"...both sides began a desperate rush for gunpowder."
Philbrick knows how to inhabit and interpret a battle scene. From earlier books like
The Last Stand and now with
Bunker Hill, Philbrick allows us to imagine in detail the layout, action, and tension in a battlefield exploding with ordnance. Because we now know more about the personalities of those men involved in the battle, have letters from survivors and rooftop observers, and battle reports of the period, we can interpret to some extent how the battle for Bunker Hill must have developed and played out. It was grim. It was bloody. The provincials had very little gunpowder but buckets of bravado.
The British took Bunker Hill that day, but the loss did nothing more than whet the appetite of the provincials for the freedom they craved. Paradoxically, it crushed the spirit of the British generals and spurred the leadership and fighting men of the colonies to an even greater resolve to isolate and eventually push the British out of Boston.
This latest addition to Philbrick’s oeuvre gives us much more than news about a single battle. We get a glimpse of greater Boston in a conscribed period of time beginning 1775 and ending 1776. We learn details about the land, the weather, the ethos, the men and women living in Boston which aid in understanding the constraints and choices facing our earliest countrymen. We learn of Lexington and Concord and the heartbreaking admission by a provincial soldier found to have hacked a British regular to death with an axe: “he simply did what he thought was expected of a soldier in the midst of battle.”
A fascinating new series of maps created for the book and dated 2013 by Jeffrey L. Ward are a revelation. Boston of today bears almost no resemblance to the Boston of 1775-76 when Boston city itself was practically an island reachable only by water or by a very narrow neck of land reaching into Roxbury. Ward’s maps follow the scenes of Philbrick’s history closely and add immeasurably to our grasp of the action.
Another thing that stands out is how little fighting actually took place before the colonies declared independence in the summer of 1776. Hostilities continued afterwards, but “the Battle of Bunker Hill…[proved] to be the bloodiest engagement of the eight years of fighting that followed.” The provincials lost the Battle of Bunker Hill and sustained heavy casualties, but they appeared to come away from that time with a sense of their own power, and with determination.
Best of all may be the portraits drawn of James Warren, kinetic man-about-town, physician, politician, and leader who rose from his sickbed to participate (and die) in the Battle of Bunker Hill, and George Washington, gentleman general, who came up to Boston afterward to lay out the Siege of Boston. Washington succeeded in pushing the British from Boston with almost no conflict. He had prepared so well in surrounding the city, he was actually disappointed he did not need to put his plan into action.
”Two days after the evacuation, the British saw fit to destroy the fortifications at the Castle with a spectacular series of explosions. The resulting fire raged throughout the night with such an intensity that a lieutenant from Connecticut discovered that even though he was several miles away he was able to read a letter from his wife by the light of the burning fortress. The fate of the Castle served as a fresh reminder of the devastation that had been avoided through the occupation of Dorchester Heights. Washington, however, continued ‘lamenting the disappointment’ of not having been able to implement what he described in a letter to a friend in Virginia as his ‘premeditated plan’ to attack Boston, ‘as we were prepared for them at all points.’”
Philbrick is at his most eloquent in his chapter entitled “The Fiercest Man,” in which he describes George Washington. One of my deepest impressions from this book comes from this chapter, where Washington is rendered human. He was a large man, physically gifted and well-proportioned, who looked well on a horse: “There is not a king in Europe that would not look like a valet de chamber by his side.” He appeared to listen and accommodate another point of view from his own while managing, in the end, to carry his own.
When Washington learned that the provincials were essentially without gunpowder, he was struck silent. “Could I have forseen what I have, and am about to experience, no consideration upon earth should have induced me to accept this command,” he later mused.
The book has 32 color plates, including Charles Willson Peale’s standing portrait of Washington with his hand on a gun barrel, and 30 black and white reproductions that allow us to put faces to names. This is a delectable, detailed history, adding to our store of knowledge, and a modern one: there is some discussion of attractive women, married or not, whom Warren and Washington were allegedly interested in. I assert, whether or not we think these details realistic, true, or relevant, they make these men more accessible to us, and we begin to wish we had more remaining clues about the lives of all these forbears so as to refute or confirm these theories.
Addendum: Philbrick tells us the painter Gilbert Stuart wrote that he suspected George Washington of harboring the “strongest and most ungovernable passions.” When I described this, from the chapter “The Fiercest Man,” to a 90-year-old Boston native, she acerbically rejoined, “One can
see his passion, him in those pants," referring to her memory of Stuart’s
full length standing portrait of Washington now hanging in the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. One wonders if that portrait tells us more about Gilbert than about Washington.
