Abigail Adams always managed to pique her husband John’s interest. In her now famous letter dated March 31, 1776 in which she extols him to "Remember the Ladies," she also gave him a playful warning. If the men of government did not pay attention to women's rights, "we are determined to forment a Rebelion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice, or Representation." [1]
But Abigail had no intention of calling upon colonial women to rise against the patriarchal society. Such jesting between husband and wife merely bespoke of their relationship. But in her correspondence, Abigail smoothly interjected the notion of women’s rights to induce John and the other founders to at least consider her point. Whether or not such rights qualified as important to the men as to the women remained to be seen, especially in trying to interpret John’s response: “…As to your extraordinary Code of Laws, I cannot but laugh…But your Letter was the first Intimation that another Tribe more numerous and powerfull than all the rest were grown discontented.” [2]
The same political spirit Abigail Adams sought to explore and reveal within a male-dominated society could be seen in other colonial women as they found their roles changing during the Revolution. With the emergence of an event that encompassed the political, social, and domestic worlds of colonial America, women began to seek different avenues in which to become "more useful" to the world. Although women did not appear within the inner circles of Congress or in front of the ballot box, they began to use their unique talents to support the Revolution and express their changing role.
The women of Philadelphia especially took this notion to heart. Esther De Berdt Reed organized the Ladies Association of Philadelphia, active from 1780-1781, and effectively brought women together for the revolutionary cause. By creating a public place for women to congregate within the accepted boundaries imposed by eighteenth-century standards, the Ladies Association made a significant contribution to the war effort and also established a political agency that would impact future generations of women.
To fully understand the course taken by colonial women, it is crucial to delve into the realm of eighteenth-century femininity. According to Mary Beth Norton, "Uppermost in women's mind was the very fact of their feminine identity...Femininity formed their invariable point of reference." [3] If a colonial woman wished to discuss education, she did so within the context of education for the female sex. Their entire identity became wrapped up in their gender. But what did their femininity encompass? A certain turn of phrase, mentioning their gender in private correspondence, and even assuming definitions of themselves all contributed to their unique way of viewing the female sex. 4 Femininity, and everything associated with it, composed their identity. They did not view their lives or their circumstances as opposed to men, but to other women. The female gender existed within its own definition and did not step outside the boundaries and into those of men.
But instead of the Revolution bringing about a radical shift in this role, the years preceding it caused gender to become even more defined. "Changes in household work gendered the home in new ways. The time and labor commitment to housewifery expanded as women adapted to changes in cooking, the consumer revolution, and a rising standard of living."5 Due to these developments, women began to perform functions mostly within the home instead of helping their husband in the fields or other outside labor.6 Because women retreated to the home, it became further entrenched within their gender that domestic duties were the woman’s sphere. Although this differed in each household, it remained the basis for colonial society. As an example of these varying circumstances, widows or single women in Philadelphia would perform the duties of both sexes since the patriarchal element did not exist within their household. In married households, the man would most likely do the jobs attributed to his gender as the patriarchal society demanded. However, in Karin Wulf’s study of women in colonial Philadelphia, she argues that a significant amount of women lived in households in which the patriarchal system deviated from its traditional role. But “countervailing trends, including economic and demographic factors, dissenting theologies and political philosophies, sentiment, and the expansion of public culture, meant that a culture of household governance could develop quite differently in different places.”7 Philadelphia, one of the nation’s leading urban communities, undoubtedly contributed to this unique blend of public and private spheres.
How, then, did gender and the female identity figure into patriotism and political expression during the Revolution? Gender and political expression became irrevocably entwined. Women formed themselves into groups such as the Whig Association of the Unmarried Ladies of America in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. This association specifically relied on their gender to establish a pledge not to “give their hand in marriage to any gentleman until he had first proved himself a patriot.”8 Not only did this personify the domestic role of a woman fulfilling her gender’s obligations to become a wife, but it also established a political voice for women. In essence, they used their unique traits to advance their political views. But what were these traits? According to an article of the day, women were “much more pure, tender, delicate, irritable, affectionate, flexible, and patient” as well as “modest, chaste, cheerful, sympathetic, affable, and emotional: in brief, they displayed what was commonly termed ‘native female softness.’”9 In essence, they were the very opposite of the ‘harder’ male traits. Although they were sometimes allowed into the male arena of labor and business, politics still remained relatively within the grasp of men in the public sphere.
