Molly Pitcher(s?)
In 1876, caught up in the patriotic excitement of the first centennial of the American Revolution, the people of Carlisle, Pennsylvania, raised a stone inscribed “Molly Pitcher” over the previously unmarked grave of a local resident, Mary Ludwig Hays McCauley (ca. 1754–1832). In the years before her death, Hays claimed to have served at the Battle of Monmouth, on June 28, 1778, carrying water to the artillerymen, including her husband, William Hays. When Hays was wounded and unable to continue, she stepped in as an impromptu member of the artillery team. A hundred years after the fact, she looked like a shoo-in for the legendary figure of Molly Pitcher.[1]
One resident of Carlisle, Jeremiah Zeamer, editor of the local newspaper, felt strongly that McCauley should not be so honored. He wrote to Congressman Marlin E. Olmsted that local townswomen remembered McCauley as “a vulgar, very profane, drunken old woman.”[2]
Despite Zeamer’s objections, there is no reason to think McCauley’s account wasn’t true. A similar story appears in the memoir of Joseph Plumb Martin, published in the 1830s under the name Private Yankee Doodle. Writing about the Battle of Monmouth, Martin mentions
one little incident [that] happened during the heat of the cannonade, which I was eyewitness to. . . . A woman whose husband belonged to the artillery and who was then attached to a piece in the engagement, attended with her husband at the piece the whole time. While in the act of reaching a cartridge and having one of her feet as far before the other as she could step, a cannon shot from the enemy passed directly between her legs without doing any other damage then [sic] carrying away all the lower part of her petticoat. Looking at it with apparent unconcern, she observed that it was lucky it did not pass a little higher, for in that case it might have carried away something else, and continued her occupation.
He does not name this irrepressible artillery woman, and there is no direct evidence linking her with McCauley. (On the other hand, there is no evidence that Martin’s unknown woman wasn’t McCauley, either.) But there is a bawdiness to the story that seems in keeping with Zeamer’s later complaints. Moreover, the fact that the Pennsylvania legislature granted her a pension for her services during the war, which may well have included carrying water to the cannon, lends credence to the story.
But McCauley isn’t the only serious candidate for the title.
Margaret Corbin (1752–1800) is known to have wo-manned an artillery piece on the field at least once.[3] Corbin followed her husband, John, from one military camp to another during the American Revolution. They were both on the field at the Battle of Fort Washington in New York City, on November 16, 1776: John as an artilleryman and Corbin as a water carrier.[4] When enemy gunfire killed her husband, Corbin took his place at the cannon. She didn’t stop until she was wounded by a blast of grapeshot that mangled her shoulder and left breast. After the battle, the British captured Corbin near her cannon; both the British and the Americans treated her as a combatant prisoner of war. Released on parole, she was assigned to the Continental Army’s invalid corps until mustered out of the army in 1783—raising the question of whether she enlisted alongside her husband.[5] After the war, Congress awarded Corbin a wounded soldier’s pension.[6] In 1926, Corbin’s remains were transferred from Highland Falls, New York, to the government cemetery at West Point.
That should have been the end of her story. But confusion about identity is a central part of the Molly Pitcher name and legend. In 2016, workmen disturbed the remains. Examination by a forensic anthropologist revealed the bones to be those of an unknown middle- aged man. Corbin’s bones are nowhere to be found.
In addition to Hays and Corbin, there are accounts of an unnamed woman who fired a cannon at the Battle of Fort Clinton in the Hudson River Valley in October 1777. There may be at least one more Molly Pitcher whose story remains untold.
Excerpted from Women Warriors: An Unexpected History
[1] The first known use of the name is a painting titled Molly Pitcher, the Heroine of Monmouth, by Nathaniel Currier, of Currier and Ives fame, dated 1848, seventy years after the battle.
[2] Not that vulgarity, profanity, and/or drunkenness preclude heroism. Zeamer believed those qualities did, however, preclude being honored with public monuments when so many “Revolutionary heroes who led useful and respected lives” remained obscure.
[3] Known in the camps as “Dirty Kate,” she was no more respectable than McCauley. With the (possible) exception of officers’ wives, the women who followed eighteenth-century armies were rough around the edges, if not all the way to the core.
