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: 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=72.209.236.69McClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T23:04:41ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_10_Questions/CommentsWeek 10 Questions/Comments2007-11-01T06:02:37Z<p>72.209.236.69: </p>
<hr />
<div>Woloch’s book--I found the reading The Cruel Mistress, to be a form of abolitionist propaganda to raise the argument about how inhumane slavery is. Angelina Grimke Weld would give great credibility to the abolitionist movement because of her observations of the southern community as she was once a southern herself. These observations are highly detailed as if it was fresh from her memories yet these accounts in her memories are at least fourteen years old. Thus it begs the question, did these mistresses really conduct themselves this way according to what Weld had witnessed? Are her memories that reliable? Or are these observations, in how mistresses treated their slaves, facts or exaggerations of the facts? –John Furner <br />
<br />
I think it is likely that these mistresses did conduct themselves in a way very similar to Weld's accounts even though a decent amount of time had passed between when she had witnessed the actions and when she recorded them for publishing. The treatment that she described I believe was very common of the slave owners to not see their slaves as fully human and therefore not treat them as such. However, the treatment that stood out most to me during this entry was how the mistress would not beat the slaves herself but have that slave's brother or sister beat them. I would think this would make them want to act out more.- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
As much as I doubt Grimke was lying, as something of an expatriate from Southern society, she had reason to make the South and slavery seem worse than it was, and her own interactions were certainly not the most positive with the institution.--A. Meyer. <br />
<br />
I think another interesting aspect of Weld reading was that the "Cruel Mistress" was a very devoutly religious person and was actively Christian. Though this seems to be contradictory, it just shows (as previously mentioned) that slave owners did not view their slaves as people. The Cruel Mistress did not feel that her Christian charity included African Americans, only white people. - F. Cobb<br />
<br />
I agree with both the points made about “The Cruel Mistress.” I definitely agree about it seeming like a propaganda piece. As Andrea said, Weld probably wasn’t lying, but I think that since she was a Southern expatriate, she certainly could have been spicing up her observations in order to further her cause. I was also stricken by the religious aspect that Weld brings up and agree with the point that F. Cobb makes about the Mistress only thinking of white people as human beings. It seems to me that people are always talking about how God loves everyone equally in church. If this was the case back then, I feel like The Cruel Mistress probably would not have been treating her slaves so harshly. -- Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
Donald Matthew's Religion in the Old South discusses this idea of the cruel owner, and even the owner in general as a person practicing cruel activities who is so religious, and the hypocrisy. Matthews develops the idea that the slaves are being "saved" and it's the duty of the Southerners, who are in a unique position to be trying to help their slaves, which the North "can't" understand. I think "The Cruel Mistress" fits very nicely with his ideas about how frustrated Southerners were. --A. Meyer<br />
<br />
In Woloch's book I was intreged by Sarah Haynesworth Gayle's diary entries. She sounded hurt by the actions of her slaves, as if she considered them to be her wayward children in a way. It goes back to what we discussed in class about the idea that slaveowners believed they were "helping" their slaves and that the slaves owed their masters for that. She sounded very disappointed for instance when some of her slaves started slacking off in their tasks as it were, and then she had to sell one of her favorite slaves because of it. I guess it is one thing to hear it in class and another in writing from the time the idea that they couldnt understand why the slaves would be unhappy. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
Going along with Mary, I was pretty bewildered by Gayle's attitudes towards her slaves. She says "it will not pain me now to part with the negroes... excessive indulgence has ruined them - they are idle yet full of complaints... I doubt if any of them would not believe a change of ownership could benefit them." She seems pretty annoyed at their behavior with this statement. She's almost getting sick of their attitude - and that leads me to what we discussed in class about white thoughts of slaves being like children. Gayle is getting sick of their attitude and is two seconds away from putting them in a time-out; it's just in this case the time-out is being sold to a different owner. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
Continuing with what Vanessa and Mary have said, I thought that Gayle's entries excellently demonstrated the seemingly-contradictory attitudes towards slaves as both children and property. Vanessa compares Gayle to a mother frustrated with her wayward children, yet most mothers would still be pained by permanently parting with even the most disagreeable child. It's interesting to see how Gayle goes back and forth between affection and dismissal of her slaves depending on the circumstances. I also noticed that Gayle found some of her own self-worth in the respect of her slaves. She wrote, "I no longer feel confident that my orders will be obeyed, and often when they are the obedience is accompanied by murmuring, sour looks, and often surly language, that almost put me beside myself." She seems to be questioning her own abilities as a result of the slaves' disobedience. What did other people think about this? --Ashley H. <br />
<br />
I agree with Mary, I think that it was interesting that Sarah Haynesworth Gayle was shocked that her slaves would rebell against her because it reflects the ideas we talked about in class where the masters would believe they were helping the slaves and they should be greatful. What also surprised me about this excerpt was that it shows that personal attachments between masters slaves did happen. Maybe these are just superficial attachments that don't really count as friendships, but it's closer than I would have initally thought possible. She made it seem like she cared about her slave Mike and thought about him long after he had gone. This is probably rare, but this shows that it did happen. -- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
