Transcripts For CSPAN3 Occupied Cities During The American Revolution 20240712

Interpreters out on the street of old city philadelphia, and imagine what life was like under british rule. One of the big agendas of this event is to present the fall of 1777 in a complicated way. To show that for many of the people who remain in the city that winter, this was an occupation, but maybe it was a liberation from many in their perspective. They read about in the period being liberated from the tyrannical usurpation of an arbitrary congress, which is maybe something we could all aspire to. laughs so we do this with Living History Program in part because people come to museums to learn in all different ways, to encounter the real things of history, to have a Human Experience and connect with it, and one way that we bring it to life is with Living History Programming, with first person programming like some of you might have witnessed in our new theatrical programme where richard st. George stormed into the room, guns blazing in the spring of perhaps 1798, at the end of his life but maybe he doesnt know that yet. We also do these larger living history events and i have to say it really is a pleasure to introduce the set of speakers because i have benefited enormously from a strain of recent sala mothership that reexamines what life was like in occupied cities like new york and charleston, boston and philadelphia and as many of you may know the last concentrated work on these subjects is perhaps 40 years old, the most recent work on the philadelphia occupation, john w. Jacksons book, is almost half a century old and it reads quite well but that is an enormous gap in historical scholarship, so folks like learn to fall and Erin Sullivan, kim not, doing exciting recent young historical work about how complicated life was in the midst of the revolutionary war. For those people that they studied, as often as those people might have thought about military occupation and ideology in the big picture of the war, they were almost as often occupied by everyday concerns like lost cows and lost pocketbooks, by blanket seizures from the army, and then the british army that you can read one of the diary of elizabeth. The specificities of life made it more complicated by new populations of soldiers. So here is philadelphia as you were here for example, there had never been a substantial military presence but in the fall of 1777, 10,000 people flee the city and suddenly thousands of british soldiers, loyalist, civilians, repopulate the city and transform what it was like for perhaps nine months. I think, it is a great opportunity to introduce these two scholars and to give their work some great attention, they are really looking forward to taking your questions about the complexities of their subject, and i want to just take a few minutes to introduce both of them. Doctor Erin Sullivan earned his ph. D. At Temple University right here in philadelphia, he work with some of you in this room and others. He recently published an absolutely brilliant book that i tell people about all the time because i think the real genius of excellent historical writing is not just getting the facts right, or riding a short piece, but somehow constructing something that is hundreds of pages long that lulls you into a sense of security because you think it is about one thing and then it sneaks up behind you like the british in some of the battles that we have been talking about and surprises you, so as i read errands his work, i was thinking there was a pretty pro british work, hes been a lot of time convincing me they were good guides, and this is how it would look for some people, and very subtly, about halfway through the book, the british arrived in philadelphia, they go from being this kind of distant, nuisance, kind of ideological, envious party for the subject and philadelphia to suddenly being very present in their lives in the second half of the book proves to you that the british warrant that desirable of a governing force either, and by the time you have traveled with him through nine months of British Occupation you realize that the obvious course was not patriotism or loyalty, the obvious course was disaffection which is the title of his book, the disaffected. The most obvious situation to be in was a noncommittal middle ground, in which most people avoided or flipflopped or tried to avoid taking stakes with either party. I think erins work, just an enormous amount of humanizing the British Occupation presenting it as problematic as it would be in the period and shows us that by the time the british left in june, people were not very excited about it but they werent very disappointed about it either, and that helps us think about the rest of the revolutionary war and its legacy with philadelphia and beyond, in really new ways. Our second speaker, doctor lauren duval, now at the university of oklahoma got her ph. D. At American University of washington d. C. , and i first encountered laurens work in the form it took when she was a resident for a variety of programs here in philadelphia and beyond and im really excited to see her eventual book project because as i was telling them earlier, i am using it as kind of boot leg conference papers for a while and sharing around this Third Generation media, and i think it is really going to explode our understanding of life in these cities, especially because it focuses on gender and domestic space, so many of you are familiar with some of the figures in philadelphia, the occupation like elizabeth drink, or a quaker who lived maybe only three blocks from here, who spent the winter as the newly independent head of her household because her husband henry has been exiled to the last place you would always want to be exiled to, winchester, virginia. Lot of great bedandbreakfast there but not many in 1777, when you read the work and then lawrence theres an incredible scrutiny of that work, it makes to reconsider what it meant to be in a city of woman that was occupied by british army that not only included male soldiers but also german and british and American Camp followers and their children and how that aspect of this life in this period really mattered. So, i should also note that her work recently won an exciting prize, has an award in the william erie quarterly, and its so well deserved this recognition for this exciting train of scholarship. With that, i will let you know that it will be doctor Aaron Sullivan first and then doctor lauren duval, they will both take questions after each of their programs and i would ask you to join me in welcoming Aaron Sullivan. Thank you. Thank you to the museum, for putting on this well wonderful event but im grateful every year when the philadelphia weekend rolls around, i care about that event very much. Im glad the people of the museum care about it too. I feel obligated to begin this talk today with a warning of sorts. You should know, that at one point over the next 45 minutes i will briefly be exposing you to images of donald trump and hillary clinton, i will also at one point, not so much advocate for, but suggest that you consider an act against the United States. And all of this will somehow be tied back to the American Revolution and into the British Occupation in philadelphia, because that is really what i like to talk about, those nine months in 1777, and 1778 when the british occupied the city, and made it their headquarters in america. Now of course, as a historian, i use that moment to take simple things and make them complicated. Because real life is complicated, this is the real past and its complicated, thats what historians do, we complicate things. We like to tell stories. So let me tell you a somewhat complicated story that begins on the eve of the British Occupation of philadelphia. Tyler gave us some spoilers here but i am going to press ahead anyway. We have elizabeth and henry drinker, who many of you are familiar, with a revolutionary couple in philadelphia they didnt live far from here. They have a beautiful two story home, they can see the river. Elizabeth likes to say that she had room enough in the city. They had such an elegant room, a backyard, a stable and flowering trees every summer. Covering the area in red and white blossoms. They were quakers. Which is why we have their silhouettes rather than actual portraits. Portraits was seen as vain, silhouettes is okay. And like many quakers they were pacifist. So when the war broke out they wanted to avoid being involved in any way. And the goal was that whatever side eventually won they would continue on with their family, their, fate their business, just as they had before. Empire or independents. They did not think it would make that big of a difference. They were going to find that being an involved is more difficult than they. Thought on december 2nd, 1777, henry drinker is at work in his parlor. He is working from home that day because he is feeling kind of ill. But also because his youngest son and names it. Who he refers to as little henry. He has eight years old and is second away that involves violent meeting and worms and things you do not want to know about. Deathly ill. Henry is at home on december 2nd when he was arrested as an enemy of the state. Three men from the government, the State Government not to be confused with the colonial government, arrive and arrest henry for, in their words, having evidence against the cause of america. Henry and elizabeth will object and say that they have done no such thing. And to, even if they have it is not a crime according to pennsylvaniass brand new state constitution which promises that the people have a right to freedom of speech and of writing, and publishing their thoughts. Their objections will go unheeded, henry will be arrested. He will never be charged with a crime, he will never have a hearing before a judge or a court. At one point to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said on his behalf that the government was must early summer, charge him for a crime, not only will the government refused to follow this order they will then pass a law saying that in the case like hand me drink or there will henceforth be immune from judicial interference. They will make that law retroactive. Shortly after his arrest, henry and about 20 others, mostly kick quakers and pacifists. Well be exiled to virginia. Two of them will die there before they can come home. Their families and children including elizabeth and little henry will be left to fend for themselves in