Molly Pitcher

MOLLY PITCHER AND OTHER COLONIAL FEMINISTS

Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 10:25:57
From: Linda Grant De Pauw, H-MINERVA>
Reply-To: H-NET List for Discussion of Women & the Military and Women in War H-MINERVA@h-net.msu.edu
Subject: REPLY: Molly Pitcher and Other Colonial Feminists

Subj: colonial feminism
Date: 96-05-20 09:16:39 EDT
From: Theresa Kaminski
To: h-minerva@h-net.msu.edu

This project poses a bit of a problem because technically there were no feminists in colonial America. The term "feminism" was not used in the United States until the early 1900s. For the colonial period it is more accurate to use the term "women's rights advocate" or something along those lines. See Nancy Cott's The Grounding of Modern Feminism for the origins of "feminist."

Mary Beth Norton's Liberty's Daughters and Linda Kerber's Women of the Republic are classic studies. Gelles's biography of Abigail Adams, called Portia, is also a good source. On colonial women, also see Laurel Thatcher Ulrich's Good Wives.

One fascinating woman to look at is Margaret Brent, a single woman who lived in colonial Maryland and who wielded quite a bit of economic and political power.

Theresa Kaminski
Dept. of History
University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point
tkaminsk@worf.uwsp.edu
Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da

Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 19:21:35
From: Linda Grant De Pauw, H-MINERVA
Reply-To: H-NET List for Discussion of Women & the Military and Women in War H-MINERVA@h-net.msu.edu
Subject: COMMENT: Molly Pitcher, Colonial Feminists, and Keegan

Subj: colonial feminists and The Face of War
Date: 96-05-20 16:21:39 EDT
From: STEAM GENE

Two items - one response.
I agree that calling anybody a feminist in colonial times is something of a mistake - trying to put current values in a culture that probably would have found them strange, if not evil. But quick information on Molly Pitcher - real name Mary Ludwig Hays - who became famous at the battle of Monmouth for taking over the service of an artillery piece after her husband was wounded after being drafted as a member of the crew. She did a few other things and I'd be glad to e-mail direct, if it is of interest. Another female matross (gunner in 18th century terms) was MArgaret Corbin during the defense of Fort Washington in 1776. I know less about her and would guess that her gun was either behind a revetment or inside a casement, causing her a greater degree of protection than a field artillerist would experience. I am in the process of rereading THE FACE OF WAR and don't really see how it could help study the morality of 16th century enlisted soldiers. It does mention, in the Angincourt section, that the men at arms found no honor in attacking archers and would attempt to attack their social equal. The English longbowmen had no such feeling in return and had no trouble ganging up on a man at arms and defeating him by teamwork. -- Gene Moser

Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 19:21:39
From: Linda Grant De Pauw, H-MINERVA
Reply-To: H-NET List for Discussion of Women & the Military and Women in War H-MINERVA@h-net.msu.edu,
Subject: COMMENT: Molly Pitcher and Other Colonial Feminists

In a message dated 96-05-20 16:21:39 EDT Gene Moser writes:

<< But quick information on Molly Pitcher - real name Mary Ludwig Hays - who became famous at the battle of Monmouth for taking over the service of an artillery piece after her husband was wounded after being drafted as a member of the crew. She did a few other things and I'd be glad to e-mail direct, if it is of interest. Another female matross (gunner in 18th century terms) was Margaret Corbin during the defense of Fort Washington in 1776. I know less about her and would guess that her gun was either behind a revetment or inside a casement,causing her a greater degree of protection than a field artillerist would experience. >>

We've had several go-rounds on the list about Molly Pitcher, Mary Ludwig Hays, and Margaret Corbin. If the list web page is working, it should be possible to recover the old threads. (Those of you who haven't checked it out, point your browser to http://h-net.msu.edu/~minerva ) Anyway, Molly Pitcher is a mythic figure whose name is first mentioned in stories published long after the war, Mary Ludwig Hays was pensioned for her service with the Continental Army but there is no suggestion in contemporary documents that she had any connection with a cannon (or with the Battle of Monmouth), and Margaret Corbin was pensioned by the Continental Congress with a citation specifically mentioning her service at a field piece during the Battle of Fort Washington.

