tv Occupied Cities During the American Revolution CSPAN November 10, 2019 2:00pm-3:51pm EST
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] american history tv is on social media. follow us at c-span history. next on american history tv, historians discuss life in occupied cities during the revolution. life of the soldiers and her workers and families. library andnd richard c von hess von hess d richard c hosted this event. >> part of any job is taking the incredible work of the team and doing work for it so that is my
plan. we managed and run special interpretive programs here and was anyone here? some have experienced your own british okay bigs or perhaps liberation? this is something that is our what year in a row doing a is called flag ship living history event. on to streets # philadelphia and .magine what life like one agenda is presenting the fall of 1777 in a complicated for many of the people who remained in the city occupation but maybe a liberation for many of the perspectives. being ote about it
liberated from a congress, people come to museums to learn to ll different ways encounter the real things of human , to have a experience to connect to it. h first person programming like some of you may our program and spoilers at the end of his life but he maybe doesn't know that yet. we do larger events and very to say, it's a pleasure to ers oduce this set of speak because i have benefited from a strain of scholarships that re-examine what's life is like this occupied cities in new york last work is and years old. and the recent work is is almost ntury old and aged well
historical a gap in scholarships to folks and for those people that they study, as often as people might have hought about mill tags they're n and ideology ccupied by every day concerns by blanket seizures, and british army as you can read about. ery day ssities of ev life so here in philadelphia ou'll hear there is never a
substantial military garis son. 0,000 people flee the city and suddenly thousands repopulate what thisnd transform is like. it's a great opportunity to give work attention. they're looking forward to taking questions and thinking lexities and i just anted to introduce both of them. fromullivan earned his phd temple university and published brilliant book i tell people about all the time. this is somehow constructing something that is hundreds of pages long. you think it's about one thing and neaks up behind you
thinking is a pro british work. guys and are good halfway through the book the british arrive in philadelphia nd of from being this ki distant, newton ideological in ty for the subjects philadelphia just to being resent in their lives and second half of the brook proves they weren't that desirable either and by the i'm you've travelled with him through nine ation, you he occup realize the course was not or a middle ground?
which most people avoided or tried to avoid taking stakes with either party and i think the work just as an enormous amount humanizing the liberation as problematicit and shows us by the time british left people were not very excited but weren't very ither and that helps us think about it in other ways. our second speaker earned her philadelphia in washington, d.c. and i encountered her work in as a orm it took when she w resident fellow here in philadelphia and beyond and i'm see the project this is going to explode
our understanding of life in the focuses on se it gender and domestic space. any of you are familiar with figures in philadelphia and a lived maybe only three blocks from here spending winter becauseof the household exiled to has been the last place you want to be exiled, win chester, virginia. scrutiny of the makes you reconsider being occupied in a british army that included german, and american and british camp followers and their children and that aspect of life mattered and iting s work won an exc
to images osing you of donald trump and hillary one point not advocate for but consider an act of treason against the united states. that will somehow be tied back o the american revolution and british occupation of philadelphia. hat is what i write and talk about. months in 1777 and 1778 when the british made this their head quarters in america. i use that had moment to take make them ngs and complicated. is because real life complicated and that is what historians do. and tell ate things stories. there is a story that begins on the eve of the british occupation of philadelphia.
here are some spoilers here. we have elizabeth and henry draper, married couple that lived not far from here, on front street. a beautiful home, they can see the river. he had th liked to say s room enough in the city and such elegant rooms. yard with a a back stable, and well, and flowering tree that's could carpet the area in red and white blossoms. they were quakers. re are ch is why the silhouettes. quakers they were pacifists so when the war broke out they did everything they in it.to be involved the goal is that whichever side
won, they'd continue on with family, faith and business and before.t as they had they'll find being uninvolved is more difficult than they thought. september 2, 1777, henry draker and and he's ill and his youngest son and name sake remely ill. he's eight years old, is snick a nd that involves vomiting a worms and things you don't want to know about. deathly ill.'s inmy ome and arrested as of the state. government, m the new state government arrives and arrests him for in their words aving evidence of disposition
for the cause of america. object and say he's done no such thing and if he has that is not a crime. according to the pennsylvania brand new state constitution. freedom ch promises a of speech. eard bjections will go unh and he will be never be charged for the crime, he will never have a hearing perfect a judge trial before a jury. pennsylvania he supreme court will issue writ of habus corpsus on him, and the llow this refused fo order they'll pass a law saying nforcement , the e will be immune from judicial including writs of
habeus corpsus and shortly after his arrest they'll be exiled to virginia. two will die before coming home. family, including elizabeth and little henry will be left to themselves even as the british invade the city. and the story goes on what happens to elizabeth in the city is fascinating. i can give you quick spoilers. ry back. get hen and along the way trying to get at back she'll find himself th president wi washington and you should know ay.tle henry is ok and the question is why does this happen? this happen?
why does someone see someone like henry draker as a enemy and threat? short answer is because the past omplicated but we can begin to consider it saying what do we the the context of revolution? what category is this? o, there are americans and british. to he enact today we can divide you up. and saying you be americans and out.an fight it simple, right? the upported the side of empire?
