Französisch-Indianischer Krieg

The American Revolution has its origins in the French and Indian War, also known as the Seven Years War in Europe. This war began over efforts to control the Ohio River Valley, the “frontier” at the time. West of the English colonies was a multicultural continent of French, Dutch, and English settlers and the Indigenous people whose ancestors had long inhabited these lands. The region was home to various Indigenous groups such as the Haudenosaunee, Wendat, Myaamia, Ho Chunk, Odawa, Potawatomi, Illinois, Meskwaki, Sauk, and others, each with distinct cultures and lifestyles. The mix of people from such diverse backgrounds, all claiming parts of the land in the Ohio River Valley for themselves, was bound to lead to tension. Some people, many times women, were caught bridging the gap between the French and Native communities, sometimes by force. 

Women played a crucial role in the development and survival of frontier communities, often taking on multiple responsibilities. Women on the frontier were expected to contribute to the physical labor necessary for survival. They helped clear land, build houses and shelters, tend livestock, plant and harvest crops, fetch water, and gather firewood. These tasks required significant physical strength and endurance.

Frontier communities were closely-knit and women played a crucial role in providing support to one another. They formed networks and cooperated with other women to share resources, knowledge, and childcare responsibilities. These relationships provided a sense of community and mutual assistance in the face of hardships 

In 1703, Esther Wheelwright lived with her family on the border of New France in a small Puritan, fur trading village. Esther was captured by Wabanaki and French forces retaliating for English encroachment on their land. In captivity, she was adopted by a Wabanaki family before being introduced to Catholicism by some French priests and eventually became a nun.

Marguerite Faffart was a métis, or mixed race, woman who lived in modern day Detroit. She was the daughter of a French trader and a French-Algonquin mother. Faffart was married to an abusive man who beat her and their young child. She fled to Pennsylvania where she was able to reconnect with her Algonquin family. Known as "French Margaret" among her British neighbors, she utilized her kinship and trade networks to sustain herself and her son through fur trading. At some point before 1735, she married Katarioniecha, a Mohawk man from Caughnawaga, thereby becoming part of another Native community and expanding her networks into the New York colony. Marguerite and Katarioniecha had four children.

In 1737, Marguerite Faffart’s first husband died, leaving her a huge inheritance. She never returned to claim it, but her sister and brother-in-law fought for her in the Detroit courts. They won based on numerous witnesses to her husband's abuse– a rare court victory for women.

Tensions between powers on the frontier came to a head in the French and Indian war which officially began in 1756. The British wanted to secure control of the frontier. Indigenous people wanted their lands back, and the French wanted more control of the fur trade without British intervention. 

During the French and Indian War, women played a crucial role in supporting the war effort and maintaining daily life on the homefront. They were responsible for managing households, ensuring the well-being of their families, and providing sustenance for both civilians and soldiers. Women worked tirelessly to maintain farms, produce essential goods, and care for the wounded. Their contributions to the logistical aspects of the war often went unrecognized, yet they played a vital role in sustaining the colonial forces.

Many women accompanied their husbands or male relatives to the front lines, providing nursing care, cooking, and even participating in combat when necessary. Some women took up arms themselves, disguising their gender to join the fight These brave individuals defied societal norms and risked their lives for their cause, showing that gender did not restrict their dedication and bravery. 

Women had access to critical information through their social networks and were able to gather intelligence and relay it to military leaders. Their abilities to navigate social circles and gather valuable data often proved instrumental in shaping military strategies and securing victories. Mary Jemison was a woman who profoundly influenced the course of the French and Indian War. Born in 1743 in Pennsylvania, Jemison was captured by a Shawnee war party during the conflict. Renamed Dehgewanus by the Seneca tribe, Jemison chose to assimilate into their society, learning their language, adopting their customs, and eventually marrying a Seneca man. Her intimate knowledge of both Native American and European cultures made her an invaluable resource for the Seneca tribe and the British forces.

Jemison's unique position allowed her to act as a mediator between the Seneca and the British, facilitating communication and negotiation. Her insights into the tactics, strategies, and intentions of the Native American tribes, as well as her familiarity with European military practices, proved invaluable to British military leaders. Jemison's efforts helped to establish trust, foster alliances, and ultimately shape the outcome of the war in favor of the British.