philadelphia and even as the british invade and occupy the city. The story goes on, what happens to elizabeth and the city isnt necessarily fascinating. Along the way of trying to get henry back she makes a very good impression on George Washington. You should know that little henry is okay. He is better. Thats not important to this presentation but i didnt want you to worry. The real question we are going to talk about today, is why does this happen . Why does the new independent government with the full knowledge of the Continental Congress see someone like henry as an enemy and a threat . The short answer is of course that it its complicated because the path is complicated. But we can begin to consider it by asking, what do we do with henry drinker in the context of the revolution . How do we define, him how do we categorize him . What categories exist . Under simplest homes we can say this is a conflict in which america tries to be independent from great britain. So there are the americans and the british. And if we wanted to reenact the revolution we could divide it all. Up we could go down the middle and say you will be the americans and you will be the british. Those are two sides and you can fight it out. But we know right away that that is too simple. Because not all americans opposed british rules. There are those who supported the side of the empire. So some of you americans will actually be on that side. But of course not everyone in america was a british colonists to begin with. There are people here before and they served on both sides. Some people on our british side will be the mohawks, and over here we have the own idea. The americans were on both sides. We should recognize that not everyone who came to america did so voluntarily or from europe. Slaved black men and women also served both sides in the war. The rhode island on one side regiment on the other. Most of them moved to the british side, as the british were the first and most consistent to offer liberty. Recently he read thought that everybody in revolutionary america was a man. Women were on both sides. Occasionally under arms. The most famous example here. But no country survives without hundreds or thousands of women. Women on both sides and if we want to be there were some french and haitian. But we can create a number of different categories, roles to play, we can put them on each side. And this is what we tend to do. Both we as historians and we as americans. We encounter a new category of people from the revolution and we ask ourselves which side do we put them on. And in the past we have been very slow to look at people who did not belong on either side. People who rejected both sides, neutral, pacifist, the apathetic people like the drinkers. So i refer to them here at in my book as the disaffected. People who lacked an affection for either of the two sides. You might understand this point. Are they really worth thinking about. They are definitely there, we have the drinkers most quakers fall under the category, if you look at historical literature as a whole you will come up with 20 to 40 of the population in this category. Throughout most of the war. So theyre definitely there. But if they dont pick a side if they are not committed to one side against the other, do they matter . Yes. They do. I wrote a book about them. So i think they matter. And im pleased to say that the museum thinks they matter. You can find all sorts of things about them downstairs. They are also referred to as the people between. And explaining why they matter, why would you look at them, why would you care about them. I like to reach for an analogy from the more recent past. So i want you to think back with me to a more recent time when the fate of america was being impacted. Forces in red and blue went to battle with one another to control the future of this nation. I warned you that this was going to happen. I come all the way back to the 2016 election. We all know that contemporary politics in the context of the revolution never goes badly. We have a revolution the democrat won the popular vote. We got the presidency we spent a great deal of time afterwards looking at graphs like this one. And we talked a lot about who are the people who voted on this side, into are the people who voted on that side. And especially who were the people who we expected to vote this way and voted on that side. We spent much less time looking at graphs that looked like this. And that green bar in the middle thats not vote for the green party. This represents the plurality of eligible voters who did not vote for either major party candidate. In most cases they did not vote at all. They sat out the election, they were the non participants. If we look at these people i think we can get some window into the mindset of the disaffected in the revolution. Its not a perfect analogy but it is a good place to start. So lets talk about these people. Here we go. We can recognize that they are the diverse in the reasons for setting out the conflict. Some of them were apathetic, they were deeply involved and cared very much. And yet they hated both options. They hated them so much they could not get behind either one. These people were not unified. There was no single Third Party Candidate in 2016. There was no single vision of the americas future in the 17 seventies which could have brought all the disaffected together under a third option. One of the things about not being unified is that your voices are quiet. There are certain rallying cries, certain banners you can get people to rally around, give me liberty or give me death, or god save the king, or make America Great again. Its very hard to get people to rally around the cry of i do not want to be involved. This is hard to sell. We can recognize that when we talked about the people we are not just talking about neutrality. As if they all way the to option and said they are exactly even. We are talking about people who are not willing to make any significant sacrifice for one side or the other. In an election that sacrifice is you have to get up and go vote. But the sacrifices involved in signing up for one side and the other in the seventeen hundreds could of course be much much higher. Maybe most importantly we can recognize that in both cases. These people are pivotal to understanding the outcome of the conflict, and to understanding what it was like to experience it. You could not understand the election of 2016, why it ended the way it did without looking at the people who did not vote and why. You could not understand what it is like to experience that election without talking about the experience of the plurality of americans who did not vote. And we should not try to understand the revolution without considering the experience of people who tried not to be involved. So let me tell you about some of those people. In this case two men, both known as benjamin, neither of them named franklin, you might have heard of him, i think we have all looked at this painting a lot. After the righthand side there, the depiction which has been noted it is almost but not entirely like actual clifton. Theyre doing a battle reenactment there tomorrow. So when youre down here you can go see them find it clifton. He was a chief justice of the Supreme Court of colonial pennsylvania arguably one of if not the most influential men. He was a friend of both George Washington and john adams. He was an outspoken opponent of british taxation. From the stamp tax on he did think that british was not empowered for what its doing to america. He was also a Firm Believer in order and Lawful Authority. And one of his last cases in the Supreme Court he stated, an opposition of force of arms to Lawful Authority of king is high treason. You cannot take up arms against the established government. By definition it is treason. But also in the same case he said, when the king and his minister exceed the Constitutional Authority vested into them by the constitution this mandate becomes treason. Its reason if you will or wont. You find yourself stuck in the middle. What do you do . In this case he is briefly arrested and much like hundred or exiled to new jersey. He goes to being one of the most influential powerful man you to a man who gets us had down for the rest of the war lets talk about another benjamin. Benjamin towns. I dont have his picture but i have a picture of his newspaper. This is the Pennsylvania Evening post. He published this three times a week every week. Benjamin town believed in quantity over quality. He was a man of remarkably flexible politics. He found this in 1776 a very pro independent newspaper. This was a good call in 1776. By the end of next year all the papers that were moderate were burned down a run out of town. And christmas 1776 he published this extremely long poem about how great George Washington is in the wonders. The british market in and occupy philadelphia and all the presses pack up in philly they dont want to be tried against treason for britain they dont want to be tried in melted down. Except for benjamin town benjamin town stays behind. And experience a sudden and total change of heart, realizing that this revolution is wrong. So very wrong. And that deep inside he has always been aware of. It so he continues to print the post. Now the newspaper. Since Everything Else in the city other official proclamation from the army. All the advertisements from the businesses left in the city. Everything from people who have lost goods or it had them stolen. All of this goes through the evening post. And he makes a great deal of money. Christmas of 1777 comes around any publishes a very long poem of powell. In 1778, the british leave the city and the patriots return. And the loyalist president to have come down from new york and halifax pack up and leave. Not wanting to be arrested by the patriots. Except for benjamin town. He realizes that he has been deceived by the king that he was right the first time. And independence is really the way to go so he maintains the publication as a fiercely pro independent newspaper. And again he is the only game in town for weeks and he makes a great deal of money. So there is no one script for this affliction you can care so much about doing the right thing, so much about the constitutional, political, and moral issues that you cannot bring yourself to be aligned with either side. You can like benjamin town, not really care at all about the questions. Enjoying one side, or the other side, or both sides. Whatever serves your interests