I feel as though Gayle's attitudes towards her slaves were originally somewhat atypical. She seemed to really care about her slaves and not really want seem like the overbearing plantation mistress. However, when the slaves began to rebel in minor ways, like we learned in class, I believe her feelings became just. I know this sounds kind of awful, but really, what's the point of having domestic help if they're not going to do anything? Gayle even mentions that her servants were driving her crazy because for about four months they have done absolutely nothing. It kind of shows that shift towards the rebellious nature of slaves and the way they affected their masters in minor ways instead of an all out revolt. - Kelly W <br />
<br />
As Kelly pointed out, you can definitely see a form of slave resistance in the diary of Sarah Haynesworth Gayle. She notes that she doesn't know if her orders will be obeyed, and if they are, they are typically accompanied with murmuring and sour looks. Also, they were sluggish and inattentive. As we've learned through Prof McClurken's lectures, this was a way for a slave to maintain some form of dignity and self-respect.- Lisa W <br />
<br />
In "The Cruel Mistress" by Angelina Weld, I found it shocking how slave adults and children were treated the same when it came to punishment. From a slaveowner's point of view, it would make sense to me that if someone was your "property" that you would want to keep that "property" in the best shape possible, because then from a business perspective, you could get the most use out of "it". This makes me wonder why such drastic beating occurred for minor offenses? Flogging a slave until he/she can't work doesn't help anything. The master would lose money for the time the slave could not work and had to recover from the harsh beating. It is implied that children were severly whipped and harshly scolded, as well. Again, this does not make sense. You would want your "property" to grow big and strong, not take a chance at beating him/her to a bloody pulp and risk killing off such a valuable investment.- Lisa W.<br />
<br />
Woloch’ Book—Reading Louisa S. Cheeves McCord attack on Stowe was a bit difficult to swallow. It seems to me that she plays right into the Patriarchal system of having to assume the role to take care of those less fortunate. Otherwise, she attempts to give credence to southern white man’s burden for the purpose to have slaves. I find it amusing when she writes, “We proclaim it, on the contrary, a Godlike dispensation, a providential caring for the weak, and a refuge for the portionless.” (219) Why I find this amusing is that she believes the white race must assume a god like status in the care of the less fortunate, thereby the less fortunate group could only prosper in a civilized world, if they were enslaved by the white race; white man’s burden. However, if the white race were so godlike or given providence as she claims, then why are southern slave owners dependant on slaves for their very existence?—John Furner<br />
<br />
When I read that quote by McCord I immediately thought of paternalism in that they truly believed they were helping the less fortunate who could not care for themselves. She goes on to say that "slavery, even in his own land, is his destiny and his refuge from extinction." --Alex K. <br />
<br />
I had a hard time understanding McCord's arguments. She put forth a conservative viewpoint that did not necessarily match her own power. McCord was educated, managed her own plantation with 200 slaves (until her marriage) and had a public forum for her opinions. She received most of her education in the North. Knowing how deep racism was ingrained in the southern lifestyle, I still expected a more enlightened view from a woman of such independence. -- Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
In this week’s readings we see the cruelty of slavery for women, through the abuse and sexual exploitation of black women. Even whites were morally opposed to the institution of slavery as seen by Mary Chestnut’s diary. I was taken back by the popularity of masters forcing sexual relations between men and women. I knew it was a practice, however I was under the impression that slave breeding was not very popular, and mostly masters relied on natural reproduction. What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of slave breeding? In the essay by Jennings, she explicitly discusses the role of white, slave owners in the sexual abuse of women. Did masters rape and abuse women simply because they could or did the sexual stereotypes of African American women of the time (“animal – like”, foreign, African queens, exotic, sexually aggressive, etc.) play into it? How did mistresses react to the relationships between masters and female slaves and illegitimate children? Are there examples of mistresses mistreating a woman she suspected was sleeping with her husband (I know Weld discusses the “cruel mistress” but I did not get the impression that her violence was deemed inappropriate or based on accusations of infidelity). Was there any advantage(s) to sleeping with the master? -Mary Beth D.<br />
<br />
Going along with Mary Beth, having to do with the cruelty of slavery for women, through the abuse of black men...I too was taken back by the popularity of masters forcing sexual relations between men and women, and thought it was less popular than portrayed in the reading. It was a bit of a surprise to me...-Katie D.<br />
<br />
In regards to slave breeding, I think the white masters forced it upon their slaves for purely economic reasons. Slaves were expensive to buy and they wouldn't have to buy them if they were born into slavery. They wanted the "strong, stoutly" slaves to reproduce with one another so they would have strong children to work for them. - F. Cobb<br />
<br />
In Rose William's Story, that deals with an important issue of the extent to which slave owners interfered in slave familty life and encouraged slaves to reproduce...I enjoyed reading how it was in a woman slave's self-interest to have children, and child bearing increased her value as a slave and thereby diminished the liklihood of her sale and separation from family members. It was in the owners interest to encourage reproduction and thereby increase the extent of his slave property.-Katie D.<br />
<br />
I know that this is going to sound horrible and in many ways wrong, but the slave holders viewed their slaves as property, almost on the same grounds as cattle, right? That being said, maybe in thier minds they saw the breeding of slaves as nothing more then a farmer would see breeding cattle. Making sure the bloodlines were such that the product of the union will be of value and also insuring a certain number of offspring being born. As I said it sounds horrible but who knows what they might have been thinking, wrong thinking seems to be common place for slaveholders. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary. Slave owners did consider their slaves as livestock. If he manages to get a good breeding pair, it would save him a lot of money. If I were Rose, I would have felt sorely tempted to run that hot poker through the master and than Rufus. I admire the fact that Rose can be quite an understanding person. ---Cheryl<br />
