By Louise Lacy
INTRODUCTION
This dissertation seeks to explore women’s experience of the American Revolutionary War. Linda K. Kerber describes the American Revolutionary War as ‘a strongly politicizing experience, but the newly created republic made little room for them as political beings.’[1] The belief at the time supported the idea that women did not have the mental capacity to escape from their domestic lives and support the war effort. Yet, the American Revolutionary War allowed women to actively free themselves from their daily responsibilities as wives and mothers to assist the war effort.[2] That is not to say that the help that women provided was accepted by society within the colonies. The demands placed on women challenged the attitudes and cultural perspectives upon which women were seen as the inferior sex.[3]
LITERATURE
Within the historiography, debates of women’s role in the American Revolutionary War have been largely examined. Still, there has been little scope for evaluating how people responded to these roles within the colonies. Primary investigations into women during the Revolutionary War can be found in Linda K. Kerber’s Women of the Republic Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America and focuses on female involvement during the shaping of the new nation. Coupled with Liberty’s Daughters: The Revolutionary Experience of American Women by Mary Beth Norton shows that both have provided valuable examinations of women’s sphere in the American colonies. Women of the Republic has a traditional approach with discussions on political theory and the failure of women to receive suffrage in post-revolutionary America. Yet, despite this, Kerber successfully demonstrated how important women were to the Revolutionary War effort. Norton, however, focuses her discussions on the domestic sphere and women’s roles within the family home. Both historians reveal that women did play important roles within the Revolutionary War. The dilemmas that women faced can be seen in the discussion surrounding writer Mary Otis Warren who, according to Rosemarie Zagarri’s A Woman’s Dilemma: Mercy Otis Women and the American Revolution, was reliant on her husband, father, and friend John Adams to approve her writing rather than form her ideas based upon her gender. In Carol Berkin’s Revolutionary Mothers, the topics discussed involve civic action from the women in the colonies and the role of women as camp followers, demonstrating the complexities involved in the female narratives of the time. Such complexities can be found in Marilyn S. Blackwell’s article ‘The Republican Vision of Mary Palmer Tyler’, in which Blackwell brings forth new arguments surrounding Republican Motherhood. Similarly, Barbara Clark Smith argues in her book The Freedoms We Lost that the American Revolution brought about rights for some colonists but took away the old-style politics of the colonial period. However, the book’s title is misleading, and Smith makes generalisations in debating that new laws and the disputes between the morals of a community and self- reliance waned upon the end of the Revolution. This idea goes against the historiography that proves that the debates continued long after the American Revolutionary War. The secondary sources provided here have been instrumental in supporting the argument that the American Revolutionary War was not revolutionary enough for women who had been active in supporting the war effort.
METHODOLOGY
To determine the impact of the American Revolutionary War on women within the colonies, this dissertation applies a micro-historical perspective to investigate the histories of women who lived through the Revolutionary War. This approach offers an independent interpretation and stops the research from being overly reliant on broad assumptions about the experience of colonial woman. The micro-historical method provides a more individual standpoint, which is essential to understanding the close association of the experience the women had. The evidence provided in exploring the colonial woman’s private experience is obtained from letters, poetry, and broadside articles. The sources were chosen to show the women’s abilities to assist the war effort and offer the connection between how the women dealt with the ongoing war in the colonies. However, such sources are limited in their approach and can be seen as overly emotional and unreliable. Yet, it was essential to use such sources to show women’s experience and how they told their stories.
STRUCTURE
To investigate women’s roles within the American Revolutionary War and the attitudes towards the female sphere, this dissertation will use a three-chapter structure to scrutinise each area of research in-depth. The first chapter will investigate female writers Phillis Wheatley and Mercy Otis Warren, who were present during the Revolutionary War. The chapter will focus on their opinions during the war effort and the influence of individuals they befriended. Chapter two explores the lack of political theory available to women living in the colonies, the ideological belief in Republican Motherhood and how despite women being allowed to teach their sons, it was only authorised so boys could be raised as leaders. Finally, the third chapter explores women’s mobilisation to fundraise for the soldiers, women who would become camp followers joining the army on the battlefields and how this mobilisation was received by society at the time. Within this chapter women who concealed their gender to fight alongside the men will also be discussed. As a collective, the three chapters explain that the American Revolutionary War did not bring about liberties for the women who supported the war effort.
CHAPTER ONE – FEMALE WRITERS
Life within the thirteen colonies for women brought about change throughout the Revolutionary War. Many men confined women to the domestic sphere and believed that they could not mobilize themselves to support the war effort.[4] The dissociation between male and female spheres was influenced by the idea that men and women perform contrasting roles in society due to their genetics and biological composition.[5] This idea of this biological determinism began during the Age of Enlightenment when philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau stated that because females were different from males, they should focus their efforts on reproduction and domestic duties.[6] One such female who will be discussed here is Phillis Wheatley, who arrived in the Colonies from Africa to live as a slave. Undeterred by her situation Wheatley rose above the constraints of slavery to become the first black women to have poetry published within the colonies.[7] Another writer who will be examined in this chapter is Mercy Otis Warren, who wrote anti-British plays in the colonies.[8] Warren’s was also influenced by other males around her, including her husband and father as well as John Adams, the second President of the United States. In this chapter, debate will be given to the theory that despite Warren’s ability to write and debate with leading political figures, Warren was still limited by the female sphere and what was expected of her as a woman living in the colonies.
It is difficult to pinpoint when and where Wheatley was born, but the records suggest that her date of birth can be identified as approximately 1753 in Africa’s Senegal area. Her new owners were Susanna and John Wheatley, the latter being employed within the tailoring business. P. Wheatley’s role within the Wheatley’s home was as a domestic servant, but what was quite unusual for Wheatley was that the Wheatley’s educated her.[9] According to Norton, for many black people at the time, this was quite remarkable as black children were illiterate for the most part.[10] According to Mr Wheatley within sixteen months Wheatley ’attained the English Language to such a Degree as to read any, the most difficult Part of the Sacred Writings, to the great astonishment of all who heard her’.[11] Because white people taught Wheatley while she was enslaved, Smith believes that this caused Wheatley to feel undeserving of the advantages she had over other black people.[12] In one respect, Wheatley was fortunate that her owners were so willing to educate her. But at the same time, the Wheatley’s were able to shape P. Wheatley into someone who thought the same way as they did.
Wheatley’s writing had been criticised in the past by historians because she refused to condemn slavery. However, in 1776 a collection of her poetry was published where Wheatley wrote that Africans were similar to Europeans, so were God’s children and should be held in higher esteem than they were.[13] In one of Wheatley’s last poems’ ‘On the Death of General Wooster,’ written in July 1778, Wheatley wrote in the second person as Wooster to discuss the issues surrounding slavery and the hypocrisy of those who fought for American liberty. Wheatley believed that independence in the new nation would not be achievable for everyone. She wrote, ‘But how presumptuous shall we hope to find Divine acceptance with th’ Almighty mind…And hold in bondage Africa’s blameless race? Be victory ours and generous freedom theirs.’[14] Wheatley never wrote about her experience with slavery or as a black woman living in the colonies. As Smith points out, Wheatley may have seen herself as having a white mind because of her ethnicity and the education given to her by her owners.[15]
Portrait of Phillis Wheatley. Date 1773.