o everyone in america was a british colonist to begin with. and they serves on both sides. some people on the british side will be the month hawks and here we have the native americans on. sides of the both war. and not everyone who came to voluntarily.o nd slaves while serve on both sides of the war. y have heard not everyone in revolutionary man.ca was a .omen also served on both sides and occasionally, under arms the
example.us and who 18th century army urvives on hundreds or thousands of women if we want to be complete, we'll say some need to be french and and there be a number of different roles to play. and we can put them on each side. t we tend to do. urselves which side do we put them on? st we've been to look at people who didn't belong objected to who like the and people drakers. people who lacked affection for sides in the two dispute. point, yourself at this
are they worthying about? drakers, most quakers fall under this category. ith maybe 20% ay w to 40% of the population under this category. if they don't decide do they matter? a bookey do. have wrote about them and the museum thinks they matter, right? of them ind traces referred to as people between. explain why they matter. so i want to you think back with me to a more recent time when the fate of america was being contested. forces in red, and blue went to
future of ontrol of nation. i warned you this is going to happen. come back to 2016 election. we know that this striks never goes badly. e have an election. and the republican would be the electoral college and presidency and we spent time afterwards one.ng at trafs like this ng ate sent less time looki photographs that looked like this. ot votes for the green party. this represents eligible voters
who to not vote for either candidate and they to not vote at awful. they sat out election and they nonparticipants. about these people. we can recognize they're diverse in their reasons for sitting out the conflict. right? d couldn't options an get behind either one. the people were not unified. right? no and there is no
single decision that could have brought them together on a third option and that means their re relatively quiet. right? liberty s like give me and death or god save the king. and it's hard to get people to rally around the cry of i don't want to be involved right? sell.is hard to talking about mu ralt. i they said they're even and didn't decide. we're talking about people who were not willing to make significance sacrifice for one side other another.
involved could be much higher. and we can recognize these people are pivotal to understanding the outcome of the conflict and what it was like to experience it. you cannot understand the election of 2016 why it ended king ay it did without loo t the people who to not vote, and why. is talk about the did not of those who vote. so you may have heard of jen ute shoe.
we've looked at had painting a lot. and there is his house there and is almost but not entirely like. reenactment tomorrow. chiefus tis of colonial pennsylvania arg few e, if not the most lushl men in the state. a friend of both george adams and and john out spoken opponent of british stand back on he he made it clear did he not think britain was constitutionally empowered to do what it was doing to america.
he stated you can a lot take up arms against established government. by definition that treason. he said this the moment the king exude constitutional authority invested in them by itution, the treatment if you will, treason if you won't. n the ndz himself stuck i middle. what is he to do? in this case he is wreefly arrested but when released shortly therefore, he chooses to disappear and steps pack and to ne of the most influential powerful men in the colony to almost no one. he keeps his head down war.ughout the benjimank about
let's talk about benjiman talon. this is the pennsylvania evening post. it's america's first thrice weekly newspaper. times ished this three per week. 1776, s is a if call in by the end of the next year, were moderate had opinion burned down. 1776 publishes a long poem about george washington and how great he and wonders of liberty. to be 7, they don't want try are treason against brit wrin and they don't want their nfiscated or melted down.
is he continues to print and verything from people who have lost ifs or had them stolen or another, all one that flows through evening post and town makes a great deal of money. and in 1778 the british leave ots return andatri loyalist pack up and leave, a lot wanting to be arrested by the patriots. except for benjamin town. realizes he's been deceived
ministers and his and he was right the first time and independence is the way to ins publication of the evening post as a fiercely pro independent newspaper. he's the only game in town for weeks and makes a great deal of oney so. we can say there is no one script for disaffection. t doing care so much abou the right thing. so much about the constitutional, political and that you can not bring yourself to be aligned with either side. ike benjiman town not care about the questions at stake. and enjoying one side or another side or both sides. neither seem e terribly threatening. especially those like shoe and draker who tried to back away so why are they targeted? we need to understand how revolutionary about d key questions
what they're doing. when i divided us up for reenactment, we ended up with those people who did not pick a side. option ask is that an a side i'llnot pick leave it to your imagination in reasons deciding not to speak out effectively puts you on one side or another. no. you can hot be neutral in this fight. if you're not for us s.u're against u and we can see them this a host of different ways. patriots through economic liens like nonconsumption movements and
boycot boycotts. if you look at the language used who refuse toople ell, it's telling and this is is level for anyone chooseing to join the boycott. you may buy the same things from the same merchant but today an enemy of liberty. you can see there is not a lot dle ground.oom or mid you're a friend or you're a foe. when looking at the militia in places like pennsylvania. universal t have a militia tradition. by 1770 it was representing
violent resistance to great britain and yet not optional. it became mandatory and fines on those refusing to serve were back to be burden some and breaking. and a xhn labor just paying serving.r not we can see in attempts to control speech. 1777, the revolutionary government will pass the test act. requires every white swear allegiance to the interdepartment state of pennsylvania and swear you'll inform against anyone opposed to the united states.
if you refuse you may in the serve in a jury or use the meone who cheats or defrauds you, and may not buy, sell, transfer or inherit .eal estate if you persist, you can be banished from the state. very why?s are the right to use violence in that way? says is that they represent the will of the people.
