WOMEN

Did the American Revolution change therole of women in American society?

Viewpoint: Yes. The Revolution broke down traditional barriers and changedperceptions of the proper female role in society as women increasinglydeclared their interest in public affairs.

Viewpoint: No. The Revolution produced no significant benefits for womenbecause their limited prewar experiences did not prepare them to take advan-tage of opportunities to elevate their position in society.

The War of Independence was arguably America's first "total war." Allelements of society mobilized for war, including women, who contributed tothe war effort in many ways. Some women raised money for the war effort,made shirts and uniforms for soldiers, and collected scrap metal for makingbullets. Still others made homespun clothes and other material substitutes forBritish imported goods that proved invaluable in the success of the Americannonconsumption agreements. Many women also served as "deputy hus-bands" by managing farms, plantations, and stores while their husbandsserved on military duty. Finally, women provided valuable service to the armyas "camp followers" by washing, sewing, cooking, and nursing (in otherwords, activities that were considered women's work) that male soldiers werereluctant to do.

In all these activities, however, women did not stray far from their tradi-tional domestic sphere and therefore did not threaten the established patriar-chy. Indeed, few women insisted on a redefinition of their role and status,perhaps because they knew that most men still thought of females as a formof property whose sole existence was to serve them and therefore wouldstrongly resist any attempt by the "weaker sex" to upset this vassal-lord rela-tionship. Still, what is significant about women's contributions to the Revolu-tion is that Patriot leaders saw women as invaluable allies in the struggleagainst Britain and openly solicited their support. Women's contributions alsoillustrate the depth of commitment to the American cause.

Thus, women played an important and conspicuous role in the AmericanRevolution. What is in question, however, is whether or not the Revolutionhelped to liberate women from their traditionally subservient status. The fol-lowing essays present two opposing answers to this question. An examina-tion of this issue forces careful consideration of gender relations andwomen's roles in American society, as well as the purpose of the war and the"revolutionary" aspect of this epochal event.

317

Viewpoint:Yes. The Revolution broke downtraditional barriers and changedperceptions of the proper femalerole in society as womenincreasingly declared theirinterest in public affairs.

Until recently, historians of the colonialperiod generally accepted the notion that whiteAmerican women enjoyed a social status higher thantheir European counterparts and their nineteenth-century sisters. Scholars based their findings onwomen's vital contribution to household man-agement and the family economy. While the vastmajority of eighteenth-century women workedwithin the home, many also engaged in businessactivities where they encountered few legal orsocial restraints. Moreover, the high ratio of mento women in the colonies presumably allowedfemales a stronger bargaining position in maritalrelationships. Since gender roles were notsharply defined and distinctions between menand women were relatively negligible, preindus-trial women enjoyed a larger measure of indepen-dence and equality.

With the onset of industrialization in theearly nineteenth century, however, rigid separatespheres for the sexes emerged, and the "goldenage" of female opportunity ceased. As men neces-sarily left the farms for the factories, where theyincreasingly participated in business and publicaffairs, women's roles as economic producersand political participants declined. The femalesphere was removed to a domestic setting. Thus,scholars concluded, the market revolution, andnot the American Revolution, brought about agreater separation of the sexes, disrupting oldsocial relations and contributing to a deteriora-tion of female autonomy.

The representation of the colonial era as a"golden age" for women, however, was a myth.Eighteenth-century America was not an egalitar-ian society but a hierarchical and patriarchalorder that assigned a subordinate, domestic roleto women. In fact, socially constructed roles forthe sexes were often deemed an inviolate, naturallaw. "The empire of women," Jean-Jacques Rous-seau wrote in 1763, is one "of softness, ofaddress, of complacency." Women who trans-gressed into civic life upset the essential balancebetween the male and female spheres. Conse-quently, though colonial wives might supervisethe day-to-day activities of the home and farm,they exercised little or no control over the wealththey produced. Husbands controlled the finances,their wives' legal status (feme covert, or coveredwoman), and the ultimate decisions concerning

children. Political debate and voting rightsremained male prerogatives, while women borechildren, bestowed love, and dispensed moralguidance. In cases of unhappy marriages, womenhad few legal options to divorce. Furthermore,most colonial women could not sue, draft wills,write contracts, serve on juries, or buy and sellproperty. Unmarried women or widows whoheld real estate were politically powerless andlacked a public voice to oppose taxation withoutrepresentation. As for schooling, few girlsattended or had access to formal education,which, in turn, narrowed the range of occupa-tions open to women. In short, domestic experi-ences, rather than the public sphere, defined thelives of colonial American women.

