My dissertation is tentatively titled “Backwater Men: Manliness, Authority, and Allegiance on a Revolutionary Frontier.” This project is the result of my longstanding interest in Appalachian settlers’ involvement in the American Revolution. My geographic focus is present-day eastern Tennessee and southwestern Virginia, which has not been the subject of as much solid scholarship as other early American frontier regions.
Many frontier settlers were invested in the cause for liberty and pledged allegiance to the Patriot cause at an early date. At the same time, however, they lived on the Revolution’s geographical margins, had concerns that were distinctive to their precarious position on the edge of Indian country, and sometimes struck their contemporaries as licentious and lawless. There were thus centrifugal forces pushing easterners and westerners apart and centripetal forces pulling them together into a common struggle for independence. To understand the Revolutionary experience on the frontier, we need a framework that makes sense of these forces operating in tension.
Gender provides just such a framework. I argue that eighteenth-century ideas about manliness shaped the frontier role in the Revolution in ways that were both profound and paradoxical. Settlers in the Southern mountains shared many notions about what it meant to be a man with their contemporaries in other parts of British America. Among the most important of these manly ideals was the belief that real men should be assertive in defending their prerogatives and their communities’ rights. At the outbreak of the Revolution, frontiersmen invoked these shared ideals to join in a cross-regional alliance with Patriots elsewhere. This alliance was critical to the settlers’ effort to fend off attacks by their Cherokee neighbors, who went to war in 1776 on behalf of a very different vision of manhood.
But if proper Revolutionary manliness meant assertiveness, it also meant restraint and moderation. When frontiersmen mobilized to fight the British and their Loyalist and Native American allies, their behavior sometimes struck observers as too licentious and disorderly, unsuited to the demands of proper republican manhood. Authority on the frontier was too precarious for settler leaders to control their ostensible followers. Many prominent frontiersmen shared eastern convictions about the need for order and restraint, but the eighteenth-century West was not a congenial environment for imposing authority on others.
While frontiersmen and other Revolutionaries found much common ground in terms of the struggle for independence and manly ideals, by the end of the war the perception of backwoods licentiousness dominated many contemporaries’ attitudes about the frontier and its inhabitants. Frontiersmen themselves, meanwhile, continued to use the language of assertive, republican masculinity to defend their own conduct. This opposition between seaboard visions of licentious frontier masculinity and settlers’ manly self-justifications laid a gendered foundation for the East-West tensions of the Confederation and Federalist eras.
Thirty years ago Joan Scott pronounced gender a “useful category of historical analysis.”[i] Bringing manliness to bear on the Revolutionary frontier bears this pronouncement out. By considering frontiersmen as men, we can make sense of both why they threw in their lot with the Patriot cause and why their conduct troubled so many of their contemporaries. We can best understand the frontier Revolution when we see it as the participants themselves did—bound up with ideas about what it meant to be a man in eighteenth-century America.
[i] Joan W. Scott, “Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis,” The American Historical Review 91, no. 5 (1986): 1053-1075.