D2.His.10.9-12: Limits of Evidence and Interpretation: Who Commanded at Bunker Hill?

Overview

Lesson Procedure

75-80 minutes of class time across 5 phases.

1. Warm-Up5-10 minutes
2. Direct Instruction20 minutes
3. Guided Practice20 minutes
4. Independent Practice20 minutes
5. Closure10 minutes

1. Warm-Up5-10 minutes

   Warm-Up Prompt

   "Forty years after a championship game, a former player writes that the team captain froze during the final play. The captain's son answers that his father was the hero of the game. What would you want to know about each writer, and about the game, before believing either one?"

   Sort answers into questions about the evidence (Was the player on the field? How long ago? Who told him? Is there a game film or a newspaper story from that week?) and questions about the interpreters (What does each writer want people to believe? What evidence did each leave out?). Tell students that this is the shape of a real dispute from 1818, and that the C3 indicator asks them to detect limits in both kinds of thing: the evidence and the interpretations.

2. Direct Instruction20 minutes

   Background in two minutes: on the night of June 16, 1775, a detachment of New England troops fortified Breed's Hill, near Bunker Hill, across the river from British-held Boston. Colonel William Prescott commanded the men in the earthwork fort (the "redoubt"); General Israel Putnam of Connecticut was also on the field. The British took the hill the next day at heavy cost. In 1818, Henry Dearborn, a former major general of the U.S. Army (he signed it "Maj. Gen. U. S. A."), who had fought in the battle as a captain, published an account accusing Putnam of failing to support the troops. Introduce the Limits Ledger, an SVHS teaching tool.

   The Limits Ledger (an SVHS teaching tool): questions for evidence and for interpretations

   Ledger question	What it asks	Bunker Hill example
   Evidence 1: Distance	How long after the event was the source made?	A letter of July 1775 against a memoir of 1818
   Evidence 2: Vantage	Did the writer see it, or hear it from someone else?	An eyewitness on the hill, or a remark repeated at a dinner
   Evidence 3: Stake	Did the writer have a reason to tell it one way?	A son defending his father; an officer defending his own regiment
   Evidence 4: Silence	What do records that should mention it leave out?	Official papers that say nothing about command
   Evidence 5: Echo	Does it repeat an earlier account instead of adding independent evidence?	A later account that follows a printed biography
   Interpretation 1: Evidence base	Which sources does the interpretation rely on, and which does it leave out?	The statements a historian found and chose to quote
   Interpretation 2: Standard	What rule does the historian use to weigh evidence?	Trusting statements made before the dispute began
   Interpretation 3: Commitments	What loyalties or purposes shape the interpretation?	Family, reputation, state pride
   Interpretation 4: Reach	Does the conclusion claim more than the evidence supports?	Moving from "not in command" to "did nothing"

   1I will mention an extraordinary circumstance to show how far the temporary reputation of a man may affect the minds of all classes of society.

   2General Putnam had entered our army at the commencement of the revolutionary war, with such an universal popularity as can scarcely now be conceived, even by those who then felt the whole force of it, and no one can at this time offer any satisfactory reasons why he was held in such high estimation.

   3In the battle of Bunker Hill he took post on the declivity towards Charlestown Neck, where I saw him on horseback as we passed on to Breed’s Hill, with Col. Gerrish by his side. I heard the gallant Col. Prescott (who commanded in the redoubt) observe, after the war, at the table of his Excellency James Boudoin, then Governor of this Commonwealth, “that he sent three messengers during the battle to Gen. Putnam, requesting him to come forward and take the command, there being no general officer present, and the relative rank of the Colonel not having been settled; but that he received no answer, and his whole conduct was such, both during the action and the retreat, that he ought to have been shot.” He remained at or near the top of Bunker Hill until the retreat, with colonel Gerrish by his side: I saw them together when we retreated. He not only continued at that distance himself during the whole of the action, but had a force with him nearly as large as that engaged. No reinforcement of men or ammunition was sent to our assistance; and, instead of attempting to cover the retreat of those who had expended their last shot in the face of the enemy, he retreated in company with colonel Gerrish, and his whole force, without discharging a single musket; but what is still more astonishing, colonel Gerrish was arrested for cowardice, tried, cashiered, and universally execrated; while not a word was said against the conduct of general Putnam, whose extraordinary popularity alone saved him, not only from trial, but even from censure. Colonel Gerrish commanded a regiment, and should have been at its head. His regiment was not in action, although ordered; but as he was in the suite of the general, and appeared to be in the situation of adjutant general, why was he not directed by Putnam to join it, or the regiment sent into action under the senior officer present with it?

