Colonial Tea Party without Tea or a Party?

Detail Philip Dawes, Sarcastic British cartoon A Society of Patriotic Ladies at Edenton in North Carolina. Published in London in 1775.   Here the artist depicts the Edenton ladies as vulgar impolite figures. Women are sepicted as well-dressed ladies with the faces of ugly, male British politicins They drink tea directly out of large communal bowls, dump tea into hats, and leave children unattended. In Dawe’s version of the resolves, the ladies solely promised “not to conform to the Pernicious Custom, of drinking Tea.”

The Boston Tea Party occurred in December 1773, when angry gentlemen of Boston, some costumed as Native Americans, destroyed property of the East India Tea Company on ships in the Boston harbor in protest of British taxation & trade policies.  There were other 18C colonial patriotic tea parties as well.

The livid English Parliament quickly passed a set of laws to punish the upstart colonials in Massachusetts, closing the Boston port & limiting all British American colonial rights to self-government. Many American colonists up & down the Atlantic called these the “Intolerable Acts” - the final proof that Great Britain intended to destroy their liberty.

W. D. Cooper.Boston Tea Party, The History of North America. London E. Newberry, 1789.

After the Boston tea party, gentlemen began meeting in local groups throughout the colonies to lend their support to the rising talk of revolution. (Mostly men were meeting, because women did not vote or hold office in the 18C Britain or her colonies. It was not until 1930 that most US women wee alloiwed to vote in national US elections!)

In July 1774, gentlemen of the Cape Fear region, led by transplanted Boston attorney William Hooper (1742-1790), met at Wilmington, North Carolina, calling for a provincial congress & for a congress of all the colonies to respond to Britain. One of the resolutions passed at this meeting stated, "That we will not use nor suffer East India Tea to be used in our Families after the tenth day of September next, and that we will consider all persons in this province not complying with this resolve to be enemies to their Country." Word spread throughout the Carolinas

Rather than an  agreement to boycott the purchase of British tea, the Edenton Resolves actually signified the signers’ support of the resolutions the 1st North Carolina Provincial Congress had passed in New Bern in response to the Intolerable Acts. These resolutions included a boycott of all imports from the East India Company (including tea), a halt on exports to England, and the establishment of an independent, American-led Continental Congress.

The all-woman Edenton Tea Party first became known throughout a;; colonial British America from a London newspaper article reporting the event, which appeared in the Morning Chronicle and London Advertiser in January of 1775.  The newspaper reported that in North Carolina on October 25, 1774, a group prominent women from the Edenton area gathered at the home of Elizabeth King, with Penelope Barker (1728-1796) presiding, to debate the wisdo, o & then begon signing a petition supporting the American cause. It was extremely rare, if not unheard of, for British women, especially colonial women, who had no legal powers, to petition for political change.

The Edenton petition doesn’t actually mention tea, but it supports the broader  July Wilmington “resolves” against importing British products such as clothing & tea. Many angry colonists of both sexes participated in the resistance to Britain through nonimportation, simply refusing to buy goods imported from Britain. Colonials did not have to pay taxes on goods they did not purchase, and the loss of income might persuade British merchants & shippers to support the colonial cause.

The text of the petition by the women gathered in Edenton, North Carolina, on October 25, 1774, reads: As we cannot be indifferent on any occasion that appears nearly to affect the peace and happiness of our country, and as it has been thought necessary, for the public good, to enter into several political resolves by a meeting of Members deputed from the whole Province,
it is a duty which we owe, not only to our near and dear connections who have concurred in them, but to ourselves who are essentially interested in their welfare, to do every thing as far as lies in our power to testify our sincere adherence to the same; and we do therefore accordingly subscribe this paper, as a witness of our fixed intention and solemn determination to do so.

Signed: Abagail Charlton, Mary Blount, F. Johnstone, Elizabeth Creacy, Margaret Cathcart, Elizabeth Patterson, Anne Johnstone, Jane Wellwood, Margaret Pearson, Mary Woolard, Penelope Dawson, Sarah Beasley, Jean Blair, Susannah Vail, Grace Clayton, Elizabeth Vail, Frances Hall, Elizabeth Vail, Mary Jones, Mary Creacy, Anne Hall, Mary Creacy, Rebecca Bondfield, Ruth Benbury, Sarah Littlejohn, Sarah Howcott, Penelope Barker, Sarah Hoskins, Elizabeth P. Ormond, Mary Littledle, M. Payne, Sarah Valentine, Elizabeth Johnston, Elizabeth Cricket, Mary Bonner, Elizabeth Green, Lydia Bonner, Mary Ramsay, Sarah Howe, Anne Horniblow, Lydia Bennet, Mary Hunter, Marion Wells, Tresia Cunningham, Anne Anderson, Elizabeth Roberts, Sarah Mathews, Elizabeth Roberts, Anne Haughton, Elizabeth Roberts, Elizabeth Beasly    

The 20thC tradition of ladies neeting in Edenton occurred at Elizabeth King’s house near the Chowan County Courthouse with Winifred Hoskins serving as the secretary for the meeting. However, if Elizabeth King and Winifred Hoskins did so much to facilitate the gathering, why didn’t they sign the resolves themselves?  It is likely that these North Caolina women signed the resolves over the course of several days or weeks, indicating there may have been no singular gathering of all the signers.

At the meeting, Barker reportedly said, “Maybe it has only been men who have protested the king up to now. That only means we women have taken too long to let our voices be heard. We are signing our names to a document, not hiding ourselves behind costumes like the men in Boston did at their tea party. The British will know who we are.”  

From England, in January 1775, 16 year-old Arthur Iredell wrote to his older brother who was a judge based in Edenton, James Iredell (1751-1799), describing the British reaction to the Edenton Tea Party. According to Arthur Iredell, the incident was not taken seriously in England, because it was led by women.

British journalists & cartoonists depicted the women in a negative light, as bad mothers & loose women. In a satirical cartoon published in London in March of 1775, the North Carolina ladies were drawn as female versions of the much maligned macaroni characters of the period.

Arthur Iredell sarcastically wrote to his brother James, who would later become one of the first associates of the United States Supreme Court, back in North Carolina, I see by the newspapers the Edenton ladies have signalized themselves by their protest against tea-drinking. The name of Johnston [the maiden name of Mrs. James Iredell] I see among others; are any of my sisters relations patriotic heroines? Is there a female congress at Edenton, too? I hope not, for we Englishmen are afraid of the male congress, but if the ladies, who have ever since the Amazonian era been esteemed the most formidable enemies: if they, I say, should attack us, the most fatal consequence is to be dreaded. So dextrous in the handling of a dart, each wound they give is mortal: whilst we, so unhappily formed by nature, the more we strive to conquer them, the more we are conquered.The Edenton ladies, conscious, I suppose, of this superiority on their side, by a former experience, are willing, I imagine, to crush us into atoms by their omnipotency: the only security on our side to prevent the impending ruin, that I can perceive, is the probability that there are but few places in America which possess so much female artillery as Edenton.

Perhaps because of her husband James Iredell's official position, Hannah Johnston Iredell refrained from signing resolutions supporting the First North Carolina Provincial Congress, which voted to boycott certain British products. However, Hannah's sisters & her sisters-in-law signed the petition.

Not about to be outdone by their neighbors & not at all deterred by the sarcastic English press, the patriotic ladies of Wilmington, North Carolina, held their own “party” in the spring of 1775, actually burning their tea.

Janet Schaw, a visitor from Scotland who had no sympathy for the colonial rebellion, reported the event in her journals, noting that not everyone in Wilmington approved of the protest: The Ladies have burnt their tea in a solemn procession, but they had delayed however till the sacrifice was not very considerable, as I do not think any one offered above a quarter of a pound. The people in town live decently, and tho’ their houses are not spacious, they are in general very commodious and well furnished. All the Merchants of any note are British and Irish,and many of them very genteel people. They all disapprove of the present proceedings. Many of them intend quitting the country as fast as their affairs will permit them, but are yet uncertain what steps to take.

But the women patriots had just begun to fight. Purdie's Virginia Gazette reported on May 3, 1775, that women were giving their jewelery to support the Continental Congress like “Roman Females” before them and will “fearless take the field against the ememy” for their glorious cause if their services are needed.

Women began to write letters about the revolutionary cause to their local newspapers. One anonymous women wrote a letter urging her fellow women to sacrifice for the war in Dixon's Virginia Gazette of January 13, 1776. Anne Terrel of Bedford County, Virginia also wrote in the same newspaper to support of the Revolutionary War on September 21, 1776.

During the Revolution more than 20,000 women became army camp followers--cooking, laundering, mending, and acting as nurses for the soldiers. Camp followers received half the food ration, when there was food at all, and minimal compensation. When the British occupied a town, they sometimes brutalized colonial women & their children. Hundreds of women took up arms to serve as soldiers & others served as spies for the colonial army.

Even those women left at home to raise the family & manage the business or the farm helped as they could. One woman passing an evacuated house in Woodbridge, New Jersey, looked in the window & saw a drunken Hessian soldier. She went home, got an old firelock, returned to take the Hessian’s firearms & then walked him about a mile to the patrol guard of the New Jersey regiment to delivered her prisoner. The incident was reported in Dixon's Virginia Gazette on April 18, 1777.

As the war progressed, women began collecting & contributing funds to equip local troops, where their kinfolk & neighbors were serving. The light horsemen of General Nelson of the Virginia Cavalry received just such donations according to Purdie's Virginia Gazette of June 12, 1778.

