"History doesn't repeat itself, the historians repeat one another". - 

Max Beerbohm

If you follow my blog or read my books, you'll find that many of the things written about Fort Amanda prior for almost 200 years were based on information that was either incorrect, based on folklore or simply myths. The problem is writers and story tellers kept repeating the same stories over and over until they eventually came to accepted as truth. 

As you read this post, I ask that you don't shoot the messenger. I am not a fan of Blue Jacket, Tecumseh and certainly not Simon Girth nor do I necessarily view the Indians in Ohio as savages and/or innocent victims or the whites as invaders and/or victims.   

It is not the purpose of this blog to sully or besmirch the works or reputations of any of the individuals mentioned in this post (dead or alive). These are my perceptions of individuals and situations, and I'll be the first to admit if those perceptions are proven flawed. All I ask is that you read this post , keep an open mind and judge for yourself.  I'll address those issues at another time. For now I want to focus on 3 issues: 

1) Was Blue Jacket a White Man?
2)  Is the story of a Tecumseh / Rebecca Galloway Romance true.

3)  Was Simon Girty a villain or hero?

Myth #1 - Blue Jacket Was a White Man?

When it comes to reading about history, particularly Ohio and American history, I tend to take what I read with a grain of salt. It all began in college where I learned that some of the things I'd been taught in high school about Ohio and American history were either false, myths and/or were just plain silly. Even today as I do my Fort Amanda research I remind myself that just because someone wrote something in a journal in 1775 doesn't mean it was actually true. After all, writers in 1775 often embellished stories the same as they do in 2022 and why I have never taken the story about Blue Jacket being a white man seriously.

Was Blue Jacket a White Man

No.  This story itself first appeared in a newspaper in 1877 and resurfaced in 1969 in a book written by an modern day author well known for his books on frontier Ohio.  According to tradition, a 17-year-old white boy named Marmaduke Van Sweringen was hunting in the woods of West Virginia in 1771 when he was taken prisoner by a group of Shawnee Indians. Sweringen willingly joined the tribe. His name was changed to Blue Jacket because he was wearing a blue coat at the time he was captured. While the story is interesting, apparently its only a myth.

KILELD HIS OWN BROTHER?

I've read stories of where Blue Jacket supposedly killed his white brother at the battle known as St. Clair's defeat. The author even went so far as to describe how Blue Jacket kneeled down and whispered parting words to his dying brother. Seriously?  

I have 2 books in my library made up of interviews of early Ohio pioneers including some where they describe how viciousness and brutal Blue Jacket was. According to them, he was a horse thief, a plunderer and a murderer.

Keep in mind, not all Indians went into battle to fight for God and country. In fact I'm sure many did it for less honorable reasons. In fact, there are cases where they arrived at the battle site, found out there wasn't enough booty to plunder, i.e. camp kettles, clothing, guns, gunpowder, pots, pans, etc. so they turned around and went home. I guess a new camp kettle and a few pots and pans weren't enough to die for.

Mystery Solved

  http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2000/06/26/loc_blue_jacket_wasnt.html

Descendants of celebrated Shawnee war chief Blue Jacket for years have fought the story that he really was a white man who started life as Marmaduke Van Swearingen. Now, they have ammunition that could prove more powerful than genealogy charts or historical documents. 

A Wright State biologist studying DNA from the Blue Jacket and Van Swearingen families has shown that Blue Jacket and Marmaduke Van Swearingen were not the same person.  Blue Jacket descendants herald the news as a breakthrough. They want the chief, who in the 1790s led the Shawnee against Army forces trying to crush Indian resistance in Ohio, to be remembered as an American Indian. They also want their own legacies restored.

“The white man has always relished the idea that the great chief Blue Jacket was actually their white chief,” said Robert Denton Blue Jacket, a Tulsa, Okla., descendant who provided DNA samples. “Being an Indian is not a matter of your blood, it's a matter of your heart — it's your cultural identity, and that's what was so sad about this whole myth. It has robbed so many people of not only their blood, but their cultural identity.”

