It adds force to this remark of General Ward, that it was written at a time when the circumstances of the battle of Bunker Hill were much talked of in the American camp. Nobody at this time (October, 1775,) thought of ascribing much credit to the plan of the enterprise to Charlestown. At this time it was no glory to have had the general command, or conduct, or responsibility of the Bunker Hill battle. But those who really fought this battle stood out then, as they do now, in envied prominence. An article in the Connecticut Courant, which does not say that Putnam commanded, had much to say in praise of the Connecticut officers, but not a word about such officers as Prescott, Brewer, Gardner, Parker, &c. "This account," General Heath writes October 23, 1775, "was detested by the brave Putnam." The trials, also, had for months been going on for the ill behavior of officers. The battle, then, was no obsolete affair. The camp was alive with talk about it. It is at such a time, that General Ward writes to John Adams, October 30, 1775 – "I think there has been no one action with the enemy which has not been conducted by an officer of this colony, except that at Chelsea, which was conducted by General Putnam." The action at Chelsea took place in the previous May, in which General Putnam commanded, and led the men with great bravery. Now, General Ward was thinking over the actions there had been with the enemy, and thinking also of General Putnam's agency in them. Had there been, as to the Bunker Hill enterprise, an express agreement between Ward and Putnam – had Putnam been detached as the general officer to exercise the command – had he conducted so important a battle – is it probable, is it possible, that a person of the strict integrity of General Ward would have written in this way only four months afterwards? Is not the inference from his words a necessary one, that General Putnam did not conduct, or command, in the battle of Bunker Hill, as he conducted or commanded in the battle at Chelsea, but that it was a Massachusetts officer who performed this duty? It would not be inconsistent with these words to ascribe the conduct or command of the battle to Ward, or to Warren, or to Prescott – all Massachusetts officers – but it is utterly inconsistent with them to ascribe it to General Putnam, a Connecticut officer. This remark has this significance or it has none.
The way Mr Swett treats this authority deserves notice. He first garbles it, and then endeavors to evade its force. He tells, with due gravity, what General Ward began to write, but did not write and to crown all, tells who he probably intended to name as the commander, but somehow did not name. Mr Swett says that he meant to say "That Warren was the conductor or commander of Bunker Hill battle"!! Now really all this looks like "manufacturing a case." Is not this modest in one who professes to be so indignantly averse to such discreditable business? But Mr Swett, on this fifth page of twisting, surely did not so faithfully reflect as he did on the ninth page, that, "We were dealing with hard characters. Ward, Warren, Putnam and Prescott," he there rousingly writes, "are not rag babies, that an historian may bend and distort according to his fancy. The whole kingdom of Great Britain could not bend one of them," &c. Why then does he try to bend Ward's words to suit his theory, or distort them according to his fancy? This is no way to deal with authorities. This is trifling with history. Mr Swett must take the language of Ward as it is, even though unaltered it consigns a theory, nursed with parental care for more than a generation, to the tomb of the Capulets.
3. The remark of Colonel Scammans – that "there was no general officer who commanded at Bunker Hill" – made too as though it were a perfectly well known fact, is first denied, and then characteristically explained so as to mean nothing. "The author," Mr Swett says, "attributes to Colonel Scammans an anonymous note in a newspaper, written perhaps by the editor." Now if the note were written by the editor, it was not anonymous! But let this absurdity pass. Let any one turn to the New England Chronicle of February 29, 1776, read there a letter requesting the editor "to print the proceedings of the court martial, with some remarks upon the depositions then taken," and signed "James Scammans," Colonel Scammans, and then say how cool it is in Mr Swett to write that "the note was anonymous" or that it was "written by the editor." The remark, I repeat, was undoubtedly made by Colonel Scammans, and it is so plain that it speaks for itself. Besides this, Mr Swett charges me with omitting to mention here, that "Scammans, during the battle, sent to General Putnam, at Bunker Hill, to see if he was wanted," and that afterward "General Putnam came up and ordered the regiment to advance." Now truly this is not omitted, but it all appears on page 164 of the Siege of Boston among the things bearing in favor of General Putnam! Mr Swett however plies his ridicule here: but really I do not see the cause of it, without he designed it to rebuke me for the presumption of putting corn into his hopper. Up stream or down stream it seems to be all the same. Mr Swett's zeal for his hero has even a lover's jealousy. He frankly admits (p. 4,) that I treat General Putnam's character "with the utmost candor and kindness," but still to his mind, there is a heathenish heart in it, – for he says, it is done, "as animals destined for the altar are pampered, to be sacrificed at last." The renowned Mr Burchell would say fudge.