because it's the only legitimate source. the point is that americans are going to tax each other more hef yesly. to point is that have you ave patriots will say by implication they'll say their governments do and can represent that will but what is a shaky proposition. i want to you i decided in light of haos today we should be done right?he united states over. we're going to form our nation.ndent
i propose the museum of the emocratic republic of the american revolution. nd let's suppose the number of you who stood up in support of the nation outnumbered the number of you who stood up in support in remaining with the instead.ates right? there situation like this. i will declare this museum ought free and independent. and what if there is another group who refused to speak out st my plan?in
possibly you thought i, istorian would not do a better job than the current government. that is the case i'm somewhat offended. whatever the reason doesn't xistence of this group of people give you pause? does it make you think that my declaring independence on behalf of the people was rushed? west feel better if can get these people to take a position of the american revolutionary f i ask you do you support the american revolution? the you say yes, you support
if you can't do that, have you to get resources for them. no money.ng and they need people to get involved t its going to be a shor conflict. and what do you do? you talk about solutions. you can tough love right? you can say what have you to participate and be on our side. join the want to militia? militia. to joint you don't want to stand up and say i don't want to swear allegiance? you have to. aw.s the l
you can make sure the punishments more or less give you what you want, anyway. so you don't want to join the militia or we'll use guns and other militia. we'll take way your right to courts. use your voice will count because a voice anymore. his is referred to as civil excommunication. and this solution is that we just manage frut state altogether. and then, your voice doesn't count because you're not here anymore z during this, the patriots were very careful to this lead a way back and is remarkable. es in which theim fines against them would stop, the threat of imprisonment could
away, if they'd just allegiance towear the state. and say they supported the independence.rds it doesn't matter if they had a rt or this is under duress. the point is that they added their voice to the common cause common ed this was a cause. nd henry drinker is repeatedly to, and n opportunity he not. nd it is possible that the state would have found other ways to convince them, but pennsylvania doesn't have time. the british are coming and rate hment is a despe measure taken in a desperate
time. this brings to us why it is important. an be hard to find disaffected in history. by people who don't want to be involved often don't want to be found. it is in their interest to take the path of least resistance. to do do at they need ensure british and and patriots will let them live their lives. people who don't care will go along with the s long as ary flow a doing so is the path of least resistance. they don't want to draw attention to themselves. so how do you tell the difference? between someone who believes in the cause and someone joining because they don't want to be fined? how can you tell the difference between someone who they a boy cot because and this ishe cause
and again, it's an effort of how philadelphia and overwhelmingly the people will not swear that oath. can never get enough support to draf the british out, the british can not to expand support and this will end in not an epic battle but it's not ort anymore.f and you can take it to new york. and patriots are going to win this war. america will be independent and as you might expect, they're not eager to include dissenting and disaffected voices and they want unified.n america is and the consenting unified
1779. lexington, declaration of independence. invasion of pennsylvania and occupation of philadelphia. retreat from philadelphia. delaware. crossing none of that is in his diary. instead he writes about cows. a lot about cows. s.d fence and his work on the school board and family came to visit and better what ck and who came to quaker meeting this eek and did not come to quaker meeting this week. and on, and on. and it is unfair to call that ?oring right if you're trying to understand the life of a quaker farmer this but if you reasure, there looking for an action filled account of the and political ar debates you'll be sorly disappointed. joesly, you can find hints of the war. he wrote bit. if they confiscated his stuff he
wrote about it. there is one time he was almost ining the or not jo mill lisha. he wrote about that and wrote about one battle that happened in his parents' front yard. but this is the diary of a man who wasn't interested in the him.lution happening around them and it is up to them to figure out if they're british or militiamen. and you get a sense he doesn't care. o we have a familiar disinterested in the war and e fought this battl their front yard. this is the map of fort mercer there along the delaware river. on the cer built property of james whitall's
father. nd that they fort a watch from their house. the battle, from their house thachl is their house. and she can look out of the on.dow and see this going and it rickso shays around and rolls down the steps and stops next to her. and she presumely says huh. and takes up her spinning wheel and work and tos to the basement of the house and continues spinning for the rest of the battle.
assisted in se who establishing american independence. o be on everybody has t one side or another. british.e americans and so over time we make room but that comes down to asking what side were they on? and we sometimes overlook the middle.in the with a brush and it's a disaster that had to be endured. they're people that can see complicated.s
you can to and hear from different people groups there. neutral? not? they felt they had an interest in the war. es deciding british empire offered them more safety nd than thecess to la americans did. >> thank you for the presentation. the question i'm going to pitch to you may, your most available gower may be to just have to out and buy the book. detail.'s a small and how on earth did he manage to dance on the head of a pin? camps?have ties to both
? book.u should buy the >> okay. >> yes. so town is a fascinating figure. he gets away with it to the extent he does. first he is there when the british come in and most of the printers have fled because they're afraid of being persecuted by the british. it turns out the british were much slower to persecute people id.that point than patriots d connect 1200prof. duval: all ri
because you've seen different depictions all weekend. this engraving is created around 1830. it depicts the battle of german town during the revolution which took place on the out skirts of occupied philadelphia. exactly 203 years ago. during the battle, it became a literal battlefield. british troops fortified themselves and american forces descended on that house in an unsuccessful attempt. clifton now operates today the marks of the battle remain memorialized within its wall. bullet holes in damage stores -- and damage stores are parts of the tour. once again they defend upon clifton to reenact the battle on the ground where it was thought. -- fought. in the experience of war and clifton, especially depicted in this engraving, is very much in
line with how we distinctly think of a battlefield in the american revolution. you have soldiers standing lines, firing muskets. there is an officer on horseback. the smoke of the house signifies fighting, there is little evidence of physical destruction actually going on in this engraving. there are a few soldiers limping away from the scene as odied in the as em distance, overall it is relatively bloodless. it reinforces this narrative that depicts the revolution as not a violent military encounter. it's also known for putting women in the domestic space. this image is how we may picture the home as a battlefield during the american revolution. during the war, houses like clifton have become battlefields outside of the traditional sense. and for people throughout the american colonies.
