Maintaining the Chaos: The Complexities of Domestic Life for Loyalist and Patriot Women Amidst the American Revolution, 1752–1789

On By erwguestIn America 250, Civilian, Emerging Revolutionary War, Memory, Revolutionary War, WomenLeave a comment

EDITOR’S NOTE: Emerging Revolutionary War has been pleased to co-sponsor a series of Monday-evening programs to commemorate the America 250th at St. Bonaventure University, where contributor Chris Mackowski teaches. In March, the line-up of programs featured a student research panel. We are pleased to present today the work of one of the “emerging scholars” from that panel, Kayla Krupski.

Kayla is a junior history major from Hamburg, NY, with a minor in classics. Her talk was titled “Maintaining the Chaos: The Complexities of Domestic Life for Loyalist and Patriot Women Amidst the American Revolution, 1752–1789.” We invited Kayla to share a synopsis of her research here.

The American Revolution is most often remembered through the voices of those who primarily wrote its history—men. Because women were not marching miles to face a redcoat with a musket, their courageousness was often overshadowed by active battle. However, women of the 18th century faced constant battles and fear within their domestic lives. Regardless of their allegiance, women embodied a quiet strength in maintaining their households.

Anna Rawle, a young loyalist woman living in Philadelphia, wrote in 1781, “It was the most alarming scene I ever remember.”[1] This quote comes shortly after the American victory at the Battle of Yorktown, when a Patriot mob harassed her home. These uneasy, fearful words that came from a young Loyalist woman reflected how her home, family, and life was threatened because of the Patriot victory.

The resilience and challenges of female roles during the Revolution showed how certain hardships did not solely lean toward one political side. Whether one was a Loyalist or a Patriot, it did not deem that one group of people were harassed more for their beliefs than others. Understanding this allows the unbiased mind to look past the political allegiances and recognize that, through their self-determination, women were not going to let the chaos of the war keep them from continuing to live their domestic lives.

By looking at three women of different ages and political and religious backgrounds, we can connect how the American Revolution affected all women who shared the common emotion of fear. Sally Wister, Anna Rawle, and Abigail Adams had a swift transition from calmness to chaos in their daily lives.

Sally Wister

As a fifteen-year-old Quaker girl from a family of immigrants residing in Philadelphia, Sally Wister leaned towards the patriot ideals despite her pacifist beliefs. She kept a yearlong journal of her experiences when her family relocated to Gwynedd, Pennsylvania, further outside the city, as her father anticipated the British troops occupation of Philadelphia.[2] The main catalyst that brough fear, discomfort, and change into Sally’s life was soldiers. Many of her experiences with them were positive, but she also had interactions that negatively impacted her life.

The first instance is when a troop of Philadelphia militia came up to the Wister home after her family had recently received warning that the British had crossed the Schuylkill River, preparing to head into the city. The Patriot men stomped up to the door, frightening her and her mother, who became hesitant to answer for fear they would become violent. Nonetheless, they granted the requests of the adamant soldiers begging for food and water.

The second entry I looked at was when Sally witnessed four American soldiers negotiating with her father for his horses. Mr. Wister refused, and Sally was worried the soldiers might become violent due to her last encounter with American soldiers. When the general did not argue, Sally’s spirits lightened as she was able to see how there were groups of soldiers that could be respectful of those who remained at home. Yet, in the back of her mind she still knew the British were in the midst of occupying Philadelphia, and her life was reaching the point of being engrossed in war and constant chaos.

Sally’s third encounter was somewhat of a continuation of the second. Two of the men who were talking to her father ended up quartering in the Wister home. Major Amos Stodard and General William Smallwood of the Continental Army grew close to her family. Sally herself grew quite fond of the men, their manners, and eventually their duty to the Continental Army.

Although it is not a physical encounter, Sally’s last mention of soldiers relates to British troops. She received news of the British exiting the city of Philadelphia in 1781 and marching onwards towards her home, giving her an uneasy feeling. After experiencing the horrors of the aftermath of the Battle of Germantown and her growing fear for what was to come next in her life, overall, she constantly prays for peace “May heaven’s guardian arm protect my absent friends, From danger guard them, and from want defend,” she wrote.[3]

Anna Rawle

As a twenty-four-year-old woman born into a prominent Loyalist Quaker family in Philadelphia, Anna Rawle was labeled as the enemy to colonists. On top of that, the constant back and forth of a male presence within her household—her father and uncle both coming and going—made that an especially tumultuous time and instituted significant change and fear in her domestic life. At the time, the war was coming to a close, and Anna had followed after her mother by upping her household duties in her father’s absence. Regardless of this change, as well as the constant fear she lived with, Anna did not stray from her loyalty to the crown even in her struggle for peace.

