The Rebuttal: Chief Justice John Marshall's Defense

The modern attack on Israel Putnam depends entirely on misrepresenting Chief Justice John Marshall. Writers like Harry Schenawolf quote Marshall's 1818 letter as if it endorsed Henry Dearborn's allegations. It did exactly the opposite.

This page presents the complete case for Putnam's defense.

The Marshall Letter (May 24, 1818)

On May 24, 1818, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote to Colonel Daniel Putnam—General Israel Putnam's son—who was engaged in a campaign to vindicate his father's reputation. The letter is a passionate defense of the General, not an endorsement of Dearborn.

"Is the time never to arrive when an honest man can tell the truth as to the events of the Revolution? 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? I trust not, but that the time will come when the candid and impartial historian will do full justice to the men who were distinguished in the war for national independence."

What Marshall Actually Said

Marshall's frustration was directed at Dearborn's revisionism, not Putnam's conduct:

"Facts... to be refuted by idle denials" — Marshall was complaining that documented facts about Putnam were being dismissed by Dearborn's baseless claims.
"Tales to be deemed veracious because they have been often repeated" — He mocked the idea that Dearborn's new allegations should be accepted simply because Dearborn repeated them "ad nauseum."
"Firsthand accounts... were ignored or trod under" — Marshall was defending the eyewitnesses who saw Putnam in action, whose testimony Dearborn's supporters were dismissing.

Marshall's Five-Volume Biography: The Life of George Washington

Marshall didn't just write a private letter—he cemented Putnam's heroism in what became the definitive 19th-century account of the Revolution.

Putnam's Co-Command

In his biography, Marshall explicitly identified General Putnam as a central figure in the Battle of Bunker Hill, describing him as sharing the principal command with Colonel William Prescott. This directly contradicted Dearborn's charge that Putnam was absent from command.

Strategic Initiative

Marshall credited Putnam with:

"Unwearied activity" in directing the construction of defenses on Bunker Hill
Braving heavy British fire while coordinating entrenchments
Making the strategic decision to extend the American line from the redoubt down to the Mystic River
Utilizing a rail fence reinforced with freshly mown grass as a defensive position

The Rail Fence Success

Marshall specifically noted that the rail fence sector—under Putnam's direct command—was the most successful part of the American line:

"Putnam's regiment decisively repulsed two furious British attacks, inflicting enormous casualties on the enemy."

"Don't Fire Until You See the Whites of Their Eyes"

Marshall explicitly credited Putnam with this famous order:

Putnam ordered his men not to fire until the enemy came within eight rods or until they could "see the whites of their eyes."

Washington's Endorsement

Marshall emphasized a crucial point: General Washington appointed Putnam senior major general of the Continental Army just three weeks after Bunker Hill.

This appointment made Putnam second in command to Washington himself.

As Marshall noted, this "monumental endorsement by Washington, and the Continental Congress, was a testament to Putnam's recognized merit and valor at the Battle of Bunker Hill."

Would Washington have promoted a man to second-in-command if he believed Dearborn's allegations—that Putnam hid from the battle? The very premise is absurd.

The Logical Problems with Dearborn's Account

Negative Evidence Isn't Proof

Dearborn claimed he didn't see Putnam at the battle. As Daniel Webster observed in the July 1818 North American Review:

"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. And those, whose lips were silent then, when well-founded complaints would have been a duty, must, long afterwards and after the death of the party, be heard not without much abatement and allowance."

Put another way: not seeing someone is not proof they weren't there—especially when multiple people in your own regiment did see them.

The Irishman Analogy

Marshall's defenders used a colorful analogy: An Irishman is accused of robbing a bank. Two witnesses saw him there. His defense? He produces 50 witnesses who didn't see him. This, they argued, is Dearborn's logic.

The Pot Calling the Kettle Black

Dearborn and his supporters claimed Putnam was always on Bunker Hill—therefore "safe." But as one defender noted: if they saw Putnam on Bunker Hill, they themselves must have been on Bunker Hill to see him. Who were they to cast aspersions?

Was Bunker Hill Safe?

Hardly. Multiple accounts confirm British musket fire consistently went over the heads of Americans on Breed's Hill and shredded trees on Bunker Hill, killing and wounding several soldiers there. Putnam's position was under fire throughout the battle.

What Constitutes Cowardice?

To prove cowardice, one must show:

There was a duty to be in a specific location
The absence was caused by fear
The absence was in disobedience of orders
The absence was a violation of duty

None of this was ever alleged, much less proven. Dearborn simply claimed Putnam wasn't where Dearborn thought he should be.

The Silence of the Courts

Honorable William Tudor, who served as Judge Advocate at multiple courts-martial held in July 1775 to investigate officer conduct at Bunker Hill, made a crucial observation:

"Soon after the arrival of General Washington as commander in chief of the American forces at Cambridge, in July 1775 – Court martials were ordered to be holden for the trials of different officers, who were supposed to have misbehaved in the important action on Breed's Hill on the seventeenth of June; at all of which I acted as judge advocate. In the inquiry, which these trials occasioned, I never heard any insinuation against the conduct of General Putnam, who appeared to have been there without any command; for there was no authorized commander – Colonel Prescott appeared to have been the chief."

If Putnam had behaved cowardly, would not someone—among the many officers and men who fought that day—have mentioned it at the time? The silence is deafening.

Dearborn's Own Witnesses Refute Him

The most devastating evidence against Dearborn comes from his own witnesses:

Witness	Affiliation	What They Said	Why It Matters
Abel Parker	Dearborn's regiment	Saw Putnam near the redoubt	Directly contradicts "Putnam was on Bunker Hill"
Benjamin Pierce	Dearborn's regiment	Saw Putnam on a horse; "as brave as any man"	Contradicts "no officers mounted"; attests bravery
John Stark's men	Stark's regiment	Saw Putnam at rail fence	If Stark saw Putnam, Dearborn's hiding claim fails

When your own witnesses undermine your central allegation, your credibility on all matters is suspect.

The Verdict of History

Chief Justice John Marshall's Life of George Washington became the "final word" for most 19th-century Americans. It "effectively drowned out Dearborn's 1818 accusations by enshrining Putnam's heroics in what was considered to be the most authoritative account of the revolution."

Marshall was not alone. Daniel Webster, William Tudor, and dozens of eyewitnesses defended Putnam's conduct. The anti-Putnam narrative survived only because, as historian John Fellows warned, "tales to be deemed veracious because they have been often repeated."

It is time—past time—to stop repeating them.

Continue to Eyewitness Testimony for the 56+ sworn affidavits supporting Putnam's heroism.