4. Mr Swett's remark on Dr J. Thatcher's statement, – a surgeon in the army – the first, I think, to make such a statement, is still worse. He says Thatcher is unequivocal in favor of Putnam's command, by placing him at the head of all the officers in the following words: "Generals Putnam, Warren, Pomeroy, and Colonel Prescott were emphatically the heroes of the day." And Mr Swett writes this, too, when Dr Thatcher goes on to say that "though several general officers were present, Colonel Prescott retained the command during the action"!! Comment on this is unnecessary.
It is not very surprising that Mr Swett, after such a sham review of the authorities bearing in favor of Colonel Prescott, should venture to write that "in the whole of them there is not a shadow of an excuse" for my conclusion, one half of which he actually quotes, but the other half he characteristically suppresses! Is it then possible that such authorities, the whole of them, do not supply even "a shadow of an excuse" for stating that "the original detachment was placed under the orders of Colonel Prescott, and that no general officer was authorized to command over him during the battle?" What! When, according to General Ward, a Massachusetts officer must have conducted the battle; when, according to Judge Tudor, there was no authorised general officer on the field; when Col. Scammans says no general officer commanded; when Martin, Gordon, Thatcher, and Prescott himself state explicitly that the original detachment was put under Col. Prescott's orders; when James Thatcher states that, though several general officers were present, Prescott retained the command during the action; when Peter Thatcher states that he commanded; when John Pitts states that no one but Prescott appeared to have any command; and when Judge Prescott states that he had orders in writing, and that no officer exercised or claimed any authority over him during the battle! When a writer confesses that evidences of this sort "come like shadows, so depart," all that need be said is, that the difficulty is not with them, it is not that they lack character, directness, or substance, but it is in the writer's mind, it is what metaphysicians term subjective– perhaps it is a "prepossession" that is "invincible" – and it therefore cannot be reached and removed.
In direct conflict with this conclusion, however, is the statement made first by Rev. Mr Whitney in 1790, as from conversations with General Putnam – "That the detachment was put under the command of General Putnam; with it he took possession of the hill, and ordered the battle from beginning to end;" or as Hon. John Lowell (1818) states it: – "If General Putnam is to be believed, he first proposed the taking possession of Bunker Hill, and was detached for the purpose of fortifying it, and Col. Prescott was placed under his orders;" or as Mr Swett (1818) states it – "General Putnam having the general superintendence of the expedition," accompanied the detachment; or (in 1850) he went to Breed's Hill, p. 23, "under the express agreement with General Ward that he was to do so, and to have the direction and superintendence of the whole expedition." The proof to sustain this consists, 1. Notices in diaries, letters, or newspapers, giving the earliest rumors of the action, as Stiles' Boyle's, S. Ward's, Jackson's, Clarke. None of these are dated later than June 1775. Or, 2. Matter commencing with Whitney's declaration, May, 1790, and supported in 1818, and afterwards, by the statements of the soldiers and others; as, Putnam, Grosvenor, Dexter, Bancroft, Cleaveland, Allen, Trevett, Dearborn, Thaxter, Keyes, Smith, and Low. The character of this sort of evidence has been sufficiently dwelt upon. It is granted that a specious argument may be framed out of it, either in favor of Prescott or of Putnam, and still a more specious one, I am sure, in favor of the position that there was no command in the action. A re-reading of this matter has only served to strengthen a conviction of its unsatisfactory nature, and that contemporary testimony, of a proper character, ought to determine the question. As to proof of this sort, it will only be remarked, that I have not met with a single statement, in manuscript or in print, to the effect that General Putnam commanded in the battle of Bunker Hill, between the dates of June, 1775 and May, 1790. Mr Swett does not produce any such statement. On the contrary, every contemporary allusion to his conduct in the battle, I could find, has been faithfully quoted. But the same allusions to Colonel Prescott, which also might be supported by soldiers' statements, are of the most positive character, and they state that the orders to occupy Bunker Hill were given to him, and that no general officer interfered with his command. In accounting for this conflict of testimony, in page 166 of the Siege of Boston, I remark – "Without intending to question the honor or the veracity of any one, it is more reasonable to conclude that the facts communicated by the general (Putnam) have not been stated exactly, and with the proper discriminations, than it is to conclude that so many independent contemporary authorities are incorrect in stating that the first detachment was placed under the orders of Colonel Prescott."