The most significant shift Anna felt followed the British defeat at the battle of Yorktown. Her instincts told her that she should fear what may come for her family. For about four days, she stopped completing her housework, reading, or, quite frankly, doing anything. Then, on October 25, 1781, Anna and her mother experienced a traumatic event that forever changed her hope for peace. They were home alone when a mob attacked their house. An aggressive group of Patriots filled with hatred for anyone who called themselves “different” than their views went around harming homes. This came as part of a larger trend of frequent violent attacks on innocent Loyalist homes.

Without warning, Anna’s house had stones thrown at it. Nasty screams followed. As the group began to climb the Rawles’s front fence, out of a fight-or-flight instinct Anna and her mother ran into their back yard for safety. The outcome traumatized the young woman simply because differences could not be set aside. Although the war was essentially over, the incident demonstrated that, regardless of their beliefs, women’s domestic lives changed during and after active battle, both physically and emotionally.

Abigail Adams

Wife of political figure John Adams, Abigial was also a mother of four. She took on the role of “head of household” while her husband was away at the Continental Congress on his political endeavors. Their correspondence gives significant insight into how Abigail managed their farm, household, children, and wartime threats as the primary figure in their home.

Amidst the chaos and stress of her homelife, through a series of letters with her husband, Abigail urged him, as his colleagues created the country’s foundation, to remember the importance of women in men’s lives and not ignore their status. The last thing the founders would want after fighting the British was another rebellion by their wives and daughters for not considering their roles, she suggested. “If perticular care and attention is not paid to the Ladies we are determined to foment a Rebelion,” she wrote.[4]

In November 1775, Abigail grew very ill, yet her own ailments were the least of her worries. A bad span of winter weather came, disrupting their farm’s operations. Their children fell ill. Yet Abigail was also fearful of the decisions John was making for the future of the country, showing her perseverance through a time with so many other troubles.

In July of 1776, Abigail had become so exhausted from the numerous chores and duties she took on while two of her children suffered from eye infections.[5] This instance only backs up the idea that, while women stayed in the household, their responsibilities significantly grew. On top of this main factor, the fear and chaos that ensued around their homes presumably consumed their minds. Abigail’s aunt and uncle invited her and the kids to come to stay with them in their house in Boston after they took part in the vaccinations against smallpox. Based on her reaction to this offer, Abigail seemed eager and grateful for the invitation. This example does not suggest that Abigail, or any other woman, was incapable of managing her own household especially after a significant choice she made for her and her children. Rather, she was grateful for any opportunity she had for extra aid and protection.

The American Revolution was a tumultuous event that altered the domestic lives of colonial women of the 18th century, regardless of their political or religious beliefs. The comfortable daily routines of women in their household transformed into an environment of fear and uncertainty. Sally Wister, Anna Rawle, and Abigail Adams all demonstrate the different experiences of women during the war, highlighting the idea that domestic life should not be overlooked just because men were the ones on the front lines. Women are too often written out of the main narrative of the American Revolution. These women, regardless of the role they played, should not be forgotten. Their courageousness and self-determination allowed them to battle in their domestic sphere. 

[1] Anna Rawle, The Diary of Anna Rawle, 1781. America in Class

[2] Sally Wister, Sally Wister’s Journal (1777-1778)

[3] Sally Wister, Sally Wister’s Journal (1777-1778)

[4] Abigail Adams, Letter from Abigail Adams to John Adams, March 31, 1776.

[5] Abigail Adams, Letter from Abigail Adams to John Adams, 13–14 July 1776.

A Fleet Against One: The Continental Navy’s Embarrassing Clash off Block Island, April 6, 1776

On By erwguestIn 1776, Battles, British Leadership, Continental Leadership, Emerging Revolutionary War, Memory, Navy, Personalities, Revolutionary War1 Comment

Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes guest historian Bjorn Bruckshaw, a bio follows the post.

British nautical chart of the eastern portion of Long Island Sound showing the location of Block Island and the surrounding waters where the Continental Navy squadron encountered HMS Glasgow on April 6, 1776. Courtesy of the Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division. Public domain.