<br />
Rose's story was indeed a very good example of how slave owners envisioned slaves as a very good investment and that the female slaves would indeed reproduce and, in turn, increase the number of slaves on one owner's property without the owner having to pay anything more. I felt bad that the master manipulated Rose, however, but I can completely understand how she felt she owed her master in return for keeping her with her family. It seemed like a very bizarre situation and it makes me wonder, was this typical? Were slaves normally made to feel guilty in order to obey their master, aside from the usual whipping or beating? - Kelly W<br />
<br />
Before I read Rose's account, I had no idea that slave women were bred like cattle. If a woman cannot even control her sexual fate, then she is stripped of all her dignity. I can understand why Rose would never want to be with another man, for as a young girl she was stripped of all her ability to trust and appreciate the goodness of loving relationships. An experience, such as Rose's, can really harden the soul, especially when you are too young to even fully understand.~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
I was saddened by Rose's story for a variety of reasons, but I particularly noticed her choice never to marry because "one 'sperience am 'nough for dis nigger. After what I does for de massa, I's never wants no truck with any man." I wonder if it was common for women used in such a way at a young age to avoid sexual relations permanently. --Ashley H.<br />
<br />
In response to Kelly's comment, I was amazed at how Rose's master, who she identified as one of the good ones, could be so manipulative to force an innocent girl into an unwanted sexual relationship. Just reading these accounts really puts some things into perspective. Although we discussed the paternalism in southern society, when it comes down to it, these slaves were not even treated as well as children, but rather were on the same level as dogs. Despite this debasement of humanity, enslavement was all most of them knew, which is why I was not too surprised when I read Lucinda's request to be re-enslaved in VA. It is the same reason that so many slaves stayed on after the war as sharecroppers. Slavery was as much an important part of their way of life as it was to the white southerners who owned them. ~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
<br />
In the readings one of the things that stood out the most to me was in Modern Problems the article by Mrs. Virgina Hayes Shepard when she mentions Diana. I was surprised to see that when the master went to Diana to have sexual relations with her Diana actually went to her mistress for help. I thought that white mistresses would react badly to the idea that their husbands would be sleeping with the slaves but in DIana's case the mistress sympathized instead of becoming angry. It is stated that in part this is because she was also afraid of her husband. Is it possible that this is more common than we know because both the slave women and the mistresses were scared to bring it up?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I think that Diana would be the exception to the rule. In class we talked about how severe racial hierarchy was and while both women and African Americans were oppressed they did not form a bond. I think that white women more frequently used slaves to exercise the limited power to which they had access (like in Cruel Mistress). -Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
I thought the document titled "Lucinda, a Free Woman, Asks to Be Reenslaved" was really interesting. She probably thought about what her life would be like for her as a free Black woman, and she probably realized that there weren't that she wouldn't have a very good life. Her life as a slave might be slightly better than her life as a free Black woman because as a slave she was with her husband, had a small place to live and got some food. Her situation is similar to the situation of some criminals today. Sometimes criminals who have just been released from jail want to go right back to jail, because they might have a better life in jail than out of it. In jail, they at least have a roof over their head and food to eat. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
I too was intrigued with Lucinda's plea to be reenslaved. I'm not sure I would say that she thought life would be "better" for her in slavery but rather perhaps she understood that in slvary she would find some sense of security. She would be reunited with her husband but at the same time there was no telling that he wouldn't be sold to another owner at some later point in time. I think it's difficult to understand or identitfy what Lucinda's rationing was in asking to be reenslaved other than the fact that she would be reunited with her husband.--E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I agree with Katherine. Lucinda probably felt like life would be too difficult for her in a state she wasn't familiar with and with people she didn't know. It would be difficult and scary to leave behind everything you know. It is also interesting to see a relationship of obvious affection if not love between slaves on different farms. However, why doesn't the book tell us what happens? I think the decision made by the commonwealth would be really interesting to read. -- Allison J. <br />
<br />
I have a question - Lucinda petitioned to be reenslaved so that she could be with her husband; she didn't want to be sent off somewhere so she could be free and leave him where he was. How typical was this? Is this an abnormal situation or were emancipated slaves really asking for this sort of treatment regularly? I feel as though this would be somewhat bizarre but I could be wrong. Thoughts? Answers? - Kelly W<br />
<br />
I thought Lucinda’s story was pretty intriguing too. Here she is with a chance for freedom, but is asking to be re-enslaved. I guess you guys have already said it all, but I guess the sense of security outweighed the appeal of freedom for her. I just found the whole thing to be interesting because there was no guarantee that her husband would not be sold to another farm or plantation. I wonder if there are any other records about this case. --Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
I realize this may be a dumb question but here it goes anyway, why are there such discrepancies among masters and their treatment of slaves? Are there any similiarities or connections among slave owners who were "kinder" to their slaves or among those masters who were unbearable? Were some more religious than others, did the age of the master play a role, the location, etc.? --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I was rather intrigued by the contrasting essays on freed black women, in Major Problems in American Women’s History. The first essay that should the devotion and love a freed slave had for her husband was very heart warming. She was willing to give up freedom in order to be with her love. Then there are the next two essays that inspire free slave women to rally together and free all the slaves. These last two essays cause me to believe that these women were highly educated because of the language they use to inspire others.---Cheryl<br />