the revolution brought violence and destruction to their home, threatened danger to their families and property. and this violence was something new. unlike settlers in the backcountry, urban dwellers were unaccustomed to violence and warfare that were common here. but americans homes became battlefields in unexpected ways during the war. this is especially true in cities under british rule. where british occupation brought not only violence, but also profound destruction to traditional authority and unexpected ways. urban dwellers encountered british forces on the battlefield and their homes, and streets. during the american revolution the british army captured six cities for varying lengths of time. boston, new york, newport rhode island, philadelphia, charlston, and savannah. with the exception of savannah the remaining five cities were
the five largest port cities in colonial north america. their importance speaks to broader experience of british occupation during the revolution. urban dwellers encountered british forces in their they experienced the violence through domestic concerns. the british occupation present a -- presents a fascinating moment to examine the power dynamics of the revolutionary household. due to the circumstances of war americans wielded limited power within their households. royalist men of course. enlisted in militias, others were prisoners of war. others fled for safety before the arrival of the british army. so cities under british military rule, civilians not only had to negotiate interactions with these new occupying forces, they had to renegotiate their relationship with one another.
project examines the british military occupation during the revolution through the lens of the urban household. i look like things at family letters, military diaries, petitions, military, keepers -- military papers, court records newspapers, basically , anything i could get my hands on, to try and understand the inner dynamics of the household. in order to understand how daily interactions and common domestic face -- space were really intertwined with the broader experience of ordering the revolution. i analyzed the household as a sight of conflict not only between soldiers and civilians but civilians themselves. the various races, genders, and some of these contests proceed the war. i found the experience of occupation exacerbates the conflict and enhances the stakes of power struggle within wartime households. typically was not
portrayed in military history a positive war. it was a relocation in war. a relocation that has drastic consequences for women, their families and their households. i want to suggest that we reconceptualize the home front in the battle front. we are primarily civilians who experienced were on their door stops. in the form of army of covering their cities and british officers writing their houses in a total distraught -- a destruction of their household in the world they inhabited. in this previously overlooked wartime encounter had widespread and deeply personal ramifications for american households. the best way to illustrate these dynamics is to look at these household. i would like to share four examples with you today to teach you how household functions at sites of conflict. between a path of -- between apothecary to the british officer courts, enslaved women and slaveholders, and between
two sets of husbands and wives in philadelphia. i will conclude by considering how americans reimagined these domestic spaces in the postwar years, alongside shifting cultural ideas about the private household. taken as a whole, it will demonstrate how fully occupation disorder hierarchies, and they will suggest wartime struggles contributes to new understandings of the home and its role in american life. at its broadest level, occupation disrupts urban environments and routines. this year number of soldiers, camp followers, refugees, livestock associated with the british army, not to mention civilian inhabitants taxes the resources in the area. civilians require passes to leave the city. within, they are enforced to adhere to curfews. soldiers crowded the streets. troops routinely or in public
spaces. men were encamped throughout the city in hands and barracks, churches, and schools. drunken and rowdy shoulder -- soldiers were a constant presence. took -- traversing streets on new and immediate dangers. yet, interior spaces were not safe refugees either. inhabitants were victims of robbery, or plunder. and they frequently confronted provisions. anything made of wood was susceptible to being torn down to be used for kindling. occupation brought the war into the home of american civilians. in so doing, it presented a fundamental challenge, the basic premise that governed daily life in revolutionary america, that men would rule over their households and inhabit them. inplex often emerge instances between british officers and american civilian men when both are trying to claim the same domestic space.
this happens in the case of apothecary joseph tweedy and john campbell at the corps of engineers who was quartered in the newport home. the incident arose over the treatment of his enslaved servant, a young boy, eight years old. he insisted he had to threaten to throw the boy off the wharf and dipped his legs in the water . this assertion at its core is -- reveals presumptions about racial bodies on the limits white men could take with them. in suggesting that he and the captain regularly amused themselves in this way, threatening to drown a child, he revealed the racial dynamics operating within revolutionary newport.
he repeatedly demanded satisfaction as a gentleman but that captain campbell reveals -- refused to dual and ignored his request. this incident was at its core a power struggle between these two men with an enslaved child caught in the middle. although tweedy insisted the two men were "on intimate footing" he was frustrated by the quartering arrangement. he felt disrespected and disempowered within his own home. tweedy complained that in the wake of his brother's death, the captain had showed a little something, he invited company to the house, played music, and ignored tweedy when he saw him. campbell denied this. a disavow that implied he felt no obligation to offer comfort in the circumstances. campbell significantly defended his behavior by insisting he had
entertained company and played music in his "own quarters." parsing the statements gives us a sense and glints of how each man interpreted his claim to their shared domestic space. as the head of household, tweedy expected that captain campbell would adhere to certain standards of behavior that aligned with the needs of the family. for this reason, tweedy's framing of the man's relationship is significant, and presenting it as friendship rather than a forced living, it is an assertion of social equality between this apothecary and a british officer. it also enables tweedy to maintain this illusion of power over his household even though in reality he is powerless to in -- to control that. hand wason the other aware that he inhabited these house. he was not oblivious to the families loss. and yet his disregard for the circumstance and his insistence he could do as he wished in his own quarters to just that
campbell saw his room as his own private space, under his control and separate from the rest of the family. in his refusal to acknowledge tweedy's demand for satisfaction, campbell suggest he did not see them menace social equals, only gentlemen could dual each other. campbell sees his elevated class put some above the rest of the household, and he is not subject to tweedy's domestic authority. notions that british officers can disregard american men page radical authorities, that the british court-martial will reinforce by finding campbell in favor. given this context, tweedy's treatment of the enslaved boy brings into focus the power dynamics of the household. his actions represent not only a rebuke to captain campbell, but and it is -- it is an assumption of tweedy's own authority. the boys presence in his act -- in his house gives him the right
to threaten the boy and treat him with familiarity, as if he were his own servant. by enacting this display on a member of campbell's household, tweedy's retaliation flips the power dynamic of their original dispute. now it is 20 who feels entitled to deny another man's authority by asking to be pleased within his own space. this incident indicates that in many instances, it was commonplace, they were not having daily exchanges. rather than a formalized strategy. this is a striking difference from the british army's approach in charleston where the army attempted to subvert patriarchal norms. in charleston, patriot men's mastery, their ability to govern their property and family, became contingent upon
allegiance to the british crown. it's men endorsed the crowns authority, they were getting their status and their property. prisoners.y remained denied the rights of british subjects, their properties their families evicted, and their slaves put to work on plantations raising crops for the british army. the patriarchal norms were not only embedded in property, they were also entwined with charleston's gendered practices. their attempt to subvert these norms indirectly and directly offered at the fabric of the social relations by unsettling entrenched racial hierarchies. as the army curtail the power of patriot plague holders and deny them access to the houses that were markers of their status, enslaved women in charleston claim to new space in ways that temporarily realign power relations within elite households and transform the spaces within.