[4] The nature of eighteenth-century artillery is important to understanding the Molly Pitcher story. In order to be sure no sparks or hot embers remained in the breech, gunners swabbed out muzzle-loading cannons with wet sponges after each round was fired before they loaded the next powder charge—adding fresh powder before extinguishing embers from the previous round was a short path to “kaboom!” A well-organized artillery battery had casks of water nearby for the purpose of wetting the sponges. But not every team was well organized. Armies were taken by surprise. And casks ran dry over the course of hours of battle. Women in the army’s camp often performed the hazardous job of carrying water to the artillery line—in buckets, not pitchers. Firing a cannon was not a one-woman job—it took at least three people. When a gun crew lost a man, it’s a fair assumption that the woman who brought the water knew enough to step into the breach as a rammer or a sponger. (Though she probably didn’t know enough to perform the mathematical calculations required to place a cannonball on target. A difficult skill to pick up on the fly.)
[5] It’s possible. Some women’s names appear on the rosters of local militia.
[6] And a complete set of new clothes! Not a standard benefit for veterans of the time.
In Pursuit–Version 2
The phrase “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is, I believe, one of the few portions of the Declaration of Independence that most Americans can recite from memory.[1] It is no surprise that two groups have chosen “In Pursuit” as the title for history-based projects For America 250.
I reviewed one of those projects on my previous post. On to round two!
I first became aware of More Perfect, [2] a bipartisan alliance of presidential centers, foundations and sites, and its In Pursuit project several months ago when writing friend Heath Hardage Lee announced that she was contributing an essay on Pat Nixon to the project. She was rightly excited by the prospect.
The project’s director, Dr. Colleen J. Shogan, former archivist of the United States, describes In Pursuit as “the most ambitious history-based civics project in the United States for 2026.” The project begins with the idea that American democracy is an evolving experiment, in which each generation reinterprets the country’s founding principles in response to new challenges. Its goal is to consider the most important lessons of American’s last 250 years, looking through the lens of presidents and first ladies. Under Hogan’s direction, a cohort of historians, journalists, public servants, and former presidents and first ladies have contributed short essays about each of our presidents and selected first ladies. The first essay, on George Washington, written by George W. Bush, was released on February 16; the final essays, on the Obamas, will release on the week of December 7. The project includes a podcast, with Shogan in conversation with historians and journalists, talking about their subjects in more depth than a 1200 word essay allows.
Fascinating as the inhabitants of the White House are, I think some of the most important historical lessons could be drawn from less elevated perspectives. That said, several months ago, I realized just how little I know about most of the first ladies. This is an excellent chance to learn more. I’ve enjoyed the essays thus far– the most recent essay, on Julia Grant, was an eye-opener. I will continue to follow along as new essays and podcast episodes are released.
You can find more about In Pursuit here
[1] I would like to claim I can recite the entire thing, but in reality I peter out after “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another….” Then my brain skips down to “We hold these truths to be self evident.” What about you?
[2] Another quotable phrase, this time from the preamble to the Constitution—the Founding Fathers could really write.
In Pursuit–Version 1
I only found out about a wonderful documentary series titled In Pursuit: Philadelphia and the Making of America because the show’s writer and co-producer, Nathaniel Popkin, was dogged about tracking me down via email.[1] I am so glad he did.
The ten-episode series uses the specifics of Philadelphia’s story to explore the broader story of American history. The first five episodes, which begin with the indigenous population of the region and cover the formation and history of the United States through the Civil War will be available on July 4 in conjunction with America 250. The remaining episodes, which bring the story up to the present, will air in the fall and winter.
I was lucky enough to have early access to the first few episodes. And they are bangers: visually beautiful, historically smart, powerfully told. I loved the way they placed the nuggets of the story that we all know, or think we know, against the broader context of economic and social structures. I certainly knew nothing about the Lenape indigenous people of the mid-Atlantic, or their interactions with European settlers.[2] I found I knew less than I thought I did about the Quaker movement in England and William Penn’s place in it.
If you’re looking for a broader account of the formation of the United States, this is a good place to start. You can find more about the series here: https://www.inpursuit.tv/

[1] PSA: If I don’t know you and haven’t returned your email, it means it probably got captured in the “Later” file and then swept away by the several hundred emails that came in after yours. If it’s important, please re-send it with a polite nudge. Unless, of course, you are asking for a political donation, involved in one of the many efforts at scamming authors, asking to place an inappropriate guest post on this blog, or otherwise being annoying.
[2] And had not thought to ask, to my shame. This blind spot is one I struggle with.


