A Letter from William Prescott to John Adams

On By Phill GreenwaltIn 1775, Battlefields & Historic Places, Battles, Continental Leadership, Emerging Revolutionary War, Memory, Militia (Patriot) Leadership, Personalities, Revolutionary War1 Comment

Approximately two months after waging the defense of Breed’s Hill, on the Charlestown peninsula, against the British, Colonel William Prescott put quill to paper to write to John Adams. In this communique, he discussed the action at Breed’s Hill, known as the Battle of Bunker Hill, fought on June 17, 1775, to his fellow Massachusetts native. Take note that he even wrote his account about the orders he received and which hill that missive directed him to. Since the waft of smoke has drifted from the battle on that June day, veterans, officers, and historians have debated why Prescott and company chose Breed’s Hill instead of Bunker Hill. This letter is just another wrinkle in that timeless debate.

Camp at Cambridge August 25.1775

Sir

I have recd. a Line from my Brother which informs me
of your desire of a particular Account of the Action at
Charlestown, it is not in my Power at present to give so
minute an Account as I should choose being ordered to decamp
and march to another Station.

On the 16 June in the Evening I recd. Orders to march to Breeds
Hill in Charlestown with a party of about one thousand
Men consisting of 3 hundred of my own Regiment, Coll.
Bridge & Lieut Breckett with a Detachment of theirs, and
two hundred Connecticut Forces commanded by Capt.
Nolten, We arrived at the Spot the Lines were drawn by
the Enginier and we began the Intrenchmant about 12, o Clock
and plying the Work with all possible Expodition till Just
before sun rising, when the Enemy began a very heavy
Canonading and Bombardment, in the Interin [Interim] the
Enginier forsook me, having thrown up a small Redout,
found it necessary to draw a Line about 20 Rods in length
from the Fort Northerly, under a very Warm Fire from
the Enemys Artilary, About this Time the above Field
Officers being indisposed could render me but Little Service,
and the most of the Men under their Command deserted the
Party. The Enemy continueing an incessant Fire with their Artilary.
about 2, o Clock in the afternoon on the seventeenth the Enemy
began to land a northeasterly Point from the Fort, and I orderd
the Train with 2 field Pieces to go and oppose them and the
Connecticut Forces to support them but the Train marched
a different Course & I believe those sent to their support
followd, I suppose to Bunkers Hill, another party of
the Enemy landed and fired the Town, There was a party of
Hampshire in conjunction with some other Forces Lined
a Fence at the distance of three score Rods back of the Fort
partly to the North, about an Hour after the Enemy landed
they began to march to the Attack in three Columns,
I commanded my Lieut Coll. Robinson & Majr. Woods
Each with a detachment to flank the Enemy, who I
have reason to think behaved with prudence and Courage.

I was now left with perhaps 150 Men in the Fort, the Enemy
advanced and fired very hotly on the Fort and meating
with a Warm Reception there was a very smart firing on
both sides. after a considerable Time finding our
Amunition was almost spent I commanded a sessation
till the Enemy advanced within 30 yards when we gave
them such a hot fire, that the [y] were obliged to retire
nearly 150 yards before they could Rally and come again
to the Attack. Our Amunition being nea [r ]ly exaustid could
keep up only a scattering Fire. The Enemy being numerous
surrounded our little Fort began to mount our Lines and
enter the Fort with their Bayonets, we was obliged to
retreat through them while they kept up as hot a fire
as it was possible for them to make we having very few
Bayonets could make no resistance, we kept the fort
about one hour and twenty Minutes after the Attack with
small Arms, This is nearly the State of Facts tho’ imperfect &
too general which if any ways satisfactory to you will
afford pleasure to your most obedient humble Servt.

William Prescott
To the honble John Adams Esqr.

