‘AMERICAN HERO’: DEFINING MASCULINITY AND WHAT IT MEANT TO BE
A MAN DURING THE REVOLUTION
JULIA N. WOOD
HISTORY 485
DR. WILL MACKINTOSH
2 DECEMBER 2013
UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON
Wood 1
ABSTRACT
The American Revolution was fought to preserve and defend republican ideals such as
liberty, freedom, and independence, which many American people thought were
jeopardized because of a tyrannical British government. Not only did these ideals
encompass what was expected of a patriarchal society, but they were also viewed as
components of masculinity itself. How exactly did those fighting in the war see their role
in defending manhood? How did race, class, and social status factor into social
perceptions of masculinity? This research provides an explanation of how Revolutionary
society viewed manhood and who was considered worthy of particular masculine
freedoms, and how there was no cohesive definition of what it meant to be a man. These
differing definitions show that there was no single concept of masculinity, and because
interpretations of manhood were anything but static, such definitions were able to change
over the course of the war and depending on the circumstances of the individual.
Wood 2
The American Revolution is often depicted by the political and military events
surrounding the Declaration of Independence and the subsequent fighting that led to the
ultimate victory against the British. The Patriots were celebrated as heroes and noted for
their military service and bravery in defending republican ideals, indicating the public’s
acceptance and celebration of their contributions to the war effort. Social perceptions of
these soldiers as “brave”1 factor into the discussion of masculinity, emphasizing its
importance during the war, both on the battlefields and at the home front. Defining
manhood for those men participating in the American Revolution involved not only the
views of others but how they perceived themselves and their own manhood.
Masculinity does not simply boil down to bravery or “manliness” as some might
imagine. During the Revolutionary War, men were aware of their own manhood and
defined their identity in masculine terms. These means of identification do not always
correlate directly with gender; race and class constituted a great deal of how men
perceived themselves. Rather than masculinity manifesting itself in relation to women, it
was in comparing themselves to other men and how their actions reflected their manhood
that men discovered their gendered identity. This work will explore the ways in which
men perceived their masculinity depending on a variety of factors, including race, class,
and military service, and how definitions of manhood during the American Revolution
differ significantly from the ways in which historians often view gendered identity,
especially identity during the fight for independence.
The American Revolution stemmed from a series of events leading up to the
ultimate result, the creation and signing of the Declaration of Independence. This
1
As is used to describe George Washington: Henry Steele Commager and Richard B. Morris, eds.
The Spirit of ‘Seventy-Six: The Story of the American Revolution as Told by Participants (New York:
Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1958): 140.
Wood 3
independence was just one of a several ideas composing the American Revolution; other
republican ideals2 such as liberty and freedom, as well as the importance of civic duty,3
were crucial to the beliefs of the Founding Fathers and rebel citizens. It was the goal of
the Patriots to instill these ideals into the public so that every American citizen could
possess independence and the freedom to express themselves as they wished. Because
the British government was unable to provide such freedoms to the American people, at a
certain point the colonists believed that they had to take some action to fight for their
rights, and thus the campaign for independence began. Not only were these beliefs
important for the sake of the colonies, but they stood for masculine ideals4 that men
should defend for their sake and that of their families and country.
First and foremost, fighting for these beliefs was to defend patriarchy, and in a
sense “affirm masculinity”5 by standing up for the independence of the colonies and
therefore the liberties of men. This opens up another question that will be discussed
further in this research – did different groups of men feel differently about their
manhood, and were the roles they played factors in masculine identities during the
Revolutionary War? How did race, class, and socioeconomic status factor in as elements
to understanding feelings of masculinity, and were they brought upon individuals
themselves or by society? Further, this research will look at the gendered components of
the Revolution and the spaces included, particularly the home front and the battlefield.
I. Common Soldier, or Glorified Officer? Social Status on the Battlefield
2
Robert E. Shalhope. "Toward a Republican Synthesis: The Emergence of an Understanding of
Republicanism in American Historiography." William and Mary Quarterly 29 (January 1972): 49-80.
3
Richard Buel. Securing the Revolution: Ideology in American Politics, 1789–1815 (Ithaca, New
York: Cornell University Press, 1972).
4
Peter Coffin. “The Essex Result,” in The American Republic: Primary Sources, ed., Bruce
Frohnen (Indianapolis: 2002): 208.
5
Bryan C. Rindfleisch. “‘What it Means to be a Man’: Contested Masculinity in the Early
Republic and Antebellum America.” History Compass 10 no. 11 (November 2012): 858.
Wood 4
The most logical place to start to begin understanding masculinity during the
Revolutionary War is within the ranks of the Continental Army. By making connections
among men with shared experience within the Army and how the American public
perceived soldiers fighting on the battlefields, it can be seen that manhood in the late
eighteenth century was to some degree defined in terms of military bravery and service to
the cause for independence. As evidenced in several of the songs and ballads of the
Revolutionary War, in Stedman and Hutchinson’s “The American Hero” it is shown that
military service is important and that “Life, for my country and the cause of freedom, Is
but a trifle for a worm to part with”.6 This song signifies that “fame and dear freedom
lure me to battle”,7 again indicating that there was some amount of pride to be taken in
fighting in the military for the sake of defending republican virtues.
Normally, a common soldier in the Continental Army did not come with a high
social standing or class status, as is the case with soldier Jeremiah Greenman, who came
from a “long line of plain people”8 and even referred to himself as “nothing more than a
plain old soldier”.9 These feelings were typical of soldiers in the Continental Army
because they often felt as if they were not qualified for service since they lacked a
military background,10 but they still desired to fight for their families and against the
British government. Often, they felt inadequate next to officers whom they viewed with
6
“Bunker Hill” or “The American Hero” in The Spirit of ‘Seventy-Six: The Story of the American
Revolution as Told by Participants, eds., Henry Steele Commager and Richard B. Morris (New York:
Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1958): 897.
7
“The American Hero”: 897.
8
Edgar Watson Howe, Plain People (New York: Dodd, Mean, & Co., 1929), quoted in Robert C.
Bray & Paul E. Bushnell Diary of a Common Soldier in the American Revolution: An Annotated Edition of
the Military Journal of Jeremiah Greenman (DeKalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois University Press, 1978):
xiii.
9
Jeremiah Greenman. “Acknowledgements,” in Diary of a Common Soldier in the American
Revolution: An Annotated Edition of the Military Journal of Jeremiah Greenman, eds., Robert C. Bray &
Paul E. Bushnell (DeKalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois University Press, 1978): xxix.
10
Charles Royster. A Revolutionary People at War: The Continental Army and American
Character, 1775-1783 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1979): 36.
Wood 5
a sense of awe and admiration.11 This admiration that the lower ranking soldiers had for
officers encouraged those who came in as common men to strive to one day become
leaders in the army themselves.
What Greeman’s account went on to suggest was that although conditions may
not have been the best for the common soldier, these men were fighting for a cause they
believed in and were willing to do what they could for their country.12 In the years
surrounding the American Revolution, “manliness” was defined by the ability to vote and
decide one’s fate for himself, something that did not lend itself to those men of the lowerclasses;13 what men were able to control during the war was their ability to join the
military in an attempt to redefine their own masculinity. Whether or not they felt
extremely “manly” in doing so, they definitely played a role in which they were taking
care of their families back home by protecting everyday liberties, and did so faithfully. 14
Thus the common soldier was still a part of a larger patriarchal society and was fighting
to maintain such a society, even if immediate benefits were not noticeable.
Just because soldiers came in as low-ranking and inexperienced did not mean they
would remain so for the entirety of their service. Greenman is an excellent example of
the opportunities presented for upward mobility during the Revolution; though he came
in as a common soldier, he moved his way up to being sergeant and finally to lieutenant
before approaching the end of the war.15 This opportunity for promotion allowed soldiers
to engage more actively in the fight for independence, and helped connect them to the
11
Gordon S. Wood. The Radicalism of the American Revolution (New York: A. A. Knopf, 1992):
164.
12
Greenman: 60.
Thomas A. Foster, ed. New Men: Manliness in Early America (New York: New York
University Press, 2011): 167.
14
Joseph Wood in “New England in Arms” in The Revolution Remembered: Eyewitness Accounts
of the War for Independence, ed., John C. Dann (The University of Chicago Press, 1980): 35.
15
Greenman: 292.
