If we had destroyed all the men of North America, we should have enough to do to conquer the women.
British officer commenting on American Camp Followers
Hardened by the rigors of military life, women who lived in the camps and marched with the army were, or became, “as tough as nails.” To the British troops, they were called ‘trulls’ and ‘doxies’. The Americans were more direct in naming the women who accompanied their army; camp followers. Whereas quartermasters and supply officers listed the women as living ‘baggage,’ generals and other officers labeled them necessary ‘nuisances.’ Yet throughout the war, and in fact all wars dating back to the beginning of recorded history, there was a universal recognition that these women were important. Moreso, they were essential not just to the wellbeing of an army, but to its very survival. The roles these women played in supporting the army both in camps, forts, and even in the heat of battle, was enormous.
What was their role?
Every army that marched to battle brought with them a support system that aided their daily lives. This system was the camp follower; who were predominantly women. Not only did they feed the men, they attended to their hygiene by washing and mending their clothes, lugged house hold supplies and baggage when the army marched, saw to the soldier’s moral including sexual service, and nursed men in sickness. When accompanying husbands, including temporary ‘camp husbands,’ they assumed all care of children, including the large number born during years of encampment.
Besides their housewifery duties, many were also employed by the army. The pay was meager requiring they performed multiple tasks men either had not time to fulfill, or shunned from doing so themselves; such as washing and mending clothing. But so too, many women were entrepreneurs serving as sutlers; those who sold products and supplies for profit to the soldiers. And what has been described as the oldest profession; prostitutes followed the army. Not just for rank and file, but so too for officers who often took on mistresses while at camp.
Who were these women?
Shunned by communities of ‘decent’ women who remained home while men marched to war, these camp followers were divided into two distinct classes: Those who accompanied their officer husbands to camps, and a lower order of social class, the wives of the rank and file. So too, a large number of single women who joined the camp sought ‘camp husbands’ as temporary mistresses who also performed all expected household duties. Both classes were employed as regimental workers, though rare for high ranking officer’s wives and mistresses.
Married women of officers were among the upper class of delicacy and refinement and were expected to act as such. They were treated with respect and dignity and subject to a high degree of chivalry. They were quartered in the finest homes. Often they were provided slaves and attendants to see to their needs. There were no derogatory titles to label these ‘decent’ women.
For all others, which numbered far more than the elite, there was no order of social décor. For them, the phrase ‘chivalry is dead’ comes to mind. These included rank and file wives, ‘camp wives’ or temporary mistresses, tradeswomen, and prostitutes. They were housed in tents or crammed into shabby huts and temporary ‘shacks.’ If they required something, there were no servants at their command; they got it themselves. Like the men, many cursed, drank, argued with the best of them, and when pushed to the point, could handle themselves in a drawn down, no bars fight. And during campaigning, while marching through the countryside or cities, the women were accused of the most vulgar language, shouting out as one officer described it in their “sluttish shrills.”
Military life could be brutal and over time, hardened even the most delicate soul. The regiment was not required to feed and cloth the women. Their meager regiment pay barely provided. Rather than suffer from lack of food and supplies – these followers would resort to thievery for survival. To provide food for their children and themselves during lean times, they would plunder and loot both from fellow soldiers and the communities they passed through. As such, after a battle, these followers would join the soldiers in roaming among the bodies, stripping the dead of their clothing and anything of value. Often these women were seen at camp wearing ‘treasures’ of military coats.
What drove these women to join the army?
The reasons women subjected themselves to the ruggedness of military life were many as they were personal. It was frequently based on trauma, needs, or family situations. Though popular opinion believes most women followed the army as prostitutes, the opposite was true – prostitution being the smallest percentage of women in camp.
Most followers were from the lower ranks of society. Common were those who sought the army as a last resort: loneliness, poverty, fear of starvation, possibility of rape or death at the hands of invading troops. Many among them were single. Other reasons were more domestic: wives not willing to or unable to care for the farm or business while the husband was away, those who did not want to interrupt the family structure during the war years, and those who desired to care for their husband throughout the ordeal.
Many who flocked to these camps did so to find a mate. Often they became ‘camp wives,’ or mistresses, caring for and having sexual relations of these temporary husbands. Though military rations were meager and camp condition dismal with minimal liberties, many women accepted this as either a means for survival, or what was necessary to accompany their partners in life.
Officer’s wives joined mainly to retain some semblance of family life while the husband campaigned. Depending on how high in rank their husband achieved, the decision to accompany their man to war also depended on the husband’s rank. Those of higher rank offered their wives a far more pleasant lifestyle with few if any duties. Those of lower rank, where the wife lived in more meager surroundings, were required to be more active in household duties.
The smallest percentage of women camp followers did so for purely financial benefits. Sutlers set up shops and sold directly to the soldiers for profit. And prostitution, in which good money was had depending on the active a sex worker.