   4When general Putnam's ephemeral and unaccountable popularity subsided or faded away, and the minds of the people were released from the shackles of a delusive trance, the circumstances relating to Bunker Hill were viewed and talked of in a very different light, and the selection of the unfortunate colonel Gerrish as a scape-goat, considered as a mysterious and inexplicable event.

   5I have no private feelings to gratify by making this statement in relation to general Putnam, as I never had any intercourse with him, and was only in the army where he was present, for a few months; but, at this late period, I conceive it a duty to give a fair and impartial account of one of the most important battles during the war of independence, and all the circumstances connected with it, so far as I had the means of being correctly informed.

   1No engagement of the Revolution possesses an interest so deep and peculiar, or produced consequences so important, as the battle of Bunker Hill; and no other engagement is involved in so much obscurity, perplexity, and controversy. It is remarkable on many accounts; — in being the first great battle of the contest; in the astonishing resistance made by inexperienced militia against veteran troops; in the affecting character of its prominent incidents; in the sublimity of its spectacle; and in its influence on the politics of the day, and the fortunes of the war. It proved the quality of the American soldier, drew definitely the lines of party, and established the fact of open war between the colonies and the mother country. It was a victory, with all the moral effect of victory, under the name of a defeat. And yet, at first, it was regarded with disappointment, and even with indignation; and contemporary accounts of it, whether private or official, are rather in the tone of apology, or of censure, than of exultation. The enterprise, on the whole, was pronounced rash in the conception and discreditable in the execution; and a severe scrutiny was instituted into the conduct of those who were charged with having contributed by their backwardness to the result. No one, for years, came forward to claim the honor of having directed it; no notice was taken of its returning anniversary; and no narrative did justice to the regiments that were engaged, or to the officers who were in command.

   [...]

   2It is from this cause — the want of subordination, and the confusion — that it is a question whether there was a general authorized commander in the battle. Had the army been fully organized, and had the rank of the officers been established, such a question could not have arisen. It is not one of recent origin, for there was the same perplexity on this point, immediately after the battle, that exists now; and inquiries in relation to it elicited equally unsatisfactory answers. The orderly book of General Ward not only is silent on it, but contains no orders for the conduct of the enterprise. Nor is this deficiency entirely supplied by any contemporary document. Yet it is from authorities of this character that a correct conclusion must be drawn. In the place of a labored argument on this delicate subject, I prefer to place, as fairly as I am able to do it, the evidence in relation to it that has fallen in my way, state the conclusion it seems to warrant, and leave the subject to the candid reader.

   • Evidence: vantage and distance (Source 1, paragraph 3)

     Dearborn reports that Prescott said he "sent three messengers during the battle to Gen. Putnam" and that Putnam "ought to have been shot." Where does Dearborn's knowledge of this come from?

     Result: It is hearsay: Dearborn "heard" Prescott say it "after the war, at the table of his Excellency James Boudoin," and he printed it in 1818, 43 years after the battle. Dearborn was not with Prescott in the redoubt, so the most damaging claim in his account rests on his memory of a remark made at a dinner, not on what he saw.

   • Evidence: silence (Source 3, paragraph 2)

     Frothingham looks for official orders that would settle who was in command. What does he find?

     Result: "The orderly book of General Ward not only is silent on it, but contains no orders for the conduct of the enterprise," and the gap is not "entirely supplied by any contemporary document." The record that should answer the question says nothing, which is why the question could be argued for decades.

   • Evidence: stake and echo (Source 5, paragraph 2)

     In a note to Putnam's funeral sermon of 1790, Josiah Whitney writes that Putnam "ordered the battle from beginning to end." What is his source?

     Result: Putnam himself: "These facts General Putnam gave me soon after the battle, and also repeated them to me after his life was printed." The source is the person with the most at stake, reported by a friend at his funeral, and repeated after a printed life of Putnam had appeared. Frothingham adds that it came after Putnam's friends found Humphries' 1788 essay "not satisfactory."

   • Interpretation: evidence base (Source 3, paragraph 2)

     Frothingham promises to "place, as fairly as I am able to do it, the evidence in relation to it that has fallen in my way." What limit does this sentence admit?

     Result: His conclusion can only be as complete as the evidence that "has fallen in my way." A historian who searches widely still works from what he found, and a source he did not find, or chose not to quote, could change the picture. Fairness in presenting evidence does not remove the limits of the evidence base.