<br />
Wow. The essay that "Implores Other Free Black Women" to sign a petition to end slavery in D.C. is not so much imploring as yelling. I felt ashamed and lazy just reading it! This is really powerful writing and it is really very different from what I would have expected. The writer is obviously well educated, especially since they claim to be not only a woman but black as well. --Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
I agree with Allison. The woman who wrote this obviously well educated, and she practically accuses all readers that they are slaves themselves - "a slave to hardness of heart." She's got some powerful words coming into play in this essay but she almost gets to the point of offensive. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
Thelma Jennings essay, "The Sexual Exploitation of African American Slave Women," really hits home all the major points of this topic we discussed in class. Like the idea of female slaves having a tougher life than male slaves because not only did they have to do the work equal of men, but they also had to bear and raise children and also "cope with sexual abuse" by their masters. And the idea of "slave breeding" affected the family life too - it "made it very difficult for couples to establish family relationships." The whole female gender role system we often place on women of modern times and white women of the period is completely disrupted and destroyed for black slave women. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I was a bit confused by something in the reading that seemed contradictory. In the author's description of the "Rose William's Story" piece, he explains that it was in a woman slave's self-interest to have children because it increased her value as a slave and thereby diminished the likelihood of her sale and separation from family members. Then in the essay by Thelma Jennings she talks about women who practiced crude methods of birth control and abortion and inducing miscarriages as a form of passive resistance. She explains that this was common in a time when childbirth was dangerous and children could be sold at the master's whim. So which is it? Can it be both? --Alex K.<br />
<br />
The pros and cons of childbirth were weighed differently by different women. While one woman might view having a child as extra security, another might view childbirth, especially in the case of breeding, as further oppression. Forcing pregnancy on a woman against her will is a violation of the inalienable human right to choose your sexual partner, so some women would silently rebel through birth control methods. Although most women could not prevent a forced sexual encounter, they could, to some degree control the fate of that encounter. To successfully survive, a woman needed to learn how to exert some control over her future. As Alex pointed out, the method of control varied with the experience of the woman. ~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
Its interesting to see the distinction between religious life of slaves and free-blacks. Rose Williams stated, "Church? Shucks, we-uns don't know what that means." Whereas for Mary Still, organized religion is a big deal. It was also interesting to see how "A Colored Woman" calls people slaves -slaves to their hard hearts. Although I think her condemnation of many who seem apathetic is maybe a bit out of place. Those free-blacks probably had a pretty good sense that their freedom was not necessarily set in stone, and if by some unfortunate circumstance they were to be enslaved, I don't think there would have been much of an investigation. At the same time, her sense of urgency and power, though, are probably necessary to get people to act. -Chris Plummer<br />
<br />
In Sarah Haynesworth Gayle’s diary I wonder what “excessive indulgences” she was referring to that had made her slaves lazy, full of complaints, and defensive. Sarah later blames her parents for her slaves disobeying her twenty-five years later because as a child her parents prevented her from abusing them. When Sarah describes how she was unfairly treated by her parents compared to the slaves she sounds like a child who is jealous of an older sibling. Sarah Gayle also seems to have less control over her life than other women we’ve read about. For instance in another diary entry she writes about being too afraid to ask her husband where they are going to move and seems to accept the fact that he will make the decision without her input. -Caitlin Quinn</div>72.209.236.69https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_10_Questions/CommentsWeek 10 Questions/Comments2007-11-01T05:49:00Z<p>72.209.236.69: </p>
<hr />
<div>Woloch’s book--I found the reading The Cruel Mistress, to be a form of abolitionist propaganda to raise the argument about how inhumane slavery is. Angelina Grimke Weld would give great credibility to the abolitionist movement because of her observations of the southern community as she was once a southern herself. These observations are highly detailed as if it was fresh from her memories yet these accounts in her memories are at least fourteen years old. Thus it begs the question, did these mistresses really conduct themselves this way according to what Weld had witnessed? Are her memories that reliable? Or are these observations, in how mistresses treated their slaves, facts or exaggerations of the facts? –John Furner <br />
<br />
I think it is likely that these mistresses did conduct themselves in a way very similar to Weld's accounts even though a decent amount of time had passed between when she had witnessed the actions and when she recorded them for publishing. The treatment that she described I believe was very common of the slave owners to not see their slaves as fully human and therefore not treat them as such. However, the treatment that stood out most to me during this entry was how the mistress would not beat the slaves herself but have that slave's brother or sister beat them. I would think this would make them want to act out more.- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
As much as I doubt Grimke was lying, as something of an expatriate from Southern society, she had reason to make the South and slavery seem worse than it was, and her own interactions were certainly not the most positive with the institution.--A. Meyer. <br />
<br />