Mr. Blue Jacket and other descendants plan on using the new DNA evidence to try to force changes in works that perpetuate the Blue Jacket-as-white-man story. One target is the outdoor Blue Jacket theatrical production performed each summer in Xenia. It recently was included in the Library of Congress' Local Legacies program.

DNA Evidence

The new DNA research raises questions about that theory.

Wright State biologist Dan Krane tested DNA samples from five descendants of Blue Jacket and five descendants of Mr. Van Swearingen. Preliminary results suggest the two men were not the same. The DNA also suggests that Blue Jacket was American Indian, Mr. Krane said, but it doesn't rule out the possibility that he was white. Mr. Krane received the DNA samples from Robert Van Trees, who is not related to Blue Jacket or Mr. Van Swearingen but grew interested in the story while researching his own family tree.

Mr. Van Trees, of Fairborn, Ohio, traveled the nation last summer gathering saliva samples from direct male descendants of both families. The method of DNA testing used by Mr. Krane is reliable, said Carl Huether, a University of Cincinnati biology professor. But to help answer the question of Blue Jacket's ethnicity, researchers also should compare DNA of his descendants with that of descendants from his Shawnee tribe, Mr. Huether said.  The author of the 1969 book mentioned above, who lives in Bellefontaine, was traveling and unavailable for comment.  

Historical accounts of a mighty Indian chief really being white don't surprise Miami University history professor Andrew Cayton. “Especially in the 1800s, historians had to deal with people like Tecumseh and Blue Jacket, and they found much to be admired in these men that conflicted with their general sense that the Indians were racially inferior,” he said. “One way you can deal with that is if you have these Indian leaders who are sterling examples of leadership and intelligence, you say that somewhere, they must have had white blood in them.”

Until now, Mr. Van Trees has used birth dates and other documentation that he claims show Blue Jacket couldn't have been Marmaduke Van Swearingen. He said he has found no record of Mr. Van Swearingen, although he did uncover a Marmaduke Swearingen, born in 1763 in western Pennsylvania. He disappeared, and his family never saw him again.  

Myth #2 - The Tecumseh /Rebecca Galloway Romance

Back in the 70s, I went to see the outdoor drama, "Tecumseh." I'd read several accounts of the mans life and what life was like on the frontier so I went there with a certain number of expectations, one of them being authenticity. The fight scenes, explosions, canons, costumes, etc. were very entertaining but I distinctly remember during one scene where I had to force myself to keep from laughing out loud. It was the scene with Tecumseh falling love with a young white girl named Rebecca Galloway. I won't go into the whole story of the Galloway family and their association with Tecumseh, those are available on the internet,

So What's the Problem?

The truth is, there isn't one shred of evidence that supports the claim that Tecumseh married or even fell in love with a white girl named Rebecca Galloway. How or why that story originated is unknown. The problem with this story is it gives Tecumseh a personality. The reality is we have no idea what his personality was really like and if people form an impression of the man based on the stories about a Tecumseh/Galloway romance, or from the Tecumseh play, they'll probably perceive him as a kind and gentle man. I on the other hand have a different impression of him which I won't go into here.

  Myth #3 - Simon Girty Tried to Stop Crawford's Burning?

The Burning of Col. William Crawford - 1782

     

                   Simon Girty                                          Col. William Crawford

                  1741- 1818                                                      1722- 1782

You can't pick up a book or read an article about the Ohio frontier without seeing the name Simon Girty. While the most of what I've read about him focus primarily on his trading post at St. Marys and his dealings with the Indians and the British tend to creates the perception that he  was just a simple businessman on the frontier.  When I read an eye witness account of the gruesome torture and burning deayh of Col. William Crawford in 1782 my perception changed.. 

