Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38 https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=199.111.65.146McClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T22:33:24ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/CommentsWeek 12 Questions/Comments2007-11-15T07:34:15Z<p>199.111.65.146: </p>
<hr />
<div>In Woloch's reading, (O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!), Maria Stewart, a black Bostonian, played a special role in public life and women's history. When the abolitionist movement began, William Lloyd Garrison published some of her essays in his antislavery journal. In her essays, I really liked how Stewart urged women to pursue self-improvement and assert their rights. A lot of her message was aimed at African American women. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
I agree with Katie but I'd also like to point something else out about the piece "O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!" All throughout Maria Stewart's account, she used revolutionary rhetoric, more often than not using the word "liberty." She also consistently brought up freedoms such as the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech, and it just emphasizes what we learned in class that this revolutionary rhetoric was coming back to haunt the upper and middle class white men that the rhetoric was supposed to apply to. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I thought Maris Stewart's writing was intellectual and extremely well written for a speech. In the essay, she speaks of freedom and equality to Americans. I think I understand why she would not see herself as an American- considering the awful circumstances- yet if everyone knew that the fear of the white men was that another race may not "assimilate," why would she not call herself American and attempt to be truly equal? When did the term African American come into play? These may be ignorant questions- but I am hoping someone else is in the same boat- Talya. <br />
<br />
I agree with what everyone has said. Stewart's use of the Revolutionary rhetoric creates a very empowering speech. - Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
The reading by Maria Stewart is steeped with rhetoric which was used during the American Revolution. Stewart talks about "this land of freedom" that "all the nations of the earth are crying out for liberty and equality" ect. This piece also sounds like a sermon, and therefore, might have been influenced by the great awakening. For stewart, education plays an important role in the raising of black women's status in society and seems to imply that it is their right for education as much as it is their right to freedom. However, I'm wondering who her audience was exactly because that can change the way her speech is interpreted or recieved. --K. Vance<br />
<br />
When reading Lucy Stone's Marriage Protest, in Woloch's book, I found it interesting that when the couple took their vows, each partner signed a unique marriage "protest". This protest was also read as part of their ceremony! -Katie D.<br />
<br />
I really feel that Lucy Stone epitomizes the definition of a feminist, the one that will lead to our modern day definition/perception. She kept her own name, she "refused to 'obey', and challenged the system..." The protest itself is riddled with a woman's absolute independence. It takes away any traditional patriarchal "laws" and demands equality from both man and woman. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I was also interested by Lucy Stone's marriage protest, probably because it was so not what one would expect from a woman from the mid 1800s, at least I assume this was irregular. The things that she was protesting we take for advantage that we dont have to worry about them. For instance women today dont have to worry about their legal existence disappearing with marriage. But for her the things that many women seemed to just accept as their fate she rebelled against. I was also intreged that she kept her own name. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I was equally intrigued by the marriage of Lucy Stone and was curious if we know anything about how Henry Blackwell was treated after agreeing to this marriage protest. Was he ridiculed by men for not being able to "control" his wife? Was he embraced by woman for being the ideal husband for letting his wife have rights? Or was he simply ignored, as if this case was not out of the ordinary in any way?- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
The fact that Henry Blackwell actually agreed to sign the Marriage Protest was what surprised me. We don't see a lot of men willing to give up that kind of power over their wives before and during this time period. Was he a women's rights activist? -- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
I too was interested in Henry Blackwell's signing of the protest and the omission of his own social fate. It seems to me that he would be an even greater target among the men of the community. I would believe he would be seen as unable to control his wife, a crucial role in the ideal. I also wonder how their marriage was recognized. Lucy Stone and Henry Blackwell's protest has obvious parallels with one of today's greatest issues. --Robert Kopp<br />
<br />
--I'm another person who found Blackwell's role in the marriage protest far more interesting and worth investigating than Stone's. --A. Meyer<br />
<br />
When I read the piece, "Seduced and Abandoned," in the Woloch book, I could not help but start laughing. I understand that it is not a laughing matter that girl was abandoned by her "fiance" and had to become a prostitute, but the way in which it was written screamed propaganda. The way the innocent girl from the country was persuaded to elope by a villain from the city and then was decoyed into becoming a prostitute only until meeting up with a wholesome man from her hometown is just too unreal. It is amazing how this scenario is consistently used and tweaked to support different causes. But it really shows how the moral reform movement was determined to deliver people to the side of God and how women were at the forefront since the piece was obviously written by a woman. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I agree with Kelly about "Seduced and Abandoned" being so blantantly propagandistic. I have read many similar stories in literature of the day. I wonder, however, how common a story this really was. I realize that it's not exactly something we can get statistics on. I'm sure that it happened quite a bit. However, it seems likely that at least some of these tales are either altered for effect or completely made up. I'm curious as to how the public perception of danger to their daughters compared with reality. --Ashley H. <br />
<br />
While reading "seduced and abandoned" all i could think about was the correlations between this piece of propaganda and the novel Charolette Temple. Each have elements of "good girls" being convinced / tricked into leaving their parents behind, traveling to a new place they'd never been and being left destitute. I find it interesting that even though there around 100+ years between the publication of the novel and this piece of propaganda, the authors are still telling the same story. What makes this story so popular? So powerful? Since the same story is being told over and over again, what does it say about the states of society?--K. Vance<br />
<br />
As much as this whole genre emerged as a clear propaganda, the desperate plight of a young woman who wasn't fully supported or who displeased her town or family in any "grievous" manner was something we don't seem to fully appreciate. I think Dr. McClurken's statistics last week suggested how many women turned to prostituion as the only way to support themselves, and I tihnk that's a serious misunderstanding for many modern American women who are paid much closer to equal wages and have ERA-esque salary protections.--A. Meyer <br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting that at the end of the "Seduced and Abandoned" piece, the author pretty much blames the parents for not teaching their children about the dangers of the world. I may be mistaken, but to me this seems to contrast what we talked about on Tuesday about how "proper" women were supposed to be sheltered and were not even supposed to know that prostitution existed. - F. Cobb <br />
<br />
While it was obvious that "Seduced and Abandoned" was blatantly exaggerated for propaganda purposes, I wonder if any of it is even based on real-life occurrences. I mean, the story was supposedly related to the Advocate of Moral Reform by the girl herself. –Kaitlyn G. <br />
<br />
I was very intrigued by the Declaration of Sentiments drafted by Elizabeth Cady Stanton. The way she manipulated the Declaration of Independence is the perfect example of women using revolutionary rhetoric to get what they want. If you placed the two next to one another and asked someone to tell the difference, I think it would take quite a bit of reading (probably up until she starts blaming men for everything) before they could figure it out. Stanton proved to be very clever and I just hope there were many more women like her fighting for what they believed. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I think this document shows some of the legal training Stanton was exposed to, reading her father (a judge)'s law books. As dramatic and over the top as this peace is, it sets out some of the grievances and problems, which the age of enlightenment believed was a necessary firs step for any revolutionary effort. I think this document is under-appreciated. --A. Meyer<br />
<br />
In the Declaration of Sentiments I liked how they included that women need "to wise up" basically. They wrote that they need to no longer declare themselves satisfied with their present position or assert that they have all the rights they want. Basically, stop accepting their lot just because that's how things are and start fighting it. I don't think they realized though that some women didn't see a problem with how things were. In Sarah Josepha Hale's piece, for example, she says she is fine to not vote herself and is proud to vote by her proxies. --Alex K.<br />
<br />
When reading the Declaration of Sentiments, what struck me especially was the last passage, added exclusively by Lucretia Mott. This section was peculiar, for not only did it continue the argument for the equality between men and women, it argued for equal participation in "various trades, professions, and commerce." Basically Lucretia Mott was arguing for equal opportunity and pay in the workplace - a feat still in progress today. ~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
In Woloch, the "Letter to the Liberator" piece really seemed to strike at the heart of women and their role in reform. and specifically this letter addresses slavery. "Woman has a place, for she forms a part in God's created intelligent instrumentality to reform the world. God never made her to be inactive - nor in all cases to follow in the wake of man... We believe God gave woman a heart to feel - an eye to weep - a hand to work - a tongue to speak. Now let her use that tongue to speak on slavery." Those words state that is every woman's right and responsibility and duty to play an active role in reform. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in the "letter to the liberator" that the author emphasizes the fact that slavery is happening here, in america. She writes that slavery isn't happening in china or india or some other far off country but within the united states. With such emphasis placed upon the idea that its happening here, I'm wondering how often people denied the practice of slavery with denial or a not in my backyard mentatlity. On another note i find it interesting that she invokes Washington as the "protector of women and a friend of equality and human rights" when Washington, himself, owned slaves for all of his life. It was only after his death that he made arrangments to free some of his slaves, but only after his wife, Martha Washington had died. On the other hand many of his slaves gained their freedom earlier than expect because Martha, fearing for her life and a slave rebellion, freed them. However, that was slighly off topic. Basically, I'm wondering if people denied the exsistence of slavery or just choose to over look it giving emery and the society a reason to explicitly write that slavery was occuring here. --K. Vance<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the rhetoric of liberty and patriotism used in the "Letter to the Liberator." Emery writes, "Is not woman abused--woman trampled upon---woman spoiled of her virtue . . . and this, not in India---not in China---not in Turkey---not in Africa---but in America . . . in the birthplace of Washington, the father of freedom, the protector of women, the friend of equality and human rights!" Emery reminds Americans of their own fight for freedom, and she calls for America to become a morally superior nation. Even the use of the phrase, "On such a creed, we base the constitution, which binds us together," feels reminiscent of the writings of the founding fathers. ---Ashley H. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting to read about Sojourner Truth and how she felt about the situtation and the rehtoric that she used. Up until this point the majority of women we have heard from have been white, middle-upper class women with very good educations. But here is a woman who was a slave, who cannot read or write. She was also deeply religious and I thought it was very interesting to read her speach and reading the various Biblical references that she makes to prove her point, as well as using her life story to express her belief in women's rights. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I also enjoyed Sojourner Truth's piece. It was interesting to see how different the two version were. The one recollection written twelve years after the actual speech is the more famous one, though the first one is probably the most accurate. Why do you think the second author made these changes? - F. Cobb <br />
<br />
It was interesting to read that when Elizabeth Cady Stanton urged women to secure the vote in the “Declaration of Sentiments” other women’s rights supporters felt it would make the “whole movement ridiculous.” I am sure that none of them could imagine that <br />