13
Wood 6
larger image of what it meant to be masculine in an era of revolution; specifically, this
image included military bravery and service regardless of rank or class.16 Promotion also
acknowledged service and dedication, indicating that those soldiers worthy to become
officers had done their share for the cause and were actively fighting to protect those at
home. This further proved their masculinity and their ability to distinguish themselves
from other “common” men, no matter how unofficial their rank might be.17 The
opportunity for promotion helped encourage soldiers to complete their tasks
appropriately, so that one day they might perhaps become an officer to not only further
fight for their country but to better provide for their families back home. One of the most
glorified war generals from the American Revolution was General Nathanael Greene,
who worked his way up through the military ranks during the war; though he started out
as just a common soldier, he played a very crucial role in the war and eventually became
one of George Washington’s most trusted officers.18
Within the Continental Army, there were other men who fought besides the
common soldiers and those who became officers through service during the war. Many
men were more experienced, especially those who led large troops, such as General
George Washington himself. The distinction between how these men felt about their own
masculinity and the way society portrayed them were not always in sync with one
another; often, officers felt they were not as actively involved in the fighting on the
battlefields yet newspapers published more about them than the soldiers on the direct
frontlines. For instance, The Virginia Gazette printed glorifying accounts of Washington
16
Royster: 197.
Dorothy Denneen Volo and James M. Volo. Daily Life during the American Revolution
(Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2003): 101-102.
18
Terry Golway. Washington's General: Nathanael Greene and the Triumph of the American
Revolution (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2005): 2.
17
Wood 7
and other generals, referring to an encounter “between these two great generals…” that
left no doubt “but we shall be furnished with refreshing news from our army”.19
Such high spirits and praise were common not only in the early stages of the war
but throughout, indicating approval and support for the generals in charge. The
newspapers and society as a whole portrayed the military leaders as encompassing the
traits necessary to win a war against Britain and that these men were the salvation of the
colonies. This idea played once more into the ideas of masculinity and a “patriarchy and
family government”20 in which the colonists were meant to obey the ruler much as wives
were to be subservient to husbands.
However, these men did not always feel the same about themselves or the war
effort as perceptions by society might otherwise disguise. Newspapers referred to
General Washington as not only “his excellency general” but as “the Mercury man of
war”,21 comparing him to the Roman god of war as a compliment to his success on the
battlefield and in leading the troops. George Washington himself, in a letter to Martha
from June 18th, 1775, stated in regards to his appointment as Commander-in-Chief that
“so far from seeking this appointment I have used every endeavor in my power to avoid
it”.22 Here, George Washington seemed to believe that he would be a better leader and
man if he could stay at home with his family and lead the civilians, rather than fight in
the war. He did not seem to care what others would think of his refraining from fighting
in the war, and was not infatuated with the idea of defending his beliefs at the sake of
19
“Williamsburg, October 4 Letters from general Washington’s camp,” The Virginia Gazette,
October 4, 1776.
20
Gordon S. Wood: 168.
21
“New York, June 10, Thursday afternoon his excellency general,” The Virginia Gazette, June
28, 1776.
22
George Washington to Martha Washington, Philadelphia, June 18, 1775, in This Glorious
Struggle: George Washington’s Revolutionary War Letters, ed. Edward G. Lengel (New York:
HarperCollins Publishers, 2007): 5.
Wood 8
military service or exemplifying masculine ideals. Rather, he goes on to tell Martha that
he is unwilling “to part with you and the Family” but that there might be “some good
purpose” in accepting the position for the love of the American people.23 Even though he
was not thrilled about the idea of leading troops and going to war, he understood the
military service as his duty and undertook the position for the good of the colonies rather
than for personal gain or political benefit.
Within the Continental Army, certain expectations were set aside for soldiers, but
officers in particular had to meet certain requirements as they were the ones leading the
troops into battle and along the journey. Revolutionary leaders George Washington and
John Adams commented on the guidelines and rules set into place for officers in the
Army and what was expected of them. In Washington’s letter to Colonel William
Woodford from November 10, 1775, he stated that those in charge were expected to keep
their men disciplines, to “require nothing unreasonable of your officers and men, but see
that whatever is required is to be punctually complied with”.24 Washington was simply
arguing that even though men have a tendency to refuse to “bow down” to authority25 it is
still necessary for them to follow rules or else the army would fall apart and be
unsuccessful. He was not suggesting that men become effeminate by giving up their
masculinity and following the lead of someone else, but rather that their obedience in the
service would lead to the success of the military campaign26 and the subsequent
independence of all men throughout the American colonies.
23
George Washington to Martha Washington: 5.
George Washington to Colonel William Woodford, Cambridge, November 10, 1775, in This
Glorious Struggle: George Washington’s Revolutionary War Letters, ed. Edward G. Lengel (New York:
HarperCollins Publishers, 2007): 24.
25
E. Anthony Rotundo. American Manhood: Transformations in Masculinity from the
Revolution to the Modern Era (New York: Basic Books, 1994).
26
Rotundo: 237.
24
Wood 9
John Adams also made note of how crucial it was for officers and all soldiers to
be obedient to ensure the success of both that particular regiment and the Continental
Army as a whole. This is especially evident in his letter to William Tudor on August 24,
1776, when he suggested a “manly, firm attachment to the General” so that the other
officers can learn from his good character and experience.27 Here, Adams used the term
“manly” to describe an officer whose “Character and Conduct are good” since such traits
were “absolutely necessary to establish Discipline in the Army.”28 Such portrayals of
masculinity in terms of character helped distinguish men worthy of leadership positions
from those who were lazy or selfish in their actions.
Adams also stressed that officers should possess knowledge of subjects other than
those necessary for military service so as to be fully aware of “those Rights which he
professes to defend”, here referring to “those Sciences, and those Branches of Literature,
which are more immediately Subservient to the Art of War”.29 This knowledge was
necessary to make sure that those in charge of particular regiments were agreed upon in
their strategies on the battlefield, so that everyone was working toward a common goal.
Again, Adams did not suggest that discipline and obedience make officers any less
masculine in their behavior since, as Washington pointed out, such adherence to rules
only meant to ensure the well-being and success of the Army, not belittle the individual’s
manhood. Adams asserted that this obedience was necessary for the success of the
Continental Army to defend the republican ideals of liberty and independence.30
27
John Adams to William Tudor, Philadelphia, August 24, 1776, in John Adams: Revolutionary
Writings, 1775-1783, ed. Gordon Wood (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 2011):
107.
28
John Adams to William Tudor: 108.
29
John Adams to William Tudor: 108.
30
Ruth H. Bloch, “The Gendered Meanings of Virtue in Revolutionary America,” Signs 13 no. 1
(!987): 40.
Wood 10
Adams also suggested that officers be knowledgeable about science and literature
as well as law,31 subjects that were mostly associated with the upper echelon of society,
affairs that mainly pertained to the gentlemen of the era. This might be because as
leaders of certain regiments they should have been familiar with similar areas as the
leaders of society in order to reflect their best interests. Adams did discuss, however, that
some “Gentlemen are afraid, the Militia…will be disquieted and terrified with them”32
thereby indicating that the Army and the members of the upper class were not from the
same social category. He was not hinting at any tension between the two, simply noting
that the two groups did not overlap or share the same responsibilities, even if similar acts
were required of them. Adams also did not mention whether the “Gentlemen” or those in
the Army were better images of republican ideals of manhood, though he seems to
suggest that those soldiers more actively participated in the war effort since it took up all
of their time and passions and there was no time for “leisure” or individual activities.33
This notion of seeing the soldiers as productive members of society and therefore
as citizens defending manhood created an alternate view of “working” men.
Traditionally, if a man had time for leisure he was considered a “gentlemen” and
therefore was portrayed as masculine since he was successful, wealthy, or elite enough to
spend his time performing other tasks rather than working for an income.34 Often, it
was the goal of many upper-class businessmen to achieve this status as a gentleman in
order to fully consider themselves as both successful and masculine. The perfect
example of this is Benjamin Franklin, who although wealthy and successful, had to work
31
John Adams to William Tudor: 108.
John Adams to William Tudor: 108.
33
John Adams to William Tudor: 109.
34
Gordon S. Wood: 34.
32
Wood 11
most of his life while his contemporaries basked in the world of titles and leisure; he was
not truly happy until he was able to retire from business and therefore fully exemplify
what it meant to be a man in the eighteenth century.35
Adams suggested that although soldiers and officers were busy working and could
not relish in leisurely activities, they were considered very masculine and manly because
they were fighting for the good of the country and the republican ideals that the colonies
represented.36 Adams proposed that these men, not just the gentlemen remaining at
home, were models of manhood because they were actively participating in the
revolution and defending what they believed to be right. Though conflicting with
traditional social ideologies, Adams was not alone in his belief as soldiers were praised
for their service and portrayed as celebrated men.37
II. Socioeconomic Influences in Defining Manhood
It was well-known that most men who entered the Continental Army and local
militias came from families of a lower social standing in the American colonies. It was
easily noted that many of the people enlisting in the military, other than leading officers
such as Washington himself, were of poorer classes since most of those who were
considered “gentlemen” remained on the home front. These upper-class men were more
concerned with fighting the war and participating from a distance to uphold their social
status from afar;38 by removing themselves from the battlefields. Though this might
appear cowardly, by definition gentlemen were supposed to refrain from working and
35
Gordon S. Wood: 85.