in january 1782, three women who were most likely formally enslaved refugees behind british lines, organized and hosted a ball in charleston for "officers of the army and female slaves only." this event reveals how british policy in enslaved women's own action were -- worked in tandem for different reasons, but to challenge white men's mastery with an occupied charleston. the ball was held at 99 meeting street, a very capital and private house. british officers "dressed the women in taste with the richest silks, powdered in the most pompous manner." the women arrived at the ball in carriages escorted by british officers. the festivities lasted until 4:00 a.m. the ball was not entirely unprecedented. charleston has a history of
interracial civilization including dances. the enslaved immunity gathered in the kitchen when white slave owners retired to their country plantations. boldlynuary 1782 ball moved such interactions into the predominantly white rooms. where enslaved black women may have been present, as servers or as laborers, but certainly not as ball goers. in addition to the city's presidents, the ball is reminiscent of afro caribbean tradition of john canoe which emerged creole african carnivalesque traditions with the christmas holiday. the celebration buried among plantations, it had a hierarchy. contemporary accounts describe enslaved people dancing through the streets, attired in masks and lavish clothing, accompanied by the white character of john canoe. after 1790, the tradition
evolved to include dancing entertainments, the other picture up there, in which slave owners addressed african women in european costume. the dance was "a caricature of a vein sign lady." -- vain signed lady." in january 1782 ball charleston, although it predates these dances, the longer caribbean tradition of interracial socialization, particularly the timing around christmas, are suggestive of the influence of these island ball,ions on charleston's a sign not only of british military presence in the caribbean throughout the american war, but also charleston's caribbean connections. significantly, the charleston ball reinforces the importance of military balls and sociability as sites of gender power during the american revolution. the fact that such balls took place within civilian homes
further underscores how social events subverted domestic spaces and challenged household hierarchies and white men's domestic authority over those spaces. there are parallels between this charleston ball in the -- and the house in philadelphia during 1778 to celebrate the retirement of the british general. american women attired in turkish clothing watched british officers joust for their affections. in women's presence of the ball, it validated the sacrifice and the war, symbolically placing american women at the center of this military conflict between american and british men. similarly, british officers performed power and challenge the authorities of american men through their interactions with civilian women. from a legal standpoint, carolina slave owners owned a woman's body.
with enslavedr's women undercut these rights. they usurped american men prerogative to be the master and beneficiary of their enslaved property. they did so within the very home that epitomized this authority. the control of enslaved women's bodies became a metaphor for the conflict can revealed the virility of british officers and patriot men. three weeks after this event, writing from continental headquarters outside of charleston, daniel stevens, a lieutenant in the artillery, condemned of the ball, and british officers interactions with "our female slaves." omitting any mention of the city's presidents, he proclaimed the general white american male ownership of enslaved women's bodies and announced the ball as an example of british barbarity. annunciation, he erased male slaveowners from the
narrative of that evening's event. whether because of their actual absence in the occupied city in charleston, taken as a siege, perhaps an unwillingness to see their diminish of power, stevenson focused on charleston's women, asserting that "many of these wretches were taken out of houses before their mistresses spaces." it is not only their affront to it alsolaveowners, challenged their authority to govern their households and revealed their inability to control the enslaved women within them. stevens framing also significantly overlooks enslaved women own agency. the departure for the ball upended racial power relations within elite households. white women stayed at home. enslaved women's actions fundamentally alter the racialized meeting -- meanings
embedded in charleston's private home, which had been places of black labor and white civilization. in appropriating the spaces for entertainment, enslaved women denied white slaveholders and white charleston exclusive right these houses as places of leisure. thus in framing the event as an indictment of british officers, he implied it was they, not enslaved women who challenged white men's authority and had the audacity to subvert domestic spaces for their own use. revealsunt of this ball how layered and complex contest of domestic space was in british cities. a charleston's elite homes became sites of conflict between american men and british officers, each claiming and legitimating their authority by absurd inc. -- asserting control. in these conflicts, enslaved women created spaces for themselves by socializing with british officers and charleston's elite homes, they
rejected the exclusive right to their body in ways that distorted the city's hierarchy. actions because women's were linked to the british army in the broader military conflict, contemporaries could minimize the dangerous ramifications of this event. and imply that such thoughts vanished once the british army left. insightan important because it exposes how domestic power during the revolutionary era were at their core fundamentally racialized engendered. in cities under military rule where the british army covered -- governed every asset of life, in small and meaningful ways, we see the elites in the white women assert their power over the space of their home and its inhabitants. surprisingly, british officers respected their ability to do so.