the right of suffrage would end up becoming the cornerstone of the women’s rights movement. <br />
It was really interesting that Lucy Stone decided to get married and at the same time challenged the institution of marriage which had forced women to give up their rights. I found it remarkable that she even had her husband sign a “marriage protest” and the document was published in a newspaper. We’ve read about other women who have refused to get married because they did not want to lose their rights but Mrs. Stone was the first one who challenged the marriage system of her day.-Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting that securing the vote for women almost didn't appear in the Seneca Falls Convention's Declaration of Sentiments because of support issues. Now it's really the first thing anyone thinks about when they hear the word Seneca Falls Convention. Maybe people though that women would be asking for too much in too short of a time period if they included voting. Or maybe they though that it would overshadow some of the other things they were trying to accomplish. -- Jennifer Feldhaus <br />
<br />
It amazes me that almost every arguement used for or against Women's rights involved biblical references. Women arguesd God made them just as intelligent and capable as men and men, like the editor of Harper's Magazine, argued that the Women's rights movements were "opposed as it was to divine revelation, time-honored proprieties, and biblical authority." (158) I wonder what the arguements would be if God, The Creator, or religion weren't allowed to be invovled. Even though during this period the Great Awakening was peaking, I wonder what women who did not follow that movement and were less-religious thought. What were their arguements? "The American Femal More Refore Society Warns Mothers About "Solitary Vice" was to me a hysterical piece. I found it particularly funny that they called it a "body and ''soul-destroying'' sin." -- Emily Miller<br />
<br />
I thought the article on Sojourner Truth was very interesting. It was great to get her perspective on women't rights. I agree with Mary P that her use of Biblical references were a great way to make her point and the fact that as a slave she probably worked harder everyday than a lot of white men did at the time just proved that women could do anything the men could do. <br />
I also found the Marriage Protest by Lucy Stone interesting to say the least. That is definately extreme feminism for that time. I can see why she was "ridiculed and persecuted" but if you are that against the ideas of marriage at that time why go through a marriage at all? Why not stay single and just live together? Although I don't know how radical that idea would have been at the time but at least you kept your identity. ~~ Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
I found the first 2 documents in MP pages 141- 143 a bit too flowery. The woman who is addressing the other ladies paints a lovely picture of all the good that they have accomplished for the poor. It makes me wonder if they spent most of their time patting their selves on the back rather than doing foot work on the street helping out the poor. ---Cheryl<br />
<br />
The two documents by Isabella Graham were a bit flowery, but it is interesting to note that she says "the men could not allow our sex the steadiness and perserverance necessary to establish such an undertaking." It is so interesting how women are really beginning to use the 'us vs. them' approach when talking about women and men. Girl Power! -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
I, too, enjoyed the speech by Sojourner Truth, but what I found most interesting was the inclusion of southern dialect by Frances Gage. Obviously, being that Sojourner was from a Dutch-speaking New York family, her accent would have been anything but Southern. Perhaps by making Sojourner sound like a Southern slave, Gage was trying to appeal to Southern slaveowners. When Gage wrote this version of Sojourner's speech, it was during the Civil War and at the height of the Abolitionist movement. This context obviously influenced how/what she chose to emphasize from Sojourner's speech.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the essay on Sojourner Truth. She spoke well on equal rights. Her comparisons of physical strengths and intelligence as qualifiers for equal rights should have been an eye opener for all there. She showed that women could be physically strong, intelligent and take a great amount of pain. I like when she spoke how someone had said women can’t have equal rights because Jesus wasn’t a women. I have heard similar musing before in women’s groups how all men come from women. She is a very inspiring speaker.---Cheryl<br />
<br />
One of the things that stood out to me about Sojourner Truth Speaks was that not only did she use biblical references in a way she seemed to be challenging the traditional held views of the church, especially when she talks about how since Eve did sin first men should stop holding women back but instead allow them a chance to make up for what "they" did. -Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In the essay "Free Black Women in the Abolitionist Movement" I found all the different factors that made it more acceptable for black women to speak publicly very interesting. While female speakers are still not fully accepted by all, the need that black men saw for the abolition cause seems to temporarily out weigh gender stereotypes. -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
I also enjoyed the "Free Black Women in the Abolitionist Movement" piece. The three sources of hostility (anti-black feelings, anti-abolitionist sentiments, and hatred of "public" women) were interesting. There were so many obstacles they had to overcome in order to be heard and taken seriously. In addition to these obstacles, they also had several conditions to make sure not to piss people off. For example, black male leaders applauded black women speakers until they began to criticize black men, black women they were more acceptable for audiences if they exuded "feminine qualities," women writers generally only found an audience when they wrote on "feminine" subjects and black women poets and essayists were able publish works mainly only with the aid of prominent abolitionists. They had a lot working against them. --Alex K.<br />
<br />
The "Seduced and Abandoned" article portrayed the young girl in the story as kinda mindless. She is just an innocent young girl swept up by the objective evil that causes her to fall into bad things. Her rescue, is kinda odd, since the business man from her village just happened to go to the circus that one time, as a grand exception. Of course, he saves her. Such a story is in direct contrast with the other articles, such as "O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!" and "Reply to the Massachusetts Clergy." I certainly don't think that some girls did end up in terrible situations that they could not forsee, but I do get the sense that these grand moral reform ideas implicitly included female mindlessness. I suppose it all relates to women being the passionless, moral barometer of society who only have experience in the pure household. Of course, Sarah Grimke made the exact opposite statement when she wrote that womens displacement from equality has "introduced confusion into the world." pg 239 For her, inequality is the problem, for the minister she is responding to, it is equality. Its such a polarized mindset. I wonder if Lucy and Henry's marriage was deemed null if they signed agreements that were in direct contrast with the law regarding marriage at the time... -Chris Plummer<br />
<br />
<br />
The piece “Free Black Women in the Abolitionist Movement” touched briefly on the gender and race expectations of the time and how women reformers rebelled against these stereotypes. I know some of the pieces touched upon the idea of solidarity under the title “women,” yet pieces in both Woloch and Norton touched upon the idea of white reformers vs. black reformers. I was wondering how clear a divide there was between white and black reformers? White and black abolitionists? White and black suffragists? I know in the 1960s women’s movement, there was a great division among various ethnic lines; I’m wondering whether anyone knows if a similar race divide existed? Were black abolitionists/suffragists seeking rights different or separate from white women? Were there issues they both agreed on and fought for? --Mary Beth Dilla<br />
<br />
My question is in regards to Sojourner Truth. What I want to know is if she faced double the amount of prejudice that other women's rights activists faced since she was African American as well as a woman. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
We've spent a lot of time talking about activism and reformers and how the middle class reformer was created. Most of these women attempted to conform their lifestyles to that mold, while espousing views that radically challenged the tenets of the middle class family ideal. I'm very interested in how someone like Sojourner Truth could be so welcomed by reformers, and how this transformation to reform efforts that directly challenged the root of the reforming era because they tackled the middle class ideal. --A. Meyer<br />
<br />
When reading Sarah Grimke's piece, I was really astonished about how progressive it was. I was under the impression, that even though the moral reformists and abolitionists pushed their gender roles outside their expected spheres, they still maintained relatively conservative lifestyles to todays's standard, but Grimke's rhetoric reminded me of a 1960s feminist. One part in particular that really brings the 20th century liberal movement to mind is Grimke's comment that "whatever is right for man to do, is right for woman to do," a perfect slogan for a Title 9 activist. ~Juliann Boyles</div>199.111.65.146https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/CommentsWeek 12 Questions/Comments2007-11-15T07:22:58Z<p>199.111.65.146: </p>
<hr />
<div>In Woloch's reading, (O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!), Maria Stewart, a black Bostonian, played a special role in public life and women's history. When the abolitionist movement began, William Lloyd Garrison published some of her essays in his antislavery journal. In her essays, I really liked how Stewart urged women to pursue self-improvement and assert their rights. A lot of her message was aimed at African American women. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
I agree with Katie but I'd also like to point something else out about the piece "O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!" All throughout Maria Stewart's account, she used revolutionary rhetoric, more often than not using the word "liberty." She also consistently brought up freedoms such as the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech, and it just emphasizes what we learned in class that this revolutionary rhetoric was coming back to haunt the upper and middle class white men that the rhetoric was supposed to apply to. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I thought Maris Stewart's writing was intellectual and extremely well written for a speech. In the essay, she speaks of freedom and equality to Americans. I think I understand why she would not see herself as an American- considering the awful circumstances- yet if everyone knew that the fear of the white men was that another race may not "assimilate," why would she not call herself American and attempt to be truly equal? When did the term African American come into play? These may be ignorant questions- but I am hoping someone else is in the same boat- Talya. <br />
<br />
The reading by Maria Stewart is steeped with rhetoric which was used during the American Revolution. Stewart talks about "this land of freedom" that "all the nations of the earth are crying out for liberty and equality" ect. This piece also sounds like a sermon, and therefore, might have been influenced by the great awakening. For stewart, education plays an important role in the raising of black women's status in society and seems to imply that it is their right for education as much as it is their right to freedom. However, I'm wondering who her audience was exactly because that can change the way her speech is interpreted or recieved. --K. Vance<br />
<br />
When reading Lucy Stone's Marriage Protest, in Woloch's book, I found it interesting that when the couple took their vows, each partner signed a unique marriage "protest". This protest was also read as part of their ceremony! -Katie D.<br />
<br />
I really feel that Lucy Stone epitomizes the definition of a feminist, the one that will lead to our modern day definition/perception. She kept her own name, she "refused to 'obey', and challenged the system..." The protest itself is riddled with a woman's absolute independence. It takes away any traditional patriarchal "laws" and demands equality from both man and woman. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I was also interested by Lucy Stone's marriage protest, probably because it was so not what one would expect from a woman from the mid 1800s, at least I assume this was irregular. The things that she was protesting we take for advantage that we dont have to worry about them. For instance women today dont have to worry about their legal existence disappearing with marriage. But for her the things that many women seemed to just accept as their fate she rebelled against. I was also intreged that she kept her own name. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I was equally intrigued by the marriage of Lucy Stone and was curious if we know anything about how Henry Blackwell was treated after agreeing to this marriage protest. Was he ridiculed by men for not being able to "control" his wife? Was he embraced by woman for being the ideal husband for letting his wife have rights? Or was he simply ignored, as if this case was not out of the ordinary in any way?- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
The fact that Henry Blackwell actually agreed to sign the Marriage Protest was what surprised me. We don't see a lot of men willing to give up that kind of power over their wives before and during this time period. Was he a women's rights activist? -- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
