The Petticoat Count: Symbol of Miscommunication in Alexandra Petri's US History

What Is the Petticoat Count?

In Chapter 10 of Alexandra Petri's US History — "John and Abigail Adams Try Sexting" — the "petticoat count" refers to an absurd back-and-forth between the famous couple about how many petticoats Abigail is wearing during their attempted intimate correspondence. The petticoat count is not a physical garment count but a running tally that becomes the central joke and communication failure. Abigail mentions wearing five petticoats in her July 7, 1778 letter, then quickly removes all of them in the next letter because she realizes that at the rate their letters travel (one petticoat per month), they would never reach a satisfying conclusion. John, however, fails to receive several of her letters due to ships foundering and the Atlantic delay, so he continues to refer to a decreasing but incorrect number. The petticoat count thus becomes a floating, unresolved metric that neither spouse can agree upon.

Where the Petticoat Count Recurs

The petticoat count appears as a motif throughout the exchange between Peace field and Hotel de Valois from July to November 1778:

1. Abigail's initial tease: She writes, "I am attired in ... five petticoats ... I was wearing stockings, but I am not wearing them any longer."
2. John's literal response: He takes the count literally: "I hope that soon you shall be wearing merely four!"
3. Abigail accelerates: She removes all five petticoats at once to avoid the "quagmire" of lost letters, agreeing to three petticoats to match John's assumption.
4. John's confusion: He later guesses "either three petticoats or zero petticoats," revealing that letters have crossed paths.
5. Final settlement: They eventually settle on "zero petticoats" before John's humiliation via Benjamin Franklin's forged letter halts the whole attempt.

How the Meaning Changes

Initially, the petticoat count represents playful seduction — Abigail uses it as a romantic code to invite imaginary disrobing. Its meaning shifts into a symbol of logistical impossibility when real-world delays (lost mail, slow ships) fracture the shared context. The count becomes a "quagmire" (Abigail's word) that exposes how physical distance and literal-mindedness prevent the very intimacy the couple seeks. By the end, the petticoat count is a failed negotiation: it has been settled at zero, but the emotional payoff is absent because John's literal approach (and Franklin's interference) has drained the fantasy of its erotic charge.

The petticoat count also gains a metafictional layer: it mirrors the difficulty of historical correspondence itself. Real letters from John and Abigail are celebrated for their warmth, but Petri's satirical take reveals how even the most passionate communication can be undermined by gaps in understanding — both in the 18th century and in our retrospective reading of history.

Character Connections

• John Adams: His character embodies the literal-mindedness of the stereotype of a pragmatic founding father. He cannot decode Abigail's implied meaning: "What would be the benefit of such an exchange?" Even after she explains simulated coitus, he continues to count petticoats as an arithmetic problem rather than a game. His shame after Franklin's letter shows his deep embarrassment at having the intimate context exposed.
• Abigail Adams: She is the frustrated initiator, forced to draw maps and explain her own code. Her practical nature — removing all petticoats at once to "expedite the proceedings" — contrasts with John's stubborn incrementalism. She eventually loses patience, calling a halt to the correspondence until the count is sorted.
• Benjamin Franklin: Though not directly part of the petticoat tally, he causes the climax by impersonating John in a crude letter. His intervention demonstrates that the petticoat count was already a fragile construct — Franklin's disregard for subtlety shatters the entire sexting project. He represents unwanted interference from a "friend" who mistakes expertise in one area for judgment in another.

Theme Connections

The petticoat count illuminates three major themes of the book:

Satire of Historical Authority and Construction

The entire premise — that the famously eloquent Adams letters were actually a failed sexting attempt — mocks the reverence with which we treat historical documents. By reducing their correspondence to a confusion over undergarments, Petri shows that historical narratives are human creations, often less dignified than the polished versions that survive. The petticoat count is a trivial detail that becomes a serious obstacle, just as real historical disputes often turn on petty misunderstandings.

Explore the theme of satirized authority

Gender Roles and Domesticity

The scene reverses traditional gender roles: Abigail is the sexually agentic partner, while John is the bumbling, clueless husband. Yet the domestic setting (the farm, the cows) reappears in letters, showing that even fantasies cannot escape the mundane. The petticoat — a garment symbolizing female modesty and domesticity — becomes the very thing that both enables and blocks the couple's attempt at intimacy. Abigail's removal of petticoats is a rebellious act against social expectations, but it is undermined by John's inability to keep up.

Read more on gender and domestic roles

Myth-Making and Selective Memory

The absurd petticoat count is a parody of how we remember historical couples. Real John and Abigail letters are often cited as a model of romantic partnership; Petri's version suggests that the missing element — unrecorded private jokes, lost letters, blown misunderstandings — would paint a farcical picture. The petticoat count becomes a synecdoche for all the messy, unglamorous details that get edited out of official histories.

Dive into myth-making and memory

Study Questions and Answers

Question 1

How does the petticoat count initially function as a code, and why does that code fail?

Answer: Abigail uses the petticoat count as a code for gradual sexual undressing — she says she is wearing five petticoats, implying that John can "remove" them one per letter. The code fails because John takes the number literally, treating it as a factual description rather than a game. He responds to the count rather than the invitation ("I hope that soon you shall be wearing merely four!"). The code also fails because of physical delays: letters are lost, and the Atlantic crossing introduces a lag that makes a shared count impossible.

Question 2

What role do the lost letters play in escalating the absurdity of the petticoat count?

Answer: Lost letters create a dramatic irony unknown to the characters. Abigail removes all five petticoats in one letter, but John never sees that letter. He continues to guess "three petticoats or zero," leading to the "quagmire" Abigail feared. Without the lost letters, the count would have been resolved quickly. The lost letters parody real historical communication challenges and emphasize that absence and delay are the true enemies of intimacy in the narrative.

Question 3

Why does Abigail decide to "settle upon zero" petticoats, and what does this reveal about her character?

Answer: After John's confused response ("It is either three petticoats or zero petticoats"), Abigail proposes settling on zero to end the uncertainty. This reveals her pragmatic nature: she is willing to abandon the game's structure to salvage its purpose. Zero is the least ambiguous number, and by accepting it, she signals that the goal (intimacy) matters more than the procedural details. Her move also shows she is the more emotionally mature partner in the exchange.

Question 4

How does Benjamin Franklin's forged letter affect the symbolic meaning of the petticoat count?

Answer: Franklin's crude, sexually explicit letter — impersonating John — destroys the delicate mutual understanding the petticoat count had created. The count loses its meaning when John is no longer the sole author of the erotic dialogue. The incident reveals that the petticoat count was dependent on trust and exclusivity; once broken, John becomes mortified and abandons the game. Franklin's interference also satirizes the historical "expert" who thinks he can improve upon a private relationship but only ruins it.

Conclusion

The petticoat count in Alexandra Petri's US History is a deceptively simple symbol that embodies miscommunication, literal-mindedness, and the fragility of intimacy across space and time. What begins as a playful erotic code descends into a logistical nightmare, exposing the gap between human intentions and the imperfect media of communication. Through the farce, Petri invites readers to question how we idealize historical relationships and to appreciate the absurd, unrecorded struggles that may lie behind even the most cherished historical documents.

To further explore the world of Alexandra Petri's US History, visit the main book page or learn about Benjamin Franklin's role in this and other chapters.