However, according to Sondra O Neale, there is evidence to suggest that Wheatley’s rejection of the discussion surrounding her own experience of slavey is because she believed that slavery was predestined.[16] While Professor Carla L. Peterson explores the theory that Wheatley was voiceless on her own experiences surrounding slavery to safeguard herself.[17] By speaking out about her own experiences surrounding slavery, Wheatley may have been silenced by those around her because she was a minority voice. However, there is evidence that Wheatley did involve herself in Revolutionary dialogue. In 1776 she wrote and sent George Washington a congratulatory poem that resulted in Wheatley visiting the General’s home. In the poem, she made it obvious he had her support stating within the poem that ‘Proceed, great chief, with virtue on thy side, Thy ev’ry action let the goddess guide. A crown, a mansion, and a throne that shine, With gold unfading. Washington! Be thine’.[18] From this, we can see that Wheatley supported the revolution’s principles despite writing in 1778 the poem ‘On the Death of General Wooster’ and the hypocrisy of those who fought in the Revolutionary War. Wheatley was now complicit in that hypocrisy herself.[19] It was impossible for a black woman who had freed herself from her owners to speak out against slavery. Wheatley was much more subtle in her condemnation of slavery by including anti-slavery rhetoric in her work. However, she was still shackled by her owner’s opinions, and because of her upbringing, she would not utilise her voice in condemning slavery to the fullest.
There was the opportunity for Wheatley to become involved with debating the emancipation of slaves in the colonies. Massachusetts, for instance, allowed some slaves their liberty if they enlisted in their regiment. Although not everyone was this fortunate and some slaves, through their despair, joined the British cause who promised freedom upon victory. John Murray, Earl of Dunmore, and royalist governor of Virginia offered mandatory freedom for any black man who joined his ‘Ethiopian Regiment’, yet this did not come to fruition. While slaves are suffering and dying in the colonies, Wheatley remained silent and not persuaded to speak on their behalf.[20] Brawley claims that her absence to debate race awareness is because she had no alternative in shaping her writing on those that she was acquainted with, so she had no point of reference to discuss matters surrounding race.[21] Yet Professor Vincent Carretta argues that while Wheatley may not attack slavery, she does not avoid the topic. In a letter to her friend Samuel Occom, she states that ‘God had implanted a Principle, which we call Love of Freedom; it is impatient of Oppression, and pants for Deliverance…’ Carretta focuses on Wheatley references to Christianity and the use of religion to show the double standards of Christians who had enslaved black people.[22] Although Wheatley did not ridicule slavery, she was more subtle than that in voicing her concerns. She was shackled by her race and her educational upbringing by her white slave owners, so she could not give the voiceless a voice.
Poet, playwright, and pamphleteer Mercy Otis Warren relied heavily on the male sphere to validate her writing. For instance, she befriended John Adams, who said that he ‘knew of no poetic genius like Warren.[23] Warren wrote anti-British plays that would be read aloud and published in newspapers, although she did so anonymously.[24] If she put her name to her work, it would become her thoughts and opinions, and this was frowned upon in the male sphere of political thinking.[25] Hutcheson believes that Adams was using Warren’s writing to spread propaganda in the colonies to further the patriot cause. From the standpoint of those she was writing for, it is unsurprising that Warren’s radical approach brought about a revolutionary portrayal that encouraged people to side with the patriots. A satire written by Warren entitled ‘The Group’ and published in 1778 by both the Boston Gazette and Massachusetts Spy, also troubled Warren.[26] The play concentrated on the corruption and the selfish behaviours of some Tories.[27] The British government published propaganda via speeches, newspapers, and pamphlets that, according to the patriots, all gave support to the royal governor Thomas Hutchinson. To Warren, it was her role to discredit these narratives through her work.[28] Because of the subject matter, Warren was worried about publication and requested Adams’s opinions regarding ridiculing someone openly and how this may not be seen as good Christian practice.[29] In a letter dated 30 January 1775, Warren asked Adams, ‘If she indulges her pen to paint in the darkest shades, even those whose Vice and Venality have rendered contemptible’.[30] Adam’s reply on 15 March 1775 points to Warren use of parody and wrote back to Warren by stating that ‘I know of none, ancient or modern which have reached the tender, the pathetic, the keen and severe, and at the same time, the Soft, the Sweet, the amiable and the pure in greater Perfection’.[31] Adams realised that Warren could use her voice to reach out to the female sphere to support the war effort. But her letter writing to Adams made it possible for Warren to gain a voice in the revolutionary period. Warren’s ability to publish would not be available to her without Adams’ influence because Adams was dictating the friendship and instructing Warren on her writing to further the patriot cause. The desire to seek validation from the male sphere made her appear weak-minded and unsure of her work unless males approved it.
Portrait of Mercy Otis Warren. Date 1768.
Zagarri asserts that Warren was also heavily influenced by her father, James Otis Sr. and her husband, James Warren, who urged her to publish her poems. If her husband or father were not supportive of her political writing, Warren would be going against men’s authority within her family. However, her concerns and the reasons she looked for men’s approval around her was because she was fearful that she may be entering into the male sphere and had no right to do so. Despite her writing ability, Warren still saw her primary role in life as a wife and mother, so her fears came from the idea that society during the Revolutionary War expected her to fulfil those roles within the woman’s sphere.[32] In a letter to Mrs Adams, Warren wrote that she did believe that women were ‘confined to the narrow circle of domestic cares’. Warren was envious of those women who remained unmarried, thinking that they were ‘free from those constant interruptions that necessarily occupy the mind of the wife, the mother and the mistress’. She was critical of certain women who ‘swim off the surface of pleasure’. But she also felt sadness for those women who were ‘wholly immersed’ in domesticity and ‘had no higher ideas than those which confine her to the narrow circle of domestic attention’[33] This shows that Warren did want to strike a balance between her domestic world and the world of politics. Warren confessed that her reasoning for entering the political realm was done to stop her boredom and were simply spur-of-the-moment musings. She described her writing as being ‘written as the amusement of solitude, at a period when every active member of society was engaged, either in the field or the cabinet, to resist the strong hand of foreign domination’.[34] Warren knew her limitations as a writer believing that women belonged, as Rousseau claimed, to the private domain of home life and domesticity. Because as a woman, Warren could, of course, discuss politics within the privacy of her home environment, but if a woman were to write publicly about political issues, she would be seen as entering the male sphere, and that was something that was frowned upon in the colonies. Yet, men did not want women to enter the political realm despite her husband affirming that Warren could write politically, and this was her ‘masculine genius’.[35]
Before the Revolutionary War had begun, women were criticized for their intellectual weaknesses, Berkin in her book Revolutionary Mothers writes that the war had allowed women to think logically and make moral decisions.[36] Zagarri describes Warren as a woman contributing to the political realm but cannot be seen as a feminist.[37] However, Warren did contravene the usual role of women by writing about the politic situation. Although, this was only achievable because the men around her allowed her to do so. Nancy Rubin Stuart praises Warren for writing her opinions on the Revolutionary War when politically it was difficult for a woman to be heard.[38] Through her writing, Edmund M. Hayes believes that Warren helped the people of Massachusetts understand the dangers that the British held regarding their rights and freedoms. She informed the public of the threat posed by Hutchinson in such a way that appealed to their intelligence. By doing so, she helped organise a larger audience of resistance to the British’s oppression felt in the colonies.[39] Despite her misgivings of wondering if she should have a voice within the male sphere of the political world, she strengthened the post-war debate that women could become political actors in debating politics publicly proving that philosophers such as Rousseau were wrong in their assumptions that women belonged solely to the female sphere of reproduction and domesticity.