Mr Swett has over a page of comment, as unjust to me as usual, on the extracts I make from Stiles' MS. Diary. President Stiles resided in Newport, and was in the habit of writing in his journal, very minutely, of the occurrences of the day; and in long entries, under the dates of June 18, 19, 20, 23, and 30, he writes of the all engrossing subject of this battle, as he could gather facts from letters, or from persons from the camp. The extracts before me are of much length, and they furnish an excellent and curious specimen of the rumors that went abroad relative to this battle, and show how cautiously this material must be used. From all this I selected two extracts, one to the effect that Gen. Putnam with 300 men took possession of Bunker Hill; another, that detailed from his own lips, his course in the action. Mr Swett does not quote these extracts, nor others fully. Why does he not do it? I here give a specimen. Stiles, June 18, journalizes: "A gentleman" from camp "this morning" "informs" among other things "that Col. Putnam is encamped in Charlestown, on Bunker Hill, and has lost one of his best captains, but is determined to stand his ground, having men enough," &c., &c. June 19. "Every one filled with the greatest solicitude." * * * "Charlestown is in ashes." * * "We have various accounts – some that Gen. Putnam is surrounded by the king's troops – some that he repulsed them," &c. June 20. William Ellery comes in and shows copies of several letters from camp, one from General Greene, "dated Lord's day evening, (June 18) giving an account of the battle." "General Greene says General Putnam with 300 men took possession and entrenched on Bunker Hill on Friday night the 16th inst." I said (p. 164) this was a rumor from camp, and say so again. Why does not Mr Swett quote the whole of it? Why leave out the 300 men? Various other rumors, and also opinions of Greene's, are given. To return to Stiles. He writes: "Upon news of the action or landing the congress instantly broke up and those who had arms repaired to the field of action. Hence Dr Warren's being in the action," &c. Why does not Mr Swett quote? "Sterling gold," he says, "stamped at the highest mint in America!" But to go on with Stiles. The next entry I have is dated June 23, and here we first come to authentic history. It is General Putnam's own account, and it is so curious, that it ought to be in print. I quote here, therefore, all I have of this entry, which is from Bancroft's copy: —
"June 23, 1775. Messrs Ellery, Chang, &c., returned here from a visit to the camp which they left on Saturday last. They spent an hour with General Putnam in his tent on Prospect Hill, about half way between Cambridge and Charlestown. The general gave them an account of the battle last Saturday, said the number on one side was not ascertained, but the nearest account was, that we had about fifty (not sixty) killed, and about twenty wounded. We lost few till the retreat. We repulsed the regulars three times, fought four hours. The small arms and six field pieces made great havoc among the regulars till our powder failed. General Putnam said by accounts from within Boston, the regulars confessed their loss of killed, wounded, and missing, was about one thousand. Our body on Bunker Hill, where was the action, was about 1500 first and 700 afterwards. Putnam says he judged the regulars were 3000. There was a reinforcement within perhaps half a mile and ought to have come up to their assistance, but they must pass an open causeway, where the regulars kept up a heavy fire from floating batteries. Putnam was not at Bunker Hill at the beginning, but soon repaired thither, and was in the heat of the action till towards night, when he went away to fetch across this reinforcement which ought to have come before. Soon after, and before he could return, our men began to retreat; for some imprudently calling out the powder is gone, the regulars heard it, and rallied again, and came on with fury, and forced the trenches, and then our people retreated leaving the heroic General Warren mortally wounded in the trenches. * * * The army are in high spirits. They consider this scarcely a repulse, considering the damage they did to the enemy; and indeed, if, with the loss of 50 or 60 killed, our people killed and damaged the regulars more than a thousand, it is a wonderful Providence. The troops landed under fire of the shipping, then set fire to Charlestown in which were 300 houses, all which, but 2 or 3, were reduced to ashes and ruins. Then about 1 or 2 o'clock P. M. they marched for the attack, and continued it four hours till near night."