John Adams to Samuel Holden Parson, Philadelphia, June 22, 1776, in John Adams:
Revolutionary Writings, 1775-1783, ed. Gordon Wood (New York: Literary Classics of the United States,
Inc., 2011): 85.
37
Royster: 167.
38
Gordon S. Wood: 26.
36
Wood 12
instead enjoy leisurely activities,39 so in actuality by refraining from military service the
wealthy of society were embracing their manhood as gentlemen.
It is unknown if John Adams secretly wished he could have joined Washington as
a member of the Continental Army, but what can be found are hints of wistfulness
regarding the military through correspondence with his wife Abigail. This wistfulness
stems from a desire “to ride in this Whirlwind”40 and be an active participant in the fight
for independence; Adams made it clear that he did not want to sit around while others
were fighting in the war against the British. In a letter from the early stages of the
Revolution, dated May 29, 1775, John Adams told his beloved about the “military Spirit
which runs through the Continent”41 and expressed longing “oh that I was a Soldier!”42
Though at first it might be hard to tell if he truly wished to join in the excitement out of
genuine desire or if he was merely caught up in the thrill that accompanies the beginning
of war, Adams’ admiration of Washington “in his Uniform and, by his great Experience
and Abilities in military Matters, is of much service to Us”43 shows that he was deeply
invested in military successes. He also stated that he was “reading military Books”44 and
that everyone must become a soldier in the fight against Britain, showing that he did not
equate military bravery with manhood but rather thought that joining the fight signified a
desire to protect and defend republican ideals, which in turn marked one’s masculinity.
Regardless, Adams’ letter suggested the sense of adventure that many gentlemen
of the time most certainly shared and the appeal of fighting for republican ideals as the
39
Gordon S. Wood: 85.
John Adams to Abigail Adams, April 28, 1776, in John Adams: Revolutionary Writings, 17751783, ed. Gordon Wood (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 2011): 68.
41
John Adams to Abigail Adams, Phyladelphia, May 29, 1775, in John Adams: Revolutionary
Writings, 1775-1783, ed. Gordon Wood (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 2011): 4.
42
John Adams to Abigail Adams: 5.
43
John Adams to Abigail Adams: 4.
44
John Adams to Abigail Adams: 5.
40
Wood 13
ultimate show of masculinity. To some extent, his feelings of longing also suggest
possible emotions of inferiority due to not defending his country directly or his inability
to participate in military service. These feelings of inadequacy can be found in another
letter to Abigail, in which he described a scene where “the Three Generals were all
mounted, on Horse back” while he remained behind to “leave others to wear the Lawrells
which I have sown”.45 Though Adams suggested that he played a part as a delegate,
since he was not the one in the military the glory was not his, and so he felt insignificant
when compared to the generals.
In this letter to Abigail from June 23, 1775, John Adams once again expressed
awe and admiration for the military and with tones of longing he made remarks about the
“Pride and Pomp of War” following a military parade.46 He described the event in such a
way that portrayed his desire to join the service if it had been possible. Not only was he
not a soldier in this parade, but he was also sick and therefore could only look on, and it
is unclear if his notions of jealousy were due to the military service or the showcase
itself. Regardless, he no doubt felt saddened that he could not partake in such a joyous
and celebratory affair, once again feeling discontent with his position.
Not all men lived glorified tales as fierce soldiers fighting toward a just cause,
however; some men in the military served more practical roles such as making sure there
were enough provisions to supply and feed the troops for extended periods of time.
Epraphroditus Champion, for instance, was the son of the chief purchasing agent for the
Continental Army, and he took on the position of deputy commissary for the local New
45
John Adams to Abigail Adams, Philadelphia, June 23, 1775, in John Adams: Revolutionary
Writings, 1775-1783, ed. Gordon Wood (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 2011):
10.
46
John Adams to Abigail Adams: 10.
Wood 14
York militia.47 His duties included receiving and caring for livestock and daily
provisions and he had “the sole charge of the magazine of fresh provisions for the use of
the main army”.48 Even though Champion was no heralded war hero or high-ranking
officer or even a common soldier fighting on the frontlines, he felt no less masculine
about his efforts because they were just as important as those of other men in the
Continental Army. Champion must have felt important and distinguished when he “went
to headquarters by order of General Washington and received orders directly from
him”,49 indicating that his role as deputy commissary was not an insignificant one. He
also remarked that he was “wholly devoted to the public service”50 and took his job very
seriously since it was crucial to the success of the militia.
It can be noted that the public did not look down upon those men who did not
directly fight but instead treated all who served in the Revolutionary War with the same
respect and admiration. This can be evidenced in a publication of The Virginia Gazette
where a soldier encourages all of his fellow servicemen that by defending themselves and
their country they can “secure to ourselves and posterity the inestimable blessings of
liberty.”51 Clearly, no matter what one’s occupation in the army, if he was serving his
country and his people then he was thought of as an active participant worthy of praise
and honor.
Some men, such as Samuel Shaw, a common soldier fighting in the war, began to
tire of the events of the campaign for independence and believed that “the people of
47
Epaphroditus Champion in “Logistics” in The Revolution Remembered: Eyewitness Accounts of
the War for Independence, ed., John C. Dann (The University of Chicago Press, 1980): 367.
48
Champion: 367.
49
Champion: 370.
50
Champion: 371.
51
A soldier. “For the Virginia Gazette,” The Virginia Gazette, February 7, 1777.
Wood 15
America seem to have lost sight entirely of the noble principle which animated them at
the commencement of it”.52 He pointed out that the patriotism and enthusiasm which at
first accompanied the war effort had since vanished and the experience had been a
difficult one for the “poor soldier”53 thanks to inadequate pay, provisions, and support.
Though this is definitely a political issue, his feelings of incompetence tie into issues of
gender because Shaw could not send back money to assist his parents if he was hardly
getting the appropriate returns for his military service, therefore he felt like his manhood
had been compromised in the process. Shaw wrote that if only morale and excitement
had remained among the American people, the campaign and war would be over there
would be victory and success in “full enjoyment of the object of our warfare – ‘peace,
liberty, and safety’”.54 As that was not the case, Shaw felt somewhat conflicted with his
role in the military because although he agreed with the tenets of the Revolution, he was
not satisfied with the direction in which the war was headed and did not want to continue
fighting in vain for a useless cause.
There were also men, commoners and gentlemen alike, who wanted nothing to do
with the Continental Army and were willing to do anything and everything in their power
to avoid going off to war, and they were entirely indifferent to the appeal of military
service and the bravery and recognition that came along with it. These men cared very
little about maintaining perceptions of masculinity or defending republican ideals and
only wanted to escape military service, unlike many of their contemporaries who were
caught up in the thrill of the war. Men of wealth and the upper classes who wanted to
52
Samuel Shaw to Francis and Mary Shaw, June 28, 1779, in The Spirit of ‘Seventy-Six: The Story
of the American Revolution as Told by Participants, eds. Henry Steele Commager and Richard B. Morris
(New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1958): 804.
53
Samuel Shaw to Francis and Mary Shaw: 805.
54
Samuel Shaw to Francis and Mary Shaw: 805.
Wood 16
avoid service claimed that they paid their dues to the government and had the right to stay
at home while those of a poorer socioeconomic status would have to fight since they had
contributed much less and there was no need for even middling Americans to participate
directly.55 Whatever the goals of the elite, men of the laboring classes insisted that it was
not up to them to participate in a war for those of a higher status, and that they refused to
fight someone else’s war if it would do them little good, indicating that the war was the
responsibility of the rich.56
These views offer such a contrast to the many narratives regarding duty,
republicanism and independence that it is hard to see these two groups of men in ways
that suggest they had little in common besides their lack of interest in the Revolution, or
at least in actively participating through military service. However, the two groups have
entirely different social histories and therefore motives in wanting to be exempt from
military service; the wealthier gentlemen most likely desired to remain in their “chimney
corner”57 out of the danger of the combat zone while those of the working class felt as if
they did not have the rights that the war was claiming to protect and therefore did not
believe it necessary to participate. More importantly, these lower-class men likely felt
that their duty was to remain at home and care for their families, since they were the ones
providing monetary and provisional support. If these men left their loved ones behind,
55
Michael A. McDonnell. “Fit for Common Service?” in War and Society in the American
Revolution: Mobilization and Home Fronts, eds. John Resch and William Sargent (DeKalb, Illinois:
Northern Illinois University Press, 2007): 103-131.
56
Michael A. McDonnell: 107.
57
George Washington to Colonel Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Reed, Cambridge, January 4, 1776,
in This Glorious Struggle: George Washington’s Revolutionary War Letters, ed. Edward G. Lengel (New
York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2007): 33.
