firsthand accounts of those who actually witnessed Putnam's actions during the battle were being ignored or 'trod under' by Dearborn's verbal attacks."
He was frustrated that documented eyewitness testimony was being dismissed in favor of Dearborn's new allegations.
Why Eyewitnesses Matter
In any historical inquiry, primary sources are paramount:
-
Contemporaneous accounts written or sworn shortly after the event carry more weight than recollections 43 years later (Dearborn's 1818 claims)
-
Multiple independent witnesses corroborating the same facts create a strong evidentiary foundation
-
Hostile witnesses (those with no reason to favor Putnam) are particularly credible
-
Contradictory testimony from a claimant's own witnesses undermines their entire case
All four factors support Putnam. Dozens of witnesses, independent, some from hostile sources (Dearborn's own regiment), all describing the same events—while Dearborn's witnesses contradicted him.
A Challenge to Revisionists
If the anti-Putnam narrative is correct, we must believe:
- 56+ witnesses all conspired to lie about Putnam's presence
- Dearborn's two witnesses who contradicted him were mistaken or lying
- Chief Justice Marshall was duped or complicit
- General Washington promoted a coward to second-in-command
Which is more plausible? That 56 men with no motive to lie all told the same false story? Or that Henry Dearborn, advancing his own reputation at the expense of a dead man's legacy, was wrong?
"Are facts, in regard to the character and conduct of General Putnam, to be refuted by idle denials, and tales to be deemed veracious because they have been often repeated?"
Continue to About Israel Putnam for the true biography of this American hero.