The False Claims Against Israel Putnam

The Rebuttal

This is Dearborn's central claim—and it's directly contradicted by his own witnesses. Two members of Dearborn's own regiment, Abel Parker and Benjamin Pierce, testified they saw Putnam at the redoubt and rail fence during the battle.

Furthermore, multiple witnesses noted that Bunker Hill was under fire throughout the battle—British musket balls "shredded trees" there and killed several soldiers. Hardly a safe refuge.

As Daniel Webster observed: "If those who knew General Putnam's behavior at that time found no fault with it, the presumption is, that no fault could be found with it."

The Rebuttal

Chief Justice John Marshall, in his biography of Washington, specifically credited Putnam with ordering his men "not to fire until the enemy came within eight rods or until they could 'see the whites of their eyes.'"

This was not a single momentary quote but a command given repeatedly along the lines to conserve precious ammunition. Multiple eyewitnesses confirmed hearing it from Putnam.

The Rebuttal

This is perhaps Dearborn's most easily disproven claim. Multiple witnesses—including Dearborn's own witness Benjamin Pierce—testified they saw Putnam on his white horse during the battle.

Pierce specifically noted the horse was "covered with lather produced by constant, feverish exertion" as Putnam rode between positions.

Dearborn's claim was negative evidence—he didn't see anyone on a horse. But as Chief Justice Marshall noted, "the overwhelming evidence of the numerous eyewitnesses who saw Putnam actively engaged in the battle cannot be rebutted by negative evidence."

The Rebuttal

Marshall's biography explicitly credits Putnam with "unwearied activity" in directing defenses, extending the American line to the Mystic River via the rail fence, and actively commanding Connecticut troops at the fence.

The rail fence position—under Putnam's direct command—was the most successful sector of the American line, repulsing two British attacks and inflicting enormous casualties.

The Rebuttal

This is the most egregious distortion. Marshall's letter was written to DEFEND Putnam. It was addressed to Daniel Putnam—the General's son—as part of his campaign to vindicate his father's name.

Marshall was expressing frustration that eyewitness accounts were being ignored in favor of Dearborn's new "tales." He wrote:

"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?"

He was asking why Putnam's documented heroism was being dismissed for Dearborn's baseless allegations—not endorsing Dearborn.

Marshall's five-volume Life of George Washington became the "final word" for 19th-century Americans and explicitly credited Putnam with co-command at Bunker Hill—directly contradicting Dearborn.