However, with the advent of the war, the public sphere of politics slowly but surely began to infiltrate the private and domestic sphere. Because of the overwhelming affect of the war in so many areas of life, women necessarily became involved with politics. Those who stayed behind while their loyalist husbands fled or who urged their husbands and sons to fight for the colonial cause exhibited such political notions. Those who expressed politics in a more forward manner were praised for them, but were, at the same time, viewed as having a “‘masculine’ quality of mind.”10 Superiority in the public political realm still belonged to men. Furthermore, as Mary Beth Norton argues, “In the process of thus praising specific females, their admirers thereby distinguished them from ordinary representatives of the “fair sex,” who suffered by the comparison.”11 Since the female identity, as argued earlier, was shaped by comparing one’s attributes to other women, those who expressed the superiority of having a ‘masculine’ mind effectively suppressed the female sex. Perhaps it was this attitude, then, that caused women to ask forgiveness for even thinking politically.
It is interesting to note the wide array of women’s written examples apologizing for their gender when speaking of politics. Ann Gwinnett, widow of the president of Georgia, wrote a warning to the Continental Army of possible traitorous activities in the ranks of the Georgia troops. At the end of her letter, she confessed, “These things (tho from a Woman, & it is not our sphere, yet I cannot help it) are all true.”12 Even those women who came from deeply political families made their apologies in discussing them. Sarah Livingston Jay and her sister Catherine were the daughters of the wartime governor of New Jersey. Yet in their correspondence, they, too, felt themselves inadequate when dealing in politics. “I’ve transgress’d the line that I proposed to observe in my correspondence by dipping into politicks,” Sarah wrote, “but my country and my friends possess so entirely my thoughts that you must not wonder if my pen runs beyond the dictates of prudence.”13 But there were also those few women who immersed themselves in politics and made no apologies for it. Mercy Otis Warren, a great friend of Abigail Adams, exemplified this attitude. She wrote not only satirical plays of the war, but also a three-volume history of the Revolution entitled History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution. Politics, for her, saturated daily life.14
Even though politics began to assert importance to the female gender, overt political declarations, usually reserved for men, were not welcomed. As Joan Gunderson points out, “The active participation of women in the Revolutionary War was effectively masked by the new domestic ideology.”15 Even though women began to mobilize for the patriotic cause, they did so in a domestic atmosphere where criticism of women in politics would not be nearly as likely. Since they stayed within their domestic sphere, they effectively avoided entering directly into the male sphere of male-oriented political action. Indeed, if women were given the right to exercise political power, “they might ‘destroy the peace of Families.’”16 Thus, women had to turn to other avenues. The Daughters of Liberty in Boston, a parallel to the Sons of Liberty, illustrates this notion. A Boston newspaper reported that “a party of some forty or fifty ladies, calling themselves the Daughters of Liberty, met at the home of the Rev. Mr. Morehead, where they amused themselves during the day by spinning ‘222 skeins of yarn, some very fine’.”17 These spinning bees became a definitive way of expressing political mobilization throughout the colonies without leaving the domestic sphere. Men undoubtedly did not dispute these gatherings simply because it did not tread outside of the women’s traditional role. Therefore, women used their gender to their advantage, relying on tried and true methods of femininity to pursue their political ideals.
Esther De Berdt Reed utilized her role as the wife of the governor of Pennsylvania to begin a popular woman’s organization during the War. A native Englishwoman, Esther determined herself an American patriot soon after she moved to Philadelphia with her American husband, Joseph Reed. During the autumn of 1774, she entertained some of the members of the First Continental Congress, among them George Washington and John and Samuel Adams. On this occasion, a delegate from Connecticut remarked that Esther was “a Daughter of Liberty, zealously affected in a good Cause.”18 Esther began to immerse herself in American politics and even corresponded with her brother, Dennis, back in England regarding the political situation of her adopted homeland. Invariably, she discussed her own political conclusions. One can see her transformation from an Englishwoman to an American patriot. “This preposition for independence would have alarmed almost every person on the Continent a twelve-month ago, but now the general voice is, if the Ministry and the Nation will drive us to it, we must do it, rather than submit, after so many public resolutions to the contrary.”19
Even though Esther’s domestic role as wife and mother filled her days, she still acknowledged her feelings over the conflict and did not apologize for her views. In correspondence to both her husband and her brother, she openly expressed political thoughts and ideas. Esther was perhaps rare for her time as many women used their gender as an apologetic device to assure men, and perhaps other women, that they simply did not understand or regularly discuss politics. She apparently chose not to follow the traditional role of experiencing politics through the men around her. One could not be directly involved if not allowed to hold public office and sit in on Congress.20 This passion is revealed in a letter she wrote to her brother in which she discussed her concern with politics. “You may judge…how interesting politics are, when they employ so much of my thoughts and attention, [even though] now I am surrounded with family concerns; however, they are important to me, particularly as I have a share in both countries and am interested in the welfare of both.”21 Esther used her domestic role, as she did in entertaining the members of the Continental Congress, to further her own opinions and ideas about the Revolution. The couple shared their love of politics as Joseph soon became elected governor of Pennsylvania in 1778.