Decades before the introduction of factoriesand machines, the revolutionary period began toalter the female condition. The war raised theirconsciousness and broke down traditional gen-der barriers. The outpouring of pamphlets, news-papers, and sermons unleashed "a contagion ofliberty" that stirred female inquisitivenessbeyond the boundaries of their private realm.The letters and diaries of a few educated womenrevealed their curiosity about political topics,considered "the most animating Subject" of theday. Whereas earlier they apologized for theirinterest in public affairs, after the mid 1760swomen eagerly read political literature, regularlyengaged in policy debates, and openly pro-claimed their allegiance as either Patriots or Loy-alists. This newfound sense of political awarenessand self-identity led New Jersey poet and writerAnnis Boudinot Stockton boldly to declare:"Tho a female I was born a patriot and cant helpit If I would."

Other more traditional-minded, articulatewomen, however, expressed their political opin-ions in private. In the spring of 1776 AbigailAdams, who corresponded frequently with herhusband, John, adopted the revolutionary rheto-ric by expressing her desire for a "new Code ofLaws" that would "Remember the Ladies." TheRevolution, she reasoned, had challenged cus-tomary modes of thought and behavior thatcould no longer be ignored. "If perticular careand attention is not paid to the Ladies," sheasserted, "we are determined to foment a Rebe-lion." Clearly, the imperial crisis and impendingwar politicized women, raising their expectationsand heightening their demands, even if only in aprivate setting.

Although the Revolution did not liberatewomen from male dominance or result in a rebel-lion, as Abigail Adams threatened, it called cus-tomary roles into question. The profound effectof revolutionary ideology resonated with women,who seized upon any opportunity to take anactive role in the conflict. When newspaper edi-

318 HISTORY IN DISPUTE, VOLUME 12: THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

tors urged them to support a boycott of tea andother taxed items, colonial women responded totheir patriotic call to action. Groups of ladiessigned public pledges to abstain from using tea.Others refused to buy English goods and orga-nized mass spinning bees to weave homespuncloth. Some even "threw off their delicacy" andjoined the tar-and-feathering crowds. In the Souththe ladies of Edenton, North Carolina, formallyagreed to endorse nonimportation policies anddo everything within their power to support the"publick good." Such activities represented a radi-cal departure from their limited roles as guardiansof the hearth and home and signaled an expandedsense of self-identify as political actors.

As women gained a political voice, their sup-porting roles on the farm and the battlefrontalso expanded. The disruptions of the normal

patterns of life, as well as the potential for dan-ger, death, and destruction, had a noticeableeffect on women. With their sons and husbandsaway at war, wives adeptly assumed a wider rangeof tasks traditionally allocated to men. Alone forlong periods of time, women operated farms,provided for families, managed finances, and ranbusinesses. In turn, these new responsibilitiesprovided them with a sense of confidence inthemselves and in their abilities to handle unfa-miliar duties. At the same time, wives of the com-batants volunteered to perform essential wartimetasks as camp followers. They found work ascooks, laundresses, and nurses, while a fewserved as spies, couriers, and soldiers. Whilemany surely followed their spouses into warbecause of marital ties or a lack of alternativemeans of support, some women acted indepen-

HISTORY IN DISPUTE, VOLUME 12: THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 319

THE LADIES

speaks out as an advocate of women's rights:her husband, John. In her 13 March 1776 letter, AbigailThe following is an exchange between Abigail Adams and

I long to hear that you have declared

new Code of Laws which I suppose it will

John responded to Abigail on14 April1776:

As to your extraordinary Code of Laws, Icannot but laugh. We have been told that ourStruggle has loosened the bands of Govern-ment everywhere. That Children and Appren-tices were disobedient—that schools andColledges were grown turbulent—that Indians

pliment but you are so saucy, I wont blot it out.discontented.—This is rather too coarse a Com-ous and powerful than all the rest were grownfirst Intimation that another Tribe more numer-insolent to their Masters. But your Letter was theslighted their Guardians and Negroes grew

Depend upon it, We know better than torepeal our masculine systems. Altho they are infull Force, you know they are little more thanTheory. We dare not exert our Power in its fullLatitude. We are obliged to go fair, and softly,and In Practice you know We are the subjects.