In the early morning hours of April 6, 1776, a lone British warship slipped through the moonlit waters southeast of Block Island. The twenty-gun frigate HMS Glasgow was carrying dispatches from Newport, Rhode Island, to the British fleet assembling off Charleston, South Carolina. Suddenly the ship’s lookout sighted sails on the horizon—then more sails behind them. Within minutes Captain Tyringham Howe realized the alarming truth: his single ship had encountered nearly the entire fleet of the newly created Continental Navy.¹

What followed should have been a decisive American victory. Commodore Esek Hopkins commanded a squadron of seven armed vessels, including the flagship Alfred, the brigs Cabot and Andrew Doria, and several additional ships. Against them stood only one British frigate. Yet by dawn the British ship had fought its way free and escaped. The encounter became one of the earliest—and most embarrassing—naval engagements of the American Revolution.²

The clash southeast of Block Island revealed the weaknesses of the young American navy: inexperienced crews, poor coordination between ships, and ineffective gunnery. Despite overwhelming numerical superiority, the Continental squadron failed to capture a single enemy warship. As one frustrated American officer later remarked, “A more imprudent, ill-conducted affair never happened.”³

The British vessel at the center of the encounter was HMS Glasgow, a sixth-rate twenty-gun frigate of the Royal Navy. In early April 1776 the ship had been tasked with delivering dispatches from Newport to the British fleet gathering off Charleston for an upcoming campaign against the southern colonies. That expedition would ultimately culminate in the failed British assault during the Battle of Sullivan’s Island in June 1776.⁴

Meanwhile the American rebellion had begun extending onto the seas. The Second Continental Congress had authorized the creation of a navy in late 1775 to challenge British control of American waters. By February 1776 the first ships of the fleet were ready for service, and Congress appointed Hopkins as commander-in-chief of the new force.⁵

Hopkins’s squadron consisted largely of converted merchant vessels hastily adapted for war. The fleet included the flagship Alfred, along with Columbus, Cabot, Andrew Doria, Providence, Wasp, and Fly. Among the officers serving aboard the fleet was a young lieutenant named John Paul Jones, who served aboard the Alfred and would later gain fame as one of the most celebrated naval commanders of the Revolution.⁶

Continue reading “A Fleet Against One: The Continental Navy’s Embarrassing Clash off Block Island, April 6, 1776” →

Review: New Hampshire and Independence; Rediscovered Writings from the Sons of the American Revolution edited by William Edmund Fahey

On By Phill GreenwaltIn America 250, Book Review, Emerging Revolutionary War, Revolutionary WarLeave a comment

If one peruses the shelves of their favorite bookstore, histories line the shelves with words in their title “new look,” or “fresh perspective,” or “revisited,” or “rediscovered.” Usually, I am skeptical about what that history entails and whether that perspective will be based on a factual foundation or the author’s interpretation. That last word, “rediscovered,” graces the subtitle of William Edmund Fahey’s edited volume for The History Press. Fahey, who holds a doctorate degree and is a Fellow and President of Thomas More College in Merrimack, New Hampshire. In 2024, he was appointed the historian of the New Hampshire Society of the Sons of the American Revolution.

With that background, one can be assured that his “rediscovered” history will be based on impeccable research and accounts that have, unintentionally, been overlooked through the passage of time. That is the case in “New Hampshire and Independence, Rediscovered Writings from the Sons of the American Revolution.” As “questions or even needs that have arisen in recent years. The 250th anniversary of sovereignty is upon Americans” (pg. 29). This is the volume to understand and, if I may, borrow a word, rediscover the role of this small but important colony and its contributions to American victory in the American Revolutionary War.

“The structure of this book is rather straightforward…” (Pg. 30). Part one “sets the mood…the multi-generational effort to reflect, remember, and value the past” (Pgs. 30-31). “The heart of the book is found in the six addresses…” that comprises the entire second part of the publication (Pg. 31). Fahey wraps up this edited volume with the last section, part three, offering “readers key resources to become involved in the Sons of the American Revolution” (Pg. 31). Part four provides key legislative and primary source material for referencing and sparking research into the period. Now, let’s examine key points from each section to show Fahey’s mastery of the material and editorial prowess.

Continue reading “Review: New Hampshire and Independence; Rediscovered Writings from the Sons of the American Revolution edited by William Edmund Fahey” →

Rev War Revelry: The Battles of Spencer’s Ordinary and Green Spring, 1781 with Dr. John Maass

On By Rob OrrisonIn Rev War RevelryLeave a comment

This Sunday, April 5th join us for a pre-recorded Rev War Revelry as we welcome back our good friend Dr. John Maass. Maass will discuss his latest book, The Battles of Spencer’s Ordinary and Green Spring, 1781 (Westholme Publishing) that covers the battles between Lafayette and Cornwallis, months before the Siege of Yorktown.