3. Guided Practice20 minutes

   Read Source 2, Daniel Putnam's reply. In pairs, students fill the Interpretation rows of the Ledger twice, once for Dearborn (Source 1) and once for Daniel Putnam (Source 2), treating each writer as an interpreter of the battle as well as a witness. Then they write one sentence that each writer would have to accept.

   1Sir, — It was not until the 29th of April, that I saw a publication, entitled, “An Account of the Battle of Bunker-hill; written for the Port Folio, at the request of the Editor, by H. Dearborn, Major General U. S. Army.”

   [...]

   2It has been reserved for you, sir, after a lapse of forty-three years, and when you probably supposed the grave had closed on all who would contradict your bold assertions, that you have thus, like an assassin in the dark, cowardly meditated this insiduous blow, against a character as much above your level, as your base calumny is beneath a gentleman and an officer.

   3There yet lives one, who not only feels indignant at such unmerited abuse of his father’s name, but who has, also, a personal knowledge of most of the military concerns of general Putnam through the revolutionary war, having been the greater part of that time attached to his family, and in possession of his confidence. Regardless of consequences, he will not shun to declare the truth, though it may bear hard on the licentious assertions of major-general Dearborn.

   [...]

   4There is yet one more passage to notice; and I have done. I allude to the declaration which you ascribe to Col. Prescott, as having been made “at the table of the late Governor Bowdoin.”

   5It is not possible for me to prove that Colonel Prescott did not make such a declaration. But I have proved, that what you allege to have been said by him could not be true. It is well known that Col. Prescott sustained a high and honourable reputation; and that he was well acquainted with General Putnam, and must have known the opinions which the distinguished men of the revolution entertained of his individual and military character. It must, therefore, be left to the public to decide, whether it is most probable that Col. Prescott made the assertion which you have imputed to him; or whether, like many other representations you have made, it has no foundation in fact.

   [...]

   Key. Dearborn: evidence base, his own memories and one remark he heard after the war; standard, his own judgment, stated as "a fair and impartial account" (Source 1, paragraph 5); commitments, he denies any "private feelings to gratify," but readers cannot check that claim from the text; reach, he moves from Putnam's position on Bunker Hill to the conclusion that only "extraordinary popularity" saved him from "censure." Daniel Putnam: evidence base, "personal knowledge" as a member of his father's household (paragraph 3); commitments, he defends "his father's name" and says so; standard and reach, he argues from Prescott's "high and honourable reputation" that the remark "could not be true," but admits, "It is not possible for me to prove that Colonel Prescott did not make such a declaration" (paragraph 5). A sentence both writers would accept: in 1818, 43 years after the battle, Putnam's conduct that day was still in dispute.

4. Independent Practice20 minutes

   Students read Sources 4, 5 and 6. For each of three pieces of evidence (the Martin account, the Pitts letter and Tudor's statement) they fill the five Evidence rows of the Ledger. Then they compare Frothingham's conclusion (Source 5) with the National Park Service's description of Putnam (Source 6) and write a paragraph on the limits of each. Quiz Questions 9-15 and 19 use these sources.

   1Rev. John Martin, who was in the battle, related its incidents to President Stiles, who recorded them in his diary, June 30, 1775. He states that the Americans took possession of the hill, "under the command of Colonel Prescott," and that application to General Ward for aid "brought Colonel Putnam and a large reinforcement about noon."

   [...]

   2John Pitts, Esq., in a letter dated Watertown, July 20, 1775, addressed to Samuel Adams, then in Congress, says: "I find the letters, in general, from you, and the rest of our friends, complain of not having particular information relative to the late battle of Charlestown. I do assure you, the particulars, any further than what I have already wrote you, I have not been able to obtain from any one. To be plain, it appears to me there never was more confusion and less command. No one appeared to have any but Colonel Prescott, whose bravery can never be enough acknowledged and applauded. General Putnam was employed in collecting the men, but there were not officers enough to lead them on."

   [...]

   3Hon. William Tudor, judge advocate in the trials of the delinquent officers, in a communication printed in the Columbian Sentinel and N. A. Review, 1818, states as follows: "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; and according to my best recollections, after forty-three years, the whole business appeared to have been conducted without order or regular command. Each man fought for himself, loaded and fired as he could, and took care to waste no powder, which was a scarce article at the time."

   4These statements were made by contemporaries, who, out of professional curiosity, or out of fidelity to history, endeavored to ascertain the facts in the case. They were made mostly before controversy had arisen on the subject, and therefore are not warped by known prejudice or partiality. They are also chiefly independent testimonies, — some of them never having been printed before. Rev. Peter Thatcher, whose account is remarkably accurate, and Rev. John Martin, who was in the battle, are equally clear and positive. [...]