Image of original letter from Prescott to Adams, courtesy of Massachusetts Historical Society

Rev War Revelry: The Battle of Great Bridge with Patrick Hannum

On By Rob OrrisonIn 1775, African-American, America 250, Battlefields & Historic Places, Battles, Militia (Loyalist) Leadership, Militia (Patriot) Leadership, Rev War RevelryLeave a comment

Join us this Sunday as we welcome historian Patrick H. Hannum, as we discuss the events leading up to and including the Battle of Great Bridge, fought on December 9, 1775. Patrick will also share his research of the men who were there at the battle and the long lasting impacts his small battle had on Virginia in the American Revolution. With the 250th anniversary of the Battle of Great Bridge upon us, this is a great time to catch up on the events in Virginia during the fall of 1775.

Patrick H. (Pat) Hannum served for 45 years the Department of Defense, 29 years as a U.S. Marine (Assault Amphibious Vehicle Officer), including battalion command, and 16 years as a civilian professor at the Joint Forces Staff College, National Defense University, where he specialized in operational-level warfare and Phase II Joint Professional Military Education. He continues to study and promote the history and relevance of the American Revolution through membership in the Norfolk Chapter of the Sons of the American Revolution and the Great Bridge Battlefield & Waterways History Foundation, including staff rides, battlefield tours and other educational venues.

This Rev War Revelry will be recorded and placed on our Facebook page this Sunday at 7pm and subsequently on our You Tube and Spotify Channels. So after you fill up on turkey and football, tune in to catch a little history!

Nathaniel Greene: Washington’s Strategist or Pioneering Operational Artist

On By erwpostIn 1775, Continental Leadership, Emerging Revolutionary War, Revolutionary War, Southern TheaterLeave a comment

Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes guest historian Ben Powers

Introduction

   Nathaniel Greene is renowned for leading the Southern Department during the American Revolution, achieving significant strategic results against Lords Cornwallis and Rawdon, even though he lost several battles. Historian Theodore Thayer called him “the strategist of the American Revolution.”[1] Greene carefully planned his army’s movements to maximize maneuverability, chose to fight in situations with roughly equal numbers, strengthened support from auxiliary and irregular forces, and put the British in increasingly worse positions. His main goal was to keep his army active—success meant staying in the field and avoiding severe losses. This led Cornwallis to make decisions that resulted in his defeat at Yorktown, Virginia, in October 1781. Greene’s careful coordination of military actions to achieve strategic results hinted at what would later be called “operational art,” a concept later connected to leaders like Napoleon Bonaparte and Soviet theorists.[2] Greene’s skills showed the main elements of operational art, making him more than a strategist—he was an early example of an operational artist.

Some Definitions

  The “operational level of war” is a twentieth-century concept describing military activities between the tactical level (winning battles) and the strategic level (achieving national aims through armed force and other instruments of power). In current doctrine, tactics involve sequencing forces in time and space to accomplish missions like seizing terrain. Strategy is how national leaders and senior commanders use available means to achieve defined ends. The operational level connects these two, as theater commanders sequence campaigns to achieve strategic objectives, a concept relevant for analyzing Greene’s approach.

Continue reading “Nathaniel Greene: Washington’s Strategist or Pioneering Operational Artist” →

Coming Soon: A Dear-Bought Victory: The Battle of Bunker Hill and the Siege of Boston 1775-1776

On By erwpostIn 1775, 1776, Battlefields & Historic Places, Battles, Emerging Revolutionary War, Emerging Revolutionary War Series, Memory, Revolutionary War, Uncategorized1 Comment

We’re excited to share one of the 2026 new releases in the Emerging Revolutionary War Series. Published by Savas Beatie, a sneak peek, including the cover, is below.

About the Book:

“I wish we could sell them another hill at the same price we did Bunkers Hill,” Nathanael Greene wrote to the governor of Rhode Island after the battle of June 17, 1775.

Actually fought on Breed’s Hill outside Boston, Massachusetts, the battle of Bunker Hill proved a pyrrhic victory for British forces. Confident in their ability to overwhelm the New England militia that opposed them, long lines of neatly uniformed British infantry and marines swept uphill toward a quickly built earthen redoubt defended by a motely collection of farmers, shopkeepers, and tradesmen.

“Don’t fire until you see the whites of their eyes!” the colonials urged each other—or did they?