I think another interesting aspect of Weld reading was that the "Cruel Mistress" was a very devoutly religious person and was actively Christian. Though this seems to be contradictory, it just shows (as previously mentioned) that slave owners did not view their slaves as people. The Cruel Mistress did not feel that her Christian charity included African Americans, only white people. - F. Cobb<br />
<br />
I agree with both the points made about “The Cruel Mistress.” I definitely agree about it seeming like a propaganda piece. As Andrea said, Weld probably wasn’t lying, but I think that since she was a Southern expatriate, she certainly could have been spicing up her observations in order to further her cause. I was also stricken by the religious aspect that Weld brings up and agree with the point that F. Cobb makes about the Mistress only thinking of white people as human beings. It seems to me that people are always talking about how God loves everyone equally in church. If this was the case back then, I feel like The Cruel Mistress probably would not have been treating her slaves so harshly. -- Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
Donald Matthew's Religion in the Old South discusses this idea of the cruel owner, and even the owner in general as a person practicing cruel activities who is so religious, and the hypocrisy. Matthews develops the idea that the slaves are being "saved" and it's the duty of the Southerners, who are in a unique position to be trying to help their slaves, which the North "can't" understand. I think "The Cruel Mistress" fits very nicely with his ideas about how frustrated Southerners were. --A. Meyer<br />
<br />
In Woloch's book I was intreged by Sarah Haynesworth Gayle's diary entries. She sounded hurt by the actions of her slaves, as if she considered them to be her wayward children in a way. It goes back to what we discussed in class about the idea that slaveowners believed they were "helping" their slaves and that the slaves owed their masters for that. She sounded very disappointed for instance when some of her slaves started slacking off in their tasks as it were, and then she had to sell one of her favorite slaves because of it. I guess it is one thing to hear it in class and another in writing from the time the idea that they couldnt understand why the slaves would be unhappy. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
Going along with Mary, I was pretty bewildered by Gayle's attitudes towards her slaves. She says "it will not pain me now to part with the negroes... excessive indulgence has ruined them - they are idle yet full of complaints... I doubt if any of them would not believe a change of ownership could benefit them." She seems pretty annoyed at their behavior with this statement. She's almost getting sick of their attitude - and that leads me to what we discussed in class about white thoughts of slaves being like children. Gayle is getting sick of their attitude and is two seconds away from putting them in a time-out; it's just in this case the time-out is being sold to a different owner. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
Continuing with what Vanessa and Mary have said, I thought that Gayle's entries excellently demonstrated the seemingly-contradictory attitudes towards slaves as both children and property. Vanessa compares Gayle to a mother frustrated with her wayward children, yet most mothers would still be pained by permanently parting with even the most disagreeable child. It's interesting to see how Gayle goes back and forth between affection and dismissal of her slaves depending on the circumstances. I also noticed that Gayle found some of her own self-worth in the respect of her slaves. She wrote, "I no longer feel confident that my orders will be obeyed, and often when they are the obedience is accompanied by murmuring, sour looks, and often surly language, that almost put me beside myself." She seems to be questioning her own abilities as a result of the slaves' disobedience. What did other people think about this? --Ashley H. <br />
<br />
I agree with Mary, I think that it was interesting that Sarah Haynesworth Gayle was shocked that her slaves would rebell against her because it reflects the ideas we talked about in class where the masters would believe they were helping the slaves and they should be greatful. What also surprised me about this excerpt was that it shows that personal attachments between masters slaves did happen. Maybe these are just superficial attachments that don't really count as friendships, but it's closer than I would have initally thought possible. She made it seem like she cared about her slave Mike and thought about him long after he had gone. This is probably rare, but this shows that it did happen. -- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
I feel as though Gayle's attitudes towards her slaves were originally somewhat atypical. She seemed to really care about her slaves and not really want seem like the overbearing plantation mistress. However, when the slaves began to rebel in minor ways, like we learned in class, I believe her feelings became just. I know this sounds kind of awful, but really, what's the point of having domestic help if they're not going to do anything? Gayle even mentions that her servants were driving her crazy because for about four months they have done absolutely nothing. It kind of shows that shift towards the rebellious nature of slaves and the way they affected their masters in minor ways instead of an all out revolt. - Kelly W <br />
<br />
As Kelly pointed out, you can definitely see a form of slave resistance in the diary of Sarah Haynesworth Gayle. She notes that she doesn't know if her orders will be obeyed, and if they are, they are typically accompanied with murmuring and sour looks. Also, they were sluggish and inattentive. As we've learned through Prof McClurken's lectures, this was a way for a slave to maintain some form of dignity and self-respect.- Lisa W <br />
<br />
In "The Cruel Mistress" by Angelina Weld, I found it shocking how slave adults and children were treated the same when it came to punishment. From a slaveowner's point of view, it would make sense to me that if someone was your "property" that you would want to keep that "property" in the best shape possible, because then from a business perspective, you could get the most use out of "it". This makes me wonder why such drastic beating occurred for minor offenses? Flogging a slave until he/she can't work doesn't help anything. The master would lose money for the time the slave could not work and had to recover from the harsh beating. It is implied that children were severly whipped and harshly scolded, as well. Again, this does not make sense. You would want your "property" to grow big and strong, not take a chance at beating him/her to a bloody pulp and risk killing off such a valuable investment.- Lisa W.<br />
<br />
