What Every Woman Should Know About Mercy Otis Warren, The Mother of American History
March 2, 2009
by Anna Belle
What Every Woman Should Know is a bi-weekly series on American Women’s History. Since March is Women’s History Month, I’ll be offering an article every Monday of this month.
Mercy Otis Warren (1728-1814)
The United States of America has been a nation of burgeoning rights from our inception. The Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution were radical and subversive documents at the time they were produced, but they quickly came to form two of three pillars upon which all our subsequent progress is based. The third, I submit, was the very first history of America ever penned, which set our story in stone and started a trajectory of inclusion that continues to this day. That history was written by Mercy Otis Warren (1728-1814), known to many as “The Conscience of the American Revolution.” Yes, you read that right: the very first history of our great nation, which informed several generations of school children of our beginning, was authored by a woman.
What makes this particular story so compelling is that Warren’s History was unique because no other country’s first recorded history was written by a woman. Moreover, her history is unique for its inclusion of a full range of characters of different sexes and races who played roles in the Revolution, which I believe set the tone for people other than that small class of white male property owners (to which human rights had been granted by the Constitution) to pursue their own rights. While we’re taught in school that it was our white male founders who wrought our progressive trajectory through time, America may have been as progressive as it was precisely because it was a woman who penned our first history.
Warren’s 3-volume History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution (1805) remains the quintessential record of those events because it is a scholarly firsthand account written from notes kept at the time. A prolific writer, Mercy Otis Warren was also a poet and playwright, and corresponded with most of the major players from the American Revolution and our subsequent founding. She was good friends with George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John and Abigail Adams, among others. Her dramas were subversive and are generally thought to have contributed to the political tone at the time. This would jibe with our understanding of culture today. For example, I tell my literature students on the first day of class that literature is the television of the ages. Just as we are shaped by what we see and read in the multi-media of our times, so the people living in the colonies would have been affected by her dramas, such as The Sack of Rome, or The Adulateur.
Her History is a vivid tale of the events leading up to and including the Revolutionary War, documenting the Stamp Act, the Boston Tea Party, various battles, and the evacuation of Philadelphia, as well as offering commentary on the actions of the British Parliament and the King during this time. But also in her History are found records of the incredible women who contributed to the war effort, many of whom saw direct combat. Among them are Molly Pitcher, who worked to supply the front and took over her own husband’s gun when he fell; Deborah Sampson, who passed as a man in the army for three long years and later was granted a pension; and Margaret Corbin, who was the first woman to “man” a gun, which she did when her husband fell, and who was also later awarded a pension. Finally, her History is racially diverse as well, and includes the story of Crispus Attucks, a former slave of African and American Indian descent who was the first man killed during the Boston Massacre of 1770. His death and the massacre played an important role in fomenting outrage in the Massachusetts colony against the British.
Statue of Mercy Otis Warren located in Cape Cod, MA
Given this radical content, is it any surprise that for more than two hundred years after our founding fathers declared their intent to set up a nation and award themselves human rights, one group after another would seek to establish those rights for themselves? That exactly describes what happened during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Driven by a number of other forces that we’ll explore throughout this series, African Americans and women began to pursue those rights for themselves. Today, gay and lesbian citizens, among other groups, continue to fight to secure rights for themselves. We think nothing now of universal human rights; they are considered the norm in our culture.
Precious little memory of the way these fractured groups had to fight for scraps remains in our collective consciousness, but there is an intuitive understanding that endures. It’s what causes us to tear up as we hear the national anthem — we know that the beginning was just that, and that we’re all better off today for what these brave men and women contributed and sacrificed. Part of why that happened surely must be because these groups finally had examples enshrined in culture via Warren’s History. That’s also largely the point of this series: that women have those examples to be inspired by, and all that work to draw upon.
Women have been there from the very beginning, participating and shaping our nation alongside the great men we read about in history books. That Mercy Otis Warren’s History got buried until recently is a great tragedy as well as irony, one that we are attempting to correct here today. As you move about your lives over the next week, think about taking an informal poll to see how many people you know who’ve heard of Mercy Otis Warren — and take a moment to teach those who haven’t heard yet about her.
Sources:
- Mercy Otis Warren’s History Exhibit Online
- Richard Seltzer’s Mercy Otis Warren Page
- Amazing Women in War and Peace
- The Story of Molly Pitcher
- Crispus Attuck and the Boston Massacre
Resources:
I have always loved reading anything historical. I’m so happy that you continue to write this series. You are right—–we need these examples for inspiration. Thanks Anna Belle for another amazing story from our past!!!!