the most. So neither of these people seem terribly. Threatening. Especially like the drinkers who tried to back away. Why are they targeted . Why are they arrested . To understand that we need to understand how the revolution can answer key questions about this. When i divided this upper in a reenactment we interviewed people who could not pick a side. You could legitimately ask, is that an option . Can you really not pick a side in the revolutionary conflict. Or is this one of those cases where not picking aside is really picking aside. Like we do not need to go into a another modern political issue. But you need to think of a question where choosing not to speak it out, not to get involved, effectively put you on one side against the other. The revolutionary will answer this question the negative, you cannot be neutral in this, fight if you are not for us, you are effectively against us. And we can see them expressed this answer in a host of different ways. If we go back to before the work began we have the protests of British Economic sanctions. If we look at the language they use it is very telling. They describe them as enemies of american liberty. This is not language level that those people who stood up and said rahrah taxation its against people who refused to buy the book i. So you may be buying the same tee you bought from years from the same merchant. But today that makes you an enemy of american liberty. James madison famously writes that this Boycott Movement is the method used amongst us to distinguish friend from foe. There is not a lot of wiggle room, there is not a lot of wiggle room in that department. You are a friend or a foe. You can see when you look at the militias. Where especially in places like pennsylvania. They do not have a universal militia tradition. By the seventies they were clearly representing a violent resistance. And yet militias were not optional, it became mandatory. And the finds placed on those who refused to serve were intentionally meant to be burdensome, even backbreaking. On people who spent a third of their income just paying the fines for not serving in the a militia. Those who did serve in the militia almost universally looked at those who did not as traders. Most starkly we can see it as an attempt to control. This act requires every adult male to run out george as a king they can swear allegiance to the independent state of pennsylvania and swear that they will basically inform against anyone who is opposed to the United States. If you refused you lose the right to vote or hold office. You may not serve a jury. You may not use the courts. You may not transfer or inherent real estate and you may not bare arms. If you resist in your refusal to swear the oath you could be banished from the United States. The patriots are very clear. They do not like to tolerate neutrality. They need you to choose a side, their side. But again why . Why not just except neutrality . That is wrapped up in the nature of what they are trying to accomplish in america. They are trying to create a new nation. What gives them the right to do that, the right to use violence in that way. And their ideology says, what gives them to right to do that is that they represent the will of the people. Because the will of the people is the only legitimate source of political authority. We can hear that in the phrase no taxation without representation. But the point is not the taxation is bad. The americans are going to tax each other much more heavily than the british did. The point is that you have to have the consent of the people, through the representatives in order to do that. The patriots will say, britain does not, and cannot represent the will of the americans. And by implication they will say that their governments do and cant represent them. But that is a shaky proposition. You and thats where we get to the trees and part. So join me for a moment in a hypothetical thought experiment. I want you to imagine that i decided in light of all chaos in washington today. We should be done with the United States. And instead, those of us in the room. We should form our own independent nation. Conveniently i have made us a flag. So i propose, the museum of the democratic republic of the American Revolution. Lets suppose that when i gave you this proposition. The number of you who were in support of this new nation greatly outnumbered the number of you who stood up in support of remaining with the United States instead. We have a situation like this. And sovereignty of the people in government by the government i will declare that by the authority of the people, this museum is and ought to be free and independent. But now what if there was another group, a group that neither spoke out for or against you. Perhaps you thought that a museum creating a country on his third floor would not be realistic. Possible you thought, give it some time and things will get better in the u. S. Possible you thought that eye, a historian, would not do a better job of doing of running the country as the current government. If that is the case im offended. Does it give you a pause. Does it think that maybe independents on the people was a little bit rushed or premature . Certainly it is going to slow down once france recognizes our independence. But wouldnt you, even those of you who are my loyal revolutionaries. Wouldnt it be better if we could get these people to visibly explicitly, except the steps we have already taken towards independence. This is the position of the American Revolutionary. If i ask you, do you support the American Revolution and independents and you say yes. Then you support the whole movement. But if you say no, or if you say, i dont really care. Or if you say, please go away, i am working at an 18th century farm and this is really hard. All of that undermines the moral foundation that this war is built upon. Britain is constantly accusing the patriots of forcing this revolution on the people against their will and the patriots are very sensitive to that. And so from their perspective, disaffection is not just neutral. It effectively puts you on the other side. It makes you the enemy. And sense they do sincerely believe themselves to be on the side of american liberty. Disaffection makes you an enemy of american liberty. This brings us back to men like the drinkers. Persecuted and arrested not for picking the wrong side but not picking a side at all. What did the revolution do with people like this . In a Perfect World you would convince them to join your side. But you cannot do that. You need to at least give resources to fight the war. Because they go to war with no army, no money, they desperately need people to get involved theres going to be a conflict. You want to get the resources, and somehow you have to quiet their disagreement. Or at least convince people that their voices do not really count. So what do you do . We talk about some solutions. You can pass laws, you can say, you have to participate, you have to be on our side. You dont want to join the militia . You have to join the militia. You dont want to join the boycott . Movement you have to join the Boycott Movement. You dont want to stand up and say you support an independent state. You have to swear allegiance. It is the law. Second, you can make sure that the punishment for people who defy you that you more or less get you what you want anyway. So you dont want to join the militia . But we were confiscate youre guns and take your money and use those guns and money to create other militia. You dont want to take the test act. Find, we will take away your right to vote, to use the courts. Your voice wont count because you dont really have a voice anymore. Contemporaries refer to this as excommunication. Then your voice doesnt count because you are not here anymore. Doing all of this, the patriots were very careful to always leave a way back. And it is remarkable, if you look at people who are persecuted for dissenting are refusing the to support the revolution. The number of times in which action against them would stop. The threat of violence will be taking away if they would just stand up and swear allegiance and say that they supported the Movement Towards independence. It did not matter if they would have a change of heart or if it was done under arrest. But the point was that they added their voice to the common cause. And this proved that it really was a common cause. Henry drinker is in this position after being repeatedly offered the opportunity to take the test act and be released. Now he and most of his followers will choose not to swear allegiance to the state. It is possible that given enough time they would have found other ways to convince him. But of course pennsylvania does not have time for the british are coming the banishment is a desperate measure taken at a desperate time and this brings us to the occupation and why the occupation was important. Under normal circumstances it could be very hard to find the disaffected. People who do not want to be involved, often do not want to be found. It is in their interest to keep their heads down, to take the path of least resistance, they do whatever they need to do so that the british or patriots will leave them alone. Let them live with their families and live their lives. So people who dont really care that much about independence, maybe you think it is a bad idea, will go along with the revolutionary flow. As long as doing so is the path of least resistance. They do not want to draw attention to themselves. So how do you tell the difference between someone who joins the militia because they believe in the cause and somebody who joined the militia because they do not want to be fined . How do you tell the difference between somebody who joins the boycott because they believe in the cause. And somebody who believes in the boycott because they dont want to be called an enemy of american liberty you look at how people behave and moments of change, and times of transition. And this is why the occupation matters because it is a time of tremendous transition. Consider philadelphia, it began as the capital of a british colony in america. But a year later, it is the de facto capital of the United States of america at war with her in. A year later, it is the headquarters of the british army in America Fighting a war against the United States. And a year later, it is once again for the capital of the United States. As an independent nation. With each of these transitions. The path of least resistance dramatically changes. Actions that wouldve had you in good step of the major powers are deadly treason. The next year. And between each transition of power there are moments when neither the british or patriots can exert control over the people. Time so the people are more or less free to make up their own minds without fear of persecution. Those are the key moments when the british first march into the state. The power of the patriots there has not yet established their own authority, what do the people do . What does the militia do . Do they rally together to resist the british army. Do they join the regiment. Or do they just drop out and go back to their homes, their, farms their families. Those are the moments when you see who people are really loyal to or if they are loyal to anyone at all. So what do we find when the british invade . We find that the revolution is on the verge of falling apart. Lets talk about the militia. When the british first invade congress they are blocking 4000 militia in the capital. 