Wood 17
they were abandoning their roles as patriarchs and therefore threatening their masculinity
as defined as providers rather than military bravery. 58
Though neither of these groups of men address issues of masculinity, it can be
inferred that even if society as a whole did not look down upon their lack of military
service, those who were in the local militias or served in the Continental Army were less
than impressed at the idea that men would remain at home in a time of need, whether they
agreed with the motives of the Revolution or not. Even after the war had begun, many
men were still “reluctant warriors” even if they believed in the cause;59 this caused those
who had enlisted to be “engrossed by those who staid at home”60since they too would
rather have been at home with family. This was especially true for the militia,
considering that these groups of men were not trained and many were simple farmers
before the war. Therefore they harbored feelings of animosity toward other untrained
men who decided not to participate and those who chose not to reenlist, as can be noted
by their own desires to return home and they have “become disgusted with their duty, and
are impatient to retire”61 as is noted in an article from The Pennsylvania Gazette. Likely
such men in the militia saw non-fighting men as not fully embracing their masculinity
since they did not take advantage of the opportunities provided by the war.62
There were some remarks made by those living in the time of the Revolution
about the wealthy merchants, farmers, and planters remaining at home; nothing was said
58
Gregory T. Knouff. “Masculinity, Race and Citizenship: Soldiers’ Memories of the American
Revolution.” Gender, War and Politics: Transatlantic Perspectives, 1775-1830, eds. Karen Hagemann,
Gisela Mettele, and Jane Rendall (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010): 328.
59
Royster: 29
60
J. Morris, “Philadelphia, June 18,” The Pennsylvania Gazette, June 18, 1777.
61
Adolphus, “Thoughts on the Situation of Affairs,” The Pennsylvania Gazette, February 14,
1778.
62
Michael Kimmel. Manhood in America: A Cultural History (New York: The Free Press,
1996): 16.
Wood 18
about their masculinity or lack thereof but instead that they were only interested in
making a profit63 off of the war and not in the ideals and thoughts behind the movement.
This violates the standards of republican manhood, in which the good of the country is
always more important than personal benefit or gain; by prioritizing profit over liberty
and freedom, the cause is threated by the fact that “the farmers are extortionate”.64
The men fighting on the battlefields were experiencing a shortage of goods but
due to high prices it was difficult for them to afford more provisions and they took this to
mean that those with the goods only sought profit and were “wounding the cause”65 of
the Revolution. Greene suggested that such shortages coupled with “ the fatigues of the
campaign, the suffering for want of wood and cloathing, has made abundance of the
soldiers heartily sick of service”.66 It is unclear whether or not such farmers,
manufacturers, and merchants were willing to exploit the war to such an extent, but the
men on the battlefield were correct in acknowledging the ability of these men to
participate indirectly and subsequently benefit from the war effort.67
Even John Adams remarked on the shortage of supplies, though he does not
blame the merchant or those at home for driving up prices. Rather, he argues that the
scarcity of salt petre was the responsibility of the gentlemen at home to try and procure
for the military, and that there had been several attempts by those at home in various
63
Nathanael Greene to Governor Samuel Ward of Rhode Island, Camp on Prospect Hill,
December 31, 1775, in The Spirit of ‘Seventy-Six: The Story of the American Revolution as Told by
Participants, eds. Henry Steele Commager and Richard B. Morris (New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company,
Inc., 1958): 779.
64
Nathanael Greene to Governor Samuel Ward of Rhode Island: 779.
65
Nathanael Greene to Governor Samuel Ward of Rhode Island: 779.
66
Nathanael Greene to Governor Samuel Ward of Rhode Island: 780.
67
James L. Abrahamson. The American Home Front: Revolutionary War, Civil War, World War
I, World War II (Washington, DC: National Defense University Press, 1983): 25.
Wood 19
colonies to create salt for the sake of provisions for the armies.68 Nothing was said
explicitly about manhood but it can be inferred that those in the military and most
definitely Adams himself did not think any less of those trying to procure the salt petre,
since it was of such value to not only the military but those living in the colonies. Such
evidence can be found in Adams’ letter to James Warren, where he stated that “We must
bend our attention to salt petre. We must make it…we cannot depend upon a supply
from abroad”,69 connecting ideas of independence in terms of economic means in
addition to freedom from Britain in the political arena. Adams suggested that salt petre
was so important that each colony “must set up works at the public expense”70to try and
discover or create their own salt petre for the sake of providing for local militias, the
Continental Army, and civilians, since all were dependent upon provisions and
preserving such goods.
Colonels and other officers of the armies were also concerned with not having
enough provisions for their troops and requested assistance from generals and political
leaders. The desperation found in their letters seeking help was clear, and they expressed
concern over how they could no longer provide clothing, medicine, or food for their
soldiers.71 Though historians can reflect that this meant these ranking officers felt
incapable of providing for their men, in reality admitting a lack of provisions bore no
reflection on the ability of the officers to lead, as was seen in a letter from Nathanael
68
John Adams to James Warren, October 21, 1775, in The Spirit of ‘Seventy-Six: The Story of the
American Revolution as Told by Participants, eds. Henry Steele Commager and Richard B. Morris (New
York: Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1958): 776.
69
John Adams to James Warren: 776.
70
John Adams to James Warren: 777.
71
Colonel Charles C. Pickney to Brigade General Moultrie, May 24, 1778, in Memoirs of the
American Revolution, ed. William Moultrie (New York: Arno Press, 1968): 213.
Wood 20
Greene to Thomas Jefferson.72 In this letter, Greene appealed to Jefferson and the state
assembly of Virginia for support, claiming that his men had already “experienced in
many instances, the ill consequences of neglecting the Army when surrounded with
difficulties and threatened with ruin”.73 He goes on to note that already too much has
been lost because the army had not been given appropriate means to continue fighting.
Greene’s account shows that officers did not see this lack of provisions as an attack on
their masculinity,74 and they were not afraid to ask for help when they needed it. Like
Adams’ letter implies, the leaders of the Continental Army relied on those at home and in
positions of wealth, power, and influence for assistance when survival became difficult
for the troops at war.
Despite any negative emotions inflicted upon gentlemen by those serving in
military service, many newspapers, pamphlets, and leaders themselves portrayed these
wealthy men who remained at home as playing just as important a role in the Revolution,
particularly when it came to funding and providing necessary goods.75 Newspaper
articles and pamphlets, though encouraging men to join the ranks of the soldiers fighting
for the rights of the colonies, often showcased gentlemen and those in positions of power
72
Many officers required supplies during times of need and had to put away their pride in order to
provide for their troops. This was the case with Nathanael Greene, in a plea for help from Virginia.
Nathanael Greene to Thomas Jefferson, April 28, 1781, in The American Revolution: Writings from the
War of Independence, ed. John Rhodehamel (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc.,
2001): 676-678.
73
Nathanael Greene to Thomas Jefferson: 678.
74
Nathanael Greene to Thomas Jefferson: 676-678.
75
Adams admitted it was up to each Colony to fund their armies, in turn relying on the money that
is being provided by the wealthy. John Adams to Nathanael Greene, Philadelphia, June 22, 1776, in John
Adams: Revolutionary Writings, 1775-1783, ed. Gordon Wood (New York: Literary Classics of the
United States, Inc., 2011): 82.
Wood 21
as being the benefactors for the campaigns and missions undertaken by the Continental
Army and the local militias.76
Sometimes the wealthy gentlemen remaining on the home front would contribute
in order to abstain from military service themselves; in some cases their monetary
contributions could go toward the recruitment of new men, thereby increasing the number
of soldiers.77 Because there would be an increase of two soldiers rather than one if the
gentleman had simply enlisted himself, this act was not seen as emasculate or unmanly
since there was still good coming of the decision. This explains why society would not
always see a lack of military service as a bad thing in regards to masculinity since often it
was paralleled by increases in both provisions and capital to sustain the Continental
Army and keep it afloat with enough supplies.78
Not only did the general public care little about the manhood of the wealthy
gentlemen who abstained from military service, but it can be inferred that so did the men
themselves, who cared little about being portrayed a war hero and more about staying out
of harm’s way, remaining with family, and running the show from behind the scenes.
These men still interpreted their gender identity as masculine since they were
contributing to the war effort and therefore the success of the Patriots in the
Revolutionary War. This did not take away from the belief that soldiers were crucial to
the defense of liberty; though in no way was military bravery the sole definition of
masculinity in the eighteenth century, military service was recognized as signifying a
76
William Moultrie to General Howe, Charlestown, May 31, 1778, in Memoirs of the American
Revolution, ed. William Moultrie (New York: Arno Press, 1968): 216.
77
Hugh T. Harrington. “Financial Hero?” Journal of the American Revolution.
http://allthingsliberty.com/2013/01/financial-hero/#_edn1 (accessed November 9, 2013).