So why did a British victory lead the British colonists to rebel? There are a few reasons. The conclusion of the war coincided with the  Proclamation of 1763  that barred the settlers from further expansion west in an attempt to pacify indigenous people who faced encroachment. Since the English were able to oust the French from the disputed territory in the Ohio River Valley, the proclamation line alienated the English colonists who wanted to continue moving west.  The French and Indian War was also incredibly expensive. The war cost the English lots of money, and King George felt the colonists should  pay for it. Colonists were taxed first through the Sugar Act of 1764. Its primary purpose was to raise revenue by imposing duties on sugar and other goods imported into the American colonies. The Act replaced the earlier Molasses Act of 1733, which had been largely ineffective in curbing smuggling.

Under the Sugar Act, the duties on molasses were lowered, but stricter enforcement measures were implemented to crack down on smuggling. In other words, even though, on paper, the tax was lowered, enhanced anti-smuggling provisions meant that colonists were essentially paying this (lower) tax for the first time. Additionally, new duties were imposed on other goods like wine, coffee, textiles, and indigo. Collectively, these new taxes directly impacted the homes of women trying to provide for their families. 

Additionally, the Stamp Act was passed by the British Parliament in March 1765. It was an internal tax that required the purchase of stamps for a wide range of paper goods, including legal documents, newspapers, pamphlets, playing cards, and even dice. The stamps had to be affixed to the designated items as proof of payment.

The Stamp Act was particularly controversial as it directly affected many colonists, including lawyers, printers, merchants, and the general public, particularly in areas where literacy rates were high. The act was met with widespread resistance in the American colonies, as it was seen as a direct infringement on their rights, without proper representation in the British government. The opposition eventually led to organized protests, boycotts, and the formation of the Stamp Act Congress, which called for the repeal of the Act.

Women were involved in resistance from the very beginning. Women ran taverns which provided a safe place for rebels to meet, discuss ideas, and plan their protests. Women were also immediately recruited by the Sons of Liberty and others to serve as spies as tensions mounted closer to war. Seamstresses, servants, laundresses, and caregivers in the homes of loyalists and British officials were called on to provide information that proved critical to protecting rebels from the earliest protests through the greatest battles of the war.

​We also cannot deny that many Americans opposed the rebellion, and many loyalist women sought to support the war effort on the British side as well. Women were at the forefront of defining what America was and what it meant to be included among her people. 

Phillis Wheatley became the first African American author of published poetry in 1773, which eventually led to her emancipation from slavery. She would write controversial poems challenging the system of slavery, poems commending George Washington and, during the rebellion, described the dissolving relationship between mother country and her colonies:

“A certain lady had an only son

He grew up daily virtuous as he grew

Fearing his Strength which she undoubted knew

She laid some taxes on her darling son

And would have laid another act there on

Amend your manners I’ll the task remove

Was said with seeming Sympathy and Love

By many Scourges she his goodness try’d”

In other words, Britain was saying, “I’m doing this for you,” but deep down, she was continuing to test American’s good nature.

Likewise, Mercy Otis Warren was an outspoken patriot. Having been surrounded by politics her whole life, she regularly debated political leaders and wrote several plays calling out the wrongdoings of Britain and their royal officials years before the war broke out. She was willing to say “independence” far before 

the male representatives of her time and was brazen in her literary assault on the King.

​

She was also unafraid to criticize military officers and the Continental Congress during the war. She seemed unafraid to take on anyone, as she wrote, “Great advantages are often attended with great inconveniences, and great minds called to severe trials.” She would also go on to write and publish the first history of the Revolution, the first nonfiction book published by a woman in America. 

The intellectual pursuits of these women and the ideas they presented were not only important leading up to the war and throughout the conflict, but they also raised questions about women’s rights. ​

​

Some women bonded together to match their written words with action. Society at the time did not expect, or often allow, women to play a prominent role in these more direct forms of protest. Instead, they were called on to take more dignified paths. Penelope Barker and over 50 women from the city of Edenton, North Carolina, would do exactly that. They would mail a letter signed by each of their parties indicating that they would boycott British tea and cloth until a resolution was reached between Parliament and the newly formed Continental Congress. 

The British press had a good laugh at these patriotic ladies, but the Virginia Gazette heaped on the praise. While this event would not receive the historic attention of the Boston Tea Party, these women gathered to voice their concerns to Parliament.