After the devastating fall of Charleston in 1780, Esther decided to organize a fundraising campaign. With morale at a perilous low among the Continental Army, Esther saw a need for colonial women to contribute to the Cause. The publication of her document, The Sentiments of an American Woman, on June 10, 1780, signaled the beginning of the women’s organizational movement in Philadelphia. The document asserted that American women needed to do more than just offer their good wishes to the troops. She proceeded to mention some of the great women activists in history, such as Joan of Arc, Elizabeth I and Catherine the Great. But Esther also realized how critical her statements were to women’s roles since it directly challenged the feminine sphere and, in effect, that sphere’s boundaries.22 But the document helped to broaden the private sphere by effectively spilling its ideas over into the public sphere. Before Sentiments, the display of political mobilization in conjunction with the Revolution itself had largely remained within the home. Supporting the men-folk and waving them off to war remained high on the list of exhibiting female patriotism. But before the first shots at Lexington, boycotting British goods had previously been a female activity. Such activity was needed again “to display the same sentiments which animated us at the beginning of the Revolution, when we renounced the use of teas.” 23 In other words, distinctly feminine political consciousness needed to be shown. But it had to be demonstrated in a non-threatening manner, a manner unique to females and within their domestic role, both in public and in private.
Esther also knew the impact Sentiments might have on American males. In such a patriarchal society, those of the opposite gender might very well feel threatened. Therefore, she wisely worded her document. Since some men might perhaps “disapprove” of women taking an active role in a more political realm, she proclaimed that those who objected would simply not fit the role of a “good citizen.” Those men who understood the soldier’s needs could, she wrote, “only applaud our efforts for the relief of the armies which defend our lives, our possessions, our liberty.”24 Esther knew very well the role that women were expected to play and did not wish to upset the balance. But she also realized her statements might be seen as controversial since it directly challenged women to be and do more for the cause. Sentiments did more than perhaps even Esther envisioned. It effectively placed politics squarely within the domestic sphere and in so doing, sought to encourage women to become active through their domestic role. Instead of merely displaying “those softer domestic virtues,” those women who actively showed such virtues, as in collecting money for the Continental Army, would be the more ardent patriot. 25
The women of Philadelphia soon showed their support and enthusiasm for Esther’s project and 36 of them met three days after the publication of Sentiments.26 Benjamin Franklin’s daughter, Sarah Franklin Bache, became instrumental in the Association’s formation. As the organization’s leaders included “the best ladies” of the patriot cause, publicity also became instrumental in spreading the word.27
They did not devise a plan solely for the women of Philadelphia. Instead, their proposed draft would involve all the colonies in a nation-wide fund-raiser carried out completely through the efforts of patriotic women. As it stood, the ladies “proposed the mobilization of the entire female population. Contributions would be accepted from any woman, in any amount.”28 But they were quite careful to make sure the funds were well accounted for. A ‘Treasuress’ for each county oversaw the collection of money while keeping highly detailed records. In turn, a ‘Treasuress-General,’ the wife of the governor, headed each state’s county treasuresses. Martha Washington would ultimately receive the sum total and she in turn would use the funds to benefit the troops.29 The striking aspect of this plan is the single restriction the women placed on how the money would be spent. “It is an extraordinary bounty,” they wrote in Ideas, an appendix to the Sentiments document, “intended to render the condition of the soldier more pleasant, and not to hold place of the things which they ought to receive from the Congress, or from the States.”30 Women asserted their views once more in this simple statement. Knowing that Congress owed the Continental Army a good deal, they sought to provide something ‘really useful’ to the men out in the field. The plan proposed by Sentiments and Ideas also “paralleled the formal political institutions run by men.” 31
The Ladies Association revolved around their expertise in emulating their husband’s political mobilization. They had “organized a committee of correspondence, used newspapers for publicity, and tapped interstate social networks. Their system of treasurers made use of existing male political boundaries and assumed that wives of state leaders themselves had leadership duties.”32 Even though they were not dealing with legislative politics, they knew exactly how to undertake their venture into the realm of public politics.