4000 militiamen. And the state of pennsylvania is calling them up. Now the Response Rate up to this point has been about 50 , about half of those they called to duty actually show up or hire a substitute. You can get by with 50 . But once the british invasion begins. That Response Rate drops to 15 . The lowest rate of the entire war. And those who turned out to serve will desert before the term is over. They will go back home. So rather than 4000 militiamen pennsylvania is able to deploy about 2000 militiamen in september. By mid october pennsylvania is now down to 1200 militiamen. By january, 1778 the numbers are about 450. On february 15th, 1778. The main force of the militia consists of 60 men fit for duty. 17 miles away from the closest the militia are not the only people. If we look at the washington papers of valley forge. Along there are accounts of hunger experienced by the Continental Army. You will find report after report of request for flour and produce and livestock flowing from the countryside. Passed valley forge into the occupied city. These are provisions that the American Army desperately needs. They are overwhelmingly chosen. Their productions to the british rather than washington. Despite of desperate efforts washington took to stop it. We are going to see the same thing if we look at the test act of this revolution. Almost from the moment the british arrive, people stop taking the test act. The patriots will constantly be revising the deadline, changing it to get people to swear this oath. But they will not do it. So the occupation snows a pennsylvania that is rife with the disaffection. At least in 1777. This is a real problem. He needs those militiamen, he needs those supplies at valley forge. Fortunately for the United States the people who are not committed to the revolution are also not committed to the British Empire. This is a case of disaffection that loyalism, so the militia melt away it falls apart but those men dont go and join the british regimen. There are trying to put together 5000 new loyalist troops to stay in the capital. They cannot even get 1000 at this time in america. Those farmers who were all eager to trade with the british army. They make it very clear that they are not here because they are loyal to the empires, they are here for money. Theyre all the people of pennsylvania stopping the test act they also utterly refuse to secure valley forge which helps make philadelphia overrun. Washington can never get support to drive the british out of the state. The british also could not get enough support to expand their hold of pennsylvania. Ultimately this occupation will end and not in an epic battle. The british said its not worth the effort anymore theyre going to take their army and head home. Ultimately we know, the patriots are going to win this war. America will become independent. The patriots royal middle east start writing the constitution. They are not eager to include these disaffected. Voices they want to show in america the unified people consenting together to support this war for independence. For much of our history we follow this model. We assigned people to the varying sides, the consenting unified republican its enemies. The outsiders, traders, people whose voices dont really count. Let me tell you about one more disaffected. This is the widow house near red main battlefield in new jersey. It was bad for the battle and its still there, you can go visit. It was filled with quakers then passing this. Joe which all is the oldest son of the family and keeps a diary from 1775 to 1779. Right in the middle of the war. He makes an entry in that diary almost every single night. Now i have read that whole diary and let me tell you the most remarkable thing about his diary is how incredibly boring it is. 1775 to 1779. Its the battle of washington, the seize of, boston the declaration of independence, the occupation of pennsylvania. None of that is in his diary. Instead he writes about cows, about the house. And working on the school board and when his family came to visit. And who came to meetings and who did not come to meetings. And on and on. Its unfair to call that boring. If you are trying to understand the life of a quicker farmer at the time this is a rare treasure. It really is. But if you go there looking for an account of the revolutionary war in the political debates thats around. And you will be sorely disappointed. If you look very closely, you can find bits of the war. One soldier wears and was actually on his property. He wrote about it. If they confiscated his staff, he wrote about it. There was one time when he was almost arrested for not joining the militia, he wrote about that. He wrote a very little bit about one revolutionary battle because it happened in his front yard. But overall, this is the diary of a man who is interested in the revolution happening around him. Even when he writes about soldiers confiscated himself he almost always refers to them and soldiers. Its up to you figure to figure out of their british or continental soldiers. He does not say. You get the sense that he does not care. What he cares about is they were soldiers who took a stuff. So we have a family that is disinterested in the war. And they have an enormous battle fought on their front yard. On the fort mercer there along the delaware river. Fort mercer was built on the property of james hotel. You can see the widow house appear all right. There is the force. That used to be the orchard. They chopped down the orchard they did not ask permission, they did not ask for any money. October 22nd forces will assault the house with Something Like 1600 casualties. They will watch everything from their house, thats their house right there. According to family tradition. Joes mother is upstairs in the house when this is happening. She is working on her spinning wheels, she can look out the window and sees this battle going on. A rogue cannonball, shoots through the cable over her head goes around in the attic and then rolls down the attic stops and stops next to her which point she presumably says us and she picks up the spin and well and goes to the basement a house and continue spending for the rest of the battle. Interesting women. It when the battle is over. The little home becomes the space of broken bodies and blood its a hospital taken by the patriots. While they are there they do what they can to help the wounded on both sides, nursing them as they can. Years go by. We can ask, how does history, how does america remember them. Joes father tends to be remembered as a loyalist when he is remembered at all. Not because of anything he did but because he refused to join the war for independence and because he never quite forgave the patriots for taking the land and cutting down his orchard. Joes mother is now known as a heroine. In 1905 the daughters of the American Revolution named a chapter after her saying she established american independence. Because everybody has to be on one side or the other. This is how we tend to tell the story. There are the americans and there are the british. Over time, we make room for loyalists. Native americans, slaves, free blacks, women soldiers, but all too long that comes down to asking which side were they on. And we sometimes overlook the people in the middle. And these people are important. These are the people who could see the war as disturbing and tragic. Not as this glorious cause to be one, or this natural rebellion to be crushed. It was a disaster that had to be endured. There the people who could see the revolution as and we should not lose that perspective and i hope we dont. Thank you so much for listening to me. applause i think im allowed to take questions for a little bit. If you can find a microphone. Working on it. Since you chucked on the present day, for most of my life the most of disaffected president ial voters have been between 45 to 50 . Quite frankly i would love it if those 45 or sometimes a majority of them joined me. But i would also love it if they would just choose a side. One side or the other so that the rate of disaffected voters, which should be the greatest democracy in the world might be 5 or 10 instead of 40 or 45 . So given your view of disaffected voters, how do we is it important to get those people to make a decision . And if so how do we do that . Thats a good question. Im extremely hesitant to dabble any farther into modern politics so let me just say, i dont think we should go about it the way the patriots often did. Threatening people to vote one way or the other. But i will stop there, because the modernday is not my field. But the 2016 election is not unique. Its typical. I think that was super interesting. I have a question about the disaffected americans. So, there is a lot of them. Im assuming that the American Revolutionary were the ones proclaiming neutrality as the enemy as you first say that and they will wage war on them regardless of which side they choose but was there any kind of the grudging acknowledgment that these tribes were sovereign and that they had the right to proclaim neutrality . Was there any type of discourse about that going on . If there was, someone standing up saying that native american tribes had the right to be independent. Im not familiar with. That they were in many ways forced to be involved in one side or the other exhibit downstairs actually touches on this. As you can go in here the different perspectives from different people theyre saying can we be neutral or not. Can we be allied with