Experience Philbrick's history yourself. I am delighted to be able to excerpt Philbrick's
Preface from
Bunker Hill below for your convenience:
Reprinted by arrangement with Viking, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., from
Bunker Hill Copyright © Nathaniel Philbrick, 2013
PREFACE: THE DECISIVE DAY
On a hot, almost windless afternoon in June, a seven-year-old boy stood beside his mother and
looked out across the green islands of Boston Harbor. To the northwest, sheets of fire and smoke
rose from the base of a distant hill. Even though the fighting was at least ten miles away, the
concussion of the great guns burst like bubbles across his tear-streaked face.
At that moment, John Adams, the boy’s father, was more than three hundred miles to the
south at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. Years later, the elder Adams claimed that
the American Revolution had started not with the Boston Massacre, or the Tea Party, or the
skirmishes at Lexington and Concord and all the rest, but had been “effected before the war
commenced . . . in the minds and hearts of the people.” For his son, however, the “decisive day”
(a phrase used by the boy’s mother, Abigail) was June 17, 1775.
Seventy-one years after that day, in the jittery script of an old man, John Quincy Adams
described the terrifying afternoon when he and his mother watched the battle from a hill beside
their home in Braintree: “I saw with my own eyes those fires, and heard Britannia’s thunders
in the Battle of Bunker’s hill and witnessed the tears of my mother and mingled with them my
own.” They feared, he recounted, that the British troops might at any moment march out of
Boston and “butcher them in cold blood” or take them as hostages and drag them back into the
besieged city. But what he remembered most about the battle was the hopeless sense of sorrow
that he and his mother felt when they learned that their family physician, Dr. Joseph Warren, had
been killed.
Warren had saved John Quincy Adam’s badly fractured forefinger from amputation, and
the death of this “beloved physician” was a terrible blow to a boy whose father’s mounting
responsibilities required that he spend months away from home. Even after John Quincy Adams
had grown into adulthood and become a public figure, he refused to attend all anniversary
celebrations of the Battle of Bunker Hill.
Joseph Warren, just thirty-four at the time of his death, had been much more than a beloved
doctor to a seven-year-old boy. Over the course of the two critical months between the outbreak
of hostilities at Lexington Green and the Battle of Bunker Hill, he became the most influential
patriot leader in the province of Massachusetts. As a member of the Committee of Safety, he had
been the man who ordered Paul Revere to alert the countryside that British soldiers were headed
to Concord; as president of the Provincial Congress, he had overseen the creation of an army
even as he waged a propaganda campaign to convince both the American and British people that
Massachusetts was fighting for its survival in a purely defensive war. While his more famous
compatriots John Adams, John Hancock, and Samuel Adams were in Philadelphia at the Second
Continental Congress, Warren was orchestrating the on-the-ground reality of a revolution.
Warren had only recently emerged from the shadow of his mentor Samuel Adams when
he found himself at the head of the revolutionary movement in Massachusetts, but his presence
(and absence) were immediately felt. When George Washington assumed command of the
provincial army gathered outside Boston just two and a half weeks after the Battle of Bunker
Hill, he was forced to contend with the confusion and despair that followed Warren’s death.
Washington’s ability to gain the confidence of a suspicious, stubborn, and parochial assemblage
of New England militiamen marked the advent of a very different kind of leadership. Warren had
passionately, often impulsively, tried to control the accelerating cataclysm. Washington would
need to master the situation deliberately and—above all—firmly. Thus, the Battle of Bunker Hill
is the critical turning point in the story of how a rebellion born in the streets of Boston became a
countrywide war for independence.
This is also the story of two British generals. The first, Thomas Gage, was saddled with the
impossible task of implementing his government’s unnecessarily punitive response to the Boston
Tea Party in December 1773. Gage had a scrupulous respect for the law and was therefore ill
equipped to subdue a people who were perfectly willing to take that law into their own hands.
When fighting broke out at Lexington and Concord, militiamen from across the region descended
upon the British stationed at Boston. Armed New Englanders soon cut off the land approaches to
Boston. Ironically, the former center of American resistance found itself gripped by an American
siege. By the time General William Howe replaced Gage as the British commander in chief, he
had determined that New York, not Boston, was where he must resume the fight. It was left to
Washington to hasten the departure of Howe and his army.
The evacuation of the British in March 1776 signaled the beginning of an eight-year war that
produced a new nation. But it also marked the end of an era that had started back in 1630 with the
founding of the Puritan settlement called Boston. This is the story of how a revolution changed
that 146-year-old community—of what was lost and what was gained when 150 vessels filled
with British soldiers and American loyalists sailed from Boston Harbor for the last time.