I too was interested in Henry Blackwell's signing of the protest and the omission of his own social fate. It seems to me that he would be an even greater target among the men of the community. I would believe he would be seen as unable to control his wife, a crucial role in the ideal. I also wonder how their marriage was recognized. Lucy Stone and Henry Blackwell's protest has obvious parallels with one of today's greatest issues. --Robert Kopp<br />
<br />
--I'm another person who found Blackwell's role in the marriage protest far more interesting and worth investigating than Stone's. --A. Meyer<br />
<br />
When I read the piece, "Seduced and Abandoned," in the Woloch book, I could not help but start laughing. I understand that it is not a laughing matter that girl was abandoned by her "fiance" and had to become a prostitute, but the way in which it was written screamed propaganda. The way the innocent girl from the country was persuaded to elope by a villain from the city and then was decoyed into becoming a prostitute only until meeting up with a wholesome man from her hometown is just too unreal. It is amazing how this scenario is consistently used and tweaked to support different causes. But it really shows how the moral reform movement was determined to deliver people to the side of God and how women were at the forefront since the piece was obviously written by a woman. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I agree with Kelly about "Seduced and Abandoned" being so blantantly propagandistic. I have read many similar stories in literature of the day. I wonder, however, how common a story this really was. I realize that it's not exactly something we can get statistics on. I'm sure that it happened quite a bit. However, it seems likely that at least some of these tales are either altered for effect or completely made up. I'm curious as to how the public perception of danger to their daughters compared with reality. --Ashley H. <br />
<br />
While reading "seduced and abandoned" all i could think about was the correlations between this piece of propaganda and the novel Charolette Temple. Each have elements of "good girls" being convinced / tricked into leaving their parents behind, traveling to a new place they'd never been and being left destitute. I find it interesting that even though there around 100+ years between the publication of the novel and this piece of propaganda, the authors are still telling the same story. What makes this story so popular? So powerful? Since the same story is being told over and over again, what does it say about the states of society?--K. Vance<br />
<br />
As much as this whole genre emerged as a clear propaganda, the desperate plight of a young woman who wasn't fully supported or who displeased her town or family in any "grievous" manner was something we don't seem to fully appreciate. I think Dr. McClurken's statistics last week suggested how many women turned to prostituion as the only way to support themselves, and I tihnk that's a serious misunderstanding for many modern American women who are paid much closer to equal wages and have ERA-esque salary protections.--A. Meyer <br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting that at the end of the "Seduced and Abandoned" piece, the author pretty much blames the parents for not teaching their children about the dangers of the world. I may be mistaken, but to me this seems to contrast what we talked about on Tuesday about how "proper" women were supposed to be sheltered and were not even supposed to know that prostitution existed. - F. Cobb <br />
<br />
While it was obvious that "Seduced and Abandoned" was blatantly exaggerated for propaganda purposes, I wonder if any of it is even based on real-life occurrences. I mean, the story was supposedly related to the Advocate of Moral Reform by the girl herself. –Kaitlyn G. <br />
<br />
I was very intrigued by the Declaration of Sentiments drafted by Elizabeth Cady Stanton. The way she manipulated the Declaration of Independence is the perfect example of women using revolutionary rhetoric to get what they want. If you placed the two next to one another and asked someone to tell the difference, I think it would take quite a bit of reading (probably up until she starts blaming men for everything) before they could figure it out. Stanton proved to be very clever and I just hope there were many more women like her fighting for what they believed. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I think this document shows some of the legal training Stanton was exposed to, reading her father (a judge)'s law books. As dramatic and over the top as this peace is, it sets out some of the grievances and problems, which the age of enlightenment believed was a necessary firs step for any revolutionary effort. I think this document is under-appreciated. --A. Meyer<br />
<br />
In the Declaration of Sentiments I liked how they included that women need "to wise up" basically. They wrote that they need to no longer declare themselves satisfied with their present position or assert that they have all the rights they want. Basically, stop accepting their lot just because that's how things are and start fighting it. I don't think they realized though that some women didn't see a problem with how things were. In Sarah Josepha Hale's piece, for example, she says she is fine to not vote herself and is proud to vote by her proxies. --Alex K.<br />
<br />
When reading the Declaration of Sentiments, what struck me especially was the last passage, added exclusively by Lucretia Mott. This section was peculiar, for not only did it continue the argument for the equality between men and women, it argued for equal participation in "various trades, professions, and commerce." Basically Lucretia Mott was arguing for equal opportunity and pay in the workplace - a feat still in progress today. ~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
In Woloch, the "Letter to the Liberator" piece really seemed to strike at the heart of women and their role in reform. and specifically this letter addresses slavery. "Woman has a place, for she forms a part in God's created intelligent instrumentality to reform the world. God never made her to be inactive - nor in all cases to follow in the wake of man... We believe God gave woman a heart to feel - an eye to weep - a hand to work - a tongue to speak. Now let her use that tongue to speak on slavery." Those words state that is every woman's right and responsibility and duty to play an active role in reform. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in the "letter to the liberator" that the author emphasizes the fact that slavery is happening here, in america. She writes that slavery isn't happening in china or india or some other far off country but within the united states. With such emphasis placed upon the idea that its happening here, I'm wondering how often people denied the practice of slavery with denial or a not in my backyard mentatlity. On another note i find it interesting that she invokes Washington as the "protector of women and a friend of equality and human rights" when Washington, himself, owned slaves for all of his life. It was only after his death that he made arrangments to free some of his slaves, but only after his wife, Martha Washington had died. On the other hand many of his slaves gained their freedom earlier than expect because Martha, fearing for her life and a slave rebellion, freed them. However, that was slighly off topic. Basically, I'm wondering if people denied the exsistence of slavery or just choose to over look it giving emery and the society a reason to explicitly write that slavery was occuring here. --K. Vance<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the rhetoric of liberty and patriotism used in the "Letter to the Liberator." Emery writes, "Is not woman abused--woman trampled upon---woman spoiled of her virtue . . . and this, not in India---not in China---not in Turkey---not in Africa---but in America . . . in the birthplace of Washington, the father of freedom, the protector of women, the friend of equality and human rights!" Emery reminds Americans of their own fight for freedom, and she calls for America to become a morally superior nation. Even the use of the phrase, "On such a creed, we base the constitution, which binds us together," feels reminiscent of the writings of the founding fathers. ---Ashley H. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting to read about Sojourner Truth and how she felt about the situtation and the rehtoric that she used. Up until this point the majority of women we have heard from have been white, middle-upper class women with very good educations. But here is a woman who was a slave, who cannot read or write. She was also deeply religious and I thought it was very interesting to read her speach and reading the various Biblical references that she makes to prove her point, as well as using her life story to express her belief in women's rights. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I also enjoyed Sojourner Truth's piece. It was interesting to see how different the two version were. The one recollection written twelve years after the actual speech is the more famous one, though the first one is probably the most accurate. Why do you think the second author made these changes? - F. Cobb <br />
<br />
It was interesting to read that when Elizabeth Cady Stanton urged women to secure the vote in the “Declaration of Sentiments” other women’s rights supporters felt it would make the “whole movement ridiculous.” I am sure that none of them could imagine that <br />
the right of suffrage would end up becoming the cornerstone of the women’s rights movement. <br />
It was really interesting that Lucy Stone decided to get married and at the same time challenged the institution of marriage which had forced women to give up their rights. I found it remarkable that she even had her husband sign a “marriage protest” and the document was published in a newspaper. We’ve read about other women who have refused to get married because they did not want to lose their rights but Mrs. Stone was the first one who challenged the marriage system of her day.-Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting that securing the vote for women almost didn't appear in the Seneca Falls Convention's Declaration of Sentiments because of support issues. Now it's really the first thing anyone thinks about when they hear the word Seneca Falls Convention. Maybe people though that women would be asking for too much in too short of a time period if they included voting. Or maybe they though that it would overshadow some of the other things they were trying to accomplish. -- Jennifer Feldhaus <br />
<br />
It amazes me that almost every arguement used for or against Women's rights involved biblical references. Women arguesd God made them just as intelligent and capable as men and men, like the editor of Harper's Magazine, argued that the Women's rights movements were "opposed as it was to divine revelation, time-honored proprieties, and biblical authority." (158) I wonder what the arguements would be if God, The Creator, or religion weren't allowed to be invovled. Even though during this period the Great Awakening was peaking, I wonder what women who did not follow that movement and were less-religious thought. What were their arguements? "The American Femal More Refore Society Warns Mothers About "Solitary Vice" was to me a hysterical piece. I found it particularly funny that they called it a "body and ''soul-destroying'' sin." -- Emily Miller<br />
<br />
I thought the article on Sojourner Truth was very interesting. It was great to get her perspective on women't rights. I agree with Mary P that her use of Biblical references were a great way to make her point and the fact that as a slave she probably worked harder everyday than a lot of white men did at the time just proved that women could do anything the men could do. <br />
I also found the Marriage Protest by Lucy Stone interesting to say the least. That is definately extreme feminism for that time. I can see why she was "ridiculed and persecuted" but if you are that against the ideas of marriage at that time why go through a marriage at all? Why not stay single and just live together? Although I don't know how radical that idea would have been at the time but at least you kept your identity. ~~ Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
I found the first 2 documents in MP pages 141- 143 a bit too flowery. The woman who is addressing the other ladies paints a lovely picture of all the good that they have accomplished for the poor. It makes me wonder if they spent most of their time patting their selves on the back rather than doing foot work on the street helping out the poor. ---Cheryl<br />
<br />
The two documents by Isabella Graham were a bit flowery, but it is interesting to note that she says "the men could not allow our sex the steadiness and perserverance necessary to establish such an undertaking." It is so interesting how women are really beginning to use the 'us vs. them' approach when talking about women and men. Girl Power! -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
I, too, enjoyed the speech by Sojourner Truth, but what I found most interesting was the inclusion of southern dialect by Frances Gage. Obviously, being that Sojourner was from a Dutch-speaking New York family, her accent would have been anything but Southern. Perhaps by making Sojourner sound like a Southern slave, Gage was trying to appeal to Southern slaveowners. When Gage wrote this version of Sojourner's speech, it was during the Civil War and at the height of the Abolitionist movement. This context obviously influenced how/what she chose to emphasize from Sojourner's speech.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the essay on Sojourner Truth. She spoke well on equal rights. Her comparisons of physical strengths and intelligence as qualifiers for equal rights should have been an eye opener for all there. She showed that women could be physically strong, intelligent and take a great amount of pain. I like when she spoke how someone had said women can’t have equal rights because Jesus wasn’t a women. I have heard similar musing before in women’s groups how all men come from women. She is a very inspiring speaker.---Cheryl<br />
<br />