Usedto compile this posting

Jerry L. Cross, "Postscript to the Edenton Tea Party," in Tar Heel Junior Historian (Sept. 1971), in "Edenton Tea Party, A-22," Marker Files, North Carolina Historical Highway Marker Program, Office of Historical Research and Publications, DNCR.

North Carolina Women & The Edenton "Tea Party" Boycotts

Illustration from Within Our Power: The Edenton Ladies' Tea Party depicting potential signers gathered for a lively discussion. The book Within Our Power: The Story of the Edenton Ladies' Tea Party was written by by Sally Walker & illustrated by Jonathan D. Voss. Publisher: North Carolina Office of Archives and History. Publication date:10/15/2024

The Edenton "Tea Party" was one of the earliest organized women’s political actions in United States history.  It is reported that On October 25, 1774,  Penelope Barker organized, at the home of Elizabeth King, By the end, of the gathering & its participants spreading the word, 51women in North Carolina.formed an alliance wholeheartedly supporting the American cause against “taxation without representation.”

In response to the Tea Act of 1773, the Provincial Deputies of North Carolina resolved to boycott all British foods and cloth received after September 10, 1774.  The women of Edenton signed an agreement saying they were “determined to give memorable proof of their patriotism” and could not be “indifferent on any occasion that appears nearly to affect the peace and happiness of our country . . . it is a duty that we owe, not only to our near and dear connections . . . but to ourselves.”

Boycotting taxed goods demonstrated the colonists’ strong disapproval of the 1773 Tea Act.  The Boston Tea Party, in December 1773, resulted in Parliament passing the “Intolerable Acts”  as proof of the Crown’s absolute authority. Following the example of their Boston patriots, the women of Edenton boldly protested Britain’s what they considered unjust laws.

News of the Edenton Ladies poact quickly reached Britain. During the 1770s, political resistance was common. But an organized women’s movement was not. So, the Edenton resolution shocked the Western world.  From England, in January 1775, 16 year old Arthur Iredell wrote his brother, James Iredell, describing England’s reaction to the Edenton Tea Party.  According to Arthur Iredell, the incident was not taken seriously because it was led by women.  He sarcastically remarked, “The only security on our side … is the probability that there are but few places in America which possess so much female artillery as Edenton.” 

The Edenton women were also satirized in a political cartoon published in London in March 1775.  Even though the Edenton Tea Party was ridiculed in England, it was praised in the colonies. The women of Edenton represented American frustrations with English monarchical rule and the need for American separation and independence.

Background of Mother Britain's Problems

In the 1760s, the British government was eager to find new ways to pay for their costly victory in the French & Indian War. First, they began enforcing the trade regulations that governed their North American colonies, cracking down on the smuggling of foreign goods that had been a part of the colonial economy for decades. 

In an attempt to solve their financisal worries, in 1767–68, British Parliament passed a series of five acts known as the Townshend Acts. These placed taxes on glass, lead, paints, paper, & tea. The money raised from these taxes was supposed to offset the cost of defending the colonies. But they were very unpopular in the American colonies, who believed the trade regulations the government forced on them were already costly enough. When the new taxes were implemented, colonists refused to buy any British goods at all.

By 1773, the British East India Company was in danger of going bankrupt. To help the East India Company, the British Parliament passed the Tea Act of 1773. This law allowed the company to sell tea directly to the colonists without having to use middlemen. This made their prices so low that they were cheaper than any other foreign seller, even with the taxes. The government probably expected that the colonists would be happy to have a perfectly legal, very cheap tea to buy. Instead, the colonists were furious at what they saw as a further abuse of power, & new protests swept the colonies. The famous Boston Tea Party is the most famous Tea Act protest.

The Edenton womrn.s actuins was one of the earliest organized women’s political actions in United States history.  On October 25, 1774,the women of North Carolina formed an alliance wholeheartedly supporting the American cause against “taxation without representation.”

Penelope Barker, one of the signatories of the Edenton Tea Party agreement, wrote: "We, the aforesaid Ladies, do hereby solemnly engage not to conform to that Pernicious Custom of Drinking Tea, or that of importing Goods from Great Britain, until such time as all Acts Prohibitory of our Patriotic Citizens are Repealed"

In response to the British Tea Act of 1773, the Provincial Deputies in the colony of North Carolina resolved to boycott all British tea & cloth received after September 10, 1774.  The 51 women of Edenton signed an agreement saying  "As we cannot be indifferent on any occasion that appears nearly to affect the peace & happiness of our country, & as it has been thought necessary, for the public good, to enter into several particular resolves by a meeting of Members deputed from the whole Province it is a duty which we owe, not only to our near & dear connections who have concurred in them, but to ourselves who are essentially interested in their welfare, to do everything as far as lies in our power to testify our sincere adherence to the same; & we do therefore accordingly subscribe this paper, as a witness of our fixed intention & solemn determination to do so." (See: “Edenton, North Carolina, October 25, 1774,” Postscript. The Virginia Gazette (Williamsburg, VA: November 3, 1774).

The women of North Carolina demonstrated the colonists’ strong disapproval of the 1773 Tea Act.  The Boston Tea Party, in December 1773, resulted in Parliament passing the “Intolerable Acts” as proof of the Crown’s absolute authority. Following the example of their Boston patriots, the women of North Carolina boldly protested Britain’s what they considered unjust laws.

Satirical Political Cartoon of Edenton Women portrayed with the faces of British Polititions   Published in London in March 1775

News of the Edenton Tea Party quickly reached Britain. During the 1770s, political resistance was common. But an organized women’s movement was not. So, the Edenton Tea Party shocked the Western world.  From England, in January 1775, Arthur Iredell wrote his brother, James Iredell, describing England’s reaction to the Edenton Tea Party.  According to Arthur Iredell, the incident was not taken seriously because it was led by women.  He sarcastically remarked, “The only security on our side … is the probability that there are but few places in America which possess so much female artillery as Edenton.” 

The Edenton women were also satirized in a political cartoon published in London in March 1775.  Even though the Edenton Tea Party was ridiculed in England, it was praised in the colonies. The women of Edenton helped define & represented American frustrations with English monarchical rule & the need for American separation & independence.

The 51 women signers were a diverse group.  

Signing one’s name to a public protest of the British government wasn’t a small act. Just as Massachusetts was punished for the events of the Boston Tea Party, it was possible that the women who signed the Edenton Tea Party Resolves might face harsh consequences as well when the British government heard of their protests.

The women who signed the resolves did so even though they had something to lose. The signers were not rash teenagers caught up in the moment. Instead, of the 45 signers who have been identified, 84% of them were married. The average age of the signers was 35 years old. Only 3 signers were younger than 20. For all these women, the decision to sign was likely a deliberate one, & one on which the women carefully weighed their options, thinking not only about their own political beliefs, but also the responsibilities that they owed to their spouses, children, & larger families & communities.

Here are some of the signers of the Edenton Tea Party Resolves. These brief biographies are not complete summaries of their lives but demonstrate the wide breadth of the signers’ backgrounds & experiences.

Signers included a 

Women whose average age was 35 years old

84% were Married Signers

73% were Chowan County Residents

22% were Edenton Residents

10% were Bertie County Residents

75% were Interrelated Signers

Signers of the Edenton Tea Party Resolves included Penelope Barker (née Padgett) helped Organize the Tea Party

Whether Penelope Barker truly was the organizer of the resolves or not, it’s clear that she certainly had the leadership skills & organizational capacity to do so. At the time of the signing, Penelope Barker’s husband Thomas had been away for thirteen years, working most of that time as an agent for the colony’s interests in Britain. Though the Barkers maintained a correspondence, Penelope was responsible for the day-to-day management of their property.

Moreover, her husband’s absence was by no means the only hardship Penelope had faced in her life. At age seventeen she lost her sister Elizabeth & subsequently married Elizbeth’s widow John Hodgson, becoming the stepmother to her three nieces & nephews. Just two years later John Hodgson died, leaving Penelope, still a teenager, with five children to care for. Penelope was widowed a second time in 1755 when her next husband James Craven died. By the time of the signing in 1774, Penelope had borne the loss of not only two husbands, but also all five of her biological children.

After the resolves’ signing, Penelope’s husband Thomas finally returned home in 1778 after having escaped Britain via France. The couple later built a house together which still stands at the Edenton waterfront as the welcome center for the Edenton Historical Commission.

Signers of the Edenton Tea Party Resolves included a Noble: Margaret Duckenfield Pearson (née Jolly)

Margaret Jolly was likely born in Lancashire, England in 1719. At age twenty-three, she attracted the attention of Nathaniel Duckenfield, an aristocrat from Cheshire who was nearly her father’s age. Duckenfield had extensive landholdings in England, but also importantly he maintained a plantation near Salmon Creek in Bertie County, North Carolina. Through this connection, Nathaniel had worked as an agent & advocate for the colony during the 1720s.

Margaret & Nathaniel married in 1745 & a year later their son Nathaniel Jr. was born. When Nathaniel Sr. died in 1749, Margaret assumed ownership of the family’s property & in 1756 she arrived in Bertie County to take over the plantation there, called Duckenfield. By the 1760s Margaret had settled permanently in North Carolina & married John Pearson, a lawyer. Margaret’s fortunes improved again when her son Nathaniel Jr. became the Baronet of Dukinfield in 1768. Although Margaret was firmly attached to North Carolina, her son’s aristocratic title tied him to the other side of the Atlantic & he returned to Britain in 1771.