To conclude, the life of Wheatley was quite unusual, given her status as a slave. The education given to her by the Wheatley’s allowed her owners to influence Wheatley thinking. From this education, we can understand why Wheatley did not write about her experiences of slavery. There was also the issue of Wheatley having a unique position as a black free slave. If she were to speak out about slavery, then her discussion would be lost within the many pro-slavery voices within the male sphere who relied on slavery for their businesses. Warren too was another writer who was influenced by those around her. Writing anonymously gave her the ability to have a voice without explaining her thoughts as a woman. During the Revolutionary War and their correspondence, her friendship with Adams shows that Warren sought validation for her writing from a man making Warren appear unsure or weak in her approach. The likes of Adams and the males around her, such as Warren’s husband and brother, were happy for Warren to contribute to the patriot cause’s efforts through her writing, but that is where her involvement should end. Warren, too, understood that society would primarily see her as a wife and mother, yet she was torn in her role of wanting to write and be free, but she also knew that she was restricted by the women’s sphere and what was expected of her. Yet Warren’s work is useful to the debates surrounding women as political actors after the American Revolutionary War, even if she could not write freely during her lifetime. Both Wheatley and Warren contributed positively to the history of the forming of the new nation in America. Yet, as shown in this chapter, both women were unable to write freely and were shackled by their ethnicity and femininity by men and the class structures that dominated their lives.
CHAPTER TWO – POLITICAL THEORY AND REPUBLICAN MOTHERHOOD
Within the American colonies, there was a lack of political theory for women regarding the role that females could play in the political realm.[40] With the Revolutionary War, ideas were coming to the fore that some women were becoming vocal about what role they should play in Revolutionary America.[41] In order to explain and understand how women were confined to their gender in the American colonies this chapter will discuss women such as Abigail Adams, who did not want suffrage for women but did want women not to be forgotten in the new constitution’s laws. Mrs Adams wanted women to gain some liberties.[42] Despite the debates surrounding women at least obtaining some legal standing, women were still constrained by the male sphere. The colonists were looking to political theorist John Locke for guidance on women’s rights in the political realm. However, Locke’s writing did not go far enough in liberating women.[43] Surrounding Lockean theory was the notion of Republican Motherhood based on the justification of educating women because they may one day have sons.[44] Support for Republican Motherhood can be seen from the Scottish philosophers in understanding that women played a vital role in passing on their family values to their sons.[45] Yet, despite this newfound role for women, they were still hindered by the domestic sphere.
Within American Political theory, man’s rights were based on autonomy and independence; for males, this brought about options such as being involved in building the new nation and debating the issues surrounding the Revolutionary War. For women, any entitlement that they had stemmed from their usefulness within the domestic sphere.[46] However, women were finding it increasingly difficult to remain quiet on the subject of politics.[47] Quaker Ann Emlen addressed this concern in her journal On Politicks by asking, ‘How shall I impose a silence upon myself when the subject is so very interesting, so much engrossing Conversation – and what every Member of the Community is more or less concerned in?’ Some women seemed to lack confidence to enter the political realm. Elizabeth Feilde wrote in 1776 that politics is ‘a subject for which I have not either Talents or Inclination to enter upon’.[48] Yet as time progressed, women could enter political debates as men slowly began to accept female discussions within the private domain. This change can be seen in Samuel Adams’ letter to his wife, Betsy, that included a political narrative. In another letter, Adams claimed that ‘it had not been usual for me to write to you of War or Politick’. However, by 1781 his opinions on women had changed again by stating, ‘I see no reason why a Man may not communicate his political opinions to his wife if he pleases’.[49] Such a change in opinion may have happened because women read literature on the Revolutionary War and informed their husbands or male relatives away from home what was happening politically in the wider world.[50] However, women engaging privately is different from women debating politics within the public sphere.
During the Revolutionary War discussions began into the notion that equality could also be given to women. Evidence of this can be found in private letters written by Abigail Adams, who was the wife of the second President of the United States, John Adams. Mrs Adams explored the definition of citizenship in the female sphere and took exception to women being prohibited from entering the political realm. Yet despite their private correspondence, women did not create a forum for discussing their rights and did nothing to alter their circumstances in entering politics.[51] Mrs Adams maintained that women were best suited to conveying their thoughts on politics through private letters instead of public discussions.[52] In a letter to Adams dated March 31, 1776, she asked her husband to ‘Remember the Ladies’ as new legislation was established for the United States of America. Mrs Adams wrote to her husband: ‘in the new code of laws…I desire that you would Remember the Ladies and be more generous and favourable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands. Remember, all Men would be tyrants if they could’.[53] Mrs Adams was not asking for Adams to grant women the right to vote but rather to offer women a change in the legislation that denied married women any legality. The rights of women at the time were extremely limited and put women alongside children with regards to what rights they had.[54] However, in Adams’ response on April 14, 1776 he was less than willing to include women in the legislation so they could gain some independence and responded that ‘we know better than to repeal our Masculine systems’. If any legislation included some liberty for women, then men would feel ‘completely subjected to the Despotism of the Petticoat’.[55] Married women were totally dependent upon their husbands with the law of coverture being place upon them. Coverture was based on the idea that a family was in a better position if the male head of the household was in control of all assets. Married women could no longer own property and any money that a woman earned belonged to her husband to do with as he wished.[56] Adams also described women as a ‘tribe, more numerous and powerful than all the rest.’[57] Adams continual support for the patriarchy is built on the idea of disorder. Using the word ‘tribe,’ it is evident that Adams sees women as inferior to men and inadequate, so they need to be gentle in their manner for society to progress sensibly. People within the colonies who debated if women should be allowed a political voice were also concerned that women should engage with members of their sex rather than a political forum of equal standing for both men and women to debate.[58]
Portrait of Abagail Adams. Date 1766.