Anna Belle,
You wrote, “Given this radical content, is it any surprise that for more than two hundred years after our founding fathers declared their intent to set up a nation and award themselves human rights, one group after another would seek to establish those rights for themselves? That exactly describes what happened during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Driven by a number of other forces that we’ll explore throughout this series, African Americans and women began to pursue those rights for themselves. Today, gay and lesbian citizens, among other groups, continue to fight to secure rights for themselves. We think nothing now of universal human rights; they are considered the norm in our culture.”
This sounds like any establishment of rights that meant anything, those “universal human rights that are considered the norm in our culture” were fought for and granted by the early 20th centuries; and that “gay and lesbian citizens, among other groups” are less-important come-latelies. Civil rights movements for blacks and the “second wave” of womens rights were both late twentieth century. Universal human rights are not considered the norm in our culture; I don’t have access to the rights or responsibilities of married straight people (including immigration status, hospital visits, inheritance, joint tax filing, etc.); I can be fired and refused public accommodation (that would include housing, being waited on in a restaurant, or getting a seat on the bus) because of who I share my life with (or even if I’m SUSPECTED of being a lesbian). I don’t want special rights, I want to have the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else.
Glad you enjoyed it, Cynthia!
Digger, I wasn’t seeking to portray gay and lesbian citizens as “less-important come latelies;” I was seeking to make a point about the progression of rights and inclusion in America, and an analogy between the struggle for women’s and AA civil rights and the pursuit of gay/lesbian civil rights.
Look, I’m sorry you’re persecuted, but I am not the one doing the persecuting. I want equal rights for all, and I have worked on the social justice issue of gays rights. The ideal of human rights is the norm in our culture, even if we haven’t quite realized it fully yet. Your status as a gay/lesbian is analogous to what these other groups went through. But if you and other gays/lesbians would rather I not make those analogies or try to be that inclusive, which I thought might boost your cause in the public sector, I will stop with this post and let you handle it how you will. I am but a lowly breeder, after all.
By the way, I never once, nor would I ever use the term “special rights.” And I did not imply it either.
Anna Belle and Digger,
I didn’t in any way perceive what Anna Belle wrote as belittling to the gay and lesbian community.
That being said, I do recall another thread (I forget which one) where the topic of gay and lesbian rights were brought up in the context of what The New Agenda is striving for and what the group’s goals are. The question was brought up about gay rights and if the New Agenda should address these issues. Some suggested, well yeah! Lesbians are women, too! And some disagreed and were a little upset with the gay community because it was perceived that they did not take women’s issues seriously during the election. I think the term “thrown under the bus” could have been used and perhaps even “special rights”. I believe one commenter suggested that gay marriage was not a very big issue compared to (heterosexual) women’s issues.
Perhaps this is a discussion we can revisit. Because if Digger did read this other thread I can see why she is upset. I don’t think she is considering any of us heteros here to be “lowly breeders”. Instead she might have some grievances that were misplaced in this thread but legitimate nonetheless.
Aaah, thanks for that Ali. I didn’t see that thread. As for me, I have no problem integrating gay rights.
I was bothered by the criticism s/he (Digger) offered, mostly because the tone was confrontational and accusing, and I don’t believe that belongs here in this celebration of women’s history. If it’s carry-over, I understand better.
Anna Belle,
I never referred to you as a “lowly breeder” nor did I attack you for being straight/not gay/whatever. Which, ignores the fact that gays and lesbians are actually capable of “breeding”; we don’t turn in our reproductive bits when we get our Gay Agenda membership.
You wrote in your original post that “We think nothing now of universal human rights; they are considered the norm in our culture”
That is not the same as saying, as you did in your response, that “The ideal of human rights is the norm in our culture, even if we haven’t quite realized it fully yet.”
I responded because your article read as though all important advances in equal rights happened before the mid-20th century, with gays and lesbians and other groups being “oh yeah, and them too, now.” My example of how I don’t have the same civil rights as everyone else was NOT to scream “oh no, poor persecuted me” but to give an example of how universal rights is NOT the norm. Are there other examples? Yes; I picked this particular one because its a particular shit-end-of-the-stick that I’m familiar with. I also never accused you, personally, of persecuting me.
I pointed out simply that I don’t want special rights, I want the same rights, because, frankly, there are a lot of people who simply are unaware that gays and lesbians do not have the same rights as other citizens.
I don’t know your background; I can’t read your mind. I can only go by what you write. That’s what I responded to. I didn’t call you a breeder, I never accused you of persecuting me, I never suggested that only gay and lesbian people had anything valid to contribute to gay/lesbian rights issues. That you read all that into what I said has nothing to do with how I feel on the subject. I also speak only for myself, and not for any community.