Dr. Maass will discuss his research to write this foremost account on the battles that have been mostly overlooked. We will also talk about how these battles fit into the overall 1781 Virginia Campaign and some misconceptions of the actions. There is little written about Spencer’s Ordinary and Green Spring, so this work will be an important add to anyone’s library.

The Revelry will be posted to Facebook and our You Tube Channel at 7pm.

“Remember the Ladies”—250 Years Later

On By Chris MackowskiIn UncategorizedLeave a comment
Abigail Adams was only 32 years old when she encouraged her h (NY Public Library)

“Remember the ladies.” Of all the words Abigail Adams wrote to her husband John over a correspondence than spanned 1,160 letters and nearly 40 years, those three stand as the most famous. They come from a letter written on March 31, 1776—250 years ago today.

At the time, events in the colonies were moving at a quickening pace. Common Sense in January 1776 had not only leveraged a major public shift toward American independence, it also sparked debate about what might come after. Sentiment in the Continental Congress lagged public opinion, despite John’s best efforts to spur that sentiment along, but conversation still bubbled among the delegates about that possible future.

It was in this context that Abigail, as astute a politician as any Congressional delegate, wrote to her husband. If independence loomed, and America had the chance to jump-start a new system of its own, then why not take advantage of the winds of change and establish independence not only from Great Britian but from the old social order altogether.

[I]n the new Code of Laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make I desire you would Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If perticuliar care and attention is not paid to the Laidies we are determined to foment a Rebelion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.

That your Sex are Naturally Tyrannical is a Truth so thoroughly established as to admit of no dispute, but such of you as wish to be happy willingly give up the harsh title of Master for the more tender and endearing one of Friend. Why then, not put it out of the power of the vicious and the Lawless to use us with cruelty and indignity with impunity. Men of Sense in all Ages abhor those customs which treat us only as the vassals of your Sex. Regard us then as Beings placed by providence under your protection and in immitation of the Supreem Being, make use of that power only for our happiness.[1]

Abigail’s request comes as a literal “by the way” at the end of an 837-word letter—the last paragraph and a half, in fact. She didn’t get to send the letter right away, so on April 5, she added another 368 words but “with a heart so gay.” These are both context clues to help us better understand John’s reply, which has often drawn criticism from modern scholars. His response came on April 14:

As to your extraordinary Code of Laws, I cannot but laugh. We have been told that our Struggle has loosened the bands of Government every where. That Children and Apprentices were disobedient—that schools and Colledges were grown turbulent—that Indians slighted their Guardians and Negroes grew insolent to their Masters. But your Letter was the first Intimation that another Tribe more numerous and powerfull than all the rest were grown discontented.—This is rather too coarse a Compliment but you are so saucy, I wont blot it out.

Depend upon it: We know better than to repeal our Masculine systems. Altho they are in full Force, you know they are little more than Theory. We dare not exert our Power in its full Latitude. We are obliged to go fair, and softly, and in Practice you know We are the subjects. We have only the Name of Masters, and rather than give up this, which would compleatly subject Us to the Despotism of the Peticoat, I hope General Washington, and all our brave Heroes would fight.[2]

At first glance, John’s reply seems dismissive and even patronizing. However, that interpretation fails to look at the letter in the context of their full correspondence or their relationship in general. John and Abigail looked at each other as full partners and intellectual equals. He invited her to advise him on everything, and even if he didn’t always agree with her, he took her opinions seriously.

They also knew how to banter and joke around. They both possessed sharp wits and, to use John’s word, “saucy” attitudes. If he detected a note of good humor in her letter—indeed, the gay heart she wrote with—he was bound to respond in kind.

On April 27, Abigail wrote to her friend Mercy Otis Warren about her exchange with John. “He is very sausy to me in return for a List of Female Grievances which I transmitted to him,” she confessed. (There’s that “saucy” word again, btw.) She continued:

I thought it was very probable our wise Statesmen would erect a New Goverment and form a new code of Laws. I ventured to speak a word in behalf of our Sex, who are rather hardly dealt with by the Laws of England which gives such unlimitted power to the Husband to use his wife Ill.

I requested that our Legislators would consider our case and as all Men of Delicacy and Sentiment are averse to Excercising the power they possess, yet as there is a natural propensity in Humane Nature to domination, I thought the most generous plan was to put it out of the power of the Arbitary and tyranick to injure us with impunity by Establishing some Laws in our favour upon just and Liberal principals.[3]

Abigail suggested that maybe she and Mercy send a petition directly to Congress, although, if such effort happened, no record of it survives. (For more on Abigail’s exchange with Mercy on this topic, see Phill Greenwalt’s post from 2015, “Remember the Ladies.”)