One of the things that stood out to me about Sojourner Truth Speaks was that not only did she use biblical references in a way she seemed to be challenging the traditional held views of the church, especially when she talks about how since Eve did sin first men should stop holding women back but instead allow them a chance to make up for what "they" did. -Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In the essay "Free Black Women in the Abolitionist Movement" I found all the different factors that made it more acceptable for black women to speak publicly very interesting. While female speakers are still not fully accepted by all, the need that black men saw for the abolition cause seems to temporarily out weigh gender stereotypes. -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
I also enjoyed the "Free Black Women in the Abolitionist Movement" piece. The three sources of hostility (anti-black feelings, anti-abolitionist sentiments, and hatred of "public" women) were interesting. There were so many obstacles they had to overcome in order to be heard and taken seriously. In addition to these obstacles, they also had several conditions to make sure not to piss people off. For example, black male leaders applauded black women speakers until they began to criticize black men, black women they were more acceptable for audiences if they exuded "feminine qualities," women writers generally only found an audience when they wrote on "feminine" subjects and black women poets and essayists were able publish works mainly only with the aid of prominent abolitionists. They had a lot working against them. --Alex K.<br />
<br />
The "Seduced and Abandoned" article portrayed the young girl in the story as kinda mindless. She is just an innocent young girl swept up by the objective evil that causes her to fall into bad things. Her rescue, is kinda odd, since the business man from her village just happened to go to the circus that one time, as a grand exception. Of course, he saves her. Such a story is in direct contrast with the other articles, such as "O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!" and "Reply to the Massachusetts Clergy." I certainly don't think that some girls did end up in terrible situations that they could not forsee, but I do get the sense that these grand moral reform ideas implicitly included female mindlessness. I suppose it all relates to women being the passionless, moral barometer of society who only have experience in the pure household. Of course, Sarah Grimke made the exact opposite statement when she wrote that womens displacement from equality has "introduced confusion into the world." pg 239 For her, inequality is the problem, for the minister she is responding to, it is equality. Its such a polarized mindset. I wonder if Lucy and Henry's marriage was deemed null if they signed agreements that were in direct contrast with the law regarding marriage at the time... -Chris Plummer<br />
<br />
<br />
The piece “Free Black Women in the Abolitionist Movement” touched briefly on the gender and race expectations of the time and how women reformers rebelled against these stereotypes. I know some of the pieces touched upon the idea of solidarity under the title “women,” yet pieces in both Woloch and Norton touched upon the idea of white reformers vs. black reformers. I was wondering how clear a divide there was between white and black reformers? White and black abolitionists? White and black suffragists? I know in the 1960s women’s movement, there was a great division among various ethnic lines; I’m wondering whether anyone knows if a similar race divide existed? Were black abolitionists/suffragists seeking rights different or separate from white women? Were there issues they both agreed on and fought for? --Mary Beth Dilla<br />
<br />
My question is in regards to Sojourner Truth. What I want to know is if she faced double the amount of prejudice that other women's rights activists faced since she was African American as well as a woman. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
We've spent a lot of time talking about activism and reformers and how the middle class reformer was created. Most of these women attempted to conform their lifestyles to that mold, while espousing views that radically challenged the tenets of the middle class family ideal. I'm very interested in how someone like Sojourner Truth could be so welcomed by reformers, and how this transformation to reform efforts that directly challenged the root of the reforming era because they tackled the middle class ideal. --A. Meyer<br />
<br />
When reading Sarah Grimke's piece, I was really astonished about how progressive it was. I was under the impression, that even though the moral reformists and abolitionists pushed their gender roles outside their expected spheres, they still maintained relatively conservative lifestyles to todays's standard, but Grimke's rhetoric reminded me of a 1960s feminist. One part in particular that really brings the 20th century liberal movement to mind is Grimke's comment that "whatever is right for man to do, is right for woman to do," a perfect slogan for a Title 9 activist. ~Juliann Boyles</div>199.111.65.146https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_9_Questions/CommentsWeek 9 Questions/Comments2007-10-25T01:45:11Z<p>199.111.65.146: </p>
<hr />
<div>I’m rather amazed with the strict order imposed on a middle class housewife, as read in Catharine Beecher’s “System and Order”. Each day of the week is filled with a specific chore that is repeated the following week. It seems like such a lifestyle would become repetitious and mundane, yet Beecher refers to this “taste for regularity” as a “blessing”. How come?- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I also found the piece “System and Order” by Catharine Beecher very interesting. The idea of a system for household duties and turning the house into a well-functioning, successful entity I think is reflective of the shifts going on in society. The shift from home production to office/factory production, the shift from agricultural, home-made/imported goods to finished goods made in factories, and the shift of men outside the home are all reflected in this piece. This piece reminded me of another piece I read in another class about time and how the introduction of clocks and watches placed an added stress to productivity both in factories and in the home. Similarly, women were expected to budget their time, assigning a specific amount of time per task. Beecher recommends dividing the tasks, spreading them throughout the week, and using children as a means to be more productive. Do these self-help manuals place more stress on women to live up to an ideal? Do you think Beecher’s advice intimidates women? How often was this advice practiced or did it remain an ideal? Do we see any similarities between Beecher’s advice and modern day life? –Mary Beth Dillane <br />
<br />
In regards to Mary Beth's question, I do think self-help manuals put more stress on women. Beecher's writing makes it seem that if there are any problems in the home than it is the woman's fault. According to Beecher, all a woman has to do is follow her "habit of system and order" and all should be fine. However, this obviously will not work for everyone. The proliferation of these self help manuals just perpetuates the notion of the idealized family. - Fiona C.<br />
<br />
When reading "System and Order", I found it very intersting when they said that "the success of democratic institutions all depends upon the intellectual and moral character of the mass of the people...It is equally conceded that the formation of the moral and intellectual character of the young is committed mainly to the female hand...Let the woman of a country be made virtuous and intelligent, and the men will certainly be the same. The proper education of a man decides the welfare of an individual; but educate a women, and the interests of a whole family are secured..." This is quite the assumption here.--Katie D.<br />
<br />
When reading the “Reports on Western Schools” letters from two teachers to Catharine Beecher, it is interesting to see the stark contrast of experiences. The first teacher seems to have zero amenities. She uses a “single board for a writing desk, a few bricks for andirons, and a stick of wood for shovel and tongs”. Some of her students are so poor they cannot afford shoes. She makes subtle hints that she is in need of money for purchasing suitable books, maps, slates, pencils, and paper, but we never read if she ever received any assistance. The other teacher had a new schoolhouse built for her which included writing desks and a black board. It is obvious that she is fairly well off in her new surroundings. Surprisingly, we find out that she has received some money from Mrs. Beecher which she used to purchase soap, candles, and a privacy screen. What would provoke Mrs. Beecher to give money to one of her pupils to spend personally while her other pupil is struggling to afford necessities to develop a decent school?- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I also found it interesting, in "Reports on Western Schools", to see such a contrast in these teachers experiences. I too was wondering, along with Lisa,...if one teacher had very little ameneties, and the other was so well off...why did Mrs. Beecher give money to the teacher that was well off,to spend personally, when the other teacher was struggling to provide even a descent school?--Katie D.<br />
<br />
Catharine M. Sedgwick's journal entry "First to None" seemed much more personal than journal entries we have used as sources for this class. For example, contrasting this to Martha Ballards "diary" seems impossible because they read like two different types of sources, though they both have the same name (journal or diary). Is Sedgwick's very personal writing a sign of her affinity towards writing and bottled up private dissatisfaction, or is this more personal style of journal writing a trend in the nineteenth century?-- Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
I agree with Kelly in the fact that Catherine Sedgwick journal is personal. She shows how deeply she feels towards her family. It seems to me that she has some regret in not getting married. Her brothers have replaced her as women of the house with their wives. She has lost her status as the house maiden. I get the feeling that she may even be jealous of the affections shown by her brothers to their wives. It must have been hard to go from being the adored sister to the old spinster.---Cheryl<br />
<br />
In her letter from Lowell Harriet Farley writes about the "Yankee spirit" of the women in the mills. She writes using the rhetoric of the revolution (like we discussed in class) using terms like independence and freedom. It seems that the community of women provided a safe and affirming place for women to further develop and voice their beliefs. --Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
Although Farley's letter was supposed to defend mill work, it seems to me that Farley was not that happy. She writes that "the girls here are not contented," her feet ache and swell, and that a woman's right hand becomes larger than her left. Maybe this life would still seem better to women who were used to working on farms? - Fiona Cobb<br />
<br />
When I read Farley's piece I thought of it as propaganda for the mill work. Since the journal it was published in was funded by mill owners themselves and this piece was a fictional correspondence. I felt like they had to include some of the negative aspects about mill life (such as their feet ache and swell) to make the piece seem more credible and realistic but the overall message was to defend the work. Any time they said something negative about the work, it was always countered with a positive that outweighed the bad point. --Alex K. <br />
<br />
While it was a step forward in the fact that some able women were able to leave the farms and work in mills and plants such as the one in Lancaster, I think it is important to remember that it was men who controlled these operations. The rules of the houses were quite rigid as to how quiet a woman must be upon entering the house, where a woman was to sit at the table, and how a woman was to behave at meal times, etc. --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
Reading the petition of the Cherokee women was upsetting. The women ask the chiefs and warriors of the council to reconsider parting the land which they once owned before the US government overtook it. The women do not understand what else they must do to be accepted into white culture. They express their advances from a "savage" nation to a "civilized" one. To hear them use those terms while speaking of themselves was hard to read. --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
Emma Willard's letter to her sister is really pretty amusing. It sounds like a really horrible thing to say to a sister about to get married, but on the other hand it doesn't sound that different than what a lot of newly divorced people would say today. -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
I agree Allison. I thought the letter was pretty interesting, especially after reading that Emma herself married someone who gambled away her money later on in life. It seems that she needed to follow her own advice. As far as the letter goes, I suppose it was a good thing to go into a marriage with some form of skepticism since a woman’s reputation was such a key factor in determining her place in society.—Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
It is so amazing that Amelia Knight crossed the Oregon Trail, and faced all the tribulations that this included, while pregnant! She cared for the children, walked long distances, and kept a fairly useful log of there trip with only a few mentions of being "sick." Also I really found her comments about the "romantic" hills covered with snow amusing. She can't help but put a little of her personality into this log while most of the diaries we have read have been fairly dry. -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
I thought Knight's log of her journey was quite fascinating as well, and I was totally surprised to find out that she was pregnant at the end! What a trooper. However, throughout the whole thing, I could not help but think that the next entry was going to say “Your oxen have died while fording the river” or “You have died of dysentery.” I suppose it’s fortunate for Amelia that my weird sense of humor didn’t play out and that she made it to Oregon after what was as her log describes as a tiresome, grueling journey. –Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