78
Harrington.
Wood 22
desire to protect people and country as well as defend republican ideals and manhood
itself.79
Regardless of class and social status, there seemed to be an equal number of men
vying to remain at home during the Revolutionary War as there were men who either
were enthralled by the idea of military service or who felt it was their duty to participate
and fight for their beliefs and the liberty of all men. John Adams appeared to encompass
all of these feelings at various times throughout the War, sometimes wishing he were a
soldier, at others wanting nothing more than to be home with his wife and children.80
What Adams and others could agree on, however, is that the war was necessary for the
freedom of not only the colonies but for all American men, so that “any man with
common Industry and Prudence may be independent”.81 In a letter to Abigail, John
Adams compared the freedom of men in the colonies to those in Europe, asserting that
the Dutch focus on “Avarice, and Stingyness” rather than the virtue of frugality and that
independence is only given to those who are industrious or wealthy.82 He gave special
attention to social class in Europe and the fact that those in positions of wealth and power
often lorded over the rest of the people, offering little opportunity for men of other
classes.83 The ability of Americans to possess their own personal independence was
proof that those in the colonies cherished manhood and masculinity more than those in
Europe, who instead depended on others and those in charge for support.
79
Shalhope: 58.
John Adams to Abigail Adams, February 13, 1779 in John Adams: Revolutionary Writings,
1775-1783, ed. Gordon Wood (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 2011): 195.
81
John Adams to Abigail Adams, Amsterdam, December 18, 1780, in John Adams:
Revolutionary Writings, 1775-1783, ed. Gordon Wood (New York: Literary Classics of the United States,
Inc., 2011): 444.
82
John Adams to Abigail Adams: 443.
83
John Adams to Abigail Adams: 443.
80
Wood 23
Adams also suggested that even when one visited Europe and other countries that
did not respect the liberties of all men it was still important to remain “an independent
Man”84 and not fully succumb to their ways of living other than what was expected. By
this, Adams likely meant a free-thinking man capable of his own decisions without the
influence of a particular government or set of constricting rules placed upon his ability to
decide for himself. This definition of manhood fit well into the republican ideals, since
the individual was glorified based on his ability to choose his own destiny and make his
own decisions. Adams explained that in Europe there was “Tryumph given to Wrong
against Right, to Vice against Virtue, to Folly vs. Wisdom, to Servility against
Independence, to base and vile Intrigue against inflexible Honour and Integrity,”85
whereas in America the triumph belonged to the good, to truth.
Adams and other leaders stressed that it was not masculine to depend on others,
including the government, for help or to make decisions.86 Adams again glorified the
American colonies for providing a place for men to embrace their manhood and the
ability to lead themselves and acquire independence, while in Europe there had been
“efforts to deprive me of the Honour of my Merit”,87 which would never be the case in
America at the time of the Revolution. Adams asserted that personal independence was
the key to being a true man, and that it was in America that “Honour and Innocence and
Rectitude”88 were encouraged to create such independent men.
84
John Adams to Abigail Adams, The Hague, July 1, 1782, in John Adams: Revolutionary
Writings, 1775-1783, ed. Gordon Wood (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 2011):
481.
85
John Adams to Abigail Adams: 481.
86
John Adams to Abigail Adams: 481.
87
John Adams to Abigail Adams, Amsterdam, December 18, 1780, in John Adams:
Revolutionary Writings, 1775-1783, ed. Gordon Wood (New York: Literary Classics of the United States,
Inc., 2011): 442.
88
John Adams to Abigail Adams: 444.
Wood 24
III. Racial Tensions
The republican ideals of liberty and independence belonged solely to white men
and did not apply to blacks or Native Americans who may have even fought in the war.89
The issue of race became a point of contestation during the era of Revolution, as the
extension of rights was a point that was argued consistently and brought about
disagreement among political leaders.90 Eventually, however, it was decided that white
men were the ones who would be entitled to the republican ideals for which the war was
being fought.91 While those white men of varying classes experienced life in different
ways, they all at least nominally possessed equal rights; his was not the case for minority
groups, thereby indicating that race was the biggest divider among men at the time of the
American Revolution.
Often glossed over in the history books is the fact that the Continental Army and
local state militias did have some regiments made up of non-white soldiers. These
soldiers also fought alongside the British, but in both cases were participating in an
attempt to change their own way of life and to gain independence, whether it be from
slavery, discrimination, or to simply have a job for the duration of the war.92 Though
there is little discussion regarding whether or not non-white soldiers experienced
particular hardships or discriminations based upon their race, it has been found that
following the war these soldiers did not obtain the same rights that white men did, that is
89
Knouff: 332.
Duncan J. MacLeod. Slavery, Race, and the American Revolution (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1974): 68.
91
Duncan J. MacLeod: 84.
92
William Woodford to Edmund Pendleton, Great Bridge, December 5, 1775 in The American
Revolution: Writings from the War of Independence, ed. John Rhodehamel (New York: Literary Classics
of the United States, Inc., 2001): 87-90.
90
Wood 25
those republican ideals of liberty, freedom, and independence.93 The possession of such
traits and ideals marked one’s masculinity during the era of the eighteenth century and
because only white men were capable of possessing and defending such traits, this
effectually meant that non-white men in the American colonies were seen as effeminate
and incapable of acquiring a masculine identity.
For a majority of blacks and other minorities, particularly those who remained in
southern states, life did not improve very much during the American Revolution; these
minorities on the outskirts of society were often targeted by soldiers as enemies and
killed in order to fight for a new and fairer government. In these attacks it was often
Native Americans who were victims since they were so far removed from colonial
society and at times even partnered with the English to fight against the Americans. 94
White male soldiers often targeted those natives because of their otherness and saw it as
their duty to defend against these Indians who “massacred the whites”.95 In several
memoirs from the Revolution, there have been references to a frontier war and the
dangers that Native Americans held not only against white soldiers but against their
wives and families back home. This fear of leaving loved ones unguarded and in peril on
the home front reemphasized the desire for many soldiers to get rid of the “dangerous”
Native Americans before the Indians could cause devastation to their families without
their protection.96 There were a number of instances in several accounts, such as was the
case with John Struthers’ memoirs of the Revolution, in which Native Americans were
93
Knouff: 333.
Knouff: 330.
95
Knouff: 331.
96
George Roush in “The Indian Frontier” in The Revolution Remembered: Eyewitness Accounts
of the War for Independence, ed., John C. Dann (The University of Chicago Press, 1980): 259-261.
94
Wood 26
referenced as dangerous and violent and that they “committed several murders” and later
“were on their march to devastate the whole country”.97
These attacks were made worse since Native Americans did not simply attack
white men who were capable of fighting them off; they took “a number of prisoners” and
“murdered all the male prisoners on the way” but presumably held captive the women
and children from local settlements.98 The implication of killing male whites while
holding captive the women and children might cause the victims to believe that the
Indians felt threatened by white males and therefore could not afford retaliation or
annihilation by such risky captives. Indians also proved to be an attack on provisions for
the soldiers and those at home by breaking into forts, sneaking into barns, and shooting
domesticated livestock.99 This threatened not only the safety of those on the home front
and on the battlefields of the Revolution but their health and well-being because
provisions were already low so if supplies were stolen by the Indians it would have been
even more difficult to survive.
Fighting against “vicious” Native Americans fed into the same beliefs that caused
the fight for independence against the British, since these natives were threatening the
everyday lives of white Americans and thus it was justified to attack them in the name of
preserving and obtaining liberty. In addition, there were likely hidden undertones about
wanting to destroy Indians because of their way of living and less strictly defined gender
roles;100 these facets of native life could have made Americans upset about the lack of
97
John Struthers in “The Indian Frontier” in The Revolution Remembered: Eyewitness Accounts
of the War for Independence, ed., John C. Dann (The University of Chicago Press, 1980): 254-255.
98
Struthers: 255.
99
James Huston in “The Indian Frontier” in The Revolution Remembered: Eyewitness Accounts of
the War for Independence, ed., John C. Dann (The University of Chicago Press, 1980): 264-265.
100
Andrew C. Isenberg. The Destruction of the Bison: An Environmental History, 1750-1920
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000): 47.
Wood 27
masculinity in native cultures and what problems this presented with ideas of gender and
manhood within greater North America.
Strictly defined gender roles were common practice throughout the American
colonies, and had been that way since the arrival of white settlers. This was not the case
for Native Americans, however, who often shared responsibilities among men and
women; this fluidity of gender roles caused many American settlers to view Indian
society as uncivilized since it lacked a strict separation between the sexes,101 which in
turn indicated an undefined manhood. Further, “gender relations of production”102 in
Native American populations were sometimes the reverse of those of white colonists
since many times females were involved in agriculture while men were out hunting.