Abigail did revisit the subject with her husband, though, and her May 7 reply conveyed a friendly word to the wise that stated her feelings plainly:

I can not say that I think you very generous to the Ladies, for whilst you are proclaiming peace and good will to Men . . . you insist upon retaining an absolute power over Wives.

But you must remember that Arbitary power is like most other things which are very hard, very liable to be broken—and notwithstanding all your wise Laws and Maxims we have it in our power not only to free ourselves but to subdue our Masters, and without violence throw both your natural and legal authority at our feet—[4]

And so, Abigail got the last word, and John, for his part, seemed delighted with her response. It was just kind of intellectual jousting he loved. “Your Sentiments of the Duties We owe to our Country, are such as become the best of Women, and the best of Men,” he wrote on May 22. “Among all the Disappointments, and Perplexities, which have fallen to my share in Life, nothing has contributed so much to support my Mind, as the choice Blessing of a Wife. . . .”[5]

In the end, Congress did not “remember the ladies,” and neither did John—although he didn’t quite forget them, either. To “remember the ladies” meant following a train of logic—as his tongue-in-cheek reply to her suggested—that could descend into messy populism. For John, that was just one step too close to a mob. For all his reputation today as a radical, he was too much of a conservative to embrace an overthrow of the entire social system. He preferred, instead, slow, deliberate change managed by checks and balances. (On May 26, John laid out his argument in a letter to James Sullivan, justice of the Massachusetts Superior Court. You can read that letter here.)[6]

As recent Abigail biographer John L. Smith, Jr., has noted, “Not only was Congress negotiating treaties with foreign countries but it was also trying to deal with the crashing economy, supplying the army, establishing the courts, conducting and winning the war, and handling dozens of other critical issues.”[7] While that explanation might be interpreted as letting Congress off the hook too readily, it is also true. It might also be true that, because John saw his marriage with Abigail as an ideal balance, he didn’t fully appreciate how uneven the balance could be in other households.

Whatever the reason, the issue of women’s rights did not seem to be a sticking point between John and Abigail in their later correspondence. It’s reasonable to assume that, as candid as Abigail was with her husband, if the issue nagged at her, she would have brought it up again.

Soon after the “remember the ladies” exchange, the pace of events quickened to lightning speed, culminating in independence even as British troops landed on Staten Island to test its very viability. The stakes of the entire Revolution jumped exponentially. John toiled in Philadelphia and Abigail advised him from afar. He couldn’t help but “remember the ladies,” or at least his own lady, because his homesickness ensured she was never far from his thoughts.

[1] “Abigail Adams to John Adams, 31 March 1776,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/04-01-02-0241. [Original source: The Adams Papers, Adams Family Correspondence, vol. 1, December 1761 – May 1776, ed. Lyman H. Butterfield. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963, pp. 369–371.]

[2] “John Adams to Abigail Adams, 14 April 1776,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/04-01-02-0248. [Original source: The Adams Papers, Adams Family Correspondence, vol. 1, December 1761 – May 1776, ed. Lyman H. Butterfield. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963, pp. 381–383.]

[3] “Abigail Adams to Mercy Otis Warren, 27 April 1776,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/04-01-02-0257. [Original source: The Adams Papers, Adams Family Correspondence, vol. 1, December 1761 – May 1776, ed. Lyman H. Butterfield. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963, pp. 396–398.]

[4] “Abigail Adams to John Adams, 7 May 1776,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/04-01-02-0259. [Original source: The Adams Papers, Adams Family Correspondence, vol. 1, December 1761 – May 1776, ed. Lyman H. Butterfield. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963, pp. 401–403.]

[5] “John Adams to Abigail Adams, 22 May 1776,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/04-01-02-0267. [Original source: The Adams Papers, Adams Family Correspondence, vol. 1, December 1761 – May 1776, ed. Lyman H. Butterfield. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963, pp. 412–413.]

[6] “John Adams to James Sullivan, 26 May 1776,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/06-04-02-0091. [Original source: The Adams Papers, Papers of John Adams, vol. 4, February–August 1776, ed. Robert J. Taylor. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979, pp. 208–213.]

[7] John L. Smith, Jr. The Unexpected Abigail Adams: A Woman “Not Apt to Be Intimidated” (Yardley, PA: Westholme, 2024), 86–7.

