Mary Beth Norton's Analysis

“Eighteenth-Century American Women in Peace and War: The Case of the Loyalists” is an innovative essay written by acclaimed professor and historian Mary Beth Norton. Throughout her work, Norton effectively weaves an intriguing and extensive portrait of the late eighteenth-century American female loyalist and the rigid domestic sphere she was bound to. Norton argues that numerous loyalist women lacked the financial and economic knowledge necessary to receive adequate reparations from the British government both during and after the American Revolution. Norton further asserts that these domesticated women predominantly viewed themselves as powerless females who possessed far less control over their own lives as opposed to their superior male

equivalents.
Norton bases her analysis of the eighteenth century American woman on 468 separate cases of female refugee loyalists to the British government for wartime compensations.

The claim documents reveal that most women were wholly domestic and possessed insufficient knowledge of their family’s financial holdings. Only a small percentage of urban women had earned their own money. Consequently, the vast majority of female loyalists relied on their husbands to financially support them and deal with all financial matters. Norton stresses that although the female claimants were capable of providing an extensive list of their household possessions, they lacked the necessary financial tools to efficiently pursue their wartime losses claims. As a result, a significant portion of the women claimants were rewarded “a smaller return than their male counterparts” (p. 170).
Norton’s argument is strongly supported per the use of primary and secondary sources. The essay’s rich bibliography reveals Norton’s extensive research into the domestic lives of eighteenth century American women. Norton’s bibliography contains a plethora of primary and secondary documents, including the claims and testimonies of various loyalist women, works from peer historians, and numerous journals, magazines and historical

books.
The strength of Norton’s argument lies in her ability to effectively present the plight of the eighteenth-century American woman. Norton provides numerous primary examples of female loyalists who viewed themselves as both incompetent and ignorant. Despite evidence to the contrary, these women had been inculcated with the belief that their frailty and inadequacy was the direct result of their helpless femininity. Norton writes that in the female loyalists’ minds, “their actions and abilities were…defined by their own sex” and that their “femininity was the constant point of reference in measuring their achievements and making their self-assessments” (p. 176). Norton further asserts that these women’s primary identities were found in being wives and mothers. Thus, the loss of their husbands and the fears of being unable to adequately protect or provide for their children during and after the war drove many of these isolated and alienated women to distraction and utter hopelessness.
While Norton provides strong evidence to support her argument, she simultaneously acknowledges that the loyalist population in Revolutionary America likely “differed demographically and economically” from their revolutionary counterparts and that the female refugee claimants are not a “statistically reliable sample of American womanhood” (p. 167). However, Norton maintains that the female claimants included both rural and urban women, with varying levels of education, and from “all social and economic levels” (p. 167). Consequently, Norton surmises that the 468 separate claims are a revealing study into the lives and experiences of eighteenth century women in Revolutionary America. Despite their social, economic and geographical differences, many of these women experienced similar hardships relating to family, war and the socially constructed limitations of their sex.