White Americans felt threatened by the differences between their own society and
that of the Native Americans and blacks, especially when it came down to a break in
gender roles. As discussed above, this was more problematic in terms of Indian ways of
life because their gender roles were not strictly defined and often times offered women
many more freedoms than American colonists would have allowed, though over time
women found that their roles were reduced in an attempt to conform to American
society.103 To a lesser degree, blacks lived in their own sphere and were able to create
their own gender roles and definitions of manhood threatened white male dominance
since they were not able to control what happened along the periphery; the natural
environment in which these “others” lived gave the appearance that “women…were large
101
Carolyn Merchant. Ecological Revolutions: Nature, Gender, and Science in New England
(Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 1989): 84.
102
Merchant: 91.
103
Isenberg: 96.
Wood 28
and masculine”.104 Because women in both Native American and black cultures could be
described in such a manly way, white Americans saw this as a threat to their own society,
in which defining manhood and masculinity were completely separate from women and
feminine characteristics.
As with class, race was not always a deciding factor in how men felt about their
masculinity, but it definitely affected how they viewed their efforts during the war. Little
can be found about life during the Revolution regarding the manhood of black soldiers
and Native Americans, but it can be inferred that the topic was of little to no importance
since more focus was given to staying out of danger and improving their ways of life.
The literature regarding how white males felt about minorities definitely showed their
desire for superiority not only to solidify their feelings of masculinity but to also feed into
a patriarchal system in which some men, meaning white males, were independent while
all others were to be considered dangerous or harmful to Americans,105 and seen as
threatening to personal liberty. In Benjamin Franklin’s letter to Lord Howe, he even
suggested that Britain is a threat to American liberty since it does not endorse
independence or freedom; Franklin even goes so far as to accuse Britain of having a
“Fondness for Conquest as a Warlike Nation” and a “Lust of Dominion”106. Though this
interpretation is a very different view of a patriarchal society it is relevant nonetheless in
an attempt to understand how race played into feelings of manhood during the American
Revolution.
104
Christopher Morris. The Big Muddy: An Environmental History of the Mississippi and Its
Peoples from Hernando de Soto to Hurricane Katrina (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012): 113.
105
Benjamin Franklin to Lord Howe, Philadelphia, July 20, 1776, in The American Revolution:
Writings from the War of Independence, ed. John Rhodehamel (New York: Literary Classics of the United
States, Inc., 2001): 156-158.
106
Benjamin Franklin to Lord Howe: 157.
Wood 29
IV. Gendered Space and Experience on the Home Front
Defining manhood on the home front was an altogether different process than
assessing how soldiers and officers felt about their masculinity while on the battlefield;
though men might have shared experiences during the American Revolution, they
perceived themselves differently based on their environments and the situations they
encountered. The differences among men largely consisted of disparities regarding race,
class or social status, but perhaps the most important factor in defining manhood lies at
the heart of the issue, with gender. It is important to take into consideration the overlaps
in gendered spheres and relations between men and women to better understand how the
home front and life during the American Revolution was shaped on the basis of feelings
of masculinity.
To begin, it is helpful to start where most gender histories do, with women; for
the many women who remained at home for the duration of the war, they were often
described as active members of the community throughout the Revolution.107 Women’s
roles and efforts did not go unrecognized during the war, and in fact they were actually
praised for taking care of farms and businesses while their husbands and sons went off to
fight.108 Some women even went so far as to disguise themselves as men and fight in the
war109 alongside their male counterparts, though their presence was felt strongest on the
home front.110
107
Mary Beth Norton. Liberty’s Daughters: The Revolutionary Experience of American Women,
1750-1800 (Boston-Toronto: Little Brown and Company, 1980).
108
Linda K. Kerber. Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America
(New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1980).
109
The most obvious example for women fighting on the battlefield is Deborah Sampson. For
more information, see Alfred F. Young. Masquerade: Life and Times of Deborah Sampson (New York:
Alfred A. Knopf, 2004).
110
Carol Berkin. Revolutionary Mothers: Women in the Struggle for America’s Independence
(New York: Knopf, 2005).
Wood 30
Shifting instead to a history of men and their interpretations of gender, it is much
more difficult to find any interpretations, whether from historians or contemporaries
during the Revolution since many of those living were men and did not really touch on
their own gendered assumptions and instead focused on what was expected of their
female counterparts. This was extremely apparent in newspapers, articles, and pamphlets
of the time, such as in magazines where comparisons between the two sexes could be
drawn. In The Gentleman and Lady’s Town and Country Magazine an article was
published discussing the differences between men and women; women were described as
being “purer” and “more refined” while men had “all the fountains of knowledge”.111
While men were portrayed as well-educated and wise, women were often depicted as
very “delicate” and relying on their husbands for support, therefore experiencing hardship
and fear while being separated throughout the duration of the Revolutionary War.112
Parallels between descriptions of men and women can be drawn in an attempt to define
masculinity; where women were characterized as being delicate, soft, and feminine, men
were able to compare themselves as strong, knowledgeable, and masculine protectors
who were willing to defend their rights and the ones they loved.113
One particularly famous lady who desired more for women than to simply adhere
to their husband’s requests and follow behind was Abigail Adams, outspoken activist and
wife of John Adams. In her compelling letter to her husband from March 31, 1776,
Abigail warned that even though the American men were fighting for liberty,
independence, and freedom, all men were “Naturally tyrannical” and life would improve
111
“Sketches in favour of the Ladies, from the comparative view of the Sexes,” The Gentleman
and Lady’s Town and Country Magazine, September 1784: 199.
112
“Sketches”: 199.
113
Royster: 4-5.
Wood 31
for women if men would only “give up the harsh title of Master for the more tender and
endearing one of Friend”.114 She appeared to be ahead of her time when she realized that
by “independence” the Patriots meant that such rights were to apply only to white males,
and so Abigail implored John to “regard us then as Beings placed by providence under
your protection”115 rather than seeing women as completely dependent creatures. She
was not asking that women be given complete authority to act on their own, but only
wished that men would recognize the mobility of women and acknowledge their ability to
think for themselves despite the close ties and relationships they shared with their
husbands.
In his immediate reply from April 14, 1776, John Adams informed Abigail that
men would never “exert our Power in its full Latitude” over the women in their lives, but
that they were “obliged to go fair, and softly” in the practices in which they lead their
families.116 He addressed the patriarchal society in which they lived, stating that “We
know better than to repeal our Masculine systems” but that they “are little more than
Theory”.117 Adams defended the society, indicating his belief that men were more
capable of leading women, family, and communities, but that they would not lord their
power over others. Adams suggested that men “have only the Name of Masters”118 and
in fact did see themselves as friends and partners of their wives, rather than masters
relentlessly ruling the roost. He argued that masculinity was defined by leadership and
114
Abigail Adams to John Adams, Braintree, March 31, 1776, in My Dearest Friend: Letters of
Abigail and John Adams, eds. Margaret A. Hogan and C. James Taylor (Massachusetts Historical Society,
2007): 110.
115
Abigail Adams to John Adams: 111.
116
John Adams to Abigail Adams, April 14, 1776 in My Dearest Friend: Letters of Abigail and
John Adams, eds. Margaret A. Hogan and C. James Taylor (Massachusetts Historical Society, 2007) : 113.
117
John Adams to Abigail Adams: 112.
118
John Adams to Abigail Adams: 113.
Wood 32
the role as head of the house over wife and family, but that this position of power came
with a duty to protect those within his household.
Because women were seen as closely connected to their husbands and the men in
their lives, they were subsequently deemed dependent creatures that needed someone
with reason and knowledge to take care of them. This inferred that men embraced
masculinity in the sense that they provided for their wives and defended not only their
families but also their independence by fighting in the war.119 Not only were they
protecting their own beliefs or even those of their families, there was a tremendous sense
of pride and patriotism that went along with fighting for and defending the rights of one’s
country and people.
Terms of masculinity were often defined in comparison to femininity and the
differences between men and women in their ability to comprehend and access
knowledge. Even John Adams, who loved and respected his wife Abigail and with whom
he shared a deep relationship, disclosed feelings of reservation when it came to trusting
women as leaders within the household and beyond. In a letter to James Warren from
October 24, 1775, John Adams discusses men’s “Searching Hearts” and the “Principles
and Motives” they are capable of in order to participate in politics.120 Although he did
not outright suggest it, his tone indicates that women were not capable of the handling the
knowledge that was required of those who govern and lead the people in the country.
This was further emphasized directly in Adams’ letter to Mercy Otis Warren from
April 16, 1776 when he told her that although he believed women “are the greatest
119
Knouff: 328.
John Adams to James Warren, October 24, 1775, in John Adams: Revolutionary Writings,
1775-1783, ed. Gordon Wood (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 2011): 29.