Now it seems almost incredible that Mr Swett should have made the hard remarks upon me he has, pp. 14, 15, for selecting, of this entry, the paragraph in italics relative to General Putnam's personal service in the battle; and even ascribe to me a motive for quoting it that I did not dream of! One more extract from Stiles must suffice. "In June 30, Rev. Mr Martin visited me and gave me an account of the battle of Charlestown." "Mr Martin was in the whole affair from first to last." "He says that about 1500 went on Friday night and took possession of Bunker Hill, under the command of Colonel Prescott." And this is the first mention of Prescott's name there is in such extracts of this journal as I have. Then follows several pages of details, some of which are interwoven in the narrative in the Siege of Boston. All I have to add is, that those who rely on such rumors from the camp as Stiles' first chronicles, – which however have their value as the life-like talk of the day – will be liable to frame just such an account of this battle as Humphries in his life of Putnam has, where (in the beginning) the original detachment is put under Warren, and in the end, the British pursues to Winter Hill, Putnam there makes a stand, and drives them back under cover of their ships!
In connection with this testimony in favor of General Putnam, Mr Swett finds what he calls "the most astonishing inadvertence of the author, though (bless the charitable admission) mere inadvertence we believe," p. 25. It consists in "never hinting" that in Rivington's New York Gazette, June 29, 1775, it is stated that 'Putnam on the evening of June 16, took possession of Bunker Hill, and began an entrenchment,' and this extract from Rivington was mentioned in a publication of ours, which he had among our documents," p. 25. I am not indebted to Mr Swett for a single contemporary document; and as for Rivington's paper, I examined the fine file of it in the rooms of the New York Historical Society, and made the extract, but found the same sentence in other newspapers, for they copied from each other. What an "astonishing inadvertence" it was in "never hinting" this, the reader may easily see by looking at page 124 of the Siege of Boston, for there the fact of such a statement being in the papers is given to show that Putnam was on the hill at night; and once more at page 164, where it is a second time named among the facts bearing in his favor, in the evidence on the question of command! Is Mr Swett's remark, however, "mere inadvertence?"
The only new piece of evidence adduced is an extract from John Boyle's manuscript annals. Mr Swett says, He "writes in his diary, 16th of June, 1775, General Putnam, with a detachment of about a thousand American forces, went from Cambridge and began an entrenchment on an eminence below Bunker Hill." This MS., which I did not hear of until after the publication of the Siege of Boston, is not a diary written at the time. Certainly, Mr Swett must, at least, have known that the record about Bunker Hill battle could not possibly have been put there on the day it was dated, for it contains Gage's official account of the killed and wounded, and the American account from the Providence Gazette, which did not appear till months afterwards, and could not have been then known! And it requires but a moderate acquaintance with the newspapers of this period to see, at a glance, that this interesting MS. is a compilation mostly from them, and often, as in this case, in their language. Yet Mr Swett quotes this in a diary written at the time! The fact stated by Boyle is taken from the newspapers, and is given on p. 164 of the Siege!
To supply the place of this diary, thus struck away, I cheerfully quote a real diary, which I did not see until the Siege was in type, and which will answer Mr Swett's purpose as well as Boyle's, if not better. It is the account of Samuel Bixby, at the time of the battle a soldier at Roxbury. It begins: – "June 17, Saturday, Colonel Putnam, with a large party, went on to a hill in Charlestown, called Bunker Hill, last night to entrench" – and all through the relation, no officer is even named but "Colonel Putnam." The simple explanation of the whole of these early rumors, or reports, is, that from General Putnam's being so active during the day of the battle, the report went abroad, that the entrenching party went on under him; when the fact was that it went on under the orders of Colonel Prescott.
Mr Swett's statements about Putnam, Warren, Prescott, and the question of command, when brought together, make a singular medley.
1. He represents (p. 22,) that Putnam at last persuaded "the prudent Ward" "to grant him a detachment" "to meet the enemy;" and went to Breed's Hill under "an express agreement" that he was "to have the direction and superintendence of the whole expedition" (p. 23,): and he proves that Putnam was the commander by the nature of the army, by his rank, and a third and fourth time, by his conduct in the battle, during which "there was scarcely a regiment, corps, or individual of the army that Putnam did not personally command, direct, or encourage" (p. 28,): for "he was galloping from end to end of the line, encouraging, directing, commanding every body." In fact "no military despot was ever obeyed with more implicit subjection." He was "the bright particular star, to which, during all the storm and tempest of the battle every eye was turned for guidance and for victory," p. 29. This is exclusive enough, dogmatic enough, and general enough, to satisfy any body. Here General Putnam, if words mean anything, is from first to last, and by special agreement, the authorized, sole general commander.