                                The Burning

William Crawford was an American soldier and surveyor who worked as a western land agent for George Washington. Crawford fought in the French and Indian War and the American Revolutionary War. He was tortured and burned at the stake on June 11, 1782 by American Indians in retaliation for the murder of 96 Christian Delaware Indians at the Gnadenhutten settlement on March 8 of the same year. Crawford suffered the most horrendous tortures for nearly two hours before he finally died. Executed with him was a nephew and son-in-law.

Although details of Crawford's execution are well documented by eye witnesses, what was actually said during the ordeal is only speculation. The most widely accepted claim is that Crawford begged Simon Girty to kill him to end his agony but the Indians threatened to kill him (Girty) if he intervened.  I recently read an account that claims Girty actually pleaded for Crawford's life. Sounds reasonable enough. After all, wouldn't a man with even an ounce of compassion have tried to intervene? A descendent of Simon Girty wrote this about his ancestors involvement:

“He had offered the Indians his prized white horse, his rifle, money and liquor. The Indians finally told him that if he didn't shut up, they were going to burn him, too,"  

He went on to say:

“Simon Girty Jr. also saved his good friend, Simon Kenton, from being burned at the stake by Indians. "I think he was great. I have a whole list of people who were actually saved by him.

This certainly suggests that Simon Girty was a compassionate man. After all, according to his descendant, not only did Girty attempt to save Crawford's life, he actually saved Simon Kenton's life. Plus, the man reportedly has "list of other people whose lives Girty saved." Really?  Again, remember, no one took notes at Crawford's execution so we have to rely on hearsay or tradition. But what if there was an actual witnesses?

An Actual Eye Witness

There was an eye witness to the event, a soldier who was captured at the same time as Crawford. His account of the story is a little different from the others. According to him, not only did Girty not plead for Crawford, he actually laughed while Crawford was dying. Was Girty that heartless? I found this description on the net:

Girty’s name became synonymous with savagery and monstrosity by the turn of the century.

So at the end of the day it all comes down to who we believe;  a modern day descendant of Girty OR the account from eye witness  who was actually at the event.  I know who I'd believe.   All I can say is my perception of Girty is not a good one.  Yes, he had to adapt to the Indians and the British, however, everything I've ever read about Simon Girty, very few are flattering.  My perception of Girty was he was  a brutal, opportunist who as we read in the soldiers account at Crawford's burning, a sadistic and a particularly nasty individual.

But Can We Handle the Truth?

If there's one thing I know about Ohioans, it's they love, cherish and are very protective of their history and given the opportunity, they'll talk with you for hours about it. They're very much aware of how dangerous and brutal the early Ohio frontier was so when they read, watch or talk about history, particularly their local history, they want it raw, unedited and factual and they don't want it sugar coated.

The fact that Blue Jacket was not a white man, the story of Tecumseh in love with a white woman probably never happened and Simon Girty was just a frontier businessman doesn't change the fact that their lives and their actions were driven by events of the day and what by they believed was right. Regardless of whether we call them villains or hero's also doesn't really matter because as the old saying goes, "Never judge a man until you've walked in his moccasins" and I seriously doubt any of us today would want to go back to the days when these men made history. Besides, truth be told, we are all heroes to some people and like it or not, we're probably a villain to others.

Like family genealogists, we are the "storytellers" and if we want future generations to appreciate our history as much as we do we owe it to them to tell the stories as accurately as we can and if some were "good guys" and some were "bad guys" well, it is what it is. 

Did Washington Through a Dollar Across the Potomac - Yes and No

 Did George Washington throw a dollar across the Potomac?  

It'a quite possible he did, but.........

Most of us have heard the story about young George Washington throwing a silver dollar across the Potomac River. The question is, would that have been possible? The answer is possibly....BUT.........

First Let Us Look At Some of the Factors

The River

First of all he couldn't have thrown it across the Potomic River, even in his younger days because the river from the shoreline near the Mount Vernan home to a spot on the other bank is over a mile.   He couldn't have done that when he got older either.  As an older guy   trust me on this one.   I think we can rule that story out.