these exchanges show how differently british officers regarded white women's domestic authority and demonstrate the gender dynamic of occupation and how they manifest themselves in relation between husbands and wives. actually with their furniture that they would have had. if you have not seen it, you should check it out. the experience of the drinker family provides an example of these household dynamics and suggests how disparate -- how differently husbands and wives thought about the home and responded to the challenges of occupation. life in occupied philadelphia has been difficult for elizabeth drinker. her husband was in exile. each day brought the challenges of running a household in wartime. on multiple occasions, officers arrived at her door requisitioning blankets and other provisions. soldiers in search of fire word had tried to tear down the shutter, although after a quick
intervention by her sister, they settled for the fence. in november of 1777, one of the families domestic servants ran off with a british officer. the incident ended with elizabeth and her five children locking themselves away in the parlor while the man ranged throughout the house, swinging his sword, swearing, knocking on the parlor door and insisting the family led him into drink a glass of wine. eventually, male neighbors convinced of the man to leave. when the family emerged from the parlor, ann kelly was gone with a man all. . of this must have been on her mind and she confided to her diary in december of 1777, i often feel afraid to go to bed. later that month, elizabeth drinker -- despite the disruption of the previous weeks, she was not seeking protection. she went to great lengths having her officer reported on the
previous months. reading the signs of the occupied city and realizing that quartering was probably inevitable, elizabeth chose -- she chose it would be better to choose an officer than have one forced upon her. significantly, elizabeth drinker interviewed him four times before accepting him as a lodger. in these meetings, she negotiated the terms and she made clear her expectations for his behavior while he resided under her roof. in agreeing to this terms, he -- these terms, he took up residence in the drinker household in december 1777. three men accompanied him. although they did not live in the house they were often in the kitchen awaiting his orders. by their very presence, these more permeable. servants, orderlies, constantly rotated in and out of the home, carrying goods and messages back
and forth to headquarters. the major slowly spread throughout the drinker household and eventually took over two parlors, and the stable as well as having access to the kitchen. but he mostly adhered to elizabeth's rule. he mended his hours at her request. he prevented swearing and drinking in their home. in fact in february of 1778, the captain of the 42nd regiment reported dining with drinker at the household. elizabeth noted that they broke up in good time. people were less satisfied with the evening. observing it was "a show we dinner with not much drink." he also recorded notably that after their evidently he also upheld his role about gambling. and he respected the boundary of
the woman who created the household. limiting the noises she abhorred. so the drinker family settled into a routine. they kept their supplies separate which both believed a successful arrangement. in order to avoid confusion in the kitchen, they prepared meals after the drinker family had finished theirs. elizabeth exiled husband henry -- elizabeth's exiled husband henry however was far less comfortable with this agreement. upon learning of his cornering -- quartering, he wrote demanding to know who is it that could be in my house how many intruders are there? do they demand food, firing, etc. and house room? as the occupation progressed he worried about his presence more. elizabeth took measures to calm her husband's fears. underscoring the propriety of she describedt,
it as "neighbors fair." she admitted "now and then, he drinks a dish of tea with us because he behaves like a gentleman." and yet, drinker's diary says otherwise. her frustration and struggles over his hours and disobeying her orders. as well as the violent incident when he ran away with her officer. the letters minimized the frequency of the interactions. from her diary entry it was clear they regularly shared coffee and tea possibly a daily basis. he participated in social gatherings with them. after an evening of socializing in the drinker home, he walked to mary's home, suggesting he not only became a valued acquaintance among the drinker's social circle, but also a male
protector. the major slowly integrated into the family life and social circles. so it was throughout this through the war women dined in -- dined, socialize, drink tea, and smoked pipes with the officers quartered in their households. the special proximity of the home transformed british presence to that of a neighbor from one of the intruder. these relationships are evident in the language women use in their diaries. often referring to our officer. elizabeth drinker's lack of qualms about this behavior to suggest that there was an intimacy to their relationship their social interactions suggest that she did not mind as much as she let her husband to believe. it tells us more about drinkers
anxieties and his actual ability that reveals not only the lived experience about this but also gendered expectations about household and husbands and wives authority over at like henry drinker many american men worry about these than being president their household. -- worried about a british officers in their household. the letters to american men had anxiety that they would be replaced by another man. in one particularly memorable exchange, another woman considered renting out her husband's office space. she did not consult or husband about this. instead, turned to her female network for support. myers fisher, having been informed by his sister, wrote to quash the idea and lay claim to the space. skeptical of the character of the renter, he expressed concern that it would endanger the house, warning sarah "the person
who takes it will have command of the front door which will expose all the staircase and every chamber day and night to great danger." unwilling to subject his wife and his young children to the mercy of an unknown potentially violent stranger, myers wanted to protect them from afar by isolation.n their no amount of financial strain was worth the danger of allowing another man to occupy his face. either literally or figuratively. the worries became most explicit in myers last argument. he stressed to sarah not to change the layout of his office, nor even to handle his papers because to do so "would in all probability do me more injury than double the rent that could be had for it." --they were to be destroyed disturbed, it would take a lot of time to get them to a state where i could find any paper that may be called for. these reasons with others induce me to wish it may not be let.
is essentially staking his claim within the household and his insistence his wife not touch them reveals lurking fears that another man's presence in the house may erase his own. the attempts to govern domestic life from afar suggests there absence was disorienting. this worries expressing a concern for their wives and children. it also reveals how these men, fathers and husbands, the providers and protectors, the patriarchs. linked to physical and domestic space. absent men worried they were not able to fulfill the their duties as husbands and fathers. they worried their children would forget them. officers compounded these insecurities. they represented an incursion of the british state to the most intimate domains. their presence underscored the powerlessness. adams perhaps
articulated this in the fall of 1777 as the british army advanced on philadelphia. she declared that men "will not fight and defend their own particular spot, that they will not drive the enemy from our doors, they deserve the slavery and subjection which awaits them." philadelphians had to articulate a vision of martial masculinity in which masculine prerogative and the right political legitimacy rested upon the defense of their spot. there home. this notion became increasingly pervasive in the postwar years. the idea of the private home came to epitomize american independence. after eight long years of war, property confiscation, disrupted households, american men reclaimed their homes, declaring households would never again face the disruption and incursions of the war years.