Book Review: The Great Contradiction by Joseph J. Ellis

On By Phill GreenwaltIn Book Review, Civilian, Emerging Revolutionary War, Memory, Native American, Politics, Revolutionary War, SlaveryLeave a comment

A time travel work of non-fiction to a foreign country are words usually not associated with a history of “the American Founding.” Yet that is exactly the intent of historian and author Joseph Ellis as he begins his exploration of this most important era of American history. Unlike those science-fiction journeys, this “trip will be different. Our tour will focus on the downside of the American founding.” (Pg. ix).

That downside is quickly explained by Ellis in his book The Great Contradiction: The Tragic Side of the American Founding. The past winner of a National Book Award for his work on the character of Thomas Jefferson, Ellis plans to “focus on two unquestionably horrific tragedies the founders oversaw: the failure to end slavery, and the failure to avoid Indian removal.” (Pg. ix).

Let’s review how this seasoned historian fulfilled his tour outline. “Most of the achievements were unprecedented…” as the triumphant British colonies made “the United States the political model of the liberal state.” That is the truth, “but it is not the whole truth…” as Ellis explains, “there are two legacies of the founding era…and both qualify as enormous tragedies.” Combined, “these triumphal and tragic elements constitute the ingredients for an epic historical narrative.” Ellis’s tour will include this “coexistence of grandeur and failure, brilliance and blindness, grace and sin” in his attempt to counteract how the narrative has so long been written by historians, which is of the “either/or” persuasion (Pgs. 17-18).

Since his aim is to provide context for how the world of the founding generation is vastly different than the one that has congealed over time, Ellis quickly reorients the lodestar of that time. “As far as the American founding is concerned, it is a lie—or, if you prefer less disturbing language, a massive delusion. None of the prominent founders believed they were creating a democracy” (Pg. 17).

“The political lodestar for the revolutionary generation was not ‘the people’ but, rather, ‘the public,’ or public things” rather “the public interest was the long-term interest of the people…” (Pg. 17).

As he further develops his approach, Ellis provides parameters: “if the original sin of American history is slavery, and racism its toxic residue, the original sin for American historians is ‘presentism.” In other terms, utilizing 21st-century “political and moral values” as the criteria to assess those in the Revolutionary era (Pg. 18).

Although there are two tragedies, the role of slavery and the failure to provide a roadmap to extinction have more dedicated pages in this book than the plight of the Native Americans, and Ellis admits that early on. Discussing the saga of the potential to end slavery, the debates, factors, and ultimate outcome are propped up by astute analysis by Ellis, and uncovering primary sources to let the founders speak as often as possible. The failure to end the institution of slavery must be judged the greatest failure of the revolutionary generation.” The passing of Benjamin Franklin, the “Virginia Staddle”, and other near chances provide a fascinating, yet tragic, “what if” scenario that Ellis unpacks with brilliant prose. (Pg. 129).    

The same can be said about the early republic and the relations with Native Americans, as “there is an almost irresistible urge to wonder if the story could have turned out differently.” The failure, though, once again, is frustrating. Part of that reason was the weakness of the Federal government and the inability to “impose its will on the state of Georgia and the white population” when facing the boundary of the Creek country. Although exceptional leadership by George Washington as president and Henry Knox as secretary of war, did formulate a treaty with the Creeks, due to the lack of strength and minuscule numbers in the United States Army, “at virtually every level—logistical, economic, political—there was not the remotest chance of implementing” the treaty. As the Federal government grew and the white population expanded, this scenario would transform somewhat—the Federal government gaining strength—but the conclusion for the Native Americans, sadly, was always the same. Loss of standing and loss of land and loss of ability to dictate terms or maintain their way of life (Pgs. 166-167).

Ellis addresses the questions that lie at America’s twisted roots and, with candor and deftness, successfully rises above the presentism that he highlighted as a curse for historians and history enthusiasts, especially of the current culture wars. This narrative is a must-read to understand these pivotal questions and ultimate failures of the early American republic, which even the “sharpest minds of the revolutionary generation” could not solve.

Book Information:
Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2025, 226 pages, including images, bibliography, and index
$31.00

The Attack and Defense of the Chew House: British Professionalism at Germantown

On By erwpostIn 1777, Battlefields & Historic Places, Battles, British Leadership, Continental Leadership, Emerging Revolutionary War, Memory, Northern Theater, Revolutionary WarLeave a comment

Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes back guest historian Ben Powers. Bio follows the article.

