logo
Founding Mothers' Day recognizes SC women's contributions to Revolutionary War

Founding Mothers' Day recognizes SC women's contributions to Revolutionary War

Yahoo14-05-2025

Retired Gen. Will Grimsley, chairman of the SC250 commission, speaks in front of a stone showing where Rebecca Motte's home once stood on Monday, May 12, 2025. (Photo by Skylar Laird/SC Daily Gazette)
FORT MOTTE — When Patriots told Rebecca Brewton Motte on May 12, 1781, they needed to set fire to her house, which British soldiers had turned into a supply depot, she gave them the arrows to do so, historian Peggy Pickett told about two dozen history buffs, neighbors and scholars gathered this week at the site of the house.
Motte's story was the focus of the South Carolina American Revolution Sestercentennial Commission's inaugural Founding Mothers event. Members of the commission, which goes by SC250 for short, hope to create an annual tradition of recognizing the women who contributed to America's founding as the country enters its 250th year.
Luther and Doraine Wannamaker, who own the property about 40 miles south of Columbia that once included the Motte home, offered to host the first Founding Mothers event on the anniversary of the day the British surrendered the fort. That just so happened to be the day after Mother's Day.
Gov. Henry McMaster proclaimed Monday to be Founding Mothers' Day.
Commissioners are aiming higher: They want state law changed to designate Founding Mothers' Day as the Monday after Mother's Day every year.
They have the backing of at least one legislator, Sen. Jeff Zell, a Sumter Republican who said Monday he'd be interested in sponsoring a resolution when legislators return to Columbia next year.
Putting the day in state law would be a permanent recognition of the role women played in the Revolution, a role that often gets overlooked, said retired Gen. Will Grimsley, chairman of the SC250 commission.
'We need to constantly go back and tell everybody's story,' Grimsley said. 'But a really undertold part of the story, quite frankly, are women.'
The Wannamakers have done reenactments of the siege, with men on horses riding from what would have been Fort Motte to the farmhouse where Motte herself had been exiled to tell her their plan of laying siege to her home, said Doraine Wannamaker.
The family hosts private tours of the spot, showing off the stone marker surrounded by dirt where the house once stood. An archaeologist from the University of South Carolina has visited repeatedly to dig up artifacts, including a cannonball and shot used by the British and Patriots.
But Monday was the first official event the Wannamakers have hosted alongside the commission responsible for highlighting South Carolina's role in the Revolutionary War.
By the time British troops reached Motte's home in what is now Calhoun County, on a bluff that overlooks what is now Congaree National Park, she had already been forced out of one home because of the war.
Motte's original home in Charleston was selected as a headquarters for Loyalist lieutenant colonels and their company of 30 soldiers when British troops captured the coastal city. Motte, widowed not long before, fled inland to the property once owned by her brother, who had died several years earlier, according to the American Battlefield Trust.
Only a couple of months after Motte moved into the house, the British again came for her home. The house, located near the Congaree and Wateree rivers, was an ideal location for supplies coming from Charleston and headed to Camden and Ninety-Six, said Pickett, who has researched women's contributions to the war effort.
In January 1781, British troops, led by Lt. Donald McPherson, took over the house, called it Fort Motte and surrounded it with fortifications. Motte and her three children fled to a nearby farmhouse on the property, according to the American Battlefield Trust.
Patriots took interest in Fort Motte in May of that year, after taking out several other British posts.
Forcing the British to surrender Motte's house would take out a crucial supply line for the British.
As the Patriots, led by Brig. Gen. Francis Marion — known as the 'Swamp Fox' — began the siege on Fort Motte, McPherson refused to surrender, correctly guessing reinforcements were approaching, Pickett said.
It was then that Motte, approached by either Marion or Lt. Colonel Henry Lee, agreed to let the Patriots burn down her house and destroy the supply depot altogether. According to some historical accounts, Motte gave the Americans combustible arrows to help them.
'Instead of being upset when told, she replied, according to Lee's memoirs, that she was grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the good of her country, and she would watch the approaching scene with delight,' Pickett said.
After setting fire to the house's roof, the Patriots fired grapeshot at any British soldiers who tried to put it out. McPherson surrendered, and the Patriots took back the burned Fort Motte. Patriots and British soldiers then dined together in the farmhouse where Motte and her family had been staying, Pickett said.
'Now, the capture of Fort Motte was not a grand, epic battle,' Pickett said. 'It was a small, relatively bloodless engagement, but it was a significant victory for the Americans because it changed the momentum of the war in their favor.'
Not much remains of the site of the siege. A large stone that shows where the house once stood reads, 'Site of Rebecca Motte's home, sacrificed for her country, May 12, 1781.' As historians told the story of the battle, flags waved in blustery wind behind them, one British and several representing the Patriots, including the Gadsden flag.
Most women's contributions to the war were small but meaningful. They managed farms and plantations while their husbands and sons were fighting in the war, sent food and provisions to the army and gathered information to pass along. They took sick and wounded soldiers into their homes and either nursed them back to health or buried them when they died, Pickett said.
'None of these things were very easy for them to do,' Pickett said.
Others had more active roles in thwarting British troops and helping the Patriots claim victory.
Take, for instance, Dorothy Sinkler Richardson, who historians credit with saving Marion's life in 1780.
When British Col. Banastre Tarleton set up a decoy campsite near Richardson's plantation meant to lure Marion for an attack, Richardson sent a messenger to warn Marion, according to SC250.
'Thanks to Dorothy Sinkler Richardson, Francis Marion remained at liberty to continue to make life difficult for the British,' Pickett said.
Jane Thomas, who lived in what is now Spartanburg, similarly foiled a plot to surprise American troops after overhearing two women talking about a plot to surprise Patriot soldiers near Thomas' house. Thomas, who was 60 miles from home, rode back straight away to warn the men, allowing them to instead surprise the British troops, Pickett said.
Emily Geiger, at 18 years old, volunteered to deliver a message to Gen. Thomas Sumter ('The Gamecock') to meet Maj. Gen. Nathanael Greene, believing a young woman would be able to get through enemy lines where a man would not. She was successful and helped join the two battalions, Pickett said.
In coming years, the commission plans to host similar events in other parts of the state, highlighting the stories of different women, said Molly Fortune, executive director of SC250.
Telling these stories is a major step forward, but there's more work to be done, Pickett said.
Designating a day to remember the ways in which women contributed to the country's foundation is a way of ensuring their stories remain in the public eye instead of being lost to history, she said.
'We are just beginning to explore the activities performed by Native American women and women of African descent,' Pickett said. 'We need to do the research to bring their stories to light, because the more stories we bring to light, the more attention we bring to the important role that South Carolina played in winning our independence.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Campaigners join national walk against solar farms
Campaigners join national walk against solar farms