   1The conclusion warranted by this evidence is, 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.

   2Nor, previous to the year 1790, is there in any document, written or printed, that is known to me, an assertion to the contrary, except where the command is assigned to General Warren. It was announced then that a general officer commanded during the whole affair, from beginning to the end. This announcement was made under the following circumstances. General David Humphries published an essay on the life of General Putnam, who was then alive, dated Mount Vernon, July 4, 1788, in which, in a brief account of the battle, he says: "In this battle the presence and example of General Putnam, who arrived with the reinforcement, were not less conspicuous than useful." This language, it will be noticed, agrees remarkably with that of some of the earlier authorities, — especially with Martin, Dr. Thatcher, Pitts, and Gordon, — already quoted. General Putnam died May 29, 1790. Rev. Josiah Whitney preached his funeral sermon, which was published. In a note to this sermon, after remarking that the language of Humphries' essay on the battle was not satisfactory to the friends of General Putnam, Mr. Whitney says: "The detachment was first put under the command of General Putnam. With it he took possession of the hill, and ordered the battle from beginning to end. These facts General Putnam gave me soon after the battle, and also repeated them to me after his life was printed." Colonel Swett also states that the general made the same declarations to his son.

   1General Israel Putnam’s physical bravery and commitment to the revolutionary cause made him a popular and inspiring general. Though his lack of administrative and tactical skills damaged his military reputation, his early leadership gave him a significant role in the American Revolutionary War.

   [...]

   2When fighting broke out at Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, Putnam immediately left Connecticut for Boston. He was made one of three generals in Connecticut soon after. He led his troops successfully in a mission to destroy supplies and burn a ship on Noddle’s Island in Boston Harbor in May 1775. On June 17, 1775, Putnam served as a field commander during the Battle at Bunker Hill. At this battle between British forces and New England colonial forces, some attribute the famous quote "Men, you are marksmen—don’t one of you fire until you see the white[s] of their eyes" to Israel Putnam; however, others credit this line to William Prescott.

5. Closure10 minutes

   Exit ticket: "Name one limitation of a piece of evidence and one limitation of an interpretation from today's sources, and explain how the second can grow out of the first." (Sample: Whitney's note passes on Putnam's own claim, so it carries Putnam's stake; an interpretation that leans on it inherits that stake.)

   Teacher notes. (1) Sources 1 and 2 are sharp in tone: Daniel Putnam calls Dearborn's account a "base calumny." Point out that tone is evidence about the writers and the 1818 quarrel, not about the battle. (2) Remind students that the 1849 history and the 2025 web page are interpretations too, and belong in the Ledger like the 1818 pamphlet. (3) The lesson takes no side on whether Putnam or Prescott deserves more honor; students are scored on how well they state the limits of the evidence.

Differentiation Strategies

Assessment Guidance

1. Question 1 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   In Source 1, paragraph 5, Dearborn calls 1818 "this late period." Which Ledger question does the phrase raise most directly?

   ASilence BDistance CEcho DEvidence base

2. Question 2 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Dearborn writes, "I have no private feelings to gratify by making this statement" (Source 1, paragraph 5). How should a historian treat this sentence?

   AAs proof that his account is impartial BAs a reason to reject his whole account CAs a claim to be tested against other evidence DAs evidence that Putnam and Dearborn knew each other well

3. Question 3 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Dearborn calls Putnam's popularity "ephemeral and unaccountable" (Source 1, paragraph 4). What kind of statement is this?

   AAn eyewitness observation of the battle made on June 17 BA report of what Prescott said at Bowdoin's table CAn official finding of the court-martial in 1775 DA judgment about public opinion, offered as his view

4. Question 4 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Daniel Putnam writes that Dearborn waited "a lapse of forty-three years," until "the grave had closed on all who would contradict" him (Source 2, paragraph 2). What limit of Dearborn's evidence is he pointing to?

   AA late account is hard to check, because witnesses have died BDearborn could not have been at the battle at all in June 1775 CThe Port Folio printed his account without his permission DDearborn copied his account from Frothingham's history

5. Question 5 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Daniel Putnam quotes Dearborn's claim that Prescott spoke "at the table of the late Governor Bowdoin" (Source 2, paragraph 4). Why does the word "late" matter for checking the claim?

   AIt shows the dinner took place late at night BIt shows Bowdoin had died and could not confirm it CIt shows Prescott spoke after Bowdoin left the room DIt shows the remark was printed late in the year

6. Question 6 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Dearborn says Colonel Gerrish was "arrested for cowardice, tried, cashiered" (Source 1, paragraph 3). Which source would best check this statement?