120
Wood 33
Politicians”121 they did not possess the appropriate traits for them to be successful. He
argued instead that men were better thinkers and understood politics, the government, and
the law, thus allowing them to better know what was best for the colonies. He offered
that the political arena was a harsh one in which “human Nature is corrupted” and
“Principles are as easily destroyed”122 thereby making it dangerous for women to enter
into themselves and get hurt. These feelings can be attributed to the fact that Adams and
other men felt a sense of responsibility in protecting women from the harshness of public
service, or the idea that it was up to men to stand up for what was good and defend the
rights of all and that this task should not fall to delicate women. More likely his response
is a combination of both, suggesting that masculinity came from both a desire to keep
men in charge and sustain a patriarchal society123 and also a duty to protect family and
the people of one’s nation.
By asserting that the world of politics was a dangerous place for women, Adams
once again reinforces the idea that women were delicate and feminine and needed to be
protected rather than involved in governmental affairs.124 By portraying women in such a
light, he in turn suggested that men were strong enough to handle the harsh realities that
came with holding leadership positions and fighting battles. Adams’ concern for the
well-being of women suggests that he believed the relative safety of the home front to be
the women’s realm125 while men should be left with the task of fighting for and
protecting colonial freedom.
121
John Adams to Mercy Otis Warren, April 16, 1776, in John Adams: Revolutionary Writings,
1775-1783, ed. Gordon Wood (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 2011): 61.
122
John Adams to Mercy Otis Warren: 61.
123
John Adams to Mercy Otis Warren: 62.
124
Sketches”: 199.
125
Holly A. Mayer. “Bearing Arms, Bearing Burdens: Women Warriors, Camp Followers and
Home-Front Heroines of the American Revolution.” Gender, War and Politics: Transatlantic
Wood 34
Depictions of the Revolutionary War as a whole generally portray the home front
as dominated by women while men were off defending freedom against the British; not
much research has to be completed in order to prove these assumptions false, however.
As aforementioned, many women disguised themselves as men in order to fight on the
battlefields while just as many men refrained from military service whether conveniently,
purposely, or unintentionally. Women who were caught pretending to be soldiers were
not commended for their behavior126 and were often thrown out of the army suggesting
that other soldiers and the officers in charge were offended that women would even
attempt to be as masculine as men; they viewed this as a huge threat to their manhood
and their pride since they could not control women and their actions.
Men who remained on the home front often did not feel mocked or ridiculed by
their decision to abstain from military service; rather, they felt they were embracing their
manhood by providing protection and support for their families.127 Many also
contributed what they could to the war effort in an attempt to help the Patriots achieve
victory. The fact that men felt differently about masculinity depending on their choice to
stay at home is proof that there was not one cohesive definition of manhood for those
involved in the American Revolution.
V. Patriot Victory and the Legacy of Masculinity
The Revolutionary War concluded on October 19, 1781 with the surrender of
Cornwallis and over 8,000 of his men at Yorktown, Virginia; almost two years later, on
September 3, 1783, the Treaty of Paris and the Treaty of Versailles were signed,
Perspectives, 1775-1830, eds. Karen Hagemann, Gisela Mettele, and Jane Rendall (New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2010): 169-187.
126
Mayer: 174.
127
Royster: 4-5.
Wood 35
officially concluding the Revolution and ending most British occupations.128 The victory
of the rebels, or Patriots, was surprising to the British Crown since the Americans were
largely disadvantaged from the start – they lacked adequate supplies, a formal army, and
a functioning government.129 Though dubbed by Loyalists as a backward, ragged bunch,
the Patriots proved that persistence was crucial in defeating their enemies, culminating in
the American victory at Yorktown.
The American Revolution ended in victory for the Patriots, allowing for the
creation of the United States of America under the Constitution and subsequent Bill of
Rights in order to ensure the safeguarding of specific freedoms. Such freedoms included
personal rights, as well as liberty and independence for all; these republican ideals
formed the basis for the Revolution, and enforced the idea of masculinity in terms of
protection and defense as crucial to the patriarchal society upon which the new nation
was created.130 This masculinity allowed for the validity of such a society and the
defense of rights belonging to all white males following the War.
Defending manhood meant fighting not only for rights that had previously been
taken away by a tyrannical government, but to also ensure the supremacy of white males
within the new communities. Women, though respected and admired for their assistance
during the war effort, were still expected to submit to their husbands and even throughout
the war were encouraged to fulfill their duty as a way to support their male counterparts
fighting in the war.131 Race also played a role in defining manhood; only white males
128
Edward Countryman. The American Revolution, Revised Edition (New York: Hill and Wang,
2003): 172.
129
Joseph C. Morton. The American Revolution (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press,
2003): 68.
130
Morton: 77.
131
An example of support was through the boycotts of British goods. Refer to Kerber: 38-39.
Wood 36
were considered worthy of certain masculine ideals, and those who were considered
“other” were pushed to the periphery and ignored with the institution of a new
government and constitution.132 Even Benjamin Franklin, in a letter to Lord Howe,
described the Indians as “Savages” sent to “massacre our Farmers”;133 such depictions of
the Native Americans show that even leaders of the Revolution did not think Indians
deserved to be considered civilized or citizens.
Not only were these minorities not considered masculine by white Americans,
they were left out of common rights, and as is well-known slavery remained an institution
and discrimination was largely intact not only against blacks but Native Americans as
well.134 Similarly, those who had remained loyal to the British Crown for the duration of
the Revolution were also pushed to the edges of society and were largely ridiculed and
humiliated and noted for “effeminacy”135 for siding with a tyrant leader. Loyalists often
felt that the Revolution was “oppressive and emasculating, not democratic”136 and as a
consequence of refusal to join the rebel cause they were “tarred and feathered”.137 Thus
Loyalists often felt ostracized from society, and were not seen as masculine and were
unable to partake in the republican rights that were earned with the Revolution.
The Patriots saw themselves as successful in waging a war protecting manhood,
emphasizing their “identity as politically empowered white men”138 following their
132
Knouff: 333.
Benjamin Franklin to Lord Howe: 156.
134
Knouff: 331.
135
Stefan Dudink, Karen Hagemann, and John Tosh, eds. Masculinities in Politics and War:
Gendering Modern History (Gender in History) (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004): 87.
136
Knouff: 334.
137
Records of the American Loyalist Claims Commission, 1776-1831, The National Archive of
the United Kingdom, Kew, Great Britain, Audit Office 12, vol. 99, 49in Gender, War, and Politics:
Transatlantic Perspectives, 1775-1830, eds., Karen Hagemann, Gisela Mattele, and Jane Rendall (New
York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010): 334.
138
Knouff: 325.
133
Wood 37
success in the war for independence. Citizenship thus became attainable for even poor
white men, allowing them to also feel connected to their manhood and that of America as
a newly-founded nation. Veterans’ memories often paralleled “notions of independent,
democratic, white-male citizenship” felt by all and not just those of the upper classes.
While these Patriots saw themselves as fighting for a worthy cause and thus defending
manhood and the liberties of the people, the Loyalists often felt “forced to portray
themselves as dependent, emasculate, provincial subjects”139 because of the ridicule they
received from the Patriots and other supporters of the rebel cause.
Little is said regarding differences among class and socio-economic status
following the success of the Americans in the fight for independence. It can be inferred
that as long as they were white males who upheld the republican ideals they were
respected in society and seen as defending manhood. Whether they were gentlemen who
stayed at home during the war or soldiers on the frontlines of battle, all were viewed by
society as “masculine” figures who were worthy of the cause of the Revolution and could
be trusted with personal liberty and independence.140
Perhaps the most lasting image of American manhood that has remained a legacy
long past the conclusion of the Revolution is that of the Founding Fathers, particularly
George Washington. These men were viewed by the public as heroes of America by
triumphing over the enemy and the tyrant British government that did nothing other than
oppress the people of the colonies; the efforts of the Founding Fathers were heralded as
139
Knouff: 334.
John Adams to Abigail Adams, Amsterdam, December 18, 1780, in John Adams:
Revolutionary Writings, 1775-1783, ed. Gordon Wood (New York: Literary Classics of the United States,
Inc., 2011): 442.
140
Wood 38
impressive, courageous, and masculine by their contemporaries,141 and these feelings
regarding their service remain the case to this day. These men were seen as heroes to the
civilians on the home front, the soldiers on the battlefield, and their colleagues in the
political arena and within the Continental Congress; only such charismatic leaders could
capture the essence of masculinity in such a way as George Washington and John Adams
did.