Before moving to Mount Vernon, George Washington, then 6 years old lived on the Rapphannock.  Now lets see if it's possible young Washington could have thrown a dollar across that river.   First let's look at the spot where the event supposedly took place.

The Rappahannock River at George Washington's boyhome is approx. 250 feet wide  Would that have been possible?  Maybe but firse we have to consider these factors..

Was the coin he supposedly threw a silver dollar, could it have been thrown a different type of coin?

Was it even a coin?

Was young George physically capable of throwing anything across the river?

The Rappahannock River near his home is approx. 250 feet side. As an adult, George Washington was a big man. He stood 6 feet 2 inches tall and in later life weighed over 200 pounds. He had broad shoulders, wore a size 13 shoe, and stood ramrod straight. He had a long face with high cheekbones, a large straight nose, a firm chin and blue eyes beneath a heavy brow.  (Reconstructed face of George Washington)

OK, it's possible safe to assume hat young George, was a big kid, but could he have thrown a silver dollar across a river that was only 250 feet wide near his home. Did he do it?   No!

Why? Because the first silver dollar wasn't minted until 1794 five years before his death.



*sigh* But could it have been another kind of coin?   

Yes!  If it was, it might have been a Spanish Milled Dollar.



The Spanish Milled Dollar was minted on a coin press from 1732-1826 where-as the term "milled" refers to the fact that the coin blanks (planchets) were made on a milling machine and were of consistent weight and size of 27.1 grams and 1.65 inches in diameter, slightly larger than the US dollar.

Are We Even Sure It Was A Dollar?

We know young George's family had money, but did they have so much money that George would risk throwing one into a river? I'm sure George's mother would turn over in her grave if she knew that the same silver dollar today sold in 2015 for $10 million dollars. Some historians claim that what Washington threw across the river wasn't a coin at all, but a piece of slate that he "skipped" across the river.  After all, why would he throw money away?

So is the Story True

We've shown young George would been too young to throw anything a mile over the Potomac, but it could have been possible he threw something across the Rappahannock River.  We've shown he didn't throw a silver dollar across it because they didn't exist when he was a youngster. If he skipped any kind of coin it could have been a Spanish Milled Dollar, which begged the question why would he throw money away, and if it was a piece of slate why would anyone write anything about that?.  We've also shown that the river near his home on the Rappahannock is 250 wide so it's possible a large healthy boy could have easily skipped a piece of slate across the river like a frisbee. I've never "skipped" a coin across water (I'm too cheap), but I suppose it is possible.

Since no one, to my knowledge, has tried to skip a piece of slate or thrown a piece of metal the size, shape and weight as a 1794 silver dollar across the Rappahannock, River lately, I can't say the myth is confirmed but it certainly seems plausible.

 

There's Still Hope

George Washington was a competitive individual. Lucky for us otherwise we'd still be having high tea and singing God Save the Queen. In addition to being competitive, we know young George was physically capable of throwing, tossing. skipping or otherwise propelling a coin shaped object across a 250 foot river, however, it's doubtful he was successful in his first attempt. This of course means that some of his "attempts" may still be at the bottom of the Rappahannock.  

 

Warren's Death Was Worth the Death of 500 British Solders

 Was Peter Sunderland's comrade on Bunker Hill a hero or a coward?

British General Thomas Gage, "the death of Joseph Warren was worth the death of 500 men.

                       Joseph Warren                                                         The Proof
               1741 1775

As I was doing my research for my blog about local hero Peter Sunderland and his part in the battle of Bunker Hill on June 17, 1775, I came across the name, Dr. Joseph Warren, a local patriot who fought along side Sunderland. Turns out, not only was Dr. Warren a patriot, he was a "super patriot," and martyr, and the events surrounding his death created a controversy that lasted more than 200 years. So who was Dr. Joseph Warren, and why is he such an important figure in our American history and most importantly was Warren a hero or a coward. First a little about the man and why the British hated him so much.