Mrs Adams would rather see women debate through reasoning and discussion than taking part in the writing of the constitution. To Mrs Adams, women should care about the nation that the colonists were building and did not want women’s suffrage to be part of the debate.[59] However, in response to Adams’ rejection of women having at least some rights Mrs Adams wrote ‘If particular care and attention is not paid to the Ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation’.[60] Mrs Adams is clearly communicating the argument that women did not have a sufficient legal status and attempting to show what can happen if women are forgotten in the new code of laws.[61] Adams, though, is of the understanding that society would be weakened if women entered the political realm. The letters from Mrs Adams at the time were seen as revolutionary. Those who did not enter political debates were seen as either uninterested or traditional in their thinking.[62] Women were restricted by limitations within the colonies and realised that men would not see women as equals. It was becoming more acceptable for women to have private debates on politics in the domestic sphere. However, it was still difficult for females to obtain full legal representation and have options that would free them from patriarchal control.
As the colonists discussed the ‘rights of man’, a debate on the ‘rights of woman’ also took place. The discussion on women’s rights was not carried out formally and was not overly sympathetic towards women obtaining a political voice. For women to gain a political understanding, they sought their knowledge through magazines and journals aimed at women that gave an insight into the political realm that was usually occupied by men. The new ideas of women’s rights drew on Jock Locke’s social contract theory of natural rights and quality in a state of nature. Locke’s theory brought about the idea of men being identical in a state of nature who come together of one’s own free will to form a social contract. Under this consensus, they surrender some individual liberties to receive security from the government in life, liberty, and property. If the government breached this agreement, then those who consented to it could change the contract. The notion of accepting this agreement suggested that the recipients should carry out their obligations to receive government protection. However, to the colonists, this was interpreted as underestimating their duties and emphasising their self-directing freedoms and personal choices.[63] Yet society rejected the notion that a husband may be dictatorial, especially if a man saw his life within the private domain as honourable and legal. If women did feel dominated, then in most states, divorce was out of the question. Natural rights did not consider women’s permission or options that she may desire in her life.[64] Women in the colonies were still very much controlled by the patriarchal structures. Despite the Revolutionary war freeing the colonies from the British Empire, the liberties achieved here did not offer women emancipation. This is evident that the Revolutionary War was not revolutionary enough for the women who helped build the new nation.
Portrait of John Locke. Date 1697.
Republican Motherhood was based around the ideas of Lockean theory. Locke recommended that women should educate their sons to become the next generation of leaders.[65] Republican Motherhood is built on the idea that women need to be educated because they may become mothers to boys. Any future sons needed to be educated about Republican Ideology.[66] Educating your sons was seen as a women’s civic duty, yet it was only something that would impact ladies of leisure and those of white middle and upper class. This was because women of a higher social standing were seen as brighter than women who were living in poverty. Republican Motherhood did give some women access to education and an active role in the new republic.[67] However, Republican Motherhood restricted the female domain. By placing emphasis on the role of mothers in educating the next generation of male leaders pressure was placed on women to accept this responsibility fearing that it was too significant to refuse. By subjecting women to this narrow circle of educating their sons the opportunity was lost for women to develop their legal positioning and enter the political realm.[68] Yet Republican Motherhood combined political worth into the domestic sphere because it was the mother and not the wider society who became the guardian of the future generation’s virtue.[69] As well as Locke the new ideas about Revolutionary Motherhood came from Scottish philosophers such as Adam Smith, David Hume, and Henry Home with the idea that women in history and society played an important role. Such theories considered that the nuclear family was the main way to pass on traditions, family values and virtuousness. To the Scottish philosophers’ women were the inheritors of social advancement and that women helped to alleviate men’s ruthless preconceptions. Smith described women as ‘humanity’ being ‘the virtue of a woman, generosity of a man. The fair sex, who have commonly much more tenderness than ours, have seldom so much generosity.[70] What the Scottish philosophers discovered was that the obstacles between the public and private realms could be broken down through a civic role. Although this still excluded women from the political realm.[71] Republican Motherhood is also based on the notion that political teachings occur within the family environment, with such education influencing society over time. In this respect, Republican motherhood can be seen as a radical movement because it changed the female sphere and brought women into a role that would influence future leaders of the new American nation.[72] However women teaching their sons now brought about discussion in the advantages of female education even if Republican motherhood brought no political benefits to women.[73] Women becoming educated to teach their sons is not achieving liberation for women but constricts women to the domestic sphere and stops women from empowering themselves with education for their own needs.
The Scottish philosophers believed that if women were to be the confidant of men, they should be educated so females would be appealing to a man rather than educate themselves for their own needs. Hume, for example, wanted women to learn history but only to advance her demeanour for the pleasure of men. Yet, Home believed that not all women needed to be educated; those who lived under monarchies and spent time conversing with men at functions should be taught, which was done to show politeness in high society. However, Home believed that literate women were greater role models and suggested that if mothers were educated, they would no longer be uninformed and uncultured. To Home, there was no need to educate women in the colonies because men were too absorbed in politics to need women’s pleasure.[74] To women, they were designed to assist men. Women in the colonies were to submit to man, be restraint in their manner, and, above all, take care of their offspring. Throughout the colonies, women were told that their roles were to obey man.[75] Despite this slight shift in the role of a woman as a Republican Mother, women were still limited by the colonies’ patriarchal structures.[76]
In conclusion, women had no political representation in the colonies. However, because of the Revolutionary War that was taking place at the time, some women slowly began to find their voice, with some women participating in political dialogue within the private realm. During this time, debates began on women being treated equally as man. With letters from Abigail Adams, this chapter shows that she was quite restrictive in what she was asking for and only asked for women to gain legal representation if needed. Yet her husband was opposed to women having any equality that would allow women to have a political voice. Adams was also unwilling to allow women to have any legal rights in anyway. In understanding the rights of women, the colonists looked to Lockean theory. This concept did not go far enough in freeing women from marriage if she so wished and kept women tied to the patriarchy. What did emerge from Lockean theory was the idea of Republican Motherhood and the need to educate women because they may become mothers of sons one day. This role was seen as too important for women to refuse even though Republican Motherhood appeared restrictive. Scottish philosophers believed that Republican Motherhood would benefit future generations of men because family values are passed down from mothers. However, even though some women had a role to play in the American nation, it was still very restrictive and based around the patriarchy’s hierarchical structures.
CHAPTER THREE- WOMEN’S MOBILISATION
Despite women being excluded in the colonies from the political realm, some females wanted to be proactive to aid the Revolutionary War effort. This chapter will examine the Ladies of Philadelphia Association, who, with Esther de Berdt Reed at the helm, helped fundraise for the Continental Army soldiers. Despite such efforts, Reed angered George Washington, who did not support the women’s efforts, but he could not fully challenge the fundraising drive as that would be seen as unpatriotic. Yet, it was women within the domestic sphere of the roles they were accustomed to that helped the war effort. The Ladies of Philadelphia made clothing for the soldiers while other women became camp followers and looked after them. Other women took on the role of a man to fight in the Revolutionary War or became camp followers and followed the men to battle. Such positions were frowned upon by the male sphere, but as this chapter will discuss, despite these women facing obstacles, they could fulfil military roles just as well as male soldiers could too, and they did so to the best of their ability.