Women instigated and formed their own political institutions and thus their own political identity. Indeed, “Western political theory had provided no context in which women might comfortably think of themselves as political beings.”33 But Philadelphia might have been rather unique in its treatment of women and politics before the Revolution. According to Karin Wulf in her book Not All Wives, “a close look…at the development of political culture within Philadelphia specifically shows that the political culture accommodated female political authority before mid-century.”34 But during the years during and following the Stamp Act Crisis, the political culture began to become more and more masculinized. As the concerns of the entire colonies began to overshadow local concerns in Philadelphia, “the gender of political culture was transformed.”35 In just one example, before the Revolution, the officials of Philadelphia wished to implement policies to distinguish “male independence from female dependence,” in the realm of urban poverty that catered to men. These policies dismissed the greater problem of women’s poverty. It became part of a growing trend. Thus, independent women, those who were unmarried or independent by law, “figuratively and literally disappeared from view.”36
When the Revolution began, war emphasized the male role in new ways for colonial America. As Linda Kerber argues, military service, suffrage, and “their understanding of self, honor, and shame” all contributed to the idea of citizenship for men in relation to the republic.37 However, citizenship for women remained to be defined. Sentiments attempted to address this issue.38
With the patriotic fervor of Sentiments to uphold them, the women of Philadelphia wasted no time in beginning their campaign. Traveling in pairs, they immediately began to solicit donations door to door. They also divided the city into ten equal districts and requested donations from “each woman and girl without any distinction.”39 Their higher social standing did much to elevate their cause. Esther, wife of the governor of Pennsylvania and Sarah Franklin Bache, daughter of one of the most well-known and prominent men in America, undoubtedly gave them more confidence in their quest.
Since the American army had just recently re-taken Philadelphia, the women found numerous loyalist families packing and preparing to leave.40 But they did not hesitate to knock on loyalists’ doors, producing mixed reactions. Loyalist Anna Rawle Clifford saw the women in quite a different light. She described them as “so extremely importunate that people were obliged to give them something to get rid of them.”41 Women also utilized their feminine charms to extract money as Linda Kerber states, “they were not above teasing and flirting to get contributions, reminding those who were unenthusiastic that it was rude to refuse anything to pretty women.”42 Indeed, Anna Rawle Clifford described the scene of seeing Sarah Franklin Bache and other women going about their duty.They “…paraded down the streets…some carrying ink stands; nor did
they let the meanest ale house escape. The gentleman were also
honoured with their visits. Bob Wharton declares he was never so teased in
his life. They reminded him of the extreme rudeness of refusing anything
to the fair sex; but he was inexorable and pleaded want of money, and the
heavy taxes, so at length they left him, after threatening to hand his name
down to posterity with infamy.”43Although obviously biased from a Loyalist perspective, Clifford’s view illustrates the eighteenth-century mindset towards women. Using their ‘feminine charms’ to their advantage displayed their attunement with their identity. It was a unique part of women’s patriotism and they understood it fully. Whether the men did or not remained to be seen. George Washington himself had called female patriotism “the love of country…blended with those softer domestic virtues.”44 But Abigail Adams deemed the fund-raising event “a highly significant contribution to the war effort” 45 and proceeded to notice the spirit of women’s patriotism sweeping through the country. “Read the Pensilvania papers,” she wrote in a letter to John Thaxter, “and see the Spirit catching from state to state.” 46