washington's return to mount vernon, sitting under his own figtree's, embodied the sentiment. the message of tranquility was washington's just reward. an emerging cultural discourse in the early republic linked the private public to what led to the nation. untainted by public life, the home was the repository for republican virtue. it fostered moral citizenry and fortified to both the nation and individual citizens against tyranny and oppression. in many ways in the postwar years, the private home became entwined with the idea of the nation itself. in the late 18th and 19th centuries, -- early 19th, rather, in art, literature, newspapers and correspondence and other forms of discourse, americans reinforced this vision of the american home by posing
domestic ideals backwards. thee portrayals erase potential of the war by overwriting the ways in which white women and enslaved people negotiated, claimed, and may domestic spaces during the conflict. instead, postwar reimagining memorialized white women as the vulnerable icons of domestic virtue, virtues that were threatened by tyrannical, cruel, british soldiers. so this painting, painted around 1811, these women during the british occupation of charleston hered to the burning of house. she provided the arrows they used to set the house ablaze. you can see the painting is entitled "misses motto directing them to burn the house." -- pose itself suggests she's actually standing on a literal pedestal in front of her home. just all in white, her hair
cascading down her back, she looks like a saint preparing for martyrdom than a woman preparing for battle. such postwar transformations reasserted racial and gender hierarchies within the household. it reinforced the notions of domestic privacy by illustrating the vulnerability of women and fortifying it. this phenomenon is evident in south carolina patriot daniel. wallace recording his memory for a novelist friend. he described an incident in which south carolina patriots he alsottack on his proposed a minor alteration. "as fictional will admit liberty to be taken with the truth, you can place it on the weak side, give her a fictitious name and make her the heroine of the tail and let her death be by a tory."
adjusting reveals how literary portrayals provided spaces for americans to reshape and reimagine wartime conflict in ways that flatter the patriot cause in the new nation. in literary form, a loyalist rather than a patriot who is so heartless to kill his own sister, disregarding the rules of war and family. the patriot woman killed on her own doorstep. to be a martyr to liberty. an illustration of the principle of which the war had been fought and won. no longer would invading armies attack american homes. no longer with defenseless women be forced to quarter soldiers. theace's reimagining of tragic incident, this image in a way that novels another cultural discourse is served as a tool to reinforce ideas about the private production of the home.
with this in mind, i want to return to this image of clint -- clifton and think about it within this context. the 19th century depiction of the battle of germantown, it does indeed gesture to the new levels of violence and distraction many urban dwellers encountered in their households during the war. and like many other depictions of wartime homes this image the evokes the violence of war and the vulnerability of american households. it is occupied by british soldiers. surrounded by armed men. the house obscured by smoke. horses flee the scene. the smoke draws the viewer's eye to the house, underscoring its precariousness. there is still no visual signs of damage. soldiers approached at the door but most of the men are tucked away in the shadows. the edge of the image. encroaching darkness that threatens to overtake the engulfed clifton.
despite its violent subjects, the image is surprisingly peaceful. the soldiers are dwarfed by the mansion and the grandeur of the states. the light makes the house the focal point of the image and the battle is on an otherwise idyllic and tranquil setting. we know that although the americans lost to germantown, they won the war. they quite literally reclaimed clifton from the enemy's clutches. they bring the victory back into the images of visual assertion of both the fragility of the american people and their success. the reimagining of the battle by brings the tensions that emerge in the conflicting discourses of wartime invasion and private domesticity. tensions that shape how americans both then and now attempt to make sense of the revolution and its significance. in the early 20th century, a historian famously declared that
two fundamental questions underlay the american politics the question of home rule and who should rule at home. in the american revolution, it is noted that it is not only about political separation but more broadly the nature of authority. in, becker's declaration many ways replicates this 19th-century idealization of domestic space, suggesting that the revolutionary household was separate from the political and military conflict. case.r, this was not the in occupied cities, the home itself became a battleground. for american families, occupation was profoundly disruptive and disconcerting for cicely because of how it had hierarchies. to fully understand the revolutionary and its consequences, we must amend his statement. the actual american household has a gendered, racialized and deeply contested space. thank you. [applause]
prof. duval: i would be happy to take some questions. morgan, i might -- i might just exercise my prerogative. i would love if to know if you vignette brought to life that told the story of a gendered, racialized complicated city of philadelphia in the fall of 1777 as part of our living history program, what is the moment of street theater or a that you would choose? prof. duval: that is a good question. ways, not a lot of having had the opportunity to see outside philadelphia exhibit , to involve the drinker's would've put a lot these themes
of these occupied cities, the contested nature of these households, the gender dynamic. themselves,nker's they have domestic servants within the household. one ends up marrying one of the officers. so it kind of pulls together a lot of these different threads running through the households. i think there was a question appear -- up here? >> i have a question. on the rule of use and maturity. mothersas reading about sending their sons out to india, they were going out, and they were really quite young. they can be 15, 16, that age. i was going to ask in terms of someone likes, raymond, he is a major, he has with he is probably a man
material wealth. younger officers are going to of male maturity and they are going to have probably less financial resources. not always. but in general. do you see in any of the other cases you have looked at, evidence that the power dynamics and the insecurities that can be imposed on american womanhood are in a sense medicated arm mitigated -- are in a sense mitigated when the british officer is a 14 or 15-year-old who needs to be mothered? prof. duval: that's a great question. it certainly plays into this. more documentsre detailing what is going on inside these occupied houses. i know for example sarah logan fisher has an officer in her house and she mentions that he is quite young. and she does talk about having dinner with him and talking about his family in england. i do think it is getting at