In Catherine Beecher’s housekeeping manual she discusses the virtue of “system and order” and urges housewives to devote separate days of the week for specific household tasks such as Tuesdays for washing and Wednesday for ironing etc. I was first struck by the wide array of household tasks women were expected to perform and it is clear that maintaining the house was a full time job. While there were many comments on how these advice manuals would add more stress to women’s lives I think they would help women learn how to run their households more efficiently. Beecher emphasizes that women should delegate more tasks to their children and learn how to organize their household items. Women today still seek the same advice on how to stay organized and delegate chores to family members in order to carve out more alone time for themselves. For instance an article I just read in this month’s Self magazine gave 30 tips for how women can get more organized. <br />
After reading Sarah Ayer’s journal entries describing having to uproot her life and move to Massachusetts to live with her husband’s relatives when she became a widow I was surprised that the wife of a physician would have to go through all of this. I assume that Sarah’s husband left no will and she was not put in charge of the estate because it seemed like her only choice was to move in with her husband’s relatives which she was not happy to do. –Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
Woloch mentions the new ideal of romantic love as the reason to marry made some more hesitant to marry. From my family class last semester we learned that many nineteenth-century women went through a “marriage trauma,” worrying about what would happen if a spouse did not live up to their hopes and high ideals. Because of this singlehood therefore rose, the insistence that marriage should be based on love implied that it's immoral to marry for other reasons and that marriage based on love/companionship spurred some to call for more liberal divorce laws. Maybe this was a bit later in the century though. --Alex K.<br />
<br />
If a person today were to ask the common middle class wife during the early 1800s about the 'equality of the sexes,' I wonder if her response would be like Beecher's, who wrote"THe discussion of the question of the equality of the sexes, in intellectual capacity, seems both frivolous and useless, not only because it can never be decided, but because there would be no possible advantage in the decision." (pg 148). I guess people were discussing this topic, albeit in an 'intellectual capacity,' but to what extent were people discussing it, and where? I assume they just entertained the idea as a sort of fiction, or dream-like possibility. Its interesting to see that she would write there would be no possible advantage in an equality, certainly it tells me that the conception of a society of equality really didn't make much sense to her. Also, in the intro to her section, there was slight discussion of the 'professionalisation' of being a housewife, a notion that is occasionally seen today. I've heard some people trying to estimate how much money a modern housewife would earn if she was paid, and its always some high amount. Harriet Farley made an interesting observation about life in the mill: "You ask if the girls are contented here: I ask you, ifyou now of any one who is perfectly contented." (pg 179). I guess thats all she knows, and for her, there might not be much point in imagining it to be any better. -Christopher Plummer</div>199.111.65.146https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_9_Questions/CommentsWeek 9 Questions/Comments2007-10-25T01:16:21Z<p>199.111.65.146: </p>
<hr />
<div>I’m rather amazed with the strict order imposed on a middle class housewife, as read in Catharine Beecher’s “System and Order”. Each day of the week is filled with a specific chore that is repeated the following week. It seems like such a lifestyle would become repetitious and mundane, yet Beecher refers to this “taste for regularity” as a “blessing”. How come?- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I also found the piece “System and Order” by Catharine Beecher very interesting. The idea of a system for household duties and turning the house into a well-functioning, successful entity I think is reflective of the shifts going on in society. The shift from home production to office/factory production, the shift from agricultural, home-made/imported goods to finished goods made in factories, and the shift of men outside the home are all reflected in this piece. This piece reminded me of another piece I read in another class about time and how the introduction of clocks and watches placed an added stress to productivity both in factories and in the home. Similarly, women were expected to budget their time, assigning a specific amount of time per task. Beecher recommends dividing the tasks, spreading them throughout the week, and using children as a means to be more productive. Do these self-help manuals place more stress on women to live up to an ideal? Do you think Beecher’s advice intimidates women? How often was this advice practiced or did it remain an ideal? Do we see any similarities between Beecher’s advice and modern day life? –Mary Beth Dillane <br />
<br />
In regards to Mary Beth's question, I do think self-help manuals put more stress on women. Beecher's writing makes it seem that if there are any problems in the home than it is the woman's fault. According to Beecher, all a woman has to do is follow her "habit of system and order" and all should be fine. However, this obviously will not work for everyone. The proliferation of these self help manuals just perpetuates the notion of the idealized family. - Fiona C.<br />
<br />
When reading "System and Order", I found it very intersting when they said that "the success of democratic institutions all depends upon the intellectual and moral character of the mass of the people...It is equally conceded that the formation of the moral and intellectual character of the young is committed mainly to the female hand...Let the woman of a country be made virtuous and intelligent, and the men will certainly be the same. The proper education of a man decides the welfare of an individual; but educate a women, and the interests of a whole family are secured..." This is quite the assumption here.--Katie D.<br />
<br />
When reading the “Reports on Western Schools” letters from two teachers to Catharine Beecher, it is interesting to see the stark contrast of experiences. The first teacher seems to have zero amenities. She uses a “single board for a writing desk, a few bricks for andirons, and a stick of wood for shovel and tongs”. Some of her students are so poor they cannot afford shoes. She makes subtle hints that she is in need of money for purchasing suitable books, maps, slates, pencils, and paper, but we never read if she ever received any assistance. The other teacher had a new schoolhouse built for her which included writing desks and a black board. It is obvious that she is fairly well off in her new surroundings. Surprisingly, we find out that she has received some money from Mrs. Beecher which she used to purchase soap, candles, and a privacy screen. What would provoke Mrs. Beecher to give money to one of her pupils to spend personally while her other pupil is struggling to afford necessities to develop a decent school?- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I also found it interesting, in "Reports on Western Schools", to see such a contrast in these teachers experiences. I too was wondering, along with Lisa,...if one teacher had very little ameneties, and the other was so well off...why did Mrs. Beecher give money to the teacher that was well off,to spend personally, when the other teacher was struggling to provide even a descent school?--Katie D.<br />
<br />
Catharine M. Sedgwick's journal entry "First to None" seemed much more personal than journal entries we have used as sources for this class. For example, contrasting this to Martha Ballards "diary" seems impossible because they read like two different types of sources, though they both have the same name (journal or diary). Is Sedgwick's very personal writing a sign of her affinity towards writing and bottled up private dissatisfaction, or is this more personal style of journal writing a trend in the nineteenth century?-- Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
In her letter from Lowell Harriet Farley writes about the "Yankee spirit" of the women in the mills. She writes using the rhetoric of the revolution (like we discussed in class) using terms like independence and freedom. It seems that the community of women provided a safe and affirming place for women to further develop and voice their beliefs. --Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
Although Farley's letter was supposed to defend mill work, it seems to me that Farley was not that happy. She writes that "the girls here are not contented," her feet ache and swell, and that a woman's right hand becomes larger than her left. Maybe this life would still seem better to women who were used to working on farms? - Fiona Cobb<br />
<br />
When I read Farley's piece I thought of it as propaganda for the mill work. Since the journal it was published in was funded by mill owners themselves and this piece was a fictional correspondence. I felt like they had to include some of the negative aspects about mill life (such as their feet ache and swell) to make the piece seem more credible and realistic but the overall message was to defend the work. Any time they said something negative about the work, it was always countered with a positive that outweighed the bad point. --Alex K. <br />
<br />
While it was a step forward in the fact that some able women were able to leave the farms and work in mills and plants such as the one in Lancaster, I think it is important to remember that it was men who controlled these operations. The rules of the houses were quite rigid as to how quiet a woman must be upon entering the house, where a woman was to sit at the table, and how a woman was to behave at meal times, etc. --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
Reading the petition of the Cherokee women was upsetting. The women ask the chiefs and warriors of the council to reconsider parting the land which they once owned before the US government overtook it. The women do not understand what else they must do to be accepted into white culture. They express their advances from a "savage" nation to a "civilized" one. To hear them use those terms while speaking of themselves was hard to read. --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
Emma Willard's letter to her sister is really pretty amusing. It sounds like a really horrible thing to say to a sister about to get married, but on the other hand it doesn't sound that different than what a lot of newly divorced people would say today. -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
I agree Allison. I thought the letter was pretty interesting, especially after reading that Emma herself married someone who gambled away her money later on in life. It seems that she needed to follow her own advice. As far as the letter goes, I suppose it was a good thing to go into a marriage with some form of skepticism since a woman’s reputation was such a key factor in determining her place in society.—Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
It is so amazing that Amelia Knight crossed the Oregon Trail, and faced all the tribulations that this included, while pregnant! She cared for the children, walked long distances, and kept a fairly useful log of there trip with only a few mentions of being "sick." Also I really found her comments about the "romantic" hills covered with snow amusing. She can't help but put a little of her personality into this log while most of the diaries we have read have been fairly dry. -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
<br />
In Catherine Beecher’s housekeeping manual she discusses the virtue of “system and order” and urges housewives to devote separate days of the week for specific household tasks such as Tuesdays for washing and Wednesday for ironing etc. I was first struck by the wide array of household tasks women were expected to perform and it is clear that maintaining the house was a full time job. While there were many comments on how these advice manuals would add more stress to women’s lives I think they would help women learn how to run their households more efficiently. Beecher emphasizes that women should delegate more tasks to their children and learn how to organize their household items. Women today still seek the same advice on how to stay organized and delegate chores to family members in order to carve out more alone time for themselves. For instance an article I just read in this month’s Self magazine gave 30 tips for how women can get more organized. <br />
After reading Sarah Ayer’s journal entries describing having to uproot her life and move to Massachusetts to live with her husband’s relatives when she became a widow I was surprised that the wife of a physician would have to go through all of this. I assume that Sarah’s husband left no will and she was not put in charge of the estate because it seemed like her only choice was to move in with her husband’s relatives which she was not happy to do. –Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
Woloch mentions the new ideal of romantic love as the reason to marry made some more hesitant to marry. From my family class last semester we learned that many nineteenth-century women went through a “marriage trauma,” worrying about what would happen if a spouse did not live up to their hopes and high ideals. Because of this singlehood therefore rose, the insistence that marriage should be based on love implied that it's immoral to marry for other reasons and that marriage based on love/companionship spurred some to call for more liberal divorce laws. Maybe this was a bit later in the century though. --Alex K.<br />
<br />