Dr. Joseph Warren was one of Boston’s foremost physicians. After enrolling in Harvard at the age of 14. By the age of 22, he was the youngest doctor in Boston. His patients included Samuel Adams, John Hancock and two future presidents—John Adams and John Quincy Adams. His reputation as one of Boston’s finest physicians also gave him access to prominent Loyalists, including the children of royal governor Thomas Hutchinson and British General Thomas Gage.

Warren and his youngest brother, John, were likely members of the Spunkers, a group of Harvard medical students who raided graveyards, jails and poorhouses in search of bodies they could use for training purposes.

Reflecting his stature as a revolutionary leader and his reputation as a powerful orator, Warren was asked in 1775 to deliver for the second time the annual oration commemorating the Boston Massacre. An immense crowd that spilled into the aisles gathered inside Old South Meeting House on March 6, 1775. The doctor, who performed Cato in his Harvard dormitory room, showed his theatrical flair by arriving dressed in a flowing white Roman toga, a symbol of democracy. Dozens, if not hundreds, of British soldiers and officers watched menacingly, and one even held up bullets in his palm as a warning to Warren. The doctor, however, was not intimidated and delivered a rousing address.

Warren served as grand master of the St. Andrew’s Lodge of Freemasons and presided over meetings at its headquarters inside the Green Dragon Tavern. The lodge included numerous Sons of Liberty such as Revere. Daniel Webster would call the Green Dragon Tavern “the headquarters of the Revolution."

Warren dispatched Paul Revere on his famous midnight ride. On April 18, 1775, Warren learned through Boston’s revolutionary underground that British troops were preparing to cross the Charles River and march to Lexington, presumably to arrest John Hancock and Samuel Adams, and to Concord to seize munitions. To maximize the chances of a warning reaching the countryside, Warren decided to send one messenger by land and one by sea. Around 9 p.m. the doctor dispatched William Dawes on the riskier mission to ride through the checkpoint guarded by British sentries and take the longer land route. An hour later, he sent Revere on his way across the Charles River and into the surrounding countryside.

 A charismatic leader who served in the military, Warren was poised to play a prominent role on the battlefields of the American Revolution and in the political life of the new United States.  Loyalist Peter Oliver surmised in 1782 that if Warren had lived, George Washington would have been “an obscurity

Carnage Hill

On the night of the 16th of June 1775, the British crossed he neck of the bay and entrenched themselves on Breeds Hill. When the morning (June 17) dawned there was a great sir on board the British fleet that lay in the harbor. Thousands of spectators who climbed to the house-tops in Boston to watch the progress of events, could be seen from the redoubt.

About one o'clock the British made an assault on the redoubt and were repulsed with the loss of a great number of men.

 

Some 2,200 British forces under the command of Major General William Howe (1729-1814) and Brigadier General Robert Pigot (1720-96) landed on the Charlestown Peninsula then marched to Breeds Hill.



Maj. Gen. William Howe
46 years old





Brig. Gen. Robert Pigot
55 years old

The Assault

 The British soldiers not only had to march up the hill in a fixed column and stay in position, they had to do it for the length of 5 football fields up a hill that rose to the height of a 6 story building all the while taking a blistering fire from the Americans on the hill top. It was literally like shooting fish in a barrel.

As the British advanced in columns against the Americans, Prescott, in an effort to conserve the Americans’ limited supply of ammunition, reportedly told his men, “Don’t fire until you see the whites of their eyes!”


When the Redcoats were within several dozen yards, the Americans let loose with a lethal barrage of musket fire, throwing the British into retreat.



After re-forming their lines, the British attacked again, with much the same result. Prescott’s men were now low on ammunition, though, and when the Redcoats went up the hill for a third time, the Americans, now out of ammunition, clubbed their guns and hurled stones at the assailants.