our friends . Can we concerned about americans an ally with the british . So they certainly had an interesting in neutrality in not being killed. But they had an interest in boarders in most cases deciding that the British Empire offer them more safety, and more access to the land that they were on that the americans took. Thank you for the presentation. The question that i am going to pitch to you. Your most available answer might be to go out and buy the buck. But it is a small detail. How on earth did benjamin managed to dance on the head of a pin . Did he have ties to both camps . Ties to Joseph Galloway and perhaps joseph reid . You should absolutely by the book. laughs hes a fascinating figure. He gets away to the extent that he does. Gets away with it that is. Most of flood because they are afraid to be persecuted by the british. It turns out that the british were much slower to persecute people at that point then the patriots did. They really had to see you as a threat to pick on you in the long term. Town tried very hard not to be threatening. He made the complete reversal of loyalties very obvious. And to an extent, they needed him, they needed one Printing Press in the city because there were all of these will proclamations the needed to go out. So he was able to take advantage of that. The patriots of course are in a similar position when they come back to the city. Having an operating Printing Presses very helpful. He is accused of treason by the americans when they come back into the city. But he benefits from changes in the war that have happened between 1777 and 1778. Most notably saratoga and the french alliance. There is a different attitude when the patriots come back. This war, at least for this area, is one. The british will not come back to philadelphia they think. We are secure in ways we were not before. And they begin a process of being more and more tolerant of neutrals and disaffected after the occupation. So he is in danger of being tried for treason for a while. But eventually it just turns drops off the map. He does not have a successful Business Career as they move into the 17 eighties. While he is never arrested or imprisoned for what he has done, many of the people in philadelphia do not forget about it. Thank you so much. applause all right. Hello. So before i begin i want to thank again the museum for hosting us. All the other sponsors for helping put on this amazing conference. I want to start by looking at this picture. This is clifton. You may not recognize it because you have been seeing different depictions. But this engraving is created around 1830 and depicts the battle of germantown during the revolution which took place on the outskirts of british occupied philadelphia in october of 1777. Exactly 242 years ago. And during the battle, clifton became a liberal battlefield. British troops fortified themselves inside the mansion as American Forces descended upon the house in unsuccessful attempt to expose the british. Clifton now operates. To this day, the marks of the battles have been memorialized and its walls. Bleached bullet holes and damaged doors are integral parts of the tour. And every year, they reenact the battle of the ground where it was fought. In the experience of war a clifton, especially as depicted, is very much in line with how we typically think of battlefields and the American Revolution. You have soldiers standing in a Straight Line firing muskets. Theres an officer on horseback directing the men. The smoke in the house signifies fighting but there is little evidence of physical destruction in this engraving. Although there are a few soldiers limping from the scene in bodies in the distance, when overall it seems bloodless. It reinforces the idea that the war was about ideals and not a violent encounter. This is also depiction of clifton as a domestic space. When that is threatened by war and battle. And so this image is quintessential in how we might picture the home as a battlefield during the American Revolution. During the war, houses like clifton did indeed become battlefields in the traditional sense. The revolution brought violence and destruction to many homes and danger to their homes and property. And this violence was something new for urban inhabitants. Unlike settlers in the back country, voters were unaccustomed to the violence of warfare that was commonplace on the frontier. But American Homes also became battlefields in unexpected ways during the war. This was especially true in cities under british rule where British Occupation brought not only violence but also profound disruption of Traditional Authority in unexpected ways. As encountered british forces, not only in the battlefield but in their homes and streets. During the American Revolution, the british captured six cities. Boston, new york, Newport Rhode island, philadelphia, charleston, and savannah. With the exception of savannah, the other five cities were the largest port cities in colonial america. There are important similarities that run through the cities and speak to British Occupation. Then counter british in their homes and experience the violence of war through domestic concerns. It provides an opportunity to observe our dynamics in American Households. Some men enlisted in the Continental Army or served in militias. Others were prisoners of war. Others fled for safety before the arrival of the british army, trusting their wives to protect family property and their husbands. And so cities under British Military rule, civilians not only had to negotiate with the occupied forces but also had to renegotiate their relationships with one another. My book examines this British Occupation through the lens of the urban household. I look at things like family letters, military diaries, petitions, 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 space were really intertwined with this broader experience of war during the revolution. To do this, i analyze the household as a side of conflict, not only between filters and civilians, but between civilians themselves. The various races, genders and states of freedom. Some of these contests of course proceed the war. But i found the experience of occupation exacerbates these conflicts and enhances the states of these power struggles within wartime households. Occupation was not, as it is typically portrayed in military history, a positive war. It was rather a relocation in war. A relocation that had drastic consequences for women, families, their households and so i want to suggest that we reconceptualize the home front as a battle front. One where primarily female civilians encountered were not in the abstract, but on their doorsteps and in their living rooms. In the form of armies conquering their cities, british officers residing in their houses and a total disruption of their household in the world they inhabited. These previously over looked wartime encounters had widespread and deeply personal ramifications for American Households. Perhaps the best way to illustrate these dynamics is to turn to the households themselves. I would like to share four examples with you today to trace how households functioned as areas of conte stay station. An apothecary and a british officer, between enslaved women in slave holders in charleston and between two sets of husbands and wives in philadelphia. I will conclude by considering how americans reimagined these contested domestic spaces in the post war years. Alongside shifting cultural ideas about the private household. And so taken as a whole, this will demonstrate how fully occupation disrupted domestic power hierarchies and suggest that these wartime struggles contributed to a new understanding of the home and its role in american life. All right, at its broadest level, occupation disrupts urban environments routines. The sheer number of soldiers, camp followers, refugees, Livestock Associated with the british army. Not to mention civilian inhabitants. It really taxes the resources of the urban areas and surrounding regions. Civilians require passes to leave the city. Within it, they are forced to adhere to curfews. Soldiers crowded the streets, troops routinely hung around in public spaces. Men were encamped through the city intents and barracks. They confiscated stores, churches, schools. Drunken and rowdy soldiers were a constant presence. And for females citizens of all social classes, traversing city streets suddenly took on new and immediate dangers. And yet, interior spaces were not safe refuge is either. Inhabitants were often victims of robbery or plunder. They frequently confronted officers requisitioning provisions. Anything made of wood with susceptible to being torn down to be used pretending. So occupation brought the war into the home of american civilians. And in so doing, it presented a fundamental challenge to the basic premise that governed daily life and revolutionary america. That men would rule over the household and all who inhabited them. So conflicts often emerge in instances between british officers and american civilian men when both are trying to claim the same domestic space. This happens in the case of an apothecary joseph 20 and john campbell, a bridge officer of the corps of engineers. An issue was raised over his sleeve. Campbell playfully threatened to throw the boy into the water. This offers presumptions about racial bodies and the things white man could do. The captain would regularly amuse themselves in this way, threatening to drown a child. It shows the dynamics operating within residential newport. Captain campbell insisted the tweeds attentions were much more malicious and that he had been trying to drown or injure the child. Captain campbell interpreted this as a personal attack. And so he began beating tweeting and threatened to send him away. Sweetie recalled the throughout this incident, he repeatedly required satisfaction as a gentlemen but captain campbell refused to duel. Simply silencing him and ignoring his requests. This was a power struggle between these two men with enslaved person caught in the middle. Although he insisted that the two men were on intimate footing. He was frustrated by their quarterly arrangements. He felt frustrated and disempowered within his own home. Tweedy complained that in the wake of his brothers death, captain campbell has shown little sympathy. He invited company over to the house and played music and ignored tweedy when he saw him in the entryway. Campbell conversely, denied that the men were friendly. He implied that he felt no obligation