How many women camp followers were there during the war?
Numbers rose and fell by the seasons; more during the winter months when the army was inactive. Less when fighting renewed in spring and summer.
Americans: The total number of camp followers was conservatively estimated to be about 3% of the camp population. However, some estimates place the number far higher. This varied widely from regiment to regiment. Generally speaking, more women were attracted to follow the army from communities and colonies where there was intense fighting or enemy occupation.
British: It is estimated that as many as 5,000 women and incredibly 12,000 children experienced camp life during the war. Because the British army were better equipped and supplied, they naturally attracted more camp followers seeking both male companionship and better means of living.
Were these women necessary?
Exceedingly! For centuries before the American conflict, military leaders realized the value of women accompanying the troops while in camp and on the march. Organization is supreme in military environments and as such, women followers provided the grease for a well-oiled machine. The British professional army knew this. Throughout the war, they obtained a higher number of women camp followers than the more amateur Americans, whose leaders were drawn from local militias.
Women as a rule increased the moral of an army. For the upper class, officer wives were the glue to a social atmosphere that mirrored the formal, ‘proper’ life of home. They arranged pageant events such as dinners and dancing balls, and served as a buttress for husbands who faced the strain of command. For the lower class, they too served moral as homemaker, wife, and mother to many soldiers. From housekeeping to sexual partners, they brought a normalcy to the uncertainty of war.
While in camp, women cooked the food, labored on all scullery, washed and mended uniforms, and attended to the children and saw to the sick. They saw to all the needs of their husbands or ‘camp husbands,’ and so too, were employed to serve the regiment as a whole. They provided companionship and a general increase of army moral. When marching, they joined the ‘beasts of burden.’ Large baskets and sacks, filled with cookery and household needs, were carried on their backs over endless roads.
But perhaps of most importance, in an age where sickness killed more troops than battlefields, they contributed immensely to the army’s better hygiene. Washerwomen and nurses were paramount in this role. Men who grew up having women do all household chores, balked at hygiene. More times than most, mainly among the Americans, they wore the same soiled clothing and uniform weeks on end. Therefore, besides servicing their own man’s need in hygiene, women were hired as washerwomen for entire regiments. As nurses, they far outnumbered the doctors and male attendants who saw to the sick’s special needs.
Lastly, military commanders were always fearful of the dreaded ‘affection’ or as we know it, venereal disease. It could easily run rampant through the ranks, adding to the disabled list. This was especially true when bivouacked in or around a city where ‘sloven’ women were far more available. Women from ‘good’ homes who were considered safe and ‘clean’ were sought after to service soldiers’ sexual desires. Though often officers frowned on prostitutes, they tended to look the other way when ‘kept in house’. This helped prevent their men from roaming back alleys where disease was prevalent. It would be another century until the word hooker was associated with prostitution; named for Civil War American General Joseph Hooker and his use of multiple prostitutes among his camp followers.
Married women or mistress?
In the British military, only officers’ wives and mainly of the upper ranks, could afford to ship their wives and family from England. Therefore, many soldiers, both single and married, obtained mistresses throughout the war. Of most famous was Elizabeth ‘Betsy’ Loring, wife of opportunist Joshua Loring. He offered his wife to entertain and serve as sexual partner to General William Howe i,n exchange for commissioner of prisoners (a position in which Loring skimmed a fortune from food and supply money meant for prisoners).
As to regular army grunts, five of every six soldiers were single. Many sought after temporary ‘camp wives,’ basically mistresses. The British regular had better luck than the Americans. Far more ‘desirable’ women flocked to the crown’s army. because they were better supplied than the Americans. Most of these ‘camp marriages’ ended with the war and the soldiers shipping home. Even when willing, the cost of passage to England restricted the meagerly paid soldiers from bringing their ‘wives.’ However, over two thousand German mercenaries deserted during the war, favoring the rich American lifestyle over what waited for them in Prussia. Many of these started their new lives with their camp romantic partners.
Officers in the American army, both senior and junior, did not face a massive expense shipping their family overseas. Many just had a few days or so coach ride. Therefore, when an army camped, especially for the winter months, appropriate housing was available for most officers, often found among vacant loyalist’s homes. This left plenty of room for a family. Even the rank and file soldier could support their wives in camp if desired. Of single soldiers and some married, like with the British, camp marriages and mistresses were found, but in smaller number than their red-coated nemesis.
How were camp followers treated?
A small number of followers accompanied the more wealthy officers. Most were from the lower ranks of society, observing the same social class system distinctions that separated the rank and file from officers.
Eighteenth century males adhered to the honor system and a more medieval system of chivalry. Officers, including those of American militiamen, embraced the romantic notions of delicacy and refinement among women of their own class. This respect did not filter down to the impoverished members of camp followers.