As the American Revolution neared, questions of allegiances put a strain on colonists like Margaret who still held tangible ties to Britain. In 1774 she was among the first signers of the Edenton Tea Party Resolves. Just a year earlier however, her son Nathaniel Jr. had become an officer in the British Army. Perhaps out of respect for his mother’s political leanings, he became an adjutant in 1775, but only on the condition that he never be forced to serve against American forces. Regardless of his own politics however, the State of North Carolina still considered Nathaniel Jr. a loyalist & in 1778 they confiscated his property. Trying to defend her son & maintain the family’s wealth, Margaret unsuccessfully petitioned the state to get his land back.1 Despite the setback, Margaret remained in North Carolina, & she died at the Duckenfield Plantation in 1784.

Signers of the Edenton Tea Party Resolves included a Royal Governor's Heiress: Penelope Dawson (née Johnston)

Penelope Johnston was perhaps one the most unlikely signers of the Edenton Tea Party Resolves. Several of her cousins were also signers, but she, unlike them, was the daughter of formal royal governor of North Carolina Gabriel Johnston. Penelope’s ties to the British establishment did not stop there either. Her grandfather was Charles Eden, another colonial governor, & through these connections Penelope became an heiress to an immense fortune.

When Penelope was orphaned at age eleven, she fell under the guardianship of Virgina’s governor Robert Dinwiddie. Spending time in both Edenton & Williamsburg, Penelope enjoyed a cosmopolitan lifestyle & was unusually highly educated compared to her peers. This is all to say that Penelope’s fortunes were intensely tied to the British Empire.

Despite these ties however, Penelope also had a bit of a rebellious streak. In 1758 she had eloped with John Dawson, a young surveyor from Virginia. Her family initially was shocked by the match, but they eventually came around & the couple settled at Eden House, Governor Eden’s former estate, in Bertie County. There, when the time came in 1774, Penelope Dawson signed the Edenton Tea Party Resolves & firmly affixed her name to the protest of Great Britain’s policies.

Signers of the Edenton Tea Party Resolves included a  Churchwarden's Daughter: Anne Hall

Anne Hall was one of the younger signers, aged just twenty years old. Unlike the vast majority of the signers, Anne was unmarried, & given her signature’s placement on the document, she likely followed her mother & older sister Mary in affixing her name.

The Halls were a notable family in the area. Anne & her sister Mary were two of the family’s nine children born out of the union of Clement Hall & Frances Foster. Clement, an Anglican missionary, was also the author of the first non-legal text published in North Carolina, a collection of poems. He died unexpectedly when Anne was just four years old, leaving her mother Frances to manage the large household on a diminished income. The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel no longer supported the family following Clement’s death, & it’s possible this soured the Halls toward British policy. Whatever the reason, Anne, her mother, & two of her sisters signed the resolves.

The family’s support of the evolving Patriot cause didn’t stop there either. Not only was Anne’s brother Clement Jr. an officer in the Continental Army, but Anne herself married the colonel of the Chowan County Regiment of the North Carolina Militia, James Blount.

Signerof the Edenton Tea Party Resolvess included a Tavernkeeper: Anne Horniblow (née Rombough

One of the last signers of the Edenton Tea Party Resolves was Anne Horniblow (née Rombough). A lifelong resident of Chowan County, Anne came from a family of skilled craftspeople. Her father John Rombough was a joiner & cabinetmaker, & two of Anne's brothers also followed him into woodworking. When she was about eighteen, her parents arranged for Anne's marriage to John Horniblow, the proprietor of one of Edenton’s local taverns. The Horniblows’ marriage may not have been a happy one, at least at its outset. When they married in November 1772, the town gossip was that Anne “was averse to the Match, & forced to it by her Father & Mother.”

As Mrs. Horniblow, Anne likely worked in the tavern alongside her husband, keeping drinks filled, the floor swept, & fires stoked. There Anne surely overheard many political debates of the day, such as questions of taxation without representation & the balance between royal authority & democracy. On these political questions, Anne sided with the Patriots. In 1774, aged about twenty, Anne Horniblow signed the resolves & pledged to support the colonial boycott movement. Sources suggest Anne’s decision to sign the agreement had her family’s full support. Not only did her husband sign an oath in support of the American government during the later Revolutionary War, but Anne’s father was a member of the Edenton Committee of Safety, an early form of Patriot governance which enforced the boycotts.

Signers of the Edenton Tea Party Resolves included a Colonel's Daughter: Elizabeth Johnston (née Williams)

Elizabeth Williams was born in North Carolina in 1751 & married John Johnston in about 1767. Their union marked a melding of two important political families in northeastern North Carolina. Elizabeth’s father, William Williams, had represented Bertie County in the North Carolina Colonial Assembly. By the time Elizabeth signed the Edenton Tea Party Resolves, her husband John was serving in the body as well. Perhaps spurred on by her support of the boycott agreement, both her father & husband later served as delegates to the North Carolina Provincial Congress.

By the outbreak of the American Revolution, Elizabeth’s family’s patriotic fervor had not diminished. John served as the clerk of the Bertie County Court, where he swore local citizens’ allegiance to the State of North Carolina. Meanwhile her father was a colonel in the Martin County Regiment of the North Carolina Militia.  (See: https://mosaicnc.org/edenton-tea-party/signers)

See:

Linda K. Kerber, Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980)

Cynthia Kierner "Edenton Tea Party Women," in North Carolina Women: Their Lives and Times, eds. Michele Gillespie and Sally G. McMillen, vol. 1 (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2014), 12-33.

Mary Beth Norton, Liberty's Daughters: The Revolutionary Experience of American Women, 1750-1800 (Boston: Little, Brown, & Co., 1980)

Ellen Hartigan-O'Connor, The Ties That Buy: Women and Commerce in Revolutionary America (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011)

Women & The American Revolution

Women & The American Revolution

In Colonial America, women were often discouraged from taking an interest in politics & were usually expected to focus only on traditionally 'feminine' matters, such as homemaking, gardening family healthcare & producing and raising children. These gender roles were challenged during the American Revolution (1765-1789), when women played crucial roles in achieving the independence of the United States.

From the earliest signs of tension between the 13 Colonies & Great Britain, colonial women expanded their political voice. Women were the driving force behind boycotts of British imports, shunning British tea in favor of local herbal substitutes, & holding spinning bees to reduce dependence on British cloth. 

Female writers, such as Mercy Otis Warren (1728 – 1814) ​ & Phillis Wheatley (1753 – 1784)​, helped turn public opinion against British rule, while hundreds of women accompanied the Continental Army to perform essential duties like washing, nursing, & cooking. 

Some women, like Margaret Corbin (1751 – 1800)​, Mary Ludwig Hays (1754 – 1832)​, & Deborah Sampson (1760 – 1827)​, even took up arms & fought against the British. Although women were not viewed as politically equal to men after the war, their involvement proved to be a vital first step in the long struggle for women's rights in the United States.

Role of Women in Colonial America

In October 1608, the 'second supply' of English settlers arrived at the Jamestown Colony of Virginia to supplement the population of original settlers. Among these new arrivals was Thomas Forrest, a gentleman financier, who was accompanied by his wife, a woman listed in the ship's manifest only as 'Mistress Forrest', & her maid, Anne Burras. 

Mistress Forrest & Anne Burras were the first 2 English women to settle in Jamestown; Burras would marry later that year & earn the additional distinction of becoming the 1st English woman to give birth in Virginia. English women continued to sporadically arrive in Jamestown over the course of the next decade until 1619 when the Virginia Company decided to send large groups of women to foster a self-sustaining population. 

In 1620, 90 single women, many of them from poor families, arrived in Virginia as the first of the so-called Jamestown brides, or 'tobacco brides'. They were married off to Jamestown's male settlers, each of whom paid the Virginia Company a dowry of 120-150 pounds of tobacco. Additional groups of Jamestown brides continued to arrive in the following years.

Women were expected to remain within the 'feminine sphere' & to display only feminine traits such as modesty, cheerfulness, patience, & chastity.  The colonists of Jamestown implemented a gender hierarchy similar to that which existed in England. 

This system revolved around the doctrine of coverture, which stipulated that once a woman was married, she was under the complete authority of her husband & no longer enjoyed an independent legal status. A married woman, or feme covert, was legally considered to be one with her husband; she could no longer own property or sign contracts, & any money she earned belonged to her husband. 

Once a woman married, she was usually confined to the role of homemaker, devoting her hours to cleaning, cooking, ironing, sewing, gardening & healthcare. Divorce was difficult to obtain & was often only permissible if a pre-existing condition rendered the initial marriage invalid. 

As a result, many colonial women felt anxiety about marriage, with one woman referring to marriage as a 'dark leap' from the familiarity of her parents' house into an unknown future controlled by a man whose personality she may have misjudged (Norton, 42). Still, married life was more desirable than remaining a single woman – or feme sole – for too long, as spinsters were fairly near the bottom of the social hierarchy.

Of course, the status of colonial women varied from colony to colony, & widely depended on social class. Wealthy women, for instance, were usually better educated than lower-class women, as were women from Puritan New England who were often taught how to read in order to study the Bible. But women were expected to remain within the 'feminine sphere' & to display only feminine traits such as modesty, cheerfulness, patience, & chastity. 

They were discouraged from expressing interest in subjects that were considered masculine, particularly politics. attempts by colonial women to involve themselves in politics were met with punishment. Anne Hutchinson (1591 – 1643)​ was banished from Massachusetts in 1637 after challenging the authority of male religious leaders. The approaching American Revolution encouraged colonial women to develop political opinions & to voice them, helping the slow progression of women's rights in the US.