Digger,
You also read a lot into my statement, but I guess that’s okay, huh? You came in here, guns blazing, insinuating all sorts of stuff you couldn’t possibly know, but I’m the one who needs to stop reading into your words? I don’t think so. Thanks for ruining an otherwise nice thread. Now no one even wanst to comment becausre the conversation is so nasty. Thanks, thanks a lot. I worked on this thesis for two months, ftr.
I’m out for the night. I don’t want to pursue this further. Goodnight.
Anna Belle,
Actually, if you re-read what I wrote, I read your statement, and commented on what you wrote. I disagreed with what you wrote and gave an example.
The first part of your original response clarified what you meant.
I didn’t call you names, I didn’t scream you were persecuting me, I never waved you off GLBT issues. And I will continue to post my opinions and comments here until such time as a moderator chooses to revoke that privilege. Suggesting I’m a meanie and may even be a man isn’t going to keep me from posting.
***
Ali,
I appreciate you didn’t read it that way; as Anna Belle pointed out, that wasn’t her intention.
I did read the post you referred to, though didn’t follow up on the commentary. I do think that gay marriage, like abortion, is just one of those issues that, if we want to work together in a non-partisan way for women’s rights, will need to be left to other discussions and other lobbies and other groups.
Anna Belle, I appreciate the post! Getting us back on track, I have a question: You say the History got buried until recently. What happened recently?
Digger,
First of all, I never implied you where man, and I have no idea where you got that. I used the “s/he” pronoun because I do not know you or your sex.
Now that I am not commenting on the fly, I can address your issues with some thought.
You came in and started charging that I was belittleing the gay and lesbian experience in terms of the pursuit of rights. My exposition here clearly states that the pursuit of such rights has been a progression, and it has. You refer to two waved for both AAs and women and you are correct. This particular article is about Mercy Otis Warren and the beginning of those first waves. If you can point to a colonialist who was standing and loudly pursuing gay rights circa 1778, I’ll stand corrected and will right an essay about him or her.
But for you to come in here and bitch because I wasn’t phrasing gay and lesbian history the way you wanted me to is beyond the pale. It’s utterly inapproriate in a discussion like this, because this post is about the history of women. It’s a celebration of how one woman, by using her skills as a woman, created a space for many other groups to eventually imagine a way for themselves out of the opressive quagmire that is and has been our world for much of history. If that offends you, well, there’s not much I’d do about that since you weren’t even remotely polite in your criticism, which is why you got the response you did.
In the future, if you have an issue with something I’ve written, maybe you should start with positive feedback first, instead of reacting like you did. Of course, you are free to post what you like here, as you said, until the mods revoke your prividges, but if you offer this kind of feedback again to me, I’ll just ignore you. Life’s too short and I already have all kinds of people trying to stop me from speaking my mind; I won’t have it here.
unree, thank you. I’m glad you liked it. What happened is this book got published last year: http://www.amazon.com/Muse-Rev.....amp;sr=1-1
It’s on my wishlist.
Thanks for another wonderful history lesson Anna Belle! I’m curious about Unree’s question as well?
I also found a children’s book about her!
http://www.amazon.com/Mercy-Ot.....pd_sim_b_5
In reading the above I see Anna Belle, who obviously supports womens rights and their rightful place in “history,” replies to the commenter Digger in a fashion that a man might have used to respond to a woman many years ago. Instead of responding to Digger’s concerns, Anna Belle chose to attack her, put words in her mouth, and belittle her concerns.
Digger had a very legitimate point to make.
Anna Belle said this:
“Today, gay and lesbian citizens, among other groups, continue to fight to secure rights for themselves.”
No problem there at all, just a statement of fact. However right after that she says this:
” We think nothing now of universal human rights; they are considered the norm in our culture.”
As Anna Belle has already stated that gays, lesbians and some unspecified “other groups” are STILL fighting for their rights, how does that make universal human rights the norm in our culture, unless you dismiss the rights of gays. lesbians and these “other groups” as being less meaningful, or “human,” then the groups Anna Belle perceives as already having achieved those rights?
I certainly take issue with Anna Belle’s further statement in her reply to Digger that “The ideal of human rights is the norm in our culture, even if we haven’t quite realized it fully yet.” This is a very broad statement that Anna Belle provides no facts to support. What disturbs me, however, is Anna Belle’s tone towards Digger in her response. It is condescending, aggressive, dismissive, offensive and completely inappropriate. It in fact sounds just like the replies I would so often get from men in expressing my concerns to them about what they have said regarding women.
