tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post41138021943046663..comments2024-03-14T13:25:20.613-05:00Comments on Boston 1775: Dr. Joseph Warren: “very desirous to go on ye Ground”Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-20043010487543579232009-11-21T01:08:33.017-05:002009-11-21T01:08:33.017-05:00It’s impossible to prove or disprove the counterfa...It’s impossible to prove or disprove the counterfactual of what would have happened if Dr. Joseph Warren hadn’t been on the field. However, it would be good to see more evidence that his presence inspired the bulk of the provincial soldiers. <br /><br />For example, in the early 1800s historians gathered many personal accounts from Bunker Hill veterans about who was in command. How many described hearing about Dr. Warren’s arrival or looking to him for inspiration? Henry Dearborn evidently didn’t even realize Warren was on the battlefield until after he saw the man’s body.<br /><br />I therefore doubt that Dr. Warren’s presence was decisive to the entire battle, though he surely inspired the men in the redoubt. There’s no evidence he tried to make himself known to the provincial troops elsewhere, and he refused any position of leadership, where he would have been more visible. I think he truly did seek to be an ordinary volunteer in the ranks, not a symbol of support from the Provincial Congress.<br /><br />In weighing Dr. Warren’s choice, we also have to factor in what his loss meant to his colleagues. They were united before the battle in saying the Provincial Congress needed his leadership. Letters after the battle treated his death as a great loss, the worst detail of a terrible day. It took a while before Americans began to see Bunker Hill as something to be proud of.J. L. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405157000473731801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-51297327108166279112009-11-20T23:19:24.169-05:002009-11-20T23:19:24.169-05:00I take issue with the final analysis that Dr. Warr...I take issue with the final analysis that Dr. Warren's "desire for personal military glory led him to risk his life when he had important political responsibilities." Certainly, he had political responsibilities. And, certainly his decision was very risky. However, Frothingham opines and I agree that Dr. Warren's decision was correct and calculated. The newly appointed General Washington when coming from Philadelphia to take charge of the farmers, blacksmiths, tradesmen, etc. was met by a courier. He reported on the Battle of Bunker/Breeds Hill to the new general. The first question Washington asked was, did they run. I submit that had Joseph Warren remained with General Ward in the safety of a home as opposed to the battlefield, the husbands and fathers assigned to confront the mightest army of its age, would not have held their ground. Warren's presence was more than important, it was essential. The men hiding behind the earthen walls they had built the previous night gained enormous confidence knowing the chairman of the Committee of Safety, President of the Mass. Provincial Congress and the personal friend of Sam Adams was with them. His very presence made them know it was alright for them to be their. It was okay to confront the King's troops behind their "homemade" fort because Warren was there. Without Dr. Warren's presence on the battle field, I strongly believe the answer to General Washington's question would have been different. And, arguably, if the outcome of Bunker Hill was different (i.e., the men ran instead of standing their ground) the outcome of the Revolution may have been different.Jeff McKennanoreply@blogger.com