Political Involvement of Women

In the 1760s, tensions between the 13 Colonies & Great Britain began to rise when Parliament passed a series of tax policies that many colonists condemned as unconstitutional. After protests against the Stamp Act (1765) & Townshend Acts (1767-68) turned riotous, Parliament dispatched soldiers to colonial cities such as Boston to restore royal authority, which only further escalated the conflict. 

Despite the notion of politics as an man's activity, letters & diary entries from the period show that many colonial women were infuriated by these political developments. They were as affected by the Parliamentary taxes as the men & were outraged by the occupation of Boston by British soldiers. 

Many patriotic women ignored conventional gender norms to protest these policies. They marched alongside men in demonstrations, harassed Loyalists & tax officials, & seized goods from merchants who were believed to be hoarders for profits.

Colonial women became a driving force in the boycott of British goods. In response to the Tea Act of 1773. They stopped purchasing tea imported by the British East India Company & refused to serve it in their homes. Instead, they started to rely on local herbal teas & coffee. Women across Boston publicly swore to abstain from drinking British tea to "save this abused country from ruin & slavery" (Schiff, 178). 

On 25 October 1774, a group of 51 women met at the home of Elizabeth King in Edenton, North Carolina, to sign an agreement to boycott all British imports for the "publick good." The agreement stated that the women would boycott British goods, including tea, until the British government repealed the Intolerable ActsThis Edenton Tea Party, was one of the initial organized political actions undertaken by women in US history.

Colonial women supported the boycott of British goods by organizing spinning bees. Since most clothing was made from British-imported cloth, women decided to reduce dependence on Britain by spinning cloth themselves. Spinning bees would begin early in the morning, with a group of 20 to 40 women gathering at the home of their local minister (some groups were as large as 100). They would spend the day spinning cloth while discussing politics or engaging in friendly competitions with one another. Then, at nightfall, they would disperse after a relevant sermon from the minister.

Many spinning bees were organized by the Daughters of Liberty, a group of politically active women that had been founded in Boston in 1766. Alongside popularizing the boycotts, the Daughters of Liberty organized political protests. 

One of the group's founding members, Sarah Bradlee Fulton (1740 – 1835)​, came up with the idea of disguising the Sons of Liberty as Mohawk natives during the Boston Tea Party to conceal their identities from British officials. After the 342 crates of tea had been dumped into Boston Harbor, Fulton hid some of the perpetrators in her home & removed their face paint. For this, she has been referred to as the 'Mother of the Boston Tea Party'.

While Fulton was on the front lines of Patriotic protest, other women used pen & paper. Mercy Otis Warren, for instance, was a New England playwright who wrote multiple satires lambasting the Loyalists & encouraging the Patriots. Phillis Wheatley, an African woman who was enslaved in Boston, wrote multiple poems celebrating the American Revolution as well as its leaders. The works of Warren & Wheatley were immensely popular & helped shift public opinion in favor of the Patriots.

Despite the usual rigidity of gender roles in Colonial America, male revolutionary leaders encouraged female involvement, as the issue was considered too important to count women out. Pamphlets & broadsides encouraged women to continue boycotting British goods, with Samuel Adams even stating, "with ladies on our side, we can make every Tory tremble."

As war with Britain loomed on the horizon, Patriot women helped prepare for combat. In September 1774, Massachusetts women worked to make food & gather supplies for men in the militias. One observer remembered seeing, "women & children making cartridges, running bullets…[while] crying & bemoaning & at the same time animating their husbands & sons to fight for their liberties, tho' not knowing whether they should ever see them again" (Norton, 167). 

The Baroness Frederika Charlotte Riedesel (1746 – 1808)​, wife of a Hessian general, recorded in her diary that she heard an American girl exclaim: "Oh, if I only had the king of England here, with what satisfaction I could cut his body in pieces, tear out his heart, dissect it, put it upon these coals, & consume it" (Middlekauff, 551). The violence & blatant politicalness of the girl's statement shocked the German baroness.

When the war finally came in April 1775, many women joined the Continental Army. Most 18th-century armies traveled with women, known as 'camp followers', who would perform essential duties as washerwomen, seamstresses, nurses, & cooks. These camp followers had to put up with the conditions of life in the army camp, which were often miserable, & they had to endure the scorn of the American officers, many of whom viewed them as little more than nuisances. 

The usual work of women in the army was washing & mending the soldier's clothes (for every 50 or so soldiers at the fort, one woman would be assigned the work), & working as nurses in the hospitals. 18th century nursing meant cleaning chamber pots, & changing bedding & blankets. Women cooked for their families, but it was only on rare occasions that they cooked for other soldiers.

Print c 1790 Philadelphia Museum of Art

Women who traveled with the army had to work to be able to stay. In exchange for their work, the camp followers received a ration of food (1/2 pound of meat & 1/2 pound of bread/flour). They were also supposed to be paid for their work, but with the soldiers hardly ever seeing proper pay, it’s unlikely that the women fared any better. These women had to follow many of the same orders & daily routines that the soldiers did.

There were several reasons why women might choose to become camp followers, despite these hardships. Some were driven by a sense of patriotism or by a love for their husbands & sons, whom they were loath to part from. Others were unable to support themselves & chose to accompany the army rather than risk starvation & poverty. Some women, like Martha Washington (1731 – 1802)​, did not stay with the army all the time but often visited to support their husbands during winter encampments.

Though women were considered non-combatants, several Patriot women wound up bearing arms against the British. Margaret Corbin, for example, accompanied the Continental Army as the wife of an artilleryman, John Corbin. When John was killed at the Battle of Fort Washington (16 November 1776), Margaret took his place & continued to fire his cannon until she was incapacitated by several wounds. She survived the battle & would go on to become the first woman to receive a US military pension. 

Two years later, Mary Ludwig Hays was serving as a water carrier during the scorching hot Battle of Monmouth (28 June 1778), running back & forth to deliver water to dehydrated soldiers. When her husband, also an artilleryman, passed out from heat exhaustion, Hays did not hesitate to take his place, firing his cannon for the remainder of the battle. 

Another woman who fought in the war was Deborah Sampson, who disguised herself as a male & enlisted in the Continental Army in 1782 under the alias of Robert Shurtleff. Sampson was wounded in the thigh during a skirmish with Loyalists in Westchester County, New York; fearful that the army surgeons would discover her identity, she slipped out of the field hospital & removed the bullet herself, using a penknife & sewing needle. The next summer, however, she came down with a fever & a physician discovered her gender while treating her. Sampson was honorably discharged & went on to marry a farmer. In 1805, Congress awarded her a monthly pension for her service.

Not all Patriot women who aided the war effort were part of the Continental Army. Sybil Ludington (1761 – 1839)​ was a 16-year-old girl from New York, who, on 26 April 1777, discovered that the British were launching a raid on Danbury, Connecticut, where a stockpile of weapons was stored. Ludington leaped atop her horse and, despite a heavy rainstorm, rode 40 miles (64 km) through New York's Putnam & Dutchess counties to alert the militia. Some report that due to her efforts, the Patriot militia was able to drive the British back the next day at the Battle of Ridgefield. 

While several women supported the war as camp followers, the vast majority remained behind the front lines as civilians. Nevertheless, many civilian women supported the war effort in any way they could. In 1780, Esther de Berdt Reed (1746 – 1780)​, wife of the governor of Philadelphia, organized a female-run fundraiser that raised over $300,000 for the Continental Army. 

The spinning bees persisted throughout the war, with women shifting their focus to making shirts & uniforms for soldiers. 

With their husbands gone, Patriot women in several towns took to enforcing the law, exposing & punishing those who had violated boycott agreements. 

But most civilian women were preoccupied with running their husbands' estates & managing their affairs while the men were off at war. This granted middle- & upper-class women a kind of freedom that, prior to the revolution, they sekdom used. Their husbands were often too preoccupied with their military or political work to dictate orders to their wives, leaving the women with much autonomy in regard to their homes & family finances.

The civilian women were not spared from the destructiveness of the war. Those who owned homes in cities that were occupied by the British army – such as New York & Philadelphia – found themselves obliged to provide quarters for British & Hessian officers. While some officers were polite to their American benefactors, others were troublesome & rowdy; on several occasions, British & Hessian soldiers entered homes uninvited & took whatever they wanted. 

As in many conflicts, sexual assault was utilized as a horrific weapon of war. After their inability to catch Washington's army in the New York & New Jersey Campaign, some British soldiers vented their frustrations by sexually assaulting American women in British-occupied New York City. Lord Francis Rawdon, a young British officer, expressed the frequency of such assaults in a letter, writing that "a girl cannot step into the bushes to pluck a rose without running the most imminent risk of being ravished…"

 Despite Lord Rawdon's distasteful attitude, the British courts-martial took acts of sexual violence more seriously & dispensed severe punishments for soldiers who were convicted. Civilian women also ran the risk of becoming collateral damage if they did not evacuate their homes during a battle. As the Battle of Connecticut Farms (7 June 1780) raged outside, Hannah Caldwell (1737 – 1780)​, the wife of the town's reverend, took shelter in her home with her children. But a stray bullet crashed through the window, killing Caldwell in front of her daughter. Civilian women were as affected by the war as the camp followers.

On 31 March 1776, Abigail Smith Adams (1744 – 1818)​ wrote a letter to her husband, John Adams, who was serving as a delegate to the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia:  I desire you would Remember the Ladies & be more generous & favourable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care & attention is not paid to the Ladies we are determined to foment a Rebellion & will not ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation (Adams Family Papers).