Two points intrigue me about this thread. First, the astonishing circumstance that Molly Pitcher is still the best known woman of the American Revolutionary era. During the Bicentennial, I used to tell project funders that it was disgraceful to have only Molly Pitcher and Betsy Ross remembered -- now, thirty years later, it seems we have forgotten Betsy. (And no one on the list has yet mentioned the proto-feminist Mercy Otis Warren.) Second is the unstated assumption that a combatant woman is necessarily a feminist. My reading of history suggests that women soldiers tend to be conservative. They do not consider their activity to be prescriptive for "feminine" women but often, on the contrary, look upon themselves as "honorary males. They are often chivalrous in their behavior toward civilian women. Even today, military women tend to be conservative politically on all issues except increased opportunity for women in the military (based on gender-blind merit) and sometimes on abortion.

In our century feminism has been so closely alligned with anti-war ideology, what would it suggest to have ideological feminists serving in combat arms? Emily Pankhurst was thrilled to see the Russian all-female Battalion of Death pass in review, but Betty Friedan was non-plussed by the graduation of the first women from West Point asking whether this, really, was what the new feminism was about.

How do others feel? The word "feminist" is, of course, an anachronism when applied prior to this century, but giving the word a broad meaning, can we discuss the proposition? Was Joan of Arc a feminist? Boudicca? How about Hannah Reitsch to whom Hitler awarded the Iron Cross?

Linda Grant De Pauw

Date: Tue, 21 May 1996
From: Linda Grant De Pauw
Reply-To: H-NET List for Discussion of Women & the Military and Women in War H-MINERVA@h-net.msu.edu
Subject: COMMENT: Molly Pitcher and Other Colonial Feminists

Subj: Re: COMMENT: Molly Pitcher and Other Colonial Feminists
Date: 96-05-21
From: Marsha J. Valance

I was very lucky to have my mother growing up--both as a guide and a role model. Before becoming a pilot, she had been a tomboy, tagging after her older brother, riding, hunting, sailing, golfing, fencing, swinging like Tarzan thru trees on ropes. She always told my brothers, my sister, and me that we could do anything we set our minds on. I grew up watching her ride and waterski, looking at her WWII scrapbooks, and reading Nancy Drew, Tarzan, and John Carter of Mars--the books she'd saved from her childhood. The library books I read were horse stories, dog stories, boy's books (mysteries and sf)--because I couldn't identify with girl's books. Gender was irrelevant--I read about personalities like my own. After much thought, I believe Joan of Arc, Boudicea, and so forth, were individuals who did not define themselves in terms of gender, but in terms of attitude and ability. Proto-feminists were those who saw themselves as part of an underclass, which they wanted to raise; but other achievers were indivualists who ignored gender as irelevant because of their knowledge of their own self-worth. It's a matter of mindset. Marsha in Milwaukee (proud mother of a daughter who knows her own worth)

Marsha J. Valance

Date: Tue, 21 May 1996
From: Linda Grant De Pauw, H-MINERVA
Reply-To: H-NET List for Discussion of Women & the Military and Women in War H-MINERVA@h-net.msu.edu
Subject: COMMENT: Molly Pitcher and Other Colonial Feminists

Subj: colonial feminism
Date: 96-05-21 09:17:10 EDT
From: Theresa Kaminski
To: h-minerva@h-net.msu.edu

I think I have ever only given brief mention to Molly Pitcher in my courses but spend more time on women like Mercy Otis Warren whose life's work was aimed at improving the condition of women. I do have a couple of observations:

Molly Pitcher and other women who took up the battle when their husbands fell seem to be kind of "deputy husbands"--meaning it was their responsibility to take over a duty that their husbands would normally perform. When home and family were threatened, I think many colonial women did so, whether it was during the Revolution or during fights with Native Americans. The colonial experience, especially during the early period, made it virtually impossible for the kinds of strict gender roles we associate with the 19th-century to operate absolutely. Women would have viewed such actions as expected of them rather than statements of women's power and autonomy.

Also, during the Revolutionary period there was much discussion among upper-class women about women's rights. But at that point the major concern was rights for married women, i.e. the right to hold property after marriage. Equal political rights, such as women's suffrage, did not emerge as a serious concern until the mid-1800s. And when Elizabeth Cady Stanton introduced that as a goal of the "woman's rights movement" at the 1848 Seneca Falls convention, it was intensely debated.