to offer comfort in the circumstances. Campbell also, significantly, defended his behavior by insisting that he had entertained company and played music in his quote own quarters. And so parsing the statements, there is a sense and glimpse of how met each man interpret date their claim to the shared domestic space. As the head of household, tweedy expected captain campbell to adhere to certain standards of behavior that aligned with the needs of the family. And for this reason, tweedy framing of this relationship is significant in presenting its friendship rather than a forced occupation. It is an Implicit Association of equality between the apothecary and the british officer. It also enables tweedy to maintain this illusion of power over his household even though in reality he is quite powerless to control anything captain campbell does. Campbell, on the other hand, were certainly aware that he inhabited tweedy house. He was an oblivious to the families loss. And yet his disregard for the circumstances and his insistence that he could do as he wish in his own quarters suggests that campbell saw his room as his own private space, fully under his control and separate from the rest of the family. Moreover, in his refusal to acknowledge tweedys demands for a satisfaction, campbell suggested that he did not see these diminish social equals. Only gentleman could do each other. So campbell sees his elevated class puts him above the rest of the household. That he is not suggested to tweedys Domestic Authority. It implicitly reinforces notions that british officers can disregard american mans Patriarchal Authority. A position that the british courtmartial will reinforce by finding campbells favorite. Given this context, tweedys treatment of the enslaved boy brings into sharper focus the Power Dynamics of this household. His actions represent not only a rebuke to captain campbell, but it is also an assertion between his own Domestic Authority. The boys presence in his house gave him right to threaten the boy entry him with such familiar familiarity as if it was his own servant. As if he were his own servant and by enacting this display on a dependent member of campbells household, tweedys targeted retaliation flips the power dynamic to the original dispute. Now it is tweedy who feels entitled to defy another mans authority by acting as he please within his own space. This incident indicates in many instances, british challenges to american mens Patriarchal Authority were commonplace. They were enacted in daily exchanges and personal sites, rather than a formalized strategy. This is a striking difference from the british armys approach in charleston where the army happens to subvert patriarchal norms as a strategy of governance. In charleston, their ability to govern their property and families and enslaved labors became contingent upon allegiance to the british crown. If men endorsed the crowds level authority, they regained their status and property. If not, they were made prisoners, denied the rights of british subjects, their property sequestered, their families evicted and their enslaved laborers put to work on confiscated plantations raising crops for the british army. The patriarchal norms were not only embedded in property, they were also enshrined within charleston gendered practices. British attempts to subvert these norms will directly and indirectly ruffle the fabric of these cities social result relations. As the army curtailed the power of patriots lay boulders and denied access to their houses, and slaved laborers interest and seized upon the Power Dynamics disruption to realign power relations within these households and transform the spaces within. In january of 1782, three people three women who are most likely formerly insulate refugees organized a ball in charleston for quote, officers of the army and the male slaves only. In this event reveals how british policies and enslaved womens own actions worked in tandem. Ill be it for different reasons. But to challenge white mans mastery with unoccupied charleston. The ball was held at 99 meeting street, a very capital house. British officers dressed the women up in taste with the richest silks. Powdered up in the most pompous manner. The women arrived in the ball and carriages escorted by british officers. Festivities lasted until four in the morning. This ball was not entirely unprecedented. Charleston has a long history of interracial relations including dances. But this january 1782 ball boldly moves such interactions into the predominantly white rooms were enslaved black women may previously have been present as servers or slivers but not as bloggers or hostesses. In addition to the cities precedents, this ball is also reminiscent of afro caribbean traditions which merge creole african carnival traditions with the christmas holiday. The celebration varied among plantations. It was a festive and version of the plantation hierarchy. Contemporary accounts describe enslaved people dancing through the streets and tired in masks and lavish dress. Accompanied by the white faced character of john canoe. After 1790, this tradition evolved to include fencing entertainment in which slave owners dressed African Women in european costumes. The dance was quote a caricature of a vein fine lady. Girls prancing on the balls of their feet and swinging their hips provocatively. And so the january 1782 ball in 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 traditions on charlestons ball. A sign not only of British Military presence in the caribbean throughout the american war, but also charlestons caribbean connections. And significantly, the charleston ball reinforces the importance of military balls and sociability as sites of gendered power during the American Revolution. The facts that such balls often took place within civilian homes, further underscores how social events subverted domestic spaces and challenged household hierarchies and white mans Domestic Authority over those spaces. There are fascinating parallels between this charleston ball in the. Held here in philadelphia in the outskirts of the city to celebrate the retirement of british general how. They watched british officers dressed as nights just for their affection. Womens presence at the ball validated british honor and sacrifice in the war thus symbolically placing american women as the center of this military conflict between american and british men. And similarly, a charlestons ball, british officers challenged the authority american men through their interactions with civilian women. From a legal standpoint, carolina slave owners owned enslaved womens bodies including the uses of their labors and sexuality. So british officer socialization with those women undercut these ranks and usurped american mans prerogative to be the sole master and beneficiary of their enslaved company. They did so within the very homes that epitomized this authority. So they control the enslaved womens bodies became a metaphor for the broader military conflict and revealed the realty of british officers and patriot mens people authority. Three weeks after this event, writing from continental headquarters outside of charleston, daniel stevens, a lieutenant in the charleston artillery, condemned the ball and british officers interactions with our female slaves quote. Omitting any mention of the citys precedence, stevenson proclaimed a general white male ownership of enslaved womens bodies and denounced the ball as an example of british barbarity. Notably, in his denunciations, stevens erased male slaveowners from the narrative of that event. Whether because of their actual absence in the occupied city. Perhaps in unwillingness to concede the diminishment of their power. He focused instead on charlestons women asserting quote, many of these wretches were taken out of houses before their mistresses faces. Not only in front two female slaveowners who british officers overlooked in favor of their slaves. Stephens framing also significantly however overlooks enslaved womens own agency in this event. Enslaved womens departure for the ball up ended power relations within lead by households. What women stayed at home while enslaved women departed for a ball on the arms of gentlemen. This fundamentally. In appropriating the spaces for their own entertainment, insulated women tonight white slave holders charlestons exclusive right to these houses as places of leisure. Thus in framing the event as an indictment of british officers, stevens applied that it was they, not enslaved women, who had challenged white mans authority. Who had the audacity to subvert domestic spaces for their own news. So stevens account for this ball reveals just how layered and complex the battle over domestic spaces were in the cities. And yet, amidst these conflicts and slate women also created spaces for themselves. By socializing with british officers and charlestons elite homes, enslaved women rejected slaveowners exclusive right to their bodies and challenged the cities racial hierarchies. Even so, because womens actions were inextricably linked to the british army and the broader military conflict, contemporaries could easily minimize the dangers ramifications of this event. They implied that such threats would vanish once the british army left. And this is an important inside because it exposes how contest over domestic power were at their core fundamentally racialized engendered. In cities under military rule where the British Military ruled within the domestic environment and small and meaningful ways, we see middling white women asserted their power and their homes. Surprisingly, british officers respected their ability to do so. These exchanges really bring into sharp relief how differently british officers regarded white womens Domestic Authority and demonstrate the gender dynamics of occupation and how they manifest themselves in relationships between husbands and wives. This brings us back to elizabeth and henry drinker. You can see downstairs a recreation of their household and some of their furniture that they would have had. We should go check it out if you have not seen it yet. The experience of the drinker friendly provides another example of these Household Dynamics and suggests how differently husbands and wives thought about the home and responded to the challenges of occupation. Life and occupied philadelphia as you heard has been difficult for elizabeth drinker. Her husband wasnt exile. Each day brought the challenges of running a household in wartime. On