Source: Michael P. Johnson, ed., Reading the Ameri-

demand new Priviledges and threaten to reball.at last they have stimulated the ladies toIrish Roman Catholicks, Scotch Renegadoes,Negroes, Hanoverians. Hessians, Russians,Trimmers, Bigots, Canadians, Indians,wicked. stirring up Tories, Landjobbers,begin to think the Ministry as deep as they artject Us to the Despotism of the Peticoat.... Ithan give up this, which would compleatly sub-We have only the Name of and rather

(Boston: Bedford, 1998), pp. 103-105.can Past: Selected Historical Documents, volume 1power only for our happiness.

Of the Supreme Being make use of thatdence under your protection and in imitationRegard us then as beings placed by provi-treat us only as the vassals of your Sex.

abhor those customs whichcruetly and indignity with impurity. Men ofof the vicious and the Lawless to use us withFriend Why then, not put it out of the powerter for the more tender and endearing one ofhappy willingly give up the harsh title of Mas.of no dispute, but such of you as to bea Truth so thoroughly established as admit

That your Sex are naturally Tyrannical is

have no voice, or Representation.selves bound by any Laws in which wefoment a rebellion, and will not hold our-paid to the Ladies we are determined tocould if perticular care and attention is notRemember all Men would be tyrants if theypower into the hands of Husbands.ancestors. Do not put suchgenerous and favourable to them than yourwould Remember the Ladies, and be morebe necessary for you to make i desire you

Mssters,

After

Sense in allAges

wish

unlimited

an independancy-and by the way in the

REMEMBER

dently and with political conviction. One suchactivist was Deborah Sampson, who disguisedherself as a man to enlist in the ContinentalArmy. Others, such as patriot Esther Reed, artic-ulated a firm resolution to contribute personallyas much as possible to the cause. In her 1780broadside, The Sentiments of an AmericanWoman, she outlined an active role for women.Since opinion and manners prohibited womenfrom marching "to glory by the same paths asthe Men," Reed observed, they should thereforerenounce their "vain ornaments" and donatethose surplus funds for the benefit of the troops.As a consequence, in Philadelphia alone "theoffering of the Ladies" totaled more than$300,000, prompting General George Washing-ton to offer his profuse thanks. Wartime disrup-tions, then, dissolved many distinctions betweenprivate and public spheres and signaled far widerroles for women than caretakers of domestichouseholds or partners in marital unions.

In the aftermath of the Revolution, aswomen pushed the limits that had governedtheir colonial grandmothers, leaders of the newRepublic undertook a redefinition of femaleroles. The issue aroused considerable publicdebate, especially among newspaper and maga-zine editors. Since women had competently andpatriotically aided the war effort, they reported,old notions about rigid separate spheres had tobe discarded. Men no longer could acceptunquestioningly the belief in feminine weakness,delicacy, and dependence; however, by discard-ing such traditional characterizations of femalenature, a new relationship between the state andwomen's public role was necessary.

Yet, few citizens were willing to declare thatmen and women were equal. Notwithstandingthe brief experiment in New Jersey (1776-1807)with female suffrage, the nation chose to accom-modate its female Patriots by defining their pub-lic role along with their domestic responsibilities.Utilizing the ideology of republican motherhood,Patriot leaders forged a compromise betweenwomen's exclusion from the body politic andtheir integration into full citizenship. Since thesuccess of the Republic rested on the character ofits citizens, they reasoned, female filial dutieswere to nurture, exert moral influence, and raisevirtuous sons. Thus, by recognizing the value ofwomen's work, society endowed domesticitywith political meaning.