Theresa Kaminski
Dept. of History
University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point
tkaminsk@worf.uwsp.edu
Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da

Subj: Ref: Comment: Molly Pitcher
Date: 96-05-21 11:24:05 EDT
From: Eloise C. Prendergast
To: H-MINERVA@h-net.msu.edu ('MINERVA')

<<--I was very lucky to have my mother growing up--both as a guide and a role model. Before becoming a pilot, she had been a tomboy, tagging after her older brother, riding, hunting, sailing, golfing, fencing, swinging like Tarzan thru trees on ropes. She always told my brothers, my sister, and me that we could do anything we set our minds on. I grew up watching her ride and waterski, looking at her WWII scrapbooks, and reading Nancy Drew, Tarzan, and John Carter of Mars--the books she'd saved from her childhood. The library books I read were horse stories, dog stories,oy's books(mysteries and sf)--because I couldn't identify with girl's books. Gender was irrelevant--I read about personalities like my own. After much thought, I believe Joan of Arc, Boudicea, and so forth, were individuals who did not define themselves in terms of gender, but in terms of attitude and ability. Proto-feminists were those who saw themselves as part of an underclass, which they wanted to raise; but other achievers were indivualists who ignored gender as irelevant because of their knowledge of their own self-worth. It's a matter of mindset. Marsha in Milwaukee (proud mother of a daughter who knows her own worth) Marsha J. Valance-->>

Marsha, Thank You. Growing up a Daddy's Girl and two older brothers I recognized a lot of this background. I say thank you because where as confused I am sometimes about what people expect from me because they see a woman first, and then expect certain responses, I've figured out some of my own make-up. But when someone like puts it into the right words, it makes me feel a lot better about who I am and knowing other women are out there with similar backgrounds in growing up. We're a rare lot, and the men that understand us are priceless. I agree, it's a mindset, not a feminist "thing". My parents raised me to do whatever interested me and set my mind to. Not what was meant for a woman to do, or prove something otherwise. Just live life. I've been interpreted as a threat....... even close male friends worry that I'm on some "feminist kick" when particular treatment from men bother me as if I'm "out to get them to PROVE something" they don't get it. Some do. Nothing against feminism. Just not a feminist. Though I will never fail to applaude their accomplishments that I HAVE reaped the benefits from and been able to do things women couldn't take for granted many years ago. Thanks.

By the way - to the BB - being an "artilleryman", was Saint Barbara (patron saint of the Field Artillery) a feminist too or just a Saint............................??

Eloise Prendergast

Subj: re:COMMENT: Molly Pitcher and Other Colonial Feminists
Date: 96-05-21 11:15:23 EDT
From: CAPT Alison M. Weir, 472-3209
To: H-MINERVA@h-net.msu.edu

I have to admit I thought about mentioning Mercy Otis Warren, Judith Sargeant Murray, and also Susanna Rowson as early proto-feminists, but I had thought the question referred to women who served in the army. My hometown (Guilford, CT) has its own local lore about a woman, Agnes Dickinson Lee, who scared off probably the only British soldier who stepped foot in town, but aside from her, I personally know of no women who fought in the Revolution. Interestingly, women who did dress in soldier garb were enough of a concern to Federalist playwrights William Dunlap and Mordachai Noah who each wrote plays featuring women in soldier's garb, primarily to reinforce the "unnaturalness" of women as soldiers (Dunlap's "The Glory of Columbia" and Noah's "She would be a Soldier").

But to the larger question to which I wish to respond: is it worthwhile discussing "feminism" in relation to women in the military? While I freely label myself a "feminist," I have to admit I'm not entirely sure what that means. As a woman who has spent, between college and her career, 14 years in engineering and the Air Force, I have found few women who challenge gender-based occupational stereotypes willing to call themselves feminists. On the flip side, I have found that my friends in the humanities, fields society deems more suitable for women, are much more willing to call themselves feminists. I have a couple of theories as to why. It could be, as you have suggested that the women, like the men, attracted to technical and military fields tend to be more conservative. But in addition, a woman's doing a "male" job can be threatening enough to the men around her; why would she further that alienation to the point that she can be dismissed as a "feminazi"?

In the military, with all overt discrimination legislated away, the more insidious threat is the covert discrimination and harassment that relies more on personal interaction than public stance. Activists rarely join the military. Until the personal becomes political (as in Tailhook), many military women are reluctant to admit publicly (if they ever do) that they see themselves as different from their male peers or to make that difference "a federal case".