By the end of the fight, the British gained the summit and Colonial forces scattered. One of the patriot leaders, Dr. Joseph Warren, lay dead—one of the first martyrs of the American Revolution. But for the British, the scene was far, far worse: it would be the greatest number of casualties they would ever suffer in any battle of the American Revolution. As British General Henry Clinton commented afterward, “A few more such victories would have surely put an end to British dominion in America.”

The siege of Boston would continue, but the sobering lesson of Bunker Hill changed British strategy—as did the arrival soon thereafter of a new commander-in-chief of Continental forces: General George Washington.

In A Dear-Bought Victory, historians Daniel T. Davis and Phillip S. Greenwalt separate the facts from the myths as they take readers to the slopes of Breed’s Hill and along the Boston siege lines as they explore a battle that continues to hold a place in popular memory unlike few others.

About the Authors:

Daniel T. Davis is the Senior Education Manager at the American Battlefield Trust. He is a graduate of Longwood University with a bachelor’s degree in public history. Dan has worked as a Ranger/Historian at Appomattox Court House National Historical Park and Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park. He is the author or co-author of numerous books on the American Civil War. This is his first co-authored book in the Emerging Revolutionary War Series. Dan is a native of Fredericksburg, Virginia.

Phillip S. Greenwalt is the co-founder of Emerging Revolutionary War and a full-time contributor to Emerging Civil War. He is a graduate of Wheeling Jesuit University with a bachelor’s degree in history along with graduate degrees in American History and International Studies and Leadership from George Mason University and Arizona State University, respectively. He is the author of co-author of seven books on the American Revolutionary and Civil Wars. Phill has worked for the National Park Service for the last 17 years at numerous natural and cultural sites. He is a native of Baltimore, Maryland.

Liberty’s Words Ringing Hollow: Prince Whipple’s 1779 Petition for Freedom in New Hampshire

On By erwguestIn Emerging Revolutionary War, Memory, Politics, Revolutionary War, Social HistoryLeave a comment

Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes guest historian Dr Lawrence Howard

Many people have not been taught that slavery was practiced in early America’s northern colonies, later states. Though fewer people were enslaved in the north than in the south, where the plantation economy was highly reliant on enslaved labor, people were also held in bondage in the north. Also not often taught is the contribution such enslaved persons made to the success of America’s Founding, though recent scholarship seeks to amend this. This article explores the 1779 Petition to the New Hampshire Government, written by Prince Whipple – born in Africa in 1750 and purchased by William Whipple of Portsmouth, New Hampshire at a young age. In this petition, twenty black men requested emancipation from slavery. The African American petitioners echoed some of the same political ideas that the delegates to the Second Continental Congress had staked their own lives on just three years earlier in the Declaration of Independence, announcing American political independence from Britain.

Moffatt-Ladd House, Portsmouth, NH, Author’s photo.

Continue reading “Liberty’s Words Ringing Hollow: Prince Whipple’s 1779 Petition for Freedom in New Hampshire” →

ERW Recaps Ken Burns’ “American Revolution” -Nightly at 10pm!

On By Rob OrrisonIn 1776, America 250, Memory, Preservation, Rev War RevelryLeave a comment

There is a lot of anticipation on the upcoming Ken Burns’ documentary on the American Revolution. The series will run on PBS starting this Sunday at 8pm and running through Friday. Emerging Revolutionary War invites you to join us each night at 10pm on our Facebook page as we recap each episode with our Emerging Revolutionary War historians. These will be live streams, so join in on the discussion via the chat.

We have seen various previews of the documentary and we are excited about the potential this series might have on generating more public interest in the American Revolution and the 250th anniversary events over the next six years.

Be sure to join us and we hope to see you at 10pm on Sunday night!

Rev War Revelry: The Disagreeable Situation: American Prisoner Administration in the Revolutionary War with Dr. Brynne Long

On By erwpostIn Uncategorized1 Comment

Join us this Sunday night at 7pm on our Facebook page as we welcome Dr. Susan Brynne Long. While partisan warfare in the American south has gained popular and scholarly attention in recent years, little work has been done on the prisoners of the backcountry theater. Scholarship on British and Loyalist captives has emphasized the vigilante justice to which they were often subject, but less attention has been paid to the role of military tradition and lived experiences with prisoners in their administration. Dr. Long is filling that gap, with her research emphasizing the role of these factors in the progression of the backcountry war, resulting in an administrative structure of prisoner administration that prioritized humane treatment, even though southern revolutionaries failed to enforce compliance with this standard.