As a consequence of the American Revolu-tion, republican ideology emphasized theimportance of female education. Prior to thewar, few girls had received formal instructionbeyond the rudiments of essential basic skills.After all, daughters were educated for marriageand dependence, not for an occupation or inde-pendence. "All the accomplishments we teach

them are directed, not to their future benefit inlife," writer Thomas Cooper argued, "but to theamusement of the male sex." But unexpectedwartime demands, which confronted manycompetent, yet unprepared, women for the firsttime, convinced them of their need for broadertraining. Moreover, with their newly expandedrole as republican mothers, theoretically account-able to the nation, women necessarily wouldrequire wider access to education. Public elemen-tary schools opened their doors to females, andprivate academies greatly expanded the curricu-lum offered to girls. At the same time, teachingbecame the first profession open to women,attracting many intellectually gifted young stu-dents. Access to education, then, was a signifi-cant benefit to women resulting from theRevolution.

The postwar period also acceleratedchanges in family and marital relationships forwomen. Although they remained femes coverts,women achieved some limited social and legalgains. Daughters no longer assumed that mar-riage was their only destiny. They could chooseto postpone or even forgo matrimony. Increas-ingly, republican parents allowed those whomarried to choose their own partners. "In mat-ters of such importance," a New Englanderobserved in 1784, a young woman "ought to beleft intirely to herself." Republican thinking alsoshifted perspectives on family authority from apatriarchal to a more egalitarian relationship.Rather than obedience and subordination,women were freer to express their needs andopinions and to insist on a marriage of mutualesteem and shared affection. Furthermore, sev-eral states began to revise their laws, giving wid-ows more control over their inherited estates.Other states responded to revolutionary princi-ples that emphasized freedom from burdensomemasters by passing statutes that legalized divorceand provided for joint custody of minor chil-dren. With the elimination of primogenitureafter the war, for the first time females were thelegal equal of males in issues of inheritance.

The egalitarian spirit of the age also alteredchild-rearing practices in the Republic. Depart-ing from the patriarchal family model, somefathers no longer ruled tyrannically over theiroffspring but adopted more enlightened rationaltechniques that nurtured rather than punishedand guided rather than directed. At the sametime, the role of motherhood assumed greaterimportance. As women molded the next genera-tion of citizens, they became caregivers andteachers, instructing by both example and pre-cept. Thus, the future of the nation ultimatelydepended on the successful transmission ofmoral and democratic values by republicanmothers.

320 HISTORY IN DISPUTE, VOLUME 12: THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

As a result of the American Revolution,women's lives changed forever. The postrevolu-tionary decades broke down traditional barriersfor women and expanded their consciousnessconcerning their proper role in society. Further-more, their wartime experiences emboldenedwomen to assume important responsibilities inthe absence of men, participate in businessaffairs, and feed and clothe an army. They per-formed valuable services in the public arena,from speech making and boycotting to petition-ing and nursing. In the process, Revolutionarywomen became politicized and, like men, madeclaims on the Republic. While the gender gapremained broad, women acquired greater auton-omy over their homes, property, and lives. Addi-tionally, they gained access to education thatwould eventually lead to the full assertion oftheir political, legal, and social rights by the1840s. Indeed, by 1798, writer Judith SargentMurray could predict glowingly that the Revolu-tion had dispelled "the clouds which have hith-erto enveloped" women, and "a new era offemale history" had commenced.

-MARY L. KELLEY, LAMAR UNIVERSITY

Viewpoint:No. The Revolution produced nosignificant benefits for womenbecause their limited prewarexperiences did not prepare them totake advantage of opportunities toelevate their position in society.