Alison Weir, CAPT, USAF
USAF Academy

In a message dated 96-05-21 11:24:05 EDT, PrendEC@hqda.army.mil (Prendergast, Eloise C.) writes:

<<--My parents raised me to do whatever interested me and set my mind to. Not what was meant for a woman to do, or prove something otherwise. Just live life. I've been interpreted as a threat....... even close male friends worry that I'm on some "feminist kick" when particular treatment from men bother me as if I'm "out to get them to PROVE something" they don't get it. Some do. Nothing against feminism. Just not a feminist.-->>

This sounds like feminism to me: "the radical notion that women are people." Linda Grant De Pauw

Subj: feminist warriors
Date: 96-05-21 13:51:04 EDT
From: Ilene Feinman
To: H-MINERVA@h-net.msu.edu

Oh Linda, what a great question your raise! I have been wondering this through my work since I have been faced with the task of understanding modern day "feminist" (already a very contested word among women's studies scholars) perspectives in relationship to women in the forces. I have noticed in the congressional hearings and public debates that women inthe forces do not see themselves at least publicly as feminists... or use the word. More often their testimony expresses desire to do their job to the best of their ability and not be held back due to their biological sex markers (just to put other more contentious labels to the side for the moment.) I have been convinced through these readings that the women are interested in the --seemingly, or aspired to -- gender neutrality of a career and a notion of citzenship exalted by martial service. The most interesting thing to me, that I would like to hear more from others on the list about, is how their relationship to the military as women informs what a number of them are doing as scholarship on women in the military. Most of the books that take up the question of women's relationship to the military are as historical documents enlisting the histories to encourage further inclusion of women. Feminist antimilitarist authors who have written about the military have more often been political scientists such as Cynthia Enloe, looking at the military at a distance or at least a broad sweep of the deleterious effects therein. As international relations work this is fruitful, as to a feminist understanding of the stakes for women in military careers this is not well articulated. None so far, and here is my working niche, have explored the meanings for women of different class and racial/ethnic and sexual identification positions in the forces in the US and what that means for the forces as a masculinist institution or for society writ large. It is certainly true that the folks opposed to women in the forces, especially in combat use feminism as the evil spectre behind this "unnatural drive" of women's. People like Phyllis Schlafly, Elaine Donnelly, David Horowitz regularly cite the feminist threat to our military... yet the self identified feminists dont touch this issue.

So, long winded prose aside, I am quite interested in the question of women inthe forces as/not as feminists... and am trying to think through some possible answers along the way. My working title has been "Women Warriors/Women Antimilitarists: Will the Real Feminists Please Stand Up!"

Ilene Feinman

Date: Wed, 22 May 1996
From: Linda Grant De Pauw, H-MINERVA
Reply-To: H-NET List for Discussion of Women & the Military and Women in War H-MINERVA@h-net.msu.edu
Subject: COMMENT: Molly Pitcher and Other Feminists

Subj: Re: COMMENT: Feminists
Date: 96-05-22 02:16:05 EDT
From: JDWINGO@AOL.COM
To: H-MINERVA@h-net.msu.edu

To all-
Seems to me we have fallen into a treacle well of semantics. I always tell my students that I am not a 'suffragette" I don't parade around in white and chain myself to the fence in front of the White House. I am not a Suffragette--but now I VOTE. I vote because of the Suffragettes struggle and triumph, but now life moves on.I don't know whether it makes any sense to palaver about whether Molly Pitcher was a Feminist or not--should she wear a badge? A purple ribbon? She just did what had to be done because it had to be done--if she did it. Most of us had Grandmothers who did what had to be done as they saw it at the time --American history as it happened. Lower east Side keeping families together, fed, clothed and educated. Out West, like the traditional Minerva of the Greek stories, taking arms if needed to fight off the "hostiles", founding schools and libraries and hospitals --all the things we benefit from, When we went into the service in WWII I don't think any of us called ourselves "feminists." Actually I think most of us were what they used to call Tomboys. Active, bright, energetic young gals who saw a new opportunity opening up to provide a wider horizon. In one sense we were what I call Annie Oakley Feminists--remember when she sings "Anything you can do--I can do better--I can do anything better than you." Shall we start a whole new line of Psychosexual investigation--I always thought Annie was talking to our brothers and I always knew she was right. So what's in a label? So we should have a contest--another word for the Hildegards of the past--if Feminist has negative connotations. How about Outstanding? Any ideas? Josette

Date: Wed, 22 May 1996
From: Linda Grant De Pauw, H-MINERVAH-MINERVA@h-net.msu.edu
Subject: COMMENT: Military Women and Feminist Academics

Subj: 20th Centurty Women in the Military
Date: 96-05-22 07:06:52 EDT
From: Eloise C. Prendergast
To: H-MINERVA@h-net.msu.edu

I find it fascinating that my veteran, active duty and reservist comrades out there have done a retrograde on MINERVA. This crossed my mind - - as I see mostly e-mail right now from researchers and teachers - - obviously these women take their careers and experiences in the military so passionately that discussions that hit the core (soul) are draining. At least I found it as so.

