Article

Women During The Lead Up To War

What role did women in Concord, Lincoln, and Lexington play in the social, economic, and political forces leading up to April 19th, e.g., non-importation and boycott of British goods (drinking herbal tea, making homespun clothing, etc.)? Were these women involved in promoting revolution in a public forum (e.g., as in Philadelphia, writing in newspapers, forming Ladies Associations to support revolution, etc.)? Were there women involved against the revolution- i.e. loyalists?

Alyssa Kariofyllis, M.A., 2016 Scholar in the Park Minute Man National Historic Park

The years immediately preceding the beginning of the American Revolution were fraught with social, political, and economic change in both public spaces and private homes. Women’s work took on noticeable political significance. Some women were invited to participate in public political affairs, an opportunity that was often unavailable to them because they lacked legal personhood. Women before and during the Revolution were able to participate publicly – often unofficially – in some movements like non-importation and non-consumption pledges. Many more were able to make their own political statements by gathering for spinning bees and preparing Concord, Lincoln, and Lexington for war.

It was uncommon for women to publish their writings in a newspaper. While women’s names were attached to some opinion pieces, it is difficult to know whether a woman actually wrote the article. Many of the articles supposedly penned by women suggested women be frugal, orderly, and pious. All of these characteristics were, of course, also valued by eighteenth-century men, making it especially troublesome when trying to discover whether an article was truly written by a woman. Women’s public involvement was limited to interactions necessary to complete household tasks or religious services that allowed or required women to speak. If the women of Concord, Lincoln, and Lexington formed ladies associations, records of their gatherings do not exist. Women did, however, participate in political movements as consumers.

Non-importation and non-consumption pledges became increasingly popular near the end of the 1760s.1 Boston’s first non-importation subscription was distributed around the city in October of 1767, gathering over 650 signatures, fifty-five of which were by women.2 Signers promised not to import over fifty manufactured goods from Britain for a year. Subscriptions were circulated again in 1768, 1769, and 1770, but none of the later documents had as many signatures as the 1767 pledge. Boycotts and non-consumption pledges had occurred before 1767, but they were not as organized or widespread.

Concord was not as concerned with larger colonial politics until the mid 1770s. Instead, meetings were primarily focused on roads, schools, and preserving the meetinghouse.3 Lincoln, too, delayed in joining with Boston to boycott British manufactured goods. In January and March of 1768, they dismissed Boston’s proposal to limit importation of British items. They passed their first article to join with Boston in avoiding imported products on March 5, 1770, the same day of the Boston Massacre.4 Local histories suggest that Lexington supported the cause of war from the beginning, eagerly following suggestions from the leaders in Boston.5 In 1767, they voted unanimously to follow Boston in ending the importation and use of British goods.6

These pledges quickly became more regular in the towns. In 1770, Lincoln voted to boycott any merchant who violated the non-importation movements in effect.7 In 1773, Lexington voted unanimously to discontinue the use of all sorts of bohea tea and the importation of goods from Dutch or English sources. To demonstrate that they were committed to this pledge, Lexingtonians gathered all of the tea in the town and burned it into a collective bonfire. The article about this resolve ended with a question and call to action: “Would it not materially effect the bringing this detestable herb into disuse, if every town would enjoin their Selectmen to deny licenses to all houses of entertainment who were known to afford tea to their guests?”8 Just days later, the Boston Gazette reported again on Lexington’s dislike of the new duties on tea and the East India Company’s monopoly. The article ended with a promise that anyone who purchased or consumed tea would be looked upon as an enemy.9 Another piece in the Massachusetts Spy reported that Lexingtonians were attempting to entirely end the importation of any India goods of any kind.10

In February of 1774, Concordians grew weary of imposed taxes and resolved not to buy, sell, or use any of the East India Company’s tea. Those who continued to do so would be “for the future deemed unfriendly and enemical to the happy constitution of this country.” Furthermore, if anyone attempted to import directly from England, they would be treated “as enemies to their country and with contempt and detestation.” They also thanked the town of Boston for the
“rational measures” they had taken to preserve the colony’s rights and liberties.11 As the imperial crisis grew more tense, more towns took action to protect or recover their rights through pledges and subscriptions.

The town of Concord followed in Boston’s footsteps again in June of 1774 when they wrote their own non-consumption pledge. They promised, first, to suspend all commercial intercourse with Great Britain until the Boston Harbor was reopened and their charter rights were restored. Second, that they would not purchase any goods that had been brought into the colonies from Britain. Third, they swore not to purchase goods from any persons who did not sign the covenant. Finally, they agreed that those persons who refused to sign the covenant would be disconnected from the town’s commercial economy.12 Though it was not specified, the fourth item likely also meant that those persons who refused to sign would become social outcasts.

Two hundred eighty one Concordians signed the 1774 Covenant. Signers included many prominent Concordians, including Town Treasurer Abijah Bond and Battle Road residents Nathan Meriam, Elisha Jones, and Samuel Brooks. Robert Gross estimates that 80% of all adult men subscribed.13 Of the 281 signatures, four women signed: Abigail Darby, Susanna Ross, Mary Brown, and Lois Barrett. It is not clear why these four women were able to sign or why they chose to participate when other women did not.