When Americans were called upon to start boycotting British goods, women stepped in to produce these goods at home. Daughters of Liberty groups gathered to spin wool to make their own textiles (where we get the term “home-spun”). They learned to make tea with American herbs, which they called Liberty Tea. While also doing the majority of the shopping for their home, they held up the mantle of boycotting British manufactured goods as well. Even popular culture at the time understood women’s vital role in economic boycotts. A popular song before the American Revolution was improvised to explain the importance of homespun – not imported – textiles and goods. Several versions of the song exist, but most of them highlight how it was patriotic for women to wear homespun goods. It’s a bit ironic that the song would say, “No more ribbands wear, nor in rich dress appear / Love your country much better than fine things. On one hand, the song is appealing to women’s sense of patriotism in America, a place where they are not considered citizens. At the same time, the song later reassures women that they will still be found attractive which also suggests perhaps that the songwriter believes American women are apolitical and only interested in fashion and beauty. Either way, what is clear is that women’s participation in these boycotts constituted political action.

We also can’t forget that women were used as pawns in war. Namely, they became propaganda. This happens regularly throughout periods of war where societies paint a message of men needing to protect women from their enemy.

​

We can see this early in the Revolution. In the days after the Boston Massacre in 1770, Paul Revere and Henry Pelham’s engraving of the event spread far and wide through colonial newspapers. There are many, many inaccuracies of the image; each was hand-picked to spread a message about America’s innocence in the event.

The British soldiers appear to be firing into a completely unassuming crowd. The figure of the woman standing clearly in the midst of the crowd was not meant to show that women were involved in the scuffle that made the Revolution inevitable, but rather to make America seem to be the undeniable victims. Presumably, the presence of a woman in the protest would have ensured that it was peaceful and respectful, while her presence also suggested that the British’s actions were especially depraved.

Fighting eventually broke out at Lexington and Concord and around the English colonies. Sybil Ludington, a 16  year old girl, took a ride just as daring as Paul Revere’s and at more than double the distance, to warn the militias of New York and Connecticut that British invaders were on their way. After the war, General George Washington personally thanked her for her service. ​

As men joined militias and headed off to war, gender norms were disrupted and women assumed responsibilities managing businesses and farms. This also left some women vulnerable. A South Carolina woman, Eliza Pinckney, described her situation, “My property pulled into pieces, burnt and destroyed; my money of no value, my Children sick and prisoners.” Women were also attacked and raped at home by Loyalist and British soldiers as they came through.

​

But many women did not despair. Abigail Adams wrote, “We possess a spirit that will not be conquered. If our Men are drawn off and we should be attacked, you will find a Race of Amazons in America.” She turned her home into a hospital during the war and did whatever she could to keep up morale at home. ​

In 1780, in the middle of the war, the Ladies’ Association of Philadelphia was established and made their mark on women’s commitment to the revolutionary ideals with a bold publication titled “Sentiments of an American Woman” which claimed women as well as men were created equal. The broadside read, “Our ambition is kindled by the same of those heroines of antiquity, who have rendered their sex illustrious, and have proved to the universe, that, if the weakness of our Constitution, if opinion and manners did not forbid us to march to glory by the same paths as the Men, we should at least equal, and sometimes surpass them in our love for the public good." The Constitution in this case is not in reference to the legal document, but rather one’s resolve, character, or integrity. The claim from the anonymous broadside was simply that women equal men in their patriotism and dedication to the cause. It encouraged women to give up luxuries, save money, and donate to the Continental Army. It was signed, “An American Woman,” as it was ladylike and proper to anonymize oneself in publication to align with gender norms of the era.  The author, of course, was the leader of the Ladies Association, Esther de Berdt Reed, the wife of a lawyer and soldier at the front during the war. Her group raised over $7,000 for the war, which was a lot of money back then, all while she took care of their six children. General Washington encouraged the women to make clothes with the raised funds instead of giving it to the soldiers directly because he feared they would spend it on liquor. In the end, the Ladies’ Associated sewed over 2,000 shirts for soldiers.

Martha Washington was a wealthy woman, inheriting a great deal of money from her first husband. During the war, she maintained her elaborate estates and bankrolled the war effort. Every winter, when the war was stalemated, she would travel, like a lot of wives would, to be with Washington in the camps. Washington and other prominent women began a campaign to America's women to collect direct aid for soldiers in the Continental Army. Mount Vernon records show that Martha herself donated $20,000.

As the British stomped their way through upstate New York, young Jane McCrea met her untimely end. Engaged to a loyalist officer who had rushed off to serve, McCrea was making her way toward him when she was abducted and killed. While there is much debate about her killers, the blame was placed on General John Burgoyne’s Native scouts. McCrea became a tool for the Patriots.

The message was spread among the communities that Jane had been one of their own. If Burgoyne would allow that to happen and let her killers go unpunished – a loyalist woman, moreover one of his own officer’s fiancés – what would he do to your wife, fiancé, daughter, or sister, when he came through?

This takes a political war into the realm of a moral or ethical one. The women needed protection from the British brute!