Esther de Berdt Reed was born in England but moved to the colonies after her marriage. Yet before she had set foot on American soil, she was opposed to the British rule in the colonies describing Members of Parliament George Grenville and Alexander Wedderburn as ‘such enemies to America’. Her support for America allowed her to be accepted as a patriot’s wife in the colonies.[77] By the autumn of 1780, many ladies in Philadelphia came together to raise money and then make clothing for soldiers.[78] Reed was promoted to the head of this association who, despite her being English, was seen as ‘the best patriot, the most zealous and active, and the most attacked the interests of her country’.[79] The Ladies of Philadelphia worked hard and surrendered their jewels and anything else they thought was worthwhile and, in doing so, raised $7,500 in a time when money was devalued.[80] The Ladies Association of Philadelphia’s fundraising plans were progressive and well organised, allowing women to enter the war effort on their terms.
Individual women had published their own opinions on what was happening in the colonies, but this did nothing to engage women into mass mobilisation. One such example was written by a female colonist called Clarissa, who wrote in the United States Magazine in 1779 describing her “Vision of the Paradise of Female Patriotism” and a “delicious garden” that belonged to women in the colonies. Clarissa suggested that women within the colonies walked with the heroines from histories, such as Deborah, Boadicea, and John of Arc. Clarissa preferred to discuss the women of the past.[81] Yet Clark Smith believes that the women in the colonies during the Revolutionary War were looking to past rebellions such as the boycotts of 1769 to mobilise themselves for political action. Such action would not usually be open to them within the realms of their domestic sphere but could be found within social and commercial areas such as the areas in which they lived and where they shopped.[82] This was because women were consumers, they bought food at the markets so they could easily boycott goods to make their point. This lack of mobilisation within the women’s sphere ended on June 10, 1780, when John Dunlap, an Irish printer who had printed the first copies of the Declaration of Independence, printed an anonymously authored broadside titled “The Sentiments of an American Woman” in Philadelphia. We now know that this writing can be attributed to Reed. Within the article, Reed argued that women of the colonies should ‘aspire to render themselves more really useful’.[83] The article aimed to justify women taking part in the war effort and recommended that women start collecting donations to commemorate the female heroines from the past. The “Sentiments of an American Woman” urged women to surrender any item that appeared too extravagant for the war effort.[84] The article suggests that women entering the political realm could also be active within the domestic sphere and carry out duties in both domains.[85] Reed wrote that women were ‘born for liberty, disdaining to bear the irons of a tyrannic Government’ and asserted that ‘if the weakness of our Constitution, if opinion and manners did not forbid us to march to glory by the same paths as the Men women would be found at least equal, and sometimes surpass them in our love for the public good’.[86] Reed understood that women could not be satisfied with not entering the Revolutionary cause. Still, she also appreciated that because of the social customs related to her gender, women could not merely ‘march to glory by the same paths as the Men’. Reed referred back to historical women who were “Born for Liberty”. Women such as the biblical Deborah and Joan of Arc who had disregarded “the weakness of their sex” and made great sacrifices to save their countries. In this sense, Reed believed women in the colonies could also rise in the same way.[87] With regards to Joan of Arc, Reed wrote that she had rid from France ‘the ancestors of these same British, whose odious yoke we have just shaken off, and whom it is necessary that we drive from the Continent’.[88] Ireland concludes that Reed saw men and women as equals and had the same responsibilities within the society. Women did not fade into the background during the Revolutionary War but changed their way of life to support the war effort. Women’s assertiveness came from the domestic and social domains, and they were able to enter the political realms individually.[89] From “Sentiments of an American Woman”, we can understand how women gained civic awareness because of the sensitive language. It was challenging for Reed to discuss women entering the war effort within the boundaries of feminine patriotism supported by republican thought.[90] What Reed had achieved was novel for the American woman; because of the war effort, women had no choice but to find their place in society to help the battle of independence.
Broadside of Sentiments of an American Woman. Date 1780.
Referring directly to the generosity of Reed and the ladies in Philadelphia ‘Sentiments of an American woman’ the soldiers had felt ‘neglected’ before the ‘mark of respect’ was shown by the women. However, George Washington was less enthusiastic about the women’s help in Philadelphia and preferred soldiers to receive clothing from the fundraising drive rather than money. Washington did not associate the women’s efforts as their attempt to enter the political realm describing the actions in a letter to Anne Francis as “the love of country…blessed with those softer domestic virtues.”[91] Not all women too were in favour of the fundraising efforts. One woman Anna Rawle, a Philadelphia loyalist, was against the idea describing the ladies as ‘extremely importunate that people were obliged to give them something to get rid of them…”[92] Because of Rawle’s politics as a Conservative we can understand her opinions may have been based upon political hostilities, but it does raise questions on how women in the Ladies Association acted. The fundraising efforts can be seen as women’s moral duty to the war effort, but it was the Philadelphia women’s devotion to the patriotic cause that enabled them to fundraise in such a way.[93] Washington’s criticisms did nothing to stop Reed and The Ladies of Philadelphia in their quest to fundraise for the soldiers, because he may have been opposed to their efforts but challenging these women would be seen as unpatriotic.
Reed also addressed the idea that some people may condemn the fundraising idea. Still, she declared in “Sentiments of an American Woman” that anyone protesting would not be a “good citizen” and that if soldiers needs were to be understood, then people would only “applaud our efforts for the relief of the armies which defend our lives, our possessions, our liberty.”[94] Despite some objection to the Ladies of Philadelphia, Reed was remembered for her patriotic efforts. Upon her death, the Pennsylvania Gazette published her tribute and praised her devotion to the revolutionary cause. The tribute stated that “Those disposed to lessen the reputation of female patriotism might have said that what our women have contributed, must, in the first instance, have come from the pockets of their husbands; but, where their labour is bestowed, the most delicate fingers being employed in the workmanship it must be acknowledged an effort of virtue, the praise of which must peculiarly belong to themselves.” So, despite entering the political realm by fundraising for the war effort, it was the domestic sphere of sewing that the Ladies of Philadelphia were praised for.[95] This suggests that woman could return to their domestic spheres once the Revolutionary War was over and that women were happy to do so. Yet, women’s rights in the new nation would come under scrutiny because of the actions of women during the Revolutionary War.