It appears the women exploited their “soft” virtues to their full advantage. By the end of the fund-raising campaign in early July, the women had collected more than $300,000 continental dollars. When converted to specie, it amounted to approximately $7500.47 But it was not merely residents of colonial America who responded to the call. General Marquis de La Fayette admired the model the Philadelphia ladies created, donating 100 guineas on behalf of his wife, the Marquess. In a letter accompanying the money dated July 25, 1780, the Marquis wrote, “In Admiring the New Resolution in which the fair ones of Philadelphia have taken the Lead, I am induced to feel for those American ladies who Being out of the Continent cannot participate in this patriotic measure…May I most humbly present myself as her Ambassador to the Confederate ladies, and solicit in her Name that Mrs President Be pleased to accept of her offering.”48
The Ladies Association took their mission quite seriously. They meticulously recorded the names of those who donated and the amount. All in all, the women had collected from 1,645 residents of Philadelphia as well as the small communities surrounding it. 49 Indeed, women even “sold jewelry and converted other trinkets into something more serviceable” in order to contribute. 50
To look at these statistics only illustrates women’s dedication in supporting the Continental Army. It also demonstrated patriotism in a way men had not. In a letter Esther Reed wrote to General Washington, explaining the amount of money collected, she states, “…although it has answered our expectations, it does not equal our wishes, but I am persuaded the money will be received as a roof of our zeal for the great cause of America and our esteem and gratitude for those who so bravely defend it.”51
In considering the evidence of those who participated and those who recorded their reactions to the Association, it is evident these women held deep beliefs concerning the Revolution and wished to express their patriotism in a way appropriate to the domestic sphere. Such a fund-raising campaign might not have been as successful if men had undertaken the role. Indeed, their very gender contributed enormously to their success. Femininity was a powerful weapon in persuading Americans to give donations to the Cause. A Ladies Association participant wrote to her friend describing the patriotism expressed in the fund-raising campaign. In an anonymous letter dated July 6, 1780, she wrote, “It will suffice to inform you, that we have been witnesses of scenes of patriotism extremely affecting, and capable of inflaming the coldest minds with love of the public good; I have learned more than ever to respect my countrywomen, and there is no title in which I shall hereafter more glory than in that of an American woman (original emphasis).” 52
But as Mary Beth Norton points out, the fund-raising campaign in Philadelphia also had various other symbolic goals besides collecting money for the troops. One who participated in the fund-raising stated that the “canvassers hoped that the ‘general beneficient’ subscription would ‘produce the happy effect of destroying intestine discords, even to the very last seeds.’”53 This anonymous participant continued by saying they wished to give those ladies who had consorted with the enemy during the Occupation of Philadelphia a chance of “relinquishing former errors and of avowing a change of sentiments by their contributions to the general cause of liberty and their country.”54
During the British Occupation, women such as Rebecca Franks openly flaunted their Loyalist sympathies and became the reigning belles of Philadelphia during the party-like atmosphere of 1777-1778. But upon the American’s return to the city, the very same women were not ousted. Indeed, they continued to be invited to the parties of American commanders.55 Apparently the women of the Ladies Association sought to mend this rift that had appeared in Philadelphian society. They undoubtedly felt a return to republican virtue essential. Although this notion of republican motherhood manifested more towards the end of the war and in the years following, displaying virtue during wartime still became an important attribute of women. The Ladies Association sought to reinstate the notion of republican virtue to those women of Philadelphia who had blatantly consorted with the enemy during the Occupation.
With the Association focusing the majority of their fund-raising efforts on women by women, they effectively created a discourse for political discussion between females. Since they based much of their identity on their femininity, it only made sense to keep in step with this identity and rally colonial women to reflect upon their patriotism and their loyalty to or against their country. More importantly, the Ladies Association did not seek to just encourage this patriotism within Philadelphia alone. Instead, they sought to inspire women in other colonies to emulate their example.