Woloch’ Book—Reading Louisa S. Cheeves McCord attack on Stowe was a bit difficult to swallow. It seems to me that she plays right into the Patriarchal system of having to assume the role to take care of those less fortunate. Otherwise, she attempts to give credence to southern white man’s burden for the purpose to have slaves. I find it amusing when she writes, “We proclaim it, on the contrary, a Godlike dispensation, a providential caring for the weak, and a refuge for the portionless.” (219) Why I find this amusing is that she believes the white race must assume a god like status in the care of the less fortunate, thereby the less fortunate group could only prosper in a civilized world, if they were enslaved by the white race; white man’s burden. However, if the white race were so godlike or given providence as she claims, then why are southern slave owners dependant on slaves for their very existence?—John Furner<br />
<br />
When I read that quote by McCord I immediately thought of paternalism in that they truly believed they were helping the less fortunate who could not care for themselves. She goes on to say that "slavery, even in his own land, is his destiny and his refuge from extinction." --Alex K. <br />
<br />
I had a hard time understanding McCord's arguments. She put forth a conservative viewpoint that did not necessarily match her own power. McCord was educated, managed her own plantation with 200 slaves (until her marriage) and had a public forum for her opinions. She received most of her education in the North. Knowing how deep racism was ingrained in the southern lifestyle, I still expected a more enlightened view from a woman of such independence. -- Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
In this week’s readings we see the cruelty of slavery for women, through the abuse and sexual exploitation of black women. Even whites were morally opposed to the institution of slavery as seen by Mary Chestnut’s diary. I was taken back by the popularity of masters forcing sexual relations between men and women. I knew it was a practice, however I was under the impression that slave breeding was not very popular, and mostly masters relied on natural reproduction. What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of slave breeding? In the essay by Jennings, she explicitly discusses the role of white, slave owners in the sexual abuse of women. Did masters rape and abuse women simply because they could or did the sexual stereotypes of African American women of the time (“animal – like”, foreign, African queens, exotic, sexually aggressive, etc.) play into it? How did mistresses react to the relationships between masters and female slaves and illegitimate children? Are there examples of mistresses mistreating a woman she suspected was sleeping with her husband (I know Weld discusses the “cruel mistress” but I did not get the impression that her violence was deemed inappropriate or based on accusations of infidelity). Was there any advantage(s) to sleeping with the master? -Mary Beth D.<br />
<br />
Going along with Mary Beth, having to do with the cruelty of slavery for women, through the abuse of black men...I too was taken back by the popularity of masters forcing sexual relations between men and women, and thought it was less popular than portrayed in the reading. It was a bit of a surprise to me...-Katie D.<br />
<br />
In regards to slave breeding, I think the white masters forced it upon their slaves for purely economic reasons. Slaves were expensive to buy and they wouldn't have to buy them if they were born into slavery. They wanted the "strong, stoutly" slaves to reproduce with one another so they would have strong children to work for them. - F. Cobb<br />
<br />
In Rose William's Story, that deals with an important issue of the extent to which slave owners interfered in slave familty life and encouraged slaves to reproduce...I enjoyed reading how it was in a woman slave's self-interest to have children, and child bearing increased her value as a slave and thereby diminished the liklihood of her sale and separation from family members. It was in the owners interest to encourage reproduction and thereby increase the extent of his slave property.-Katie D.<br />
<br />
I know that this is going to sound horrible and in many ways wrong, but the slave holders viewed their slaves as property, almost on the same grounds as cattle, right? That being said, maybe in thier minds they saw the breeding of slaves as nothing more then a farmer would see breeding cattle. Making sure the bloodlines were such that the product of the union will be of value and also insuring a certain number of offspring being born. As I said it sounds horrible but who knows what they might have been thinking, wrong thinking seems to be common place for slaveholders. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary. Slave owners did consider their slaves as livestock. If he manages to get a good breeding pair, it would save him a lot of money. If I were Rose, I would have felt sorely tempted to run that hot poker through the master and than Rufus. I admire the fact that Rose can be quite an understanding person. ---Cheryl<br />
<br />
Rose's story was indeed a very good example of how slave owners envisioned slaves as a very good investment and that the female slaves would indeed reproduce and, in turn, increase the number of slaves on one owner's property without the owner having to pay anything more. I felt bad that the master manipulated Rose, however, but I can completely understand how she felt she owed her master in return for keeping her with her family. It seemed like a very bizarre situation and it makes me wonder, was this typical? Were slaves normally made to feel guilty in order to obey their master, aside from the usual whipping or beating? - Kelly W<br />
<br />
I was saddened by Rose's story for a variety of reasons, but I particularly noticed her choice never to marry because "one 'sperience am 'nough for dis nigger. After what I does for de massa, I's never wants no truck with any man." I wonder if it was common for women used in such a way at a young age to avoid sexual relations permanently. --Ashley H.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the readings one of the things that stood out the most to me was in Modern Problems the article by Mrs. Virgina Hayes Shepard when she mentions Diana. I was surprised to see that when the master went to Diana to have sexual relations with her Diana actually went to her mistress for help. I thought that white mistresses would react badly to the idea that their husbands would be sleeping with the slaves but in DIana's case the mistress sympathized instead of becoming angry. It is stated that in part this is because she was also afraid of her husband. Is it possible that this is more common than we know because both the slave women and the mistresses were scared to bring it up?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I think that Diana would be the exception to the rule. In class we talked about how severe racial hierarchy was and while both women and African Americans were oppressed they did not form a bond. I think that white women more frequently used slaves to exercise the limited power to which they had access (like in Cruel Mistress). -Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