   ADaniel Putnam's reply to Dearborn in 1818 BThe National Park Service's page on Putnam CThe records of the court-martial trials of 1775 DFrothingham's description of the battle's meaning

7. Question 7 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Frothingham writes that "No one, for years, came forward to claim the honor of having directed" the battle (Source 3, paragraph 1). Why does this create a limit in the evidence?

   AThe battle was first seen as a failure, so no one claimed it BAll the officers who were present died within a few years CThe British destroyed every American record of the battle that year DCongress ordered officers not to write about the battle

8. Question 8 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   According to Source 3, paragraph 2, why could the question of command arise at all?

   AThe battle was fought at night, so no one could see who led BThe army was not organized and ranks were not settled CTwo armies from different colonies refused to fight DPrescott and Putnam both had orders from Washington

9. Question 9 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   What kind of evidence is John Martin's account in Source 4, paragraph 1?

   AA memoir Martin published decades after the battle BA letter Martin wrote to Samuel Adams in Congress CAn official report written by General Ward's officers that summer DA participant's account, recorded by another person soon after

10. Question 10 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    What does the Pitts letter of July 20, 1775 (Source 4, paragraph 2), say about General Putnam?

    AHe commanded the redoubt from the start BHe was employed in collecting the men CHe refused to send any reinforcements DHe was arrested for his conduct that day

11. Question 11 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    What limit does Tudor himself admit in his 1818 statement (Source 4, paragraph 3)?

    AHe relies on his memory after forty-three years BHe was not present at any of the trials CHe heard the whole story only from General Putnam himself DHe wrote only about the British officers

12. Question 12 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Frothingham trusts statements "made mostly before controversy had arisen," because they "are not warped by known prejudice or partiality" (Source 4, paragraph 4). What is a limit of this standard?

    AIt ignores every letter that was written in 1775 BIt accepts only accounts that were never printed CEarly writers could still have biases nobody knew DIt treats Dearborn's 1818 account as the best one of all

13. Question 13 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Which statement goes BEYOND Frothingham's conclusion in Source 5, paragraph 1?

    AThe detachment was placed under Prescott's orders BNo general officer was authorized to command over Prescott CPrescott's detachment fought in the battle itself DPutnam played no useful part in the battle at all

14. Question 14 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Why does Frothingham point out that Humphries' 1788 language "agrees remarkably" with Martin, Thatcher, Pitts and Gordon (Source 5, paragraph 2)?

    ATo show that Putnam was praised before 1790, but not as commander BTo show that Humphries copied his essay from those writers CTo prove that Humphries was present in the redoubt DTo show that every early writer agreed that Putnam was in command

15. Question 15 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    How does Source 6 handle the quotation "don't one of you fire until you see the white[s] of their eyes"?

    AIt proves that Putnam said it to his men BIt proves that Prescott said it in the redoubt CIt reports both attributions without deciding DIt says the quotation was invented in 1818

16. Question 16 of 20 · Short Answer

    Use the Ledger to compare the Pitts letter (Source 4, paragraph 2) with Tudor's statement (Source 4, paragraph 3) on distance, vantage and stake. Which tells you more about who commanded, and why?

    Show model answer

17. Question 17 of 20 · Short Answer

    Source 6 calls Putnam "a field commander," while Frothingham concludes that "no general officer was authorized to command over" Prescott (Source 5, paragraph 1). Do these contradict each other? Explain the limits of each.

    Show model answer

18. Question 18 of 20 · Short Answer

    Source 3, paragraph 1, praises the battle in strong terms ("the astonishing resistance," "the sublimity of its spectacle"). Which Ledger question does this raise about Frothingham as an interpreter, and does it weaken his conclusion on the command?

    Show model answer

19. Question 19 of 20 · Short Answer

    The Park Service page (Source 6) lists two general references at its end and gives no source for each statement. What limits does this create for a reader who wants to check the phrase "field commander"?

    Show model answer

20. Question 20 of 20 · Short Answer

    Dearborn and Daniel Putnam each attack the other's motives. Explain how a historian can still use both of them as evidence about the battle.

    Show model answer

These standards connect to D2.His.10.9-12: prerequisites to review first, parallel standards at the same level, and next steps that build on it.

Standard text: National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), The College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards: Guidance for Enhancing the Rigor of K-12 Civics, Economics, Geography, and History (Silver Spring, MD: NCSS, 2013). NCSS was not involved in the production of this lesson and does not endorse it.