Over the more than two centuries since the Revolution, Boston has undergone immense physical
change. Most of the city’s once-defining hills have been erased from the landscape while the
marshes and mudflats that surrounded Boston have been filled in to eliminate almost all traces
of the original waterfront. But hints of the vanished town remain. Several meetinghouses and
churches from the colonial era are still standing, along with a smattering of seventeenth- and
eighteenth-century houses. Looking southeast from the balcony of the Old State House, you can
see how the spine of what was once called King Street connects this historic seat of government,
originally known as the Town House, to Long Wharf, an equally historic commercial center that
still reaches out into the harbor.
For the last three years I have been exploring these places, trying to get a fix on the long-lost
topography that is essential to understanding how Boston’s former residents interacted. Boston in
the 1770s was a land-connected island with a population of about fifteen thousand, all of whom
probably recognized, if not knew, each other. Being myself a resident of an island with a year-round population very close in size to provincial Boston’s, I have some familiarity with how petty
feuds, family alliances, professional jealousies, and bonds of friendship can transform a local
controversy into a supercharged outpouring of communal angst. The issues are real enough, but
why we find ourselves on one side or the other of those issues is often unclear even to us. Things
just
happen in a way that has little to do with logic or rationality and everything to do with the
mysterious and infinitely complex ways that human beings respond to one another.
In the beginning there were three different colonial groups in Massachusetts. One group was
aligned with those who eventually became revolutionaries. For lack of a better word, I will call
these people “patriots.” Another group remained faithful to the crown, and they appear herein as
“loyalists.” Those in the third and perhaps largest group were not sure where they stood. Part of
what makes a revolution such a fascinating subject to study is the arrival of the moment when
neutrality is no longer an option. Like it or not, a person has to choose.
It was not a simple case of picking right from wrong. Hindsight has shown that, contrary
to what the patriots insisted, Britain had not launched a preconceived effort to enslave her
colonies. Compared with other outposts of empire, the American colonists were exceedingly
well off. It’s been estimated that they were some of the most prosperous, least-taxed people in
the Western world. And yet there was more to the patriots’ overheated claims about oppression
than the eighteenth-century equivalent of a conspiracy theory. The hyperbole and hysteria that
so mystified the loyalists had wellsprings that were both ancient and strikingly immediate. For
patriots and loyalists alike, this was personal.
Because a revolution gave birth to our nation, Americans have a tendency to exalt the concept of
a popular uprising. We want the whole world to be caught in a blaze of liberating upheaval (with
appropriately democratic results) because that was what worked so well for us. If Gene Sharp’s
From Dictatorship to Democracy, the guidebook that has become a kind of bible among twentyfirst-century revolutionaries in the Middle East and beyond, is any indication, the mechanics
of overthrowing a regime are essentially the same today as they were in the eighteenth century.
And yet, given our tendency to focus on the Founding Fathers who were at the Continental
Congress in Philadelphia when all of this was unfolding in and around Boston, most of us know
surprisingly little about how the patriots of Massachusetts pulled it off.
In the pages that follow, I hope to provide an intimate account of how over the course of just
eighteen months a revolution transformed a city and the towns that surrounded it, and how that
transformation influenced what eventually became the Unites States of America. This is the story
of two charismatic and forceful leaders (one from Massachusetts, the other from Virginia), but
it is also the story of two ministers (one a subtle, even Machiavellian, patriot, the other a punster
and a loyalist); of a poet, patriot, and caregiver to four orphaned children; of a wealthy merchant
who wanted to be everybody’s friend; of a conniving traitor whose girlfriend betrayed him; of
a sea captain from Marblehead who became America’s first naval hero; of a bookseller with a
permanently mangled hand who after a 300-mile trek through the wilderness helped to force the
evacuation of the British; and of many others.
In the end, the city of Boston is the true hero of this story. Whether its inhabitants came to
view the Revolution as an opportunity or as a catastrophe, they all found themselves in the midst
of a survival tale when on December 16, 1773, three shiploads of tea were dumped in Boston
Harbor.
You can buy this book here:
Michael Lewis has given us another great read, leaving us pondering big issues about the nature of man and the point of society. In today’s world, the information he shares about high-frequency trading (HFT) on Wall Street, feels dated before it arrives on the page…before we read it…before we can act on it. At first I was aghast that information about the, in effect, skimming or taxing of trades on the [any] stock market was old—this stuff was recognized in 2010! Why are we just learning about it?!