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Campaigners join national walk against solar farms

Campaigners have taken part in a walk to protest against plans to install thousands of solar panels on prime agricultural land. The Claydons Solar Action Group organised the event near Winslow and The Claydons in Buckinghamshire as part of a national community walk day on Sunday to highlight the issue of rural solar farm development. Developers say the Rosefield Solar Farm would provide enough clean energy to power more than 57,000 homes - and would have a shelf life of 40 years. The Conservative Mid Buckinghamshire MP, Greg Smith, described the plan as "inefficient technology that trashes the countryside and damages our food security". A government spokesperson said projects were "subject to a rigorous planning process, in which the views and interests of the local community and impacts on the local environment, including any impact on amenities, landscapes and land use, are considered." The walk at Botolph Claydon was one of 25 taking place nationally against solar farm developments, with others planned in Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire, Norfolk and Bedfordshire. Geography teacher Lorraine Campbell, who has lived in the area for 15 years, said: "The whole reason people come to live in the countryside is because they want to be able to enjoy the wildlife and the landscape. "It's being taken away from us. "This is not the place for solar panels. This is agricultural grade land, it's full of biodiversity. "Solar panels should be put on the roofs of warehouses, of distribution centres. There are hundreds of those." Local councillor Frank Mahon said the plan was a "ridiculous proposal". "North Buckinghamshire has become a dumping ground for major infrastructure, HS2, East West Rail, a mega prison, not to mention three solar farms. "Nobody is taking into consideration the beautiful countryside we have and the amount of farmers that will lose their livelihoods." MP Mr Smith said constituents were "absolutely opposed to the dearth of solar farms, battery storage, substation rebuilds that we're seeing in our beautiful Buckinghamshire countryside". "Two thousand acres of solar panels to produce enough energy for 50,000 homes - a tiny tiny fraction of our energy need." A government spokesperson said: "Solar is at the heart of our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower, and just this week the government confirmed that new build homes will have solar panels by default. "As of September last year, solar farms covered around 0.1 per cent of the total land area of the UK, while bringing huge benefits for the British public and our energy security." A consultation on the Rosefield plan took place between 18 September and 5 December 2024 and the planning process was ongoing. Follow Beds, Herts and Bucks news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X. Campaigners join national walk against solar farms Solar farm size reduced after public consultation Rosefield Solar Farm