George Washington was held in admiration not only by leaders in the Continental
Army but by common soldiers and everyday people alike. “Yankee Doodle” describes
George Washington as surrounded by gentlemen and dressed in “meeting clothes” with
“flaming ribbons…look’d so tearing fine” indicating his distinction not only from
common people but even other officers in the military.142 This distinction was not a bad
thing, however; Washington’s ability to remain a gentleman even on the battlefield
enforced his portrayal as a hero and the epitome of manhood. Other songs and ballads
held high praise for his efforts on the battlefield; in a song published in Columbia
Magazine, there many positive sentiments regarding the leader as noticed at the end of
the first verse with “huzza, huzza, huzza, huzza, for War and Washington!”143 Even
though this “New Song” was not published until several years after the war in 1789, it
still very much captures the feelings of patriotism that were felt during the war and that
141
Eliphalet Dyer to Joseph Trumbull, Philadelphia, June 17, 1775 in The American Revolution:
Writings from the War of Independence, ed. John Rhodehamel (New York: Literary Classics of the United
States, Inc., 2001): 34.
142
“Yankee Doodle” in The Spirit of ‘Seventy-Six: The Story of the American Revolution as Told
by Participants, eds., Henry Steele Commager and Richard B. Morris (New York: Bobbs-Merrill
Company, Inc., 1958): 893.
143
“A New Song” in The Spirit of ‘Seventy-Six: The Story of the American Revolution as Told by
Participants, eds., Henry Steele Commager and Richard B. Morris (New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company,
Inc., 1958): 900.
Wood 39
determination and victory were “inspired by Washington”.144 The song goes on to
proclaim the goodness that Washington had conducted throughout the war and also his
success for the people of America following the Revolution, showing that it was not just
strength and bravery that constituted his masculinity.
Manhood during the Revolution had varying meanings depending on race, social
status, class, and occupation during the war; though men might have played differing
roles, this did not mean that some men were considered more masculine than others.
Only race was a deciding factor in how men perceived masculinity, since white males
saw themselves as deserving of republican ideals and exemplifying what it meant to be a
man, something they believed blacks and Indians were incapable of. Class and social
status had less of an impact on defining manhood, since each man thought of his duty145
and contribution to the war effort, regardless of occupation, as encompassing masculinity
and defending liberty. For men on the home front, the choice to remain at home stemmed
from the belief that one could not protect independence and rights without first protecting
their families, while others saw the opportunity to fight for republican ideals as the
epitome of defending manhood. These differing definitions show that there was no single
concept of masculinity, and because interpretations of manhood were anything but static,
such definitions were able to change over the course of the war and depending on the
circumstances of the individual.
To study the history of manhood and masculinity is to undertake a huge task that
has been largely overlooked by both those who study the material and from
contemporaries of particular times in history. Understanding perceptions of masculinity
144
145
“A New Song”: 901.
Royster: 29.
Wood 40
on the home front and battlefields of the American Revolution proved to be much more
difficult than one might expect, and it can only be inferred by rifling through pamphlets,
letters, and articles from the Revolutionary period that “masculinity” had many different
meanings to those living through the war. To some, it meant defending manhood and
independence of the American people, while to others it meant enforcing a patriarchal
society that held white males as leaders.146 Regardless of what masculinity meant, it was
an important concept to many during the American Revolution that was worth fighting a
war over; the victory of the Patriots meant a success for the people as a whole and the
beginnings of a discussion about what it meant to be a man in America.
146
Gordon S. Wood: 166.
Wood 41
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources
Adams, Abigail and John Adams. My Dearest Friend: Letters of Abigail and John
Adams, edited by Margaret A. Hogan and C. James Taylor. Massachusetts
Historical Society, 2007.
Adams, John. John Adams: Revolutionary Writings, 1775-1783, edited by Gordon
Wood. New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 2011.
Adolphus, “Thoughts on the Situation of Affairs,” The Pennsylvania Gazette, February
14, 1778.
Coffin, Peter. “The Essex Result,” in The American Republic: Primary Sources, edited
by Bruce Frohnen, 208. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, Inc., 2002.
Commager, Henry Steele and Richard B. Morris, eds. The Spirit of ‘Seventy-Six: The
Story of the American Revolution as Told by Participants. New York: BobbsMerrill Company, Inc., 1958.
Dann, John C., ed. The Revolution Remembered: Eyewitness Accounts of the War for
Independence. The University of Chicago Press, 1980.
Greenman, Jeremiah. Diary of a Common Soldier in the American Revolution: An
Annotated Edition of the Military Journal of Jeremiah Greenman, edited by
Robert C. Bray & Paul E. Bushnell. DeKalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois
University Press, 1978.
Howe, Edgar Watson. Plain People (New York: Dodd, Mean, & Co., 1929). Quoted in
Robert C. Bray & Paul E. Bushnell, Diary of a Common Soldier in the American
Revolution: An Annotated Edition of the Military Journal of Jeremiah Greenman.
DeKalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois University Press, 1978.
Morris, J., “Philadelphia, June 18,” The Pennsylvania Gazette, June 18, 1777.
Moultrie, William, ed. Memoirs of the American Revolution. New York: Arno Press,
1968.
“New York, June 10, Thursday afternoon his excellency general,” The Virginia Gazette,
June 28, 1776.
Rhodehamel, John, eds. The American Revolution: Writings from the War of
Independence. New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 2001.
Wood 42
“Sketches in favour of the Ladies, from the comparative view of the Sexes,” The
Gentleman and Lady’s Town and Country Magazine, September 1784.
A Soldier. “For the Virginia Gazette,” The Virginia Gazette, February 7, 1777.
Washington, George. This Glorious Struggle: George Washington’s Revolutionary War
Letters, edited by Edward G. Lengel. New York: HarperCollins Publishers,
2007.
“Williamsburg, October 4 Letters from general Washington’s camp,” The Virginia
Gazette, October 4, 1776.
Secondary Sources
Abrahamson, James L. The American Home Front: Revolutionary War, Civil War,
World War I, World War II. Washington, DC: National Defense University
Press, 1983.
Berkin, Carol. Revolutionary Mothers: Women in the Struggle for America’s
Independence. New York: Knopf, 2005.
Bloch, Ruth H. “The Gendered Meanings of Virtue in Revolutionary America.” Signs
13 no. 1 (1987): 37-58.
Buel, Richard. Securing the Revolution: Ideology in American Politics, 1789–1815.
Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1972.
Countryman, Edward. The American Revolution, Revised Edition. New York: Hill and
Wang, 2003.
Dudink, Stefan, Karen Hagemann, and John Tosh, eds. Masculinities in Politics and
War: Gendering Modern History (Gender in History). Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 2004.
Foster, Thomas A., ed. New Men: Manliness in Early America. New York: New York
University Press, 2011.
Golway, Terry. Washington's General: Nathanael Greene and the Triumph of the
American Revolution. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2005.
Hagemann, Karen, Gisela Mettele, and Jane Rendall, eds. Gender, War, and Politics:
Transatlantic Perspectives, 1775-1830. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
Wood 43
Harrington, Hugh T. “Financial Hero?” Journal of the American Revolution.
http://allthingsliberty.com/2013/01/financial-hero/#_edn1 (accessed November 9,
2013).
Isenberg, Andrew C. The Destruction of the Bison: An Environmental History, 17501920. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Kerber, Linda K. Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary
America. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1980.
Kimmel, Michael. Manhood in America: A Cultural History. New York: The Free
Press, 1996.
MacLeod, Duncan J. Slavery, Race, and the American Revolution. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1974.
Merchant, Carolyn. Ecological Revolutions: Nature, Gender, and Science in New
England. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 1989.
Morris, Christopher. The Big Muddy: An Environmental History of the Mississippi and
Its Peoples from Hernando de Soto to Hurricane Katrina. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2012.
Morton, Joseph C. The American Revolution. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press,
2003.
Norton, Mary Beth. Liberty’s Daughters: The Revolutionary Experience of American
Women, 1750-1800. Boston-Toronto: Little Brown and Company, 1980.
Resch, John and Walter Sargent, eds. War and Society in the American Revolution:
Mobilization and Home Fronts. DeKalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois University
Press, 2007.
Rindfleisch, Bryan C. “‘What it Means to Be a Man’: Contested Masculinity in the
Early Republic and Antebellum America.” History Compass 10 no. 11
(November 2012): 852-865.
Rotundo, E. Anthony. American Manhood: Transformations in Masculinity from the
Revolution to the Modern Era. New York: Basic Books, 1994.
Royster, Charles. A Revolutionary People at War: The Continental Army and American
Character, 1775-1783. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1979.
Shalhope, Robert E. "Toward a Republican Synthesis: The Emergence of an
Understanding of Republicanism in American Historiography." William and
Mary Quarterly 29 (January 1972): 49-80.
Wood 44
Volo, Dorothy Denneen and James M. Volo. Daily Life during the American Revolution.
Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2003.
Wood, Gordon S. The Radicalism of the American Revolution. New York: A. A. Knopf,
1992.
Young, Alfred F. Masquerade: Life and Times of Deborah Sampson. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf, 2004.