Battle of Germantown
Painted by Xavier della Gatta, 1782
https://www.amrevmuseum.org/collection/battle-of-germantown

     Was the Battle of Germantown an American failure or a British success? Did the Continental Army lose due to an overly complicated plan, environmental factors such as fog, and poorly applied military judgment, or was the British Army’s resistance a decisive factor? The defense of the Chew House demonstrates that the British were professional, tenacious, and courageous, rather than the fortunate recipients of the fruits of an American blunder. Led by Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Musgrave, the men of the 40th Regiment of Foot established a strongpoint that disrupted American momentum and derailed the attack. Musgrave and the 40th Regiment of Foot transformed the Chew House into an obstacle that delayed the American advance long enough for British forces to reform and counterattack. This episode reveals the significance of British leadership and discipline under severe conditions, thereby reframing the context of the Battle of Germantown.¹

     Germantown occurred at a time when the Continental Army was undergoing a transformation from an amateur to a professional military. American officers engaged in self-directed study of “books upon martial science” and were known to carry such texts among their baggage and haversacks when on campaign.² In this manner, Continental officers sought to emulate their European counterparts.³ One officer known to have made a detailed study of the art and science of war was Washington’s Chief of Artillery, Henry Knox.⁴ At the time of Germantown, the officers of the Continental Army had been at war for over two years and had learned many practical lessons; however, many officers, including Washington, continued to hold Knox’s auto-didactic military education in high esteem. The gap between knowing theory and its practical application would become apparent, to the detriment of the Continentals, at Germantown.

     In contrast, the British Army officer corps had been fully engaged in a minor military enlightenment through the latter half of the eighteenth century. While British officers engaged in self-study programs similar to Knox’s, they could more readily share the results of their study within an established army, comparing and contrasting ideas and adopting best practices.⁵ The British Army was able to synthesize the best practices from both theory and combat experience into regulations that informed the training and operational deployment of all its formations.⁶

     Early interpretations of the battle frequently emphasized confusion and poor execution, particularly the American decision to attack the Chew House. Yet the battle was “very much more than a contest… for the possession of a country house.” More recent scholarship describes the plan for the attack on Germantown as a sophisticated maneuvering scheme that nearly succeeded. Its subsequent failure owes more to British action than American incompetence.

Continue reading “The Attack and Defense of the Chew House: British Professionalism at Germantown” →

“…to the Liberty Peace and Safety of America: Cut the Gordian knot…”

On By Phill GreenwaltIn 1776, America 250, Battlefields & Historic Places, Battles, Continental Leadership, Emerging Revolutionary War, Memory, Personalities, Politics, Revolutionary War, UncategorizedLeave a comment

On this date in 1776, Major Joseph Ward, serving as a staff officer for Major General Artemas Ward, second in command of the Continental Army that had just evicted the British from Boston, sat down at his desk to pen the following letter. The recipient was John Adams, a fellow Massachusettsan then serving in the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Ward continued his correspondence of keeping Adams apprised of military affairs around Boston. In this letter, however, he makes the case for the colonies to “cut the Gordian knot” and declare independence, months before Richard Henry Lee’s proposal to call for independence in late June 1776.

Boston 23 March 1776

Sir,

The 17th Instant the Pirates all abandoned their Works in Boston and Charlestown and went on board their Ships, and on the 20th they burnt and destroyed the works on Castle Island. They now lye in Nantasket Road waiting for a fair wind; we keep a vigilant eye over them lest they should make an attack on some unexpected quarter. The particulars with regard to the Seige, the Stores taken, &c. you will receive from better authority, therefore it is unnecessary for me to mention them. Our Troops behaved well, and I think the flight of the British Fleet and Army before the American Arms, must have a happy and very important effect upon the great Cause we engaged in, and greatly facilitate our future operations. I wish it may stimulate the Congress to form an American Government immediately. If, after all our exertions and successes, while Providence offers us Freedom and Independence, we should receive the gloven cloven foot of George to rule here again what will posterity, what will the wise and virtuous through the World say of us? Will they not say, (and jusly) that we were fools who had an inestimable prize put into our hands but had no heart to improve it! Heaven seems now to offer us the glorious privilege, the bright preeminence above all other people, of being the Guardians of the Rights of Mankind and the Patrons of the World. It is the fault of the United Colonies (a rare fault among men) they do not sufficiently know and feel their own strength and importance. Independence would have a great effect upon the Army, some now begin to fear that after all their fatigue and hazards in the Cause of Freedom, a compromise will take place whereby Britain may still exercise a power injurious to the Liberty Peace and Safety of America: Cut the Gordian knot, and the timid and wavering will have new feelings, trimming will be at an end, and the determined faithful friends of their Country will kindle with new ardour, and the United Colonies increase in strength and glory every hour.

Yesterday I saw your Brother, who informed that Mrs. Adams and your Children were well.