multiple occasions, british officers arrived at her door requisitioning blankets and other provisions. Soldiers in search of firewood had tried to tear down the shed and one of the rental properties. They settled for the fence after a Quick Intervention from her sister. The house was alarmingly in november of 1777, one of the domestic servants runoff for the british officer. The incident ended with elizabeth and her five children locking themselves away in the parlor while the man drunkenly ran through the house swinging his sword and swearing and knocking on the parlor door insisting that the family let him into drink a glass of one. Eventually, male neighbors convinced this man to leave. When the family emerged from the parlor, kelly was gone with a man. So all of this must have been on elizabeth drinkers mind when she confided in her diary, i often feel afraid to go to bed. Later that month, elizabeth drinker returned to quarter a british officer in her house. This decision was a practical one despite the destruction of the previous weeks, she was not seeking protection. She went to Great Lengths to avoid having officers in her house in the previous months. But reading the science in the occupant city and realizing that quartering was probably inevitable, elizabeth chose to reason. She thought it better to choose an officer than havent forced upon her. Significantly, elizabeth drinker interviewed the officer four times before accepting accepting him as a lodger. In these meetings, you negotiated the terms of the quartering. She made clear our expectations for his behavior while he resided on her roof. In agreeing to these terms, the officer consisted took up residence in the household in late december of 1777. Three hessian men also accompanied the officer. Although they did not live in the house, they were often in the kitchen awaiting his orders. By their very presence, these men altered the households. They made it more permeable. Servants, orderlies, officers, constantly rotated in and out of the home carrying goods and messages back and forth through headquarters. The british officer for his part slowly spread through the household eventually taking over to parlors, an upstairs room, the stable and as well as having shared access to the kitchen. But he mostly adhered to elizabeth rules. He amended his late hours at her request. He refrain from swearing and gambling in the home. He limited his business and entertaining to his private rooms. In fact, in february 1778, captain john peoples of the 42nd regiment recorded dining with him at the household. Elizabeth noted in her diary that the group broke up in good time. He was less satisfied with the evening observing that it was a showy dinner with not much drink. He also recorded notably that after dinner, the men departed to play with. Evidently, he also upheld the rules against gambling. He also respected the boundaries elizabeth created within her household structuring a dinner to minimize the vices and noises that she heard. So the drinker family and the officer settled into a routine. They kept their supplies separate. In order to avoid confusion and crowding in the kitchen, the british officer prepared his meals after the drinker family finished theirs. Elizabeth exiled husband henry however, was far less comfortable with this arrangement. Upon learning of the british officers quarter in, he wrote to elizabeth demanding to know quote, who is it they could be urged to be received into my house . How many intruders are there . What parted of the house to the occupied . They demand food etc . As the occupation progressed, henry continue to worry about the british officers presence in his home. Elizabeth took measures to combat her husbands fears. She characterized her interactions as professional and she avoided him when possible. But she admitted quote, now and then he drinks a touch of tea with us. He behaves like a gentleman and is not easily void. And yet the diary shows us other things. Her frustration about his late hours are absent in her letters to her husband. The leaders also minimize the frequency of their social interactions. From her diary, it is clear they are regularly share coffee or tea, almost on a daily basis. The british officer participated in social gatherings with her friends. In march 1778 after an evening of socializing, he not only became a valued acquaintance but also a surrogate male protector for the quicker women whose husbands had been exiled to the city. So the british soldier slowly integrated into the life and social circles. That was the case in many occupied cities. Women dined, socialized and drink tea and even smoked pipes with the british officers ordered in their houses. The physical physical and special proximity of home transformed british officers presence from that of an intruder to that of a neighbor. These changing relationships are evident in the possessive language women used in their letters and diaries. Often referring to our major or our officer. Taken as a whole, elizabeth drinkers apparent lack of qualms about correcting his behavior suggests that there is an intimacy to the relationship. The frequency of their social interactions suggest she may not mind this as much as she told her husband. So elizabeth drinkers portrayal of her household not only shows us the daily routines of the household but the contestation of authority. Like henry drinker, many men worried about british officers presence in their households. The letters of american men revealed anxiety that they would be displaced from their home by another man. ,. Skeptical of the character of the renter, he expressed his concern that the arrangement would endanger the house. Warning sarah quote, the person who takes it will have command of the front door. Expose the entire house will to great danger. Unwilling to subject his wife and Young Children to the mercy of an unknown potentially violent stranger, he tried to protect them from afar by insisting on their isolation. No amount of financial strain was worth the danger of allowing another man to occupy his base. Either literally or figuratively. These worries came most explicit in his last argument. Instructed sarah, not to change the lay out of his office nor even to handle his papers because to do so quote, would in all probability do me more injury than double the rented that could be had for it. If they were to be disturbed, it would take me a month of my time to get them in a state where i could readily find any paper that could be called for. These reasons with others induce me to wish that he may not be occupy it. So his papers in essence are staking his claim within the household. His insistence to his wife not touch them perhaps reveals a lurking fear that another mans presence in the house might erase his own. And mens attempts to them to dominate domestic life from afar, these worries expressed a worry for their safety of the household, but also their worries about their views of themselves as providers and protectors. Absent men worried that they were unable to fulfill their duties as fathers and husbands. They worried that their children would forget them. Billeted officers compounded these in securities. They represented a incursion of the British State into the most intimate domains. It underscored americans powerlessness. Abigail adams best articulated this articulation between masculine presence in the home and authority as a british Army Advanced in philadelphia. She declared if men will not fight and defend their own particular spot, if they will not drive the enemy from their doors, they deserve the slavery and subjects in which awaits them. This notion became increasingly pervasive in the post war years. As the idea of the private home came to epitomize american independence. After eight long years of war, property confiscation, disrupted households, billeted soldiers, american men reclaimed their homes. Declaring that households would never again face the disruption and incursions of the war years. George washingtons lauded return to mount vernon, the americans retiring to sit under his own vine and victory, embodied the sentiment. Domestic tranquility was washingtons just reward for his sacrifice for the nation. An emerging cultural discourse is in the early republic linked the private household to civic virtue that undergirded the fledgling fledgling nation. The home was the repository for republican virtue. It foster moral citizenry and fortified both the nation and individual citizens against tyranny and oppression. In many ways, in the post war years the private home became entwined with the idea of the nation itself. The late 18th and 19th centuries or early 19th rather, in art and literature and newspapers and correspondents and other forms of discourse, americans reinforced and reproduced this vision of the American Home by transposed and domestic ideals backwards onto the war years. These portrayals erased the revolutionary potential of the war by overriding the ways in which white women and enslaved people negotiated, claimed and remade domestic spaces during the conflict. Instead, post war reimaginings memorialized white women as the vulnerable icons of domestic virtue. Virtues that were threatened by tyrannical, cruel, lascivious british soldiers. So this painting painted around 1811, portrays the British Occupation of charleston, a woman who agreed to the burning of her house. She actually provided the arrows that they used to set the house ablaze. You can see the painting is entitled, she is directing them to burn the house. But her pose itself suggests shes actually sitting in on a pedestal instead of her home. She looks more like a saint preparing for martyrdom as opposed to a woman preparing for battle. These transformations resorted racial and gender iraqis within the household and reinforced emergent notions of domestic privacy by illustrating the vulnerability of american virtue and the need to fortify it against future invasion. This phenomenon is evident in the recollections of South Carolina patriot daniel wallace, recording his memories for a novelist friend, wallace described an incident in which South Carolina patriots led in attack on his loyalist sisters house. He inadvertently killed her. Wallace encouraged his friend to use this incident in the forthcoming novel, yet he also proposed a minor alteration. Quote, as fiction will in mid some liberties to be taken with the truth, you can place her on the weak side. Give her a fictitious name and maker the heroin of the tail. Let