these generational differences that you are suggesting. i think one of the bigger issues i see playing out has more to do with class than age. a lot of the socialization seems to take place across social classes. we see elite families are quartering british officers. enlisted men are living in the barracks. and often, if we see violence happening, poor women and enslaved women are out in the streets running errands. some of that seems to be the case for philadelphia. that class returning -- class determines that relationship more than age. >> last november, and spoke to the american revolution roundtable in richmond and during the q&a time, a gentleman got up and asked if i had ever heard about an incident in charleston where white women were -- would not dance with the british officers, so they forced
the slaves to dance with them and had all of these expensive ball grounds. i politely said i had never heard of that, thinking i did not nowhere you got this from. i was amazed to find there was a factual basis for that story. in whateversting retelling this fellow was access to, how the whole dynamic has changed. the british are being snubbed and they are forcing blacks to dance with them. prof. duval: that actually -- it comes from this one letter, daniel stevens. he himself is a patriot. that is very much his interpretation of the event of the charlston ballroom. this is the british doing this, he uses the verbs suggesting it is women being acted upon. i think when you pull back the layers of that and think about what is happening in the cities, we will never know for sure what women were voluntary
participants, if they were forced, or if it was circumstances. the best way to survive in the city. we will not know that for sure. what we can know by looking at the letter is the way in which this incident was interpreted and portrayed more broadly the way american men felt threatened the society had built within their households. in the back? you very much for this wonderful talk. i have to confess, when i was writing my keynote for last night, i had read lauren's wonderful article, and one of the things that struck me particularly as i was pulling together the images for my own powerpoint is what a masculine commissionarlisle and the irish volunteers, even more in making a helpful cameo appearance.
isuess the question i have on one hand, the british are clearly playing a very familiar game, occupying powers oftentimes seek to unmanned their opponents. that is one of the things -- it is an old, old military strategy. i'm wondering, do you see efforts on the parts of the british, particularly given their claim that they are -- that what they are trying to do is have civil government which they themselves think of in paternalistic terms, do you see efforts by the british to mitigate the effects of occupation on the integrity, if you well, of paternalistic household? you can certainly see why they would drive the other way. that is sort of the waging war. but they are serious about restoring civil society as they
understand it, you would expect them to try to find to mitigate to -- the effects of this as well. prof. duval: it is a great question. in some way, they offer -- they put out loyalty oath's, if you want to swear allegiance to the british crown, you get your property, you can do whatever you want in the city. that is one way of we see it happening. there is also a lot of where british officers want the need to protect women and children. they frame it as american men have done a disservice to their families. they had not waged this war. women would not be in this position. they frame themselves as the defenders coming into restore the sanctity of these areas and protect women from their husbands bad decisions. it is certainly there. it is an interesting intention at the heart of it all. i think there was one upfront.
>> i very much enjoyed your book. i want to look at the other side of the coin, please. what was the fate of royalist women when the british left philadelphia? prof. duval: that's a great question. so there is a guy named casey tilden, her book just came out. i definitely recommend that if you are interested. there was a lot of backlash against them in the city. at least initially. there are some women like whose husband was -- had loyalist officials in the city. she is left to defend for herself. the british evict her from her home, she is basically ostracized. there is also an incident that has been documented where when the americans were again -- gained control to celebrate the fourth of july, they end up parading and it is conflicted in the narrative's whether it is a
poor women or enslaved women. they dress her up in a costume, and a fancy ball gown, powdered wig, to prorate her through the streets. parade herher -- through the streets. what ends up happening is the british -- the american army is in philadelphia, the friend show up, they want to entertain the french, they are not that many women in the city. they think we will not socialize with these loyal -- royalist women, but then by the end they are inviting them to balls and dancing with them. forgot theveryone tensions that were there. >> thank you. [applause]
announcer: this is american history tv on where each weekend, we feature 48 hours of programs exploring our nation's past. announcer: tonight on q&a, journalist susanna kaelin discusses her book "the great pretender." about a 19 73 experiment led by stanford psychologist david rosen him testing the legitimacy of psychiatric hospitals. >> because rosen hand said he had a wide influence on so much of what we contend with today, so much of the mental health
crisis we see today was touched in some ways by the study. a lot of public opinion about psychiatry, about its intake fusions were in part shaped by the study. it, we and questioning have to go back and question some of our assumptions. i hope that this gives us the opportunity to go back and reassess in a way to move forward, because we cannot move forward on a rotten foundation. if this study was not up to snuff, if it was not legitimate, we really have to think -- we the conclusions that are presented. announcer: tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. monday on the communicators, -- >> we are at the very beginning of the building out a smart city. we were fortunate very early on to convert our old telephone booths infrastructure into wi-fi kiosks. and they are strategically
located across the city of new york. aat in and of itself provides means of communicating that sets out a predicate for what can be done with sensor technology, how we can regulate our lighting system. there's so much that can be done just from that platform alone. announcer: new york democratic congresswoman yvette clarke monday night at 8:00 eastern on the communicators on cspan 2. announcer: 30 years ago, the berlin wall was reduced to a symbol of the cold war when the east german government announced it was allowing free passage between the divided city. next "the wall," a 1962 u.s. information agency short film that takes us back to witness the shock of berliners and the crisis caused by the walls construction in august of 1961.