Other colonies, including Maryland, New Jersey, and Virginia, organized women-driven fundraisers.56 In the course of twelve days, they raised more than $15,000. To exhibit the dedication of some of these women, it is fitting to mention the patriotic spirit of New Jersey native Mrs. Rhoda Smith Farrand who “rode around her part of the country in an oxcart, urging women to knit socks for the soldiers. She knitted as she rode and in a single week delivered to the American camp 133 pairs of socks.”57 The donations from these colonies’ fund-raisers was directly transmitted to George Washington to do with as he saw fit.58
But Esther Reed had not relinquished the Association’s funds so easily. In their Ideas, the women placed a restriction on the money. She wrote to General Washington of their pledge to “render the condition of the soldier more pleasant.”59 After Washington received the letter stating the total amount of funds raised for the Army, he wrote back to Esther in a letter dated July 14, 1780, “If I am happy in having the concurrence of the Ladies, I would propose the purchasing of course Linnen, to be made into Shirts, with the whole amount of their subscription. A Shirt extraordinary to the Soldier will be of more service, and do more to preserve his health than any other thing that could be procured him; while it is not intended, nor shall exclude him, from the usual supply which he draws from the public. This appears to me, to be the best mode for its application, and provided it is approved of by the Ladies.”60
Washington undoubtedly wished to use the money to purchase those articles that Congress should have provided simply because Congress had not provided them. As a measure of the conditions of the army during the winter encampment of 1779-1780 prior to the women’s fund-raising venture, it is important to look at the account of James Thacher, a surgeon in the Continental Army. “March. The present winter is the most severe and distressing which we have ever experienced…Our soldiers are in a wretched condition for the want of clothes, blankets and shoes; and these calamitous circumstances are accompanied by a want of provisions…The causes assigned for these extraordinary deficiencies, are the very low state of public finances, in consequence of the rapid depreciation of the continental currency…”61
Through her husband Joseph, Esther became aware of the deplorable condition of the army. Washington had appealed to Joseph for help in May of 1780 in which he called the state of the country “in a state of insensibility” and “indifferent” to the crisis.62 With their close relationship, Joseph shared these developments with Esther and this undoubtedly inspired her to begin the Ladies Association. If Esther had not held such an open political discourse with her husband, it is doubtful she would have been compelled to organize the fund-raising campaign.
After a series of letters in which Esther and General Washington debated about the final use of the money, he launched onto the subject of what the soldiers would appreciate. “Soldiers woud not be so much gratified by bestowing an article to which they look upon themselves entitled from the public as in some other method which woud convey more fully the Idea of a reward for past Services & incitement to future Duty.”63
Perhaps Esther believed such an argument spoke to Washington’s sense of women’s patriotism. In accepting money from the women of America, soldiers undoubtedly would be more inspired to defend their country. It also fell within the boundaries of a woman’s traditional role: the weaker sex in need of protection and loyalty from the men of America.
She proposed to give each soldier two dollars to do with as he pleased. But at the same time, she also stressed she had no wish to challenge the authority of the general. “This method I hint only,” she added, “but would not be any means wish to adopt that or any other without your full approbation.”64 Once more Esther clung to her identity as the obedient female. But in merely suggesting this particular argument, she also revealed the way in which she, personally, had loosened the bonds of the patriarchal society. If Esther had not held such a relatively equal relationship with her husband, it is doubtful she would have protested the use of the money to fit the Association’s prescribed needs.
After several more letters between Esther and Washington in which she continually pressed her case regarding the funds dispersal, Esther received a letter from the general urging her to reconsider because the army was in strict need of shirts. Esther wrote to her husband in a letter dated August 22, 1780, of her acceptance of using the money for Washington’s purposes. “I received this morning a letter from the General, and he still continues his opinion that the money in my hands should be laid out in linen; he says no supplies he has at present, or has a prospect of, are any way adequate to the wants of the army.”65 However, the tone of his last letter to Esther exhibited far more formality than the others, suggesting his annoyance at being asked his opinion again on the proper distribution of the money. As Paul Engle writes, “It was unlikely that very many Americans of either sex asked the general to reconsider any decision.” 66