Both officers and regulars spoke disparagingly of these ‘base women, showing little if any respect. Considered “odd and disgusting,” they were often spoken of in the lowest manner. Typical were the claims that “the furies who inhabit the infernal regions can never be painted half so hideous as these women.” So too, “of all specimens of human beings, this group capped the whole. A caravan of wild beasts could bear no comparison…” A British officer wrote they were a “swarm of beings – no better than harpies.”
After a battle, when observing women picking among the dead for clothing and valuables, one soldier remarked that they were “doubtless the basest of their sex.” However, he had no problem when viewing his fellow soldiers, himself joining, doing likewise.
American General George Washington, a stickler for discipline and military decorum, is renowned to have despised this lower class of camp followers. During the summer of 1777, he wrote, “The multitude of women in particular, especially those who are pregnant, or have children, are a clog upon every movement.” So too, Washington was vexed as the women continued to disobey him. By war’s end, the commander had issued eight general orders as to how the women were to march with baggage while placing a taboo on women riding in wagons. All were amply ignored.
Frustrated by his lack of controlling these women, Washington continually tried to find some way of reducing their numbers. He asked his officers “to use every reasonable method to get rid of all such as are not absolutely necessary.” Problem was, he would eventually learn that the women accompanying the army, those who he despised the most, were indeed “absolutely necessary.”
Prostitutes, though common throughout camps, received the vilest condemnation from both soldiers and communities. Among many other unsavory terms, they were labeled draggle tales, bitch foxes, jades, jills, gutter snipes, and strums. All while those who most often cursed them the most vehemently, readily opened their purse when services were offered.
Were these women paid?
Yes. Though meager and below male compensation for similar services. Besides those who followed husbands or became camp followers due to loneliness or having experienced traumatic events, a fair number joined with the prospect of earning money as paid housekeepers or to open a shop selling their wares as sulters.
Though while still attending to their own husbands and family’s needs, many women were required to serve the regiment as a whole. These were paid positions. They did so mainly as cooks, washerwomen, seamstresses, scullery, and nurses. For example: one New York regiment of around 250 men required 2 washerwomen. For another regiment of 450 men, four were needed. Generally, most regiments requested one washer woman for every 100 men – a daunting task.
Wages, as stated, were meager. The British washerwoman received three pence per shirt. An American provision at West Point, dated June, 1780, gave the rates for washerwomen in detail. Shirt – 2 shillings, Woolen Breeches with Vest and Overalls – 2 shillings each, Linen Vest and Breeches – 1 shilling, Linen Overalls – 1 shilling, 6 p.
Sutlers, those who sold provisions to the army, were common in camp, both male and female. These female ‘tradesmen,’ became adapt at acquiring goods and necessities and reselling them on to soldiers for a profit.
Sickness was a major concern for both armies, often leaving a third or more of their troops on the disabled list. Male and female attendants as nurses at hospitals were necessary paid positions. Because the British employed more women to clean and cook, they had far better hygiene than their American counterparts; therefore less sickness and fewer nurses than their colonial enemy.
Women nurses served endless shifts of sweeping floors, emptying bedpans and chamber pots, bathing patients, and washing floors and bedding, this as they saw to the overall cleanliness of the hospital. They were paid far less than what surgeons and male attendants made – one ration and 24 pence per day, which equaled about 10% of the male salery.
Were they supplied clothing and other supplies?
The answer is quick and simple. No. Women arrived at camp dressed as their financial station allowed. Within months of the military existence, most clothing, from fine linens to course woolens, would be so worn, it would be difficult to distinguish between the two. This was particularly true among the British. Especially those armies who campaigned heavily, such as General Burgoyne’s northern army and General Cornwallis’ southern army. These women spent endless hours marching while carting their household supplies and children. They slept in fields or crowed huts. And at the end of the day, they were lucky to wash their most likely single gown.
Officers’ wives arrived with several gowns both for daily and formal wear. This included the necessary cloaks, petticoats, shoes, blankets, and clothing for the children. British women would have less due to baggage costs during passage. Lower class women arrived mostly with what they had on their back and possibly one change of clothing. A single blanket for themselves and their children was normal with both parent and child barefooted.
Though soldiers were supplied with clothing and food, not so for the women. They had to make due with what they had or could acquire through payment or thievery. Nor would women be valued as necessary and therefore compensated by state legislatures. When Governor Joseph Reed of Pennsylvania requested his state legislature to appropriate funds to purchase needed gowns and shoes for the women followers of his state’s regiments, his request was most emphatically refused.
Were women considered problematic?