Dr. Susan Brynne Long is an instructor of history at the University of Nebraska – Omaha, whose research and teaching focus on early America and military history. Her current research is about the American administration of British allied prisoners of war in the Revolution.

This Rev War Revelry will be pre-recorded and posted on our Facebook page at 7pm on November 16. 2025. Then it will be posted to our You Tube and Spotify channels.

The End of the Great War

On By Bert DunkerlyIn Uncategorized4 Comments

World War I ended in a Burger King parking lot in New Jersey. Really! Trust me. While visiting Revolutionary War sites in New Jersey, I had to chance to visit something I’d known about but not yet seen. I hope readers are ok this slight deviation from Revolutionary history.

World War I raged from 1914-1918, with the United States entering in 1917. The Allied nations consisted of the U.S., U.K., France, Italy, Russia, Serbia, and Japan. The Central Powers included Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire. By the fall of 1918 the other Central Powers had dropped out, leaving only Germany still fighting.

On November 11, 1918, Germany agreed to an armistice with the Allies, halting the fighting. Negotiations began on a final peace treaty, resulting in the Treaty of Versailles, signed in 1919. But the U.S. did not sign it. Wilson, a Democrat, faced Republican opposition in Congress. Large portions of the American population also opposed the settlement. There was also opposition to Wilson’s proposed League of Nations, an organization similar to today’s United Nations.

So while the rest of the Allies settled with Germany in 1919, for two more years the U.S. and Germany were still at war, with the Armistice in place. President Wilson’s successor, Warren G. Harding, also opposed the Treaty of Versailles, so suggested that Congress make a separate peace treaty that did not include American membership in the League of Nations. Senator Philander Knox introduced such a resolution and it passed the Senate in April, 1921.

Representative Stephen G. Porter proposed a similar measure in the House. Both houses of Congress modified the two proposals, creating the Knox–Porter joint resolution and passing it on July 1. At the time President Hardig was visiting New Jersey Senator Joseph S. Frelinghuysen and were playing golf at the Raritan Valley Country Club.

The golf course was across the street was the Frelinghuysen estate. Word arrived that a courier was on his way from the Raritan train station, having traveled from Washington with the signing copy of the resolution. Harding walked back to the estate, signed the document, and then returned to complete his round of golf. The Frelinghuysen estate was destroyed by fire in the 1950s, and the site is now occupied by a shopping center and parking lot, with a small plaque marking the place where the home once stood.

Marker and hedges at the estate site.
The old entrance to the Estate where Harding signed the treaty. Author Photo.

Senator Joseph S. Frelinghuysen was the descendant of Frederick Frelinghuysen, who served as a Major General of militia during the Revolution. He was also in the Continental Congress and the Senate.

Historic marker.
The historic marker explains the events here of 1921. Author Photo.

So while we think of World War I as ending on November 11, 1918, the actual peace treaty with Germany didn’t occur until three years later. Article 1 of the treaty required Germany to grant to the U.S. government all rights and privileges that were enjoyed by the other Allies that had ratified the Versailles treaty two years earlier. And today there’s a Burger King on the site in Somerville, New Jersey.

Congress Creates the Marine Corps, November 10, 1775

On By Eric SternerIn 1775, America 250, Armies, Continental Congress, Memory, Navy, UncategorizedLeave a comment
The Commission of Captain Samuel Nicholas, the first American Marine. (USMC)

Today marks the 250th birthday of the Marine Corps. November 10, 1775 was a milestone in the creation of American naval power, but the birthday story is a little more complicated.

The Continental Congress resolved to create a navy under its auspices on October 13, 1775, but much work remained to build American naval power to a point where it might serve a strategic purpose.  Individual colonies had already begun creating naval forces and George Washington had leased ships under the army’s authority.  Thus, the resolution served as more of milestone on a long road, rather than a fresh beginning.  