After receiving this letter, Esther made the necessary arrangements to purchase the linen to make shirts for the soldiers. The Association soon began the monumental sewing task. It likely resembled the numerous sewing bees so prevalent in colonial society. It also was a distinctly feminine activity, harkening back to the domestic sphere of women. Unfortunately, even though the Association had tried to forge an independent path for women by organizing the nation-wide fund-raiser, they remained glued to the domestic sphere and became termed, as one historian said, “General Washington’s Sewing Circle.”67
But the woman who had envisioned and structured the entire organization died before she could see its completion. Already weakened by the birth of her last child, a bout with smallpox, and her anxieties over the war and her husband’s safety, Esther died of acute dysentery on September 22, 1780, a mere two weeks after the shirts began to be manufactured.68 Sarah Franklin Bache, Benjamin Franklin’s daughter, took over the Association and by early December, more than two-thousand shirts had been completed. A Frenchman, the Marquis de Chastellux, visited Sarah’s house and stated, “On each shirt was the name of the married or unmarried lady who made it.”69 The shirts were delivered to General Washington’s army in late December, just in time for Christmas.70
Esther’s obituary exalted her. One passage mentioned her death might have occurred because she had “imposed on herself too great a part of the task” of the Ladies Association, but that “she is received into the paradise of female patriotism with supereminent distinction.”71 But the most noteworthy notation in the obituary mentioned a quality soon to be attributed to women on a far grander scale: virtue. Indeed, “the workmanship ‘of their own labour’ was truly ‘an effort of virtue.’”72
But what is key to the symbol of virtue with women is its significance to their domestic abilities and their sphere within the home. The war did not lead women such as Abigail Adams or Esther Reed to “question the traditional model of women or to change their image.”73 What the war did do, however, was to reinforce the domestic role of women but add another dimension to its foundation. Thus, the new rhetoric of Republican Motherhood came into being and virtue threaded its way into the very fabric of its meaning. The Ladies Association of Philadelphia sought to find a way to help support the soldiers of the Continental Army, certainly. But they also sought to express their patriotic visions in a society where the declarations of politics by women were limited to the private sphere. Indeed, those women who wished to be a wife and mother as well as an independent political being “would need to persuade a hostile public that expressive political behavior did not threaten the traditional domestic domain.”74
Republican Motherhood helped shape a new role that fit neatly within the context of all a woman represented. Linda Kerber points out in her essay “The Revolution and Women’s Rights” that “women would keep the republic virtuous by maintaining the boundaries of the political community” by keeping a steady and watchful eye on the political behavior of the men in their families.75
But unfortunately, even though the Ladies Association did contribute greatly to General Washington’s army, their overall role in the way the female gender became viewed during and following the Revolution was not as successful. They had not yet earned the respect of being a fully functional, politically-minded human being – i.e. a man. In Washington’s “thank you” speech to the women, he said the women’s contributions put them on equal footing with “any of who have preceded them in the walk of female patriotism,” and, he continued, their “love of country is blended with those softer domestic virtues, which have always been allowed to be more peculiarly your own (original emphasis).”76 Even though Washington’s thank-you was sincere, he relied on the general concept of female patriotism evident during the eighteenth-century. Women did not figure into Enlightenment theory as “the major theorists of the Enlightenment, the Whig Commonwealth, and the republican revolution had not explored the possibility of including women as part of the people” 77
Therefore, women’s patriotic feminism could only be compared to other female patriotic feminism throughout history. Nowhere did Washington mention on an equal footing with patriotism itself. This idea simply did not yet exist. Women’s place remained within the home. Although they could express their patriotism outside the home, it had to be consistent with the identity of a woman and her domestic role.
The Ladies Association of Philadelphia did more than fund-raise. Their success lies within the determination of colonial women to support the Revolution by expressing their political views through a sphere acceptable to their identity. Women of patriarchal colonial America knew their place to be within the home and most did not challenge this notion. But what the Association did offer was an arena for women to safely express their views without questioning their domestic role. It also showed the sheer determination of women to become active participants in a Revolution that would eventually leave them with an independent nation. Although they broadened the domestic sphere, it would be some time before women took politics into the male-dominated arena. Even then, their roles would be challenged within society.
