The Centennial period produced, also, various magazine articles, the most important of which are one by H. E. Scudder in the Atlantic Monthly, July, 1875; one by Launce Poyntz in the Galaxy, July, 1875; one by Dr. Samuel Osgood in Harper's Monthly, July, 1875; and those which later constituted a brochure, One Hundred Years Ago, by Edward E. Hale.
[567] As in the accounts of Ward and Knowlton in the N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg., July, 1851, and Jan., 1861; the Journals of Samuel Shaw (Boston, 1847); The Female Review, being a life of Deborah Sampson, by Herman Mann (1797; also edited by J. A. Vinton in 1866); and C. W. Clarence's Biographical Sketch of the late Ralph Farnham, of Acton, Me., now in the one hundred and fifth year of his age, and the sole survivor of the glorious battle of Bunker Hill (Boston, 1860). There are other accounts of this man in the Historical Magazine, iv. 3, 12; and in the N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg., xvi. 183.
There is a portrait of Artemas Ward, with a memoir, in A. H. Ward's Genealogy of the Ward family, and another in the same writer's Hist. of Shrewsbury (Boston, 1847). Cf. also N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg., v. 271; and Mem. Hist. Boston, iii.
[568] Accounts of the present obelisk on Bunker Hill can be found in G. W. Warren's Hist. of the Bunker Hill Monument Association; Wheildon's Life of Solomon Willard; Ellis's Battle of Bunker Hill (1843); Frothingham's Siege; and in other places noted in Hunnewell's Bibliog. of Charlestown, p. 28.
[569] Winthrop's Speeches, 1878-1886, p. 253, and separately. The statue was erected by anonymous subscribers, acting through the Rev. Dr. Ellis.
[570] For anniversary memorials, see Hunnewell's Bibliog., 25, 26.
[571] See extracts and fac-simile from Waller's orderly-book in Mem. Hist. Boston, iii. 83, 84.
[572] The earliest English accounts which we have are two dated June 18, a letter of John Randon, a soldier (Lamb's Journal of Occurrences, 33; Dawson, 358), and that of an officer of rank from Boston (Force, iv.; Dawson, 357; Ellis, 115). Written on June 19, is a short letter from Brig.-Gen. Jones, colonel of the fifty-second regiment (Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., xiv. 91; Frothingham's Battle-Field, 45). Henry Hulton, commissioner of his majesty's customs at Boston, wrote a long letter on June 20 (Emmons's Sketches of Bunker Hill Battle, 123; Dawson, 359; Ellis, 123). On the 22d, Adjutant Waller, of the Royal Marines, wrote a letter which is given in S. A. Drake's Bunker Hill, the Story told in Letters from the Battlefield. (Cf. P. H. Nicholas's Historical Record of the Royal Marine Forces, London, 1845, i. 84-89.) On the 23d we have the account of an officer on one of the king's ships (Force, iv.; Dawson, 360; Ellis, 117), and a brief letter by Dr. Grant, one of the surgeons (Dawson, 361; Ellis, 114). On the 24th, a merchant in Boston writes to his brother in Scotland (Ellis, 119).
The 25th of June must have been a letter day in Boston, in anticipation of the sailing of the despatch ship "Cerberus", for we have several letters of that date. Gage wrote then his official despatch to Lord Dartmouth, which reached London July 25, but a vessel had arrived at Waterford a week earlier (July 18), bringing rumors of the fight (P. O. Hutchinson's Governor Hutchinson, 489). The news was at once published from Whitehall (Almon's Remembrancer, 1775, p. 132; Analectic Mag., 1818, p. 260; Force, iv.; Dawson, 361, and his Battles, 65; Ellis, 94; Frothingham's Siege, 385; Moore's Ballad History, 86, etc.). Gage wrote at the same time a private letter to Dartmouth. "The number", he says, "of killed and wounded is greater than we could afford to lose, and some extraordinary good officers have been lost. The trials we have had show that the rebels are not the despicable rabble too many have supposed them to be" (London Gazette, July 25; Force, iv.; Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., xiv. 353; Dawson, 363). Burgoyne wrote the same day (June 25) a "letter to a noble lord" (Stanley). He saw the action from Copp's Hill. We have the letter in two forms; the first in Burgoyne's letter-book, where he calls it the "substance" of the letter, and in this form it is printed by E. D. de Fonblanque in his Political and Military Episodes derived from the life and correspondence of the Right Hon. John Burgoyne, General, Statesman, Dramatist (London, 1876), p. 153. In this draft he says that the fight "establishes the ascendency of the king's troops, though opposed by more than treble numbers, assisted by every circumstance that nature and art could supply to make a situation strong." This and other paragraphs, as well as other forms of expression, do not appear in the letter as historians print it, as by Mahon (vol. vi.), for instance, who, as Fonblanque supposes, had access to the letter actually received by Stanley. In this latter form the letter appeared in London in the public prints (Sept.), and in a broadside with a plan of the battle. It came back to Boston in this shape, and was printed in Hall's New England Chronicle (Cambridge, Nov. 24), and in Edes's Boston Gazette (Watertown), and is now frequently met with (Analectic Mag., 1815, p. 264; Ellis, p. 106, with comments from a London opposition journal; N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg., xi. 125; Dawson, p. 363, and his Battles, p. 66; and in the Centennial publications of David Pulsifer and Samuel A. Drake). Fonblanque adds something more of Burgoyne's view in letters (pp. 147, 193) which he wrote to Lord Rochfort, without date, and to Lord George Germain (Aug. 20). In the former he said: "The defence was well conceived and obstinately maintained; the retreat was no flight; it was even covered with bravery and military skill."