In eighteenth-century America, women—along with slaves, servants, and children—werepresumed to be dependents. Although femaledependence took many forms and varied accord-ing to class, race, and region, it was rooted princi-pally in women's primary roles as wives andmothers. Marriage, the institution that shapedthese roles, was guided by many long-standingsocial, economic, and legal traditions—all ofwhich set the stage for female dependence.Although an increasing number of middle-classparents were allowing their children to choosetheir marriage partners, many eighteenth-centurymarriages were still arranged. Marriage thus con-tinued to represent a linkage of land and familyresources rather than of individuals; it was a part-nership meant to preserve and enhance a family'slineage and legacy. These traditions, especially asthey were expressed in law, significantlyimpacted men's and women's roles in marriageand society. According to the precedents ofEnglish Common Law, a man who married

found himself elevated to the status of patriarch;he became his family's public face. A womanwho married, by contrast, found herself subordi-nated as a feme covert (covered woman). Indeed,under the laws of coverture, a married womanhad no legal or political identity separate fromthat of her husband; she was literally and meta-phorically covered by him and his identity. Thisstatus meant that, with some exceptions, a mar-ried woman could not own property, make con-tracts, or sue or be sued apart from herhusband—nor could she vote, serve on a jury, orhold political office. Coverture also restricted awife's claim to family property. Typically, a mar-ried woman could claim absolute control of onlya small amount of personal property, such asclothing, jewelry, and kitchen utensils. If wid-owed, a wife had dower rights to only aone-third, life-interest share of her husband's realestate—unless her husband specified otherwise.This provision usually provided a widow with aplace to reside but gave her almost no authorityover its management and disposal. The AmericanRevolution did nothing to change the subordi-nate status of women.

Coverture defined a woman's dependentposition in marriage. Yet, it also had broaderimplications, because in establishing a hierarchyof male over female in the household, covertureserved as a key building block of the monarchicalsociety that prevailed in England and Americabefore the American Revolution. To the English,as to the American colonists, the gendered hier-archy in the "little commonwealth" of the house-hold mirrored and nurtured the genderedhierarchy of the larger commonwealth. Englandenvisioned its nation as one large household ofsubjects led by a benevolent but patriarchal king;and just as in the "little" household where hus-bands had obligations to serve and protect theirfamilies and wives were expected to submit, sub-jects of the king were linked by their reciprocalduties and obligations to one another. In estab-lishing a ranked order in society, these duties andobligations fostered political stability in therealm—a stability that, for the most part, helduntil the American Revolution. At the sametime, these duties and obligations also worked tohold women in a subordinate place within thestate and conditioned society in England andAmerica to view women as dependents whoseobligations were to submit rather than to lead orresist. Women, it was assumed, needed protec-tion; they would not, should not, or could notbe revolutionaries.

Eighteenth-century American women alsofaced other constraints. As mothers, womenfound that female "lifeways" of childbearing andchildrearing held them close to hearth andhome. American women, white as well as black,

HISTORY IN DISPUTE, VOLUME 12: THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 321

Meeting of a Society ofPatriotic Ladies atEdenton in North

Carolina; etching byPhilip Dawe showing

local women signing adeclaration not to drink

British tea, 1774(Library of Congress,

Washington, D.C.)

first married, on average, between the ages ofeighteen and twenty-two. At that time theyembarked on a lifelong pattern of childbearingand child rearing. Many women bore children,on average, about once every twenty-four tothirty-six months until they reached their forties.Although these averages varied by race, class, andregion, most women spent upward of twentyyears of their adult lives pregnant, nursing, orcaring for small children. Indeed, despite highrates of infant mortality, it was not unusual for aneighteenth-century woman to raise eight or morechildren to adulthood. And because eighteenth-century society extolled women's fertility as oneof their chief virtues, children-the "fruits" of a

woman's body-were one of the principal mea-sures of her social worth.

Fertility patterns and the burden of rearingso many children constrained women's lives andlimited their experiences and ability to partici-pate in nondomestic affairs. Marriage and moth-erhood thus shaped the daily lives of eighteenth-century American women in ways both subtleand profound. There can be no doubt that theselife experiences offered women many personalrewards and emotional joys. At the same time,however, the legalities of marriage and the logis-tical issues of childbearing and child raising lim-ited women's life experiences and curtailed theircontact with places beyond their households.