Adam's letter reveals how much the political voice of American women had developed during the tumultuous years before the revolution. Having been largely barred from colonial political involvement since the founding of Jamestown, colonial women found themselves thrust into a revolutionary movement. Women fought, bled, & died for the cause of American liberty. 

In the postwar United States, some women were given slightly more freedoms than they had had prior to it; for instance, the need to raise virtuous citizens of a republic encouraged women to receive some degree of education so that they might instruct the next generation of Americans. 

In New Jersey, women were also temporarily granted the right to vote, thanks to the vague wording in the state constitution; a law passed in 1807, however, ended women's right to vote in that state, & it would be many decades before women in the US recovered their suffrage.

The American Revolution was an important step in the women's rights movement in the United States. It gave American women a political voice, however limited & temporary, & influenced the fight for women's rights in the following centuries.

See Harrison Ford;s article in The World History Encyclopedia

Bibliography

Books

Adams, Abigail Letter to John Adams, March 31, 1776 Adams Family Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society

Berkin, Carol Revolutionary Mothers: Women in the Struggle for America's Independence Vintage Books, 2005

Brown, Marley R. Metalworking at Monticello: Archaeological and Historical Evidence Journal of the Ceramics and Cultural Heritage Society, 2011

Chappell, Edward A. Jamestown: Architectural Studies University of Virginia Press, 2015

DePauw, Linda Grant Founding Mothers: Women of America in the Revolutionary Era Houghton Mifflin, 1975

Ellet, Elizabeth F. The Women of the American Revolution 3 vols. Baker and Scribner, 1848-1850

Holton, Woody Liberty Is Sweet: The Hidden History of the American Revolution Simon & Schuster, 2021

Kerber, Linda K. Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America University of North Carolina Press, 1980

Knott, Sarah Sensibility and the American Revolution University of North Carolina Press, 2009

Lawhon, Ariel The Frozen River Doubleday, 2023

Mayer, Holly A. Belonging to the Army: Camp Followers and Community during the American Revolution University of South Carolina Press, 1999

McCullough, David 1776 Simon & Schuster, 2005

Middlekauff, Robert The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789 Oxford University Press, 2005

Norton, Mary Beth Liberty’s Daughters: The Revolutionary Experience of American Women, 1750-1800 Cornell University Press, 1980

Riedesel, Frederika Charlotte Letters and Journals Relating to the War of the American Revolution and the Capture of the German Troops at Saratoga Translated by William L. Stone, Albany, 1867

Schiff, Stacy The Revolutionary Era and Women’s Influence Harvard University Press, 2014

Ulrich, Laurel Thatcher Good Wives: Image and Reality in the Lives of Women in Northern New England, 1650-1750 Knopf, 1980

Warren, Mercy Otis The Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution Manning and Loring, 1805

Young, Alfred F. Masquerade: The Life and Times of Deborah Sampson, Continental Soldier Alfred A. Knopf, 2004

Articles

Breen, T. H. Baubles of Britain: The American and Consumer Revolutions of the Eighteenth Century Past & Present, no. 119, 1988, pp. 73-104

Discusses how consumer habits, including the boycotting of British goods, became a form of political activism led in part by colonial women.

Dayton, Cornelia Hughes Taking the Trade: Abortion and Gender Relations in an Eighteenth-Century New England Village The William and Mary Quarterly, vol. 48, no. 1, 1991, pp. 19-49
This article provides insight into gender roles in colonial America, focusing on reproductive rights and social norms.

Kierner, Cynthia A. Women, Gender, and Political Culture in the Early Republic Journal of the Early Republic, vol. 21, no. 2, 2001, pp. 219-225
Explores how women gained informal political influence in the post-revolutionary period despite legal and societal restrictions.

Klein, Rachel Women’s Work in Revolutionary America: A Reassessment The Journal of American History, vol. 97, no. 3, 2010, pp. 742-768
This article reevaluates the economic roles women played during the Revolution and how their labor contributed to wartime efforts.

Schocket, Andrew M. Little Women: Gender and Patriotism in the American Revolution American Quarterly, vol. 56, no. 3, 2004, pp. 475-498

Analyzes how women’s contributions to the Revolution were later mythologized and reshaped by American cultural memory.

Smith, Barbara Clark Food Rioters and the American Revolution The William and Mary Quarterly, vol. 51, no. 1, 1994, pp. 3-38
This article examines how colonial women played an active role in political protests through food riots and economic resistance.

Zagarri, Rosemarie The Rights of Women in the Early Republic Journal of the Early Republic, vol. 29, no. 1, 2009, pp. 1-29
This article explores how the American Revolution influenced early feminist thought and shaped women's roles in the political landscape.

Maryland's 1775 Bush Declaration differed from the final US Declaration of Independence

 Maryland’s 1775 Bush Declaration of Independence and Its Relationship to the Continental Declaration

******

Maryland’s Bush Declaration of Independence 1775

The parliament of Great Britain has of late claimed an uncontrollable right of binding these colonies in all cases whatsoever. To enforce the execution of this claim, the legislative and executive powers of that state have invariably pursued, for these ten years past, a studied system of oppression, by which the lives, liberties, and properties of the colonists have been endangered, and their constitutional rights violated. These numerous and oppressive acts of the British government have left the people of Maryland no choice but to dissolve their allegiance to the British Crown.

The convention of Maryland, therefore, with unanimous consent of its members, doth declare that the King of Great Britain has violated his compact with this people, and that they owe no allegiance to him. That this province is, and of right ought to be, a free, sovereign, and independent state; that it has full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, and establish commerce, and to do all other acts which other independent states may of right do. The good people of this province solemnly pledge themselves to support and maintain this declaration at the risk of their lives and fortunes.

******

The United States Declaration of Independence (1776) (July 4, 1776)

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world:

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

or taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

******

Maryland’s 1775 Bush Declaration of Independenceand Its Relationship to the Final US Declaration of Indepedence

In the months leading up to July 1776, Maryland navigated a complex path toward independence, initially resisting a break with Britain before ultimately joining the united cause. Maryland’s formal 1775 Bush Declaration of Independence was issued on July 6, 1776, two days after the Continental Congress adopted the United States Declaration of Independence. 

Maryland had been one of the last colonies to fully commit to independence, reflecting deep regional divisions within its borders. Understanding Maryland's 1775 Bush Declaration requires a comparison with Thomas Jefferson's final Continental Declaration, particularly in language, themes, and focus. Additionally, the internal divisions within Maryland, the process of consensus-building, and the role of its delegates offer insight into the colony's unique journey to independence.

Comparison of Maryland’s 1775 Bush Declaration with the Continental Declaration 

Maryland’s Bush Declaration of Independence, drafted by Charles Carroll of Carrollton and approved by the Maryland Convention on July 6, 1776, differs significantly from the Jefferson's Continental Declaration in tone and focus. While both documents enumerate grievances against British rule and justify separation from the Crown, Maryland’s Declaration is more legalistic and immediate in nature, while the Continental Declaration incorporates broader philosophical principles.

Philosophical Underpinnings

The Continental Declaration, primarily written by Thomas Jefferson, begins with a sweeping philosophical assertion "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." This document frames independence in terms of universal natural rights and the social contract, arguing that governments derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed. 

In contrast, Maryland’s 1775 Bush Declaration of Independence lacks this broad philosophical foundation. Instead, it begins directly with an indictment of British rule "The Parliament of Great Britain has of late claimed an uncontrollable right of binding these Colonies in all cases whatsoever..." This reflects Maryland’s initial hesitancy, as the colony’s leadership initially sought to resolve disputes through legal channels rather than a revolutionary ideology.

Blame on the King vs. Parliament

Another major difference is the assignment of blame. The Continental Declaration places primary blame on King George III, listing a series of acts where He has refused He has plundered and He has abdicated Jefferson’s intent was to portray the King as a tyrant personally responsible for the oppression of the colonies. 

Maryland’s 1775 Bush Declaration of Independence, however, places significant blame on Parliament, referring to the impolitic, severe, and cruel acts imposed by Britain’s legislative body. This difference likely reflects Maryland’s legalistic tradition, as well as an earlier belief that Parliament, rather than the King, was the chief source of colonial grievances.

Specific Grievances and Justification

Both documents list grievances against Britain, many of which overlap. Maryland’s Declaration condemns taxation without representation, the alteration of colonial charters, and British military aggression. It denounces a studied system of oppression, including restrictions on trade and trials without juries. 

The Continental Declaration similarly outlines these complaints, but with more rhetorical flourish and a broader view of the King’s role in orchestrating these abuses. Maryland’s version also explicitly mentions Britain’s use of enslaved people, Indigenous allies, and foreign mercenaries against the colonists, stating that the British had meanly hired such forces to wage war on American citizens.

Call to Action

Maryland’s 1775 Bush Declaration of Independence concludes with a direct exhortation to its citizens, calling upon them to join the fight for independence "We exhort and conjure every virtuous citizen to join cordially in defense of our common rights..." 

This impassioned plea contrasts with the Continental Declaration’s more formal closing, where the signers mutually pledge to each other "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."  While both documents express unity, Maryland’s Declaration focuses more on mobilization within the colony, reflecting its late commitment to the cause.