Officers complained that women in camp complicated military order. Wives would goad husbands into fights. Some convinced the soldiers to desert – this was particularly true among the German mercenaries where over two thousand Hessian and Brunswick troops deserted with their American ‘camp wives.’ Some were entrepreneurs who sold rum and liquor to troops. They were accused of insulting local ‘decent’ women as they marched with the army. They disobeyed rules – often resulting in shouting matches with officers. Engaged in sexual advances upon the men. And were reported to have cheated on husbands. And more commonly, they took to thievery – especially when army rations reached their lowest.
Were women punished?
Women followers, though never having enlisted in the army, were required to follow rules similar to the male soldiers. As such, they were placed on measures of strict disciple. If they did not abide, they suffered the consequences like their male counterparts. Often the penalty was small and short lived for a basic rule infractions which included cursing, arguing, not following orders, general disrespect, etc. – receiving as consequence, lessened rations or docked wages. Yet on occasion, they were severe. This occurred if associated with desertion or thievery. One hundred lashes was common for these infractions, often after having been drawn through the camp on a cart. Other penalties could result in being dunked under water, riding the wooden horse, and even drummed out of camp.
Did they suffer when the army was defeated?
Yes. A prime example is the aftermath of the October, 1777 British defeat at the Battle of Saratoga and surrender of British General Burgoyne’s army. Bostonian Hannah Winthrop watched Burgoyne’s captured force marched through town. Once the crown’s finest, a five thousand bedraggled, rag-tagged army of British and Hessian troops, “poor, dirty, emaciated men,” trudged on display before the triumphant patriot population. And trailing behind these beaten and half-starved men, were nearly two thousand women.
Of them Winthrop wrote that they “seemed to be beasts of burden, having a bushel basket on their back, by which they were bent double.” Treated more like mules, these women carried what was basically the life-blood of the army; pots, kettles, utensils, clothing, tents, furniture, and a sundry of supplies upon which an army was sustained. Though cold with the onset of winter, they were barefoot and dressed in rags, many hauling small children that added to their burden. There were also new born infants, some birthed on the long roads to Boston. But what affected Winthrop the most, was “the effluvia that filled the air.” The stink from months of exertions in the wilderness that long abandoned hygiene was overwhelming. She wrote, “I never had the least idea that the Creation produced such a sordid set of creatures in human Figure.
Conclusion
At war’s end, there would be no memorials to the rigors these women underwent in support of either the British or American cause. No statues commentating their sacrifice or incredible deeds during long years of service. For the most part, they would be forgotten. Left out of the heroic accounts later published by veterans and those seeking revenue in glorifying war.
According to Holly A. Meyer’s text Belonging to the Army, Camp Followers and Community during the American Revolution, camp followers “were people who were not officially in the army: they made no enlistment vows. What kept them with the army was their desire to be near loved ones, to support themselves, and/or, in some cases, to share in the adventure. This diverse company encompassed both patriots, those who embraced the cause of independence with a fervor equaling or surpassing that of any soldier, and leeches, who were there merely for personal gain. A few prostitutes and scavengers trailed after the army, but family members, servants, and other authorized civilians outnumbered them by far.”
These women, Meyer’s continues, “Carrying babes in their arms and their household goods on their backs, they trudged after the men and armies that gave them work and bread. The equation was set: the troops provided these women with a livelihood, and the work performed by these women contributed to the operations of the early European armies. Their work proved necessary but not extraordinary, for their tasks tended to be identical to the everyday chores of their sisters at home. They cooked the food, did the wash, mended clothing, took care of the sick and wounded, helped their fellow women, lay with men, and then bore and raised their children.
After the war. Those who followed the British army did not ship out when the regiments left America. The ‘camp marriages’ were dissolved, with many women returned to their former lives. Exceptions were wives of British officers, who could afford the passage of their families back to England or to their next posting. Also soldiers, both British and American, who deserted often did so accompanied by their mistresses or ‘camp wives.’ Prostitutes either continued to work their trade elsewhere, or melted into communities to seek more ‘decent’ employment. American wives returned home with their husbands to resume their lives prior to war’s interruptions.
All would fade away, many to obscurity, without the credit due for their most incredible sacrifice and contribution to the war effort; both for the crown and a new nation. Without them, it can easily be assumed, the conflict we know as the American Revolution, would not have been resolved.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO READ MORE ABOUT WOMEN FOLLOWERS DURING THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, CHECK OUT THESE FREE PREVIEWS ON AMAZON
OF SIMILAR INTEREST ON REVOLUTIONARY WAR JOURNAL
RESOURCE
Berkin, Carol. Revolutionary Mothers: Women in the Struggle for America’s Independence. 2005: Vintage Books a Div. of Random House, New York, NY.
Loane, Nancy K. Following the Drum: Women at the Valley Forge Encampment. 2009: University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Meyer, Holly A. Belonging to the Army: Camp Followers and Community during the American Revolution. 1999:University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC.
Roberts, Cokie. Founding Mothers: The Women Who Raised our Nation. 2004: HarperCollins Publisher, New York, NY.