322HISTORY IN DISPUTE, VOLUME 12: THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

This responsibility did not mean that eighteenth-century women were entirely isolated or helpless.Households were, after all, not only the build-ing blocks of the state and society but also thebackbone of the economy. In the preindustrialage, households served as the principal centersfor all production and consumption. The eco-nomic role of the household had importantimplications for women's lives. Indeed, the sur-vival of any given household was dependent onthe contributions of women, who not only per-formed typical "female" chores such as cooking,washing, and gardening, but during their hus-band's absence served as "deputy husbands" bymanaging family farms and shops. Women alsoexpanded household income by producing andselling cloth, butter, and cheese. For women,the centrality of the household economy meantthat their contributions were essential to familysurvival.

Despite their many real and valuable contri-butions to the household economy, the nature ofwomen's economic roles limited their ability toengage in nondomestic pursuits. Their jobs,though diverse, most often took place inside orcloser to the home to accommodate their dutiesas wives and mothers. Indeed, even when singlewomen or widows operated their own busi-nesses, they were still linked to the domesticrealm and the work often took place inside theirhomes. Most important, because married womencould not make economic decisions independentof their husbands nor make any legal claim to theincome earned from their labors, they were notregarded as independent economic actors. Thus,despite their real contributions to the householdeconomy, married women remained economicdependents, subject to the will and authority oftheir husbands.

Because women's identities were so shapedby their connections to their husbands and theirchildren, and because of the constraining femalelifeways imposed on them, women were far lessprepared than men to embrace American inde-pendence. Independence, after all, was a condi-tion unfamiliar to them. Additionally, thepolitical-legal restrictions on women's lives; thetime and physical demands of their reproductiveactivities; and their important, but limited, eco-nomic role in the household economy created anatmosphere where few Americans, either femaleor male, could envision an expanded role forwomen resulting from the War of Independence.In fact, just the opposite prevailed. In a war-tornsociety where nearly everything remained uncer-tain, the household remained one of the mostimportant sources of stability and continuity.Thus, a woman's domestic responsibilities notonly increased but also became more importantthan ever. According to a 1947 article by Eliza-

beth Cometti in the New England Quarterly, thisrole meant that women "generally remained athome ministering to the needs of their house-hold, assuming absent husbands' responsibili-ties, meeting as best they could the inevitablewartime scarcities, taking over jobs compatiblewith their physical limitations and conventions,and longing always for the return of their menand for peace." At its most basic level, then,women's role during the war was not only sup-portive in nature, it had an inherently conser-vative—or at least nonradical—quality; theycontinued to be the guardians of the house-holds and family legacies that Americans con-tinued to hold sacred.

The story of Mary Silliman is instructive inexplaining how experience shaped women's atti-tudes toward the Revolution. Silliman, the edu-cated daughter of a Puritan minister, found thatthe war brought her hardship as well as newresponsibilities. During her husband's militaryservice and imprisonment, the forty-one-year-oldSilliman, then pregnant, was left alone to overseetheir children, servants, and farm—all the whileuncertain about her husband's safety. Althoughmanaging the farm gave her a newfound sense ofpride, worry and fear were her predominantemotions. Silliman, like so many other womenduring the war, felt alone without her husband'scompanionship. She also felt helpless in con-fronting the new challenges she faced. For Silli-man, her husband's return brought joy and asense of relief. Thereafter, she willingly returnedto her traditional duties of being a wife andmother; she did not regret the loss of her author-ity. In the end, Silliman's experiences during thewar did not lead her to question the rolesassigned her as a woman; rather, she took com-fort in returning to the familiar. Her experiencesand attitudes thus symbolize the many wayswomen's lives embodied continuities with thepast rather than changes toward a new future.

Of course, women's lives were shaped notonly by their own attitudes and experiences butalso by those of their society. American society,though embracing many political and socialchanges in the aftermath of the Revolution,remained uncertain about its future. For that rea-son, the household remained a particularlyimportant source of stability and order, much asit had before and during the war. It also contin-ued to serve as the foundation of the social hier-archy, which while no longer overseen by thepatriarchal figure of the English monarch, none-theless remained both ranked and gendered. Inthe new American republic, men continued tohold the primary reins of power and authority,while women remained mostly submissive in atti-tude and contributory in action. There was, inshort, no real social revolution in America.