I would suggest that any of the posters here who are told by a person “I have a concern with what you said” take a deep breath and try to understand that person’s concern and respond to that, NOT attack them as Anna Belle did Digger.
Anna Belle,
I had never heard of Mercy Otis Warren before reading this. The fact that this woman created such an important record that spoke of the struggles of so many different people/ groups is incredible! I am absolutely inspired.
Thia,
Oh cool, a children’s book! Well, Anna Belle has inspired me to search out the world of women’s history so I’ve started doing what I do best – collect childrens books. I’ve been collecting multicultural / multilingual children’s books for years and now I’ve turned to women’s history. So I will have to add this one!
This search for books has also inspired interesting conversations with my local library and book stores. I’ve asked for books about suffragism appropriate for the k – 12 classroom and pretty much any topic on women’s history outside of the arts and not much came to mind initially. But it has inspired some research in my community and some good discussions. So far they have dug up some great picture books on Esther Morris, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Sojourner Truth and the first woman to vote in the United State, Charley Parkhurst. Still searching for Alice Paul….
Anyways, thanks for this enlightening education and conversation, Anna Belle.
Well, I thought Digger was initially aggressive toward Anna Belle and I mistakenly thought that another thread had provoked this reaction. I think this is just a misunderstanding and we are becoming overly pedantic about word choice.
Let’s let this go and move on. Mercy Otis Warren deserves a bit of our awe….
Ali,
If you search Amazon for “Molly Pitcher” there are a raft of books for children of all ages. Their historical accuracy varies, but I can’t give you specifics off the top of my head; its been a long time since I looked at them.
I can’t find anything re: Alice Paul, either. Right then, who wants to write a kids book?
Thanks, Thia and Ali. Thia, I hope you saw my comment just above you, which links to Nancy Stuart Rubin’s 2008 book on her. There has been some speculation in the scholarship that Warren is largely responsible for the text of the Declaration of Independence as well, but I felt uncomfortable including that until further research can be conducted to verify the accuracy of it.
MJohnson, I would suggest that readers take note of the entire essay and the TOPIC before taking issue with a single line within it. And maybe think about how they’d feel if they’d worked so hard on something informative like this, only to find the second comment was rude, negative, and off topic.
That said, I appreciate Digger’s willingness to move on in this thread. I suggest we all take that tack.
Oh! Ali, I don’t know if it’s any good, but there’s a video about Warren!
http://www.amazon.com/Muse-Rev.....amp;sr=1-1
Also, I liked what you said about how you never even heard of this woman and this important record. That’s important. What’s also important, and is only implied in the essay (because to state it overtly, as I am about to do, would open up a different kind of criticism), is that that stuff is in her record because she was a woman. A man of that time would have never even considered the history of Molly Pitcher important. Warren is evidence of what women bring to the table, and it is different than what men offer.
“What’s also important, and is only implied in the essay (because to state it overtly, as I am about to do, would open up a different kind of criticism), is that that stuff is in her record because she was a woman. A man of that time would have never even considered the history of Molly Pitcher important.”
Yes, Anna Belle, well said. I was thinking the same thing just an hour ago as I was lying on the couch reflecting about the life of Mercy Otis Warren. Only a woman could have delivered this!
Digger,
Molly Pitcher picture books, oh cool. Revolutionary women for the K – 6 classroom! BTW, just a bit about my bio, I’m not sure if you know. I’m a teacher on hiatus who can’t believe I neglected women’s history for so many years. As do most teachers. So I’m doing what I can to make sure that when I go back I am armed and ready:)
Hi Ali;
I’m unsure why you would have thought Digger’s post aggressive, as opposed to being a reasoned comment on a statement that on the face of it is questionable. I’d like to understand how you are seeing this, so can you point out and explain what you see as being aggressive in Digger’s statements?
Anna Belle;
Please re-read Digger’s initial post. As a gay woman Digger addressed a part of your post that was on the face of it dismissive of gay rights. She did not slam you, she did not attack you, she made plain statement using plain terms explaining the problem she had with that part of your post. You then responded to her with a “you people” type of post and the use a derogatory term, “breeder”in reference to yourself, which you impute to her, implying she is being dismissive of you when in fact the reverse is true.
This is exactly the type of language that men used with women (and still do) to dismiss their legitimate concerns about legitimate issues. Had you limited your response to the first paragraph you addressed to Digger there would have been no problem. You chose, however, to go on to attack Digger, which attack has detracted from the focus of your initial post.
I would point out to all readers here that learning more about the evolution of women’s place in history is important. One reason it is important is that we learn from these studies about the methods used to repress the thoughts and actions of those who are viewed as being less worthy. When we identify what these methods are, we can then take action against them.