Endnotes
1. Rosemary Keller, Patriotism and the Female Sex: Abigail Adams and the American Revolution (Brooklyn: Carlson Publishing, 1994), 97.2. John Adams, “John Adams to Abigail Adams, April 14, 1776,” in Richard D. Brown, ed., Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000), 290.3. Mary Beth Norton, Liberty’s Daughters: The Revolutionary Experience of American Women, 1750-1800 (Boston: Little, Brown, 1980), 111.4. Ibid, 112.5. Joan R. Gundersen, To Be Useful to the World: Women in Revolutionary America, 1740-1790 (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1996), 134.6. Ibid, 134.7. Karin Wulf, Not All Wives: Women of Colonial Philadelphia (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000), 116-117.8. Edith Patterson Meyer, Petticoat Patriots of the American Revolution (New York: Vanguard Press, Inc., 1976), 132.9. Norton, Liberty’s Daughters, 112.10. Ibid, 120.11. Ibid, 120.12. Linda K. Kerber, Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1980), 79.13. Ibid, 78.14. Paul Engle, Women in the American Revolution (Chicago: Follett, 1976), 45.15. Gundersen, To Be Useful to the World, 149.16. Wulf, Not All Wives, 184.17. Meyer, Petticoat Patriots, 132.18. Engle, Women in the American Revolution, 36.19. Ibid, 40.20. Kerber, Women of the Republic, 35.21. William B. Reed, The Life of Esther De Berdt Reed (New York: Arno Press, 1971), 209.22. Norton, Liberty’s Daughters, 179.23. Kerber, Women of the Republic, 105.24. Norton, Liberty’s Daughters, 179.25. Kerber, Women of the Republic, 110.26. Norton, Liberty’s Daughters, 179.27. Kerber, Women of the Republic, 102.28. http://womhist.binghamton.edu/amrev/intro.htm29. Norton, Liberty’s Daughters, 179.30. http://womhist.binghamton.edu/amrev/intro.htm31. http://womhist.binghamton.edu/amrev/intro.htm32. Gundersen, To Be Useful to the World, 163.33. Kerber, Women of the Republic, 105.34. Wulf, Not All Wives, 186.35. Ibid, 186.36. Ibid, 187.37. Linda Kerber, “The Revolution and Women’s Rights” in Richard D. Brown, ed., Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000), 302.38. Ibid, 302-303.39. Norton, Liberty’s Daughters, 180.40. http://womhist.binghamton.edu/amrev/intro.htm41. Norton, Liberty’s Daughters, 180.42. Kerber, Women of the Republic, 104.43. Gundersen, To Be Useful to the World, 162.44. Kerber, Women of the Republic, 106.45. Keller, Patriotism and the Female Sex, 119.46. Ibid, 119.47. Gundersen, To Be Useful to the World, 163.48. Reed, The Life of Esther De Berdt Reed, 320.49. http://womhist.binghamton.edu/amrev/intro.htm50. Meyer, Petticoat Patriots, 134.51. Engle, Women in the American Revolution, 43.52. http://womhist.binghamton.edu/amrev/intro.htm53. Norton, Liberty’s Daughters, 181.54. Ibid, 181.55. Engle, Women in the American Revolution, 120.56. Gundersen, To Be Useful to the World, 163.57. Meyer, Petticoat Patriots, 135.58. Kerber, Women of the Republic, 102-103.59. Norton, Liberty’s Daughters, 179.60. http://womhist.binghamton.edu/amrev/intro.htm61. James Thatcher, “A Winter Encampment, 1779-1780” in Cynthia A. Kierner, ed., Revolutionary America 1750-1815: Sources and Interpretation (Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2003), 164.62. http://womhist.binghamton.edu/amrev/intro.htm63. Engle, Women in the American Revolution, 43.64. Norton, Liberty’s Daughters, 185.65. Reed, The Life of Esther De Berdt Reed, 311.66. Engle, Women in the American Revolution, 44.67. Norton, Liberty’s Daughters, 187.68. Engle, Women in the American Revolution, 44.69. Norton, Liberty’s Daughters, 187.70. Gundersen, To Be Useful to the World, 163.71. http://womhist.binghamton.edu/amrev/intro.htm72. Ibid73. Keller, Patriotism and the Female Sex, 121.74. Kerber, Women of the Republic, 36.75. Linda Kerber, “The Revolution and Women’s Rights” in Richard D. Brown, ed., Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Compnay, 2000), 303.76. Norton, Liberty’s Daughters, 187.77. Kerber, Women of the Republic, 105.
Bibliography
Center for the Historical Study of Women and Gender at State University of New York at Binghamton. “Women and Social Movements in the United States, 1775-2000.” May, 2001. http://womhist.binghamton.edu/amrev/intro.htmEngle, Paul. Women in the American Revolution. Chicago: Follett, 1976.Gundersen, Joan R. To Be Useful to the World: Women in Revolutionary America, 1740-1790. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1996.Keller, Rosemary. Patriotism and the Female Sex: Abigail Adams and the American Revolution. Brooklyn: Carlson Publishing, 1994.Kerber, Linda. “The Revolution and Women’s Rights” in Richard D. Brown, ed., Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.Kerber, Linda K. Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1980.Thatcher, James. “A Winter Encampment, 1779-1780” in Cynthia A. Kierner, ed., Revolutionary America 1750-1815: Sources and Interpretation. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2003.Norton, Mary Beth. Liberty’s Daughters: The Revolutionary Experience of American Women, 1750-1800. Boston: Little, Brown, 1980.Reed, William B. The Life of Esther De Berdt Reed. New York: Arno Press, 1971.Wulf, Karin. Not All Wives: Women of Colonial Philadelphia. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000.