General Ward, on account of his declining health, has wrote his Resignation to the President of the Congress. I expect the greatest part of the Army will march for New York, or the Southern Colonies as soon as the Fleet is gone to Sea; and the Troops that remain here will be employed in fortifying the most advantageous Posts to defend the Town and harbour. I do not much expect the Enemy will make any attempts to regain possession of Boston, for I think they are sufficiently convinced that they cannot penetrate the Country in this part of America; ’tis probable they will try their fortune to the Southward and if they fail there the game will be up with them. We hear many accounts about Commissioners coming from Britain to treat with the Colonies separately, or with the Congress. Many fear we shall be duped by them, but I trust the congress is too wise to be awed by the splendor or deceived by the cunning of British Courtiers.

I know not of one discouraging circumstance attending either our civil or military affairs in this part of the Continent. I have lately heard with pleasure that the Farmer is become an advocate for Independence.Wishing the Congress that Wisdom which is from above, I am Sir with much Respect Your most Humble Servant,Joseph Ward

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

To learn more background about the letter, click here. Courtesy of the Massachusetts Historical Society.

Rev War Revelry: Winning the Ten Crucial Days with David Price

On By Daniel WelchIn UncategorizedLeave a comment

In David Price’s work, Winning the Ten Crucial Days: The Keys to Victory in George Washington’s Legendary Winter Campaign, the author analyzes one of the most pivotal moments during the Revolutionary War through a unique lens. Focusing on leadership, geography, weather, artillery, and contingency, Price’s narrative eschews the traditional format that has been trod before on this topic, usually a chronological regurgitation of events during this time period. Examine these crucial days during the winter campaign of 1776-1777 with author David Price in this ERW Revelry book talk. This talk will be pre-recorded and posted to our Facebook page at 7pm, March 22, 2026 and also to our Spotify and You Tube Channels.

A Venezuelan Connection

On By erwguestIn Battlefields & Historic Places, Battles, Emerging Revolutionary War, Memory, Revolutionary War, Southern Theater1 Comment

Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes guest historian Dr. Nathan Provost

With the recent rumblings about Venezuela, it is important to remember that Venezuela’s independence began with a veteran of the American Revolutionary War. Francisco de Miranda was born on March 28, 1750, in Caracas, Venezuela. At the time, Venezuela and much of the Americas were under Spanish control. Born into a life of luxury, Miranda attended prestigious institutions of higher education, including the Royal and Pontifical University of Caracas. He later continued his education in Spain, eventually raising enough money to purchase his rank of Captain in the Princess Regiment. His first experience of combat was in North Africa against the Moors of North Africa. Upon returning to Spain, Miranda waited for another military operation to accompany. An ambitious young soldier, he sought adventure, wanting to see the world through military service. In 1780, Miranda reported to the Regiment of Aragorn; their destination was Havana, Cuba. Their objective was to concentrate with Major General Bernardo de Galvez’s men at Pensacola, Florida.

Francisco de Miranda

Spain was no ally of the recently independent United States; rather, their alliance with France was much more significant. After France entered the conflict following the American victory at Saratoga, Spain declared war on Great Britain in 1779. Spain had its own goals, hoping to reclaim territory in Florida lost during the Seven Years’ War. The Spanish were fortunate to possess a brilliant military officer, Bernardo de Galvez. He already captured what is now Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and Mobile, Alabama. All that was left was Pensacola on the Florida Coast. Galvez took several warships and many more transports filled with 3,701 men to lay siege to Pensacola, Florida. Inclement weather and Choctaw resistance interrupted their initial movements, but Galvez pressed on and established his army outside the walls. The number of troops was insufficient to make any headway against the British fortifications, despite the construction of a series of entrenchments and artillery positions. Then, on March 24, much-needed Spanish reinforcements arrived, among whom was Francisco Miranda. 

Upon landing, Miranda noted Galvez was there to meet them. Miranda observed several entrenchments already constructed, but a few hundred men were already out of commission since the siege began. Upon learning this information, he knew that Galvez desperately needed these reinforcements. It was not until April 24 that all the soldiers disembarked at Pensacola.  During the siege, Miranda personally inspected the siege lines and terrain and reported back on this reconnaissance to Galvez. Miranda and his men, entrenched outside the fort, often came under fire from the British artillery. There were also several skirmishes outside the breastworks in which the Spanish sustained some casualties. In one particular episode, Miranda and five companies of his men engaged in a firefight with some Native Americans. The fighting lasted roughly an hour and a half, with six of the Spanish wounded, but a Frenchman deserted the Natives and went over to the Spanish after the fight. In each of these skirmishes.

Continue reading “A Venezuelan Connection” →