After firing the last charge, Sunderland picked up three guns in succession to find that each had been discharged. Upon picking up a fourth gun he was attacked by a British soldier who struck at him with a saber. A quick turn of the gun caused the edge of the instrument to strike directly in his mouth, cutting through each cheek. Again the British soldier struck, and again the blow was partially parried, causing the weapon to cut through the wall of the abdomen. At the state in the encounter, Sunderland succeeded in discharging his gun into the face of his assailant and thrust his bayonet through his body. He then withdrew in haste from the entrenchment believing that he was the last man in the retreat. He succeeded in reaching a swamp where he found a man accompanied by his wife and an infant. Here Sunderland dressed his wounds as best he could, binding a large handkerchief about his abdomen. He then crossed the swamp; the water in a number of places being so deep that they were compelled to swim. At such places the infant was tossed from one to the other. On reaching the opposite margin of the swamp, Mr. Sunderland concealed himself in a thicket for three days breaking twigs trying to get attention of passer byes with whom he felt safe.. On the third day he found a relief party and conveyed to a place of safety.

Casualties
Closest account shows the British began their fight with 2,200 men. Their casualty rate was 226 killed 828 wounded. The patriots began the battle with 1,200 men (700 on the hill and 500 in reserve). Their casualty rate was 115 killed and 305 wounded for a total for the day (both sides) 341 killed and 1133 wounded. Even though the patriots on Bunker (Breeds) Hill were outnumbered 2 to 1, they had the advantage of being on the high ground, plus the British came over in waves from Boston and not from a single full on frontal assault. The patriots used up all their ammunition and all they could do was swing their rifles like clubs and throw rocks as the British over ran their position. One Royal Marine wrote:

"Nothing could be more than so shocking than the carnage that followed the storming of this work. We tumbled over the dead to get at the living, with soldiers stabbing some and dashing out the brains of others.  "The significance of the battle showed the world that a group of rag tag militia men could give the professionally trained soldiers of the British army a pretty darn good fight. When they ran out of ammunition, they didn't run, they turned their rifles into clubs and fought till the end. We may have lost the battle, but in the end we gained far more than we lost, the resolve to fight.

British comments about Warren's death.

Some of the comments below were made by British officials writing about Warren's death. Saying he was "hated" is probably and understatement.




Gen. Thomas Gage
1719 -1837 British General Thomas Gage wrote: "the death of Joseph Warren was worth the death of 500 men."
Gage was heard to say that one of his regrets regarding the battle was that the servant carrying his bottle of favorite whiskey was killed and the whiskey was lost. So much for sensitivity.

Captain Walter Laurie wrote that he "stuffed the scoundrel with another rebel into one hole, and there he and his seditious principles may remain."


Wow, why was Laurie so angry?

Two months earlier, he (Laurie) had commanded a group of British troops at Lexington and Concord. After the skirmish at the Old North bridge, he and the rest of the British stared back to Boston 15 miles away. Patriots hiding in the tree along the way fired on the retreating army all the way back to Boston. It was like shooting fish in a barrel. By the time they reached Monotomy (Arlington, Ma.), the British were physically tired and having left so many dead along the way, in their rage they began killing everything in site. They rushed into a local tavern and brutally murdered 2 civilians, literally bashing their brains out with their rifle butts. My ancestor, Thomas Dodge, was one of several militiamen trapped in the Jacob Russel house and was wounded as British entered the building.




The "Shooting Galley" road from Concord to Boston



Sign reads: "Site of the bloodiest fighting between the Minutemen and the Redcoats on the first day of the American Revolution April 19, 1775."

We know Dr. Warren was in Monotomy for a meeting that that day so its possible Captain Laurie either saw him or heard he was in town and perhaps even assumed that Warren took part in the ambushing of his (Laurie’s) soldiers. So when Laurie saw the body on the battlefield, "stuffing the scoundrel with another rebel into one hole" was his way of getting even.