Do other women in other-than-military careers spend so much ENERGY in leading, growing, and being understood as women soldiers do? Or is it tiring because even amongst ourselves - women - besides men - we seem to always have to explain ourselves and justify our actions instead of consolidating all the different experiences and just learning from them? We even learn from bad marriages; atleast those of us who don't walk away bitter.

I'm still trying to understand the female side of things after being a tom-boy and around men all my life and find it very interesting - and confusing, but I also feel outside the other-than-military realm of women and their backgrounds and experiences (which is why I so enjoyed the book Divided Lives, about three professional women - non-military - and the personal struggles they dealt with).

These Molly Pitcher discussions - trying to label women "feminists" when the word hadn't even come up yet back then - and researching old documents, diaries and books....... what will your future fellow researchers have to get an understanding of women-of-today from, 100s of years from now? I may have been in a combat branch which is a 'common' thing now-a-days, but then I look at women like my girl friend - - she and her husband are military, MAJ and LTC, raising three young children (one with hemophilia), and the family are truly special. What would military women like that look like to researchers 100s of years from now?

We're so in the middle of it now - what do we want our daughters and sisters to understand centuries from now? Molly Pitcher didn't wear a uniform but she's already a figure in our past we're trying to analyze and understand................

Again, not eloquent; that's why I'm working in the computer field not in academia.

Eloise Prendergast

Subj: Comment: Molly Pitcher
Date: 96-05-22 06:39:53 EDT
From: Eloise C. Prendergast To: H-MINERVA@h-net.msu.edu ('MINERVA')

>In a message dated 96-05-21 11:24:05 EDT, PrendEC@hqda.army.mil
>(Prendergast,Eloise C.) writes:

>> My parents raised me to do whatever interested me and
>>set my mind to. Not what was meant for a woman to do, or prove
>>something otherwise. Just live life. I've been interpreted as a threat.......
>> even close male friends worry that I'm on some "feminist kick" when
>>particular treatment from men bother me as if I'm "out to get them to
>>PROVE something" they don't get it. Some do. Nothing against feminism.
>>Just not a feminist.

>This sounds like feminism to me: "the radical notion that women are people."
>Linda Grant De Pauw

Good try. Won't further entertain this route again other than to reiterate Marsha's eloquent way of putting it - which I obviously lack due to your response: ""Proto-feminists were those who saw themselves as part of an underclass, which they wanted to raise; but other achievers were individualists who ignored gender as irelevant because of their knowledge of their own self-worth. It's a matter of mindset. Marsha in Milwaukee ""

Subj: Comment: Mollly Pitcher ...
Date: 96-05-22 12:41:35 EDT
From: Eloise C. Prendergast

(Poor Molly)

<<--So what's in a label? So we should have a contest--another word for the Hildegards of the past--if Feminist has negative connotations. How about Outstanding? Any ideas? Josette-->>

Could letter, Josette. Myself? I'd prefer individualist. And some of us - DON'T NEED A LABEL!!!:-) Isn't that GREAT! Call me ELOISE!! I love it. Thanks!

Eloise Prendergast

Subj: Molly Pitcher and Colonial Feminists
Date: 96-05-22 12:55:39 EDT
From: Sandy Brue

Have been reading the on going discussion regarding women who fought in the Revolutionary War. There is a book that I mention with some skepticism on Deborah Sampson, "America's First Woman Warrior," by Lucy Freeman and Alma Bond. Many historical errors in the book, but the story is true. She did receive a soldier's pension for her enlistment in the colonial army. Paul Revere testified in her behalf and helped secure her pension from the federal government.

I have been dealing with this idea of colonial feminists for the last few years developing colonial women's history tours and programs for the public and school programs. It's interesting to look at the life and letters of women like Rachel Revere, Phillis Wheatley and even going back to the life of Anne Hutchinson. Most importantly I try to remind students that these people were women of their times. They have to be remembered as pushing the bounds of their society and times. I don't believe they ignored their gender they did not let it be a limiting factor. The women that pushed their bounds were women who were literate and supported by thier male counterparts. It was not until much later that we have a Lucy Stone, who defied her father, sought her own education by her own means, and pushed on without male support.