2. Mr Swett, however, states (p. 7,) that Gen. Warren "was on the field, vested with all the rights and authority of a major general;" and (p. 29,) "notwithstanding he declined to issue any orders, was authorized to do so whenever he pleased," and "thus was the authorized, and for many years the supposed commander." Knowing this, Ward, (p. 7,) "probably intended to say that he was the conductor or commander" in his letter. But (p. 29,) General Putnam was the actual, and on Warren's declining, the "authorized commander." Ward was (p. 7,) "doubtless ignorant of the fact that Warren refused to exercise any command on the occasion"!! But what becomes of the "express agreement" between Ward and Putnam? Was this contingency of Warren's declination in it? Was Putnam to have the whole direction only in case Warren did not choose to assume it? Is it for a moment admissible that General Ward did not know when he wrote his letter, who was detached to the command, who exercised it, or who conducted the battle? Is it not a direct attack on Ward's reputation to impute to him such disgraceful ignorance?
3. Mr Swett states (p. 30,) "Colonel Prescott was commander at Bunker (Breed's) Hill the night before the battle, and the next day till Gen. Putnam came on with the reinforcements; and during the battle, the commander at the redoubt." What is the authority for such a statement? If Dr Whitney, Mr Lowell, and Mr Daniel Putnam are exact in giving General Putnam's conversation, he stated that the original detachment was placed under his command, and that Colonel Prescott acted under his orders. This indeed must have been so, if General Putnam, according to Mr Swett, by express agreement, had the superintendence of the whole expedition. How then could Prescott have been the commander the night before the battle and up to noon the next day? If Putnam and Prescott had differed any time previous to noon on the 17th, then, according to this last theory, the responsibility of decision rested on Prescott. Was this in the agreement? Did a general agree to be commanded by a colonel? There could have been no such incongruity.
4. Mr Swett viewing General Ward as, in one sense, the commander, comes to the conclusion, (p. 30,) that, "There were then four who in some sense participated in the command of Bunker Hill battle" – not the exact truth, but nearer to it than any theory of the pamphlet. And he says, "It may be impossible to demonstrate who was exclusively the commander as to discover the author of Junius or the birth place of Homer." Et tu Brute! And alter so much "incontrovertible," "perfectly decisive proof," "express agreement," despotic command, and "implicit subjection" relative to Putnam? After charging me with treating his character with candor only to sacrifice it at last – with robbing him of the command and not enriching any one? Who is doing sacrifice here? Who is committing robbery here? Who is enriching any one here? However, Mr Swett is correct if he means that it is impossible, from the known evidence, to demonstrate who was exclusively the commander, for it all tends to show that there was on the field no general officer who exercised a general command. Such at least is the view that will be found to be taken in the Siege of Boston!
5. Mr Swett (p. 10,) says: "All the world knows that he (Putnam) did come forward and exercise the command most effectually from the beginning to the end of the engagement: " on p. 29, Mr Swett says: "Seventy-five years ago the battle of Bunker Hill was fought. Who the commander was has ever since remained a mystery." Now these two things cannot be. What "all the world knows" certainly cannot be a "mystery," i. e. a profound secret, (see Webster) on something wholly unknown. If Mr Swett clings to the mystery he must give up the knowledge.
Such are the conclusions on the subject of command in the Bunker Hill battle, of "an author in spite of himself," who "thirty-two years ago consented to write an account" of it, and who this year considered it his "duty to enter into a thorough investigation" of this question. History cannot be worth much that resolves itself into such a mass of absurdity and contradiction.
But there is something more serious than inconsistency to allege against Mr Swett's conclusions. What is the authority for the following, I think, new statement? – "Maj. Gen. Ward was the commander in chief of the army at Cambridge; Maj. Gen. Warren, the next; Brig. Gen. Putnam the third in command; and Col. Prescott, another officer of the army," p. 29. This is neither correct, first, as to the general army, even if it were "consolidated;" for General Thomas was the second in command; General Whitcomb ranked above General Warren; General Pomeroy probably (for he was an older officer) ranked above General Spencer, and Spencer certainly ranked Putnam. It is difficult to say who would have ranked as between Brigadier General Putnam and Brigadier General Greene. Nor second, as to that portion of the army stationed immediately at Cambridge, for Major General Whitcomb ranked above Major General Warren, and General Pomeroy ranked above General Putnam. Nor was General Ward, in either case, at the date of the battle, the regular commander-in-chief, excepting of the Massachusetts forces. But more about these officers in another place. The only strictly accurate thing in the statement is, that Col. Prescott was another officer of the army! Mr Swett's facts being taken from him his theory falls.