Internal Divisions Within Maryland

Maryland’s path to independence was marked by internal conflict, with distinct regional divisions influencing the debate. The colony was divided between its Western Shore, including Baltimore, Annapolis, and western counties, which leaned toward independence, and its Eastern Shore, where loyalty to Britain remained stronger. Many Eastern Shore leaders, particularly wealthy landowners with economic ties to Britain, hesitated to support independence, fearing economic disruption and instability.

Overcoming Resistance

Initially, Maryland’s Provincial Convention instructed its delegates to the Continental Congress to refrain from supporting independence. However, growing pressure from local committees of correspondence, particularly in pro-independence counties, led to a shift in sentiment. 

Samuel Chase, an ardent supporter of independence, played a key role in rallying support across the colony, famously writing to John Adams on June 28, 1776, that "Our people have fire if not smothered..." On that day, Maryland finally voted unanimously to authorize its delegates to support independence.

Maryland’s Delegation to the Continental Congress

Maryland’s delegation in 1776 played a crucial role in securing the state’s eventual support for independence. Key members included

Mathew Tilghman 1718–1790 Known as the Father of the Revolution in Maryland, Tilghman presided over the Provincial Convention. He withdrew from Congress to lead the establishment of Maryland’s new state government.

Thomas Johnson 1732–1819 A strong advocate for independence, Johnson was instrumental in nominating George Washington as commander-in-chief. He later became Maryland’s first elected governor.

Samuel Chase 1741–1811 A fiery orator and leading advocate for independence, Chase helped convince Maryland to reverse its earlier hesitation. He signed the Declaration of Independence and later served as a Supreme Court Justice.

William Paca 1740–1799 A key revolutionary leader, Paca helped draft Maryland’s 1776 state constitution and later became governor. He signed the Declaration as one of Maryland’s five signers.

Thomas Stone 1743–1787 Initially hesitant, Stone ultimately supported independence and was involved in drafting the Articles of Confederation.

Charles Carroll of Carrollton 1737–1832 The only Catholic signer of the Declaration, Carroll was added to Maryland’s delegation on July 4, 1776, to ensure full support. He played a major role in Maryland’s transition to statehood.

Conclusion

Maryland’s 1775 Bush Declaration of Independence, though closely aligned with the Continental Declaration, reflects the colony’s cautious, legalistic approach to the revolution. Initially divided along geographic and political lines, Maryland overcame internal hesitation through grassroots advocacy and the efforts of key leaders. The state’s delegates ultimately signed the Declaration of Independence, contributing to the unified break from Britain. Maryland’s journey to independence highlights the complexities of revolutionary politics and the importance of local leadership in securing the American colonies' collective freedom.

Bibliography

Books

Books

Andrews, Matthew Page (1929) History of Maryland: Province & State (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Doran & Co.) – A narrative history of Maryland that highlights the 1775 Bush Declaration as a bold precursor to the colony’s support for the Continental Congress and eventual independence.

 Armitage, David. The Declaration of Independence A Global History Harvard University Press, 2007. This book examines the broader international influence of the Declaration of Independence, including the colonial declarations that preceded it

Barker, Charles Albro (1940) The Background of the Revolution in Maryland (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; reprint Archon Books, 1967) – Examines Maryland’s political climate leading up to 1776, including county resolutions like the Bush Declaration that signaled growing revolutionary sentiment. 

Beeman, Richard R. Our Lives, Our Fortunes and Our Sacred Honor The Forging of American Independence, 1774-1776 Basic Books, 2013. A detailed account of how different colonies moved toward declaring independence, including Maryland’s role

Brugger, Robert J. (1988) Maryland: A Middle Temperament, 1634–1980 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press) – A comprehensive state history that places the Bush Declaration in context, noting how this Harford County resolution fit into Maryland’s measured road toward the 1776 Declaration of Independence. 

Hoffman, Ronald (1973) A Spirit of Dissension: Economics, Politics, and the Revolution in Maryland (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press) – Analyzes Maryland’s internal conflicts on the eve of independence and notes the Bush Declaration as an expression of radical patriot resolve against British authority. 

Maier, Pauline. American Scripture Making the Declaration of Independence Knopf, 1997. An in-depth analysis of how colonial declarations contributed to the final national document

Moran, Gerald F. Maryland and the Declaration of Independence A Study in Political Consensus Maryland Historical Magazine, vol. 67, no. 3, 1972, pp. 221-245. This article explores Maryland’s particular path to independence, highlighting the tensions and compromises within the colony

Peden Jr., Henry C. (2009) Revolutionary Patriots of Harford County, Maryland, 1775–1783 (Westminster, MD: Heritage Books) – A compiled roster of Harford County patriots that includes details on the 34 signers of the Bush Declaration and their roles in supporting American independence at the local level. 

Preston, Walter W. (1901) History of Harford County, Maryland (Baltimore: Sun Book Office; reprint Family Line Publications, 1988) – An early county history providing a detailed account of the Bush Declaration, celebrating it as the first Declaration of Independence in America and a point of pride in Harford County’s Revolutionary era efforts. 

Wright, C. Milton (1967) Our Harford Heritage: A History of Harford County, Maryland (Bel Air, MD: Published by the author) – A local history that recounts the events of March 1775 in Harford County, describing how the Bush Declaration was drafted and signed at “Bush” and its remembered significance relative to the national Declaration of Independence.

Articles

Land, Aubrey C. (1968) “Maryland’s Impulse Toward Social Revolution: 1750–1776,” Journal of American History 54: 772–791 – Discusses Maryland’s evolving revolutionary sentiment and notes how local actions (such as Harford County’s Bush Declaration in 1775) reflected a broader push toward independence even before July 1776. 

Online

Maryland State Archives “Exhibits Online: The Bush River Declaration – March 22, 1775” (Maryland State Archives at https://msa.maryland.gov/) – An online exhibit providing images and context for the Bush Declaration, explaining how this resolution by Harford County’s committee pledged support to the Patriot cause and foreshadowed the principles later enshrined in the 1776 Declaration of Independence.

The Historical Society of Harford County at harfordhistory.org.  ​The Historical Society of Harford County, located in Bel Air, Maryland, houses the original Bush Declaration and offers extensive resources on this pivotal document. Their website provides information about their collections and services, which can be accessed.

Wikipedia page on the Bush Declaration offers an overview of its significance, text, and signatories. This resource can be accessed at wikipedia.org

Women & Revolutionary Tea Wares

Afternoon Tea, Thomas Rowlandson (British 1756-1827) 

Tea Wares among Mid-18C Families of the Chesapeake & Pennsylvania Elite

Historian Barbara Carson examined 68 inventories made at the death of the males in elite Maryland & Virginia Families between 1741-1760.  An analysis of sixty-eight probate inventories dating from 1741 to 1760 expands the picture of the equipment considered essential for social tea drinking. These documents are the earliest in a larger group of 325 representing the top 5 percent of wealth holders in selected areas of northern Virginia & Maryland.

Only one of these sixty-eight decedents, Jeremiah Greenhan of Richmond, Virginia, who died January 1, 1753, did not own equipment relating to hot beverages. 

Ed's notes: Wills of Richmond County, Virginia  1699-1800  Robert Kirk Headly

Page 718  Jeremiah Greenham  28 May 1751 - 1 January 1753

To John Durham - my great Bible, wife, Christopher Hare ( now in England), 

Ex: William Glascock & son William  Wit: James Booth, John Williams, Thomas Penly

Page 719 Inventory Order Book 1 January 1753

A few show possession of miscellaneous items suggesting that the service of these new drinks was either unlikely or hardly expressive of a set social ritual. 

The inventory of John Glasscock of Richmond listed "I Coffy Pot" at 5 shillings in July 1756. 

In the same year John Spann Webb owned "Dozn silver Teaspoons" valued at 20 shillings. Nearly every other decedent owned significant equipment for tea, as well as some for coffee & chocolate. Ed's notes: When John Spann Webb was born on 9 October 1705, in Richmond, Virginia, United States, his father, Giles Webb, was 28 and his mother, Elizabeth Spann, was 32. He married Sarah Alderson about 1740. They were the parents of at least 1 son. He died on 3 May 1756, at the age of 50.

The inventory of Hugh West, entered in Fairfax, Virginia, in 1755, was valued in two parts. Personal property or household furnishings, slaves, an indentured servant, & livestock at the home plantation totaled ￡399 17s.7d. Property at the slaves' quarters came to ￡299 8s, 6d for a total value of ￡699 8s.6d. Hot beverage items were scattered through the list for the home plantation only.

Ed's notes: When Hugh West was born on 18 March 1705, in Stafford, Virginia, British Colonial America, his father, John West, was 35 and his mother, Ann Harris, was 41. He married Sybil Harrison on 29 December 1725, in Fairfax, Virginia, British Colonial America. They were the parents of at least 4 sons and 1 daughter. He died on 9 February 1754, in Fairfax, Virginia, British Colonial America, at the age of 48, and was buried in Pohick Episcopal Church Cemetery, Lorton, Fairfax, Virginia, United States.

The values immediately following the items are subtotals, which are added with other items to yield the total given at the far right. West's hot beverage service amounted to a tiny fraction of his total estate, ￡ 3 8s or less than half of I percent. Fourteen slaves & a servant woman accounted for ￡355 Ios. Among the furniture, a slock appraised at ￡9 was the single most valuable item. West not own much plate, only silver table spoons" valued at ￡8 in addition to the teaspoons & tongs. Beds, because of the labor-intensive textiles that furnished them, were assigned high values ranging from ￡2 to ￡2. In contrast "2 Negro's beds & Furniture" were a mere 10 shillings. Entries of a Bible at 5 shillings & old Baskets" & "I Frying pan" both at I shilling 6 pence illuminate the relatively small amounts of cash required to purchase hot beverage equipment.