On October 30, the Continental Congress considered the reports of its naval committee and confirmed recommendations for two vessels of 14 and 10 guns.  Moreover, it resolved to add two more ships to its burgeoning navy, one of 20 guns and one carrying up to 36 guns.  It also added four new members to the naval committee, bringing it to a total of seven.  Stephen Hopkins (RI), Joseph Hewes (NC), Richard Henry Lee (VA), and John Adams (MA) joined John Langdon (NH), Silas Deane (CT), and Christopher Gadsden (SC).[1]  On November 2, Congress gave the naval committee authority to call on the treasury for up to $100,000 to acquire a navy and delegated to the committee the authority to recruit officers and seamen, offering them prize money in the amount of one-half the value of all warships and one-third the value of transports made prizes.[2]  It also took up a petition from a Committee of Safety in Passamaquoddy, Nova Scotia to join the association represented by the Continental Congress.  Naturally, Congress appointed a committee—Silas Deane, John Jay, Stephen Hopkins, John Langdon, and John Adams to consider the matter.  The naval expansion and Passamaquoddy petition sparked a new round of thinking about American naval power.

Pages: 1 2

“Void of Common Sense” George Washington and Guy Fawkes Day, 1775

On By Rob OrrisonIn 1775, America 2501 Comment

In November 1775, as the American colonies were deep in rebellion against Britain, General George Washington faced not only the British army but also the task of shaping a new American identity. One revealing moment came on November 5, 1775, when Washington, then commander-in-chief of the Continental Army, issued an order forbidding his soldiers from celebrating Guy Fawkes Day, also known as Pope’s Day in colonial New England. This event—often overlooked in histories of the Revolution—offers insight into Washington’s leadership, his moral sensibilities, and his vision for the cause of American independence.

Guy Fawkes Night at Windsor Castle, 1775

Guy Fawkes Day had long been an English and colonial holiday commemorating the failed Gunpowder Plot of 1605, when Catholic conspirator Guy Fawkes attempted to blow up Parliament and assassinate King James I. In Protestant England and its colonies, November 5 became a day of noisy anti-Catholic demonstrations, bonfires, and the burning of effigies of the Pope and Fawkes. In Boston and other colonial towns, rival street gangs—often from the North and South Ends—would parade effigies, fight, and engage in destructive celebrations. It was, in short, a day of raucous Protestant triumphalism and sectarian hatred.

By 1775, however, the American Revolution had changed the stakes. The Continental Army, drawn from thirteen diverse colonies, was fighting not merely as British subjects in revolt but as Americans united against tyranny. Washington recognized that this unity could not rest on religious prejudice. Moreover, the colonies were seeking crucial support from Catholic France and from Catholic Canadians in Quebec. Anti-Catholic displays risked alienating potential allies. Thus, on November 5, 1775, Washington issued a General Order that firmly condemned the planned festivities.

John Fitzgerald, an Irish Catholic immigrated to Alexandria in 1773. He became good friends with Washington and like many other Catholics, provided great service to Washington. For a time he served as an aide-de-camp to Washington.

Washington’s order read, in part, that “at such a juncture, and in such circumstances, to be insulting their religion is so monstrous, as not to be suffered or excused.” He called on his troops to remember that “we are contending for the rights of mankind” and that the cause required dignity and respect for all faiths. The general’s tone combined moral rebuke with strategic foresight. By discouraging Pope’s Day, he sought to replace narrow sectarian loyalties with a broader, inclusive patriotism.

This moment also reflects Washington’s character and leadership style. He understood the importance of discipline and order in an army composed largely of volunteers. The elimination of destructive, drunken celebrations helped reinforce his insistence on professionalism. But more importantly, Washington saw the American cause as grounded in universal principles of liberty and justice—principles incompatible with the kind of bigotry Pope’s Day embodied.

In retrospect, Washington’s handling of Guy Fawkes Day in 1775 stands as an early statement of religious tolerance in American political life. His decision to forbid anti-Catholic celebrations prefigured later American commitments to freedom of conscience and the separation of church and state. What might have seemed a minor disciplinary order was, in fact, a symbolic act of leadership: it transformed an old English custom of division into an American lesson in unity. Through it, Washington began to shape not just an army, but a nation.