Women, too, played a significant but often unsung role when war was taking place. Women served as soldiers; some took on the role of their husbands when they were injured, while some simply followed their husbands to war as camp-followers.[96] All these women had a role to play in the Revolutionary War and completed their duties despite the male spheres attempts to exclude women from their efforts. Patriots were hesitant in allowing women to enter the Continental Army formally. Once the war was over, camp followers amounted to one woman per fifteen men, with women joining for various reasons, such as Martha Washington, looking for a sense of adventure and an escape from mundane life. Some women became camp followers because they had no means of supporting themselves while their husbands or fathers were at war. Women were able to stay with the army by becoming nurses for the injured troops, cooking for the military, and washing clothing and bedding for the soldiers.[97] Once again, the domestic work that women were so accustomed to became a valuable skill to have. Without the camp followers, the Continental Army would have struggled when conflict took place. But according to Berkin, the women in the camps were persevering with the situation they found themselves in. If anything, joining the Continental Army strengthened the idea that women were reliant on men within the hierarchy and those who were giving out orders were solely male.[98] To Washington, women placed demands on the armies already stretched food reserves. Women of the camps, according to Washington, were unruly and did not follow orders. They were a nuisance that the General could have done without.[99] Washington wanted his officers ‘to use every reasonable method…to get rid of all such as one not absolutely necessary’.[100] To Washington, women were only useful in stopping soldiers from deserting their posts. Washington begrudgingly realised that men needed their family members for a whole host of reasons, from companionship to nursing the soldiers when they were injured. According to Hutson, women who were seen as defiant in the camp had not been investigated because they were stationed in camp for the patriotic cause of freedom.[101] Blumenthal wrote in his book Women Camp Followers in the American Revolution that women who did follow the Continental Army were akin to Portia, the Goddess of Justice. He argued that ‘there is no trace of dissolute abandon among patriot camp followers, nor was there widespread drunkenness, for…the Americans were intoxicated only by the prospect of newfound freedom from rankling thrall’.[102] However, Blumenthal failed in his historiography in discovering such unruly women because, according to Berkin, there were ‘poorer camp followers, who seemed oblivious to every rule of feminine behaviour’. Such women drank to the point of drunkenness, used profanity, and became thieves for simple commodities such as food.[103] Female camp followers were simply behaving the same way as men, but their behaviour was frowned upon because they were women. However, women within the camp worked hard for minimal reward and did not liberate themselves or gain emancipation for their efforts.
Drawing of Margaret Corbin at the Battle of Monmouth. Date 1778.
Another type of woman emerged from the camps, which was one of taking on a man’s role to fight. When Margaret Corbin’s husband John was killed at Fort Washington, his wife took his role and suffered three gunshot wounds. Because of her injuries, she was awarded half the pay of a soldier’s ration and a clothing allowance.[104] Despite Corbin’s heroic efforts, the hierarchical structures in the colonies did not allow women to be treated the same as men, despite carrying out the same role as a soldier. However, Corbin contested the amount she was granted by the Continental Congress and was given a full allowance.[105] Yet, Corbin having to fight for a small allowance shows how difficult it was for women to have any rights within Revolutionary America. Corbin did not hide her gender, but there is conflicting evidence for how those women who did hide their gender were treated. For instance, if a woman was discovered quickly, she was harshly penalised. One such woman was Ann Bailey, who enlisted under the name Samuel Smith. Under this pseudonym, Bailey collected a bounty of eighty dollars, but she was quickly discovered and dismissed from the army, fined, and jailed for two weeks. Yet, the likes of Deborah Sampson, who enlisted in the Continental Army as Robert Shurtleff, served for many years as s soldier. When Sampson’s gender was finally discovered, she was removed from the Continental Army and given an allowance from Massachusetts for her role in the war.[106] The history of Deborah Sampson is incomplete. Historians do not know if Sampson had a patriotic sense of duty to enlist in the army or if she was running away from troubled family life. According to Kravitz, Sampson was patriotic because she risked her female identity to disguise herself as a man.[107] There was no continuity in how women were treated, and because of this, it is evident that women were not expected to fight on the front line. However, when they did fight, the army officers and Continental Congress did not have any policies in place to deal with the situation.
From the evidence provided in this chapter the women living in the American colonies had a need to assist the war effort. While male family members busied themselves with fighting on the battlefields women could actively help with fundraising ideas for the cause. Reeds ‘Sentiments of an American Woman’ showed that women could be active within the war effort despite women being restricted by their gender. It is clear that the Ladies of Philadelphia utilised their social networks at home to assisted the fighting men and crossed the boundaries of femininity to aid their cause. However, despite criticisms from the likes of Washington, Reed was able to continue with her fundraising drive because if Washington forced the ladies to stop it would be seen as unpatriotic. Camp followers too can be seen as patriotic. They played an important role in helping the soldiers take care of themselves and despite Washington’s criticisms he realised the women were a help to the soldiers when it came to boosting morale. Women who pretended to be soldiers brought a rise in different treatments for women who either did not hide their gender or concealed their sex to enter battle. Fighting on the front line was seen as not appropriate female behaviour and it was difficult for the military officers to know how to react. Women broke the boundaries of what was expected of them to support the American Revolutionary War effort despite being limited by their gender and the hierarchical structures that were in place in the late eighteenth century.
CONCLUSION
Using primary sources such as letter and broadsides from women associated with the American Revolutionary War to document how women were treated in society at the time, this dissertation has investigated how revolutionary the American Revolutionary War was for women in the American colonies. Connecting the three different areas of study, this conclusion offers final comments on the findings of the three chapters and their significance in the historiography.
While each chapter examines a different portrayal of the experiences felt by women in the American colonies, there are apparent connections between the women’s participation in the American Revolutionary War and society’s reaction towards female involvement. However, the women’s experiences indicated in this dissertation suggest that women’s encounter in the colonies brought about a commitment to assist the war effort regardless of negative attitudes towards their approach.
Chapter one investigated the lives of writers Phillis Wheatley and Mary Otis Warren and how their opinions were built around the thoughts of male friends and family members. It is clear that Wheatley’s owners were influential in her thinking, and this was a reason for her being cautious in how she approached discussions on slavery. As a female, her voice would have been lost with numerous debates on the slave issue. The fact that Wheatley was black and also lived her life in slavery meant that her opinion was not valued by those who relied on slavery within the private and public domains. Warren too was influenced by those men she trusted with her opinion. With her anonymous writing, she created a narrative that was not restricted by her gender. Because Warren needed validation from the likes of Adams for her writing, she does come across as weak-minded and constricted by her gender. However, Warren was aware of her limitations as a female writer and did not feel she could liberate herself from the hierarchical structures that were already in place.
Chapter two analysed women’s lack of political theory and how their gender roles were limited. The rise of discussion on women gaining some rights is evident in the primary source letters from Abigail Adams to her husband, John. She did not ask for emancipation but wanted women to gain some legal standing. However, some women were seen as inferior to man and therefore unable to enter the political realm. To understand the rights of man, the colonists looked to John Locke, who theorised that men were identical in a state of nature and collectively formed a social contract. This, however, did not liberate women because natural rights did not ask for women’s opinions, so women remained very much controlled by the patriarchy. What was acceptable in the colonies during the American Revolutionary War was the idea of Republican Motherhood. Women saw this role as necessary, but it was limiting and narrowed the political roles that women could play at the time. Although the Scottish philosophers valued the principles of the Republican Mothers who believed that there was virtue in women teaching their sons as they passed on family values. Although, despite the praise from the Scottish philosopher’s women were still limited and found it difficult to enter the political realm on their terms.
The third chapter focused on the attitudes towards The Ladies Association of Philadelphia during their fundraising drive during the American Revolutionary War and women who became camp followers to help look after the men on the frontline. Women who disguised their gender to fight for the cause was also discussed. Reeds fundraising drive showed just how active women could be when men were occupied at war. Camp followers, too, were useful to men in the war effort by taking care of the soldiers. However, despite women making themselves useful in the war effort, they did face criticisms. It was unclear how the male sphere should react to women’s mobilisation. This is evident when women took up the challenge of pretending to be men to fight on the frontline. Women who were caught crossing enemy lines were punished differently because military men did not collectively know how to treat such women. The rise in women mobilising themselves to assist in the war effort did very little to liberate women after the American Revolutionary War, with women returning to their lives of domesticity and childcare duties. Discussed collectively, the accounts from the colonial woman show that the American Revolutionary War was not revolutionary enough for females living in the new nation despite their best efforts to request a change. Any changes that came about for society at the time did not include women.