her death be. Wallace his suggestion suggest how literary portrayals provided spaces for americans to reshape wartime conflicts in the way that flattered the patron cause and the new nation. It would be a patriot home invaded, a patriot woman killed on her own doorstep. She would be a martyr to liberty. An illustration of the principles for which the war had been fought and won. No longer would invading armies attack American Homes. No longer would defenseless women be forced to quarter soldiers or face war within domestic rounds. While isis reimagining of this tragic incident is suggestive of how novels and other cultural discourses served as tools to reinforce and reproduce ideas about the sanctity of the private American Home. And so with this in mind, i want to return to this image of clifton and think about it within this context. Its a 19th century depiction of the battle of germantown and does indeed gesture the new levels of violence and destruction that many many urban dwellers encountered in their house halls during the war. And like many other depictions of 19th century wartime homes, this image of clifton evokes at once the violence of war and the vulnerability of American Households. It is occupied by british soldiers, surrounded by armed men. The house is partially obscured by smoke. Shots explode around the house and horses flee the scene. The smoke draws the viewers eye to the house, underscoring its precariousness though notably there is no visual signs of damage. A handful of soldiers approach the door but most of the men are tucked away in the shadows. The edges of the image, encroaching darkness that threatens to overtake and engulf clifton. And despite its valued subject, the images also surprisingly peaceful. Soldiers are dwarfed by the mansion and the grandeur of the estate. The light makes the myth the house a focal point of the image and the battle seems to be imposing on an otherwise idyllic and tranquil setting. With the benefit of hindsight, we know that although the americans lost in germantown they won the war. They quite literally reclaimed clifton from the enemies clutches. They bring this victory back into the image and it becomes a visual assertion of both the steadfastness and fragility of the American Household. This reimagining of the battle is trying to simultaneously portrayed with the violence of war and the tranquility of domestic space reveals the tensions then emerge within the in congress and conflicting discourses of wartime invasion and private domesticity. But we will shape how americans then and now attempt to make sense of the revolution and its ignorance. In the early eight 20th century, it was famously declared that to fundamental questions underlay politics. Home rule and who should rule at home. The American Revolution as was astutely noted, was not only about political separation or the nature of authority. Yet this declaration replicates the 19th century idealization of domestic space suggesting that the revolutionary household was separate from the political and military conflict. However, this was not the case. Unoccupied cities, the home itself became a battleground and for american families, occupation was profoundly disruptive and disconcerting precisely because of how it contested power hierarchies within home. To fully understand the revolution and its consequences, we must amend that statement into the third home. The actual American Household as a gendered, racial and deeply contested space. Thank you. applause i will be happy to take some questions. Laura, i might just exercise my prerogative as the person who introduced this top. I would love to know if you could see one thing yet brought to life that told the story of a gendered, racialized, complicated city of philadelphia and 1777. What is the sort of moment of street theater or a vocation that you would choose . That is a good question. I think a lot of ways, not having had the opportunity to see occupied philadelphia exhibit and building off ofs presentation. The drinkers would represent the chaos of these occupied cities. The contested nature of these households, the gender dynamics, even the drinkers themselves have a domestic servant within the household. A woman by the name of jane boone who ends up marrying one of the hessian officers who serves under the british officer. So it pulls together a lot of these different threads running through the thousand household. Theres a question of here. Thank you that was fantastic. I have a question about generations. The role of youth and maturity in this. When i was reading about mothers, sending their sons out to india. Some of them are really quite young. They could be 15 or 16. I was going to ask in terms of the Power Dynamics. Someone like the british officer, hes a major, hes mature and has material wealth as well. Younger officers will have both a lack of mail maturity and will 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 in securities that can be imposed are in a sense mitigated when the british officer is a 14 or 15 year old who in essence needs to be muttered. That is a great question. It certainly plays into this. There is not, i wish there were more documents detailing what is going on within these occupied houses. For example, sarah Logan Fischer has an officer in her house and mentions that he is quite young. She does talk about having dinner with him and talking about his family beckoning gland. It seems to be getting at some of these generational differences that you are suggesting. I think one of the bigger issues icy playing out has more to do with class than age. A lot of the socializations seems to take place across social classes. We see middling and elite families are quarter and british officers. Enlisted men are living in the barracks. And often, if we see violence happening against women, it tends to be poor women, and slave women who are out in the streets running errands. So some of that does seem to be the case for philadelphia. The class tribalism relationships more than age. Last november i spoke to the American Revolution roundtable in richmond. During the two in a period, a gentleman got up and ask me if i am never heard about white women who refused to dance with british officers and forced insulate women to do so. I said very politely i had never heard of that. I dont know where youve got this from but i was amazed to find that there is a factual basis for that story but it is interesting, whatever retelling this person had access to, how the whole dynamic is changed. The british are being snubbed and forcing enslaved people to dance with them. That actually it comes from this one letter. He himself is a patriot and that is very much his interpretation. It was the british doing this and even the ribs he uses suggest it is women being acted upon. Once you start pulling back the layers and looking at what is actually happening in the cities, we will never know for sure and whether these women were voluntary participants or were not. If they were forced to some degree or if it is just circumstances and the best way to survive. We wont know for sure. But what we can tell by this story is the way this was portrayed and the way american men felt threatened and the anxiety within their households. In the back. Lauren, thank you very much for this wonderful talk. I have to confess when i was writing my keynote for last night, i had read lawrence wonderful article in the quarterly and one of the things that struck me, particularly as i as i was pulling the images from my own point was the story of the carlile commission in the irish volunteers. The question i have is, on one hand the british are playing a very familiar game. Occupying powers often seek to unmanned their opponents. That is one of the things, it is an old military strategy, but i am wondering do you see efforts on the part of the british, particularly given that their claim that they are trying to restore civil government which they think of input paternalistic terms. Do you see efforts by the british to mitigate the effects of occupation on the integrity, if you will, of the paternalistic household . You could certainly see why they would drive it the other way. That is sort of the waging war part. Are they siri if they are serious about restoring Civil Society as they understand it, you would actually expect to find them trying to mitigate the effects of this as well. Yes. That is a great question. In some ways they offer, they put out loyalty oaths. If you want to come swear allegiance to the british crown, you get back your property and you can do whatever you want in the city. That is one way i think we see it happening. There is also a lot of instances where british officers, talk about the need to protect women and children. They frame it as american men who have done a disservice to their families by exposing them to the hardships. If they had not waged the war, women would not be in this precarious position. They almost frame themselves as saviors coming to restore order. It is certainly there but it is an interesting contention at the heart of it all. I think there was one up front. I am looking at the other side of the coin. What was the fate of loyalist women when the british left philadelphia . That is a great question. There is a scholar who has actually done a lot of work on loyalist women. There is a lot of backlash against them within the city. At least initially. So there are some women, shes left to fend for herself. Shes basically ostracized and theres also an incident that has been well documented were americans regained the control of the city. To celebrate the 4th of july, they prayed and dress up a woman and prayed her through the streets. There is a sense that there is a backlash for women who can sorted with the enemy. They are attempting to push back and discipline it. But what ends up happening as the American Army is in philadelphia, the french show up. Theres just not that many women in the city and so they end up saying we will not socialize with these loyalist women and end up inviting them to balls. In watsons history, he claims that everyone kind of forgot the tensions that were there. Thank you. applause some american residents fought alongside the british during the revolutionary war. Next, museum of the American Revolution associate curator matthew skic looks at the revolution through the life of irish soldier Richardson George who joined the british side. The museum, the print skirt Military Museum and the Richard Steven has foundation cohost of