If a person today were to ask the common middle class wife during the early 1800s about the 'equality of the sexes,' I wonder if her response would be like Beecher's, who wrote"THe discussion of the question of the equality of the sexes, in intellectual capacity, seems both frivolous and useless, not only because it can never be decided, but because there would be no possible advantage in the decision." (pg 148). I guess people were discussing this topic, albeit in an 'intellectual capacity,' but to what extent were people discussing it, and where? I assume they just entertained the idea as a sort of fiction, or dream-like possibility. Its interesting to see that she would write there would be no possible advantage in an equality, certainly it tells me that the conception of a society of equality really didn't make much sense to her. Also, in the intro to her section, there was slight discussion of the 'professionalisation' of being a housewife, a notion that is occasionally seen today. I've heard some people trying to estimate how much money a modern housewife would earn if she was paid, and its always some high amount. Harriet Farley made an interesting observation about life in the mill: "You ask if the girls are contented here: I ask you, ifyou now of any one who is perfectly contented." (pg 179). I guess thats all she knows, and for her, there might not be much point in imagining it to be any better. -Christopher Plummer</div>199.111.65.146https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_8_Questions/CommentsWeek 8 Questions/Comments2007-10-18T05:13:35Z<p>199.111.65.146: </p>
<hr />
<div>I found it interesting in ''Women Alone: Property and Personalism'' how women expressed their displeasure with family members openly in their wills by leaving them out or adding conditions to the inheritance. Meanwhile men, when writing their wills, adhered to a basic format. I liked how the author made clear that even though women were limited in their influence and power in legal and political rights, they asserted their power through their wills. - Elizabeth Frank <br />
<br />
I too though it was very interesting how women openly expressed their displeasure in their wills by leaving them out or adding conditions to the inheritance, and as for the men, they just followed a simple format. These women finally got the change to assert their power through their wills, something that they never got the chance to do before...as far as political and legal rights are concerned. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
The women of Petersburg seemed to be self-sufficient. I was surprised to hear women wrote a great many of the wills. When it was mentioned how they highly personalized their wills, it reminded me of how a grandmother of mine use to threaten her relations about leaving them out of her will. This same grandmother also had good control of the family finances. I think she was pretty unique. -Cheryl<br />
<br />
It is sort of understandable that a woman would choose favorites, since the patriarch of a family would probably be treated with respect by all members of the family, but a matriarch? I am sure that many family members treated her like she was incompetent and unsuited to lead the family. Would the son-in-law have left that same clause reprimanding Bolling's husband, had he been alive? I doubt it. I wouldn't leave them anything either! -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
In Woloch's book, Malefactors and Complainants, Women were very active participants in the New England county courts, where they appeared in several capacities. It was interesting to me that occasionally wives served as attorneys for their husbands;colonies that accepted this practice did so on the grounds that the wife was legally an extension of her husband. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
It doesn't really make sense to me why the wives were able to serve as attorneys for their husbands though if in other capacities women were not thought to be rational or logical or capable of higher thought. Why then would the men put their "fate" in their wives hands? Or did an attorney have a more limited role then, or have a different meaning? --Alex K.<br />
<br />
I gathered from the reading in Woloch that the fame sol traders were not major players but rather women for one reason or another needed to earn a living. The laws passed were to both protect the feme sol traders from being taken advantage of and keep them from taking advantage of others. -Cheryl<br />
<br />
I thought it was particularly interesting that in some cases women need to the approval of their husbands to take advantage of the Feme Sole Trader Acts. What would the reasons for needing her husbands advice? Was it simply because it was still a patriarchal society and women supposibly needed permision from their husbands to do anything that wasn't domestic. or was it largely to do with the fact that the image of a married woman working would imply that the husband was not able to take care of his wife and therefore reflect poorly on him? ~Katelynn V.<br />
<br />
In Woloch we are shown that in New England it was easier for women to receive a divorce from the courts than it was in the Chesapeake region. I actually found this surprising. Because New England was formed around strict religious ideals I expected that divorce would be harder to get approved of. I understand that divorce was given based on if a woman was abused, if adultery was committed or if a wife or husband was left for an extended period without contact from the other. HOWEVER, why was it less difficult to get a divorce in a region with such strong foundations in religion? I feel like I'm missing a connection someplace in there.- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Maybe this is due to the layout of towns in New England verses the Chesapeake. Towns are more prevelant in the north and, perhaps because of this, courts and town councils seem to be more prevelant as well. When you live in an isolated area, probably far removed from the courts and your neighbors, it would be harder to go to the court for anything at all so something like a domestic dispute would be hard to take to court. -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
Also, keep in mind that in New England it was seen that the household reflected the status of the larger community and was referred to as "the little commonwealth". This implies that to have a well governed commonwealth of Mass. the households and family life need to be running smoothly. Therefore, it makes sense that divorce would be granted more often because neighbors would be concerned about others domestic concerns becuase if a family is having issues, not only would it reflect poorly on the family, but it would also affect the larger affairs of the village and/or common wealth. Peace and a smooth running government was the goal in new England and it seems that the goverment was willing to grant women divorce if it was going to benifit the greater commmunitiy. -Katelynn V. <br />
<br />
In response to Elizabeth's comment, I was wondering how varying views of marriage may have affected divorce rates in New England and the Chesapeake region. I think we've read that the Puritans viewed marriage more as a civil union than a sacred bond, so it may not actually be contradictory for them to allow divorce. What type of religion, if any, flourished in the Chesapeake? -- Ashley H. <br />
<br />
Elizabeth I think it would be interesting to study how many cases were brought to court and how many divorces were actually approved. While we see New England as strange for allowing divorce in such a strict, Puritan society we are not fully aware of how common the practice was or how easy of a time an abused or neglected woman had winning her case. Another section in Woloch I found fascinating was this idea of Feme Sole Traders which allowed married women to engage in businesses. I thought it was interesting how South Carolina had more "liberal laws." What could be a motive for that? Did a particular trade lend itself to this idea of Feme Sole Traders? How common was the practice? Was it socially unacceptable to take economic matters into one's own hands and not leave it up to the man? --Mary Beth Dillane<br />
<br />
I also was amazed with the section on the Feme Sole Traders. I thought it was unacceptable for women to be able to take on such economic matters, especially after what happened in the Dutch Colonies when the English arrived. Was this practice of the woman being a major player economically really that common? - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
While I was familiar with the rules of coverture and femme sole, along with the history of women taking nontraditional gender roles and serving as traders, I did not realize colonies like South Carolina actually had laws regarding coverture and giving women recognized legal status for trading purposes. I was fascinated by this law.--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
In another class I have taken it was mentioned that while married women in New England had few legal rights they were more able to divorce because of the Puritan idea of what a home and familiy and patriarchal household. If a marriage was not the ideal marriage or if a man was not upholding his patriarchal responsibilities a woman was within her rights to divorce him. However, who knows what other motives New England law makers might have had. Also on the Feme Sole Traders, the question on a particular trade is a good one. If I had to take a guess I would say whatever trade she might want to get involved in, but also maybe not a trade that was of a masculine sort, like selling men's clothes or something like that. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I'm curious about how sentencing for crimes may have been affected by gender.For example, the reading mentions that Mary Chelson was whipped and had to pay a fee for "committing of fornication.... and having a bastard childe." In the trial Chelson named the father of her child, what would his punishment have been?-- Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
I was also interested in the sentencing for crimes and its relationship to gender. I found it interesting that on one occassion, the "Backway Sentenced", the man got whipped five more times for the woman for committing fornication before marriage. Why did the amount of whipping for fornication change? It seems like for the most part the charge was 15 slashes (even if a bastard child is involved). However, it fluctuates based on the case, sometimes 10 and a small monetary payment, sometimes 20. Why is this? Were some charged less because they were deemed "better" citizens? Fornication is fornication. How can you say one case is worse than another?- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I found the excert about the sentencing of crimes very interesting. I was amazed at some of the things that people were charged for. For example the people who were fined for fornication before thier marriage. SInce there were a lot of fornication cases in this piece I probably shouldnt have been surprised, but they were MARRIED. Who should care that they had "fornicated" before marriage. And why did they tell people anyway, that seemed silly. Also what was up with that one lady, Margaret Brewster, who disguised herself and came to meeting? --Mary P.<br />
<br />
Maybe it wasn't that they told people about the fornication but that they were caught fornicating when, or where, they shouldn't have been. This is the best explaination I can come up with because you're right that it would be silly for them to admit to committing fornication before marriage. -- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with the comments about the fornication before marriage and the punishments of such, but when taking a look at their society that they lived in, it certainly correlates. I studied in another class that these activities and others that demonstrated individualistic tendencies or independence or even anything that was outside the community norm were severely "frowned upon" and punishment was necessary. Anything to keep the community cohesive and respected. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I believe that, in this deeply religious society, confessing to fornication was essentially confessing to a sin, with the thought process being to repent and accept the punishment. Perhaps reasoning for this was to ensure a Christian afterlife or to prevent a "bastard child" from being ostracized by the surrounding community.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I thought that there wasn't a problem with premarital sex. There would only be a problem if it resulted in a child and the two - didn't marry. Maybe I am wrong? - Fiona C.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading the different court cases but they brought up a lot of questions. For instance, were men punished for being drunk also? Also, what does "imprisoned for unclean carriages with.." If women knew what would happen if they confessed to fornication why did they do, was it because they thought the confession would save them? If being an elect was predetermined then what would confessing do for you? Brewster Whip'ts case was very different and I'm not quite sure I actually understand what she did (seem to offend religion) but whatever she did her punishment seemed the harshest. -- Emily Miller<br />
<br />
I was just amazed, in general, that women were allowed to leave wills and have some say in what happened with property after someone's death. I didn't realize that women were allowed to have this much power in the relationship, was this a new ideology? Or had this always been common? - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I was also intrigued by the section on wills. In particular, the law that required a man to leave his wife at least a life interest in one third of his real estate. Were these women then given control over the money? To me this contradicts the view of women as completely financially dependent upon men. - Fiona C. <br />
<br />
I too was surprised that women were able to have a say in what happened to their property after their death. I also found it interesting that through antenuptial contracts, women could retain come control over their property. I thought that when a woman married, she became the property of her husband.-- E. Hufford<br />
<br />