Campaigners join national walk against solar farms
Campaigners join national walk against solar farms

Yahoo

time4 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Campaigners join national walk against solar farms

Campaigners have taken part in a walk to protest against plans to install thousands of solar panels on prime agricultural land. The Claydons Solar Action Group organised the event near Winslow and The Claydons in Buckinghamshire as part of a national community walk day on Sunday to highlight the issue of rural solar farm development. Developers say the Rosefield Solar Farm would provide enough clean energy to power more than 57,000 homes - and would have a shelf life of 40 years. The Conservative Mid Buckinghamshire MP, Greg Smith, described the plan as "inefficient technology that trashes the countryside and damages our food security". A government spokesperson said projects were "subject to a rigorous planning process, in which the views and interests of the local community and impacts on the local environment, including any impact on amenities, landscapes and land use, are considered." The walk at Botolph Claydon was one of 25 taking place nationally against solar farm developments, with others planned in Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire, Norfolk and Bedfordshire. Geography teacher Lorraine Campbell, who has lived in the area for 15 years, said: "The whole reason people come to live in the countryside is because they want to be able to enjoy the wildlife and the landscape. "It's being taken away from us. "This is not the place for solar panels. This is agricultural grade land, it's full of biodiversity. "Solar panels should be put on the roofs of warehouses, of distribution centres. There are hundreds of those." Local councillor Frank Mahon said the plan was a "ridiculous proposal". "North Buckinghamshire has become a dumping ground for major infrastructure, HS2, East West Rail, a mega prison, not to mention three solar farms. "Nobody is taking into consideration the beautiful countryside we have and the amount of farmers that will lose their livelihoods." MP Mr Smith said constituents were "absolutely opposed to the dearth of solar farms, battery storage, substation rebuilds that we're seeing in our beautiful Buckinghamshire countryside". "Two thousand acres of solar panels to produce enough energy for 50,000 homes - a tiny tiny fraction of our energy need." A government spokesperson said: "Solar is at the heart of our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower, and just this week the government confirmed that new build homes will have solar panels by default. "As of September last year, solar farms covered around 0.1 per cent of the total land area of the UK, while bringing huge benefits for the British public and our energy security." A consultation on the Rosefield plan took place between 18 September and 5 December 2024 and the planning process was ongoing. Follow Beds, Herts and Bucks news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X. Campaigners join national walk against solar farms Solar farm size reduced after public consultation Rosefield Solar Farm

Time to face the harsh realities of spending orthodoxy
Time to face the harsh realities of spending orthodoxy

Yahoo

time4 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Time to face the harsh realities of spending orthodoxy

Labour came to power fatuously parroting the word 'change' and yet has shown itself to be the same old tax and spending party it has always been. What it meant was a change of party in office not a change of direction. Not only have taxes gone up but so-called protected spending is set to rise despite record debt levels. Yet if ever a public policy has been tested to destruction surely it is the notion that the NHS will improve if only more money is thrown at it. Even Sir Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, are on record as saying that higher health spending is not the answer to the endemic flaws in the health service and yet another £30 billion is to be announced for the next three years on top of the £22 billion handed over after last year's general election, much of which went on pay and showed nothing in the way of productivity improvement. No mainstream politician is prepared to acknowledge that the problem with the NHS is the fact it is a nationalised industry with all the inherent inefficiencies associated with such. Most other advanced economies in Europe and elsewhere have social insurance systems which work better. But the insistence in Britain of cleaving to the 1948 'founding principle' that treatment should be free at the point of delivery has become a quasi-religious doctrine that few dare challenge. Only Nigel Farage has questioned the wisdom of continuing with a system that patently fails to achieve what others manage to do but has been noticeably quiet on the subject recently because Labour will exploit it mercilessly to see off the Reform people that they will have to pay for something they have always had for free is even more difficult when political parties are prepared to see the health system get worse rather than reform it. The same is true of welfare. Taking benefits from people, even when they are payments introduced just a few years ago like the winter fuel allowance, is hard if the reasons are not explained and the issue is 'weaponised' by opponents. Yet unless the welfare budget is brought under control it will bankrupt the country. If change is to mean anything then we need politicians finally to understand the extent of the country's difficulties and make decisions accordingly. Will we see that from the Chancellor on Wednesday? Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store