This dissertation concludes by acknowledging that women’s experience in the American Revolutionary War continued to have consequences after the war. Despite only investigating a small number of women’s narratives within the American Revolutionary War, it is evident from this study that depending upon broad conclusions to explain female encounter in the colonies during the American Revolutionary War betrays the variety of many of the individual accounts from numerous women. However, this does not ignore the women’s micro-historical narratives in this study because the females discussed here show how the patriarchy constrained women within the American colonies.
While this dissertation has uncovered women’s encounter in the American Revolutionary War, it is a micro-historical investigation. Therefore, there is an opportunity to widen the study. The range of individual narratives within this study indicates that it is important to analyse personal situations. However, colonial women’s experience of the American Revolutionary War constitutes a shared experience of female encounter within the colonies was not identical. Therefore, the accounts of the women involved must be recognised individually to accurately understand their significance and importance to the debates surrounding female encounter in the American Revolutionary War.
[1] Linda K. Kerber, Women of the Republic Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America (North Carolina, 1986), p. 11.
[2] Rosemarie Zagarri, Revolutionary Backlash: Women and Politics in the Early American Republic (Pennsylvania, 2007), p. 63.
[3] Gordon S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution (New York, 1991), p. 56.
[4] Carol Berkin, Revolutionary Mothers (New York, 2005), p. xvii.
[5] Linda K Kerber, ‘Separate Spheres, Female Worlds, Woman’s Place: The Rhetoric of Women’s History’, Oxford University Press, 75 (1988), pp. 9-12.
[6] Paul Thomas, ‘Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Sexist?’, Feminist Studies Inc, 17 (1991), pp. 196-215.
[7] Phillis Wheatley, Complete Writing (New York, 2001), p. xviii-xiv.
[8] Gay Gibson Cima, ‘Black and Unmarked: Phillis Wheatley, Mercy Otis Warren, and the Limits of the Strategic Anonymity’, Theatre Journal, 52 (2000), pp. 465-495.
[9] Phillis Wheatley, Susanna Wheatley and Sara Dunlop Jackson, ‘Letters of Phillis Wheatley and Susanna Wheatley’, The Journal of Negro History, 2 (1972), pp. 211-215.
[10] Mary Beth Norton, Liberty’s Daughters, (New York, 1980), p. 258.
[11] Wheatley, Wheatley and Dunlop, ‘Letters of Phillis Wheatley and Susanna Wheatley’, pp. 211.
[12] Eleanor Smith, ‘Phillis Wheatley A Black Perspective’, Journal of Negro Education, 43 (1974), pp. 405-406.
[13] Berkin, Revolutionary Mothers, p. 130-131.
[14] Cyrus R. K. Patell, Sacvan Bercovitch, The Cambridge History of American Literature: Volume One 1590-1820 (Cambridge, 1997), p. 605.
[15] Smith, ‘Phillis Wheatley A Black Perspective’, pp. 405-406.
[16] Sondra O Neale, ‘A Slave’s Subtle War: Phillis Wheatley’s Use of Biblical Myth and Symbol’ Early American Literature, 21 (1986), pp. 147-148.
[17] Vincent Carretta, Phillis Wheatley: Biography of a Genius in Bondage, (Georgia, 2014), p. 258.
[18] Phillis Wheatley, ‘Enclosure’, at https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-02-02-0222-0002accessed on 4 March. 2021.
[19] Angelene Jamison, ‘Analysis of Selected Poetry of Phillis Wheatley’, The Journal of Negro Education, 43 (1974), p. 413-414.
[20] William H. Robinson, ‘Phillis Wheatley Colonial Quandary’, College Language Association, 9 (1965), pp. 31-32.
[21] Jamison, ‘Analysis of Selected Poetry of Phillis Wheatley’, p. 411.
[22] Tracey L. Waters, Review of Phillis Wheatley: Biography of a Genius in Bondage by Vincent Carretta, 3 (2012), p. 517.
[23] Rosemarie Zagarri, A Womans Dilemma: Mercy Otis Warren and the American Revolution (Chichester, 2015), p. 64.
[24] Gibson Cima, Gay ‘Black and Unmarked: Phillis Wheatley, Mercy Otis Warren, and the Limits of the Strategic Anonymity’, pp. 465-495.
[25] Sandra J. Sarkela, ‘Freedmon’s Call: The Persuasive Power of Mercy Otis Warren’s Dramatic Sketches, 1772-1775’, Ameican Literature, 3 (2009), pp. 544-545.
[26] Maud, Macdonald Hutcheson, ‘Mercy Warren, 1728-1814’, The William and Mary Quarterly, pp. 378-402.
[27] Mercy Otis Warren, The Group (United States, 1775).
[28] Sandra J. Sarkela, ‘Freedmon’s Call: The Persuasive Power of Mercy Otis Warren’s Dramatic Sketches, 1772-1775’, pp. 544-545.
[29] Cheryl Z. Oreovicz, ‘Mercy Otis Warren (1728-1814), Legacy 1 (1996), pp. 54-64.
[30] Founders Online, ‘To John Adams from Mercy Otis Warren 30 January 1775’, at https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/06-02-02-0074 accessed on 11 Feb 2021.
[31] Founders Online, ‘From John Adams to Mercy Otis Warren 15 March 1775’ at https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/06-02-02-0081 accessed on 11 Feb 2021.
[32] Edith B. Gelles, ‘Bonds of Friendship: The Correspondence of Abigail Adams and Mercy Otis Warren’, Massachusetts Historical Society, 108 (1996), p. 36.
[33] Linda K. Kerber, Women of the Republic, p. 256-57.
[34] Mercy Otis Warren, Poems, Dramatic and Miscellaneous (Boston, 1790), p. iii-iv.
[35] Rosemarie Zagarri, Mercy Otis Warren and the American Revolution (Oxford, 2015), pp. 65-74.
[36] Berkin, Revolutionary Mothers, pp. 151-152.
[37] Rosemarie Zagarri, A Woman’s Dilemma and the American Revolution (Chichester, 1995), p. 187.
[38] Nancy Rubin Stuart, The Muse of the Revolution (Boston, 2008), p. xiii
[39] Edmund M. Hayes, Mercy Otis Warren: The Defeat,The New England Quarterly, 49 (1976), pp. 440-458.
[40] Paula Baker ‘The Domestication of Politics: Women and American Political Society, 1780-1920’, Oxford University Press, 89 (1984), pp. 620-338.
[41] Rosemarie Zagarri, Revolutionary Backlash: Women and Politics in the Early American Republic (Philadelphia, 2007), p. 2.