Of note, teakettles of the sort referred to in the West inventory were rather plain flat-bottomed vessels, usually made of copper with hinged handles suspended from above the spout to the opposite side. They could be placed directly on a hearth right. West's hot beverage service amounted to a tiny fraction of his total estate, ￡3 8s or less than half of 1 percents Fourteen slaves & a servant woman accounted for ￡355 10s. Among the furniture, a clock appraised at ￡9 was die single most valuable item. West did not own much plate, only "11 silver table spoons" valued at ￡8 in addition to the teaspoons & tongs. Beds, because of die labor-intensive textiles that furnished them, were assigned high values ranging from ￡2 to ￡6. In contrast Negros beds & Furniture" were a mere 10 shillings. Entries of a Bible at 5 shillings & "2 old Baskets" & "I Frying pan" both at 1 shilling 6 pence illuminate the relatively small amounts of cash required to purchase hot beverage equipment.

Of note, teakettles of the sort referred to in the West inventory were rather plain flat-bottomed vessels, usually made of copper with hinged handles suspended from above the spout to the opposite side. They could be placed directly on a hearth or grate or hung over an open fire. It is likely that a servant or slave would have performed the controlled pouring required to direct the boiling water into the teapot either in the kitchen or at the tea table. The hostess then poured the tea from the teapot into cups & offered it along with sugar & milk or cream to her family or guests. Any tea or leaves remaining in the cups were poured into a slop dish before more tea was served. West's ownership of four teapots is fairly typical. Very few decedents owned just one. The only essential item missing is a jug for milk or cream.

Appraisers seem automatically to have separated tea & dinner services, as the two almost never appear listed together in inventories. They were used for different events, & the equipment for each seems rarely to have matched. Tea items made of silver may be grouped with all other silver Items, ranging from shoe buckles to soup tureens, & sometimes the objects themselves are not identified with only the total weight of the silver & its value cited. Although West s appraisers did not identify the rooms where they found his personal property, other documents from the late 1750s on are more likely to associate tea wares with dining rooms & parlors than with private chambers. Kettles often show up in kitchens or with other cooking equipment.

The Maryland lawyer Daniel Dulaney (1685-1753) became one of that colony's wealthiest officials & largest landowners. Ed's notes: Daniel Dulany, (born 1685, County Queens, Ireland—died Dec. 5, 1753, Annapolis, Md. [U.S.]), Irish-American colonial lawyer, landowner, and public official. Dulany went to Maryland in 1703, studied law, and was admitted to the bar in 1709. He soon became prominent and wealthy from his legal practice. A year after Dulany moved to Annapolis, he was elected to represent the town in the Maryland Assembly. At first, Dulany became a leader of the legislative faction that opposed proprietorial authority in the colony, and he argued that the citizens of Maryland were entitled to the benefits of all English legal statutes. During the next decade, however, Dulany crossed over to support the proprietorial faction and was rewarded with successively higher offices in the colony. In 1742 he became a member of the Governor’s Council, where he took a leading role in securing the passage in 1747 of a tobacco inspection law that considerably enhanced the quality of the colony’s tobacco crop. His son Daniel Dulany the Younger (1722–97) was a well-known contributor to the pre-Revolutionary pamphlet wars.

At his death he left personal property worth ￡10,921 9s.8d, including 187 slaves, substantial loans, & about ten thousand acres of land in five counties. Personal property in his Annapolis mansion was valued at ￡3,062 2s.1o-1/4d & included 2,594 ounces of silver with a total value of ￡415 His hot beverage service-iternized in the rooms where it was kept & used—was impressive, elegant, & in a few instances unusual. Spoon boats or saucers or rests for spoons do not often appear in American inventories. References to table linens associated with tea are even less common. Dulaney's Tea Table Cloths" are unprecedented, especially since they are accompanied with an additional five old & four very small cloths & thirty tea napkins. In addition there was a cover for the "Japan'd Tea table."

Because the silver items are assigned a collective value. a total for the hot beverage service is not possible. Appraised values for items other than silver amount to ￡23 18s.rd They range from "2 Stone Tea Pots 1 Ditto Milk Pot" at 1 shilling to Japan'd Tea table & Covering for Ditto" at 15 shillings. For comparison, "Mouse Traps & 5 Ratt Ditto" came to 4 shillings 6 pence & two "Ivory fans carved 6c painted" were worth ￡3 7s.6d. Furniture had greater value, an "Eight Day Clocks at ￡10, "Twelve Silk damask bottoms Mah^ajany Chairs with Linnen Covers" at ￡18, & "Three Dotto [pictures] by Wollaston" at ￡28 7s.

Among Dulaney's silver tea wares was "I Tea Kettle Lamp. And Stand, Two other decedents in this group of sixty-eight owned less-valuable examples of this form, These kettles were not kitchen equipment (fig. 6.3). During the serving of tea, water kept hot with a spirit lamp positioned underneath the belly of the kettle, wag poured into the teapot to brew more tea. The stands were usually low, intended to rest on the tea table itself or on a small stand or table just big enough for the kettle. 

Among these decedents Henry Fitzhugh (Stafford County, Virginia, 1742) was the second owner of a "tea kettle & lamp." His was brass valued at sixteen shillings. Ed's Notes: Henry Fitzhugh (1706-1742) was an American planter & soldier who served 2 terms in the Virginia House of Burgesses representing then-vast Stafford County & was an unsuccessful candidate for Speaker. The only son of William Fitzhugh of "Eagles' Nest" was born in what was then Stafford County (but became King George County, Virginia) & a member of the First Families of Virginia. His grandfather, William Fitzhugh had acquired large estates in Virginia, operated them using enslaved labor & divided them among his 5 sons. Young Henry was sent to England to be educated at Christ Church, Oxford University. After returning to the Virginia colony, this Henry Fitzhugh married Lucy Carter, daughter of "King Carter" of Corotoman plantation & the largest landowner in Virginia of his day. Like other members of his family, Henry Fitzhugh operated large plantations acquired by his father & by using enslaved labor. Stafford County voters elected him as one of their representatives in the House of Burgesses in 1736, & he won re-election in 1742. Henry Fitzhugh had served as lieutenant colonel of the Stafford County militia.

No American paintings depict a tea kettle of this type. In British scenes of tea drinking, servants attend them, possibly because the open spirit lamps & hinged handles were potentially dangerous. Safer were the hot water urns that appear later in the eighteenth century. Instead of an open lamp, a solid metal cote that had been heated in the open fire was placed inside the container to keep the water hot. It flowed from a spout into the teapot (figs. 6.4,6.5).

Food of any sort is uncommon in probate documents. Tea & sugar, nonetheless, appear in Dulaney's inventory. It mentions three types of tea - hyson (a Chinese green tea made from twisted leaves that are long & thin), bohea (a Chinese black tea that derives its name from the Wuyi mountains in Fujian Province), & congo (or congou, a finer type of Chinese black tea, the name of which is derived from kong-hu, meaning "well-worked" or "pains taken"), along with several grades of sugar. Other miscellaneous items from this group of inventories include a "Glass Tea canister" (fessie Ball, 1747) & "6 small Silver hafted Tea Knives."  Most tea wares were ceramic, not glass. Tea knives are very rare, & those with solid silver handles would have been expensive.

If roughly 5% of the richest decedents in the Chesapeake owned impressive equipment for serving tea & other hot beverages between 1741 & 1760, what can be learned about its distribution among the rest of the population? 

Anecdotal evidence suggests interest in tea equipment & tea drinking was spreading throughout the social order. In 1744 Dr. Alexander Hamilton of Annapolis headed north on a pleasure trip hoping to improve his health. Ed's Notes - Dr. Alexander Hamilton (1712-1756) was a Scottish-born doctor & writer who lived & worked in Annapolis in 18C colonial Maryland. Historian Leo Lemay says his 1744 travel diary Gentleman's Progress: The Itinerarium of Dr. Alexander Hamilton is "the best single portrait of men & manners, of rural & urban life, of the wide range of society & scenery in colonial America." His diary covered Maryland to Maine; & biographer Elaine Breslaw says he encountered: "the relatively primitive social milieu of the New World. He faced unfamiliar & challenging social institutions: the labor system that relied on black slaves, extraordinarily fluid social statuses, distasteful business methods, unpleasant conversational quirks, as well as variant habits of dress, food, & drink."

From New York, he & Mr. Milne, formerly a churchman in Albany, traveled up the Hudson River. When their sloop tied up on the west bank to collect water, the men entered a small log cottage that was home to a husband, wife, & seven children, While the parents were otherwise occupied & the children gathered blackberries, the visitors rather ungraciously passed judgment on the family's furnishings, Mr. Milne thought a pail with water would make a satisfactory substitute for the looking glass with its painted frame & that wooden spoons & plates should replace the worn out but bright pewter. The stone tea dishes & teapot were "quite unnecessary." 

Clearly, however, the family had other ideas about the role of tea equipage in their lives, & they were not alone. Throughout the colonies Americans were buying teapots, cups & saucers, & other items. Those made of silver, hard-paste porcelain from China, or soft-paste porcelain from England were expensive, but similar items, made of lead, or tin-glazed earthenware or stoneware, were available at low prices,

As the century progressed, innovations in ceramic production further expanded the range of available wares in terms of price & appearance. Poorer customers with only small amounts of cash or limited credit could, therefore, participate in this new consumer revolution. Hot beverages represent only a small fraction of the consumer goods that began to make the lives of people in Europe & America more pleasant, comfortable, & aesthetically pleasing. 