As a gay woman, Anna Belle, I am telling you that, like Digger, I found your initial statement on the face of it offensive. Your explanation to Digger of what your intent was would have been enough to ally that concern for me, as it was for Digger. You did not leave it at that, however.
When women spoke up for their rights, even in the mildest of terms, they were labeled bitches. When they would make cogent arguments expressing their position their statements would be twisted, rephrased and ridiculed. You have done exactly the same with Digger’s posts.
Only a woman indeed, Ali.
Anna Belle;
In your article you state the following:
“The third, I submit, was the very first history of America ever penned, which set our story in stone and started a trajectory of inclusion that continues to this day. That history was written by Mercy Otis Warren (1728-1814), known to many as “The Conscience of the American Revolution.” Yes, you read that right: the very first history of our great nation, which informed several generations of school children of our beginning, was authored by a woman.”
This is factually incorrect. Mary Otis Warren’s work is noted as being an important history of the era, but it certainly was not the first. Warren’s work was published in 1805. please note these other works:
William Gordon, D.D.
The History of the Rise, Progress, and Establishment of the Independence of the United States of America: including an Account of the late War; and of the thirteen Colonies from their Origin to that Period. 4 vols. London, 1788; American ed., 3 vols., 1789; 2d Am. ed. 3 vols., 1794; 3d Am. ed. 3 vols., 1801.
John Marshall
Life of George Washington. 5 vols. and atlas. Philadelphia, 1804–07; London, 1804–07; Philadelphia, 1805–07; rev. ed. 2 vols. and atlas, Philadelphia, 1832, 1836, 1840. French, 5 vols., Paris, 1805; German, 4 vols., Hamburg, 1805–06; Dutch, 10 vols., Haarlem, 1805–09.
David Ramsay, M.D.
The History of the American Revolution. 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1789; London, 1791; new ed., London, 1793; Dublin, 1793, 1795; Trenton, N. J., 1811; Lexington, Ky., 1815; Dutch, 4 vols., Campen, 1792–94; German, 4 vols. 1794–95.
Besides having an issue with your facts, I would also take issue with your assumption that Warren’s work formed the third “pillar” “upon which all our subsequent progress is based”. Warren’s work is most certainly an important piece, but the statement that it’s effect on the course of history in the U.S is equal to that of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution is unjustified.
The fact is that Warren’s History was THE history of the American Revolution for nearly a century. It was the first history book on America used in schools.
The two valid sources you cite weren’t even originally published in America. The Life of George Washington is a biography of a person, not a history of nation.
That said, I think you’d be happier with a history journal than with this series.
Digger, thank you for your important voice. I was very glad to read your comments, and saddened that discussion took the turn that it did.
Anna Belle, thank you for letting us know about Warren. It’s a very interesting story.
Here’s another important voice in what happened here in comments in this thread. It was too long, and would have been inappropriate to post here.
I LOVE the fact that I’m finally hearing about all these women who helped create America, but at the same time each “women’s history” post shocks me about HOW MUCH women’s contributions and voices have been so utterly silenced through his-tory.
Anna Belle, thank you very much indeed for this wonderful post.
Today, when I was exploring Google gadgets to get me a gadget for my desktop on women’s history, there was, of course, none. All searches for ‘women’ led to nude pictures, porn, playboy images, etc. Anyone up to create a Google gadget based on Annabelle’s and other’s work, so people can get to read about, say, one extraordinary woman a day?
Oh – I love the ‘meta’ nature of this post.
Not only is this a post about Mercy Warren (i.e. how she was a woman we can all be proud of because she wrote a landmark history book), it’s a post about other historical women, e.g. Deborah Sampson and Molly Pitcher – whose lives and contributions were recorded because of Mercy Warren. Awesome!
Chevalier, thank you. I love your google idea! I wish I knew how…. There is wealth of information about women’s history online. I’m not the first to think it’s important. I am building on the work of other women and men who also thought it was important. I’ve been trying to promote this topic for 16 years and I’m just delighted I found a larger audience online.
i think this a very good artical – I’m doing a report about her and my teacher wants me to dod a report about someone in the revolutionary war and did Mercy Otis Warren and I wanted to know more about her and I read this and I got most of my questions on this done
hayley
[...] curricula being deficient regarding women in part because (with some note able exceptions like Mercy Otis Warren) traditional history books have been written mostly by men. Well, it’s happening again. Today, [...]
[...] curricula being deficient regarding women in part because (with some note able exceptions like Mercy Otis Warren) traditional history books have been written mostly by men. Well, it’s happening again. Today, [...]
Leave your response!