Right, when a woman married she did become the property of her husband, but if the husband died first, I believe she was entitled to 1/3 of the assests. I also noticed that much of the stuff women left to people in their wills was movable property so it wasn't like the women were dealing with the larger issues, like property. --Alex K. <br />
<br />
I looked at the wills in a different way. Everyone is talking about how surprised they were with how much a woman was left after her husband died. Well to be frank, I am not surprised; I would be surprised if it was not the case. Even though women were considered "property" of the husband's "government," we cannot forget that they were spouses, there was a connection, and I am sure more often than not there was dedication and devotion. I don't mean to sound juvinile, it is just that isn't it the norm for a wife to be in the will somewhere? -- Talya Halpern<br />
<br />
I was surprised at the Tennison Decision portion of "A Separation Decision" in Wolock. Many of the other divorces or separations seemed to be granted for desertion, and in these cases it makes economic sense to allow a woman to remarry so she does not become a drain on the community. However, in this case John Tennisson was willing to support his wife under his own roof, but she was granted a legal separation because "he could never entertain that love and respect for his said wife . . . as is properly due" (75). Loveless marriages couldn't have been that uncommon; I have to wonder what was going on behind the scenes that made this relationship worse than others. ---Ashley H.<br />
<br />
When reading Suzanne Lebsock's article, I was interested in the fact that white women sometimes left money and other provisions to their slaves when writing their wills. More women than men gave slaves their freedom through their wills. One woman's provisions for her slaves were written with more love and detail than were her provisions for her son and grandchildren according to Lebsock. I think this empahsizes the importance and effect of individual relationships that some white women had with their slaves.--E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I was fascinated reading the Lebsock's article. I did a research paper several years ago about the subject of women and the wills they left behind and it was really common to see where one child would get either everything or most everything. Then when the census records were looked at as well you could see where the woman had several children but some got nothing. That to me was really interesting to see how women divided up their property.~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
Question in response to Mary Beth's comment: Why is that so? Were women leaving their property to the one child that was the favorite? Or just the oldest child? And why exclude some of them from getting anything at all? Men seemed to have certain guidelines that dictated who got what (i.e. oldest son got most or all of the inheritance) but women did not necessarily have those guidelines. So is this an example of a freedom they had, giving their property to whomever they choose? -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
It says on page 79 in Woloch that Goodwife Amee was "presented by the grandjury for absenting her selfe from the publique worship of God." Does this mean that she was brought to court because she left a public display of worship on the Sabbath (Sunday?)? I'm confused about the antenuptial contracts, didn't the wife loose her legal standing when she became married, or was this more of a colonial-time period thing? If it was, how did it change and why? It seems like such a beneficial thing to men, and giving women's limited legal standing anyways, I'm at a loss to explain the change. The end of the blackboard article notes that women were more sensitive to people in precarious economic positions, or their tendency to reward their 'favorite' people, which I found interesting in how that is such a contrast to the tendencies of men. An obvious explanation might be that women could easily sympathize with a slave since, perhaps, they saw their own position in a similar light? -Christopher Plummer<br />
<br />
In the Wolock reading, under the Divorce in New England section, the most common reason for granting a divorce was abandonment by the husband. I'm sure there are varied reasons why these men left their wives but none of the court records state why any of them left. It's probably hard to tell, but did the courts know why these men were leaving? Did the wives? What was the most common reason for abandonment?-- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
I also wondered why abandonment was the most common reason for divorce in New England because I assumed it would be abuse. Were all these men running off and starting other families or did they leave their wives because they felt they could set up a better life for themselves somewhere else?<br />
In the Woloch piece on “Divorce in New England” it was interesting to read that of the thirteen colonies only Massachusetts and Connecticut offered absolute divorce. Even though absolute divorce existed in the 17th century a women could only petition the court for divorce in cases of adultery, desertion, or an absence of seven years. I wonder what the court’s reasoning was behind making a women wait seven years before petitioning the court for a divorce. Seven years seems like a very long time for a woman to have to live by herself and care for her family without her husband’s support. <br />
When Elizabeth Griswould petitioned the court to have sole custody of her children it was interesting to see the court ordering the children’s father to pay child support payments. I was not aware that courts ordered parents to pay child support as early as the seventeenth century.--Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
I found the whole abandonment issue really interesting too. And like you Caitlin, I had no idea that courts could order a man to pay child support in the 17th century. In that part of the passage, I also thought it was really interesting that Elizabeth was also using her maiden name as opposed to Rogers.--Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
As I was reading the document “Divorce in New England” in Woloch, I was wondering if you were looked down upon by the other members of the community if you got a divorce. Did you become the subject of town gossip and become sort of ostracized from everyone else? I also want to know how common it was for someone to get divorced, I expect that it would not be as common as it is today, but I think it was fairly common because there are a lot of court documents pertaining to the subject. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
I am sure that those who went through a divorce were gossiped about often. But that is all that women had- the control to talk about eachother. I would not know how often, however I am sure it was a complete and utter last resort. For most of the divorces, it is sad to see it is due to disertion. The women need to be able to be divorced in an attempt to find a new husband to gain economic stature. -- Talya Halpern.<br />
<br />
I agree with Talya. I definitely don't think that divorce was seen as the norm, but it was necessary. I mean, if a husband has vanished for six or seven years, doesn't that leave a wife in pretty dire straits financially? At that point, it seems to me that it’s time to move on.--Kaitlyn G. <br />
<br />
South Carolina's acts on Feme Sole Traders were quite interesting. It is astonishing women were allowed such rights during this period, but also surprising that it took 32 years between the passing of the two acts. The first act allowed the debts to be brought upon the trader herself, but until the second act she was not able to pursue justice in her own name. I wonder if this meant that before the second act it was her husband who must bring suit for her, or if she was simply unable to seek retribution. Regardless of the limitations, being able to engage in open trade offered a vastly increased source of income to the women of the colonies. I also wonder who's hands the money they earned often ended up in, their's or their husband's. --Robert Kopp</div>199.111.65.146https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_8_Questions/CommentsWeek 8 Questions/Comments2007-10-18T04:50:26Z<p>199.111.65.146: </p>
<hr />
<div>I found it interesting in ''Women Alone: Property and Personalism'' how women expressed their displeasure with family members openly in their wills by leaving them out or adding conditions to the inheritance. Meanwhile men, when writing their wills, adhered to a basic format. I liked how the author made clear that even though women were limited in their influence and power in legal and political rights, they asserted their power through their wills. - Elizabeth Frank <br />
<br />
I too though it was very interesting how women openly expressed their displeasure in their wills by leaving them out or adding conditions to the inheritance, and as for the men, they just followed a simple format. These women finally got the change to assert their power through their wills, something that they never got the chance to do before...as far as political and legal rights are concerned. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
The women of Petersburg seemed to be self-sufficient. I was surprised to hear women wrote a great many of the wills. When it was mentioned how they highly personalized their wills, it reminded me of how a grandmother of mine use to threaten her relations about leaving them out of her will. This same grandmother also had good control of the family finances. I think she was pretty unique. -Cheryl<br />
<br />
It is sort of understandable that a woman would choose favorites, since the patriarch of a family would probably be treated with respect by all members of the family, but a matriarch? I am sure that many family members treated her like she was incompetent and unsuited to lead the family. Would the son-in-law have left that same clause reprimanding Bolling's husband, had he been alive? I doubt it. I wouldn't leave them anything either! -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
In Woloch's book, Malefactors and Complainants, Women were very active participants in the New England county courts, where they appeared in several capacities. It was interesting to me that occasionally wives served as attorneys for their husbands;colonies that accepted this practice did so on the grounds that the wife was legally an extension of her husband. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
It doesn't really make sense to me why the wives were able to serve as attorneys for their husbands though if in other capacities women were not thought to be rational or logical or capable of higher thought. Why then would the men put their "fate" in their wives hands? Or did an attorney have a more limited role then, or have a different meaning? --Alex K.<br />
<br />
I gathered from the reading in Woloch that the fame sol traders were not major players but rather women for one reason or another needed to earn a living. The laws passed were to both protect the feme sol traders from being taken advantage of and keep them from taking advantage of others. -Cheryl<br />
<br />
I thought it was particularly interesting that in some cases women need to the approval of their husbands to take advantage of the Feme Sole Trader Acts. What would the reasons for needing her husbands advice? Was it simply because it was still a patriarchal society and women supposibly needed permision from their husbands to do anything that wasn't domestic. or was it largely to do with the fact that the image of a married woman working would imply that the husband was not able to take care of his wife and therefore reflect poorly on him? ~Katelynn V.<br />
<br />
In Woloch we are shown that in New England it was easier for women to receive a divorce from the courts than it was in the Chesapeake region. I actually found this surprising. Because New England was formed around strict religious ideals I expected that divorce would be harder to get approved of. I understand that divorce was given based on if a woman was abused, if adultery was committed or if a wife or husband was left for an extended period without contact from the other. HOWEVER, why was it less difficult to get a divorce in a region with such strong foundations in religion? I feel like I'm missing a connection someplace in there.- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Maybe this is due to the layout of towns in New England verses the Chesapeake. Towns are more prevelant in the north and, perhaps because of this, courts and town councils seem to be more prevelant as well. When you live in an isolated area, probably far removed from the courts and your neighbors, it would be harder to go to the court for anything at all so something like a domestic dispute would be hard to take to court. -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
Also, keep in mind that in New England it was seen that the household reflected the status of the larger community and was referred to as "the little commonwealth". This implies that to have a well governed commonwealth of Mass. the households and family life need to be running smoothly. Therefore, it makes sense that divorce would be granted more often because neighbors would be concerned about others domestic concerns becuase if a family is having issues, not only would it reflect poorly on the family, but it would also affect the larger affairs of the village and/or common wealth. Peace and a smooth running government was the goal in new England and it seems that the goverment was willing to grant women divorce if it was going to benifit the greater commmunitiy. -Katelynn V. <br />
<br />
In response to Elizabeth's comment, I was wondering how varying views of marriage may have affected divorce rates in New England and the Chesapeake region. I think we've read that the Puritans viewed marriage more as a civil union than a sacred bond, so it may not actually be contradictory for them to allow divorce. What type of religion, if any, flourished in the Chesapeake? -- Ashley H. <br />
<br />
