As disdainful as it is, there has been a recurrent dynamic in recent years in the historical field — to alter or to overlook a portion of historical facts that does not suit a particular political purpose. Since the materials that serve as a base for spreading biased information can be greatly widespread, the noxious effect that they cause is magnified by hundreds, especially when they are used in the educational context. Therefore, it is one’s entitlement before this generation and the following ones – to preserve historical authenticity to its fullest extent. Doing so, in the opinion of the author, is a form of retribution to the people long gone, the ones who sacrificed their lives in honor of the ideals that, in their lifetime, promised a better and freer world. The following essay is an attempt to follow this noble route. The essay is aiming to fulfill two main objectives: to contribute to the emerging dynamic of being realistic about history, and to argue that the American Revolution would not be as successful as it was without women.
The general consensus on the role of women during the period of the American Revolution is such, that colonial women lacked even the slightest interest in the sociopolitical matters that have been occurring all around them. A woman of the era is painted as a stereotypically docile, passive, largely uneducated, and above all, unwilling to participate in any decision-making. However, as can be seen further, a point of view based on the dominant doctrine of the time does not reflect the actual state of the matters.
Indeed, colonial women of the 1700s were subject to numerous oppressing factors that defined every area of their lives. The traditional female role consisting of childbearing and keeping the house was, in fact, thought of as women’s contribution to the economy. Many women, indeed, stayed at home and, when their husbands went to war, “practically took charge of affairs”. However, such a contribution alone the female part of the population could not have influenced the revolutionary process as significantly as it did, so, there must have been major exceptions to the rule.
In fact, there are a vast number of historical accounts on the women of colonial times who challenged the limiting and oppressing gender roles that society imposed on them. By not conforming, quite a large number of women entered warfare, political parties or kept various businesses. Since the first moments that the American Revolution started to gain momentum, the cooperation of women was essential. The majority of British goods that Americans decided to boycott were “purchased by women: fabric, candles, soap” – so even the colonial leaders realized the need to spark an interest in revolutionary ideas among the female population. Boycotting was one of the first examples of female legal participation in political and economic matters – with the colonial forces recognizing the substance of a woman’s role in their cause.
Boycotting was not the only form of national consciousness that women exhibited. Many organized into voluntary groups – for instance, the Ladies Association of America that Philadelphian elite women participated in. Generally, the nature of women’s social contributions largely depended on their class. While the upper class organized into associations, women of the lower and middle class arranged food riots and demonstrations. Thus, it can be noted that lower-class women absolutely legally possessed higher political freedoms than the elite ones, as they could express their opinions on the streets.
However, the history of the American Revolution is abundant in stories about women breaking the law and bending the societal norms in order to follow their hearts’ desires. Szayna et al. writes, “during earlier wars, women concealed their gender by pretending to be men and boys, others served as replacements for their husbands”. From 16-year-old Sybil Ludington, who warned Patriots of the coming of British troops, to women similar to Deborah Sampson, who concealed themselves as men and became recruits for the American army. Although it is quite hard to determine the exact number of women who did this, historians have the right to believe there were quite a large number of them. A lot of them, like Sampson, earned great respect from her male comrades, to the point where upon identity disclosure, she was not evicted, but “received an applause”. Thus, even on the battlefield, a traditionally male domain, women displayed outstanding illustrations of bravery, loyalty and selflessness, proving that these qualities are not dependent on one’s sex.
Much more frequent was a woman in the role of camp-follower, however, often it was no less dangerous than fighting on the battlefield directly. The women who occupied such positions were much more numerous; they did all the hard work in caring for the soldiers and the wounded. Interestingly enough, all the enormous work that they did in the rear was simply overlooked, with George Washington ordering the camp-followers to take “a different route when passing through towns, so that his army might appear more professional”. These women were considered a shame, which only proves how little of these women’s efforts were acknowledged. It seems that it is from these intentions exhibited by the general Washington modern tendencies to erase historical facts.
Like warfare, politics, being an institute of power, was traditionally associated with male membership, and it was virtually unthinkable for a woman to engage in political matters. However, the Edenton Tea Party is one famous example of a group of women expressing their political views – boycotting British goods and supporting their husbands’ opinions. Although this act might not seem as revolutionary as it was seen at the time, it holds a major significance as a female contribution to the American revolution. This deed was, perhaps, a more successful feat that Abigail Adams’ who repeatedly insisted to her husband to allow women to vote – however, these acts are similar in their cruciality. Whether entrances into higher institutions of power were illegal or shunned by the society, the women were able to find their way into the world of politics, essentially prohibited for them to enter at that time.
The Edenton Tea Party’s loyalist counterpart, Haudenosaunee women were just as remarkable in terms of their political influence – however, entirely different in their intentions and origin. These women, being leaders of their community, were truly a threat to the colonies, which was the reason for hostility from European-Americans. The Haudenosaunee farmlands were devastated by the colonists in order to force these women out and initiate a decline in their political power. Perhaps, their influence was unsettling for the colonists for the reason that Europeans were unaccustomed to a woman exhibiting such level of privilege; whereas the Haudenosaunee did not limit women in such ways.
The fact that the women discussed earlier are of European descent, with some coming from highly privileged backgrounds – being the wives of generals, merchants and plantation owners – one might have an impression only white women partook in the Revolution. It could seem natural, however, this is just not the case, as history is full of examples of African-American and Indigenous women playing their part in the process. A figure as well-known as immensely unusual for her time, Phillis Wheatley was a slave, a poet, and a supporter of the Patriots. She was not alone in her interest towards American independence. Many saw a grander possibility in the Revolution, especially those who were vulnerable and oppressed – like women and enslaved people – so, perhaps, that is why they were promoting the Revolution.
By studying historical accounts of the women who directly experienced the American Revolution, learning that they participated in matters where they are largely erased from – like politics and warfare – a greater insight was attained. Women’s role in the Revolution and in the establishment of American statehood is truly immense. There were active female participants everywhere – from the battleground to the abandoned men’s homes and farms. The women were doing most of the work that is generally overlooked – while also expanding into traditionally male domains with the bravest members of the weaker sex. The Revolution would not be possible without women because women are self-sufficient members of society just like men. Constituting half of the entire population, the women were not able to alter the perception of them by their contemporaries in any significant manner, however, they definitely influenced the outcome of the Revolutionary war. Quite naturally, it would not be possible to win the war if such a big portion of the population were disinterested. Additionally, the revolutionary experience allowed many women to rethink their societal role and greatly enhanced their confidence.
Bibliography
Arendt, Emily J. Ladies Going about for Money: Female Voluntary Associations and Civic Consciousness in the American Revolution. Journal of the Early Republic 34, no. 2 (2014): 157–86. Web.
McArthur, J. L. Women of the Revolution. New York: Proceedings of the New York State Historical Association 5 (1905): 153–61.
Oberg, Barbara B. Women in the American Revolution: Gender, Politics, and the Domestic World. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2019.
Szayna, Thomas S., Eric V. Larson, Angela O’Mahony, Sean Robson, Agnes Gereben Schaefer, Miriam Matthews, J. Michael Polich, et al. The Integration of Women and Other Excluded Groups into the U.S. Military: The Historical Experience. In Considerations for Integrating Women into Closed Occupations in the U.S. Special Operations Forces, 15–46. RAND Corporation, 2015. Web.
Zeinert, Karen. Those Remarkable Women of the American Revolution. Brooksfield: Millbrook Press, 1996.