Nathaniel Philbrick is heralded as an expert on the American Revolution. He’s a New York Times bestseller, interviewed by the Smithsonian Magazine, the keynote speaker at major events of prestigious historical societies. and will be interviewed in the upcoming Ken Burn’s documentary. Yet, Nathaniel Philbrick created libelous fictitious narrative about Dr. Joseph Warren in his book Bunker Hill.
Given the present national attention to the Jeffrey Epstein pedophile ring, it’s time to address Philbrick’s debasement of a man long dead and unable to defend himself. It’s time to address Philbrick’s attitude that a thirteen-year-old be considered a casual sexual partner, or “mistress” as he callously put it in an interview with Smithsonian Magazine – and this respected magazine didn’t hesitate to print such a misapplied statement.
Though historians are aware, none have challenged Philbrick. Why is that? In presenting this twisted narrative against Warren with no supporting documentation, one has to ask how often he inserts other fictions into his acclaimed works of “nonfiction?” And, unless the reader is well-versed in the subject being presented, they would not know. “Alternate truth” in history. Philbrick ignored the precept that the responsibility of all historians is to introduce their subject through a prescribed conduct of accountability to historical fact and circumstances. Neglect to do so in Philbrick’s account of Joseph Warren has put at issue the character of this man and made light of the fact that children who are sexually violated are victims of a crime – not the willing, eager participates of a man’s sexual perversion.
So, my questions to those reading this are:
To historians, will you remain silent when a fictional, sexual narrative, with no basis in fact maligns the reputation of a man who by all contemporary accounts was praised for his moral character?
To students of history, will you accept in a work of nonfiction the purposed distortion of history to fit an author’s agenda?
To those who are members of the Craft, will you not come to the defense of Warren, whose former position as MW Grand Master of North America should inspire in you a desire to insist his reputation be restored?
To those preparing for the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution, and seeking accurate information, should you not demand that publications presented as nonfiction do not insert alternate truth to satisfy the author’s fantasy?
To those who have been sexually assaulted, will you remain silent as this New York Times bestselling author makes light of such a heinous, violent crime against a child?
QUESTIONS ASKED NATHANIEL PHILBRICK ON JULY 20, 2025, by JANET UHLAR, author of Liberty’s Martyr: The Story of Dr. Joseph Warren
Why? Your depiction of Dr. Joseph Warren as a pedophile rapist has always been disturbing. Now, with a major national focus on Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s perversion and victimization of so many teen girls your defamation of Warren is amplified. Granted, Sam Forman started it — and you ran with it.
Why? There was not ample documentation to support the libel. You did not even offer historical fact or circumstances surrounding the matter. It seemed you had a fixed narrative.
Why? Did you hope it would sell more books? Entice a wider audience? Offer more opportunities for interviews such as the one you did with Tony Horwitz (May 2013) for the Smithsonian Magazine when you referred to a child who had just turned thirteen as being a “mistress?” Or did you simply like the idea of a child being victimized by a hero?
Why? Certainly, as a historian you know that in 18th century Massachusetts a child required legal guardianship until the age of fourteen. And, certainly as a historian you know (or should have known) that the Sally Edwards you omnisciently determined to be the “fair incognita pregnans” had just turned thirteen-years-old when she was impregnated.
Why? Did you even give serious consideration to promoting the protagonist of your New York Times bestselling book as a pedophile rapist? Was there no discipline in your research? Certainly, it was not because his good friend, Dr. Nathaniel Ames entered this obstetrical case in his medical ledger under the name of Dr. Joseph Warren? Surely, if Ames was helping to cover up a secret for his good friend he would not have put his very name in the ledger! And, if Warren was trying to hide a secret he would not have waited until she was seven months pregnant to send her off! (Just a bit of commonsense.) We can go into all the bits of commonsense in studying Warren, Ames, and Sally Edwards’ plight with historical fact and the reality of the circumstances of Boston in 1774/75. Or I suppose if one’s a New York Times bestseller, we can ignore the facts and create a fictional account of carnal criminality.
Why? Certainly, as a historian you know there were 4,000 British soldiers in Boston. Certainly, as a historian you know there were only 16,000 townspeople. That’s a ratio of one soldier to every four citizens. Certainly, as a historian you know that the just turned thirteen- year-old Sally Edwards you determined as the “mistress” had recently lost both her parents and was the second oldest of five children. She lived in a town on the brink of war. She was, in all human likelihood – as your own child would have been in such a situation – confused, emotional, frightened, depressed, and vulnerable. Rather than even consider she may have been raped by a soldier or sailor or drunken neighbor, you purport that it was the prominent, trusted physician who all contemporary accounts state was an exemplary man of high moral character. He was a physician who had many obstetrical patients as did his friend Ames. They would have been aware that at thirteen this child was a high-risk pregnancy. (But rather than see these physicians as helping this child, you determined to present them as one knowingly putting her at risk of danger by raping her, and the other as simply covering for the criminality of his friend.)
Why? Certainly, as a historian, you know that Warren and Paul Revere were the closest of friends. This Sally Edwards you selected – the daughter of Dolin and Rebecca Edwards – would go on to marry Paul Revere’s eldest son on July 25, 1782. So, your fictional narrative takes on more perversion. Revere’s best friend raped the child that would become the mother of his grandchildren.
Why? There were other Sally Edwardses in and around Boston in 1775. You did not present any of them as the Sally Edwards that Warren and Ames were caring for. With absolutely nothing to back your narrative, you were seemingly fixated on the girl who would marry Revere’s son.
Why? Though Paul Revere Jr. was only about fifteen at the time you never offered your readers the possibility that he fathered Sally’s child. And, could it be possible that young Paul’s father asked his good friend Warren to arrange care for Sally, giving Warren the money to pay for this care.
Why? The reality is, Mr. Philbrick, that a pedophile rapist is not a hero – he is a heinous criminal. Yet you seemingly turned your back on proper research and chose instead a particular fiction to present in a supposed nonfictional account of your protagonist – even still believing, it seems, that a man who would rape a child could still be viewed as a hero! In doing so you have lost your credibility as a historian. In doing so the final question is asked:
Why? Do you, Nathaniel Philbrick, consider a child of thirteen to be a mistress and condone a hero being a pedophile rapist?
IF NATHANIEL PHILBRICK (or perhaps his attorney?) RESPONDS TO THESE QUESTIONS, I WILL LET YOU KNOW