A major transformation in both demand & production was well underway by the middle of the eighteenth century. The list of industrial inventions exploded. Nearly every category of household furnishing was affected - textiles, metal cooking wares, table knives & forks, other dining equipage, looking glasses, prints & paintings, & so forth. Previously only the wealthy were entitled to display fancy clothes & indulge in luxuries. Gradually, however, ordinary people assumed the right to spend a little money & express personal taste. As they bought new equipment & learned to use it, they abandoned traditional folk ways & became early consumers.

Modern historians estimate that by the time of the Revolution about two-thirds of white adults could have had tea every day. Some years earlier in 1759, Ezra Stiles, the president of Yale, traveled to Cape Cod where he counted 1,940 families of whom 1,500, or 77 percent drank tea There is also limited evidence of interest in tea drinking among African Americans & Native Americans. A few African American & Native American potters were sufficiently familiar with tea wares to have copied European shapes in ordinary earthenware. In 1761 Stiles sketched the location of a tea table that he observed in the Niantic, Connecticut, wigwam of the Native American sisters Phebe & Elizabeth Moheege (fig. 6.8). Their dwelling was also furnished with a shelf with plates, two chests, a second table, a dresser, & six chairs. There were mats for beds. There also exists evidence of African American tea use & tea ware manufacture. When Jullian Ursyn Niemcewicz from Poland visited Mount Vernon in 1797, he wrote:

We entered one of the huts of the blacks, for one can not call them by the name of houses. They are more miserable than the most miserable of the cottages of our peasants. The husband & wife sleep on a mean pallet, the children on the ground; a very bad fireplace, some utensils for cooking, but in the middle of this poverty some cups & a teapot. 

Probate Evidence from the Chesapeake & from Pennsylvania, 1774

Two other groups of inventories, all taken in 1774, help to refine these views & suggest a more limited pattern of ownership of hot leverage service items. These samples are statistically accurate & range from poorest to the richest decedents in two geographic location, several counties in Maryland & Virginia & three areas in Pennsylvania.

The 143 inventories from Anne Arundel & Queen Anne Counties in Maryland & eight counties in Virginia serve as a counterbalance to the group of documents that focus on wealthier decedents in the Chesapeake from 1741 to 1760. Hot beverage items appear in just over half of the inventories (74). Fourteen decedents owned equipment for serving both tea & coffee, three for both tea & chocolate. Only two mentioned coffee without tea. The dividing point falls at the estate value of about ￡500, but the poorer people were not ignoring all the new refinements associated with the emerging desire for & acquisition of consumer goods.

The three areas of Pennsylvania represented include two rural counties & Philadelphia. In Northampton County to the north along the Delaware River nearly everyone farmed & no one was wealthy. Of twenty-one decedents, there was one widow, one laborer-weaver, & one farmer-cooper. In Westmoreland County, well toward the west along the border with Maryland, the 8 decedents were a mix of yeomen, farmers, & a single weaver. Eight of the total twenty-nine documents contain some mention of coffee or tea, but none attests social consumption. For instance, T. Jamison of Westmoreland owned a single "coffey mill" & S. Wilson "a tea pot" valued at 3 shillings 5 pence. In Northhampton the widow Frederick's estate included "1 coffee mill" at 4 shillings 6 pence & a "tea pot."

In Philadelphia County the 134 decedents were mainly artisans & merchants with a few farmers. Not surprisingly, equipment for the service of hot beverages was more wide-spread & differed according to wealth groups. The useful breaking point is again ￡500, Above that, nearly all decedents owned some object associated with tea, coffee, or chocolate.

The 3 areas of Pennsylvania represented include two rural counties & Philadelphia. In Northampton County to the north along the Delaware River nearly everyone fanned & no one was wealthy. Of twenty-one decedents, there was one widow, one laborer-weaver, & one farmer-cooper. In Westmoreland County, well toward the west along the border with Maryland, the eight decedents were a mix of yeomen, farmers, & a single weaver. Eight of the total 29 documents contain some mention of coffee or tea, but none suggests social consumption. For instance, T. Jamison of Westmoreland owned a single "coffey mill" & S. Wilson "a tea pot" valued at 3 shillings 5 pence. In Northampton the widow Frederick's estate included "1 coffee mill" at 4 shillings 6 pence & a "tea pot."

In Philadelphia County the 134 decedents were mainly artisans & merchants with a few farmers. Not surprising, equipment for the service of hot beverages was more widespread & differed according to wealth groups. The useful breaking point is again ￡500. Above that, nearly all decedents owned some object associated with tea, coffee, or chocolate.

Below that amount, roughly half were so equipped. It is reasonable to read these numbers as confirmation of Devereaux Jarratt's experience & even of Ezra Stileses somewhat higher numbers for tea drinkers on Cape Cod. While Pennsylvania, especially during the 1750s & early 17608, was sometimes called the best poor man's country, by the 1770s it is likely that between one-fourth & one-third of its free population lived precariously. Poorer people struggled to meet basic expenses for food, shelter, & clothing. Even the modest price of a kettle, teapot, & a few cups exceeded their budgets.

Eighty-two the 134 Philadelphia County inventories list some hot beverage - 78 for tea, 48 for coffee, & 5 for chocolate. The overlap is significant. Only two inventories mention chocolate without tea or coffee, & another two note coffee without tea. The seventy-eight tea takers (58 %) were far from uniform in what they owned. Three quarters listed teakettles (60 of 78) & crockery of some sort (59 of 78), often specified as Chine, blue & white, Queensware, Burnt, stoneware, earthenware, tea cups & saucers, or tea ware. Teapots, sugar bowls, milk or cream jugs, & slop basins may have on occasion been lumped with the ceramics, but they also appear separately. Teapots are mentioned in only twenty-eight inventories. Two were specified as silver & came with stands, In addition, there were three tea urns. Cream jugs appear in seventeen inventories & ten of them were of silver. Sugar bowls (8) & slop basins (2) were less likely to be identified. Nearly half the decedents owned tea tables (39 of 78) & teaspoons (37 of 78). About a quarter owned sugar tongs (22 of 78). More than half the spoons (20 of 37) & the tongs (12 of 22) were of silver. Canisters or chests (29) appear in more than a quarter. Trays, often itemized as "waiters" or "salvers," show up less frequently (16 of 78). There were very few stands (8 of 78). The blizzard of objects, materials, & prices reveals buyers taking advantage of the wide range of similar goods available in shops. Even so, while many took tea, few had the equipment to impress their guests with a complete service for a large company.

Tea drinkers also drank coffee. By about 1750 European growers had secured fertile seeds from "yemenite traders & were growing coffee in the mountains of the South American coast & the Caribbean islands. The relative importance of the tea & coffee trades & the preference for the beverages during these decades is, however, obscure. Only two of the inventories of 1774 mention coffee or its equipment without any reference to tea. Both are mentioned in 46 inventories. Two documents simply refer to coffee or a "coffee can." Two others specify coffee cups. More frequent in their appearance are mills for grinding (24) & pots (26). Materials are rarely specified. Four coffee pots were made of copper & 2 of silver. Roasters were scarce, appearing in only 3 estates, but beans might have been either purchased roasted & ground or roasted at home in a sauce or frying pan.

Five inventories list chocolate. Two of the decedents were shopkeepers who sold the commodity but did not own any equipment for its preparation. Three men, a merchant, an innkeeper, & an apothecary owned chocolate pots. The merchants & apothecary's estates were valued at well over ￡500 the innkeeper at lets than ￡100. All three also owned equipment related to both tea & coffee.

Tea's dominance over coffee & especially chocolate seems to have persisted into the very early 19C. This is of note because it is a commonly held belief that today s preference for coffee over tea in the United States stemmed directly from the role of tea in the Revolution. The affluent Samels family, for example, chose to be painted at a tilt-top tea table. Similarly, portraits of Mrs. Reuben Humphreys (ca. 18oo) & Mrs. Calmes (1806) feature elegant tea ware prominently. 

There no way to tell conclusively what: beverage the young African American serving girl is offering to those in John Lewis Krimmel's painting of a quilting party, By the second decade of the 19C, coffee had begun to dominate the hot beverage market in the United States. Just as the opportunity to trade at Canton after 1713 led to the preference for tea in Britain & her colonies, when the interests of American merchants expanded into the coffee trade of the Caribbean islands & South America, the buying & drinking public eventually began to follow. By 1827 African American butler Robert Roberts was instructing young servants to fill their trays with "one cup of tea between every two of coffee, as they [the guests] generally take more coffee than tea at the first round." The switch was assured by the 1840s when American merchants came to control the international buyings roasting, grinding, packaging & selling of coffee to an international market. This did not, however, indicate the demise of tea.

As the evidence suggests, while tea, tea wares, & social tea drinking were important in the eighteenth century, they were not universal. Wealthy urban families in Europe & America initially began to serve tea on social occasions. They bought significant quantities of equipment & used it according to precise rules of conduct & performance. About 1750, however, people with less money began to express their social ambitions & took advantage of the wares that producers were supplying in many materials & designs & at a wide range of price levels. Even so, many poor families (generally those with estates valued below 500) chose not to indulge in the luxury of hot tea.

See: "Determining The Growth And Distribution Of Tea Drinking In 18C America" by Barbara G. Carson (1941-2011)