Elizabeth I think it would be interesting to study how many cases were brought to court and how many divorces were actually approved. While we see New England as strange for allowing divorce in such a strict, Puritan society we are not fully aware of how common the practice was or how easy of a time an abused or neglected woman had winning her case. Another section in Woloch I found fascinating was this idea of Feme Sole Traders which allowed married women to engage in businesses. I thought it was interesting how South Carolina had more "liberal laws." What could be a motive for that? Did a particular trade lend itself to this idea of Feme Sole Traders? How common was the practice? Was it socially unacceptable to take economic matters into one's own hands and not leave it up to the man? --Mary Beth Dillane<br />
<br />
I also was amazed with the section on the Feme Sole Traders. I thought it was unacceptable for women to be able to take on such economic matters, especially after what happened in the Dutch Colonies when the English arrived. Was this practice of the woman being a major player economically really that common? - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In another class I have taken it was mentioned that while married women in New England had few legal rights they were more able to divorce because of the Puritan idea of what a home and familiy and patriarchal household. If a marriage was not the ideal marriage or if a man was not upholding his patriarchal responsibilities a woman was within her rights to divorce him. However, who knows what other motives New England law makers might have had. Also on the Feme Sole Traders, the question on a particular trade is a good one. If I had to take a guess I would say whatever trade she might want to get involved in, but also maybe not a trade that was of a masculine sort, like selling men's clothes or something like that. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I'm curious about how sentencing for crimes may have been affected by gender.For example, the reading mentions that Mary Chelson was whipped and had to pay a fee for "committing of fornication.... and having a bastard childe." In the trial Chelson named the father of her child, what would his punishment have been?-- Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
I was also interested in the sentencing for crimes and its relationship to gender. I found it interesting that on one occassion, the "Backway Sentenced", the man got whipped five more times for the woman for committing fornication before marriage. Why did the amount of whipping for fornication change? It seems like for the most part the charge was 15 slashes (even if a bastard child is involved). However, it fluctuates based on the case, sometimes 10 and a small monetary payment, sometimes 20. Why is this? Were some charged less because they were deemed "better" citizens? Fornication is fornication. How can you say one case is worse than another?- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I found the excert about the sentencing of crimes very interesting. I was amazed at some of the things that people were charged for. For example the people who were fined for fornication before thier marriage. SInce there were a lot of fornication cases in this piece I probably shouldnt have been surprised, but they were MARRIED. Who should care that they had "fornicated" before marriage. And why did they tell people anyway, that seemed silly. Also what was up with that one lady, Margaret Brewster, who disguised herself and came to meeting? --Mary P.<br />
<br />
Maybe it wasn't that they told people about the fornication but that they were caught fornicating when, or where, they shouldn't have been. This is the best explaination I can come up with because you're right that it would be silly for them to admit to committing fornication before marriage. -- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with the comments about the fornication before marriage and the punishments of such, but when taking a look at their society that they lived in, it certainly correlates. I studied in another class that these activities and others that demonstrated individualistic tendencies or independence or even anything that was outside the community norm were severely "frowned upon" and punishment was necessary. Anything to keep the community cohesive and respected. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I believe that, in this deeply religious society, confessing to fornication was essentially confessing to a sin, with the thought process being to repent and accept the punishment. Perhaps reasoning for this was to ensure a Christian afterlife or to prevent a "bastard child" from being ostracized by the surrounding community.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I thought that there wasn't a problem with premarital sex. There would only be a problem if it resulted in a child and the two - didn't marry. Maybe I am wrong? - Fiona C.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading the different court cases but they brought up a lot of questions. For instance, were men punished for being drunk also? Also, what does "imprisoned for unclean carriages with.." If women knew what would happen if they confessed to fornication why did they do, was it because they thought the confession would save them? If being an elect was predetermined then what would confessing do for you? Brewster Whip'ts case was very different and I'm not quite sure I actually understand what she did (seem to offend religion) but whatever she did her punishment seemed the harshest. -- Emily Miller<br />
<br />
I was just amazed, in general, that women were allowed to leave wills and have some say in what happened with property after someone's death. I didn't realize that women were allowed to have this much power in the relationship, was this a new ideology? Or had this always been common? - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I was also intrigued by the section on wills. In particular, the law that required a man to leave his wife at least a life interest in one third of his real estate. Were these women then given control over the money? To me this contradicts the view of women as completely financially dependent upon men. - Fiona C. <br />
<br />
I too was surprised that women were able to have a say in what happened to their property after their death. I also found it interesting that through antenuptial contracts, women could retain come control over their property. I thought that when a woman married, she became the property of her husband.-- E. Hufford<br />
<br />
Right, when a woman married she did become the property of her husband, but if the husband died first, I believe she was entitled to 1/3 of the assests. I also noticed that much of the stuff women left to people in their wills was movable property so it wasn't like the women were dealing with the larger issues, like property. --Alex K. <br />
<br />
I looked at the wills in a different way. Everyone is talking about how surprised they were with how much a woman was left after her husband died. Well to be frank, I am not surprised; I would be surprised if it was not the case. Even though women were considered "property" of the husband's "government," we cannot forget that they were spouses, there was a connection, and I am sure more often than not there was dedication and devotion. I don't mean to sound juvinile, it is just that isn't it the norm for a wife to be in the will somewhere? -- Talya Halpern<br />
<br />
I was surprised at the Tennison Decision portion of "A Separation Decision" in Wolock. Many of the other divorces or separations seemed to be granted for desertion, and in these cases it makes economic sense to allow a woman to remarry so she does not become a drain on the community. However, in this case John Tennisson was willing to support his wife under his own roof, but she was granted a legal separation because "he could never entertain that love and respect for his said wife . . . as is properly due" (75). Loveless marriages couldn't have been that uncommon; I have to wonder what was going on behind the scenes that made this relationship worse than others. ---Ashley H.<br />
<br />
When reading Suzanne Lebsock's article, I was interested in the fact that white women sometimes left money and other provisions to their slaves when writing their wills. More women than men gave slaves their freedom through their wills. One woman's provisions for her slaves were written with more love and detail than were her provisions for her son and grandchildren according to Lebsock. I think this empahsizes the importance and effect of individual relationships that some white women had with their slaves.--E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I was fascinated reading the Lebsock's article. I did a research paper several years ago about the subject of women and the wills they left behind and it was really common to see where one child would get either everything or most everything. Then when the census records were looked at as well you could see where the woman had several children but some got nothing. That to me was really interesting to see how women divided up their property.~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
Question in response to Mary Beth's comment: Why is that so? Were women leaving their property to the one child that was the favorite? Or just the oldest child? And why exclude some of them from getting anything at all? Men seemed to have certain guidelines that dictated who got what (i.e. oldest son got most or all of the inheritance) but women did not necessarily have those guidelines. So is this an example of a freedom they had, giving their property to whomever they choose? -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
It says on page 79 in Woloch that Goodwife Amee was "presented by the grandjury for absenting her selfe from the publique worship of God." Does this mean that she was brought to court because she left a public display of worship on the Sabbath (Sunday?)? I'm confused about the antenuptial contracts, didn't the wife loose her legal standing when she became married, or was this more of a colonial-time period thing? If it was, how did it change and why? It seems like such a beneficial thing to men, and giving women's limited legal standing anyways, I'm at a loss to explain the change. The end of the blackboard article notes that women were more sensitive to people in precarious economic positions, or their tendency to reward their 'favorite' people, which I found interesting in how that is such a contrast to the tendencies of men. An obvious explanation might be that women could easily sympathize with a slave since, perhaps, they saw their own position in a similar light? -Christopher Plummer<br />
<br />
In the Wolock reading, under the Divorce in New England section, the most common reason for granting a divorce was abandonment by the husband. I'm sure there are varied reasons why these men left their wives but none of the court records state why any of them left. It's probably hard to tell, but did the courts know why these men were leaving? Did the wives? What was the most common reason for abandonment?-- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
I also wondered why abandonment was the most common reason for divorce in New England because I assumed it would be abuse. Were all these men running off and starting other families or did they leave their wives because they felt they could set up a better life for themselves somewhere else?<br />
In the Woloch piece on “Divorce in New England” it was interesting to read that of the thirteen colonies only Massachusetts and Connecticut offered absolute divorce. Even though absolute divorce existed in the 17th century a women could only petition the court for divorce in cases of adultery, desertion, or an absence of seven years. I wonder what the court’s reasoning was behind making a women wait seven years before petitioning the court for a divorce. Seven years seems like a very long time for a woman to have to live by herself and care for her family without her husband’s support. <br />
When Elizabeth Griswould petitioned the court to have sole custody of her children it was interesting to see the court ordering the children’s father to pay child support payments. I was not aware that courts ordered parents to pay child support as early as the seventeenth century.--Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
I found the whole abandonment issue really interesting too. And like you Caitlin, I had no idea that courts could order a man to pay child support in the 17th century. In that part of the passage, I also thought it was really interesting that Elizabeth was also using her maiden name as opposed to Rogers.--Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
As I was reading the document “Divorce in New England” in Woloch, I was wondering if you were looked down upon by the other members of the community if you got a divorce. Did you become the subject of town gossip and become sort of ostracized from everyone else? I also want to know how common it was for someone to get divorced, I expect that it would not be as common as it is today, but I think it was fairly common because there are a lot of court documents pertaining to the subject. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
I am sure that those who went through a divorce were gossiped about often. But that is all that women had- the control to talk about eachother. I would not know how often, however I am sure it was a complete and utter last resort. For most of the divorces, it is sad to see it is due to disertion. The women need to be able to be divorced in an attempt to find a new husband to gain economic stature. -- Talya Halpern.<br />
<br />
<br />
South Carolina's acts on Feme Sole Traders were quite interesting. It is astonishing women were allowed such rights during this period, but also surprising that it took 32 years between the passing of the two acts. The first act allowed the debts to be brought upon the trader herself, but until the second act she was not able to pursue justice in her own name. I wonder if this meant that before the second act it was her husband who must bring suit for her, or if she was simply unable to seek retribution. Regardless of the limitations, being able to engage in open trade offered a vastly increased source of income to the women of the colonies. I also wonder who's hands the money they earned often ended up in, their's or their husband's. --Robert Kopp</div>199.111.65.146 Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38