I thought the document titled "Lucinda, a Free Woman, Asks to Be Reenslaved" was really interesting. She probably thought about what her life would be like for her as a free Black woman, and she probably realized that there weren't that she wouldn't have a very good life. Her life as a slave might be slightly better than her life as a free Black woman because as a slave she was with her husband, had a small place to live and got some food. Her situation is similar to the situation of some criminals today. Sometimes criminals who have just been released from jail want to go right back to jail, because they might have a better life in jail than out of it. In jail, they at least have a roof over their head and food to eat. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
I too was intrigued with Lucinda's plea to be reenslaved. I'm not sure I would say that she thought life would be "better" for her in slavery but rather perhaps she understood that in slvary she would find some sense of security. She would be reunited with her husband but at the same time there was no telling that he wouldn't be sold to another owner at some later point in time. I think it's difficult to understand or identitfy what Lucinda's rationing was in asking to be reenslaved other than the fact that she would be reunited with her husband.--E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I agree with Katherine. Lucinda probably felt like life would be too difficult for her in a state she wasn't familiar with and with people she didn't know. It would be difficult and scary to leave behind everything you know. It is also interesting to see a relationship of obvious affection if not love between slaves on different farms. However, why doesn't the book tell us what happens? I think the decision made by the commonwealth would be really interesting to read. -- Allison J. <br />
<br />
I have a question - Lucinda petitioned to be reenslaved so that she could be with her husband; she didn't want to be sent off somewhere so she could be free and leave him where he was. How typical was this? Is this an abnormal situation or were emancipated slaves really asking for this sort of treatment regularly? I feel as though this would be somewhat bizarre but I could be wrong. Thoughts? Answers? - Kelly W<br />
<br />
I thought Lucinda’s story was pretty intriguing too. Here she is with a chance for freedom, but is asking to be re-enslaved. I guess you guys have already said it all, but I guess the sense of security outweighed the appeal of freedom for her. I just found the whole thing to be interesting because there was no guarantee that her husband would not be sold to another farm or plantation. I wonder if there are any other records about this case. --Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
I realize this may be a dumb question but here it goes anyway, why are there such discrepancies among masters and their treatment of slaves? Are there any similiarities or connections among slave owners who were "kinder" to their slaves or among those masters who were unbearable? Were some more religious than others, did the age of the master play a role, the location, etc.? --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I was rather intrigued by the contrasting essays on freed black women, in Major Problems in American Women’s History. The first essay that should the devotion and love a freed slave had for her husband was very heart warming. She was willing to give up freedom in order to be with her love. Then there are the next two essays that inspire free slave women to rally together and free all the slaves. These last two essays cause me to believe that these women were highly educated because of the language they use to inspire others.---Cheryl<br />
<br />
Wow. The essay that "Implores Other Free Black Women" to sign a petition to end slavery in D.C. is not so much imploring as yelling. I felt ashamed and lazy just reading it! This is really powerful writing and it is really very different from what I would have expected. The writer is obviously well educated, especially since they claim to be not only a woman but black as well. --Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
I agree with Allison. The woman who wrote this obviously well educated, and she practically accuses all readers that they are slaves themselves - "a slave to hardness of heart." She's got some powerful words coming into play in this essay but she almost gets to the point of offensive. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
Thelma Jennings essay, "The Sexual Exploitation of African American Slave Women," really hits home all the major points of this topic we discussed in class. Like the idea of female slaves having a tougher life than male slaves because not only did they have to do the work equal of men, but they also had to bear and raise children and also "cope with sexual abuse" by their masters. And the idea of "slave breeding" affected the family life too - it "made it very difficult for couples to establish family relationships." The whole female gender role system we often place on women of modern times and white women of the period is completely disrupted and destroyed for black slave women. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I was a bit confused by something in the reading that seemed contradictory. In the author's description of the "Rose William's Story" piece, he explains that it was in a woman slave's self-interest to have children because it increased her value as a slave and thereby diminished the likelihood of her sale and separation from family members. Then in the essay by Thelma Jennings she talks about women who practiced crude methods of birth control and abortion and inducing miscarriages as a form of passive resistance. She explains that this was common in a time when childbirth was dangerous and children could be sold at the master's whim. So which is it? Can it be both? --Alex K.<br />
<br />
The pros and cons of childbirth were weighed differently by different women. While one woman might view having a child as extra security, another might view childbirth, especially in the case of breeding, as further oppression. Forcing pregnancy on a woman against her will is a violation of the inalienable human right to choose your sexual partner, so some women would silently rebel through birth control methods. Although most women could not prevent a forced sexual encounter, they could, to some degree control the fate of that encounter. To successfully survive, a woman needed to learn how to exert some control over her future. As Alex pointed out, the method of control varied with the experience of the woman. <br />
<br />