Even our great Mercy Warren writes to Mrs. Adams in February, 1774 asking her to show some poetry to John and says, "If Mr. Adams thinks it deserving of any further Notice & he will point out the faults which doubtless are many, they may perhaps be correctd, when it shall be at his service. If he is silent I shall consider it as a certain Mark of disapprobation, & in despair will for the future lay aside the pen of the poet ..." These colonial "feminists" are products of their times.

Sandy Brue
Boston National Historical Park

Subj: Molly Pitcher and Other Feminists
Date: 96-05-22 14:03:26 EDT
From: MAYER@duq3.cc.duq.edu

First of all, let me reiterate my contention that "Molly Pitcher" is a persona that was built upon the stories told by and of certain individuals-- including one Mary Ludwig Hays--who had participated in the War for Independence and had observed women actively contributing to the effort. This may be an argument never totally resolved.

One of the greater issues here is whether active participation in military efforts makes one a feminist. I would tend to argue that swearing an oath to serve, donning a military uniform, and then performing the duties inherent to oath and uniform are feminist acts. At that point it is no longer a matter of engaging in a dialog about what you believe in, it is a matter of what you are and what you are doing.

Granted, many military women are as conservative as many military men in socio-political beliefs--but does that conservatism mean they can't be or are not feminists? Is feminism only a liberal or radical construct? Certainly a number of people would argue that that is the case. But if we go back into the origins of feminism don't we find arguments that the reason women must take (and must be permitted to take) a more active role in society etc is so that what is good about that society can better be preserved or conserved (as well, of course, of making that society even better)? So feminism is a form of activism. Well, military service is also a form of activism (so much for the feminists who derided women going into military service). I find it interesting when people deride feminists as those who would destroy society--when in fact women who serve in the armed forces are there to protect it. And that is perhaps where we come back to the conservative nature of military women's activism: that issue of protection and perservation fits within a very traditional definition (though not traditional in action--though as "Molly Pitcher" shows maybe this is traditionalaction) of women's roles.

On another note: maybe another issue that needs to be discussed is the difference between being a feminist and being an "in-your-face" feminist. I am a feminist--whether I am working in the military or academe--I go into a situation I expect to be treated as an equal, if I'm not I resist, but I never go into a situation looking for a fight. Maybe that is because I never was a tomboy (though I certainly did have parents who said I could do whatever I wanted to do as long as I was willing to work at it).

Well, that's enough from me. I'm really enjoying this line of discussion.

Holly Mayer
Duquesne University

Date: Sat, 25 May 1996
From: Linda Grant De Pauw H-MINERVA
Reply-To:H-MINERVA
H-NET List for Discussion of Women & the Military and Women in War
Subject: COMMENT: Molly Pitcher and Other Colonial Feminists

From: Linda Grant De Pauw

There was also a teenager whose name escapes me at the moment who did a Paul Revere type ride in southern Dutchess County to warn the community that the British were coming.

Sybil Ludington is the girl who roused the militia in an unsuccessful attempt to save Danbury Connecticut from a British attack. Back in the late 'seventies a team of film makers put in a proposal to NEH for a series called Corageous Girls Stories and did their pilot script on Ludington. It was really very good but NEH turned down the application.

Linda Grant De Pauw
The MINERVA Center, Inc.

Date: Sat, 25 May 1996
From: Linda Grant De Pauw H-MINERVA
Reply-To:H-MINERVA H-NET List for Discussion of Women & the Military and Women in War
Subject: Molly Pitcher and Other Colonial Feminists

From: Cynthia F. Teramae

In reply to to your query on colonial feminists, here are several women who came up in my reasearch when I wrote my thesis on women in combat:

Melissa S. Helbert, Annie Etheride, Margaret Corbin, Deborah Sampson Gannett, Lucy Brewer. You may want to reference:

"Mixed Company: Women in the Modern Army", by Helen Rogan
Minerva: Quarterly Report (Spring 1990) "Women and their Wartime Roles."
Minerva: Quarterly Report (Summer 1992) "Bonny Yank and Ginny Reb"
Minerva: Quarerly Report (Winter, 1990) "The Spirit of Molly Marine."
"Women in the Military an Unfinished Revolution" by Jeanne Holm
"Women in Battle," by John Laffin

Good luck
Cynthia F. Teramae

Return to H-MINERVA Home Page.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]