Contextualizing Bunker Hill
How Adams' Ancestry Shaped His Historical Account
The 2,300 British troops dispatched to Breed's Hill were among the best in the world, and they faced what seemed to be an easy assignment against a ragtag group of untrained militiamen. This encounter with seemingly invincible soldiers marked a significant event at the outset of the American Revolutionary War. In his 1896 article "The Battle of Bunker Hill," Charles Francis Adams offers a unique perspective shaped by his lineage—he was the great-grandson of former President John Quincy Adams and the son of an influential ambassador. Although Adams did not witness the battle, his heritage provided him with insights into the pivotal roles his ancestors played in American history. In the article, he presents this defining event with a blend of intriguing and informative details, successfully navigating the historical narrative despite the distinct writing styles of his time, which might cause minor misunderstandings about the article's focus.
Adams begins the article with an engaging introductory paragraph that piques the reader's interest. Instead of directly addressing the battle, he starts with two seemingly unconnected events—a conversation involving Frederick the Great and a series of funerals—and subsequently connects these to the situation at Bunker Hill in the next paragraph. This narrative technique effectively captures the reader’s attention and illustrates how unrelated events can later influence historical understanding. The thesis is located in the third paragraph, but it appears somewhat vague regarding the article's ultimate purpose. Given Adams' reputation as a distinguished historian, he likely adopts a less formal style to engage his audience. While this approach makes the subject accessible, the unclear thesis slightly undermines the article’s overall purpose. Nevertheless, the introductory elements and the title clarify the main topic.
The remaining paragraphs of the article possess a narrative quality more akin to a novel than a textbook, which serves to heighten reader interest. Adams intersperses several relevant anecdotes and stories throughout, providing a refreshing change of pace. While addressing significant events, Adams focuses on explaining why these events occurred and their subsequent impacts, rather than overwhelming the reader with an excess of dates and names. Although he mentions key dates and figures, his primary aim is to enhance understanding of the events' root causes and effects.
This narrative approach helps readers grasp the overarching historical narrative but may not be the best source for precise facts and statistics. A notable issue in the text is Adams' tendency to digress into comparisons with other battles, which sometimes lack clarity. For example, he draws parallels between the Battle of Bunker Hill and various Civil War battles, which can confuse readers, particularly those not well-versed in the specifics of these conflicts. The intertwining of different battles within the narrative might lead to uncertainty about whether he is discussing Bunker Hill or another battle entirely.
The document is well-structured and follows a chronological order, ensuring that the reader can easily follow the events. Each paragraph generally serves a specific purpose, such as describing the environment, underlying causes, or the actual events. However, some paragraphs appear disjointed or are poorly constructed, which may lead to confusion. Despite this, Adams maintains a clear path in delineating the major subjects of the battle and provides an accurate analysis of the underlying themes. The poorly written paragraphs occasionally disrupt the flow, causing readers to revisit sections to fully grasp the connections and transitions between topics.
While the grammar throughout the document is excellent, a noticeable issue is the overuse of commas, likely attributable to the writing conventions of the late 19th century. For example, consider this sentence: "The affair of the 17th of June, 1775, on the peninsula of Charlestown, opposite Boston, affords, indeed, one of the most singular examples on record of what might be called the 'balancing of blunders,' between opposing sides, and of the accidental inuring of all those blunders to the advantage of one side." This sentence exemplifies the frequent and perhaps excessive use of commas that can slow down the reader's pace and complicate the text's readability.
In one sentence alone, there are eight commas, significantly slowing down the reader's pace. This excessive use of commas is common throughout the document, and at times, Adams' attempt to adopt a superior writing style detracts from his intended message. Many sentences could be simplified or split into multiple sentences without losing their original meaning, though this issue may partly stem from the writing conventions of the late 19th century.
Adams cites eight sources to support his document, with five detailed in a large footnote addressing the scarcity of resources available for researching this battle (404). He notes the presence of only "passing references," necessitating reliance on primary and secondary sources (404). While the majority of his sources are credible secondary references, providing him with a comprehensive understanding of the events, Adams occasionally fails to cite sources consistently. This omission raises questions about the origins of certain details, such as specific statistics or dates. Although Adams was a well-regarded historian of his era, the lack of consistent source citation detracts from the paper's reliability.
Historians often pursue diverse objectives, and Adams' influential background uniquely positions him to offer a captivating perspective. His work, "The Battle of Bunker Hill," effectively revisits this pivotal event, focusing on its major aspects without an overwhelming emphasis on statistics and dates. Despite the considerable time gap of over 100 years, Adams manages to craft an engaging and informative article that fulfills its goals, even amidst occasional ambiguities in the writing.