I have done with Mr Swett's pamphlet. A remark relative to his History needs justification.
It has been stated that the narrative of the organization of the army and of the battle of Bunker Hill in the Siege of Boston, differs materially in details from the account of the same events in Mr Swett's History. As an instance of this, as to the former, take the two statements of the action of Rhode Island, – selected because they are the shortest: —
From the Siege of Boston
"The Rhode Island assembly, April 25, voted to raise fifteen hundred men, to constitute 'an army of observation,' and ordered it to 'join and coöperate with the forces of the neighboring colonies.' This force was organized into three regiments, of eight companies each, under Colonels Varnum, Hitchcock, and Church, and placed under the command of Nathaniel Greene, with the rank of brigadier-general. One of the companies was a train of artillery, and had the colony's field pieces. General Greene, on arriving at the camp, Jamaica Plains, found his command in great disorder: and it was only by his judicious labors, and great personal influence, that it was kept together. In the rules and regulations for the government of this force, it is called 'The Rhode Island army.' They provide that 'all public stores, taken in the enemy's camp or magazines,' should be 'secured for the use of the colony of Rhode Island.' It was not until June 28 that this colony passed an act putting its troops under the orders of the general of the combined army."
From Mr Swett's History
"Rhode Island had sent a regiment to Massachusetts imbued with the determined spirit of civil and religious liberty, which the founder of their state maintained through every peril. Colonel Greene was their commander, one of the most prominent heroes of the revolution. The elements of a soldier were so mixed in him, that his elevated rank among distinguished warriors was already anticipated. Under him were Lieut. Col. Olney, and Maj. Box, an experienced English soldier. An artillery company with four field pieces was attached to the corps."
And the variations, as to the details of the action of the other three colonies, are still greater.
The same thing will be found to prevail as to the battle. Take, as an illustration, the two first paragraphs of the two accounts.
From the Siege of Boston
"On Friday, the sixteenth of June, the commanders of the army, in accordance with the recommendation of the committee of safety, took measures to fortify Bunker Hill. Orders were issued for Prescott's, Frye's, and Bridge's regiments, and a fatigue party of two hundred Connecticut troops, to parade at six o'clock in the evening, with all the entrenching tools in the Cambridge camp. They were also ordered to furnish themselves with packs and blankets, and with provisions for twenty-four hours. Also, Captain Samuel Gridley's company of artillery, of forty-nine men and two field-pieces, was ordered to parade. The Connecticut men, draughted from several companies, were put under the command of the gallant Captain Knowlton, a captain in General Putnam's regiment." p. 122.
From Mr Swett's History
"On the 16th of June, 75, the sun fell with its full force on the American camp, the earth was parched up, but the vigorous frames and patriotic spirit of the soldiers were proof against its influence. With the advice of the council of war General Ward issued orders to Col. William Prescott, Col. 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 Gen. Putnam's regiment, and Capt. Gridley's company of artillery with two field pieces." p. 18.
These extracts will serve to show the character of such variations between the two narratives of the battle, as will be found to run through them. Other paragraphs might be quoted containing things of far more consequence. The variations as to the parts individuals bore, are also important. To do justice to the actors, they should be named in connection with the service they rendered. With this in view, let the critical reader, as an illustration, compare the notices in the two accounts, of what the brave Knowlton did. Mr Swett's first and last mention of him, in describing the battle, is on p. 26, as follows: "While the enemy were landing, Putnam ordered Knowlton with the Connecticut troops, to take post behind a rail fence." Passing the correctness of this, it is every syllable there is about Knowlton, until p. 56 of the supplementary chapter, where there is, so far as this battle is concerned, only a general, but deserved, compliment to him. In the whole, the reader is not told that he had the command of the Connecticut fatigue party of two hundred, one fifth of the whole, or even went on at night. In the "Notes" of Mr Swett, his name will be found to occur twice in depositions. Now is not Knowlton's well won reputation as dear as Putnam's or Prescott's? With this, compare the notices of him on pp. 122, 134, 136, 151, 189, 190, of the Siege of Boston, which rest on authorities that are named. Before these details, or others that may differ in toto from Mr Swett's History, be unceremoniously shovelled aside as a "chaos of mistakes," I have a right to demand that the authorities on which they rest, shall go through the process first.