None of the four women could be traced beyond vital records. It appears that at least one of the four women was not born in Concord. Abigail (née Pierce) Darby was from Lexington. She married Nathan Darby of Acton in 1762.14 It is not known when they moved to Concord. Nathan did not sign the covenant but other Darbys did. Susanna Ross may have been unmarried when she signed in 1774. Vital records show that she married Asa Parlin of Carlisle in 1788.15 She was his second wife. Because Mary Brown was a common name, it is impossible to know which Mary signed in 1774. Lois (née Brooks) Barrett married John Barrett in 1744.16 Her signature is most interesting because John also signed the covenant. The presence of both signatures suggests that their household might have operated differently from others. It could also be a recognition of Lois’ authority over purchasing household goods.

As boycotts and non-importation pledges continued through the 1770s, communities needed to find local products to replace the many manufactured goods they had resolved not to purchase from the mother country. Since various kinds of fabrics were banned, women began to hold spinning bees to supplement the shortage, which was exacerbated by the increasing need to provide uniforms for the men fighting in the Revolution. Women who had not previously spun their own thread began to do so. Lexington wheelwright John Parker saw a drastic increase in the number of spinning wheels he sold in the years leading up to the war.17 The popularization of spinning was captured by a 1769 article in the Boston Gazette. The Gazette reported that forty five Lexington women assembled at Mr. Daniel Harrington’s house to spend the day spinning. At the end of the day, the women had produced 602 knots of linen and 246 knots of cotton.18

As tensions rose, colonists realized they also needed to supply themselves with firearms and their accessories. One of the stories retold was about Concord’s Meliscent Barret. Meliscent, the daughter of Colonel James Barrett, had learned from a young staff officer how to make cartridges in 1774. Barrett was then put in charge of a small factory that manufactured cartridges for the patriot cause. The limited secondary literature that mentions this story suggest that only women were employed in making the cartridges, excepting Barrett’s younger brother, James Barrett.19 An original source has not been located and many of the pieces of the tale seem unlikely, especially that a British soldier had taken the time to teach Meliscent this skill.20 If she had indeed started and managed a cartridge factory, her contribution would have likely been very important to the success of the minutemen on April 19 of the following year.

Of course, not every woman supported the war effort. Women’s political alliances could sometimes be determined by friendships or marriages rather than opinion alone. Beth and Mary Wheat, daughters of Lincoln resident John Wheat, married Boston merchants John and Robert Semple. After their marriages, the men joined a loyalist militia in Boston. While Betty and Mary may have truly been committed to the loyalist cause, they might have been loyalists specifically only because their husbands were. They would relocate with their husbands as refugees to Halifax. Their father was not very forgiving, as his will only left each daughter six shillings, despite the fact that he had a reasonably large estate. Their status as “friend to the enemies of the continent” meant that they were paid very little. Furthermore, they would only receive their inheritance if they returned “a friend to America.”21

Other families watched as brothers and sisters chose opposing sides. For example, Phebe (née Bliss) Emerson was sister to two loyalists, Daniel and Samuel Bliss, and two patriots, Thomas Theodore and Joseph Bliss. Daniel would abandon his Concord property in early 1775. His estate was confiscated in 1781, making it the only loyalist property confiscated in Concord.22 Lincoln resident Reverend William Lawrence was barred from the pulpit after his political allegiances were called into question. While he had participated in embargoes previously, his daughter’s engagement to a known Tory raised skepticism of his allegiance.23 Though there were women whose loyalties lay with the British, it does not seem that any women of Lincoln, Lexington, or Concord actively worked against the revolutionary cause.

It is important to note that many of the ways women contributed to efforts before the war were made possible by the labors of enslaved persons. In her groundbreaking book about people of color in Concord, Elise Lemire suggests that the presence of enslaved persons during the imperial crisis is a piece of what allowed elite Concordians the ability to participate in the changing political and social climate by enlisting.24 Given that Concord, Lincoln, and Lexington had relatively small enslaved populations, it is easy to overstate this case. However, the labors of enslaved persons may have allowed some men the time to gather for meetings, muster for service, and carry out the patriot cause. Regardless of whether they were across town for a meeting or travelling throughout the country, at least a portion of the labor their estates required was accomplished by their enslaved property.

The Revolution offered more opportunities to women to participate publicly and politically beyond what they had previously done. The Revolution affected the private sphere and the household more than previous wars, bringing politics to the hearth. The presence of politics in the home produced another unintended effect: women effectively mobilized their husbands and sons to support the war. Historian Linda Kerber argues, “Sending their men to war was part of their expression of their surrogate enlistment in a society in which women did not fight.”25 Mary Fuhrer cites multiple examples of women pressing their sons and husbands to fight on April 19.26 While this kind of work can not always be measured, the support of colonial women likely pressed many men to join a cause that could have otherwise been plagued by an extreme shortage of men.

Tags

Minute Man National Historical Park

Last updated: October 20, 2021