Benjamin Hichborn
1738-1817


Benjamin Hichborn wrote: "One Drew now a Lieutenant of the Scorpion or Viper, I am uncertain which, and Bruce a private belonging to the Preston, landed on Bunkers Hill, soon after the battle of the 17th of June. Drew, after walking for some time over the bodies of the dead, with great fortitude, went up to one of our wounded Men, and very deliberately shot him through the Head. Bruce advanced further over the Hill, and meeting with a forlorn wretch, begging "Mercy for Gods Sake!" he advanced and with a “damn ye, you Bugger you! are you not dead yet?” instantly demolished him. . In a day or two after, Drew went upon the Hill again opened the dirt that was thrown over Doctr: Warren, spit in his Face jump’d on his Stomach and at last cut off his Head and committed every act of violence upon his Body.
I had this Story from two Gentlemen belonging to the Preston Regiment who were eye witnesses of the facts. In justice to the officers in general I must add, that they despised Drew for his Conduct, the other was below their notice.

The phrase "demolished him" speaks volumes of the brutality.


Was Dr. Warren retreating or standing his ground ?


After the Battle of Bunker Hill, the British buried Warren in a shallow grave along with a farmer also felled in the firefight. Nearly 10 months later, after the British evacuated Boston, the patriots exhumed Warren’s body from the battlefield. Revere, who dabbled in dentistry, was able to identify Warren because he recognized a false tooth that he had crafted for the doctor. The Sons of Liberty leader was then reburied at the Granary Burying Ground with full Masonic honors, but his body remained on the move in the nineteenth century. Warren’s family moved him to a vault in a Boston cathedral in 1824 before transporting him to his current resting ground inside Forest Hills Cemetery in 1855.
200 Year Old Mystery Solved



Warren was a well known figure around Boston so no doubt many of the British officers had seen him around town at one time or another and the fact he (Warren) was wearing a white smock on the day of the battle made him an easy target.

Eye witness accounts claim that when the British overran the embankment, the slave of one of the officers pulled out a small caliber pistol and shot Warren point blank in the face. The witness say that one of the Americans immediately killed the slave. In addition to carrying a small sidearm for an officer, slaves often carried a canister of alcohol. Of the incident its said that Gage was most upset because the slave that killed Warren was carrying a bottle of his fine whiskey and it was lost. So is it true Warren stood his ground? For the answer watch this 5 min. video by clicking on the link.


Click on the link below to watch a 5 min. video that answers the questions; Was Warren running away or standing his ground? It even tells us who they believe killed him.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdggCICMnkU

CONCLUSION

By the end of the battle, there were estimated to be 1,154 British casualties and 441 American casualties. As a result, the Battle of Bunker Hill is often reported as an American victory, when, in fact, it was a defeat. The battle was hard fought on both sides, and heavy casualties resulted, including nearly 400 total deaths from both sides, 828 wounded British soldiers and 305 wounded American militiamen.


My reason for including all the graphic details about the battle was to help readers develop a better understanding, a greater appreciation and to help them create for themselves a visual perception of what Peter Sunderland, Joseph Warren and the other minutemen faced on Bunker Hill that day. It wasn’t like a Disney movie or a Hollywood production, it was a scene of brutal, ghastly and horrible fighting where men, young and old forgot for the moment about patriotism and honor, and struggled, sometimes hand to hand, just to stay alive. To sugar coat the details or write about it as "just another battle" does a great dis-service to the men on both sides who fought and died there that day.

Warren's comrade in arms, Peter Sunderland was in many ways lucky. Despite his horrible wounds, he was able to escape into a nearby swamp. Had he tried to surrender, more than likely he, like many others would have been murdered on the spot. For that reason alone, his descendants can be thankful to their ancestor, because had he stayed on the hill they wouldn't be around today to read this blog. How's that for irony?