Its interesting to see the distinction between religious life of slaves and free-blacks. Rose Williams stated, "Church? Shucks, we-uns don't know what that means." Whereas for Mary Still, organized religion is a big deal. It was also interesting to see how "A Colored Woman" calls people slaves -slaves to their hard hearts. Although I think her condemnation of many who seem apathetic is maybe a bit out of place. Those free-blacks probably had a pretty good sense that their freedom was not necessarily set in stone, and if by some unfortunate circumstance they were to be enslaved, I don't think there would have been much of an investigation. At the same time, her sense of urgency and power, though, are probably necessary to get people to act. -Chris Plummer<br />
<br />
In Sarah Haynesworth Gayle’s diary I wonder what “excessive indulgences” she was referring to that had made her slaves lazy, full of complaints, and defensive. Sarah later blames her parents for her slaves disobeying her twenty-five years later because as a child her parents prevented her from abusing them. When Sarah describes how she was unfairly treated by her parents compared to the slaves she sounds like a child who is jealous of an older sibling. Sarah Gayle also seems to have less control over her life than other women we’ve read about. For instance in another diary entry she writes about being too afraid to ask her husband where they are going to move and seems to accept the fact that he will make the decision without her input. -Caitlin Quinn</div>72.209.236.69https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_8_Questions/CommentsWeek 8 Questions/Comments2007-10-18T11:20:41Z<p>72.209.236.69: </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 />
When I was reading the first part of the Women Alone essay I was wondering if these women (specifically Mary Bolling)told their potential heirs about the possibility of getting left out of a will. It also looked like she openly favored her daughters and granddaughters was this because she knew that her sons and grandsons would be well provided for by their fathers? Julie Castanien<br />
<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 />
When reading an Antenuptial Contract, I couldn't help but notice the similarity to today's pre-nuptial contract. I thought this was a modern invention....I had no idea that they dated back to the 17th century. I always thought that these types of contracts depreciated the overall meaning of marriage, operating on a cynical notion, which is why it is odd to see women, in the 17th cnntury, already contemplating their situation after the end of their marriage.~Juliann Boyles<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 />
Like Caitlin, I was also struck by the court decision concerning Elizabeth Griswould in "Divorce in New England." What struck me was how uncommon this situation must have been, dealing with child custody. Since most divorces were granted as a result of abandonment, I couldn't imagine the male being a consideration in the custody of his children, as he is presumed dead. In the case of Elizabeth Griswould, the divorce must have been granted for another reason, perhaps adultery. This small piece referenced religion in the court's decision of child custody, which leads me to wonder what might have happened if the father were an upstanding Christian. Was it common, as it is today to favor the mother in custody battles? Or are these situations too rare to try to attempt to identify the normality? Like Caitlin, I was also a little surprised to see some of our legal customs, such as child support, performed in 17th century Puritan society.~Juliann Boyles<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>72.209.236.69https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_8_Questions/CommentsWeek 8 Questions/Comments2007-10-18T11:20:04Z<p>72.209.236.69: </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 />
When I was reading the first part of the Women Alone essay I was wondering if these women (specifically Mary Bolling)told their potential heirs about the possibility of getting left out of a will. It also looked like she openly favored her daughters and granddaughters was this because she knew that her sons and grandsons would be well provided for by their fathers? Julie Castanien<br />
<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 />
When reading an Antenuptial Contract, I couldn't help but notice the similarity to today's pre-nuptial contract. I thought this was a modern invention....I had no idea that they dated back to the 17th century. I always thought that these types of contracts depreciated the overall meaning of marriage, operating on a cynical notion, which is why it is odd to see women, in the 17th cnntury, already contemplating their situation after the end of their marriage.~Juliann Boyles<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 />
Like Caitlin, I was also struck by the court decision concerning Elizabeth Griswould in "Divorce in New England." What struck me was how uncommon this situation must have been, dealing with child custody. Since most divorces were granted as a result of abandonment, I couldn't imagine the male being a consideration in the custody of his children, as he is presumed dead. In the case of Elizabeth Griswould, the divorce must have been granted for another reason, perhaps adultery. This small piece referenced religion in the court's decision of child custody, which leads me to wonder what might have happened if the father were an upstanding Christian. Was it common, as it is today to favor the mother in custody battles? Or are these situations too rare to try to attempt to identify the normality? Like Caitlin, I was also a little surprised to see some of our legal customs, such as child support, performed in 17th century Puritan society.<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>72.209.236.69https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_299HIST 2992007-09-07T14:09:49Z<p>72.209.236.69: </p>
<hr />
<div>This is the future space for the Fall 2007 -- HIST 299 -- Introduction to the Study of History.<br />
<br />
http://apothecary.umwblogs.org/ -- Lauren Villiva<br />
<br />
http://eweaver.umwblogs.org/ -- Elle Weaver<br />
<br />
http://jkilday.umwblogs.org/ -- Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
http://cspeth.umwblogs.org/ -- Cheryl Speth<br />
<br />
http://ellenf.umwblogs.org/ -- Ellen Fritz<br />
<br />
http://historyjustin.umwblogs.org/ -- Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
http://maura.umwblogs.org/ -- Maura Johnson<br />
<br />
http://embea.umwblogs.org/ -- Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
http://kawilson.umwblogs.org/ -- Kari Wilson<br />
<br />
http://cdavis3.umwblogs.org/ -- Carthon Davis<br />
<br />
http://amandashumaker.umwblogs.org/ -- Amanda Shumaker<br />
<br />
http://mstruth.umwblogs.org/ -- Matt Struth<br />
<br />
http://tdinu4bi.umwblogs.org/ -- Thomas DiNuzzo<br />
<br />
http://leethegeneral.blogspot.com/ -- Lee M. Peters</div>72.209.236.69 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