[42] Berkin, Revolutionary Mothers, pp. 158-159.
[43] Rosemarie Zagarri, ‘The Rights of Man and Woman in Post-Revolutionary America’, Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, 55 (1998), p. 202-213.
[44] Marilyn S. Blackwell, ‘The Republican Vision of Mary Palmer’, University of Pennsylvania Press, 12 (1992), pp. 20-22.
[45] Rosemarie Zagarri, ‘Morals, Manners and the Republican Mother’, The John Hopkins University Press, 44, p 193.
[46] Zagarri, ‘The Rights of Man and Woman in Post-Revolutionary America’, pp. 205-206.
[47] Terri L. Syndrer, ‘Refiguring Women in Early American History’, Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, 3 (2012), p. 444.
[48] Mary Beth Norton, Liberty’s Daughters The Revolutionary Experience of American Women 1750-1800 (New York, 1980), p. 170-171.
[49] Ibid., p. 171.
[50] Zagarri, Revolutionary Backlash: Women and Politics in the Early American Republic, p. 57.
[51] Zagarri, ‘The Rights of Man and Woman in Post-Revolutionary America’, pp. 205-206.
[52] Norton, Liberty’s Daughters the Revolutionary Experience of American Women 1750-1800, p. 190.
[53] Abigail Adams, ‘Abigail Adams to John Adams, 31 March 1776’ at https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/04-01-02-0241, accessed on 18 Mar. 2021.
[54] Berkin, Revolutionary Mothers, pp. 157-158.
[55] John Adams, ‘John Adams to Abigail Adams, 14 March 1776’, at https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/04-01-02-0248, accessed on 18 Mar. 2021.
[56] Kerber, Women of the Republic Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America, p. 119-120.
[57] John Adams, ‘John Adams to Abigail Adams, 14 March 1776’, at https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/04-01-02-0248, accessed on 18 Mar. 2021.
[58] Wendy Martin, ‘Women and the American Revolution’, University of North Carolina Press, 11 (1976/1977), p. 332.
[59] Berkin, Revolutionary Mothers, pp. 158-159.
[60] Abigail Adams, ‘Abigail Adams to John Adams, 31 March 1776’ at https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/04-01-02-0241, accessed on 19 Mar. 2021.
[61] Norton, Liberty’s Daughters the Revolutionary Experience of American Women 1750-1800, p. 226-227.
[62] James H. Hutson, ‘Women in the Era of the American Revolution: The Historian as Suffragist’, Library of Congress, 32 (1975), p. 296.
[63] Zagarri, ‘The Rights of Man and Woman in Post-Revolutionary America’, pp. 203-213.
[64] Ibid., p. 217.
[65] Blackwell, ‘The Republican Vision of Mary Palmer’, pp. 20-22.
[66] Margaret A. Nash, ‘Rethinking Republican Motherhood: Benjamin Rush and the Young Ladies Academy of Philadelphia’, University of Pennsylvania, 17 (1997), pp. 175-188.
[67] Zagarri, ‘Morals, Manners and the Republican Mother’, p. 192-203.
[68] Berkin, Revolutionary Mothers, pp. 156.
[69] Kerber, Women of the Republic Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America, p. 11.
[70] Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (London, 1761), p.285.
[71] Zagarri, ‘Morals, Manners and the Republican Mother’, p. 193.
[72] Kerber, Women of the Republic Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America, p. 283-4.
[73] Zagarri, ‘Morals, Manners and the Republican Mother’, p. 202.
[74] Ibid., pp. 200-206.
[75] Berkin, Revolutionary Mothers, p. 4.
[76] Zagarri, ‘Morals, Manners and the Republican Mother’, p. 208.
[77] Elizabeth F. Ellet, The Women of the American Revolution: Volume 1 (Frankfurt, 2020), p.24.
[78] Ibid., pp. 177-178.
[79] Ellet, The Women of the American Revolution: Volume 1, p. 53.
[80] Elizabeth Ellet The War in the Middle States, in Lincoln Diamant (ed), Revolutionary Women in the War for American Independence (Westport, 1998), pp. 95-99.
[81] Clarissa a Lady of This City, Vision of the Paradise of Female Patriotism, United States Magazine, March 1779.
[82] Barbara Clark Smith, The Freedoms we Lost (New York, 2010), p.135.
[83] Esther de Berdt Reed ‘Sentiments of an American Woman’, at https://wams.nyhistory.org/settler-colonialism-and-revolution/the-american-revolution/sentiments-of-an-american-woman/#resource accessed on 13 Feb 2021.
[84] Sharon M. Harris, American Women Writers to 1800 (Oxford, 1996), p.258.
[85] Kerber, Women of the Republic Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America, p. 112.
[86] Esther de Berdt Reed ‘Sentiments of an American Woman’, at https://wams.nyhistory.org/settler-colonialism-and-revolution/the-american-revolution/sentiments-of-an-american-woman/#resource accessed on 13 Feb 2021
[87] Berkin, Revolutionary Mothers, p. 44-45.
[88] Norton, Liberty’s Daughters, pp. 178-179.
[89] Edith Gelles, Review of Sentiments of a British American Woman: Esther de Berdt Reed and the American Revolution, by Owen S. Ireland, 76 (2019), pp. 313-317.
[90] Emily J. Arendt, Ladies Going about for Money: Female Voluntary Association and Civic Consciousness in the American Revolution, Journal of the Early Republic, 34 (2014), pp. 157-186.
[91] Ibid., p. 106.
[92] Berkin, Revolutionary Mothers, p. 46-47.
[93] Arendt, ‘Ladies Going about for Money: Female Voluntary Association and Civic Consciousness in the American Revolution’, pp. 157-186.
[94] Esther de Berdt Reed ‘Sentiments of an American Woman’, at https://wams.nyhistory.org/settler-colonialism-and-revolution/the-american-revolution/sentiments-of-an-american-woman/#resource accessed on 13 Feb 2021
[95] Berkin, Revolutionary Mothers, pp. 48-49.
[96] Cokie Roberts, Founding Mothers (New York, 2005), p. 78.
[97] Linda K. Kerber, Toward an Intellectual History of Women (North Carolina, 1997), pp. 71-72.
[98] Berkin, Revolutionary Mothers, pp. 11-12.
[99] Kerber, Toward an Intellectual History of Women, pp. 72-73.
[100] George Washington, ‘General Orders, 4 August 1777’, at https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-10-02-0508 accessed on 9 April 2021.
[101] Hutson, ‘Women in the Era of the American Revolution: The Historian as Suffragist’, p. 293.
[102] Walter Hart Blumenthal, Women Camp Followers of the American Revolution (Philadelphia, 1952), p. 54.
[103] Berkin, Revolutionary Mothers, p. 52.
[104] Roberts, Founding Mothers, p. 79.
[105] Ibid.
[106] Berkin, Revolutionary Mothers, p. 59-61.
[107] Bennett Kravitz, ‘A Certain Doubt: The Last Voice of Deborah Sampson in Revolutionary America’, Popular Culture Association in the South, 22 (1999), p. 48.
louisealacy.wordpress.com 