HISTORY IN DISPUTE, VOLUME 12: THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 323

Coverture, for example, remained intact until the1820s when states began gradually to loosenproperty restrictions on married women's prop-erty. Childbearing, too, remained central to adultwomen's lives. Although some white, middle-class, urban women had fewer children, mostwomen continued to bear children following tra-ditional fertility patterns. Most aspects ofwomen's lives thus remained unchanged follow-ing the Revolution. When their lives did change,these new conditions further cemented women'sassociation with the domestic sides of life ratherthan expanding their roles beyond the house-hold. Motherhood, and the duties associatedwith it, took on increased importance after thewar with the concept of "republican mother-hood." In a new republican nation where citi-zens, not monarchs, would be responsible forgovernment, child rearing became crucial to thecountry's survival. As "republican mothers,"American women were charged with raisingresponsible and virtuous sons who would beready to bear the duties and obligations of citi-zenship upon reaching adulthood. For the firsttime in American history, mothering became avocation. This responsibility intensified women'srole as mothers and thereby created situationswhere many of them were more confined to theirhomes than ever before.

Despite the many political, social, and eco-nomic changes ushered in by the American Revo-lution, in the end, the daily lives and experiencesof most American women remained remarkablythe same after the war. Then, as before, womenwere principally wives and mothers. The depen-dent nature of these roles remained in stark con-trast to the independence enjoyed by theirhusbands.

-JUDITH RIDNER,MUHLENBERG COLLEGE

References

Carol R. Berkin, "Remembering the Ladies: His-torians and the Women of the AmericanRevolution," in The American Revolution:Changing Perspectives) edited by William M.Fowler Jr. and Wallace Coyle (Boston:Northeastern University Press, 1979), pp.47-67.

Elizabeth Cometti, "Women in the AmericanRevolution," New England Quarterly, 20(September 1947): 329-346.

Nancy F. Cott, The Bonds of Womanhood:"Woman's Sphere" in New England, 1780-1835 (New Haven: Yale University Press,1977).

Sara M. Evans, Born to Liberty: A History of Womenin America (London: Collier-Macmillan /New York: Free Press, 1989).

Joan R. Gundersen, "Independence, Citizen-ship, and the American Revolution," Signs,13 (Autumn 1987): 59-77.

Linda K. Kerber, "Daughters of Columbia: Edu-cating Women For the Republic, 1787-1805," in The Hofstadter Aegis: A Memorial,edited by Stanley Elkins and Eric McKitrick(New York: Knopf, 1974), pp. 36-59.

Kerber, "'History Can Do It No Justice':Women and the Reinterpretation of theAmerican Revolution," in Women in the Ageof the American devolution, edited by RonaldHoffman and Peter J. Albert (Charlottes-ville: University Press of Virginia, 1989), pp.3-42.

Kerber, "'I have Don . . . much to Carrey on theWarr': Women and the Shaping of Republi-can Ideology after the American Revolu-tion," in Women and Politics in the Age of theDemocratic Revolution, edited by Harriet B.Applewhite and Darline G. Levy (AnnArbor: University of Michigan Press, 1990),pp. 227-257

Kerber, Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideol-ogy in Revolutionary America (Chapel Hill:University of North Carolina Press, 1980).

Mary Beth Norton, Liberty's Daughters: The Rev-olutionary Experience of American Women,1750-1800 (Boston: Little, Brown, 1980).

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Emilius; or a Treatise ofEducation, 3 volumes, translated by Mr.Nugent (London: J. Nourse & P. Vaillant,1763).

Joan Hoff Wilson, "The Illusion of Change:Women and the American Revolution," inThe American Revolution: Explorations in theHistory of American Radicalism, edited byAlfred F. Young (Dekalb: Northern IllinoisUniversity Press, 1976), pp. 383-445.

Alfred F. Young, "The Women of Boston: 'Per-sons of Consequence' in the Making of theAmerican Revolution, 1765-76," in Womenand Politics in the Age of the Democratic Revo-lution, edited by Applewhite and Levy (AnnArbor: University of Michigan Press, 1990),pp. 181-226.

324 HISTORY IN DISPUTE, VOLUME 12: THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION