Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38 https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Lsmith0805McClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T23:11:50ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_13-14_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 13-14 Questions/Comments-327 112011-12-01T05:56:26Z<p>Lsmith0805: /* Susie King Taylor, Reminiscences of My Life in Camp, 1902 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching or comparative questions ==<br />
One thing that was a little surprising was the number of slave accounts where they did not find out that they were freed from their masters. This happened in Clarissa Burdett's account (she just ran away), Fanny Berry's, and Katie Darling's. It's not necessarily surprising that white owners would try to pull that off, but I am wondering what reasons there were for the owners to be able to get away with keeping their slaves for an extended period of time. Was it geographical? --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
It seems that I have read multiple times of women having problems with farm equipment, the latest being "Loss of male labor, crumbling equipment..." (Woloch 264) It is not in an actual account of the time but in the Woloch's overview of the ''A Wartime Mistress.'' Why do we see this mentioned so often with women in the South but not the North? --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
== Louisa May Alcott, Hospital Sketches, 1862-1863 ==<br />
<br />
In Louisa May Alcott's description of being a Union nurse, it is apparent that women are new to the field of nursing, and even then, their definition of nursing is not what it is today. Alcott writes, "I find real pleasure in comforting, tending, and cheering these poor souls who seem to love me, to feel my sympathy though unspoken, and acknowledge my hearty good-will, in spite of the ignorance, awkwardness, and bashfulness which I cannot help showing in so new and trying a situation." Alcott's main role was to keep up the spirits of the men, not doing any actual medical aide. Furthermore, she describeds fulfilling these duties with awkwardness and bashfulness. This is likely because ladies were supposed to be in the home, and if they are out of the home they are certainly not supposed to be dealing with men they are not married to. --Clare O<br />
<br />
In Louisa May Alcott's account, I found it interesting to see the change in gender norms for women. While women were now allowed to work outside the house and in Alcott's case even encouraged, "Shall I stay, Mother?...No, go! and the Lord be with you!" (258). Her mother encouraged her to go and participate, eventhough she would have been hundreds of miles away, but at the same time, her duties while being a nurse, were still part of the expectation for women. She cooked, and cared for the wounded and sick in a "motherly" manner, she wrote letters for them rather than actually do any medical treatment. Even though women had similar tasks while being away from the house, they slightly improved the norms for women by getting society to see them as not just an asset to the household. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
What makes Louisa May Alcott's ''Hospital Sketches'' so valuable to historians today is both the personal and detailed account she provides. Nursing during the Civil War is almost completely different from the modern conception of nursing and was more about bringing emotional comfort to the patients versus physical comfort. What is amazing about Alcott's job is the emotional strength she needed to complete her job effectively. Not many people, men or women, could handle a job which confronts death of a daily basis and the fact that she knew the risks she was putting herself in to do this job shows not only what a great person Alcott was, but how strong all nurses were at this time. --Heather T.<br />
<br />
While describing the men she is taking care of, Alcott betrays her understanding of societal gender norms. In her notes from January of 1963, she mentions a man named John Sulie, who is uncommonly kind and gentle, with "a heart as warm and tender as a woman's, a nature fresh and frank as any child's." (259) Those comparisons imply that a typical man was not expected to be warm- or tender-hearted, and also not frank. That is to say, the average man was cold- or steely-hearted and somewhat devious or deceptive--not a particularly ringing endorsement of men; in a later instance, a doctor caring for Alcott when she falls ill is described as "a motherly little man," solely because he checks up on Alcott and fusses over her in a matter than seems, apparently, feminine. Additionally, her concerns about looking motherly (and her apparent discomfort when he feels she's being viewed in a sexualized way by a man she cares for her in December) reinforce her understanding--and Dix's strong conviction--about the importance of nurses as maternal figures. -- Nicole<br />
<br />
The thing that I found most interesting in this particular passage was Alcott's definition of gender norms throughout the entire thing. She begins this by hoping that she acts "motherly" to the patients (pg 259, 2nd paragraph). However, a couple paragraphs later she distinguishes the types of men by their gendered qualities. For instance, she says, "the men are docile,respectful, and affectionate, with but few exceptions; truly lovable and manly many of them." She goes on: ". . . a Virginia blacksmith, is the prince of patients. . . a common man in education and condition, to me is all I could expect from the first gentleman in the land. Under his plain speech and unpolished manner I seem to see a noble character, a heart as warm and tender as a woman's." This blacksmith was described by both his manliness and also his womanly character--his tender heart. Later, Alcott describes a man as "patient as a woman." It is interesting to me that she uses all of these gendered characterizations to describe her patients and also the people who worked in the ward with her. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
I have read "Hospital Sketches" in it's entirety a couple of times and also Hannah Ropes' diary, and I still am not entirely in agreement that women, as nurses, did not perform medical tasks at all. I do agree that the job was very different from today, when nurses receive medical training, but both Alcott's book and Hannah Ropes' diary say that they provided more than just emotional comfort. Again, not like what we see today, but not entirely hands-off, either. I have to admit, having read so much more in-depth than just this one excerpt from her diary, I feel like there's a lot of information about the role of nurses that's being left out. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
Alcott reveals a noteworthy level of determination in her decision to be a nurse. She recognizes the reality that death could possibly be impending; however, she sees the need in the hospital and decides to go for it. She mentions the word "comfort" a few times in referencing her role as a comforter of these sick and dying men. When Alcott herself is taken ill, she describes it in close detail and gives us a glimpse into the seriousness of diseases back then and the fear they could cause. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== Mary Livermore, [Northern women on farm during war], 1890 -- Woloch and Major Problems readings. ==<br />
<br />
I rather enjoyed this reading. Mary describes her initial reaction of women in the fields "At first, it displeased me, and I turned away in aversion" (262) yet her curiosity got the best of her. When her carriage had to stop she approached these women and asked them about their work. Instead of completely ignoring and dismissing the women she instead questions them, getting first hand insight to why they would be involved in work for men. This made me think that even though she may not have approved at first, she probably understood and accepted the practice more. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I thought it was cool when she discussed how great of a job the women did in the field. "By and by, I observed how skillfully they drove the horses round and round the wheat-field" and "although they did not keep up with the men, their work was done with more precision and nicety, and their sheaves had an artistic finish that lacked made by men" (262). It goes to show that they truly cared about doing the work and perhaps these women weren't bitter about their husbands not being there to do the work. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
Wow, Mary Livermore writes beautifully. I was impressed by the scale of the efforts she describes, like the 1,000 shirts a day made in Boston - imagine the dedication that would be needed to organize that so quickly and at such a grand scale without Facebook! I also was struck by the seriousness she assigns to things women did like ignoring fashion. That sounds like such a small thing now, but with the amount of fabric needed for bandages and uniforms and the amount of fabric a new dress would have taken at the time, I suppose that actually would have been a significant contribution in and of itself. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
I think this has been my favorite reading of the semester. There is so much interesting information. The description of the work clothes that the women were wearing is fantastic, you do not see women dressed like that in photographs of the time period, so it is neat to have the description. Also, I think it was not so much about not following the fashion as it was about common sense. I imagine it would be very hard to plow a field while wearing hoops. I also imagine the women still had a best dress to wear on Sundays and to other nice events and that they did wear hoops with it.<br />
I also found some of her descriptions very powerful and emotionally striking. "It came very hard on us to let the boys go, but we felt we'd no right to hinder'em. The country needed'em more'n we." (263) It shows how much patriotism these women had.<br />
I also loved the when the one girl told "For during the last war in Germany men were so scarce that she had to work three years in a blacksmith's shop." (263) Was this really true? Would the German people really have accepted this of their women? Were women in Germany treated differently, given more freedom than American women? --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
== Louticia Jackson’s letter in 1863 ==<br />
<br />
In Louticia Jackson's letter to her son, she mentions how she took care of one of her slaves, Willes. Eventhough we've learned that slaves are seen as property and therefore any punishment can't be too harsh because it would then effect the work of the investment. I found it really surprising the way she took care of Willes when he was sick "...he took the fever immediately after wchich lasted some 5 or 6 weeks in which time i attended him closely day and night, bathed and rubbed him with my own hands fearing it would not be faithfully done [otherwise]" (265). Instead of having another female slave take care of Willes, she took it upon herself to take care of him and bath him each night, with her hands. This is probably a rare case, but it was one that surprised me. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
I agree with Aqsa...Louticia Jackson takes such a personal interest in Willes which seems interesting and out of the norm. However, she was quick to mention at the end of the excerpt that she could "see his evil influence" (265). Obviously, Jackson was still aware of the racial divide and did not see Willes on the same level. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== Eva Jones to Mary Jones, her mother-in-law, 1865 ==<br />
<br />
The imagery Eva employed to discuss the experiences of the Confederacy in the postwar period seem to me to be quite liberally applied; her portrayal of the South's struggles in the wake of the war as "little feeble sickly attempts of virtue... [where] we [are] the chained witnesses" (266) by the "robbery and...unwise policy" (266) of the abolishment of slavery. It seems far-fetched to me that someone could actually conceptualize themselves as the victims in such a clearly false way, but it speaks to the culture and history of the South that it really was seen as the North coming in and robbing the good, hardworking whites of the South of their "property." It's amazing that that a cultural divide could be so wide that this sort of worldview could actually be an honestly-held one. -- Nicole<br />
<br />
== Accounts of former slaves, 1865-1937 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== VA woman, recorded by abolitionist Laura Haviland in 1866 =<br />
<br />
In reading this account along with the other accounts about the new emancipation of slaves, the reader is able to grasp fully what it was like the moment the slave received word of their new found freedom. For many of the slaves, I think their biggest concern was their family. This woman was so elated at the news of her freedom that she proceeded to roll on the ground in excitement, and then she spoke of her husband and children that "can neber be" taken. Among many other obvious reasons, I could never imagine living the life of a slave. One of the hardest things I think many slaves had to endure was the constant fear of being separated from their families at any given moment, including their parents, spouses or even children. It is hard to think that these events were taking place only about 150 years ago. --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Harriet Tubman, from her white female biographer, Sarah Bradford, 1886 ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that Harriet and the others allowed these slaves to bring farm animals, such as pigs and chickens, on board. I'm assuming they brought them in order to trade them for money when they reached their destination. If this really is the case, that was very kind of them to allow them aboard, especially when it may have allowed for more humans if they weren't there. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Clara Burdett, to notary in Union camp in KY, March 1865 ==<br />
<br />
This was so horrible! I know that not all slave owners were like this, that this was an extreme, but still this was an extreme and horrible. I think that it takes a lot of courage to run away after that treatment and a great deal of courage to go the camp and ask for help. The Union Camp did not have to help her, or even listen to her so to even go and tell her story is incredible. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
What really hit me was the thought of imagining living in constant fear of being beaten in such away as Clarissa Burdett describes. I continue to be amazed and disgusted by what humans can and will do to each other. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
== Fanny Berry, in Weevils in the Wheat, 1937 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Tennessee Woman, 1929 [TN Nanny] ==<br />
<br />
I think that this woman had to be strong throughout her life. She knew she was free but continued to stay for the children, her bond with them must have been great. The part of her story I found intriguing was that she used the power to "walk away" in stopping the children from being mistreated from their stepmother. The former master even knew that the children visited their old nanny after she left and gave her food, clothes and money, he must have known how important she was to his children. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I agree with Remy that this Tennessee nanny was a very strong figure and it comes through in the text. When looking back on emancipation the common perception is of slaves getting out as quickly as possible from the horrors of living under their masters. This article defies all of that and shows a slave who not only had a strong connection with the family that owned her (minus the stepmom) but was willing to sacrifice her freedom for a time just to be with them. Through this a unique relationship is defined and is apparent when she talks back to her master and openly acknowledges she knows she is free without fear of repercussions. This is a unique point of view and insightful into the experience of newly found freedom. -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Mary Anderson, NC ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Katie Darling, in TX ==<br />
<br />
Darling describes a lot of kind of scary things - forced marriages by masters and whippings like we've talked about, even after the war before they were released, but also just how close the front was and how much it frightened her mistress. Imagine what a tense situation that would have been, with violence getting closer every day and the woman who has complete control of your life freaking out about it! -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Sarah and Lucy Chase, Teaching the Freedmen, 1866-1868 ==<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed these articles because these women existed as outliers in a nation where race is a decisive issue. I especially liked the end of the last letter by Sarah Chase to Mr. May "No matter how strict the rules, and wise and kind the teachers plans, for the comfort, and rights of the black scholar; the ''feeling'' of the whites expressd or not -- ''will'' keep the sensitive African away; though he would willingly bear cold, hunger, and whippings if need be--to 'get a little larning.' (280)" This expression of doubt by Sarah Chase bears a reflection of the tension of race relations in the south and other integrated areas. If I had to choose between feeding and clothing myself or attending college it really would not be a choice. One can talk about the importance of education until they're blue in the face, but basic necessities, including safety for these blacks, are ultimately more important. --Sara S. <br />
<br />
== Susie King Taylor, Reminiscences of My Life in Camp, 1902 ==<br />
I found this article to be particularly interesting. Taylor is a black woman living in the South who speaks of the prospects of equality for the black man and white man, yet never mentions anything regarding a black woman's equality within this new twentieth century America. Her writings and ideas are definitely ahead of her time and she speaks of a time that will happen soon after her life where the Southland will be more tolerant of blacks and everyone will live equally and sing in harmony. When analyzing the context as to when this article was written, it is intersting that Taylor never makes reference to women deserving equality (considering this was a time when the Women's Suffrage Movement was gaining popularity)but instead only makes reference to black men deserving it. It is almost as if she is focusing on one problem at a time and once the initial problem of race is fixed, then they can focus on the women. -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Ada Bacot, Confederate Nurse, 1862 ==<br />
<br />
I found Ada Bacot's comments on Two Wounded Yankees extremely interesting. She is a Confederate nurse, and yet she feels she has a duty to treat them. She describes them as human beings, something her male counterparts would likely gloss over and simply describe them as the enemy. But Ada feels pity, and although she doesn't like it, she helps the soldiers. This is likely due to the role of women as being caretakers and motherly. She continues to fill that role regardless of the color of the men's uniforms. --Clare O<br />
<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Clare on this. This document made me feel really empathetic towards the people fighting in the Civil War. It's easy to paint the picture of Southerners being barbaric slave owners and Northerners being too concerned with industrialization and profit to care about the lives of humans, but here it is a confederate woman who isn't fighting for slavery or against industrialization, but is fighting to keep dying men alive. "I can't help feeling pity for them, they are human beings. They are our enemys too, wounded and in our power. It will be hard to treat them as I do the other men but I know it is my duty. The heat is almost over powering. (202)" This makes the war human, and having been in Charlottesville for the summer months before, I can only imagine how awful the hospital smelled and felt especially without air-conditioning. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
Ada Bacot demonstrates the conflict of ideologies within war. It is not black and white for Bacot. She, a Confederate nurse, helps Yankees because she "cant help feeling pity for them, they are human beings." As she is supporting the Confederate forces, she is forced to take care of the "enemy." --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I found this piece to be extremely interesting. Reading her diary entries, you can almost feel the discomfort from having these Union soldiers. But then she writes, “It will be hard to treat them as I do other men but I know that it is my duty.” (pg 202) Her sense of duty won in the end and that seems very remarkable to me. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
I was most interested in her observation that "The men are very kind to the two yankees" whereas she finds it very hard to do even the most basic things for them. I disagree with Clare that the other soldiers would just see these Union men as "the enemy". From Bacot's words as well as from many other sources, we often see soldiers recognizing what they have in common with each other. Not every soldier could or would do this, of course, but many did. Knowing what the other side went through, these soldiers may have had real respect for one another. On the other hand, Bacot, who had never fought, would not have had that perspective, and so could not respect or care for the wounded enemy soldiers. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== Maria Daly, 1862, Northerner in the South (New Orleans) ==<br />
<br />
Maria Daly seems to write about the war in a positive, patriotic light. In that sense, she is very much against the South. She describes, "Southern ladies and gentlemen...are very agreeable people with very finished and courtly manners, but they are a class utterly unsuited and antagonistic to the principles of out government." She sees the South as a tyranny. She also states how the women nurses and volunteers are a comfort to the men. However, I am confused by the last paragraph... - Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I wonder how Daly ended up stuck in the South during the war! It sounds like she's writing after the Union had occupied New Orleans, since she describes the Yankees sarcastically as "those barbarous creatures who have done nothing but feed their hungry and clothe their naked since they took their pestilent city." But it seems like the women who volunteered in the hospitals were dealing with both Northern and Southern soldiers. I thought it was interesting how offended she was that the Southern officers had dinner, but then she mentioned that tea was $16 a pound, and I can't imagine how expensive a dinner must have been! Maybe it seemed unreasonably extravagant when they were doing something as serious as waiting for prisoners of war. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Morgan, 1863, Teen diary ==<br />
<br />
Morgan's entry demonstrates the support some women gave to the war. She is very excited for the war and wants to join somehow. She thinks of all the ways she can support the Rebel cause with sewing and knitting. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Cornelia Hancock, Union Nurse, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Caroline Kirkland, 1863, defends Northern women’s support of Northern men ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas, January 1865 ==<br />
<br />
Ella Thomas's writing on life as a Southern woman in 1865 brings to life how devastating and traumatic the war really was in the south. Her fury stems from the unjust insanity at the hands of the Union army that is ruining her life as she knows it. She appears to be at the end of her rope with war and death stating," I lose faith in humanity when I see such efforts to sink the nobler better part of man's nature in an effort to exterminate the white race at the South in order to elevate the Negro race to a position which I doubt their ability to fill - The time will come when Southern women will be avenged." This is a deep quote and I believe it sets the tone for how most Southern women felt during and long after the war. In the first place most Southerners honestly did not see their actions towards slavery as being wrong and then then they are punished for it by having everything taken from them and destroyed. This undoubtedly would be a confusing and infuriating time for anyone in the South who had their lives completely destroyed. Thomas's writing reveals an intimate example of the tole that the war took on the South and helps to remind that Southerners were more than just wicked slave holders. --Rachel T.</div>Lsmith0805https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_13-14_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 13-14 Questions/Comments-327 112011-12-01T05:39:02Z<p>Lsmith0805: /* VA woman, recorded by abolitionist Laura Haviland in 1866 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching or comparative questions ==<br />
One thing that was a little surprising was the number of slave accounts where they did not find out that they were freed from their masters. This happened in Clarissa Burdett's account (she just ran away), Fanny Berry's, and Katie Darling's. It's not necessarily surprising that white owners would try to pull that off, but I am wondering what reasons there were for the owners to be able to get away with keeping their slaves for an extended period of time. Was it geographical? --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
It seems that I have read multiple times of women having problems with farm equipment, the latest being "Loss of male labor, crumbling equipment..." (Woloch 264) It is not in an actual account of the time but in the Woloch's overview of the ''A Wartime Mistress.'' Why do we see this mentioned so often with women in the South but not the North? --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
== Louisa May Alcott, Hospital Sketches, 1862-1863 ==<br />
<br />
In Louisa May Alcott's description of being a Union nurse, it is apparent that women are new to the field of nursing, and even then, their definition of nursing is not what it is today. Alcott writes, "I find real pleasure in comforting, tending, and cheering these poor souls who seem to love me, to feel my sympathy though unspoken, and acknowledge my hearty good-will, in spite of the ignorance, awkwardness, and bashfulness which I cannot help showing in so new and trying a situation." Alcott's main role was to keep up the spirits of the men, not doing any actual medical aide. Furthermore, she describeds fulfilling these duties with awkwardness and bashfulness. This is likely because ladies were supposed to be in the home, and if they are out of the home they are certainly not supposed to be dealing with men they are not married to. --Clare O<br />
<br />
In Louisa May Alcott's account, I found it interesting to see the change in gender norms for women. While women were now allowed to work outside the house and in Alcott's case even encouraged, "Shall I stay, Mother?...No, go! and the Lord be with you!" (258). Her mother encouraged her to go and participate, eventhough she would have been hundreds of miles away, but at the same time, her duties while being a nurse, were still part of the expectation for women. She cooked, and cared for the wounded and sick in a "motherly" manner, she wrote letters for them rather than actually do any medical treatment. Even though women had similar tasks while being away from the house, they slightly improved the norms for women by getting society to see them as not just an asset to the household. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
What makes Louisa May Alcott's ''Hospital Sketches'' so valuable to historians today is both the personal and detailed account she provides. Nursing during the Civil War is almost completely different from the modern conception of nursing and was more about bringing emotional comfort to the patients versus physical comfort. What is amazing about Alcott's job is the emotional strength she needed to complete her job effectively. Not many people, men or women, could handle a job which confronts death of a daily basis and the fact that she knew the risks she was putting herself in to do this job shows not only what a great person Alcott was, but how strong all nurses were at this time. --Heather T.<br />
<br />
While describing the men she is taking care of, Alcott betrays her understanding of societal gender norms. In her notes from January of 1963, she mentions a man named John Sulie, who is uncommonly kind and gentle, with "a heart as warm and tender as a woman's, a nature fresh and frank as any child's." (259) Those comparisons imply that a typical man was not expected to be warm- or tender-hearted, and also not frank. That is to say, the average man was cold- or steely-hearted and somewhat devious or deceptive--not a particularly ringing endorsement of men; in a later instance, a doctor caring for Alcott when she falls ill is described as "a motherly little man," solely because he checks up on Alcott and fusses over her in a matter than seems, apparently, feminine. Additionally, her concerns about looking motherly (and her apparent discomfort when he feels she's being viewed in a sexualized way by a man she cares for her in December) reinforce her understanding--and Dix's strong conviction--about the importance of nurses as maternal figures. -- Nicole<br />
<br />
The thing that I found most interesting in this particular passage was Alcott's definition of gender norms throughout the entire thing. She begins this by hoping that she acts "motherly" to the patients (pg 259, 2nd paragraph). However, a couple paragraphs later she distinguishes the types of men by their gendered qualities. For instance, she says, "the men are docile,respectful, and affectionate, with but few exceptions; truly lovable and manly many of them." She goes on: ". . . a Virginia blacksmith, is the prince of patients. . . a common man in education and condition, to me is all I could expect from the first gentleman in the land. Under his plain speech and unpolished manner I seem to see a noble character, a heart as warm and tender as a woman's." This blacksmith was described by both his manliness and also his womanly character--his tender heart. Later, Alcott describes a man as "patient as a woman." It is interesting to me that she uses all of these gendered characterizations to describe her patients and also the people who worked in the ward with her. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
I have read "Hospital Sketches" in it's entirety a couple of times and also Hannah Ropes' diary, and I still am not entirely in agreement that women, as nurses, did not perform medical tasks at all. I do agree that the job was very different from today, when nurses receive medical training, but both Alcott's book and Hannah Ropes' diary say that they provided more than just emotional comfort. Again, not like what we see today, but not entirely hands-off, either. I have to admit, having read so much more in-depth than just this one excerpt from her diary, I feel like there's a lot of information about the role of nurses that's being left out. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
Alcott reveals a noteworthy level of determination in her decision to be a nurse. She recognizes the reality that death could possibly be impending; however, she sees the need in the hospital and decides to go for it. She mentions the word "comfort" a few times in referencing her role as a comforter of these sick and dying men. When Alcott herself is taken ill, she describes it in close detail and gives us a glimpse into the seriousness of diseases back then and the fear they could cause. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== Mary Livermore, [Northern women on farm during war], 1890 -- Woloch and Major Problems readings. ==<br />
<br />
I rather enjoyed this reading. Mary describes her initial reaction of women in the fields "At first, it displeased me, and I turned away in aversion" (262) yet her curiosity got the best of her. When her carriage had to stop she approached these women and asked them about their work. Instead of completely ignoring and dismissing the women she instead questions them, getting first hand insight to why they would be involved in work for men. This made me think that even though she may not have approved at first, she probably understood and accepted the practice more. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I thought it was cool when she discussed how great of a job the women did in the field. "By and by, I observed how skillfully they drove the horses round and round the wheat-field" and "although they did not keep up with the men, their work was done with more precision and nicety, and their sheaves had an artistic finish that lacked made by men" (262). It goes to show that they truly cared about doing the work and perhaps these women weren't bitter about their husbands not being there to do the work. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
Wow, Mary Livermore writes beautifully. I was impressed by the scale of the efforts she describes, like the 1,000 shirts a day made in Boston - imagine the dedication that would be needed to organize that so quickly and at such a grand scale without Facebook! I also was struck by the seriousness she assigns to things women did like ignoring fashion. That sounds like such a small thing now, but with the amount of fabric needed for bandages and uniforms and the amount of fabric a new dress would have taken at the time, I suppose that actually would have been a significant contribution in and of itself. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
I think this has been my favorite reading of the semester. There is so much interesting information. The description of the work clothes that the women were wearing is fantastic, you do not see women dressed like that in photographs of the time period, so it is neat to have the description. Also, I think it was not so much about not following the fashion as it was about common sense. I imagine it would be very hard to plow a field while wearing hoops. I also imagine the women still had a best dress to wear on Sundays and to other nice events and that they did wear hoops with it.<br />
I also found some of her descriptions very powerful and emotionally striking. "It came very hard on us to let the boys go, but we felt we'd no right to hinder'em. The country needed'em more'n we." (263) It shows how much patriotism these women had.<br />
I also loved the when the one girl told "For during the last war in Germany men were so scarce that she had to work three years in a blacksmith's shop." (263) Was this really true? Would the German people really have accepted this of their women? Were women in Germany treated differently, given more freedom than American women? --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
== Louticia Jackson’s letter in 1863 ==<br />
<br />
In Louticia Jackson's letter to her son, she mentions how she took care of one of her slaves, Willes. Eventhough we've learned that slaves are seen as property and therefore any punishment can't be too harsh because it would then effect the work of the investment. I found it really surprising the way she took care of Willes when he was sick "...he took the fever immediately after wchich lasted some 5 or 6 weeks in which time i attended him closely day and night, bathed and rubbed him with my own hands fearing it would not be faithfully done [otherwise]" (265). Instead of having another female slave take care of Willes, she took it upon herself to take care of him and bath him each night, with her hands. This is probably a rare case, but it was one that surprised me. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Eva Jones to Mary Jones, her mother-in-law, 1865 ==<br />
<br />
The imagery Eva employed to discuss the experiences of the Confederacy in the postwar period seem to me to be quite liberally applied; her portrayal of the South's struggles in the wake of the war as "little feeble sickly attempts of virtue... [where] we [are] the chained witnesses" (266) by the "robbery and...unwise policy" (266) of the abolishment of slavery. It seems far-fetched to me that someone could actually conceptualize themselves as the victims in such a clearly false way, but it speaks to the culture and history of the South that it really was seen as the North coming in and robbing the good, hardworking whites of the South of their "property." It's amazing that that a cultural divide could be so wide that this sort of worldview could actually be an honestly-held one. -- Nicole<br />
<br />
== Accounts of former slaves, 1865-1937 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== VA woman, recorded by abolitionist Laura Haviland in 1866 =<br />
<br />
In reading this account along with the other accounts about the new emancipation of slaves, the reader is able to grasp fully what it was like the moment the slave received word of their new found freedom. For many of the slaves, I think their biggest concern was their family. This woman was so elated at the news of her freedom that she proceeded to roll on the ground in excitement, and then she spoke of her husband and children that "can neber be" taken. Among many other obvious reasons, I could never imagine living the life of a slave. One of the hardest things I think many slaves had to endure was the constant fear of being separated from their families at any given moment, including their parents, spouses or even children. It is hard to think that these events were taking place only about 150 years ago. --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Harriet Tubman, from her white female biographer, Sarah Bradford, 1886 ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that Harriet and the others allowed these slaves to bring farm animals, such as pigs and chickens, on board. I'm assuming they brought them in order to trade them for money when they reached their destination. If this really is the case, that was very kind of them to allow them aboard, especially when it may have allowed for more humans if they weren't there. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Clara Burdett, to notary in Union camp in KY, March 1865 ==<br />
<br />
This was so horrible! I know that not all slave owners were like this, that this was an extreme, but still this was an extreme and horrible. I think that it takes a lot of courage to run away after that treatment and a great deal of courage to go the camp and ask for help. The Union Camp did not have to help her, or even listen to her so to even go and tell her story is incredible. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
What really hit me was the thought of imagining living in constant fear of being beaten in such away as Clarissa Burdett describes. I continue to be amazed and disgusted by what humans can and will do to each other. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
== Fanny Berry, in Weevils in the Wheat, 1937 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Tennessee Woman, 1929 [TN Nanny] ==<br />
<br />
I think that this woman had to be strong throughout her life. She knew she was free but continued to stay for the children, her bond with them must have been great. The part of her story I found intriguing was that she used the power to "walk away" in stopping the children from being mistreated from their stepmother. The former master even knew that the children visited their old nanny after she left and gave her food, clothes and money, he must have known how important she was to his children. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I agree with Remy that this Tennessee nanny was a very strong figure and it comes through in the text. When looking back on emancipation the common perception is of slaves getting out as quickly as possible from the horrors of living under their masters. This article defies all of that and shows a slave who not only had a strong connection with the family that owned her (minus the stepmom) but was willing to sacrifice her freedom for a time just to be with them. Through this a unique relationship is defined and is apparent when she talks back to her master and openly acknowledges she knows she is free without fear of repercussions. This is a unique point of view and insightful into the experience of newly found freedom. -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Mary Anderson, NC ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Katie Darling, in TX ==<br />
<br />
Darling describes a lot of kind of scary things - forced marriages by masters and whippings like we've talked about, even after the war before they were released, but also just how close the front was and how much it frightened her mistress. Imagine what a tense situation that would have been, with violence getting closer every day and the woman who has complete control of your life freaking out about it! -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Sarah and Lucy Chase, Teaching the Freedmen, 1866-1868 ==<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed these articles because these women existed as outliers in a nation where race is a decisive issue. I especially liked the end of the last letter by Sarah Chase to Mr. May "No matter how strict the rules, and wise and kind the teachers plans, for the comfort, and rights of the black scholar; the ''feeling'' of the whites expressd or not -- ''will'' keep the sensitive African away; though he would willingly bear cold, hunger, and whippings if need be--to 'get a little larning.' (280)" This expression of doubt by Sarah Chase bears a reflection of the tension of race relations in the south and other integrated areas. If I had to choose between feeding and clothing myself or attending college it really would not be a choice. One can talk about the importance of education until they're blue in the face, but basic necessities, including safety for these blacks, are ultimately more important. --Sara S. <br />
<br />
== Susie King Taylor, Reminiscences of My Life in Camp, 1902 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Ada Bacot, Confederate Nurse, 1862 ==<br />
<br />
I found Ada Bacot's comments on Two Wounded Yankees extremely interesting. She is a Confederate nurse, and yet she feels she has a duty to treat them. She describes them as human beings, something her male counterparts would likely gloss over and simply describe them as the enemy. But Ada feels pity, and although she doesn't like it, she helps the soldiers. This is likely due to the role of women as being caretakers and motherly. She continues to fill that role regardless of the color of the men's uniforms. --Clare O<br />
<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Clare on this. This document made me feel really empathetic towards the people fighting in the Civil War. It's easy to paint the picture of Southerners being barbaric slave owners and Northerners being too concerned with industrialization and profit to care about the lives of humans, but here it is a confederate woman who isn't fighting for slavery or against industrialization, but is fighting to keep dying men alive. "I can't help feeling pity for them, they are human beings. They are our enemys too, wounded and in our power. It will be hard to treat them as I do the other men but I know it is my duty. The heat is almost over powering. (202)" This makes the war human, and having been in Charlottesville for the summer months before, I can only imagine how awful the hospital smelled and felt especially without air-conditioning. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
Ada Bacot demonstrates the conflict of ideologies within war. It is not black and white for Bacot. She, a Confederate nurse, helps Yankees because she "cant help feeling pity for them, they are human beings." As she is supporting the Confederate forces, she is forced to take care of the "enemy." --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I found this piece to be extremely interesting. Reading her diary entries, you can almost feel the discomfort from having these Union soldiers. But then she writes, “It will be hard to treat them as I do other men but I know that it is my duty.” (pg 202) Her sense of duty won in the end and that seems very remarkable to me. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
I was most interested in her observation that "The men are very kind to the two yankees" whereas she finds it very hard to do even the most basic things for them. I disagree with Clare that the other soldiers would just see these Union men as "the enemy". From Bacot's words as well as from many other sources, we often see soldiers recognizing what they have in common with each other. Not every soldier could or would do this, of course, but many did. Knowing what the other side went through, these soldiers may have had real respect for one another. On the other hand, Bacot, who had never fought, would not have had that perspective, and so could not respect or care for the wounded enemy soldiers. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== Maria Daly, 1862, Northerner in the South (New Orleans) ==<br />
<br />
Maria Daly seems to write about the war in a positive, patriotic light. In that sense, she is very much against the South. She describes, "Southern ladies and gentlemen...are very agreeable people with very finished and courtly manners, but they are a class utterly unsuited and antagonistic to the principles of out government." She sees the South as a tyranny. She also states how the women nurses and volunteers are a comfort to the men. However, I am confused by the last paragraph... - Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I wonder how Daly ended up stuck in the South during the war! It sounds like she's writing after the Union had occupied New Orleans, since she describes the Yankees sarcastically as "those barbarous creatures who have done nothing but feed their hungry and clothe their naked since they took their pestilent city." But it seems like the women who volunteered in the hospitals were dealing with both Northern and Southern soldiers. I thought it was interesting how offended she was that the Southern officers had dinner, but then she mentioned that tea was $16 a pound, and I can't imagine how expensive a dinner must have been! Maybe it seemed unreasonably extravagant when they were doing something as serious as waiting for prisoners of war. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Morgan, 1863, Teen diary ==<br />
<br />
Morgan's entry demonstrates the support some women gave to the war. She is very excited for the war and wants to join somehow. She thinks of all the ways she can support the Rebel cause with sewing and knitting. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Cornelia Hancock, Union Nurse, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Caroline Kirkland, 1863, defends Northern women’s support of Northern men ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas, January 1865 ==<br />
<br />
Ella Thomas's writing on life as a Southern woman in 1865 brings to life how devastating and traumatic the war really was in the south. Her fury stems from the unjust insanity at the hands of the Union army that is ruining her life as she knows it. She appears to be at the end of her rope with war and death stating," I lose faith in humanity when I see such efforts to sink the nobler better part of man's nature in an effort to exterminate the white race at the South in order to elevate the Negro race to a position which I doubt their ability to fill - The time will come when Southern women will be avenged." This is a deep quote and I believe it sets the tone for how most Southern women felt during and long after the war. In the first place most Southerners honestly did not see their actions towards slavery as being wrong and then then they are punished for it by having everything taken from them and destroyed. This undoubtedly would be a confusing and infuriating time for anyone in the South who had their lives completely destroyed. Thomas's writing reveals an intimate example of the tole that the war took on the South and helps to remind that Southerners were more than just wicked slave holders. --Rachel T.</div>Lsmith0805https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 12 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-17T05:51:44Z<p>Lsmith0805: /* Sarah Grimke’s response to the Mass Clergy, 1837 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparative source questions ==<br />
<br />
Most (all) of these women are Christian and from the North. They condemn the South for having slavery, but I wonder if they see unfair employment, negative stereotypes, and racism in the North as a problem. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== The Advocate of Moral Reform, 1838 ==<br />
<br />
This pamphlet embodies so much of how I've been taught to conceptualize nineteenth-century moral societies; the image of a "respectable" girl from an established family who, in her naivety, trusted someone who turned out to be untrustworthy, and was led unknowingly into a brothel. This story is so reminiscent of all of the ones we've talked about and studied in history classes that I felt I practically could have written it myself. That fact begs the question -- was this a real girl? The number of vague references (she's from "[a] delightful western village;" where she ends up is never stated, nor is her age, name, or any particulars at all) makes me think that this story is almost certainly just that -- a story. Whether or not this was a real societal issue (young women lured into cities and then into prostitution), these overly-generic stories make the entire thing seem fabricated, like lurid stories to keep daughters in line. -- Nicole<br />
<br />
I agree with Nicole's point of view of this letter. Was this actually a true occurence that happened to a real girl or was it merely a form of propaganda utilized by the Moral Reform Society to help purify the population and persuade young women to remain devout and true to their "respectable" families? It doesn't suprise me that these situations may have possibly happened, but I would expect that a woman who was led into prostitution would have been one of the group of single women that immigrated to the United States, not one who would have a "respectable" family living with her. --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Maria Stewart, 1831, “O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!” in the Liberator. ==<br />
<br />
"It is the blood of our fathers, and the tears of our brethren that have enriched your soils. AND WE CLAIM OUR RIGHTS." (237) These last few lines stuck out to me. It is one of the strongest arguements I think blacks could have made when it came to being members and citizens of this country. Stewart also mentions how African daughters are being cheated when they do not have the means to be educated and are never given the opportunity. This was a very strong piece, and having been written by a woman, makes it more significant.<br />
---Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Letter to Liberator from Andover Female Antislavery Society, 1836 ==<br />
<br />
In A Letter to the Liberator by the Andover Female Antislavery Society, I thought it was interesting in the way the women use religious rhetoric compared to womens role in religion in the past. For example, the assert that "God never mad [women] to be inactive-- nor in all cases to follow in the wake of man." Furthermore, they state that they believe "God gave woman a heart to feel-- an eye to weep-- a hand to work-- a tongue to speak." Not very long before this time, women were absolutely expected to 'follow' man and were expected to be silent in church. Women's new role as moral pillar of the family certainly aided this, as the women state they "will do a Christian woman's duty." --Clare O.<br />
<br />
The second to last paragraph on pg. 238 reminds me of how the slave owners/masters used Christianity to reiterate that slavery was in fact encouraged by God. Mary P. Abbott does an amazing job defending her view that slavery is condemned by God and Christianity. She goes onto say how slavery goes against everything God says when it comes to marriages, family, equality. This piece was very empowering and had every argument it needed for women, blacks, and slaves in general. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
It is interesting that women found it part of their moral obligation to speak out against slavery. In a world where women's activity is often focused in domestic sphere and with their husbands, or on woman's suffrage, it is refreshing and interesting to see a woman speaking out against slavery in association with her moral duty. Do you think that the author of this letter is using the abolitionist movement as an agency to promote womans rights? In what ways does this change the purpose of this letter? -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Grimke’s response to the Mass Clergy, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
I admire Sarah Grimke's spirit and determination to speak her mind, especially to members of the Church who were regarded as highly esteemed members of society. "Men and women were CREATED EQUAL; they are both moral and accountable beings, and whatever is right for man to do, is right for woman to to" (240). I would argue that Sarah Grimke and her sister were true pioneers for the Women's Suffrage Movement and the modern day Women's Rights Movement with the proposed Equal Rights Amendment. It is because of women like these that women in today's world enjoy some of the privileges and rights that we do. -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Declaration of Sentiments at Seneca Falls, 1848 (written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton) ==<br />
<br />
It mentions that of the 300 participants over the two day meeting, that 40 of them were wen. Being that the convention was to discuss the social, civil and religious rights of women, how common/uncommon is it to have that many men in attendance? - Matt<br />
<br />
What I love about this document is the fact that Stanton took inspiration for this document from the Declaration of Independence. When they held this convention in Seneca Falls NY, these women really were declaring independence for women from society and the subservience they were put under. Although it would take over fifty years for women to obtain the vote, this document still acted as an outline for what women wanted to accomplish with liberation. These women were truly exceptional and forward-thinking for the time they lived in! -Heather T.<br />
<br />
I thought this was long overdue, using the words of the very men who seek to oppress women to show that women deserve the same rights as the men. I was interested however when it says, “He has withheld her from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men – both natives and foreigners.” I know they say they are talking about the rights of citizenship, but I imagined that these women would want equality for all women, even the foreign women. Or was that a completely different issue? By calling foreign and native men the most ignorant and degraded, aren’t they using the same justification that men used of women: categorizing them as an exception to the rule. -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
== Lucy Stone (and Henry Blackwell)’s Marriage Protest, 1855 ==<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the insight which this document offered to us. In the introduction it states that "Stone kept her name, refused to 'obey' and challenged the system of coveture." Although this protest by her and her husband has done nothing significant (women still take their husbands name, many religious ceremonies still discuss obedience of the wife, etc) in the overall societal impact of marriage, it was shocking to read that women didn't take their husbands name in 1855! And that her husband was in on the protest! I know this doesn't offer much into the lives of average American wives, but it surprised me to say the very least. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Sara that it was really suprising that women did not take their husbands names during this time period. I wonder why it was common for women not to do so? You would think in a patriarchal society that men would demand that their wives take their name, so that they could reaffirm their manhood or hold power over their wives in this way.--Catherine K.<br />
<br />
I was really surprised when I read this document. I agree that it was nice to see the woman "protest" taking her husband's name but that was the very minimum that she was protesting. The document also goes on to state that she had a problem with her husband having “custody of the wife’s person.” and the control of the children. So while the main thing that is taken away from this her not wanting to take the name, I think that it was much bigger. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
After reading this I feel like Stone and Blackwell really embraced the free and equal lifestyle that they demonstrated through their abolitionist protest. Like many of the women in the Jeffrey's article this one demonstrates the full extent of equality women were able to obtain during this time. It also shows the changing mindset of men as Blackwell encouraged and agreed with all of this which for many men would be seen as a hit on their identity as a man. Although, this example is an extreme it shows the possibilities for women that Jeffreys discussed. -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Sojourner Truth (Isabella Van Wagener), 1851 (Ohio Convention). ==<br />
<br />
I found this very inspiring. She was not trying to be eloquent or fancy. She was simply speaking about her experiences and how they had changed her life. I think that it made the speech more power telling the audience what she had accomplished being a slave rather than trying to convince them why women should be given the right to vote. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Isablle Graham and Society for Relief of Poor Widows, 1806 ==<br />
<br />
The idea of a middle class is apparent in the document "Mrs. Isabella Graham Addresses Members of the Society for the Relief of Poor Widows with Small Children, April 1800, and Their Daughters (Volunteer Teachers), April 1806." Graham discusses the comforts that the members of the society enjoy, such as dwellings, fires, and parties, while the poor widows have no comforts whatsoever. One of the most important aspects of the idea of the middle class to women is their new ability to help others due to their privileged status. This document is an excellent example of this emerging charity. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Anti-Slavery Convention of American Women, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
The convention is very religious. There is always scripture and prayer. Also, most of the arguments focus around religious reasons to end slavery. This religious factor probably came to the abolitionist movement because it was dominated by women. In class we discussed women as more moral than men and more involved in the Church. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
This reading brought home to me the degree to which women were involved in some contradictory activities. On the one hand, this was considered part of the domestic sphere, and these women were acting within the role prescribed for them. On the other hand, the parliamentary procedures they go through are more reminiscent of the public sphere, and look more like engagement in politics. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== American Female Reform Society Warns Mothers of “Solitary Vice”, 1839 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 1848, Elizabeth McClintock and Elizabeth Cady Stanton defend the Declaration of Sentiments and the 1848 convention ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Josepha Hale, Editor of ''Godey's Lady's Book,'' Praises Women's Indirect Political Influence, 1852 ==<br />
<br />
Even though it was short, this document was insightful because of the last sentence of it "This is the way American women should vote, namely, by influencing rightly the votes of men." This sentence implies a sort of power which women have over their husbands within their household and I have to wonder to the extent which this so-called power manifested itself. Sure, persuasion is powerful, but not having control of one's finances or lifestyle cannot be construed as power. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I wonder if men felt women had this much power over their vote? I doubt it because women were not given the vote because men thought women could not think for themselves. This document shows that some women, actually, think men cannot think for themselves when voting. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
This just made me think about all the times I've disagreed with my parents about politics. I don't vote the same way they do, even though I appreciate the way they raised me, and I'm not doing it to be spiteful. Hale doesn't seem to consider the idea that some people's sons, even if not hers, aren't going to agree with their parents. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== Julie Roy Jeffrey, “Ordinary Women in the Antislavery Movement,” in the Introduction to The Great Silent Army of Abolitionism: Ordinary Women in the Anti-slavery Movement, 1998. ==<br />
<br />
Jeffrey's essay really brings to light an overlooked side effect of the abolitionist movement, the movement towards more self empowered women. When thinking about the anti-slavery, the focus is always on white people who saw the injustices in slavery and spoke out against it but Jeffrey's goes beyond that to illuminate the complexities of the movement. As the anti-slavery movement was unpopular in comparison to other social movements of the time woman faced a fair amount of adversity that only helped to build their abilities to control the public sphere. The women who participated in this movement were forced to gain the ability to forcefully argue their opinion in order to gain respect that then translated into how they viewed their own lives and the gendered roles they served. Is it fair to assume that the social implications for women during the anti-slavery movement were just as great as the cause they supported? --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Nancy Isenberg’s “Women’s Rights and the Politics of Church and State in Antebellum America,” (1998) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Shirley Yee, “Free Black Women in the Abolitionist Movement,” in Black Women Abolitionists: A Study in Activism, 1828-1860, (1992). ==</div>Lsmith0805https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 12 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-17T05:51:10Z<p>Lsmith0805: /* Sarah Grimke’s response to the Mass Clergy, 1837 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparative source questions ==<br />
<br />
Most (all) of these women are Christian and from the North. They condemn the South for having slavery, but I wonder if they see unfair employment, negative stereotypes, and racism in the North as a problem. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== The Advocate of Moral Reform, 1838 ==<br />
<br />
This pamphlet embodies so much of how I've been taught to conceptualize nineteenth-century moral societies; the image of a "respectable" girl from an established family who, in her naivety, trusted someone who turned out to be untrustworthy, and was led unknowingly into a brothel. This story is so reminiscent of all of the ones we've talked about and studied in history classes that I felt I practically could have written it myself. That fact begs the question -- was this a real girl? The number of vague references (she's from "[a] delightful western village;" where she ends up is never stated, nor is her age, name, or any particulars at all) makes me think that this story is almost certainly just that -- a story. Whether or not this was a real societal issue (young women lured into cities and then into prostitution), these overly-generic stories make the entire thing seem fabricated, like lurid stories to keep daughters in line. -- Nicole<br />
<br />
I agree with Nicole's point of view of this letter. Was this actually a true occurence that happened to a real girl or was it merely a form of propaganda utilized by the Moral Reform Society to help purify the population and persuade young women to remain devout and true to their "respectable" families? It doesn't suprise me that these situations may have possibly happened, but I would expect that a woman who was led into prostitution would have been one of the group of single women that immigrated to the United States, not one who would have a "respectable" family living with her. --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Maria Stewart, 1831, “O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!” in the Liberator. ==<br />
<br />
"It is the blood of our fathers, and the tears of our brethren that have enriched your soils. AND WE CLAIM OUR RIGHTS." (237) These last few lines stuck out to me. It is one of the strongest arguements I think blacks could have made when it came to being members and citizens of this country. Stewart also mentions how African daughters are being cheated when they do not have the means to be educated and are never given the opportunity. This was a very strong piece, and having been written by a woman, makes it more significant.<br />
---Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Letter to Liberator from Andover Female Antislavery Society, 1836 ==<br />
<br />
In A Letter to the Liberator by the Andover Female Antislavery Society, I thought it was interesting in the way the women use religious rhetoric compared to womens role in religion in the past. For example, the assert that "God never mad [women] to be inactive-- nor in all cases to follow in the wake of man." Furthermore, they state that they believe "God gave woman a heart to feel-- an eye to weep-- a hand to work-- a tongue to speak." Not very long before this time, women were absolutely expected to 'follow' man and were expected to be silent in church. Women's new role as moral pillar of the family certainly aided this, as the women state they "will do a Christian woman's duty." --Clare O.<br />
<br />
The second to last paragraph on pg. 238 reminds me of how the slave owners/masters used Christianity to reiterate that slavery was in fact encouraged by God. Mary P. Abbott does an amazing job defending her view that slavery is condemned by God and Christianity. She goes onto say how slavery goes against everything God says when it comes to marriages, family, equality. This piece was very empowering and had every argument it needed for women, blacks, and slaves in general. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
It is interesting that women found it part of their moral obligation to speak out against slavery. In a world where women's activity is often focused in domestic sphere and with their husbands, or on woman's suffrage, it is refreshing and interesting to see a woman speaking out against slavery in association with her moral duty. Do you think that the author of this letter is using the abolitionist movement as an agency to promote womans rights? In what ways does this change the purpose of this letter? -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Grimke’s response to the Mass Clergy, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
I admire Sarah Grimke's spirit and determination to speak her mind, especially to members of the Church who were regarded as highly esteemed members of society. "Men and women were CREATED EQUAL; they are both moral and accountable beings, and whatever is right for man to do, is right for woman to to" (240). I would argue that Sarah Grimke and her sister were true pioneers for the Women's Suffrage Movement and the modern day Women's Rights Movement with the Equal Rights Amendment. It is because of women like these that women in today's world enjoy some of the privileges and rights that we do. -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Declaration of Sentiments at Seneca Falls, 1848 (written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton) ==<br />
<br />
It mentions that of the 300 participants over the two day meeting, that 40 of them were wen. Being that the convention was to discuss the social, civil and religious rights of women, how common/uncommon is it to have that many men in attendance? - Matt<br />
<br />
What I love about this document is the fact that Stanton took inspiration for this document from the Declaration of Independence. When they held this convention in Seneca Falls NY, these women really were declaring independence for women from society and the subservience they were put under. Although it would take over fifty years for women to obtain the vote, this document still acted as an outline for what women wanted to accomplish with liberation. These women were truly exceptional and forward-thinking for the time they lived in! -Heather T.<br />
<br />
I thought this was long overdue, using the words of the very men who seek to oppress women to show that women deserve the same rights as the men. I was interested however when it says, “He has withheld her from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men – both natives and foreigners.” I know they say they are talking about the rights of citizenship, but I imagined that these women would want equality for all women, even the foreign women. Or was that a completely different issue? By calling foreign and native men the most ignorant and degraded, aren’t they using the same justification that men used of women: categorizing them as an exception to the rule. -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
== Lucy Stone (and Henry Blackwell)’s Marriage Protest, 1855 ==<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the insight which this document offered to us. In the introduction it states that "Stone kept her name, refused to 'obey' and challenged the system of coveture." Although this protest by her and her husband has done nothing significant (women still take their husbands name, many religious ceremonies still discuss obedience of the wife, etc) in the overall societal impact of marriage, it was shocking to read that women didn't take their husbands name in 1855! And that her husband was in on the protest! I know this doesn't offer much into the lives of average American wives, but it surprised me to say the very least. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Sara that it was really suprising that women did not take their husbands names during this time period. I wonder why it was common for women not to do so? You would think in a patriarchal society that men would demand that their wives take their name, so that they could reaffirm their manhood or hold power over their wives in this way.--Catherine K.<br />
<br />
I was really surprised when I read this document. I agree that it was nice to see the woman "protest" taking her husband's name but that was the very minimum that she was protesting. The document also goes on to state that she had a problem with her husband having “custody of the wife’s person.” and the control of the children. So while the main thing that is taken away from this her not wanting to take the name, I think that it was much bigger. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
After reading this I feel like Stone and Blackwell really embraced the free and equal lifestyle that they demonstrated through their abolitionist protest. Like many of the women in the Jeffrey's article this one demonstrates the full extent of equality women were able to obtain during this time. It also shows the changing mindset of men as Blackwell encouraged and agreed with all of this which for many men would be seen as a hit on their identity as a man. Although, this example is an extreme it shows the possibilities for women that Jeffreys discussed. -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Sojourner Truth (Isabella Van Wagener), 1851 (Ohio Convention). ==<br />
<br />
I found this very inspiring. She was not trying to be eloquent or fancy. She was simply speaking about her experiences and how they had changed her life. I think that it made the speech more power telling the audience what she had accomplished being a slave rather than trying to convince them why women should be given the right to vote. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Isablle Graham and Society for Relief of Poor Widows, 1806 ==<br />
<br />
The idea of a middle class is apparent in the document "Mrs. Isabella Graham Addresses Members of the Society for the Relief of Poor Widows with Small Children, April 1800, and Their Daughters (Volunteer Teachers), April 1806." Graham discusses the comforts that the members of the society enjoy, such as dwellings, fires, and parties, while the poor widows have no comforts whatsoever. One of the most important aspects of the idea of the middle class to women is their new ability to help others due to their privileged status. This document is an excellent example of this emerging charity. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Anti-Slavery Convention of American Women, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
The convention is very religious. There is always scripture and prayer. Also, most of the arguments focus around religious reasons to end slavery. This religious factor probably came to the abolitionist movement because it was dominated by women. In class we discussed women as more moral than men and more involved in the Church. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
This reading brought home to me the degree to which women were involved in some contradictory activities. On the one hand, this was considered part of the domestic sphere, and these women were acting within the role prescribed for them. On the other hand, the parliamentary procedures they go through are more reminiscent of the public sphere, and look more like engagement in politics. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== American Female Reform Society Warns Mothers of “Solitary Vice”, 1839 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 1848, Elizabeth McClintock and Elizabeth Cady Stanton defend the Declaration of Sentiments and the 1848 convention ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Josepha Hale, Editor of ''Godey's Lady's Book,'' Praises Women's Indirect Political Influence, 1852 ==<br />
<br />
Even though it was short, this document was insightful because of the last sentence of it "This is the way American women should vote, namely, by influencing rightly the votes of men." This sentence implies a sort of power which women have over their husbands within their household and I have to wonder to the extent which this so-called power manifested itself. Sure, persuasion is powerful, but not having control of one's finances or lifestyle cannot be construed as power. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I wonder if men felt women had this much power over their vote? I doubt it because women were not given the vote because men thought women could not think for themselves. This document shows that some women, actually, think men cannot think for themselves when voting. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
This just made me think about all the times I've disagreed with my parents about politics. I don't vote the same way they do, even though I appreciate the way they raised me, and I'm not doing it to be spiteful. Hale doesn't seem to consider the idea that some people's sons, even if not hers, aren't going to agree with their parents. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== Julie Roy Jeffrey, “Ordinary Women in the Antislavery Movement,” in the Introduction to The Great Silent Army of Abolitionism: Ordinary Women in the Anti-slavery Movement, 1998. ==<br />
<br />
Jeffrey's essay really brings to light an overlooked side effect of the abolitionist movement, the movement towards more self empowered women. When thinking about the anti-slavery, the focus is always on white people who saw the injustices in slavery and spoke out against it but Jeffrey's goes beyond that to illuminate the complexities of the movement. As the anti-slavery movement was unpopular in comparison to other social movements of the time woman faced a fair amount of adversity that only helped to build their abilities to control the public sphere. The women who participated in this movement were forced to gain the ability to forcefully argue their opinion in order to gain respect that then translated into how they viewed their own lives and the gendered roles they served. Is it fair to assume that the social implications for women during the anti-slavery movement were just as great as the cause they supported? --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Nancy Isenberg’s “Women’s Rights and the Politics of Church and State in Antebellum America,” (1998) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Shirley Yee, “Free Black Women in the Abolitionist Movement,” in Black Women Abolitionists: A Study in Activism, 1828-1860, (1992). ==</div>Lsmith0805https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 12 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-17T05:37:24Z<p>Lsmith0805: /* The Advocate of Moral Reform, 1838 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparative source questions ==<br />
<br />
Most (all) of these women are Christian and from the North. They condemn the South for having slavery, but I wonder if they see unfair employment, negative stereotypes, and racism in the North as a problem. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== The Advocate of Moral Reform, 1838 ==<br />
<br />
This pamphlet embodies so much of how I've been taught to conceptualize nineteenth-century moral societies; the image of a "respectable" girl from an established family who, in her naivety, trusted someone who turned out to be untrustworthy, and was led unknowingly into a brothel. This story is so reminiscent of all of the ones we've talked about and studied in history classes that I felt I practically could have written it myself. That fact begs the question -- was this a real girl? The number of vague references (she's from "[a] delightful western village;" where she ends up is never stated, nor is her age, name, or any particulars at all) makes me think that this story is almost certainly just that -- a story. Whether or not this was a real societal issue (young women lured into cities and then into prostitution), these overly-generic stories make the entire thing seem fabricated, like lurid stories to keep daughters in line. -- Nicole<br />
<br />
I agree with Nicole's point of view of this letter. Was this actually a true occurence that happened to a real girl or was it merely a form of propaganda utilized by the Moral Reform Society to help purify the population and persuade young women to remain devout and true to their "respectable" families? It doesn't suprise me that these situations may have possibly happened, but I would expect that a woman who was led into prostitution would have been one of the group of single women that immigrated to the United States, not one who would have a "respectable" family living with her. --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Maria Stewart, 1831, “O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!” in the Liberator. ==<br />
<br />
"It is the blood of our fathers, and the tears of our brethren that have enriched your soils. AND WE CLAIM OUR RIGHTS." (237) These last few lines stuck out to me. It is one of the strongest arguements I think blacks could have made when it came to being members and citizens of this country. Stewart also mentions how African daughters are being cheated when they do not have the means to be educated and are never given the opportunity. This was a very strong piece, and having been written by a woman, makes it more significant.<br />
---Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Letter to Liberator from Andover Female Antislavery Society, 1836 ==<br />
<br />
In A Letter to the Liberator by the Andover Female Antislavery Society, I thought it was interesting in the way the women use religious rhetoric compared to womens role in religion in the past. For example, the assert that "God never mad [women] to be inactive-- nor in all cases to follow in the wake of man." Furthermore, they state that they believe "God gave woman a heart to feel-- an eye to weep-- a hand to work-- a tongue to speak." Not very long before this time, women were absolutely expected to 'follow' man and were expected to be silent in church. Women's new role as moral pillar of the family certainly aided this, as the women state they "will do a Christian woman's duty." --Clare O.<br />
<br />
The second to last paragraph on pg. 238 reminds me of how the slave owners/masters used Christianity to reiterate that slavery was in fact encouraged by God. Mary P. Abbott does an amazing job defending her view that slavery is condemned by God and Christianity. She goes onto say how slavery goes against everything God says when it comes to marriages, family, equality. This piece was very empowering and had every argument it needed for women, blacks, and slaves in general. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
It is interesting that women found it part of their moral obligation to speak out against slavery. In a world where women's activity is often focused in domestic sphere and with their husbands, or on woman's suffrage, it is refreshing and interesting to see a woman speaking out against slavery in association with her moral duty. Do you think that the author of this letter is using the abolitionist movement as an agency to promote womans rights? In what ways does this change the purpose of this letter? -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Grimke’s response to the Mass Clergy, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
== Declaration of Sentiments at Seneca Falls, 1848 (written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton) ==<br />
<br />
It mentions that of the 300 participants over the two day meeting, that 40 of them were wen. Being that the convention was to discuss the social, civil and religious rights of women, how common/uncommon is it to have that many men in attendance? - Matt<br />
<br />
What I love about this document is the fact that Stanton took inspiration for this document from the Declaration of Independence. When they held this convention in Seneca Falls NY, these women really were declaring independence for women from society and the subservience they were put under. Although it would take over fifty years for women to obtain the vote, this document still acted as an outline for what women wanted to accomplish with liberation. These women were truly exceptional and forward-thinking for the time they lived in! -Heather T.<br />
<br />
I thought this was long overdue, using the words of the very men who seek to oppress women to show that women deserve the same rights as the men. I was interested however when it says, “He has withheld her from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men – both natives and foreigners.” I know they say they are talking about the rights of citizenship, but I imagined that these women would want equality for all women, even the foreign women. Or was that a completely different issue? By calling foreign and native men the most ignorant and degraded, aren’t they using the same justification that men used of women: categorizing them as an exception to the rule. -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
== Lucy Stone (and Henry Blackwell)’s Marriage Protest, 1855 ==<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the insight which this document offered to us. In the introduction it states that "Stone kept her name, refused to 'obey' and challenged the system of coveture." Although this protest by her and her husband has done nothing significant (women still take their husbands name, many religious ceremonies still discuss obedience of the wife, etc) in the overall societal impact of marriage, it was shocking to read that women didn't take their husbands name in 1855! And that her husband was in on the protest! I know this doesn't offer much into the lives of average American wives, but it surprised me to say the very least. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Sara that it was really suprising that women did not take their husbands names during this time period. I wonder why it was common for women not to do so? You would think in a patriarchal society that men would demand that their wives take their name, so that they could reaffirm their manhood or hold power over their wives in this way.--Catherine K.<br />
<br />
I was really surprised when I read this document. I agree that it was nice to see the woman "protest" taking her husband's name but that was the very minimum that she was protesting. The document also goes on to state that she had a problem with her husband having “custody of the wife’s person.” and the control of the children. So while the main thing that is taken away from this her not wanting to take the name, I think that it was much bigger. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
After reading this I feel like Stone and Blackwell really embraced the free and equal lifestyle that they demonstrated through their abolitionist protest. Like many of the women in the Jeffrey's article this one demonstrates the full extent of equality women were able to obtain during this time. It also shows the changing mindset of men as Blackwell encouraged and agreed with all of this which for many men would be seen as a hit on their identity as a man. Although, this example is an extreme it shows the possibilities for women that Jeffreys discussed. -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Sojourner Truth (Isabella Van Wagener), 1851 (Ohio Convention). ==<br />
<br />
I found this very inspiring. She was not trying to be eloquent or fancy. She was simply speaking about her experiences and how they had changed her life. I think that it made the speech more power telling the audience what she had accomplished being a slave rather than trying to convince them why women should be given the right to vote. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Isablle Graham and Society for Relief of Poor Widows, 1806 ==<br />
<br />
The idea of a middle class is apparent in the document "Mrs. Isabella Graham Addresses Members of the Society for the Relief of Poor Widows with Small Children, April 1800, and Their Daughters (Volunteer Teachers), April 1806." Graham discusses the comforts that the members of the society enjoy, such as dwellings, fires, and parties, while the poor widows have no comforts whatsoever. One of the most important aspects of the idea of the middle class to women is their new ability to help others due to their privileged status. This document is an excellent example of this emerging charity. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Anti-Slavery Convention of American Women, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
The convention is very religious. There is always scripture and prayer. Also, most of the arguments focus around religious reasons to end slavery. This religious factor probably came to the abolitionist movement because it was dominated by women. In class we discussed women as more moral than men and more involved in the Church. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
This reading brought home to me the degree to which women were involved in some contradictory activities. On the one hand, this was considered part of the domestic sphere, and these women were acting within the role prescribed for them. On the other hand, the parliamentary procedures they go through are more reminiscent of the public sphere, and look more like engagement in politics. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== American Female Reform Society Warns Mothers of “Solitary Vice”, 1839 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 1848, Elizabeth McClintock and Elizabeth Cady Stanton defend the Declaration of Sentiments and the 1848 convention ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Josepha Hale, Editor of ''Godey's Lady's Book,'' Praises Women's Indirect Political Influence, 1852 ==<br />
<br />
Even though it was short, this document was insightful because of the last sentence of it "This is the way American women should vote, namely, by influencing rightly the votes of men." This sentence implies a sort of power which women have over their husbands within their household and I have to wonder to the extent which this so-called power manifested itself. Sure, persuasion is powerful, but not having control of one's finances or lifestyle cannot be construed as power. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I wonder if men felt women had this much power over their vote? I doubt it because women were not given the vote because men thought women could not think for themselves. This document shows that some women, actually, think men cannot think for themselves when voting. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
This just made me think about all the times I've disagreed with my parents about politics. I don't vote the same way they do, even though I appreciate the way they raised me, and I'm not doing it to be spiteful. Hale doesn't seem to consider the idea that some people's sons, even if not hers, aren't going to agree with their parents. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== Julie Roy Jeffrey, “Ordinary Women in the Antislavery Movement,” in the Introduction to The Great Silent Army of Abolitionism: Ordinary Women in the Anti-slavery Movement, 1998. ==<br />
<br />
Jeffrey's essay really brings to light an overlooked side effect of the abolitionist movement, the movement towards more self empowered women. When thinking about the anti-slavery, the focus is always on white people who saw the injustices in slavery and spoke out against it but Jeffrey's goes beyond that to illuminate the complexities of the movement. As the anti-slavery movement was unpopular in comparison to other social movements of the time woman faced a fair amount of adversity that only helped to build their abilities to control the public sphere. The women who participated in this movement were forced to gain the ability to forcefully argue their opinion in order to gain respect that then translated into how they viewed their own lives and the gendered roles they served. Is it fair to assume that the social implications for women during the anti-slavery movement were just as great as the cause they supported? --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Nancy Isenberg’s “Women’s Rights and the Politics of Church and State in Antebellum America,” (1998) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Shirley Yee, “Free Black Women in the Abolitionist Movement,” in Black Women Abolitionists: A Study in Activism, 1828-1860, (1992). ==</div>Lsmith0805https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_11_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 11 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-10T17:40:10Z<p>Lsmith0805: /* New York Prostitutes by William Sanger, 1858 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Mary Anne Sadlier's Bessy Conway ==<br />
<br />
'''Who was Sadlier? Why did she write this? What biases should we be watching out for?'''<br />
<br />
For Irish families, such as the Conway's, having a family member make the voyage to America was incredibly difficult. '''The likelihood of that family member returning to Ireland was very low.'''''' Mary Ann Sadlier describes this sentiment vividly by saying her family "felt at the moment as if they had left Bessy in the churchyard clay," likening Bessy's voyage to America to being like her death. This separation was not easy for Bessy or other Irish women for that matter. Perhaps this is why when Bessy arrived in New York, her "comrade-girls" assured her they were happy to see her and kind to her. These women want to try and form bonds with each other since they are all in similar situations.''' -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
I found the way Sadlier wrote out Irish accents was really interesting. At first I thought maybe she was caricaturing the immigrants by exaggerating their accents, but then I found out that she was Irish herself. I also thought the interactions she wrote between the Irish men discussing whether or not selling alcohol was okay seemed really honest. I would have assumed initially that this was written by a white woman trying to scold Irish girls on the dangers of alcohol and men and probably not holding a very high opinion of her readers; '''After realizing the author had gone through experiences like this herself, I trusted the story she was telling a bit more.''' -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
I was kind of amused by the accents, as well, and particularly the use of Irish language phrases, which she spells phonetically. Granted, Irish (Gaelic) is not easy for English speakers to read, so this makes sense, but she doesn't translate them, either, which seems like it would be useless to most readers. I'm learning Irish, and the phrases are basic enough that I mostly knew what they meant, but I wonder how common that knowledge is, or whether the inclusion of foreign words is just meant to give a particular flavor to the dialogue. <br />
On another subject, '''the beginning of the reading makes it very clear how unprepared immigrants could be for the realities of life in America.''' The woman who plans to find her son is a perfect example of this, as she is unaware how far apart New York and Ohio are. It makes me think that culture shock must have been particularly bad for people who were arriving with so little idea of life in the US. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
What I found really interesting was how excited to everyone was to be leaving for America. It was one big adventure and everyone's lives were going to be improved, or so they thought. But while i really felt that sense of adventure waiting for them I also kept thinking in my head of everything we have learned of in the past week, of the real conditions of these ships, the number of people that died and the harsh reality of being in a new country and not really being excepted. It made me think, were people really that excited to leave and go to America? And then, How could they not be? It was the land of opportunity. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
== Jannicke Saehle, 1847, Norwegian immigrant’s letters ==<br />
<br />
I think one of the remarkable things about Saehle's letter to her brother is that she has a strong faith. She even remarks that she wasn't even scared on her journey to America and slept peacefully. Her high spirit and faith are really what keeps her going.''' I wonder how many other women had as positive experience as her in their travels to America? Was she an exception?''' --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
I agree, she was incredibly optimistic. I almost think that this is an unrealistic representation of the experience of an young, single woman immigrant. I would be very surprised if every single immigrant felt that much ease when crossing the Atlantic, and I doubt that they would all be so optimistic about the work that they were doing. I was also surprised with the Post Script, where she receives 3 acres of land. Was it common to give somebody doing domestic work land? --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
This entry made me laugh, I have been to Norway and it was my experience that Norwegians are the happiest, most optimistic people on earth. From this entry it seems to be that they were pretty happy and optimistic back then as well. Of course, it could have just been the personality of Jannicke, but I will still amused by her optimism.--Emma C.<br />
<br />
From the letter, it appears that Saehle is indeed a very brave and optimistic woman, who seems ready to take on the challenges of the new world without too much anxiety. But part of me has to wonder if she was possibly exaggerating her feelings when she wrote to her brother, possibly in an attempt to make her family back home feel more at ease with her going abroad. The idea of traveling across the Atlantic and staring a new life in a new world, as a single woman in those days, must have been a daunting and nerve racking task, and it just seems incredible to me that she was able to remain in such high spirits throughout her whole experience. --Grace C.<br />
<br />
In reading this account, it struck me as to how happy and optimistic Saehle was. I have read many accounts of immigrants coming to the new land, and this was definitely an exception for me. This was the first time I have ever heard of someone being so positive about everything and not complaining about how horrible the trip was or sick they were throughout it. Maybe she truly was the exception and had a good experience or maybe she didn't want her brother to worry at all about her so she made everything sound more wonderful than it really was. If I were her, I probably would want my brother to know that everything was going great (even if it wasn't) just so he wouldn't worry about me. --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-76 ==<br />
What I found interesting about these bills of sale is how they reflect the situations these women were going through when they had to to be sold. While today a sum of $470, like in Mee Yung's case (page 237) is laughable for four years of service today, we cannot know why or what the money paid for. Most likely this money went to paying for her passage over or to her destitute parents who desperately needed the money or thought her too much the burden to raise. '''I do wonder where this money went and whether these women survived and moved beyond prostitution.''' -Heather T.<br />
<br />
I have to say that I knew of Chinese men coming over to work on railroads but I don't know how I missed Chinese women coming over primarily as prostitutes for these men (and white men). I am definitely interested in knowing what these women's lives were like, after their contracts were up. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
Why are the owners/masters all women? Chinese women at that, unlike slavery, are the master and the servant are of the same race and background. First off, if majority of the Chinese that immigrated were men, where do these women come from, and how do they have power? --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
I was incredibly surprised by the contracts of the Chinese prostitutes. The terms were familiar: she was sick for a certain amount of days, she had to make it up by serving an extra month; if she got pregnant, she had to serve an extra year. If I am remembering correctly female indentured servants had similar terms of agreement, but their lives must have been better than serving their years as a prostitute. Also, was this a common thing for Chinese women to do? Why were they doing this? Are they serving as prostitutes to send money back to their families?-- Emma C.<br />
<br />
== Xin Jin's Contract, San Francisco, 1886==<br />
<br />
'''When reading the Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, I was surprised by how standard they are. All work for about four years, are paid no wages, and there is no interest on the money.''' Furthermore, extended periods of sickness add a month to the service. What I thought was most surprising was that the Chinese prostitutes all are contracted with other Chinese people. I had assumed they would be contracted to American people. I wonder why some Chinese did well enough to contract prostitutes while others did poor enough to have to work as prostitutes. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
'''I actually had a problem with the introduction to this article. It talks about women existing as prostitutes but does not acknowledge why these women were there as prostitutes. This was NOT like the prostitution of white society.''' First, there were laws prohibiting all asians, but particularly women (who to the whites were of NO use but sexuality). Secondly, It was forbidden for these asian men to fraternize with women who were not asian. Their numbers were not as high as that of blacks in the south so disobeying this law was not common and was severely punishable. The existence of prostitution had nothing to do with one being well-off enough to contract a woman to be a prositute, but had more do to with the fact that these women had to be brought in illegally due to American immigration laws and cost a lot of time and money to do so. It is not mentioned in the introduction to this paragraph and is put immediately after a document about white prostitutes and i feel this is in bad taste. The hardships of Asians in America even until the end of the 1900's are not that easily comparable to the hardships of those who could "pass" as english. --Sara S<br />
<br />
In reading the XIn Jin article what stood out is the fact that 28% of Chinese women were involved in prostitution during this period. Even though this is a significant number it goes against the stereotype of early Chinese immigrants where its assumed that the minimal number of women who did live in the US where all there as prostitutes. It is my guess that the lives these woman were forced to live is what stands out when viewing chinese females in this region. However, '''I found the experience to Xin Jin to be very similar to the women described in the New York Prostitutes reading where once again men are controlling the sexual lives of these women.''' Forced into a life where sexual favors are their only means of survival helps to solidify to men and non immigrant women that these immigrant females were inferior in every way. Is that negative stereotype still carried on to todays view of early Chinese immigration, where admittedly I even viewed the majority of these women, to be just prostitutes? -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
'''Did these women choose to come to America, or were they forced?''' Was life in China really that bad? I don't understand why they would put themselves through this when they don't get any benefits from it. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
In response to Ashley's question on whether women were forced to come to America, I think that some may have been willing to go because I think they were lied to about what they could expect when they got there. But I do believe that the majority were forced to go against their will because they were already part of a forced labor system in China, and were now simply being sent to do forced work in a different country.--Grace <br />
<br />
How sad that she was treated like an item or something you trade. I was also wondering about what four loathsome disease's she could get? Also four and a half years for $524, I guess back then it was a lot of money and the restrictions she had on that loan must have been awful. It also sound like to me that they didn't treat the Chinese women very well and they had no other job skills so they could make their life better. I wonder, like Ashley, did these women come forced or because they wanted to?-- Pam P.<br />
<br />
== Susan Shelby Magoffin in Santa Fe, 1846 ==<br />
It strikes me as very strange that Magoffin refers to the noise of soldiers being "shocking to [her] delicate nerves." (234) She's described in the introduction to the Documents section as being a woman who traveled with her merchant husband out West; based on everything we know about the travel West, it was a dangerous, unforgiving trip--and one in which a person with "delicate nerves" would either toughen up or fall apart. '''Clearly, Magoffin did not fall apart on the trip to NM, which begs the question: why didn't she toughen up? Or was she in some way trying to regain the delicate sensibilities that women of the era were supposed to have?''' -- Nicole<br />
<br />
When I read this I compared the treatment of the Mexicans to that of the Blacks in the south during slavery. "...make them do it over, and over, and they continue in the same good humour, never mouthing and grumbling because they have too much to do, but remain perfectly submissive..." (234)'''It made me wonder why the Mexicans were more obedient and complying?''' --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed Susan Shelby Magoffin's accounts of her life in Santa Fe. She seemed to be such a cheerful person especially compared to Mrs. A.M. Green in Colorado. To read her accounts of the Spanish Ball made me wish that I could have been there to see it all. I was confused a little by her description of "Dona Tula." Who is this person and what exactly is her occupation? --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
== Citizen protest of rape of Indian women in California, 1862 ==<br />
What I found interesting about this primary document is how the notion of men being in constant search of sex is evolving. Instead of marking the Lieutenants acts of rape as manly and normal, citizens are instead standing up for these "squaws" and are arguing that he should be punished. Although this document still evidences to the prejudice against natives, there is a change in ideals of how men should treat all women and it makes me wonder if this change was drawn out or abrupt and what sparked the need for men's ideals to change.-- Heather T.<br />
<br />
'''I wonder what this says about the status of Native Americans in California at this time. Where did Native American women fit on the spectrum of "white women are pure and asexual, black women want sex all the time?" I guess they must have been closer to white women, in that it wasn't considered okay for the Lieutenant to rape her.''' -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
Katie, I was thinking the same thing. Perhaps because in California there weren't that many black people, and the Chinese were an added element, the Native American population in California occupied a role that didn't exist in the east. --Stef L.<br />
<br />
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==<br />
Although Zitkala-Sa was (according to the introduction) legitimately traveling to a school, the fantasy world that was described to her (a place where she could have all the apples she wanted!--and no downsides?) by the "palefaces"--and the idea of a group of white men coming in, gathering up children, and taking them away after only minimally describing what their lives would be like, seemed extremely suspect to me. The whole idea of people coming in, rounding up children or women, feeding them lies or half-truths, and then removing them from their lives is uncomfortably similar to the lies the Chinese women who were later contracted out as prostitutes may have been told. Indeed, those sorts of situations are still used to trap victims for sex trafficking today. So, even if Zitkala-Sa went to school, became highly-educated, and returned to her family as a contributing member of Dakota society, the circumstances for her original removal from her family remain highly sketchy to me. -- Nicole<br />
<br />
I absolutely agree with Nicole. This story seemed really sad to me. As soon as the little girl got onto the horse drawn wagon, and she felt that sense of regret immediately, I couldn't help but be sad because I knew how much she regretted her decision, especially when her mom was so uncomfortable with the decision. But, I wondered where they were going in "the east"? And what school they were really going to? Like Nicole said, it all looked very shady and suspect to me. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
As I was reading Big Red Apples, I found myself telling the little girl "no you don't want to go with those men" knowing that she was either becoming enslaved or sold for sex. Why didn't these children listen to their parents? I guess because they were so young and impressionable it was easy to get the young kids to want to see the East and what kind of opportunities they were missing out on, when in all reality it was not somewhere they would want to end up. The Mother in Big Red Apples knew that there was something suspicious going on, but also thought that her daughter was going to get an "education" and not knowing that this may be the last time she may see her daughter.-- Pam P.<br />
<br />
This story was amazing to me because of how trusting these families were. Zitkala-Sa's family is only one example, but their reaction was probably not uncommon. The mother had misgivings, but gave in under gentle pressure and allowed her daughter to leave with complete strangers to an unknown destination with no way to contact her child. Like Nicole said, this could easily have resulted in forced prostitution. Why did these families place so much trust in the missionaries? -- Stef L.<br />
<br />
== Mrs. A. M. Greene, in Colorado Territory -- Frontier life – 1887 ==<br />
<br />
This was so sad. They were talking about what their family was going through and the hardships they had to face like moving west away from everything that they had known into a land that they were not familiar with. While they choose to go through all of this, I still think that it was so sad! –Kayle P.<br />
<br />
I agree Kayle, this was so sad. Moving your family to unknown places without the comforts that you know and possibly your extended family nearby...it must have been heartbreaking! The men went off to work, but the women were left, alone to adjust. Her children being her support to get her through the days. At least in this tale of A.M. Green it seems like she had a caring husband who was concerned with her well-being. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
== Violet Cragg requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==<br />
<br />
This was so complicated to get a pension. She had to know all of the information down to dates, people, time, places. I don’t think that I would have been able to keep all of that information straight and all she was trying to do was get money that she was mostly likely entitled to. It is sad that she had to put that much effort into getting something that she deserves. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
'''This is actually a very typical pension application''', from what I've seen of them. I've done quite a bit of research with Civil War pension files in the National Archives, and all of them ask for documentation such as this. Hers does have more dates and personal information than the soldiers' pensions that I've worked with, but all of their files require similar documentation. They must prove when and where they enlisted, that they are unable to support themselves, and that their disability is directly connected to their service. There must be support from others that this is true, and that they are who they say they are. So, it makes sense that she would have to prove when and where she served as well. I think all pension files are this detailed.<br />
I've also worked with pension claims filed by mothers and wives of soldiers, and they are all concerned, as the latter part of Violet Cragg's, with proving the relationship between the claimant and the soldier. Many of these files contain marriage certificates and piles of affidavits verifying that the two were related and that the claimant relied on the soldier for support. I've never been lucky enough to find one which included a picture, as Violet Cragg offers to send, and I wonder whether a picture was ever sent and included in the file. <br />
I agree with Kayle that it does seem harsh to place this huge burden of proof on a person who has served their country, but it also makes sense that the Pension Bureau would guard against fraud, and that they would need all this documentation in order to award pensions to people who had no other means of support. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== New York Prostitutes by William Sanger, 1858==<br />
"'When a woman drinks she is lost.' It will be conceded that the habit of intoxication in woman, if not an indication of actual depravity or vice, is a sure precursor of it, for drunkenness and debauchery are inspearable companions, one almost invariably following the other." page 290. '''I choose this quote to exemplify this document for a couple of reasons. 1. it is actually funny to think about how alcohol was viewed as this causer of evil, not as though the person was evil and alcohol just allowed them to be evil. 2. Because it does not mention the debauchery of men while they drink and is only concerned with women's behavior when the entire prohbition and temperance movement sprung out of woman's desire for men to stop drinking away all of the family's money, sleeping with prostitutes and beating there wives when drunk. 3. I think the sympathy which the doctor had to these prostitutes is remarkable for the time period in which it existed.''' --Sara S.<br />
<br />
This reading exemplifies the other side of the budding female independence that was taking shape during the rise of factories and cities. With previous readings it appeared that by young women stepping outside of the home to work in factories was a viable way for them to financially support themselves until marriage. Here the opposite of that is examined where women attempt to go out in the world but then struggle to survive and thus have to degrade themselves in order to live. ''' With almost every case the reasoning concludes with mans shortcomings as a provider and caretaker for the woman, demonstrating that this view of the independent factory girl was far from being economically stable.''' Like Sara I found it unique that the doctor showed sympathy towards these girls, yet even with prostitution being a massive issue was there no one else in a position of authority who cared enough to try and help out? Or was the stigma that existed in regards to immigrants standing in the way of "Christianly" behavior to save them? -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
"Ever sympathetic, Dr. Sanger saw his subjects as victims of the harsh urban environment: of family disorganization or disintegration, and especially of low wages, underemployment, and poverty," (page 288). Dr. Sanger obviously felt bad for these women, 88% of which were of the ages 15-30. I actually began to have sympathy for some of them as well. I hope those women didn't want to be prostitutes, but it was so common that they felt as if it were their only option. Men in their lives died or abandoned them and they had nothing and needed to provide for their children; this was a quick way to make money (not saying I agree with it). I kept having to second guess my feelings of sympathy because I'm sure some of the ladies made their story seem worse than it really was so that she would receive sympathy rather than looks of disgust. So many questions ran through my mind as I read. Did the friends and family they did have know what they were doing? Why didn't anyone try to stop them? What other options were there? --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
'''I was surprised to find that many of these women in this section were once married and deserted. For some reason, I had not considered that even back in the nineteenth century, prostitution was a productive way to support oneself.''' It is also unfortunate that, as Sanger said, these women were often victim to desertion or adultery by their husbands, and unfortunately felt as though they had to resort to prostitution. I also found it fascinating that in a time where the topic of sex was taboo, the "inclination" category made up one quarter of the causes of prostitution. That does not seem to fit into my schema of the time period. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
This excerpt reveals the sad state of prostitutes in the late nineteenth century. The negative effects of urban life drove many women, the majority of whom were immigrants, to the streets to support themselves and oftentimes their families (because of husbands who had died or had deserted them). I found the studies done by Dr. Sanger to be very interesting. I agree with Mary Beth: how interesting that "inclination" drew nearly the most number of responses when women were asked why they chose prostitution. Definitely an instance that defies the stereotype concerning sex and how it was discussed in society in the late nineteenth century. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
'''I thought it was interesting that William Sanger spent much of his analysis on the “ill treatment of parents, relatives, or husbands” when “inclination” was much higher on the list. Perhaps Sanger felt that “inclination” was the choice of the women and thus was not worthy of explanation whereas, “ill-treatment of family” was a cause that could not be avoided and thus invokes pity. It is interesting to note the own biases in his writing.''' Although a sound document, do you think the biases in his work hinder the information being expressed? --Hannah W.<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that in any primary document, the author's biases and opinions will leak out through the text. I think Sanger took pity on the women and felt sorry for many of them, for they really had nowhere else to go. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
I thought this was really interesting. The fact that so many put “Inclination” surprised me, why wouldn’t they use some sort of excuse for becoming a prostitute rather than the fact that prostitution was their preference or a natural tendency. Admitting to this seems more shameful than being a prostitute itself. Of course, Dr. Sanger made excuses for those who said this, that this was a result of other and controlling influences; that the answer implies a depravity of womanly feelings. I was not surprised about the number of women who were led into prostitution because their men deserted them. I was surprised by the number of women who put “As an easy life” and “Persuaded by a prostitute”. Much like the Inclination group, these answers surprise and baffle me. I also wondered how much they were able to make as prostitutes during this time in order to choose it as a, for lack of a better term, profession. Another question I had was the amount of women who claimed they were “seduced”, I wondered if being seduced and then deserted led them into prostitution, or if being seduced labeled them as a prostitute?--Emma C.<br />
<br />
I thought this passage was extremely sad. These poor women were forced into a life of prostitution for many reasons, but many of them had no choice. One of the saddest accounts for me was the entry by C.H., who was married at a young age and had 3 children. She was desperate for a way to support them, and when all other methods failed, she turned to prostitution. In reading this, I didn't find it much different from the world today. There are many women that turn to prostitution or even stripping for money just to earn a living. Many of these women are single mothers and they are doing whatever they can to make sure there is food in their children's mouths. I thought it was interesting in Dr. Sanger's results 164 people stated it was "an easy life". This I find difficult to believe. -- Lindsey S.</div>Lsmith0805https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_11_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 11 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-10T17:32:03Z<p>Lsmith0805: /* Jannicke Saehle, 1847, Norwegian immigrant’s letters */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Mary Anne Sadlier's Bessy Conway ==<br />
<br />
'''Who was Sadlier? Why did she write this? What biases should we be watching out for?'''<br />
<br />
For Irish families, such as the Conway's, having a family member make the voyage to America was incredibly difficult. '''The likelihood of that family member returning to Ireland was very low.'''''' Mary Ann Sadlier describes this sentiment vividly by saying her family "felt at the moment as if they had left Bessy in the churchyard clay," likening Bessy's voyage to America to being like her death. This separation was not easy for Bessy or other Irish women for that matter. Perhaps this is why when Bessy arrived in New York, her "comrade-girls" assured her they were happy to see her and kind to her. These women want to try and form bonds with each other since they are all in similar situations.''' -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
I found the way Sadlier wrote out Irish accents was really interesting. At first I thought maybe she was caricaturing the immigrants by exaggerating their accents, but then I found out that she was Irish herself. I also thought the interactions she wrote between the Irish men discussing whether or not selling alcohol was okay seemed really honest. I would have assumed initially that this was written by a white woman trying to scold Irish girls on the dangers of alcohol and men and probably not holding a very high opinion of her readers; '''After realizing the author had gone through experiences like this herself, I trusted the story she was telling a bit more.''' -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
I was kind of amused by the accents, as well, and particularly the use of Irish language phrases, which she spells phonetically. Granted, Irish (Gaelic) is not easy for English speakers to read, so this makes sense, but she doesn't translate them, either, which seems like it would be useless to most readers. I'm learning Irish, and the phrases are basic enough that I mostly knew what they meant, but I wonder how common that knowledge is, or whether the inclusion of foreign words is just meant to give a particular flavor to the dialogue. <br />
On another subject, '''the beginning of the reading makes it very clear how unprepared immigrants could be for the realities of life in America.''' The woman who plans to find her son is a perfect example of this, as she is unaware how far apart New York and Ohio are. It makes me think that culture shock must have been particularly bad for people who were arriving with so little idea of life in the US. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
What I found really interesting was how excited to everyone was to be leaving for America. It was one big adventure and everyone's lives were going to be improved, or so they thought. But while i really felt that sense of adventure waiting for them I also kept thinking in my head of everything we have learned of in the past week, of the real conditions of these ships, the number of people that died and the harsh reality of being in a new country and not really being excepted. It made me think, were people really that excited to leave and go to America? And then, How could they not be? It was the land of opportunity. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
== Jannicke Saehle, 1847, Norwegian immigrant’s letters ==<br />
<br />
I think one of the remarkable things about Saehle's letter to her brother is that she has a strong faith. She even remarks that she wasn't even scared on her journey to America and slept peacefully. Her high spirit and faith are really what keeps her going.''' I wonder how many other women had as positive experience as her in their travels to America? Was she an exception?''' --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
I agree, she was incredibly optimistic. I almost think that this is an unrealistic representation of the experience of an young, single woman immigrant. I would be very surprised if every single immigrant felt that much ease when crossing the Atlantic, and I doubt that they would all be so optimistic about the work that they were doing. I was also surprised with the Post Script, where she receives 3 acres of land. Was it common to give somebody doing domestic work land? --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
This entry made me laugh, I have been to Norway and it was my experience that Norwegians are the happiest, most optimistic people on earth. From this entry it seems to be that they were pretty happy and optimistic back then as well. Of course, it could have just been the personality of Jannicke, but I will still amused by her optimism.--Emma C.<br />
<br />
From the letter, it appears that Saehle is indeed a very brave and optimistic woman, who seems ready to take on the challenges of the new world without too much anxiety. But part of me has to wonder if she was possibly exaggerating her feelings when she wrote to her brother, possibly in an attempt to make her family back home feel more at ease with her going abroad. The idea of traveling across the Atlantic and staring a new life in a new world, as a single woman in those days, must have been a daunting and nerve racking task, and it just seems incredible to me that she was able to remain in such high spirits throughout her whole experience. --Grace C.<br />
<br />
In reading this account, it struck me as to how happy and optimistic Saehle was. I have read many accounts of immigrants coming to the new land, and this was definitely an exception for me. This was the first time I have ever heard of someone being so positive about everything and not complaining about how horrible the trip was or sick they were throughout it. Maybe she truly was the exception and had a good experience or maybe she didn't want her brother to worry at all about her so she made everything sound more wonderful than it really was. If I were her, I probably would want my brother to know that everything was going great (even if it wasn't) just so he wouldn't worry about me. --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-76 ==<br />
What I found interesting about these bills of sale is how they reflect the situations these women were going through when they had to to be sold. While today a sum of $470, like in Mee Yung's case (page 237) is laughable for four years of service today, we cannot know why or what the money paid for. Most likely this money went to paying for her passage over or to her destitute parents who desperately needed the money or thought her too much the burden to raise. '''I do wonder where this money went and whether these women survived and moved beyond prostitution.''' -Heather T.<br />
<br />
I have to say that I knew of Chinese men coming over to work on railroads but I don't know how I missed Chinese women coming over primarily as prostitutes for these men (and white men). I am definitely interested in knowing what these women's lives were like, after their contracts were up. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
Why are the owners/masters all women? Chinese women at that, unlike slavery, are the master and the servant are of the same race and background. First off, if majority of the Chinese that immigrated were men, where do these women come from, and how do they have power? --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
I was incredibly surprised by the contracts of the Chinese prostitutes. The terms were familiar: she was sick for a certain amount of days, she had to make it up by serving an extra month; if she got pregnant, she had to serve an extra year. If I am remembering correctly female indentured servants had similar terms of agreement, but their lives must have been better than serving their years as a prostitute. Also, was this a common thing for Chinese women to do? Why were they doing this? Are they serving as prostitutes to send money back to their families?-- Emma C.<br />
<br />
== Xin Jin's Contract, San Francisco, 1886==<br />
<br />
'''When reading the Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, I was surprised by how standard they are. All work for about four years, are paid no wages, and there is no interest on the money.''' Furthermore, extended periods of sickness add a month to the service. What I thought was most surprising was that the Chinese prostitutes all are contracted with other Chinese people. I had assumed they would be contracted to American people. I wonder why some Chinese did well enough to contract prostitutes while others did poor enough to have to work as prostitutes. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
'''I actually had a problem with the introduction to this article. It talks about women existing as prostitutes but does not acknowledge why these women were there as prostitutes. This was NOT like the prostitution of white society.''' First, there were laws prohibiting all asians, but particularly women (who to the whites were of NO use but sexuality). Secondly, It was forbidden for these asian men to fraternize with women who were not asian. Their numbers were not as high as that of blacks in the south so disobeying this law was not common and was severely punishable. The existence of prostitution had nothing to do with one being well-off enough to contract a woman to be a prositute, but had more do to with the fact that these women had to be brought in illegally due to American immigration laws and cost a lot of time and money to do so. It is not mentioned in the introduction to this paragraph and is put immediately after a document about white prostitutes and i feel this is in bad taste. The hardships of Asians in America even until the end of the 1900's are not that easily comparable to the hardships of those who could "pass" as english. --Sara S<br />
<br />
In reading the XIn Jin article what stood out is the fact that 28% of Chinese women were involved in prostitution during this period. Even though this is a significant number it goes against the stereotype of early Chinese immigrants where its assumed that the minimal number of women who did live in the US where all there as prostitutes. It is my guess that the lives these woman were forced to live is what stands out when viewing chinese females in this region. However, '''I found the experience to Xin Jin to be very similar to the women described in the New York Prostitutes reading where once again men are controlling the sexual lives of these women.''' Forced into a life where sexual favors are their only means of survival helps to solidify to men and non immigrant women that these immigrant females were inferior in every way. Is that negative stereotype still carried on to todays view of early Chinese immigration, where admittedly I even viewed the majority of these women, to be just prostitutes? -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
'''Did these women choose to come to America, or were they forced?''' Was life in China really that bad? I don't understand why they would put themselves through this when they don't get any benefits from it. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
In response to Ashley's question on whether women were forced to come to America, I think that some may have been willing to go because I think they were lied to about what they could expect when they got there. But I do believe that the majority were forced to go against their will because they were already part of a forced labor system in China, and were now simply being sent to do forced work in a different country.--Grace <br />
<br />
How sad that she was treated like an item or something you trade. I was also wondering about what four loathsome disease's she could get? Also four and a half years for $524, I guess back then it was a lot of money and the restrictions she had on that loan must have been awful. It also sound like to me that they didn't treat the Chinese women very well and they had no other job skills so they could make their life better. I wonder, like Ashley, did these women come forced or because they wanted to?-- Pam P.<br />
<br />
== Susan Shelby Magoffin in Santa Fe, 1846 ==<br />
It strikes me as very strange that Magoffin refers to the noise of soldiers being "shocking to [her] delicate nerves." (234) She's described in the introduction to the Documents section as being a woman who traveled with her merchant husband out West; based on everything we know about the travel West, it was a dangerous, unforgiving trip--and one in which a person with "delicate nerves" would either toughen up or fall apart. '''Clearly, Magoffin did not fall apart on the trip to NM, which begs the question: why didn't she toughen up? Or was she in some way trying to regain the delicate sensibilities that women of the era were supposed to have?''' -- Nicole<br />
<br />
When I read this I compared the treatment of the Mexicans to that of the Blacks in the south during slavery. "...make them do it over, and over, and they continue in the same good humour, never mouthing and grumbling because they have too much to do, but remain perfectly submissive..." (234)'''It made me wonder why the Mexicans were more obedient and complying?''' --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed Susan Shelby Magoffin's accounts of her life in Santa Fe. She seemed to be such a cheerful person especially compared to Mrs. A.M. Green in Colorado. To read her accounts of the Spanish Ball made me wish that I could have been there to see it all. I was confused a little by her description of "Dona Tula." Who is this person and what exactly is her occupation? --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
== Citizen protest of rape of Indian women in California, 1862 ==<br />
What I found interesting about this primary document is how the notion of men being in constant search of sex is evolving. Instead of marking the Lieutenants acts of rape as manly and normal, citizens are instead standing up for these "squaws" and are arguing that he should be punished. Although this document still evidences to the prejudice against natives, there is a change in ideals of how men should treat all women and it makes me wonder if this change was drawn out or abrupt and what sparked the need for men's ideals to change.-- Heather T.<br />
<br />
'''I wonder what this says about the status of Native Americans in California at this time. Where did Native American women fit on the spectrum of "white women are pure and asexual, black women want sex all the time?" I guess they must have been closer to white women, in that it wasn't considered okay for the Lieutenant to rape her.''' -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
Katie, I was thinking the same thing. Perhaps because in California there weren't that many black people, and the Chinese were an added element, the Native American population in California occupied a role that didn't exist in the east. --Stef L.<br />
<br />
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==<br />
Although Zitkala-Sa was (according to the introduction) legitimately traveling to a school, the fantasy world that was described to her (a place where she could have all the apples she wanted!--and no downsides?) by the "palefaces"--and the idea of a group of white men coming in, gathering up children, and taking them away after only minimally describing what their lives would be like, seemed extremely suspect to me. The whole idea of people coming in, rounding up children or women, feeding them lies or half-truths, and then removing them from their lives is uncomfortably similar to the lies the Chinese women who were later contracted out as prostitutes may have been told. Indeed, those sorts of situations are still used to trap victims for sex trafficking today. So, even if Zitkala-Sa went to school, became highly-educated, and returned to her family as a contributing member of Dakota society, the circumstances for her original removal from her family remain highly sketchy to me. -- Nicole<br />
<br />
I absolutely agree with Nicole. This story seemed really sad to me. As soon as the little girl got onto the horse drawn wagon, and she felt that sense of regret immediately, I couldn't help but be sad because I knew how much she regretted her decision, especially when her mom was so uncomfortable with the decision. But, I wondered where they were going in "the east"? And what school they were really going to? Like Nicole said, it all looked very shady and suspect to me. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
As I was reading Big Red Apples, I found myself telling the little girl "no you don't want to go with those men" knowing that she was either becoming enslaved or sold for sex. Why didn't these children listen to their parents? I guess because they were so young and impressionable it was easy to get the young kids to want to see the East and what kind of opportunities they were missing out on, when in all reality it was not somewhere they would want to end up. The Mother in Big Red Apples knew that there was something suspicious going on, but also thought that her daughter was going to get an "education" and not knowing that this may be the last time she may see her daughter.-- Pam P.<br />
<br />
This story was amazing to me because of how trusting these families were. Zitkala-Sa's family is only one example, but their reaction was probably not uncommon. The mother had misgivings, but gave in under gentle pressure and allowed her daughter to leave with complete strangers to an unknown destination with no way to contact her child. Like Nicole said, this could easily have resulted in forced prostitution. Why did these families place so much trust in the missionaries? -- Stef L.<br />
<br />
== Mrs. A. M. Greene, in Colorado Territory -- Frontier life – 1887 ==<br />
<br />
This was so sad. They were talking about what their family was going through and the hardships they had to face like moving west away from everything that they had known into a land that they were not familiar with. While they choose to go through all of this, I still think that it was so sad! –Kayle P.<br />
<br />
I agree Kayle, this was so sad. Moving your family to unknown places without the comforts that you know and possibly your extended family nearby...it must have been heartbreaking! The men went off to work, but the women were left, alone to adjust. Her children being her support to get her through the days. At least in this tale of A.M. Green it seems like she had a caring husband who was concerned with her well-being. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
== Violet Cragg requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==<br />
<br />
This was so complicated to get a pension. She had to know all of the information down to dates, people, time, places. I don’t think that I would have been able to keep all of that information straight and all she was trying to do was get money that she was mostly likely entitled to. It is sad that she had to put that much effort into getting something that she deserves. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
'''This is actually a very typical pension application''', from what I've seen of them. I've done quite a bit of research with Civil War pension files in the National Archives, and all of them ask for documentation such as this. Hers does have more dates and personal information than the soldiers' pensions that I've worked with, but all of their files require similar documentation. They must prove when and where they enlisted, that they are unable to support themselves, and that their disability is directly connected to their service. There must be support from others that this is true, and that they are who they say they are. So, it makes sense that she would have to prove when and where she served as well. I think all pension files are this detailed.<br />
I've also worked with pension claims filed by mothers and wives of soldiers, and they are all concerned, as the latter part of Violet Cragg's, with proving the relationship between the claimant and the soldier. Many of these files contain marriage certificates and piles of affidavits verifying that the two were related and that the claimant relied on the soldier for support. I've never been lucky enough to find one which included a picture, as Violet Cragg offers to send, and I wonder whether a picture was ever sent and included in the file. <br />
I agree with Kayle that it does seem harsh to place this huge burden of proof on a person who has served their country, but it also makes sense that the Pension Bureau would guard against fraud, and that they would need all this documentation in order to award pensions to people who had no other means of support. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== New York Prostitutes by William Sanger, 1858==<br />
"'When a woman drinks she is lost.' It will be conceded that the habit of intoxication in woman, if not an indication of actual depravity or vice, is a sure precursor of it, for drunkenness and debauchery are inspearable companions, one almost invariably following the other." page 290. '''I choose this quote to exemplify this document for a couple of reasons. 1. it is actually funny to think about how alcohol was viewed as this causer of evil, not as though the person was evil and alcohol just allowed them to be evil. 2. Because it does not mention the debauchery of men while they drink and is only concerned with women's behavior when the entire prohbition and temperance movement sprung out of woman's desire for men to stop drinking away all of the family's money, sleeping with prostitutes and beating there wives when drunk. 3. I think the sympathy which the doctor had to these prostitutes is remarkable for the time period in which it existed.''' --Sara S.<br />
<br />
This reading exemplifies the other side of the budding female independence that was taking shape during the rise of factories and cities. With previous readings it appeared that by young women stepping outside of the home to work in factories was a viable way for them to financially support themselves until marriage. Here the opposite of that is examined where women attempt to go out in the world but then struggle to survive and thus have to degrade themselves in order to live. ''' With almost every case the reasoning concludes with mans shortcomings as a provider and caretaker for the woman, demonstrating that this view of the independent factory girl was far from being economically stable.''' Like Sara I found it unique that the doctor showed sympathy towards these girls, yet even with prostitution being a massive issue was there no one else in a position of authority who cared enough to try and help out? Or was the stigma that existed in regards to immigrants standing in the way of "Christianly" behavior to save them? -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
"Ever sympathetic, Dr. Sanger saw his subjects as victims of the harsh urban environment: of family disorganization or disintegration, and especially of low wages, underemployment, and poverty," (page 288). Dr. Sanger obviously felt bad for these women, 88% of which were of the ages 15-30. I actually began to have sympathy for some of them as well. I hope those women didn't want to be prostitutes, but it was so common that they felt as if it were their only option. Men in their lives died or abandoned them and they had nothing and needed to provide for their children; this was a quick way to make money (not saying I agree with it). I kept having to second guess my feelings of sympathy because I'm sure some of the ladies made their story seem worse than it really was so that she would receive sympathy rather than looks of disgust. So many questions ran through my mind as I read. Did the friends and family they did have know what they were doing? Why didn't anyone try to stop them? What other options were there? --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
'''I was surprised to find that many of these women in this section were once married and deserted. For some reason, I had not considered that even back in the nineteenth century, prostitution was a productive way to support oneself.''' It is also unfortunate that, as Sanger said, these women were often victim to desertion or adultery by their husbands, and unfortunately felt as though they had to resort to prostitution. I also found it fascinating that in a time where the topic of sex was taboo, the "inclination" category made up one quarter of the causes of prostitution. That does not seem to fit into my schema of the time period. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
This excerpt reveals the sad state of prostitutes in the late nineteenth century. The negative effects of urban life drove many women, the majority of whom were immigrants, to the streets to support themselves and oftentimes their families (because of husbands who had died or had deserted them). I found the studies done by Dr. Sanger to be very interesting. I agree with Mary Beth: how interesting that "inclination" drew nearly the most number of responses when women were asked why they chose prostitution. Definitely an instance that defies the stereotype concerning sex and how it was discussed in society in the late nineteenth century. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
'''I thought it was interesting that William Sanger spent much of his analysis on the “ill treatment of parents, relatives, or husbands” when “inclination” was much higher on the list. Perhaps Sanger felt that “inclination” was the choice of the women and thus was not worthy of explanation whereas, “ill-treatment of family” was a cause that could not be avoided and thus invokes pity. It is interesting to note the own biases in his writing.''' Although a sound document, do you think the biases in his work hinder the information being expressed? --Hannah W.<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that in any primary document, the author's biases and opinions will leak out through the text. I think Sanger took pity on the women and felt sorry for many of them, for they really had nowhere else to go. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
I thought this was really interesting. The fact that so many put “Inclination” surprised me, why wouldn’t they use some sort of excuse for becoming a prostitute rather than the fact that prostitution was their preference or a natural tendency. Admitting to this seems more shameful than being a prostitute itself. Of course, Dr. Sanger made excuses for those who said this, that this was a result of other and controlling influences; that the answer implies a depravity of womanly feelings. I was not surprised about the number of women who were led into prostitution because their men deserted them. I was surprised by the number of women who put “As an easy life” and “Persuaded by a prostitute”. Much like the Inclination group, these answers surprise and baffle me. I also wondered how much they were able to make as prostitutes during this time in order to choose it as a, for lack of a better term, profession. Another question I had was the amount of women who claimed they were “seduced”, I wondered if being seduced and then deserted led them into prostitution, or if being seduced labeled them as a prostitute?--Emma C.</div>Lsmith0805https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_10_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 10 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-10T17:26:45Z<p>Lsmith0805: /* Lucinda, a free woman, requests reenslavement, 1813 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Sarah Haynesworth Gayle, “An Alabama Diary,” 1828, 1833 ==<br />
<br />
'''We talk about how a lot of women's history comes from sources written by men. Therefore, it makes sense for African American sources to come form white owners or other white people. Gayle's diary is a perfect example.''' Even though she is mostly writing about her experiences, she does describe events and relationships with her slaves. Also, this source provides information not on only about African Americans but on the relationships with mistresses, who they most likely interacted the most. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
While we have talked many times in class about the acceptance of separation between men and women who are no longer happily married, it never seemed real. I was quite intrigued then when I saw in Sarah Haynesworth Gayle diary entry for "Monday 6th July 1835" that "Mr. and Mrs. Matheson have parted." It really brought out the fact that this did actually happen. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
'''What this text really drove home for me was how commonplace slavery was in the lives of Southerners by the 1820s and '30s.''' While she makes little quips about her relations with her slaves, these comments are thrown in with her everyday happenings. It also reaffirms that slave resistance was also another common aspect of the relationship between slaves and their owners as evidenced by Sarah's last entry where she comments on how difficult it is for her to control them. -- Heather T.<br />
<br />
I found the back and forth of Gayle's diary to be very telling of the environment in which slave owners were raised in a way that seems to oppose human relationships. '''It is clear that Gayle views her slaves as property but also provides comments that appear that she has a deeper emotional connection with them than southern society would allow for.''' However it appears that she doesn't recognize this connection she has with them as she also comments on how she wants to live up to the standards of slave ownership set by her parents. Could it be possible that the world in which people in the south lived totally removed their human compassion? --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
While I agree with you, Rachel, that her diary shows how owner's viewed their slaves as property, I don't think it's a matter of how compassionate a white owner is. I honestly believe that many whites did not see the problem with having slaves, and thought all slaves were property. I think it is more about a question of power. Whites are expected to hold all power, so they must dominate and rule over their slaves. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
'''I found it interesting that in Sarah Gayle’s diary she referred to her slaves as “servants.” Servant implies compensation for work done, however the “servants” she was referring to were obviously enslaved. Why would she, in a personal diary, refer to her slaves as “servants?”''' Could she be trying to hide some sort of guilt that she feels over slavery or selling slaves? It would make more sense if she called slaves servants in a public sphere. The fact that it is a private diary (that presumably no one else will read) is problematic. Could it be that her personal guilt is so much that she cannot even admit it to herself? --Hannah W.<br />
<br />
The relationships that Sarah Gayle has with her slaves are the most interesting part of this passage. The differences she mentions in the way that she was raised to treat and act around slaves in her parents house and the way she feels towards them now is very telling of her attitude towards her (as she calls them) "servants." At one point in her diary, speaking of slaves in her parents household she says, "I was not allowed to exercise tyranny or injustice of any sort toward them and on the other side, the most implicit submission was exacted toward me." This seems to me to be a different relationship than most other slave households you here of during that time in the South, because it calls for an almost mutual respect between masters and slaves. To add to that idea of mutual respect, calling her slaves servants in it of itself says a lot about how she feels about the slaves in her household. --Grace C.<br />
<br />
== Mary Boykin Chestnut’s diary, 1861 ==<br />
<br />
This is an important source because it shows a woman who is part of a large slave-holding family realizing the atrocity of the slave system. One particularly important realization is that "Men and women are punished when their masters and mistresses are brutes and not when they do wrong..." This notion is related to that of "The Cruel Mistress," in which the mistress would punish at her own whim regardless of whether the slaves had erred. Regardless of this insight, Chesnut still closes with "my countrywomen are as pure as angels - tho surrounded by another race who are -- the social evil!"''' It seems that Chesnut believes the institution of slavery is wrong but not the idea of racism'''. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
What is Mary Chesnut referring to when she mentions a car? Is it a carriage? Or a train car? Also, who is she referring to when she says "tho surrounded by another race who are--the social evil!" Is it the slaves? Or the men? --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
'''I agree with Clare, it is important (and quite refreshing) to take note that some whites in the south did think slavery was morally wrong.''' I think this is one of my favorite sources because not only does she discuss the wrong in the men, but also of the women. She mentions how the men and women do wrong, but go unpunished. She says, "...every lady tells you who is the father of all the Mulatto children in every body's house hold, but those in her own, she seems to think drop from the clouds or pretends so to think..." (222). She acknowledges the faults of both men and women in her society but concludes with her claiming her gratefulness for her country women. But I am a bit confused of who those country women are if they are not the ones she complains about earlier? --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Rose Williams’s Story in the Federal Writers’ Project Interviews, 1941. ==<br />
<br />
'''Of all our readings this week, I think this is the one I'm going to be thinking about the longest. The contents were no shock to me; I've taken African American history classes and the substance of Rose Williams' life is a pretty familiar story. It felt different, though, to hear it from the source.''' The part which really got under my skin was at the end, when she talks about deciding never to marry because "once was enough". Being forced into something her master wanted to call a relationship, but which was only a well-organized rape, would be enough to put anybody off of the idea of marriage, but it still seems particularly sad to me because of how many ways her life might have been different if this had not happened. She also never says whether she had children, as her master wanted, and I wonder how that affected her life, as well. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
This story really captivated me. I was surprised that Rufus stayed away at night when Rose would tell him she didn't want to have relations with him. I know there is still some modesty and respect between the slaves no matter how much of a "bully" rufus was, but that really struck out to me. It was heartbreaking to know she never got married or ever wanted any other relation with a man because like Rebecca said, one time was enough. It was also surprising that from what we know from this account, Master Hawkins never had relations with Rose either to have more slave children, but instead put two slaves together and gave them a "home". Obviously, it is not the best situation, but out of the cases of master-slave rape that we have studied, this sadly seems to be of somewhat better treatment than those. -- Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
I really liked this excerpt because of the dialect and how it doesn't really seem like the editors took much out of her story. Through Rose's story, it showed me what life was like for slave women on a daily basis. This article also opening my eyes to how many times slaves were threatedened by their masters. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
This story is even more sad because a ninety-year-old woman is recalling her systematic rape/forced cohabitation, and her final comments about one experience being enough show that in all the years that followed her experience, she was never able to truly move past her experiences with Hawkins and Rufus. They denied her the right to choose to have a family, even as a free woman: she was so traumatized that she couldn't, even if she would have wanted to. It seems so indicative of the life of a young slave woman that she was essentially supposed to figure out why Rufus was in there with her; she essentially had to find out what was happening in bits and pieces, and the first time she was told what was actually happening it was as she was being threatened. It's also sad because as a young adult, she had a strong sense of self-preservation, and you can see that that sort of gets stamped out of her through her experiences. I agree with Rebecca, this reading will definitely stay with me most. -- Nicole<br />
<br />
This passage is extremely heart breaking. She thought her new master was saving her when he purchased her. If he didn't buy her, she would have been separated from her parents. Little did she know, he wanted her so she could produce more slaves for him. She was so hurt, angry, and traumatized about the situation that she never got married. She took care of others for her entire life, until she was too old and blind to do so. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
What Rebecca said hit the nail on the head; what her new master did was "well-organized rape." I think that's exactly it. We've been talking in class about romantic relationships between slaves, and interracial romance. We've also talked a lot about rape of black women by white men. But this was something I was unprepared for. I was surprised to see not only the rape of Rose Williams by a fellow slave, but also that it was organized by a master that she believed was fairer and had the slaves' interests in mind more than her previous master. This was an interesting read because I had hardly (and this is out of ignorance) even considered the rape of black women by black men. Now that I have read this, it seems as though this was another obvious situation that may have taken place. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
Having heard Rose William’s story before in the documentary “Unchained Memories,” I already knew the outcome. However, reading Rose’s voice brought a different life to the story. Her emotion was clear in her reaction to her forceful “breeding” with Rufus. I thought it interesting that she was able to assert power in that situation by choosing to remain unmarried. Where her master could force her to have relations with Rufus, her master could not force her to love him or choose to marry him. It is interesting that she makes this point very clear at the end of her monologue. --Hannah W.<br />
<br />
'''''It was stated that in the introduction to these interviews that some writer/interviewers chose to transcribe into dialect, and some converted the language to a more "proper" grammatical structure. I have mixed feelings about this. Although it may ostensibly be more loyal to the original speaker, dialect readings certainly do create an image for the reader of the interviewee, which may be prejudicial. On the other hand, would Rose Williams have spoken in textbook English? Of course not. Any thoughts? Also, she continually refers to herself as "this n---," instead of "this woman," or even "I" or "myself." This habit reinforced for me the primacy of racial identity, over gender, class, etc'''''. --Stef L.<br />
<br />
This was a really touching account and accounts by slaves themselves were very rare. I was surprised at how much money she was worth and by the fact that Mr. Hawkins bought both parents with her. I was also surprised at her tone, she was simply telling a story rather than taking every opportunity to complain. I guess compared to her first master, Mr. Hawkins was a slave’s dream in some cases. Reading a first hand account of what was so common a thing makes what we learned in class much more real and sad… -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
This story was truly sad to read. I can't imagine living the life a slave did, being forced into doing things they didn't want to do and having to accept it because that was considered the norm. Poor Rose was so excited and thought her "Massa" was doing her a favor when he bought her whole family;however, his underlying motive for purchasing her was purely economic. He saw her has the ideal way to make more money by having her produce more slaves. How could these white masters truly not care about their slaves at all? I couldn't imagine being forced into having a child with someone I didn't love, just to face the possibility that my child may get sold to another slave owner, or that I could be sold to someone else once I got older and wasn't able to produce anymore children. Every person deserves to be happy or at the very least have a chance at happiness- for Rose, she never had that opportunity. After she was freed she never wanted to get married or be in a relationship with any man, which shows how much of an emotional and psychological toll her master's organized rape and childbirth played on her. --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Lucinda, a free woman, requests reenslavement, 1813 ==<br />
<br />
'''How sad was this document???!!! A woman receiving her freedom and because she wanted to remain with her husband she asked to be reenslaved with her husband's master! It really makes you think of how detached these slave owners were to the human emotions of their slaves.''' --Remy B.<br />
<br />
This just shows the bonds that some slave families had. He or she had been sold away from each other and even though she could have made a life for herself in the North she wanted to be with her husband. I think that while this document is sad because it shows how slave families were broken up over plantations it also shows how much love these lave families were able to develop. –Kayle P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Remy. This was terribly sad. It was very similar to the story of Rose Williams and how happy she was that the master chose to purchase her as well as her parents. I don't understand how one person could treat another person in such a way. The fact that Lucinda was willing to forfeit her newly gained freedom just to be re-enslaved with her husband shows the strong emotional bond they shared together. -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Connecticut woman asks other free black women to sign anti-slavery petitions, 1839 ==<br />
<br />
I am confused as to why she was so adamant and trying to guilt trip them into signing the petitions. '''What good would an anti-slavery petition do?''' It would make people aware of how many people were against slavery, but it's not like it would stop it from happening. --Ashley V<br />
<br />
== Mary Still, black abolitionist, along with other Philadelphia free women, forms “Female Publication Society” to promote the moral uplift of free and slave African Americans, 1861 ==<br />
<br />
I find it interesting that Still follows the narrative of slaves being wicked and ignorant - isn't that what the masters said to justify slavery? (And explain mistakes made by slaves.) I can't really tell how she thinks that the moral state of slaves and the institution of slavery are linked. Would slaves (or even many free blacks) have access to a publication like the Christian Recorder anyway? --Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Mrs. Virginia Hayes Shepherd’s memories, 1937 ==<br />
<br />
I thought that this was very interesting. It showed the different between two different slaves experiences told from the perspective of one. It allows the reader to gain an understanding of what the slaves saw rather than being told what they went through. I thought that it was interesting point of view. –Kayle P.<br />
<br />
It is interesting to get a perspective of a white child of a black woman. Much like Rose Williams, she doesn’t seem to complain about her situation, even she talks about her friend Diana who gets raped by the master. It is just the way life was, and why complain when their situation, like Rose’s, was so good they were considered free by slaves on other plantations. -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
== Thelma Jennings, “Sexual Exploitation of African American Slave Women,” 1990 ==<br />
<br />
'''There were so many disturbing things in this article that it's hard to know where to start.''' I guess one thing I found particularly striking was the general ignorance about health - it's okay to beat a pregnant woman as long as you dig a hole for her stomach first? Did they really think that did anything at all to protect the fetus? I was also really surprised by the frequent use of the word "breeders." Was that how slave women would have referred to themselves, or how whites would have referred to them, or was that a later term? -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
Thelma Jenning's article really had me thinking about how often an occurrence Master and Slave produced children were. I automatically thought about Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemming's and the result of their children (never sold and easily escaped). I never realized, however, the issue that was slave breeding. It makes (unfortunate) sense that it occurred because of the economics behind it, but even though this practice was not reportedly common, I wonder how often it really occurred. I also wonder when this practice was actually started, did it come out of the line of thought which included livestock breeding? Or was eugenics really being put into practice?-- Heather T.<br />
<br />
'''This article was disturbing on so many levels. I understand they were telling it like it was, but there is total disregard for a human life. ''' The talk about these slaves like they were livestock, "cow & bull". To breed these slaves was for economic reasons, was money so important back then or were you judged by how many slaves you had? or both? If the white men didn't want to claim their mulatto children then they should have refrained from having sexual relations with these slaves. What did these men think was going to happen if they did have relations with these slaves? or did they even care? Profit was the main goal.--Pam P.<br />
<br />
== "A Reply to Harriet Beecher Stowe" Louisa S. Cheeves McCord, 1853 ==<br />
<br />
'''I thought this document was enlightening and so interesting. True, she was writing things that by today's standards are offensive and politically incorrect, but this is what primary sources offer to us, someone who isn't ashamed to admit their beliefs. I want to offer a quote from the reading "To Conclude. We have undertaken the defence of slavery in no temporizing vein. We do NOT say it is a necessary evil. We do NOT allow that it is a temporary make-shift to choke the course of Providence for man's convenience. It is NOT 'a sorrow and a wrong to be lived down.' We proclaim it, on the contrary, a Godlike dispensation, a providential caring for the weak, and a refuge for the portionless." (page 219).''' Understanding this statement helps one understand the entire patriarchal society. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed Louisa McCords writing, she posed some very good points in comparison to what Ms. Stowe had written in ''Uncle Tom's Cabin''. Such as the fact that Ms. Stowe had never lived in the heart of the South, or that while Mrs. Shelby was suppose to be a strong intelligent woman she was portrayed as almost weak. While Ms. McCord made some very well argued points the one I could never agree with is that the black man is intellectually inferior to the white man. "Mrs. Stowe, in spite of experience, in spite of science, determines that the negro is intellectually the white man's equal." There is not science stating that they are unequal and how can she say that Mrs. Stowe has never experienced the intelligence of a black man? Just because she lived in the north doesn't mean she never came in contact with them. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
'''The sarcastic tone of this writing really drove me nuts.''' I realize that comes from a modern perspective, but McCord's alleged appeals to "science" and "common sense", meant to prove that slaves are obviously better off in slavery are just that much more infuriating because of the superior tone she uses. The other thing, more intellectually interesting than annoying, is that her critique of the fictional Mrs. Shelby is very gendered. She excuses Mr. Shelby's actions on the grounds that he is clearly hen-pecked and his crazy abolitionist wife has just driven him nuts. I have never read Uncle Tom's Cabin, but I wonder what the context for this passage really is- I highly doubt that McCord is an unbiased commentator. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
Going off of what Rebecca wrote, I also was struck by the sarcasm and snide remarks made by L.S.M. It was frustrating to read of how slavery was a HELPFUL institution to the slave race, who were a "blot upon creation" (220). The idea that slavery was an institution motivated by white benevolence is infuriating to read, especially after reading Angelina Weld's account of a cruel slave-owning mistress. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
'''I had an incredibly hard time not skipping the tail end of this article, or, better, ripping it out.''' The idea that human beings could be viewed as "the homeless, useless negro...[who is] a blot upon creation...[and] a wild man" is deeply disturbing to me. Of course we've studied the institution of slavery itself, and how slaves were viewed in order to enable that institution, but the sarcasm dripping from this article, coupled with the casual nature with which McCord dismisses an entire race of people as a "blot upon creation," was a deeper level of acidity and hatred than I'd really seen before. McCord does not view slavery as a necessary evil, or an evil of any kind; she views it almost, it seems, as a kindness to slaves that just happens to be enormously profitable to white slaveowners. Sara makes an excellent point--that this has to be contextualized in the time period in which it was written--but even then, the fact that McCord denies that it's a necessary evil shows that at the very least, she had some sense of why Stowe wrote what she did, and what Stowe had meant to convey. I truly find it difficult to imagine that she was simply a product of her society, despite what Sara said; it seems to me that her hatred of slaves and championing of slavery hints at perhaps an unusually slavery-positive upbringing; it surprises me that, given her time in the North, she wasn't at least somewhat more neutral... -- Nicole<br />
<br />
I agree with Nicole. I was really upset that she had the nerve to justify slavery and every bad thing that goes with it. When she says "Slavery, even in his own land, is his destiny and his refuge from extinction." I wanted to yell at her, are you so self important that you think that there are humans (black or white) who are beneath you? I think the answer is "yes!" This was their train of thought during this time frame though, and it almost seems like they may have thought they were wrong but they still bought, sold, beat and made the slaves feel inferior. I also fell that God was used as a way to say, hey what we are doing is God's will. They hid behind their religion, like in the document ''The Cruel Mistress''. -- Pam P.<br />
<br />
== Angelina Grimke Weld ''The Cruel Mistress'' -- 1839 ==<br />
<br />
'''''Who is Weld and why is she writing?'''''<br />
<br />
''In''' this source we hear the horrid stories of slavery. However, it is different because it does not focus on the oppressive white male but on the mistress. It is interesting to see the fault in white women.''''' Also, it is interesting that Weld pushes on the physically abuse. She has to argue that most slave owners act like this cruel mistress. Even though she hints at slaves with souls, she focuses on the physically abuse. Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I think it is important that Angelina Grimke Weld continually emphasizes the the cruel mistress in question is "at the head of the fashionable elite city of Charleston" and more importantly "at the head of the moral and religious female society there." It is astounding that someone who claims to be of moral and pious authority can be so abusive and uncaring. However, the violence against the slaves is justified by slaveholders because slaves are viewed as property and not actual human beings. -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
Going off of what Clare wrote I have to point at that even Grimke ackonledges the belief that "God in his providence had set over them--it was their DUTY to abide in abject submission, and hers to COMPEL them to do so--IT WAS THUS THAT SHE REASONED" (page 216. the Capitalization is in place of italics). This wasn't about cruelty to the woman mistresses, rather a belief that the slave was not a human being (mentioned at the end of the document). i also have to wonder to what extent the women mistresses were so violent and cruel had to do with an inadvert expression of their distaste for their own oppression. The slaves offerred them power so they took full advantage of it. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
While reading this entry I couldn't help but doubt that humans could ever be this cruel. That Angelina Grimke Weld must be exaggerating the cruelness of slave owners, particularly because she is against the whole idea. But when you think about it, the evidence of the cruelty humans are capable of is all around us. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
Hypocrisy abounds in Weld's description of a slave-owning mistress and how she treats her slaves yet maintains her role as a religious woman in the Charleston community. The justification that it was a slave's "duty to abide in abject submission" is another reflection of the cruel slave society. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
I totally agree with Ellen's idea of hypocrisy dominating the contents of this reading. When the passage talks about how "for many years, one or other, and often more of her slaves were flogged every day," one has to question how Weld was able to continue to believe "herself a paragon of religious piety." Even though Weld clearly sees her slaves as "belongings," it still amazes me that she was able to perpetrate these beatings and other cruelties on a regular basis and still she herself as the very definition of a good christian woman. --Grace C.<br />
<br />
We always mention the reasoning behind slavery and how Christianity "supported" it. But even with a different mentality from now and back in the time of Angelina Gimke Weld (1839), how could one explain that the same place for prayer and worship, was the same place for punishment (an inhumane and cruel punishment at that). I found it so mind boggling that she "order brothers to whip their own sisters and sisters their own brother, and yet no woman visited among the poor more than she did, or gave more liberally to relieve their wants." (216) I understand slavery was acceptable, but this torture and punishment is almost inexplicable. -Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
In reading this source the part that struck me the most was when Weld said, in regards to this woman's cruel behavior that, " no disgrace among the slaveholders and did not in the least injure her standing, either as a lady or a christian, in the aristocratic circle in which she moved." It appears that Weld sees that christianity has been tainted by southern views to accommodate the treatment of slaveowners onto their slaves. Could it be assumed that a part of Weld's reaction to the South can be derived from Southerners skewing the ideals of christianity to fit their slave driven lifestyle? For people like this cruel woman she discusses not only inhumanly treat their slaves but devalue a religion that is so important to those in the north. -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
'''I think the most disturbing part of this article was when Weld was describing the mistress as a "Christian." Using the room she prayed in as "the very place in which, when her slaves were to be whipped with the cowhide, they were taken to receive the infliction."''' The behavior of this woman was absolutely disgusting. How she could carry herself throughout town as a "lady" and treat her slaves in the way she did, it seems unbelievable that this was ignored. We think in our current society if this treatment was going on that we might step in and help whoever was getting abused. Such a sad part of our history. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
'''This was a difficult reading for me, because it has so many layers. First, my 21st century moral superiority and emotional reactions, which have to be disregarded. Second, Grimke Weld's motives for writing. I assumed that the story of the Cruel Mistress was an exaggerated composite story. I have tried to remember that there was a spectrum of attitudes and habits for slave mistresses, and it suits Weld's purpose to identify the most evil person she can as the norm.''' --Stef L.<br />
<br />
I wonder how common it was for Southerners to be abolitionists and see the slaves as human beings. I know it wasn’t common, per se, but how few or how many actually felt for the slaves? The fact that the woman described in this account is highly respected was disturbing to me, in class I remember talking about how slave holders how treated their slaves so badly were ostracized. Was this not the case for female slave holders. It seems that she would treat her slaves poorly in public and no one took notice of it. -- Emma C.</div>Lsmith0805https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_10_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 10 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-10T17:18:07Z<p>Lsmith0805: /* Rose Williams’s Story in the Federal Writers’ Project Interviews, 1941. */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Sarah Haynesworth Gayle, “An Alabama Diary,” 1828, 1833 ==<br />
<br />
'''We talk about how a lot of women's history comes from sources written by men. Therefore, it makes sense for African American sources to come form white owners or other white people. Gayle's diary is a perfect example.''' Even though she is mostly writing about her experiences, she does describe events and relationships with her slaves. Also, this source provides information not on only about African Americans but on the relationships with mistresses, who they most likely interacted the most. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
While we have talked many times in class about the acceptance of separation between men and women who are no longer happily married, it never seemed real. I was quite intrigued then when I saw in Sarah Haynesworth Gayle diary entry for "Monday 6th July 1835" that "Mr. and Mrs. Matheson have parted." It really brought out the fact that this did actually happen. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
'''What this text really drove home for me was how commonplace slavery was in the lives of Southerners by the 1820s and '30s.''' While she makes little quips about her relations with her slaves, these comments are thrown in with her everyday happenings. It also reaffirms that slave resistance was also another common aspect of the relationship between slaves and their owners as evidenced by Sarah's last entry where she comments on how difficult it is for her to control them. -- Heather T.<br />
<br />
I found the back and forth of Gayle's diary to be very telling of the environment in which slave owners were raised in a way that seems to oppose human relationships. '''It is clear that Gayle views her slaves as property but also provides comments that appear that she has a deeper emotional connection with them than southern society would allow for.''' However it appears that she doesn't recognize this connection she has with them as she also comments on how she wants to live up to the standards of slave ownership set by her parents. Could it be possible that the world in which people in the south lived totally removed their human compassion? --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
While I agree with you, Rachel, that her diary shows how owner's viewed their slaves as property, I don't think it's a matter of how compassionate a white owner is. I honestly believe that many whites did not see the problem with having slaves, and thought all slaves were property. I think it is more about a question of power. Whites are expected to hold all power, so they must dominate and rule over their slaves. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
'''I found it interesting that in Sarah Gayle’s diary she referred to her slaves as “servants.” Servant implies compensation for work done, however the “servants” she was referring to were obviously enslaved. Why would she, in a personal diary, refer to her slaves as “servants?”''' Could she be trying to hide some sort of guilt that she feels over slavery or selling slaves? It would make more sense if she called slaves servants in a public sphere. The fact that it is a private diary (that presumably no one else will read) is problematic. Could it be that her personal guilt is so much that she cannot even admit it to herself? --Hannah W.<br />
<br />
The relationships that Sarah Gayle has with her slaves are the most interesting part of this passage. The differences she mentions in the way that she was raised to treat and act around slaves in her parents house and the way she feels towards them now is very telling of her attitude towards her (as she calls them) "servants." At one point in her diary, speaking of slaves in her parents household she says, "I was not allowed to exercise tyranny or injustice of any sort toward them and on the other side, the most implicit submission was exacted toward me." This seems to me to be a different relationship than most other slave households you here of during that time in the South, because it calls for an almost mutual respect between masters and slaves. To add to that idea of mutual respect, calling her slaves servants in it of itself says a lot about how she feels about the slaves in her household. --Grace C.<br />
<br />
== Mary Boykin Chestnut’s diary, 1861 ==<br />
<br />
This is an important source because it shows a woman who is part of a large slave-holding family realizing the atrocity of the slave system. One particularly important realization is that "Men and women are punished when their masters and mistresses are brutes and not when they do wrong..." This notion is related to that of "The Cruel Mistress," in which the mistress would punish at her own whim regardless of whether the slaves had erred. Regardless of this insight, Chesnut still closes with "my countrywomen are as pure as angels - tho surrounded by another race who are -- the social evil!"''' It seems that Chesnut believes the institution of slavery is wrong but not the idea of racism'''. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
What is Mary Chesnut referring to when she mentions a car? Is it a carriage? Or a train car? Also, who is she referring to when she says "tho surrounded by another race who are--the social evil!" Is it the slaves? Or the men? --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
'''I agree with Clare, it is important (and quite refreshing) to take note that some whites in the south did think slavery was morally wrong.''' I think this is one of my favorite sources because not only does she discuss the wrong in the men, but also of the women. She mentions how the men and women do wrong, but go unpunished. She says, "...every lady tells you who is the father of all the Mulatto children in every body's house hold, but those in her own, she seems to think drop from the clouds or pretends so to think..." (222). She acknowledges the faults of both men and women in her society but concludes with her claiming her gratefulness for her country women. But I am a bit confused of who those country women are if they are not the ones she complains about earlier? --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Rose Williams’s Story in the Federal Writers’ Project Interviews, 1941. ==<br />
<br />
'''Of all our readings this week, I think this is the one I'm going to be thinking about the longest. The contents were no shock to me; I've taken African American history classes and the substance of Rose Williams' life is a pretty familiar story. It felt different, though, to hear it from the source.''' The part which really got under my skin was at the end, when she talks about deciding never to marry because "once was enough". Being forced into something her master wanted to call a relationship, but which was only a well-organized rape, would be enough to put anybody off of the idea of marriage, but it still seems particularly sad to me because of how many ways her life might have been different if this had not happened. She also never says whether she had children, as her master wanted, and I wonder how that affected her life, as well. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
This story really captivated me. I was surprised that Rufus stayed away at night when Rose would tell him she didn't want to have relations with him. I know there is still some modesty and respect between the slaves no matter how much of a "bully" rufus was, but that really struck out to me. It was heartbreaking to know she never got married or ever wanted any other relation with a man because like Rebecca said, one time was enough. It was also surprising that from what we know from this account, Master Hawkins never had relations with Rose either to have more slave children, but instead put two slaves together and gave them a "home". Obviously, it is not the best situation, but out of the cases of master-slave rape that we have studied, this sadly seems to be of somewhat better treatment than those. -- Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
I really liked this excerpt because of the dialect and how it doesn't really seem like the editors took much out of her story. Through Rose's story, it showed me what life was like for slave women on a daily basis. This article also opening my eyes to how many times slaves were threatedened by their masters. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
This story is even more sad because a ninety-year-old woman is recalling her systematic rape/forced cohabitation, and her final comments about one experience being enough show that in all the years that followed her experience, she was never able to truly move past her experiences with Hawkins and Rufus. They denied her the right to choose to have a family, even as a free woman: she was so traumatized that she couldn't, even if she would have wanted to. It seems so indicative of the life of a young slave woman that she was essentially supposed to figure out why Rufus was in there with her; she essentially had to find out what was happening in bits and pieces, and the first time she was told what was actually happening it was as she was being threatened. It's also sad because as a young adult, she had a strong sense of self-preservation, and you can see that that sort of gets stamped out of her through her experiences. I agree with Rebecca, this reading will definitely stay with me most. -- Nicole<br />
<br />
This passage is extremely heart breaking. She thought her new master was saving her when he purchased her. If he didn't buy her, she would have been separated from her parents. Little did she know, he wanted her so she could produce more slaves for him. She was so hurt, angry, and traumatized about the situation that she never got married. She took care of others for her entire life, until she was too old and blind to do so. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
What Rebecca said hit the nail on the head; what her new master did was "well-organized rape." I think that's exactly it. We've been talking in class about romantic relationships between slaves, and interracial romance. We've also talked a lot about rape of black women by white men. But this was something I was unprepared for. I was surprised to see not only the rape of Rose Williams by a fellow slave, but also that it was organized by a master that she believed was fairer and had the slaves' interests in mind more than her previous master. This was an interesting read because I had hardly (and this is out of ignorance) even considered the rape of black women by black men. Now that I have read this, it seems as though this was another obvious situation that may have taken place. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
Having heard Rose William’s story before in the documentary “Unchained Memories,” I already knew the outcome. However, reading Rose’s voice brought a different life to the story. Her emotion was clear in her reaction to her forceful “breeding” with Rufus. I thought it interesting that she was able to assert power in that situation by choosing to remain unmarried. Where her master could force her to have relations with Rufus, her master could not force her to love him or choose to marry him. It is interesting that she makes this point very clear at the end of her monologue. --Hannah W.<br />
<br />
'''''It was stated that in the introduction to these interviews that some writer/interviewers chose to transcribe into dialect, and some converted the language to a more "proper" grammatical structure. I have mixed feelings about this. Although it may ostensibly be more loyal to the original speaker, dialect readings certainly do create an image for the reader of the interviewee, which may be prejudicial. On the other hand, would Rose Williams have spoken in textbook English? Of course not. Any thoughts? Also, she continually refers to herself as "this n---," instead of "this woman," or even "I" or "myself." This habit reinforced for me the primacy of racial identity, over gender, class, etc'''''. --Stef L.<br />
<br />
This was a really touching account and accounts by slaves themselves were very rare. I was surprised at how much money she was worth and by the fact that Mr. Hawkins bought both parents with her. I was also surprised at her tone, she was simply telling a story rather than taking every opportunity to complain. I guess compared to her first master, Mr. Hawkins was a slave’s dream in some cases. Reading a first hand account of what was so common a thing makes what we learned in class much more real and sad… -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
This story was truly sad to read. I can't imagine living the life a slave did, being forced into doing things they didn't want to do and having to accept it because that was considered the norm. Poor Rose was so excited and thought her "Massa" was doing her a favor when he bought her whole family;however, his underlying motive for purchasing her was purely economic. He saw her has the ideal way to make more money by having her produce more slaves. How could these white masters truly not care about their slaves at all? I couldn't imagine being forced into having a child with someone I didn't love, just to face the possibility that my child may get sold to another slave owner, or that I could be sold to someone else once I got older and wasn't able to produce anymore children. Every person deserves to be happy or at the very least have a chance at happiness- for Rose, she never had that opportunity. After she was freed she never wanted to get married or be in a relationship with any man, which shows how much of an emotional and psychological toll her master's organized rape and childbirth played on her. --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Lucinda, a free woman, requests reenslavement, 1813 ==<br />
<br />
'''How sad was this document???!!! A woman receiving her freedom and because she wanted to remain with her husband she asked to be reenslaved with her husband's master! It really makes you think of how detached these slave owners were to the human emotions of their slaves.''' --Remy B.<br />
<br />
This just shows the bonds that some slave families had. He or she had been sold away from each other and even though she could have made a life for herself in the North she wanted to be with her husband. I think that while this document is sad because it shows how slave families were broken up over plantations it also shows how much love these lave families were able to develop. –Kayle P.<br />
<br />
== Connecticut woman asks other free black women to sign anti-slavery petitions, 1839 ==<br />
<br />
I am confused as to why she was so adamant and trying to guilt trip them into signing the petitions. '''What good would an anti-slavery petition do?''' It would make people aware of how many people were against slavery, but it's not like it would stop it from happening. --Ashley V<br />
<br />
== Mary Still, black abolitionist, along with other Philadelphia free women, forms “Female Publication Society” to promote the moral uplift of free and slave African Americans, 1861 ==<br />
<br />
I find it interesting that Still follows the narrative of slaves being wicked and ignorant - isn't that what the masters said to justify slavery? (And explain mistakes made by slaves.) I can't really tell how she thinks that the moral state of slaves and the institution of slavery are linked. Would slaves (or even many free blacks) have access to a publication like the Christian Recorder anyway? --Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Mrs. Virginia Hayes Shepherd’s memories, 1937 ==<br />
<br />
I thought that this was very interesting. It showed the different between two different slaves experiences told from the perspective of one. It allows the reader to gain an understanding of what the slaves saw rather than being told what they went through. I thought that it was interesting point of view. –Kayle P.<br />
<br />
It is interesting to get a perspective of a white child of a black woman. Much like Rose Williams, she doesn’t seem to complain about her situation, even she talks about her friend Diana who gets raped by the master. It is just the way life was, and why complain when their situation, like Rose’s, was so good they were considered free by slaves on other plantations. -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
== Thelma Jennings, “Sexual Exploitation of African American Slave Women,” 1990 ==<br />
<br />
'''There were so many disturbing things in this article that it's hard to know where to start.''' I guess one thing I found particularly striking was the general ignorance about health - it's okay to beat a pregnant woman as long as you dig a hole for her stomach first? Did they really think that did anything at all to protect the fetus? I was also really surprised by the frequent use of the word "breeders." Was that how slave women would have referred to themselves, or how whites would have referred to them, or was that a later term? -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
Thelma Jenning's article really had me thinking about how often an occurrence Master and Slave produced children were. I automatically thought about Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemming's and the result of their children (never sold and easily escaped). I never realized, however, the issue that was slave breeding. It makes (unfortunate) sense that it occurred because of the economics behind it, but even though this practice was not reportedly common, I wonder how often it really occurred. I also wonder when this practice was actually started, did it come out of the line of thought which included livestock breeding? Or was eugenics really being put into practice?-- Heather T.<br />
<br />
'''This article was disturbing on so many levels. I understand they were telling it like it was, but there is total disregard for a human life. ''' The talk about these slaves like they were livestock, "cow & bull". To breed these slaves was for economic reasons, was money so important back then or were you judged by how many slaves you had? or both? If the white men didn't want to claim their mulatto children then they should have refrained from having sexual relations with these slaves. What did these men think was going to happen if they did have relations with these slaves? or did they even care? Profit was the main goal.--Pam P.<br />
<br />
== "A Reply to Harriet Beecher Stowe" Louisa S. Cheeves McCord, 1853 ==<br />
<br />
'''I thought this document was enlightening and so interesting. True, she was writing things that by today's standards are offensive and politically incorrect, but this is what primary sources offer to us, someone who isn't ashamed to admit their beliefs. I want to offer a quote from the reading "To Conclude. We have undertaken the defence of slavery in no temporizing vein. We do NOT say it is a necessary evil. We do NOT allow that it is a temporary make-shift to choke the course of Providence for man's convenience. It is NOT 'a sorrow and a wrong to be lived down.' We proclaim it, on the contrary, a Godlike dispensation, a providential caring for the weak, and a refuge for the portionless." (page 219).''' Understanding this statement helps one understand the entire patriarchal society. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed Louisa McCords writing, she posed some very good points in comparison to what Ms. Stowe had written in ''Uncle Tom's Cabin''. Such as the fact that Ms. Stowe had never lived in the heart of the South, or that while Mrs. Shelby was suppose to be a strong intelligent woman she was portrayed as almost weak. While Ms. McCord made some very well argued points the one I could never agree with is that the black man is intellectually inferior to the white man. "Mrs. Stowe, in spite of experience, in spite of science, determines that the negro is intellectually the white man's equal." There is not science stating that they are unequal and how can she say that Mrs. Stowe has never experienced the intelligence of a black man? Just because she lived in the north doesn't mean she never came in contact with them. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
'''The sarcastic tone of this writing really drove me nuts.''' I realize that comes from a modern perspective, but McCord's alleged appeals to "science" and "common sense", meant to prove that slaves are obviously better off in slavery are just that much more infuriating because of the superior tone she uses. The other thing, more intellectually interesting than annoying, is that her critique of the fictional Mrs. Shelby is very gendered. She excuses Mr. Shelby's actions on the grounds that he is clearly hen-pecked and his crazy abolitionist wife has just driven him nuts. I have never read Uncle Tom's Cabin, but I wonder what the context for this passage really is- I highly doubt that McCord is an unbiased commentator. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
Going off of what Rebecca wrote, I also was struck by the sarcasm and snide remarks made by L.S.M. It was frustrating to read of how slavery was a HELPFUL institution to the slave race, who were a "blot upon creation" (220). The idea that slavery was an institution motivated by white benevolence is infuriating to read, especially after reading Angelina Weld's account of a cruel slave-owning mistress. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
'''I had an incredibly hard time not skipping the tail end of this article, or, better, ripping it out.''' The idea that human beings could be viewed as "the homeless, useless negro...[who is] a blot upon creation...[and] a wild man" is deeply disturbing to me. Of course we've studied the institution of slavery itself, and how slaves were viewed in order to enable that institution, but the sarcasm dripping from this article, coupled with the casual nature with which McCord dismisses an entire race of people as a "blot upon creation," was a deeper level of acidity and hatred than I'd really seen before. McCord does not view slavery as a necessary evil, or an evil of any kind; she views it almost, it seems, as a kindness to slaves that just happens to be enormously profitable to white slaveowners. Sara makes an excellent point--that this has to be contextualized in the time period in which it was written--but even then, the fact that McCord denies that it's a necessary evil shows that at the very least, she had some sense of why Stowe wrote what she did, and what Stowe had meant to convey. I truly find it difficult to imagine that she was simply a product of her society, despite what Sara said; it seems to me that her hatred of slaves and championing of slavery hints at perhaps an unusually slavery-positive upbringing; it surprises me that, given her time in the North, she wasn't at least somewhat more neutral... -- Nicole<br />
<br />
I agree with Nicole. I was really upset that she had the nerve to justify slavery and every bad thing that goes with it. When she says "Slavery, even in his own land, is his destiny and his refuge from extinction." I wanted to yell at her, are you so self important that you think that there are humans (black or white) who are beneath you? I think the answer is "yes!" This was their train of thought during this time frame though, and it almost seems like they may have thought they were wrong but they still bought, sold, beat and made the slaves feel inferior. I also fell that God was used as a way to say, hey what we are doing is God's will. They hid behind their religion, like in the document ''The Cruel Mistress''. -- Pam P.<br />
<br />
== Angelina Grimke Weld ''The Cruel Mistress'' -- 1839 ==<br />
<br />
'''''Who is Weld and why is she writing?'''''<br />
<br />
''In''' this source we hear the horrid stories of slavery. However, it is different because it does not focus on the oppressive white male but on the mistress. It is interesting to see the fault in white women.''''' Also, it is interesting that Weld pushes on the physically abuse. She has to argue that most slave owners act like this cruel mistress. Even though she hints at slaves with souls, she focuses on the physically abuse. Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I think it is important that Angelina Grimke Weld continually emphasizes the the cruel mistress in question is "at the head of the fashionable elite city of Charleston" and more importantly "at the head of the moral and religious female society there." It is astounding that someone who claims to be of moral and pious authority can be so abusive and uncaring. However, the violence against the slaves is justified by slaveholders because slaves are viewed as property and not actual human beings. -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
Going off of what Clare wrote I have to point at that even Grimke ackonledges the belief that "God in his providence had set over them--it was their DUTY to abide in abject submission, and hers to COMPEL them to do so--IT WAS THUS THAT SHE REASONED" (page 216. the Capitalization is in place of italics). This wasn't about cruelty to the woman mistresses, rather a belief that the slave was not a human being (mentioned at the end of the document). i also have to wonder to what extent the women mistresses were so violent and cruel had to do with an inadvert expression of their distaste for their own oppression. The slaves offerred them power so they took full advantage of it. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
While reading this entry I couldn't help but doubt that humans could ever be this cruel. That Angelina Grimke Weld must be exaggerating the cruelness of slave owners, particularly because she is against the whole idea. But when you think about it, the evidence of the cruelty humans are capable of is all around us. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
Hypocrisy abounds in Weld's description of a slave-owning mistress and how she treats her slaves yet maintains her role as a religious woman in the Charleston community. The justification that it was a slave's "duty to abide in abject submission" is another reflection of the cruel slave society. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
I totally agree with Ellen's idea of hypocrisy dominating the contents of this reading. When the passage talks about how "for many years, one or other, and often more of her slaves were flogged every day," one has to question how Weld was able to continue to believe "herself a paragon of religious piety." Even though Weld clearly sees her slaves as "belongings," it still amazes me that she was able to perpetrate these beatings and other cruelties on a regular basis and still she herself as the very definition of a good christian woman. --Grace C.<br />
<br />
We always mention the reasoning behind slavery and how Christianity "supported" it. But even with a different mentality from now and back in the time of Angelina Gimke Weld (1839), how could one explain that the same place for prayer and worship, was the same place for punishment (an inhumane and cruel punishment at that). I found it so mind boggling that she "order brothers to whip their own sisters and sisters their own brother, and yet no woman visited among the poor more than she did, or gave more liberally to relieve their wants." (216) I understand slavery was acceptable, but this torture and punishment is almost inexplicable. -Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
In reading this source the part that struck me the most was when Weld said, in regards to this woman's cruel behavior that, " no disgrace among the slaveholders and did not in the least injure her standing, either as a lady or a christian, in the aristocratic circle in which she moved." It appears that Weld sees that christianity has been tainted by southern views to accommodate the treatment of slaveowners onto their slaves. Could it be assumed that a part of Weld's reaction to the South can be derived from Southerners skewing the ideals of christianity to fit their slave driven lifestyle? For people like this cruel woman she discusses not only inhumanly treat their slaves but devalue a religion that is so important to those in the north. -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
'''I think the most disturbing part of this article was when Weld was describing the mistress as a "Christian." Using the room she prayed in as "the very place in which, when her slaves were to be whipped with the cowhide, they were taken to receive the infliction."''' The behavior of this woman was absolutely disgusting. How she could carry herself throughout town as a "lady" and treat her slaves in the way she did, it seems unbelievable that this was ignored. We think in our current society if this treatment was going on that we might step in and help whoever was getting abused. Such a sad part of our history. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
'''This was a difficult reading for me, because it has so many layers. First, my 21st century moral superiority and emotional reactions, which have to be disregarded. Second, Grimke Weld's motives for writing. I assumed that the story of the Cruel Mistress was an exaggerated composite story. I have tried to remember that there was a spectrum of attitudes and habits for slave mistresses, and it suits Weld's purpose to identify the most evil person she can as the norm.''' --Stef L.<br />
<br />
I wonder how common it was for Southerners to be abolitionists and see the slaves as human beings. I know it wasn’t common, per se, but how few or how many actually felt for the slaves? The fact that the woman described in this account is highly respected was disturbing to me, in class I remember talking about how slave holders how treated their slaves so badly were ostracized. Was this not the case for female slave holders. It seems that she would treat her slaves poorly in public and no one took notice of it. -- Emma C.</div>Lsmith0805https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_9_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 9 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-28T05:29:34Z<p>Lsmith0805: /* Petitions of the Cherokee Women’s Council on Removal, 1817, 1818 */</p>
<hr />
<div>FOR THIS WEEK POST TWO QUESTIONS BY THURSDAY AND CHECK BACK TO RESPOND TO TWO QUESTIONS BY SATURDAY.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== General Questions ==<br />
<br />
I was surprised (although I shouldn't really have been) at the number of these documents which refer to religion as important to their daily lives: from the lowell girls' rules enforcing religious practice to the teachers in the American west to the women on the gold mines everyone was obsessed with the sanctity of their own religion and the lack of religion in their society. Were these women simply becoming teachers to help those less fortunate than them or were they really seeking an attempt at missionary work of people they truly believed to be spiritually beneath them. Although the outcome of their work would still be the same, it would be important to know the background for which their work was done for it would tell more about the woman doing the work. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
In "A Spirit of Protest" (which I didn't see a heading for, for whatever reason that may be), the "Lowell Factory Girl" protests against capitalism and fights for labor rights. Mid-eighteenth century American society does not come off to me as an extremely capitalist society (compared with modern USA). How much did capitalism affect the lives of Americans in this time period. And was this a common viewpoint on the economy of the day? --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “Matrimonial Risks,” 1815 ==<br />
<br />
Willard is concerned with the happiness of marriage. She warns her sister not to get her hopes up, when it comes to her suitor Mr. L because he might be disappointing. I wonder if this is a change to "companionate marriages." Willard sees or wants marriage to be happy, but realizes that marriage could be miserable. Since Willard knows that men can fail at companionate marriages, does that mean the idea of marriage changing? Do women feel they have a choice? --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
In Answer to your question, I do think women feel that they have more a choice in marriage than the previous generations. According to class and the readings, the romantic notions are beginning to come out and women are looking for Men to fulfill that ideal companionate role in a marriage, women would hold off if they felt like they did not find the right partner. Marriage was still valued and more than desired by most women at this time, but they were definitely getting pickier about who they wanted to marry. --Heather T.<br />
<br />
In "Matrimonial Risks," Willard seems to be attempting to warn her sister off of all marriages and all relationships; the advice she gives is so generalized against marriage that it almost seems that she must have been unhappy in her marriage. I started reading this expecting, based on the editors' introduction, for Willard to be essentially warning her sister off of Lincoln. On the contrary, it almost seems that Willard is trying to warn her sister off of any and all marriage. Intriguingly, she then tells her sister she'd love to see Lincoln and visit with him. I got such mixed signals from this letter that I'm really wondering whether Willard disliked Lincoln (if so, why say she'd like to see him?) or the idea of her sister getting married at all (and if that, why? Most women wound up married!) -- Nicole<br />
<br />
This reading was quite depressing how she wrote about how she should question her happiness. This shows how unhappy Emma was herself. I wonder how common this was among most women? --Emma<br />
<br />
Emma Willard was forthright in giving advice to her younger sister Almira in regards to the decision of marriage and finding the proper suitor. In the letter she wrote to Almira, she stated “. . .and we will likewise pass over the possibility of your lover’s seeing some object that he will consider more interesting than you, and likewise that you may hereafter discover some imperfection in his character. We will pass this over, and suppose that the sanction of the law has been passed upon your connection, and you are secured to each other for life” (144). It seems as though Emma is trying to think of every situation that could go wrong in a relationship, and she is attempting to discourage her younger sister for marrying for any reason, including for love or for money. Why was the idea of marriage for love considered such a risk? In today’s society, love is considered the fortifying reason for a couple to enter into matrimony together. Could it be possible that Emma was merely jealous of her younger sister because she had found a wealthy suitor that wanted to marry her, whereas Emma was once happily married and living comfortably until her husband’s finances collapsed? Emma is clearly unhappy in her own life, and in reading this excerpt, I detected a bit of jealousy towards her sisters potential happiness and wealth. -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Caroline Gilman, “The Deferential Wife,” 1838 ==<br />
<br />
I liked in ''The Deferential Wife'' by Caroline Gilman the quote "Men are not often unreasonable; their difficulties lie in not understanding the moral and physcial structure of our sex. They often wound through ignorance and are surprised at having offended. How clear is it, then, that woman loses by petulance and recrimination! Her first study must be self-control, almost to hypocrisy. A good wife must smile amid a thousand perplexities, and clear her voice to tones of cheerfulness when her frames is drooping with disease, or else languish alone. Man on the contrary, when trials beset him, expects to find her ear and heart a ready receptacle." (page 147) Basically this is the formation of the idea that woman is reponsible for the morality and self-control of the man. It is from this ideologue (which did develop concurrently with Republican Motherhood) that the arguments today about the dress and style of women are based upon. It is interesting to see it in its' original context in The Deferential Wife. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
The Deferential Wife was an interesting piece. A woman that wanted to carter to the audience of women is an interesting concept. This would play into the idea of republican motherhood and that women would want to be more educated. That being said, if the idea of educating women were important, why don’t we see more papers and magazines geared toward the women that are staying on the plantations and raising the children? –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Catharine Beecher, “System and Order,” 1841 ==<br />
<br />
Beecher's believes that motherhood/domesticity is the greatest occupation for humanity. She believes that it will create a heaven on earth or a perfect society. This statement brings a true meaning to motherhood and housework. People are happier when they have meaning to their lives. Her belief gives women so much more to live for (not saying it is right or wrong). However, with all ideals, her advice must have stressed most women in case they failed. --- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
In Beecher's "System and Order," she states that "The formation of the moral and intellectual character of the young is committed mainly to the female hand....The proper education of a man decides the welfare of an individual; but educate a woman, and the interests of a whole family are secured." This quote reminded me of "if you teach a man to fish..." because Beecher is saying only one person benefits from the education of a man (the man). However, a woman is responsible for the education of her children as well as a role model of morals for both her children and husband. Therefore, if you educate a woman, everyone in the family will profit. This idea combines the early idea of republican motherhood, in which the mother is the prime educator and moral guide, but combines with emerging middle class ideals in which the woman is the head of the domestic sphere. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Beecher asserts that "another important item is the apportioning of regular employment to the various members of the family....There is no greater mistake, than in bringing up children to feel that they must be taken care of, and waited on, by others, without any corresponding obligations on their part." I found this interesting because middle class families did not need children to work at the family business (as had been so many years previously, on farms for example) and therefore the mother had more time to focus on her children and the home. I am surprised to find Beecher encouraging mothers to "employ" their children around the house, when I had assumed children did not do any work in their families. Perhaps the change was that children did not need to do actual hard labor anymore, but were still expected to help around the house, as Beecher suggests. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Beecher lists a series of chores that housewives must accomplish on each day of the week. She states, "''Monday'', with some of the best housekeepers, is devoted to preparing for the labors of the week...''Tuesday'' is devoted to washing, and ''Wednesday'' to ironing. On ''Thursday'', the ironing is finished off, the clothes folded and put away, and all articles which need mending put in the mending basket, and attended to. ''Friday'' is devoted to sweeping and housecleaning. On ''Saturday''...every department is put in order...and everything about the house put in order for ''Sunday''." Such a strict daily schedule may explain why women became so bored and lonely. Their husbands could go out of the house and do business, meet with other people, or attend to different aspects of business at different times of the year. Women, on the other hand, were expected to accomplish the same tasks on the same day no matter the month or week. Do you think this could explain why women, such as Caroline Gilman, discuss the idea of women missing their husbands? Also, do you think that this weekly schedule that Beecher suggests was necessary in maintaining a household? Why or why not? -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
The two things that interested me the most in Catharine Beecher's "System and Order" was here description of how to manage work within the week and the mode of "systematizing, [relating] to providing proper supplies of conveniences." The details for arranging a week seem quite logical and in fact are similar to actually accounts I have read that follow a similar outline. It does not seem That Catharine's ideas on this front could have been that new. As for the arranging items in particular places, did women really have the extra rooms just for doing laundry? And why, for the trunks full of extra supplies, were they kept locked? --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
In response to Jennifer S, I think that Beecher asserts that women should have extra rooms solely for laundry so as to make the household even more organized. Her whole document is called "System and Order," so to do laundry in any other place in the home besides the room devoted specifically to it would disrupt the order and cleanliness of the household. Also, perhaps the trunks full of extra supplies were kept locked so that children could not get into them and disrupt the order the wife had put them in. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
== Catharine Sedgwick, “First to None,” 1828 ==<br />
<br />
From our readings we can guess that the main goal in life (for most not all) women was to get married and make babies. But as with the case of Catharine Sedgwick she claims that her "perfectionist" vision of what she wants is the reason that she has stayed single. I feel that this may have been a common theme with others who did not marry but we just don't know about it because unlike her they probably didn't write about it. Does anyone else get the sense that she is completely miserable not being married but wants to put on a brave face in front of everyone around her? --Remy B.<br />
<br />
Remy, yes I also felt that she was pretty unhappy. The last line of the essay stood out to me, "I do hope...to order my house for that better world where self may lose something of its engrossing power." This read to me, "things will be better when I'm dead." Pretty sad. A certain amount of risk accompanies any choice. If women have more freedom to choose their marital partners, they also have to accept the consequences of their decisions. In Sedgwick's case, she rejected a few suitors because they didn't meet her expectations. Because she only has herself to blame (instead of blaming her parents or society, or just accepting an unpleasant marriage without question, as would have happened in the past), it seems like it makes her loneliness more painful. --Stef L.<br />
<br />
Like Emma, Catherine seems unhappy about her life, only she is not married. It was interesting to see how women felt about their decision to not marry. Once again, I wonder how common this unhappiness is. Is it more common to be unhappy as an unmarried woman or a married woman? -- Emma<br />
<br />
In responnse to Emma I feel as though the women writing are pretty bold to be expressing their unhappiness at all. After all, it is rather unlady like to complain about the situation these women were in, and the ones who were writing were obviously educated. It is more common for women even today, regardless of marital status, with educations to be more discontent with societies impositions upon them. I think the fact of marriage or not is irrelevant because both types of women were unhappy. --Sara<br />
<br />
== Sarah Connell Ayer, “The Widowed State,” 1832-33 ==<br />
<br />
It is evident that Sarah Connell Ayer's life consisted of a continual pattern of death surrounding her. Ayer clings to the Lord in these times of trial and demonstrates a remarkable trust, at least in her diary entries. How did death affect Ayer's view of God and influence the role of religion in her life? --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== Eliza Ann Mulford, “Rules of the School,” 1814 ==<br />
<br />
I wonder how the girls felt about these rules. Were they sincerely considering their excuses for skipping church in light of what they'd tell God at judgement day? Did they consider whether they wanted to read a novel or have a casual conversation in light of whether they were properly using God's time? I want to know what these rules say about the young women they applied to. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
What stands out about this reading is the fact that the rules designed by the schools constrained every aspect of the girls live all to meet the standards of the ideal middle class woman. It appears that the school was not only there to educate it students but transform them into the moral authority that women were expected to be. Also playing into the image of an a partnership within a marriage, by creating a wife who was not only equal in education but a example to be followed in moral behavior. Like Kate, I wonder what the students thought of these rules, did they see them as necessary for the life they wanted to live or excessive? --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
Eliza Ann Mulford's account of the rules that existed at this school reflected the close watch these girls were kept under. Like Kate and Rachel have pointed out, I wonder if these girls felt oppressed by these rules or whether they truly felt like these rules were necessary to achieve the status of a respectable woman? --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “A Rationale for Female Education,” 1819 ==<br />
What I found interesting in Emma Willard's piece was that it was a seminary for girls. What church/denomination was she a part of? And when did women become more involved in religion in the United States? The major difference between this document and the source before it is that it encourages morality and intellect, while it seemed that Eliza Ann Mulford's promoted piety only. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
In an answer to your questions, I think that women started becoming more involved with religion in the United States when the ideals of Republican Motherhood came about. Religion was a great source for social morality for these people and since women were taking the moral roles in society, they would want to turn to the church to show both their children and their community that they were upholding moral beliefs.-- Heather T.<br />
<br />
== Miss Burnham’s Report, “A Choctaw Mission School,” 1824 ==<br />
<br />
I found this reading very interesting. Very young girls were forced to leave their families, and wear European clothing, speak English, and learn the bible. I assume some girls even starved to death because the food was so different than what they were used to. My question is, after returning home from this school, how had the girls' relationships with their native people and families changed? --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
In response to Catherine I think that the relationship between the teachers and the individual natives' relationship would be a strong one, but overall, they would still view "Natives" as savage and ungodly. All of the teachers' documents we read mention the godlessness, lack of churches, lack of interest in pursuing the religion by the natives or lack of honoring of the Sabbath. This means that even if they felt better about the individual girls they taught, they probably felt as though they "saved" them. Not respected them --Sara S.<br />
<br />
This passage was indeed interesting. One section that I found especially interesting was the one about the family who walked 55 miles to bring the girls to the school and then walked them 55 miles back when they heard a rumor about the missionaries taking land. THEN they took them 55 miles back to the school because the girls were unhappy at home. Once sent home, I question whether or not the girls from the schools were bullied or even excommunicated for their new way of life. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Letters from Teachers, “Reports on Western Schools,” 1847 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
These letters are really pitiful, and it's amazing to me that we have a public school system at all, considering its origins. One thing that really stands out to me is the sense of moral duty/religious obligation that keeps these teachers working, even though (much of the time) they weren't being paid. Is this a continuation of the ideals (and responsibilities) of republican motherhood, that women are responsible for the moral uplift of the entire nation? --Stef L.<br />
<br />
I found these letters to be quite interesting. First, the fact that these new teachers were so concerned about the religion and morals of the people in the community. Religion seemed to be one of the biggest concerns of these new teachers. Why was that? Second, it was interesting to see the these two very different experiences. The first teacher seemed to have some real problems with the community excepting her. It almost seemed as if they though education was silly, possibly because they were more concerned about the success of their farms, of surviving, instead of reading and writing. Where as the second teacher seemed to have real success in her bringing her community together. I am quite amazed by what she was able to accomplish.It would be interesting to know exactly where these women went to do this teaching. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
Chatharine Beecher sounded like an inspirational woman. She truly cared about education. One thing I did find weird was her promotion of teaching as a woman's profession. What if a man were to teach and step forward and ask for her help. Was a male teacher completely unheard of? Would she deny him? -- Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Rules of the Mill from Lowell and Lancaster, 1820-1840 ==<br />
How extensive rules for living in a mill community seem to be very personally invasive for a job. The rules that were applied to the boarders seems equivalent to life under a male figurehead through parental controls or marriage. Mandating when the workers had to be in bed to forcing their attendance in church molded these women into the ideals of the mill managers as well as into the evolving perception of female work roles. What I found to be the most interesting point was that it was more socially acceptable for women to be single longer and have jobs of their own yet it appears that the women who worked in the mill only fell back into patriarchal relationships that these new forms of female freedom seem to oppose. Could it be that women were so eager to embrace the world of employment and financial independence that they were willing to fit into the mold instilled by the mill? Or could it had been from the women workers being attracted into a world that was very familiar to them? -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Harriet Farley, “A Letter from Lowell,” 1844 ==<br />
<br />
I wonder how accurately this reflects mill life? It was published in a mill journal, which would have an interest in showing the best side of the mill, but it isn't a completely rosy picture. I thought it was particularly interesting to see a story of a woman off on her own, making her own income, in a way that I don't think we've seen as often before - do you think 'Susan's' story reflects how young women felt about living as single women? --Katie C.<br />
<br />
This letter struck me as being so propagandized, I would not have been surprised if it turned out that it had been written by an overseer. The small complaints ("these rooms are kept very warm, and are disagreeably scented"..."it makes my feet ache and swell") serve to give the letter an air of respectability, and make it seem like a legitimate letter, but the emphasis on the positive and lack of emphasis on negative aspects (If my feet were painful and swelling, I'd factor it much more into my overall sense of happiness!) makes the letter seem utterly false--which of course it is. I can't help but wonder whether Harriet and her compatriots truly felt this was an accurate representation of their lives? -- Nicole<br />
<br />
== The Voice of Industry, “A Spirit of Protest,” 1846 ==<br />
<br />
The movement which is the subject of this article was conducted entirely or almost entirely by women, who recognized a "sisterhood" of workers. How might the tactics used by movement leaders have been influenced by the gender roles of their day? Might they have faced any particular difficulties in negotiating with male management? --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== Amelia Stewart Knight, “Crossing the Plains,” 1853 ==<br />
<br />
I found this to be very interesting. I had never heard much about the wagon trains, other than “They were going west for a better life.” This added a different element to the train and gave me a whole different perspective. Everyone knows that the wagon train was difficult but when you are reading someone else’s words and to read what they struggled with, it gives the information a new dimension. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
While I was reading Crossing the Plains by Knight, I did not notice anything out of the ordinary. They were on the way to Oregon and made their way through so many difficult things. This includes cold temperatures, hot sun, and many bothersome bugs. To my surprise, at the end of this journal the reader finds out that everything that Knight went through, she did it while she was with child. Can you imagine what she endured while traveling in this manner? I guess during this time even if you were uncomfortable you still had to do what was necessary to survive.--Pam P.<br />
<br />
In response to Pam P, I think that Knight endured the hardships of westward movement so that her child could have a better life. The introduction states that the migrations were "made by people who were neither extremely rich nor extremely poor." Perhaps, since Knight would have been somewhere in the middle, a westward movement could have provided new opportunities for her child. --Clare O<br />
<br />
== Mary Ballou, “A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush,” 1852 ==<br />
<br />
QUESTION:<br />
In the October 21st entry, she tells her son Selden about the days she goes to church. She expresses that she goes whenever she can. However, it is interesting to see that she is the only lady. Why is she the only lady at these church sermons? She is in this work that calls for women with domestic skills, but she is the only one in church? Was she more religious? Did other women not have time? Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
When I read A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush by Mary Ballou, I almost feel bad for her and her situation. She takes it in stride though and while looking for gold she also is running a boarding house. She misses her children terribly and she was not the only one who was feeling this way. She spoke to a couple of different women who were also “homesick” and did not think that the gold rush was what everyone made it out to be. I would assume the reason why they cannot go back to where they came from is because they sold everything to go look for gold? Did her husband feel the same way? – Pam P.<br />
<br />
Reading "A Woman's View of the Gold Rush," I almost felt that Ballou was trying to cover up her sadness by discussing all that she was doing for the miners at the boarding house. It seemed that she was upholding that notion of keeping home as a refuge for her husband by doing all of that cooking! I wonder if her discussing her cooking in her letter was her way of keeping herself from badmouthing her poor situation to her son? --Heather T.<br />
<br />
== Petitions of the Cherokee Women’s Council on Removal, 1817, 1818 ==<br />
<br />
Throughout this reading, I was confused as to who "our father, the great president" was? The women address that they've done everything the "Father/president" has asked of them: become farmers, manufacture clothes, etc. Who is the father though? And if it really is the president, why do they call him father? --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
Hopefully in answering your question (or trying to at least, because it was a bit confusing to me as well) the Cherokee Nation was actually considered a sovereign nation, which also meant they had their own constitution and their own laws. The leader of their nation or tribe was a man named John Ross, who in fact was not 100% Cherokee, but he was considered the "Moses of the Cherokee Nation." He was a representative for the Cherokee people to the United States government and he would basically be considered their President (or father...I think). "There are some white men among us who have been raised in this country from their youth, are connected with us by marriage, and have considerable families, who are very active in encouraging the emigration of our nation" (201. John Ross would have been in this category, as he was white and married to a Cherokee woman. -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Winnemucca, “Life Among the Paiutes,” 1883 ==<br />
<br />
I think the most important thing I took away from this reading is how children of the Paiutes are taught to be good, and to love everybody. So when the white settlers first arrived, Sarah's grandfather, the chief, tried to make them feel welcome. However, later in her account, Sarah writes of how unhappy her people are. Mothers begin to fear getting pregnant, because they do not think they would be able to provide for their young. Religion plays a large role in this tribe, and war is not a favorable decision when two tribes are in conflict. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
Towards the end of this reading, Sara Winnemucca comments that "If women could go into your Congress I think justice would soon be done to the Indians." In what ways did her culture encourage this belief? What aspects of her own life supported these egalitarian views? My other question would be, are these views totally separate from the Euro-American belief that women were more spiritually and morally pure? --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== A Sioux Tale, “A Woman Kills Her Daughter” ==<br />
<br />
This has to be one of my favorite readings so far! I knew that Indians were great story tellers and that it was part of their traditions of keeping their history going but I've never heard a story like this. Was this type of story telling common? Was this to warn women of jealousy? --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I agree with Remy! This was a great story. I think it was amazing how when the son-in-law realized something was wrong, he continued to follow the rules and did not become disrespectful or say anything to her directly. The note at the bottom of the page explains that he must address her through his wife; even in a crazy situation like that, he still abides by this rule. --Aqsa Z.yy <br />
<br />
I loved all of the supernatural elements to this tale. I felt that it amplified the morals that the story was trying to convey (don't kill others for your own gain, especially family members). However, since this is technically a part of oral history, despite it being written down, I wonder how much of this story is the original tale? If there is more, which characters would have more of a presence?-- Heather T.<br />
<br />
I would have to agree also with Remy and Aqsa...this was definitely my favorite reading so far! My father's side of the family is actually all Sioux Native Americans and it is intersting to be able to read one of their stories. Typically, most native stories and legends were passed through oral tradition, and it is exciting to be able to read one of their stories. I wonder how old this story actually is, considering the fact that they are passed down over the years and they typically were never written. I would think that most of their stories and legends had some kind of moral value or lesson to be learned from it, and considering this, I wonder if this was a common occurence amongst the tribe. It is unfathomable to me to think that a girl's mother could actually be ruthless enough to commit the atrocites this woman did to her own daughter. It was a great story but it very much resembled a skit one would see on the Jerry Springer show in today's world. -- Lindsey S.</div>Lsmith0805https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_9_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 9 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-28T05:28:51Z<p>Lsmith0805: /* Petitions of the Cherokee Women’s Council on Removal, 1817, 1818 */</p>
<hr />
<div>FOR THIS WEEK POST TWO QUESTIONS BY THURSDAY AND CHECK BACK TO RESPOND TO TWO QUESTIONS BY SATURDAY.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== General Questions ==<br />
<br />
I was surprised (although I shouldn't really have been) at the number of these documents which refer to religion as important to their daily lives: from the lowell girls' rules enforcing religious practice to the teachers in the American west to the women on the gold mines everyone was obsessed with the sanctity of their own religion and the lack of religion in their society. Were these women simply becoming teachers to help those less fortunate than them or were they really seeking an attempt at missionary work of people they truly believed to be spiritually beneath them. Although the outcome of their work would still be the same, it would be important to know the background for which their work was done for it would tell more about the woman doing the work. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
In "A Spirit of Protest" (which I didn't see a heading for, for whatever reason that may be), the "Lowell Factory Girl" protests against capitalism and fights for labor rights. Mid-eighteenth century American society does not come off to me as an extremely capitalist society (compared with modern USA). How much did capitalism affect the lives of Americans in this time period. And was this a common viewpoint on the economy of the day? --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “Matrimonial Risks,” 1815 ==<br />
<br />
Willard is concerned with the happiness of marriage. She warns her sister not to get her hopes up, when it comes to her suitor Mr. L because he might be disappointing. I wonder if this is a change to "companionate marriages." Willard sees or wants marriage to be happy, but realizes that marriage could be miserable. Since Willard knows that men can fail at companionate marriages, does that mean the idea of marriage changing? Do women feel they have a choice? --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
In Answer to your question, I do think women feel that they have more a choice in marriage than the previous generations. According to class and the readings, the romantic notions are beginning to come out and women are looking for Men to fulfill that ideal companionate role in a marriage, women would hold off if they felt like they did not find the right partner. Marriage was still valued and more than desired by most women at this time, but they were definitely getting pickier about who they wanted to marry. --Heather T.<br />
<br />
In "Matrimonial Risks," Willard seems to be attempting to warn her sister off of all marriages and all relationships; the advice she gives is so generalized against marriage that it almost seems that she must have been unhappy in her marriage. I started reading this expecting, based on the editors' introduction, for Willard to be essentially warning her sister off of Lincoln. On the contrary, it almost seems that Willard is trying to warn her sister off of any and all marriage. Intriguingly, she then tells her sister she'd love to see Lincoln and visit with him. I got such mixed signals from this letter that I'm really wondering whether Willard disliked Lincoln (if so, why say she'd like to see him?) or the idea of her sister getting married at all (and if that, why? Most women wound up married!) -- Nicole<br />
<br />
This reading was quite depressing how she wrote about how she should question her happiness. This shows how unhappy Emma was herself. I wonder how common this was among most women? --Emma<br />
<br />
Emma Willard was forthright in giving advice to her younger sister Almira in regards to the decision of marriage and finding the proper suitor. In the letter she wrote to Almira, she stated “. . .and we will likewise pass over the possibility of your lover’s seeing some object that he will consider more interesting than you, and likewise that you may hereafter discover some imperfection in his character. We will pass this over, and suppose that the sanction of the law has been passed upon your connection, and you are secured to each other for life” (144). It seems as though Emma is trying to think of every situation that could go wrong in a relationship, and she is attempting to discourage her younger sister for marrying for any reason, including for love or for money. Why was the idea of marriage for love considered such a risk? In today’s society, love is considered the fortifying reason for a couple to enter into matrimony together. Could it be possible that Emma was merely jealous of her younger sister because she had found a wealthy suitor that wanted to marry her, whereas Emma was once happily married and living comfortably until her husband’s finances collapsed? Emma is clearly unhappy in her own life, and in reading this excerpt, I detected a bit of jealousy towards her sisters potential happiness and wealth. -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Caroline Gilman, “The Deferential Wife,” 1838 ==<br />
<br />
I liked in ''The Deferential Wife'' by Caroline Gilman the quote "Men are not often unreasonable; their difficulties lie in not understanding the moral and physcial structure of our sex. They often wound through ignorance and are surprised at having offended. How clear is it, then, that woman loses by petulance and recrimination! Her first study must be self-control, almost to hypocrisy. A good wife must smile amid a thousand perplexities, and clear her voice to tones of cheerfulness when her frames is drooping with disease, or else languish alone. Man on the contrary, when trials beset him, expects to find her ear and heart a ready receptacle." (page 147) Basically this is the formation of the idea that woman is reponsible for the morality and self-control of the man. It is from this ideologue (which did develop concurrently with Republican Motherhood) that the arguments today about the dress and style of women are based upon. It is interesting to see it in its' original context in The Deferential Wife. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
The Deferential Wife was an interesting piece. A woman that wanted to carter to the audience of women is an interesting concept. This would play into the idea of republican motherhood and that women would want to be more educated. That being said, if the idea of educating women were important, why don’t we see more papers and magazines geared toward the women that are staying on the plantations and raising the children? –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Catharine Beecher, “System and Order,” 1841 ==<br />
<br />
Beecher's believes that motherhood/domesticity is the greatest occupation for humanity. She believes that it will create a heaven on earth or a perfect society. This statement brings a true meaning to motherhood and housework. People are happier when they have meaning to their lives. Her belief gives women so much more to live for (not saying it is right or wrong). However, with all ideals, her advice must have stressed most women in case they failed. --- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
In Beecher's "System and Order," she states that "The formation of the moral and intellectual character of the young is committed mainly to the female hand....The proper education of a man decides the welfare of an individual; but educate a woman, and the interests of a whole family are secured." This quote reminded me of "if you teach a man to fish..." because Beecher is saying only one person benefits from the education of a man (the man). However, a woman is responsible for the education of her children as well as a role model of morals for both her children and husband. Therefore, if you educate a woman, everyone in the family will profit. This idea combines the early idea of republican motherhood, in which the mother is the prime educator and moral guide, but combines with emerging middle class ideals in which the woman is the head of the domestic sphere. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Beecher asserts that "another important item is the apportioning of regular employment to the various members of the family....There is no greater mistake, than in bringing up children to feel that they must be taken care of, and waited on, by others, without any corresponding obligations on their part." I found this interesting because middle class families did not need children to work at the family business (as had been so many years previously, on farms for example) and therefore the mother had more time to focus on her children and the home. I am surprised to find Beecher encouraging mothers to "employ" their children around the house, when I had assumed children did not do any work in their families. Perhaps the change was that children did not need to do actual hard labor anymore, but were still expected to help around the house, as Beecher suggests. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Beecher lists a series of chores that housewives must accomplish on each day of the week. She states, "''Monday'', with some of the best housekeepers, is devoted to preparing for the labors of the week...''Tuesday'' is devoted to washing, and ''Wednesday'' to ironing. On ''Thursday'', the ironing is finished off, the clothes folded and put away, and all articles which need mending put in the mending basket, and attended to. ''Friday'' is devoted to sweeping and housecleaning. On ''Saturday''...every department is put in order...and everything about the house put in order for ''Sunday''." Such a strict daily schedule may explain why women became so bored and lonely. Their husbands could go out of the house and do business, meet with other people, or attend to different aspects of business at different times of the year. Women, on the other hand, were expected to accomplish the same tasks on the same day no matter the month or week. Do you think this could explain why women, such as Caroline Gilman, discuss the idea of women missing their husbands? Also, do you think that this weekly schedule that Beecher suggests was necessary in maintaining a household? Why or why not? -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
The two things that interested me the most in Catharine Beecher's "System and Order" was here description of how to manage work within the week and the mode of "systematizing, [relating] to providing proper supplies of conveniences." The details for arranging a week seem quite logical and in fact are similar to actually accounts I have read that follow a similar outline. It does not seem That Catharine's ideas on this front could have been that new. As for the arranging items in particular places, did women really have the extra rooms just for doing laundry? And why, for the trunks full of extra supplies, were they kept locked? --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
In response to Jennifer S, I think that Beecher asserts that women should have extra rooms solely for laundry so as to make the household even more organized. Her whole document is called "System and Order," so to do laundry in any other place in the home besides the room devoted specifically to it would disrupt the order and cleanliness of the household. Also, perhaps the trunks full of extra supplies were kept locked so that children could not get into them and disrupt the order the wife had put them in. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
== Catharine Sedgwick, “First to None,” 1828 ==<br />
<br />
From our readings we can guess that the main goal in life (for most not all) women was to get married and make babies. But as with the case of Catharine Sedgwick she claims that her "perfectionist" vision of what she wants is the reason that she has stayed single. I feel that this may have been a common theme with others who did not marry but we just don't know about it because unlike her they probably didn't write about it. Does anyone else get the sense that she is completely miserable not being married but wants to put on a brave face in front of everyone around her? --Remy B.<br />
<br />
Remy, yes I also felt that she was pretty unhappy. The last line of the essay stood out to me, "I do hope...to order my house for that better world where self may lose something of its engrossing power." This read to me, "things will be better when I'm dead." Pretty sad. A certain amount of risk accompanies any choice. If women have more freedom to choose their marital partners, they also have to accept the consequences of their decisions. In Sedgwick's case, she rejected a few suitors because they didn't meet her expectations. Because she only has herself to blame (instead of blaming her parents or society, or just accepting an unpleasant marriage without question, as would have happened in the past), it seems like it makes her loneliness more painful. --Stef L.<br />
<br />
Like Emma, Catherine seems unhappy about her life, only she is not married. It was interesting to see how women felt about their decision to not marry. Once again, I wonder how common this unhappiness is. Is it more common to be unhappy as an unmarried woman or a married woman? -- Emma<br />
<br />
In responnse to Emma I feel as though the women writing are pretty bold to be expressing their unhappiness at all. After all, it is rather unlady like to complain about the situation these women were in, and the ones who were writing were obviously educated. It is more common for women even today, regardless of marital status, with educations to be more discontent with societies impositions upon them. I think the fact of marriage or not is irrelevant because both types of women were unhappy. --Sara<br />
<br />
== Sarah Connell Ayer, “The Widowed State,” 1832-33 ==<br />
<br />
It is evident that Sarah Connell Ayer's life consisted of a continual pattern of death surrounding her. Ayer clings to the Lord in these times of trial and demonstrates a remarkable trust, at least in her diary entries. How did death affect Ayer's view of God and influence the role of religion in her life? --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== Eliza Ann Mulford, “Rules of the School,” 1814 ==<br />
<br />
I wonder how the girls felt about these rules. Were they sincerely considering their excuses for skipping church in light of what they'd tell God at judgement day? Did they consider whether they wanted to read a novel or have a casual conversation in light of whether they were properly using God's time? I want to know what these rules say about the young women they applied to. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
What stands out about this reading is the fact that the rules designed by the schools constrained every aspect of the girls live all to meet the standards of the ideal middle class woman. It appears that the school was not only there to educate it students but transform them into the moral authority that women were expected to be. Also playing into the image of an a partnership within a marriage, by creating a wife who was not only equal in education but a example to be followed in moral behavior. Like Kate, I wonder what the students thought of these rules, did they see them as necessary for the life they wanted to live or excessive? --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
Eliza Ann Mulford's account of the rules that existed at this school reflected the close watch these girls were kept under. Like Kate and Rachel have pointed out, I wonder if these girls felt oppressed by these rules or whether they truly felt like these rules were necessary to achieve the status of a respectable woman? --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “A Rationale for Female Education,” 1819 ==<br />
What I found interesting in Emma Willard's piece was that it was a seminary for girls. What church/denomination was she a part of? And when did women become more involved in religion in the United States? The major difference between this document and the source before it is that it encourages morality and intellect, while it seemed that Eliza Ann Mulford's promoted piety only. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
In an answer to your questions, I think that women started becoming more involved with religion in the United States when the ideals of Republican Motherhood came about. Religion was a great source for social morality for these people and since women were taking the moral roles in society, they would want to turn to the church to show both their children and their community that they were upholding moral beliefs.-- Heather T.<br />
<br />
== Miss Burnham’s Report, “A Choctaw Mission School,” 1824 ==<br />
<br />
I found this reading very interesting. Very young girls were forced to leave their families, and wear European clothing, speak English, and learn the bible. I assume some girls even starved to death because the food was so different than what they were used to. My question is, after returning home from this school, how had the girls' relationships with their native people and families changed? --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
In response to Catherine I think that the relationship between the teachers and the individual natives' relationship would be a strong one, but overall, they would still view "Natives" as savage and ungodly. All of the teachers' documents we read mention the godlessness, lack of churches, lack of interest in pursuing the religion by the natives or lack of honoring of the Sabbath. This means that even if they felt better about the individual girls they taught, they probably felt as though they "saved" them. Not respected them --Sara S.<br />
<br />
This passage was indeed interesting. One section that I found especially interesting was the one about the family who walked 55 miles to bring the girls to the school and then walked them 55 miles back when they heard a rumor about the missionaries taking land. THEN they took them 55 miles back to the school because the girls were unhappy at home. Once sent home, I question whether or not the girls from the schools were bullied or even excommunicated for their new way of life. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Letters from Teachers, “Reports on Western Schools,” 1847 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
These letters are really pitiful, and it's amazing to me that we have a public school system at all, considering its origins. One thing that really stands out to me is the sense of moral duty/religious obligation that keeps these teachers working, even though (much of the time) they weren't being paid. Is this a continuation of the ideals (and responsibilities) of republican motherhood, that women are responsible for the moral uplift of the entire nation? --Stef L.<br />
<br />
I found these letters to be quite interesting. First, the fact that these new teachers were so concerned about the religion and morals of the people in the community. Religion seemed to be one of the biggest concerns of these new teachers. Why was that? Second, it was interesting to see the these two very different experiences. The first teacher seemed to have some real problems with the community excepting her. It almost seemed as if they though education was silly, possibly because they were more concerned about the success of their farms, of surviving, instead of reading and writing. Where as the second teacher seemed to have real success in her bringing her community together. I am quite amazed by what she was able to accomplish.It would be interesting to know exactly where these women went to do this teaching. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
Chatharine Beecher sounded like an inspirational woman. She truly cared about education. One thing I did find weird was her promotion of teaching as a woman's profession. What if a man were to teach and step forward and ask for her help. Was a male teacher completely unheard of? Would she deny him? -- Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Rules of the Mill from Lowell and Lancaster, 1820-1840 ==<br />
How extensive rules for living in a mill community seem to be very personally invasive for a job. The rules that were applied to the boarders seems equivalent to life under a male figurehead through parental controls or marriage. Mandating when the workers had to be in bed to forcing their attendance in church molded these women into the ideals of the mill managers as well as into the evolving perception of female work roles. What I found to be the most interesting point was that it was more socially acceptable for women to be single longer and have jobs of their own yet it appears that the women who worked in the mill only fell back into patriarchal relationships that these new forms of female freedom seem to oppose. Could it be that women were so eager to embrace the world of employment and financial independence that they were willing to fit into the mold instilled by the mill? Or could it had been from the women workers being attracted into a world that was very familiar to them? -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Harriet Farley, “A Letter from Lowell,” 1844 ==<br />
<br />
I wonder how accurately this reflects mill life? It was published in a mill journal, which would have an interest in showing the best side of the mill, but it isn't a completely rosy picture. I thought it was particularly interesting to see a story of a woman off on her own, making her own income, in a way that I don't think we've seen as often before - do you think 'Susan's' story reflects how young women felt about living as single women? --Katie C.<br />
<br />
This letter struck me as being so propagandized, I would not have been surprised if it turned out that it had been written by an overseer. The small complaints ("these rooms are kept very warm, and are disagreeably scented"..."it makes my feet ache and swell") serve to give the letter an air of respectability, and make it seem like a legitimate letter, but the emphasis on the positive and lack of emphasis on negative aspects (If my feet were painful and swelling, I'd factor it much more into my overall sense of happiness!) makes the letter seem utterly false--which of course it is. I can't help but wonder whether Harriet and her compatriots truly felt this was an accurate representation of their lives? -- Nicole<br />
<br />
== The Voice of Industry, “A Spirit of Protest,” 1846 ==<br />
<br />
The movement which is the subject of this article was conducted entirely or almost entirely by women, who recognized a "sisterhood" of workers. How might the tactics used by movement leaders have been influenced by the gender roles of their day? Might they have faced any particular difficulties in negotiating with male management? --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== Amelia Stewart Knight, “Crossing the Plains,” 1853 ==<br />
<br />
I found this to be very interesting. I had never heard much about the wagon trains, other than “They were going west for a better life.” This added a different element to the train and gave me a whole different perspective. Everyone knows that the wagon train was difficult but when you are reading someone else’s words and to read what they struggled with, it gives the information a new dimension. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
While I was reading Crossing the Plains by Knight, I did not notice anything out of the ordinary. They were on the way to Oregon and made their way through so many difficult things. This includes cold temperatures, hot sun, and many bothersome bugs. To my surprise, at the end of this journal the reader finds out that everything that Knight went through, she did it while she was with child. Can you imagine what she endured while traveling in this manner? I guess during this time even if you were uncomfortable you still had to do what was necessary to survive.--Pam P.<br />
<br />
In response to Pam P, I think that Knight endured the hardships of westward movement so that her child could have a better life. The introduction states that the migrations were "made by people who were neither extremely rich nor extremely poor." Perhaps, since Knight would have been somewhere in the middle, a westward movement could have provided new opportunities for her child. --Clare O<br />
<br />
== Mary Ballou, “A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush,” 1852 ==<br />
<br />
QUESTION:<br />
In the October 21st entry, she tells her son Selden about the days she goes to church. She expresses that she goes whenever she can. However, it is interesting to see that she is the only lady. Why is she the only lady at these church sermons? She is in this work that calls for women with domestic skills, but she is the only one in church? Was she more religious? Did other women not have time? Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
When I read A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush by Mary Ballou, I almost feel bad for her and her situation. She takes it in stride though and while looking for gold she also is running a boarding house. She misses her children terribly and she was not the only one who was feeling this way. She spoke to a couple of different women who were also “homesick” and did not think that the gold rush was what everyone made it out to be. I would assume the reason why they cannot go back to where they came from is because they sold everything to go look for gold? Did her husband feel the same way? – Pam P.<br />
<br />
Reading "A Woman's View of the Gold Rush," I almost felt that Ballou was trying to cover up her sadness by discussing all that she was doing for the miners at the boarding house. It seemed that she was upholding that notion of keeping home as a refuge for her husband by doing all of that cooking! I wonder if her discussing her cooking in her letter was her way of keeping herself from badmouthing her poor situation to her son? --Heather T.<br />
<br />
== Petitions of the Cherokee Women’s Council on Removal, 1817, 1818 ==<br />
<br />
Throughout this reading, I was confused as to who "our father, the great president" was? The women address that they've done everything the "Father/president" has asked of them: become farmers, manufacture clothes, etc. Who is the father though? And if it really is the president, why do they call him father? --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
Hopefully in answering your question (or trying to at least, because it was a bit confusing to me as well) the Cherokee Nation was actually considered a sovereign nation, which also meant they had their own constitution and their own laws. The leader of their nation or tribe was a man named John Ross, who in fact was not 100% Cherokee, but he was considered the "Moses of the Cherokee Nation." He was a representative for the Cherokee people to the United States government and he would basically be considered their President (or father...I think). "There are some white men among us who have been raised in this country from their youth, are connected with us by marriage, and have considerable families, who are very active in encouraging the emigration of our nation" (201. John Ross would have been in this category, as he was white and married to a Cherokee woman.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Winnemucca, “Life Among the Paiutes,” 1883 ==<br />
<br />
I think the most important thing I took away from this reading is how children of the Paiutes are taught to be good, and to love everybody. So when the white settlers first arrived, Sarah's grandfather, the chief, tried to make them feel welcome. However, later in her account, Sarah writes of how unhappy her people are. Mothers begin to fear getting pregnant, because they do not think they would be able to provide for their young. Religion plays a large role in this tribe, and war is not a favorable decision when two tribes are in conflict. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
Towards the end of this reading, Sara Winnemucca comments that "If women could go into your Congress I think justice would soon be done to the Indians." In what ways did her culture encourage this belief? What aspects of her own life supported these egalitarian views? My other question would be, are these views totally separate from the Euro-American belief that women were more spiritually and morally pure? --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== A Sioux Tale, “A Woman Kills Her Daughter” ==<br />
<br />
This has to be one of my favorite readings so far! I knew that Indians were great story tellers and that it was part of their traditions of keeping their history going but I've never heard a story like this. Was this type of story telling common? Was this to warn women of jealousy? --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I agree with Remy! This was a great story. I think it was amazing how when the son-in-law realized something was wrong, he continued to follow the rules and did not become disrespectful or say anything to her directly. The note at the bottom of the page explains that he must address her through his wife; even in a crazy situation like that, he still abides by this rule. --Aqsa Z.yy <br />
<br />
I loved all of the supernatural elements to this tale. I felt that it amplified the morals that the story was trying to convey (don't kill others for your own gain, especially family members). However, since this is technically a part of oral history, despite it being written down, I wonder how much of this story is the original tale? If there is more, which characters would have more of a presence?-- Heather T.<br />
<br />
I would have to agree also with Remy and Aqsa...this was definitely my favorite reading so far! My father's side of the family is actually all Sioux Native Americans and it is intersting to be able to read one of their stories. Typically, most native stories and legends were passed through oral tradition, and it is exciting to be able to read one of their stories. I wonder how old this story actually is, considering the fact that they are passed down over the years and they typically were never written. I would think that most of their stories and legends had some kind of moral value or lesson to be learned from it, and considering this, I wonder if this was a common occurence amongst the tribe. It is unfathomable to me to think that a girl's mother could actually be ruthless enough to commit the atrocites this woman did to her own daughter. It was a great story but it very much resembled a skit one would see on the Jerry Springer show in today's world. -- Lindsey S.</div>Lsmith0805https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_9_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 9 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-28T05:10:15Z<p>Lsmith0805: /* A Sioux Tale, “A Woman Kills Her Daughter” */</p>
<hr />
<div>FOR THIS WEEK POST TWO QUESTIONS BY THURSDAY AND CHECK BACK TO RESPOND TO TWO QUESTIONS BY SATURDAY.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== General Questions ==<br />
<br />
I was surprised (although I shouldn't really have been) at the number of these documents which refer to religion as important to their daily lives: from the lowell girls' rules enforcing religious practice to the teachers in the American west to the women on the gold mines everyone was obsessed with the sanctity of their own religion and the lack of religion in their society. Were these women simply becoming teachers to help those less fortunate than them or were they really seeking an attempt at missionary work of people they truly believed to be spiritually beneath them. Although the outcome of their work would still be the same, it would be important to know the background for which their work was done for it would tell more about the woman doing the work. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
In "A Spirit of Protest" (which I didn't see a heading for, for whatever reason that may be), the "Lowell Factory Girl" protests against capitalism and fights for labor rights. Mid-eighteenth century American society does not come off to me as an extremely capitalist society (compared with modern USA). How much did capitalism affect the lives of Americans in this time period. And was this a common viewpoint on the economy of the day? --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “Matrimonial Risks,” 1815 ==<br />
<br />
Willard is concerned with the happiness of marriage. She warns her sister not to get her hopes up, when it comes to her suitor Mr. L because he might be disappointing. I wonder if this is a change to "companionate marriages." Willard sees or wants marriage to be happy, but realizes that marriage could be miserable. Since Willard knows that men can fail at companionate marriages, does that mean the idea of marriage changing? Do women feel they have a choice? --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
In Answer to your question, I do think women feel that they have more a choice in marriage than the previous generations. According to class and the readings, the romantic notions are beginning to come out and women are looking for Men to fulfill that ideal companionate role in a marriage, women would hold off if they felt like they did not find the right partner. Marriage was still valued and more than desired by most women at this time, but they were definitely getting pickier about who they wanted to marry. --Heather T.<br />
<br />
In "Matrimonial Risks," Willard seems to be attempting to warn her sister off of all marriages and all relationships; the advice she gives is so generalized against marriage that it almost seems that she must have been unhappy in her marriage. I started reading this expecting, based on the editors' introduction, for Willard to be essentially warning her sister off of Lincoln. On the contrary, it almost seems that Willard is trying to warn her sister off of any and all marriage. Intriguingly, she then tells her sister she'd love to see Lincoln and visit with him. I got such mixed signals from this letter that I'm really wondering whether Willard disliked Lincoln (if so, why say she'd like to see him?) or the idea of her sister getting married at all (and if that, why? Most women wound up married!) -- Nicole<br />
<br />
This reading was quite depressing how she wrote about how she should question her happiness. This shows how unhappy Emma was herself. I wonder how common this was among most women? --Emma<br />
<br />
Emma Willard was forthright in giving advice to her younger sister Almira in regards to the decision of marriage and finding the proper suitor. In the letter she wrote to Almira, she stated “. . .and we will likewise pass over the possibility of your lover’s seeing some object that he will consider more interesting than you, and likewise that you may hereafter discover some imperfection in his character. We will pass this over, and suppose that the sanction of the law has been passed upon your connection, and you are secured to each other for life” (144). It seems as though Emma is trying to think of every situation that could go wrong in a relationship, and she is attempting to discourage her younger sister for marrying for any reason, including for love or for money. Why was the idea of marriage for love considered such a risk? In today’s society, love is considered the fortifying reason for a couple to enter into matrimony together. Could it be possible that Emma was merely jealous of her younger sister because she had found a wealthy suitor that wanted to marry her, whereas Emma was once happily married and living comfortably until her husband’s finances collapsed? Emma is clearly unhappy in her own life, and in reading this excerpt, I detected a bit of jealousy towards her sisters potential happiness and wealth. -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Caroline Gilman, “The Deferential Wife,” 1838 ==<br />
<br />
I liked in ''The Deferential Wife'' by Caroline Gilman the quote "Men are not often unreasonable; their difficulties lie in not understanding the moral and physcial structure of our sex. They often wound through ignorance and are surprised at having offended. How clear is it, then, that woman loses by petulance and recrimination! Her first study must be self-control, almost to hypocrisy. A good wife must smile amid a thousand perplexities, and clear her voice to tones of cheerfulness when her frames is drooping with disease, or else languish alone. Man on the contrary, when trials beset him, expects to find her ear and heart a ready receptacle." (page 147) Basically this is the formation of the idea that woman is reponsible for the morality and self-control of the man. It is from this ideologue (which did develop concurrently with Republican Motherhood) that the arguments today about the dress and style of women are based upon. It is interesting to see it in its' original context in The Deferential Wife. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
The Deferential Wife was an interesting piece. A woman that wanted to carter to the audience of women is an interesting concept. This would play into the idea of republican motherhood and that women would want to be more educated. That being said, if the idea of educating women were important, why don’t we see more papers and magazines geared toward the women that are staying on the plantations and raising the children? –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Catharine Beecher, “System and Order,” 1841 ==<br />
<br />
Beecher's believes that motherhood/domesticity is the greatest occupation for humanity. She believes that it will create a heaven on earth or a perfect society. This statement brings a true meaning to motherhood and housework. People are happier when they have meaning to their lives. Her belief gives women so much more to live for (not saying it is right or wrong). However, with all ideals, her advice must have stressed most women in case they failed. --- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
In Beecher's "System and Order," she states that "The formation of the moral and intellectual character of the young is committed mainly to the female hand....The proper education of a man decides the welfare of an individual; but educate a woman, and the interests of a whole family are secured." This quote reminded me of "if you teach a man to fish..." because Beecher is saying only one person benefits from the education of a man (the man). However, a woman is responsible for the education of her children as well as a role model of morals for both her children and husband. Therefore, if you educate a woman, everyone in the family will profit. This idea combines the early idea of republican motherhood, in which the mother is the prime educator and moral guide, but combines with emerging middle class ideals in which the woman is the head of the domestic sphere. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Beecher asserts that "another important item is the apportioning of regular employment to the various members of the family....There is no greater mistake, than in bringing up children to feel that they must be taken care of, and waited on, by others, without any corresponding obligations on their part." I found this interesting because middle class families did not need children to work at the family business (as had been so many years previously, on farms for example) and therefore the mother had more time to focus on her children and the home. I am surprised to find Beecher encouraging mothers to "employ" their children around the house, when I had assumed children did not do any work in their families. Perhaps the change was that children did not need to do actual hard labor anymore, but were still expected to help around the house, as Beecher suggests. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Beecher lists a series of chores that housewives must accomplish on each day of the week. She states, "''Monday'', with some of the best housekeepers, is devoted to preparing for the labors of the week...''Tuesday'' is devoted to washing, and ''Wednesday'' to ironing. On ''Thursday'', the ironing is finished off, the clothes folded and put away, and all articles which need mending put in the mending basket, and attended to. ''Friday'' is devoted to sweeping and housecleaning. On ''Saturday''...every department is put in order...and everything about the house put in order for ''Sunday''." Such a strict daily schedule may explain why women became so bored and lonely. Their husbands could go out of the house and do business, meet with other people, or attend to different aspects of business at different times of the year. Women, on the other hand, were expected to accomplish the same tasks on the same day no matter the month or week. Do you think this could explain why women, such as Caroline Gilman, discuss the idea of women missing their husbands? Also, do you think that this weekly schedule that Beecher suggests was necessary in maintaining a household? Why or why not? -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
The two things that interested me the most in Catharine Beecher's "System and Order" was here description of how to manage work within the week and the mode of "systematizing, [relating] to providing proper supplies of conveniences." The details for arranging a week seem quite logical and in fact are similar to actually accounts I have read that follow a similar outline. It does not seem That Catharine's ideas on this front could have been that new. As for the arranging items in particular places, did women really have the extra rooms just for doing laundry? And why, for the trunks full of extra supplies, were they kept locked? --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
In response to Jennifer S, I think that Beecher asserts that women should have extra rooms solely for laundry so as to make the household even more organized. Her whole document is called "System and Order," so to do laundry in any other place in the home besides the room devoted specifically to it would disrupt the order and cleanliness of the household. Also, perhaps the trunks full of extra supplies were kept locked so that children could not get into them and disrupt the order the wife had put them in. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
== Catharine Sedgwick, “First to None,” 1828 ==<br />
<br />
From our readings we can guess that the main goal in life (for most not all) women was to get married and make babies. But as with the case of Catharine Sedgwick she claims that her "perfectionist" vision of what she wants is the reason that she has stayed single. I feel that this may have been a common theme with others who did not marry but we just don't know about it because unlike her they probably didn't write about it. Does anyone else get the sense that she is completely miserable not being married but wants to put on a brave face in front of everyone around her? --Remy B.<br />
<br />
Remy, yes I also felt that she was pretty unhappy. The last line of the essay stood out to me, "I do hope...to order my house for that better world where self may lose something of its engrossing power." This read to me, "things will be better when I'm dead." Pretty sad. A certain amount of risk accompanies any choice. If women have more freedom to choose their marital partners, they also have to accept the consequences of their decisions. In Sedgwick's case, she rejected a few suitors because they didn't meet her expectations. Because she only has herself to blame (instead of blaming her parents or society, or just accepting an unpleasant marriage without question, as would have happened in the past), it seems like it makes her loneliness more painful. --Stef L.<br />
<br />
Like Emma, Catherine seems unhappy about her life, only she is not married. It was interesting to see how women felt about their decision to not marry. Once again, I wonder how common this unhappiness is. Is it more common to be unhappy as an unmarried woman or a married woman? -- Emma<br />
<br />
In responnse to Emma I feel as though the women writing are pretty bold to be expressing their unhappiness at all. After all, it is rather unlady like to complain about the situation these women were in, and the ones who were writing were obviously educated. It is more common for women even today, regardless of marital status, with educations to be more discontent with societies impositions upon them. I think the fact of marriage or not is irrelevant because both types of women were unhappy. --Sara<br />
<br />
== Sarah Connell Ayer, “The Widowed State,” 1832-33 ==<br />
<br />
It is evident that Sarah Connell Ayer's life consisted of a continual pattern of death surrounding her. Ayer clings to the Lord in these times of trial and demonstrates a remarkable trust, at least in her diary entries. How did death affect Ayer's view of God and influence the role of religion in her life? --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== Eliza Ann Mulford, “Rules of the School,” 1814 ==<br />
<br />
I wonder how the girls felt about these rules. Were they sincerely considering their excuses for skipping church in light of what they'd tell God at judgement day? Did they consider whether they wanted to read a novel or have a casual conversation in light of whether they were properly using God's time? I want to know what these rules say about the young women they applied to. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
What stands out about this reading is the fact that the rules designed by the schools constrained every aspect of the girls live all to meet the standards of the ideal middle class woman. It appears that the school was not only there to educate it students but transform them into the moral authority that women were expected to be. Also playing into the image of an a partnership within a marriage, by creating a wife who was not only equal in education but a example to be followed in moral behavior. Like Kate, I wonder what the students thought of these rules, did they see them as necessary for the life they wanted to live or excessive? --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
Eliza Ann Mulford's account of the rules that existed at this school reflected the close watch these girls were kept under. Like Kate and Rachel have pointed out, I wonder if these girls felt oppressed by these rules or whether they truly felt like these rules were necessary to achieve the status of a respectable woman? --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “A Rationale for Female Education,” 1819 ==<br />
What I found interesting in Emma Willard's piece was that it was a seminary for girls. What church/denomination was she a part of? And when did women become more involved in religion in the United States? The major difference between this document and the source before it is that it encourages morality and intellect, while it seemed that Eliza Ann Mulford's promoted piety only. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
In an answer to your questions, I think that women started becoming more involved with religion in the United States when the ideals of Republican Motherhood came about. Religion was a great source for social morality for these people and since women were taking the moral roles in society, they would want to turn to the church to show both their children and their community that they were upholding moral beliefs.-- Heather T.<br />
<br />
== Miss Burnham’s Report, “A Choctaw Mission School,” 1824 ==<br />
<br />
I found this reading very interesting. Very young girls were forced to leave their families, and wear European clothing, speak English, and learn the bible. I assume some girls even starved to death because the food was so different than what they were used to. My question is, after returning home from this school, how had the girls' relationships with their native people and families changed? --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
In response to Catherine I think that the relationship between the teachers and the individual natives' relationship would be a strong one, but overall, they would still view "Natives" as savage and ungodly. All of the teachers' documents we read mention the godlessness, lack of churches, lack of interest in pursuing the religion by the natives or lack of honoring of the Sabbath. This means that even if they felt better about the individual girls they taught, they probably felt as though they "saved" them. Not respected them --Sara S.<br />
<br />
This passage was indeed interesting. One section that I found especially interesting was the one about the family who walked 55 miles to bring the girls to the school and then walked them 55 miles back when they heard a rumor about the missionaries taking land. THEN they took them 55 miles back to the school because the girls were unhappy at home. Once sent home, I question whether or not the girls from the schools were bullied or even excommunicated for their new way of life. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Letters from Teachers, “Reports on Western Schools,” 1847 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
These letters are really pitiful, and it's amazing to me that we have a public school system at all, considering its origins. One thing that really stands out to me is the sense of moral duty/religious obligation that keeps these teachers working, even though (much of the time) they weren't being paid. Is this a continuation of the ideals (and responsibilities) of republican motherhood, that women are responsible for the moral uplift of the entire nation? --Stef L.<br />
<br />
I found these letters to be quite interesting. First, the fact that these new teachers were so concerned about the religion and morals of the people in the community. Religion seemed to be one of the biggest concerns of these new teachers. Why was that? Second, it was interesting to see the these two very different experiences. The first teacher seemed to have some real problems with the community excepting her. It almost seemed as if they though education was silly, possibly because they were more concerned about the success of their farms, of surviving, instead of reading and writing. Where as the second teacher seemed to have real success in her bringing her community together. I am quite amazed by what she was able to accomplish.It would be interesting to know exactly where these women went to do this teaching. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
Chatharine Beecher sounded like an inspirational woman. She truly cared about education. One thing I did find weird was her promotion of teaching as a woman's profession. What if a man were to teach and step forward and ask for her help. Was a male teacher completely unheard of? Would she deny him? -- Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Rules of the Mill from Lowell and Lancaster, 1820-1840 ==<br />
How extensive rules for living in a mill community seem to be very personally invasive for a job. The rules that were applied to the boarders seems equivalent to life under a male figurehead through parental controls or marriage. Mandating when the workers had to be in bed to forcing their attendance in church molded these women into the ideals of the mill managers as well as into the evolving perception of female work roles. What I found to be the most interesting point was that it was more socially acceptable for women to be single longer and have jobs of their own yet it appears that the women who worked in the mill only fell back into patriarchal relationships that these new forms of female freedom seem to oppose. Could it be that women were so eager to embrace the world of employment and financial independence that they were willing to fit into the mold instilled by the mill? Or could it had been from the women workers being attracted into a world that was very familiar to them? -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Harriet Farley, “A Letter from Lowell,” 1844 ==<br />
<br />
I wonder how accurately this reflects mill life? It was published in a mill journal, which would have an interest in showing the best side of the mill, but it isn't a completely rosy picture. I thought it was particularly interesting to see a story of a woman off on her own, making her own income, in a way that I don't think we've seen as often before - do you think 'Susan's' story reflects how young women felt about living as single women? --Katie C.<br />
<br />
This letter struck me as being so propagandized, I would not have been surprised if it turned out that it had been written by an overseer. The small complaints ("these rooms are kept very warm, and are disagreeably scented"..."it makes my feet ache and swell") serve to give the letter an air of respectability, and make it seem like a legitimate letter, but the emphasis on the positive and lack of emphasis on negative aspects (If my feet were painful and swelling, I'd factor it much more into my overall sense of happiness!) makes the letter seem utterly false--which of course it is. I can't help but wonder whether Harriet and her compatriots truly felt this was an accurate representation of their lives? -- Nicole<br />
<br />
== The Voice of Industry, “A Spirit of Protest,” 1846 ==<br />
<br />
The movement which is the subject of this article was conducted entirely or almost entirely by women, who recognized a "sisterhood" of workers. How might the tactics used by movement leaders have been influenced by the gender roles of their day? Might they have faced any particular difficulties in negotiating with male management? --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== Amelia Stewart Knight, “Crossing the Plains,” 1853 ==<br />
<br />
I found this to be very interesting. I had never heard much about the wagon trains, other than “They were going west for a better life.” This added a different element to the train and gave me a whole different perspective. Everyone knows that the wagon train was difficult but when you are reading someone else’s words and to read what they struggled with, it gives the information a new dimension. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
While I was reading Crossing the Plains by Knight, I did not notice anything out of the ordinary. They were on the way to Oregon and made their way through so many difficult things. This includes cold temperatures, hot sun, and many bothersome bugs. To my surprise, at the end of this journal the reader finds out that everything that Knight went through, she did it while she was with child. Can you imagine what she endured while traveling in this manner? I guess during this time even if you were uncomfortable you still had to do what was necessary to survive.--Pam P.<br />
<br />
In response to Pam P, I think that Knight endured the hardships of westward movement so that her child could have a better life. The introduction states that the migrations were "made by people who were neither extremely rich nor extremely poor." Perhaps, since Knight would have been somewhere in the middle, a westward movement could have provided new opportunities for her child. --Clare O<br />
<br />
== Mary Ballou, “A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush,” 1852 ==<br />
<br />
QUESTION:<br />
In the October 21st entry, she tells her son Selden about the days she goes to church. She expresses that she goes whenever she can. However, it is interesting to see that she is the only lady. Why is she the only lady at these church sermons? She is in this work that calls for women with domestic skills, but she is the only one in church? Was she more religious? Did other women not have time? Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
When I read A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush by Mary Ballou, I almost feel bad for her and her situation. She takes it in stride though and while looking for gold she also is running a boarding house. She misses her children terribly and she was not the only one who was feeling this way. She spoke to a couple of different women who were also “homesick” and did not think that the gold rush was what everyone made it out to be. I would assume the reason why they cannot go back to where they came from is because they sold everything to go look for gold? Did her husband feel the same way? – Pam P.<br />
<br />
Reading "A Woman's View of the Gold Rush," I almost felt that Ballou was trying to cover up her sadness by discussing all that she was doing for the miners at the boarding house. It seemed that she was upholding that notion of keeping home as a refuge for her husband by doing all of that cooking! I wonder if her discussing her cooking in her letter was her way of keeping herself from badmouthing her poor situation to her son? --Heather T.<br />
<br />
== Petitions of the Cherokee Women’s Council on Removal, 1817, 1818 ==<br />
<br />
Throughout this reading, I was confused as to who "our father, the great president" was? The women address that they've done everything the "Father/president" has asked of them: become farmers, manufacture clothes, etc. Who is the father though? And if it really is the president, why do they call him father? --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Winnemucca, “Life Among the Paiutes,” 1883 ==<br />
<br />
I think the most important thing I took away from this reading is how children of the Paiutes are taught to be good, and to love everybody. So when the white settlers first arrived, Sarah's grandfather, the chief, tried to make them feel welcome. However, later in her account, Sarah writes of how unhappy her people are. Mothers begin to fear getting pregnant, because they do not think they would be able to provide for their young. Religion plays a large role in this tribe, and war is not a favorable decision when two tribes are in conflict. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
Towards the end of this reading, Sara Winnemucca comments that "If women could go into your Congress I think justice would soon be done to the Indians." In what ways did her culture encourage this belief? What aspects of her own life supported these egalitarian views? My other question would be, are these views totally separate from the Euro-American belief that women were more spiritually and morally pure? --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== A Sioux Tale, “A Woman Kills Her Daughter” ==<br />
<br />
This has to be one of my favorite readings so far! I knew that Indians were great story tellers and that it was part of their traditions of keeping their history going but I've never heard a story like this. Was this type of story telling common? Was this to warn women of jealousy? --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I agree with Remy! This was a great story. I think it was amazing how when the son-in-law realized something was wrong, he continued to follow the rules and did not become disrespectful or say anything to her directly. The note at the bottom of the page explains that he must address her through his wife; even in a crazy situation like that, he still abides by this rule. --Aqsa Z.yy <br />
<br />
I loved all of the supernatural elements to this tale. I felt that it amplified the morals that the story was trying to convey (don't kill others for your own gain, especially family members). However, since this is technically a part of oral history, despite it being written down, I wonder how much of this story is the original tale? If there is more, which characters would have more of a presence?-- Heather T.<br />
<br />
I would have to agree also with Remy and Aqsa...this was definitely my favorite reading so far! My father's side of the family is actually all Sioux Native Americans and it is intersting to be able to read one of their stories. Typically, most native stories and legends were passed through oral tradition, and it is exciting to be able to read one of their stories. I wonder how old this story actually is, considering the fact that they are passed down over the years and they typically were never written. I would think that most of their stories and legends had some kind of moral value or lesson to be learned from it, and considering this, I wonder if this was a common occurence amongst the tribe. It is unfathomable to me to think that a girl's mother could actually be ruthless enough to commit the atrocites this woman did to her own daughter. It was a great story but it very much resembled a skit one would see on the Jerry Springer show in today's world. -- Lindsey S.</div>Lsmith0805https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_9_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 9 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-28T04:50:59Z<p>Lsmith0805: /* Emma Willard, “Matrimonial Risks,” 1815 */</p>
<hr />
<div>FOR THIS WEEK POST TWO QUESTIONS BY THURSDAY AND CHECK BACK TO RESPOND TO TWO QUESTIONS BY SATURDAY.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== General Questions ==<br />
<br />
I was surprised (although I shouldn't really have been) at the number of these documents which refer to religion as important to their daily lives: from the lowell girls' rules enforcing religious practice to the teachers in the American west to the women on the gold mines everyone was obsessed with the sanctity of their own religion and the lack of religion in their society. Were these women simply becoming teachers to help those less fortunate than them or were they really seeking an attempt at missionary work of people they truly believed to be spiritually beneath them. Although the outcome of their work would still be the same, it would be important to know the background for which their work was done for it would tell more about the woman doing the work. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
In "A Spirit of Protest" (which I didn't see a heading for, for whatever reason that may be), the "Lowell Factory Girl" protests against capitalism and fights for labor rights. Mid-eighteenth century American society does not come off to me as an extremely capitalist society (compared with modern USA). How much did capitalism affect the lives of Americans in this time period. And was this a common viewpoint on the economy of the day? --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “Matrimonial Risks,” 1815 ==<br />
<br />
Willard is concerned with the happiness of marriage. She warns her sister not to get her hopes up, when it comes to her suitor Mr. L because he might be disappointing. I wonder if this is a change to "companionate marriages." Willard sees or wants marriage to be happy, but realizes that marriage could be miserable. Since Willard knows that men can fail at companionate marriages, does that mean the idea of marriage changing? Do women feel they have a choice? --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
In Answer to your question, I do think women feel that they have more a choice in marriage than the previous generations. According to class and the readings, the romantic notions are beginning to come out and women are looking for Men to fulfill that ideal companionate role in a marriage, women would hold off if they felt like they did not find the right partner. Marriage was still valued and more than desired by most women at this time, but they were definitely getting pickier about who they wanted to marry. --Heather T.<br />
<br />
In "Matrimonial Risks," Willard seems to be attempting to warn her sister off of all marriages and all relationships; the advice she gives is so generalized against marriage that it almost seems that she must have been unhappy in her marriage. I started reading this expecting, based on the editors' introduction, for Willard to be essentially warning her sister off of Lincoln. On the contrary, it almost seems that Willard is trying to warn her sister off of any and all marriage. Intriguingly, she then tells her sister she'd love to see Lincoln and visit with him. I got such mixed signals from this letter that I'm really wondering whether Willard disliked Lincoln (if so, why say she'd like to see him?) or the idea of her sister getting married at all (and if that, why? Most women wound up married!) -- Nicole<br />
<br />
This reading was quite depressing how she wrote about how she should question her happiness. This shows how unhappy Emma was herself. I wonder how common this was among most women? --Emma<br />
<br />
Emma Willard was forthright in giving advice to her younger sister Almira in regards to the decision of marriage and finding the proper suitor. In the letter she wrote to Almira, she stated “. . .and we will likewise pass over the possibility of your lover’s seeing some object that he will consider more interesting than you, and likewise that you may hereafter discover some imperfection in his character. We will pass this over, and suppose that the sanction of the law has been passed upon your connection, and you are secured to each other for life” (144). It seems as though Emma is trying to think of every situation that could go wrong in a relationship, and she is attempting to discourage her younger sister for marrying for any reason, including for love or for money. Why was the idea of marriage for love considered such a risk? In today’s society, love is considered the fortifying reason for a couple to enter into matrimony together. Could it be possible that Emma was merely jealous of her younger sister because she had found a wealthy suitor that wanted to marry her, whereas Emma was once happily married and living comfortably until her husband’s finances collapsed? Emma is clearly unhappy in her own life, and in reading this excerpt, I detected a bit of jealousy towards her sisters potential happiness and wealth. -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Caroline Gilman, “The Deferential Wife,” 1838 ==<br />
<br />
I liked in ''The Deferential Wife'' by Caroline Gilman the quote "Men are not often unreasonable; their difficulties lie in not understanding the moral and physcial structure of our sex. They often wound through ignorance and are surprised at having offended. How clear is it, then, that woman loses by petulance and recrimination! Her first study must be self-control, almost to hypocrisy. A good wife must smile amid a thousand perplexities, and clear her voice to tones of cheerfulness when her frames is drooping with disease, or else languish alone. Man on the contrary, when trials beset him, expects to find her ear and heart a ready receptacle." (page 147) Basically this is the formation of the idea that woman is reponsible for the morality and self-control of the man. It is from this ideologue (which did develop concurrently with Republican Motherhood) that the arguments today about the dress and style of women are based upon. It is interesting to see it in its' original context in The Deferential Wife. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
The Deferential Wife was an interesting piece. A woman that wanted to carter to the audience of women is an interesting concept. This would play into the idea of republican motherhood and that women would want to be more educated. That being said, if the idea of educating women were important, why don’t we see more papers and magazines geared toward the women that are staying on the plantations and raising the children? –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Catharine Beecher, “System and Order,” 1841 ==<br />
<br />
Beecher's believes that motherhood/domesticity is the greatest occupation for humanity. She believes that it will create a heaven on earth or a perfect society. This statement brings a true meaning to motherhood and housework. People are happier when they have meaning to their lives. Her belief gives women so much more to live for (not saying it is right or wrong). However, with all ideals, her advice must have stressed most women in case they failed. --- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
In Beecher's "System and Order," she states that "The formation of the moral and intellectual character of the young is committed mainly to the female hand....The proper education of a man decides the welfare of an individual; but educate a woman, and the interests of a whole family are secured." This quote reminded me of "if you teach a man to fish..." because Beecher is saying only one person benefits from the education of a man (the man). However, a woman is responsible for the education of her children as well as a role model of morals for both her children and husband. Therefore, if you educate a woman, everyone in the family will profit. This idea combines the early idea of republican motherhood, in which the mother is the prime educator and moral guide, but combines with emerging middle class ideals in which the woman is the head of the domestic sphere. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Beecher asserts that "another important item is the apportioning of regular employment to the various members of the family....There is no greater mistake, than in bringing up children to feel that they must be taken care of, and waited on, by others, without any corresponding obligations on their part." I found this interesting because middle class families did not need children to work at the family business (as had been so many years previously, on farms for example) and therefore the mother had more time to focus on her children and the home. I am surprised to find Beecher encouraging mothers to "employ" their children around the house, when I had assumed children did not do any work in their families. Perhaps the change was that children did not need to do actual hard labor anymore, but were still expected to help around the house, as Beecher suggests. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Beecher lists a series of chores that housewives must accomplish on each day of the week. She states, "''Monday'', with some of the best housekeepers, is devoted to preparing for the labors of the week...''Tuesday'' is devoted to washing, and ''Wednesday'' to ironing. On ''Thursday'', the ironing is finished off, the clothes folded and put away, and all articles which need mending put in the mending basket, and attended to. ''Friday'' is devoted to sweeping and housecleaning. On ''Saturday''...every department is put in order...and everything about the house put in order for ''Sunday''." Such a strict daily schedule may explain why women became so bored and lonely. Their husbands could go out of the house and do business, meet with other people, or attend to different aspects of business at different times of the year. Women, on the other hand, were expected to accomplish the same tasks on the same day no matter the month or week. Do you think this could explain why women, such as Caroline Gilman, discuss the idea of women missing their husbands? Also, do you think that this weekly schedule that Beecher suggests was necessary in maintaining a household? Why or why not? -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
The two things that interested me the most in Catharine Beecher's "System and Order" was here description of how to manage work within the week and the mode of "systematizing, [relating] to providing proper supplies of conveniences." The details for arranging a week seem quite logical and in fact are similar to actually accounts I have read that follow a similar outline. It does not seem That Catharine's ideas on this front could have been that new. As for the arranging items in particular places, did women really have the extra rooms just for doing laundry? And why, for the trunks full of extra supplies, were they kept locked? --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
In response to Jennifer S, I think that Beecher asserts that women should have extra rooms solely for laundry so as to make the household even more organized. Her whole document is called "System and Order," so to do laundry in any other place in the home besides the room devoted specifically to it would disrupt the order and cleanliness of the household. Also, perhaps the trunks full of extra supplies were kept locked so that children could not get into them and disrupt the order the wife had put them in. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
== Catharine Sedgwick, “First to None,” 1828 ==<br />
<br />
From our readings we can guess that the main goal in life (for most not all) women was to get married and make babies. But as with the case of Catharine Sedgwick she claims that her "perfectionist" vision of what she wants is the reason that she has stayed single. I feel that this may have been a common theme with others who did not marry but we just don't know about it because unlike her they probably didn't write about it. Does anyone else get the sense that she is completely miserable not being married but wants to put on a brave face in front of everyone around her? --Remy B.<br />
<br />
Remy, yes I also felt that she was pretty unhappy. The last line of the essay stood out to me, "I do hope...to order my house for that better world where self may lose something of its engrossing power." This read to me, "things will be better when I'm dead." Pretty sad. A certain amount of risk accompanies any choice. If women have more freedom to choose their marital partners, they also have to accept the consequences of their decisions. In Sedgwick's case, she rejected a few suitors because they didn't meet her expectations. Because she only has herself to blame (instead of blaming her parents or society, or just accepting an unpleasant marriage without question, as would have happened in the past), it seems like it makes her loneliness more painful. --Stef L.<br />
<br />
Like Emma, Catherine seems unhappy about her life, only she is not married. It was interesting to see how women felt about their decision to not marry. Once again, I wonder how common this unhappiness is. Is it more common to be unhappy as an unmarried woman or a married woman? -- Emma<br />
<br />
In responnse to Emma I feel as though the women writing are pretty bold to be expressing their unhappiness at all. After all, it is rather unlady like to complain about the situation these women were in, and the ones who were writing were obviously educated. It is more common for women even today, regardless of marital status, with educations to be more discontent with societies impositions upon them. I think the fact of marriage or not is irrelevant because both types of women were unhappy. --Sara<br />
<br />
== Sarah Connell Ayer, “The Widowed State,” 1832-33 ==<br />
<br />
It is evident that Sarah Connell Ayer's life consisted of a continual pattern of death surrounding her. Ayer clings to the Lord in these times of trial and demonstrates a remarkable trust, at least in her diary entries. How did death affect Ayer's view of God and influence the role of religion in her life? --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== Eliza Ann Mulford, “Rules of the School,” 1814 ==<br />
<br />
I wonder how the girls felt about these rules. Were they sincerely considering their excuses for skipping church in light of what they'd tell God at judgement day? Did they consider whether they wanted to read a novel or have a casual conversation in light of whether they were properly using God's time? I want to know what these rules say about the young women they applied to. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
What stands out about this reading is the fact that the rules designed by the schools constrained every aspect of the girls live all to meet the standards of the ideal middle class woman. It appears that the school was not only there to educate it students but transform them into the moral authority that women were expected to be. Also playing into the image of an a partnership within a marriage, by creating a wife who was not only equal in education but a example to be followed in moral behavior. Like Kate, I wonder what the students thought of these rules, did they see them as necessary for the life they wanted to live or excessive? --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
Eliza Ann Mulford's account of the rules that existed at this school reflected the close watch these girls were kept under. Like Kate and Rachel have pointed out, I wonder if these girls felt oppressed by these rules or whether they truly felt like these rules were necessary to achieve the status of a respectable woman? --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “A Rationale for Female Education,” 1819 ==<br />
What I found interesting in Emma Willard's piece was that it was a seminary for girls. What church/denomination was she a part of? And when did women become more involved in religion in the United States? The major difference between this document and the source before it is that it encourages morality and intellect, while it seemed that Eliza Ann Mulford's promoted piety only. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
In an answer to your questions, I think that women started becoming more involved with religion in the United States when the ideals of Republican Motherhood came about. Religion was a great source for social morality for these people and since women were taking the moral roles in society, they would want to turn to the church to show both their children and their community that they were upholding moral beliefs.-- Heather T.<br />
<br />
== Miss Burnham’s Report, “A Choctaw Mission School,” 1824 ==<br />
<br />
I found this reading very interesting. Very young girls were forced to leave their families, and wear European clothing, speak English, and learn the bible. I assume some girls even starved to death because the food was so different than what they were used to. My question is, after returning home from this school, how had the girls' relationships with their native people and families changed? --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
In response to Catherine I think that the relationship between the teachers and the individual natives' relationship would be a strong one, but overall, they would still view "Natives" as savage and ungodly. All of the teachers' documents we read mention the godlessness, lack of churches, lack of interest in pursuing the religion by the natives or lack of honoring of the Sabbath. This means that even if they felt better about the individual girls they taught, they probably felt as though they "saved" them. Not respected them --Sara S.<br />
<br />
This passage was indeed interesting. One section that I found especially interesting was the one about the family who walked 55 miles to bring the girls to the school and then walked them 55 miles back when they heard a rumor about the missionaries taking land. THEN they took them 55 miles back to the school because the girls were unhappy at home. Once sent home, I question whether or not the girls from the schools were bullied or even excommunicated for their new way of life. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Letters from Teachers, “Reports on Western Schools,” 1847 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
These letters are really pitiful, and it's amazing to me that we have a public school system at all, considering its origins. One thing that really stands out to me is the sense of moral duty/religious obligation that keeps these teachers working, even though (much of the time) they weren't being paid. Is this a continuation of the ideals (and responsibilities) of republican motherhood, that women are responsible for the moral uplift of the entire nation? --Stef L.<br />
<br />
I found these letters to be quite interesting. First, the fact that these new teachers were so concerned about the religion and morals of the people in the community. Religion seemed to be one of the biggest concerns of these new teachers. Why was that? Second, it was interesting to see the these two very different experiences. The first teacher seemed to have some real problems with the community excepting her. It almost seemed as if they though education was silly, possibly because they were more concerned about the success of their farms, of surviving, instead of reading and writing. Where as the second teacher seemed to have real success in her bringing her community together. I am quite amazed by what she was able to accomplish.It would be interesting to know exactly where these women went to do this teaching. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
Chatharine Beecher sounded like an inspirational woman. She truly cared about education. One thing I did find weird was her promotion of teaching as a woman's profession. What if a man were to teach and step forward and ask for her help. Was a male teacher completely unheard of? Would she deny him? -- Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Rules of the Mill from Lowell and Lancaster, 1820-1840 ==<br />
How extensive rules for living in a mill community seem to be very personally invasive for a job. The rules that were applied to the boarders seems equivalent to life under a male figurehead through parental controls or marriage. Mandating when the workers had to be in bed to forcing their attendance in church molded these women into the ideals of the mill managers as well as into the evolving perception of female work roles. What I found to be the most interesting point was that it was more socially acceptable for women to be single longer and have jobs of their own yet it appears that the women who worked in the mill only fell back into patriarchal relationships that these new forms of female freedom seem to oppose. Could it be that women were so eager to embrace the world of employment and financial independence that they were willing to fit into the mold instilled by the mill? Or could it had been from the women workers being attracted into a world that was very familiar to them? -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Harriet Farley, “A Letter from Lowell,” 1844 ==<br />
<br />
I wonder how accurately this reflects mill life? It was published in a mill journal, which would have an interest in showing the best side of the mill, but it isn't a completely rosy picture. I thought it was particularly interesting to see a story of a woman off on her own, making her own income, in a way that I don't think we've seen as often before - do you think 'Susan's' story reflects how young women felt about living as single women? --Katie C.<br />
<br />
This letter struck me as being so propagandized, I would not have been surprised if it turned out that it had been written by an overseer. The small complaints ("these rooms are kept very warm, and are disagreeably scented"..."it makes my feet ache and swell") serve to give the letter an air of respectability, and make it seem like a legitimate letter, but the emphasis on the positive and lack of emphasis on negative aspects (If my feet were painful and swelling, I'd factor it much more into my overall sense of happiness!) makes the letter seem utterly false--which of course it is. I can't help but wonder whether Harriet and her compatriots truly felt this was an accurate representation of their lives? -- Nicole<br />
<br />
== The Voice of Industry, “A Spirit of Protest,” 1846 ==<br />
<br />
The movement which is the subject of this article was conducted entirely or almost entirely by women, who recognized a "sisterhood" of workers. How might the tactics used by movement leaders have been influenced by the gender roles of their day? Might they have faced any particular difficulties in negotiating with male management? --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== Amelia Stewart Knight, “Crossing the Plains,” 1853 ==<br />
<br />
I found this to be very interesting. I had never heard much about the wagon trains, other than “They were going west for a better life.” This added a different element to the train and gave me a whole different perspective. Everyone knows that the wagon train was difficult but when you are reading someone else’s words and to read what they struggled with, it gives the information a new dimension. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
While I was reading Crossing the Plains by Knight, I did not notice anything out of the ordinary. They were on the way to Oregon and made their way through so many difficult things. This includes cold temperatures, hot sun, and many bothersome bugs. To my surprise, at the end of this journal the reader finds out that everything that Knight went through, she did it while she was with child. Can you imagine what she endured while traveling in this manner? I guess during this time even if you were uncomfortable you still had to do what was necessary to survive.--Pam P.<br />
<br />
In response to Pam P, I think that Knight endured the hardships of westward movement so that her child could have a better life. The introduction states that the migrations were "made by people who were neither extremely rich nor extremely poor." Perhaps, since Knight would have been somewhere in the middle, a westward movement could have provided new opportunities for her child. --Clare O<br />
<br />
== Mary Ballou, “A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush,” 1852 ==<br />
<br />
QUESTION:<br />
In the October 21st entry, she tells her son Selden about the days she goes to church. She expresses that she goes whenever she can. However, it is interesting to see that she is the only lady. Why is she the only lady at these church sermons? She is in this work that calls for women with domestic skills, but she is the only one in church? Was she more religious? Did other women not have time? Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
When I read A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush by Mary Ballou, I almost feel bad for her and her situation. She takes it in stride though and while looking for gold she also is running a boarding house. She misses her children terribly and she was not the only one who was feeling this way. She spoke to a couple of different women who were also “homesick” and did not think that the gold rush was what everyone made it out to be. I would assume the reason why they cannot go back to where they came from is because they sold everything to go look for gold? Did her husband feel the same way? – Pam P.<br />
<br />
Reading "A Woman's View of the Gold Rush," I almost felt that Ballou was trying to cover up her sadness by discussing all that she was doing for the miners at the boarding house. It seemed that she was upholding that notion of keeping home as a refuge for her husband by doing all of that cooking! I wonder if her discussing her cooking in her letter was her way of keeping herself from badmouthing her poor situation to her son? --Heather T.<br />
<br />
== Petitions of the Cherokee Women’s Council on Removal, 1817, 1818 ==<br />
<br />
Throughout this reading, I was confused as to who "our father, the great president" was? The women address that they've done everything the "Father/president" has asked of them: become farmers, manufacture clothes, etc. Who is the father though? And if it really is the president, why do they call him father? --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Winnemucca, “Life Among the Paiutes,” 1883 ==<br />
<br />
I think the most important thing I took away from this reading is how children of the Paiutes are taught to be good, and to love everybody. So when the white settlers first arrived, Sarah's grandfather, the chief, tried to make them feel welcome. However, later in her account, Sarah writes of how unhappy her people are. Mothers begin to fear getting pregnant, because they do not think they would be able to provide for their young. Religion plays a large role in this tribe, and war is not a favorable decision when two tribes are in conflict. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
Towards the end of this reading, Sara Winnemucca comments that "If women could go into your Congress I think justice would soon be done to the Indians." In what ways did her culture encourage this belief? What aspects of her own life supported these egalitarian views? My other question would be, are these views totally separate from the Euro-American belief that women were more spiritually and morally pure? --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== A Sioux Tale, “A Woman Kills Her Daughter” ==<br />
<br />
This has to be one of my favorite readings so far! I knew that Indians were great story tellers and that it was part of their traditions of keeping their history going but I've never heard a story like this. Was this type of story telling common? Was this to warn women of jealousy? --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I agree with Remy! This was a great story. I think it was amazing how when the son-in-law realized something was wrong, he continued to follow the rules and did not become disrespectful or say anything to her directly. The note at the bottom of the page explains that he must address her through his wife; even in a crazy situation like that, he still abides by this rule. --Aqsa Z.yy <br />
<br />
I loved all of the supernatural elements to this tale. I felt that it amplified the morals that the story was trying to convey (don't kill others for your own gain, especially family members). However, since this is technically a part of oral history, despite it being written down, I wonder how much of this story is the original tale? If there is more, which characters would have more of a presence?-- Heather T.</div>Lsmith0805https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_8_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 8 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-20T03:37:28Z<p>Lsmith0805: /* Malefactors and Complainants */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching Questions ==<br />
<br />
In many of the readings, I was surprised to read that women tended to leave possessions in unequal amounts to their heirs whereas men tended to split up what was theirs equally. I would have assumed that men would favor their sons over their daughters, but they tended to leave their offspring relatively equal shares (although in the form of land for sons and movable things for daughters). It is interesting that women favored their daughters in wills. Perhaps this is because women did not have many rights of ownership so the women wanted to aid their female relatives in any way possible. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Antenuptial contract, Mass, 1653 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== New England Divorce, CT, 1655-1678; MD, 1680 ==<br />
<br />
When reading the divorce laws of Connecticut, I expected the reasons for granting of divorces to be things such as adultery or desertion. What I did not expect was the long periods of time a spouse has to be away before the law considers the absence desertion. Three years with a total neglect of duty or seven years of providential absence seems like an extremely long amount of time, particularly for the wife being deserted. Especially since the woman cannot get married to another before the period is up and the divorce is granted, likely leaving the woman in very poor economical standing. In the case of Bridget Baxter, after the divorce was granted, the court allowed her to sell her husbands estate to pay off debts but I can imagine this would not be enough in the case of many women, especially if they were becoming indebted for the years their husbands were gone. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
In the divorce laws, I was surprised at how much they made marriage sound like slavery. The laws included words like "sett her free from her said husband," or "be free from her conjugall bonds." Even in the case of Robert Wade, the law said that he was "free from Joanne Wade." At first I thought that it was a negative portrayal of marriage, but I have reconsidered the possibility that they mean "bonds" in the best way, as marriage was a bond between people. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I read the New England Divorce notices and was really surprised and appalled by the 1662 "whereas the estate that her husband Baxter left with her is sold to pay debts, all excepting a bed and her wearing aparell" meaning they took EVERYTHING BUT THE SHIRT OFF HER BACK. I thought this was just an expression, but apparently it was not. So strange that they would be so harsh to a woman when the debt was her husbands and not her owns. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I found it ironic that women in New England were the only ones permitted a full divorce as compared to the rest of the colonies. Even though the women were granted divorces on very valid reasons it seems contradictory to the other laws would allow for severe punishments for premarital sex or coming to church dirty. How is it a woman could exercise enough power to end a marriage but could be reprimanded for offenses that seem trivial to divorce? For a relationship that was based in the church it seems that it should be much harder to break it and especially by the woman who was viewed as morally and spiritually weaker than her husband. --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== SC feme sole trader acts, 1712, 1744 ==<br />
<br />
I was really surprised by the Feme Sole Trader Acts in South Carolina. Obviously these women still had to have permission from their hubsands to be labeled as Feme Sole, but once they got that label they were free to do as they wished as far as their business went. It seems far outside of "progressive" for the time period. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mass, 1675-1680 – Women in county courts ==<br />
<br />
So, pre-marital sex was a big no-no. I'd imagine that the only way the courts found out would be if a) you had a "bastard child" (Mary Chelson) or b) actually told the courts (William and Mary Backway)? So they were both whipped and fined. However, when Rebecca Auborne admits to having a child with Samuel Kemble, she is whipped and he is just ordered to pay child support - why wouldn't he have been whipped like William Backway? - Matt<br />
<br />
I kind of enjoyed reading this section, in the same way you enjoy reading the police blotter. It was like a tabloid with odd spelling- but the punishments kind of appalled me. I realize that lashings were a very common punishment in this time, but some of the sentences seemed extreme for the crime committed. The sentence given to the Backways, for example- by the time of this writing, they were already married. Why was the court still punishing them for something they had done a while back? There was no mention made of a child, so I wonder how they ended up confessing in court to pre-marital sex. I was also startled by the sentence given to Margaret Brewster, which says she is to "strip to the waist" before being whipped. That they would ask a woman to take off clothing seems like it would be very unusual, and none of the other cases mention the woman being told to take off her clothing before being whipped, so this seems like a departure from the norm. - Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== Virginia, 1642, NY 1721-1759 – Widows, Wills and Dower Rights ==<br />
<br />
I found it really interesting that there was a different standard based on where you live. Each of these women receive something from there husband but the Virginia will did not care whether or not she remarried. She was still the woman that had been his wife while he was alive. Was this because of the location or simply because of the customs? –Kayle P.<br />
<br />
== Women’s Estates, Mass, 1664, NY 1747-1759 ==<br />
<br />
This will stuck out to me more then the others. After reading a few, I am sitting here thinking about how their wills were written, compared to how wills are written today. They were literally leaving everything they owned to someone. A dozen napkins? Nowadays if that was left to you, I feel it would be more of an insult and/or a cruel joke. It really just shows you how much stock they put into what they owned. - Matt<br />
<br />
== Suzanne Lebsock, The Free Women of Petersburg ==<br />
<br />
I find it interesting that being an administrator/executor of a will would jump-start a business career for women. Lebsock describes that "as the executors of administrators of their deceased husbands' estates. . .the administrator was obliged to dissolve partnerships, to collect and pay debts, to pursue litigation, to distribute the estate to the proper heirs, and to manage it in the meantime." It seems that women more or less got a crash-course in conducting business and would find some prosperity in their loss. --Heather T.<br />
<br />
It seems women's roles in the church and charity pushed them to make decisions to give their wealth to people in need. Women usually gave to other women, which makes sense because many poor people were widows and orphans. However, women did choose favorites when sharing their good fortune. Women had favorite slaves, daughters, or other women. For women dividing wills was rarely equal. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
Women used their wealth and good fortune based on their own value systems that differed from men's values. Lebsock calls this "persistent personalism."And, this "persistent personalism" drove women to give to charity and the church. Also, to use their money for themselves or to certain individuals. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I liked the difference the author established between the dominant narrative of women's passivity and their caution in investing. Women had every reason to be cautious - they often had less experience, and less resources at their disposal. But that didn't mean that the decisions they were making with their estates and their families estates weren't just as active and thoughtful. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
This essay was certainly not without its own biases. I was with Lebsock up until her explanation of women using their wills to free their slaves. According to Lebsock, the vast majority of southern women were really opposed to slavery deep down, and showed it in their wills, and slavery was really perpetuated by all those evil men. I buy her explanations (personalization) for wills, administration, etc, but this is a little too romanticized for me. --Stef L.<br />
<br />
As Lebsock notes, "Women, more than men, noticed and responded to the needs and merits of particular persons." (142) Throughout this reading, Lebsock emphasized this point. What I find most interesting about the reading, though, is the manner in which it seemed (to me, anyway) that Lebsock almost danced around a fairly obvious point while describing attitudes about slavery and slaves, without coming out and saying it. For me, after reading Mary Cumming's description of her specific slaves ("...Mary is a pretty good worker at her needle, she is now sitting beside me making a slip for herself" (139)) it seemed so patently obvious to me that women's more individualistic approach to slaves was due to their far greater and more meaningful interactions with slaves. While Lebsock goes part of the way--discussing, as Stef mentions, women's increasing likelihood to personalize their wills relative to their actual relationships, not custom or law--she fails to explore why that was the case. While men would interact with slaves more fleetingly, while in transit, overseeing work, or giving orders, it was not--as far as I know--uncommon for white women and their slaves to be performing household tasks at the same time, and in the same location. That is the exact set of circumstances that can lead to regular discussion, to feelings of intimacy, and to a meaningful individual relationship. That seemed even clearer to me when compared with men like Edmund Ruffin, the proslavery apologist who--almost intentionally, it seems--omitted any mention of his slaves from his otherwise intensely personal writings. For Ruffin, his interactions with slaves ("...yanking off his boots, one imagines, stirring up his woodstove, serving his suppers"(140)) tended to be shorter, single-action based interactions, unlike the prolongued interactions between white women and their slaves (as with Cummings, sitting beside her slave while one wrote a letter and the other sewed). -- Nicole<br />
<br />
== Malefactors and Complainants ==<br />
<br />
After reading these complaints, I was struck by the fact that all of these read “after she confessed”. Did all of these women really stand up in court and say yes it was me. I did this horrible thing that you are accusing me of. Were these women force to say these things, simply to get a more bearable punishment? –Kayle P<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in many of these complaints, women were being charged with "fornication" and some with "fornication and having a bastard child." Why is it that only women are being convicted and punished for having sex out of wedlock? Is it all the womans fault? I'm pretty sure it definitely takes two and I highly doubt that these women were just so overpowering and forceful that they made these men have sex with them. It's absolutely outrageous. In the case of Rebecca Auborne and Samuel Kemble, the courts at least charged both of them for fornication and producing a bastard child; however, only Rebecca receives a physical punishment ("whip't with Fifteen Stripes", along with a monetary payment of 5 pounds and court fees) whereas Samuel Kemble (who actively participated in their fornication as well) was only sentenced to pay court fees and child support. Also, I agree with Kayle in her point she made about all of these women confessing. William Backway and his wife Mary were convicted "by theire own confession in court of committing fornication" (79). How exactly did the court find out about this fornication before their marriage? The text mentions no child involved as other passages do. In another example, Elizabeth Langberry was committed to prison and forced to pay court fees for becoming too drunk and allowing Thomas Ockerby to pull her into his lap. Why would she be punished for something that was not her fault? -- Lindsey S.</div>Lsmith0805https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_8_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 8 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-20T03:36:33Z<p>Lsmith0805: /* Malefactors and Complainants */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching Questions ==<br />
<br />
In many of the readings, I was surprised to read that women tended to leave possessions in unequal amounts to their heirs whereas men tended to split up what was theirs equally. I would have assumed that men would favor their sons over their daughters, but they tended to leave their offspring relatively equal shares (although in the form of land for sons and movable things for daughters). It is interesting that women favored their daughters in wills. Perhaps this is because women did not have many rights of ownership so the women wanted to aid their female relatives in any way possible. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Antenuptial contract, Mass, 1653 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== New England Divorce, CT, 1655-1678; MD, 1680 ==<br />
<br />
When reading the divorce laws of Connecticut, I expected the reasons for granting of divorces to be things such as adultery or desertion. What I did not expect was the long periods of time a spouse has to be away before the law considers the absence desertion. Three years with a total neglect of duty or seven years of providential absence seems like an extremely long amount of time, particularly for the wife being deserted. Especially since the woman cannot get married to another before the period is up and the divorce is granted, likely leaving the woman in very poor economical standing. In the case of Bridget Baxter, after the divorce was granted, the court allowed her to sell her husbands estate to pay off debts but I can imagine this would not be enough in the case of many women, especially if they were becoming indebted for the years their husbands were gone. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
In the divorce laws, I was surprised at how much they made marriage sound like slavery. The laws included words like "sett her free from her said husband," or "be free from her conjugall bonds." Even in the case of Robert Wade, the law said that he was "free from Joanne Wade." At first I thought that it was a negative portrayal of marriage, but I have reconsidered the possibility that they mean "bonds" in the best way, as marriage was a bond between people. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I read the New England Divorce notices and was really surprised and appalled by the 1662 "whereas the estate that her husband Baxter left with her is sold to pay debts, all excepting a bed and her wearing aparell" meaning they took EVERYTHING BUT THE SHIRT OFF HER BACK. I thought this was just an expression, but apparently it was not. So strange that they would be so harsh to a woman when the debt was her husbands and not her owns. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I found it ironic that women in New England were the only ones permitted a full divorce as compared to the rest of the colonies. Even though the women were granted divorces on very valid reasons it seems contradictory to the other laws would allow for severe punishments for premarital sex or coming to church dirty. How is it a woman could exercise enough power to end a marriage but could be reprimanded for offenses that seem trivial to divorce? For a relationship that was based in the church it seems that it should be much harder to break it and especially by the woman who was viewed as morally and spiritually weaker than her husband. --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== SC feme sole trader acts, 1712, 1744 ==<br />
<br />
I was really surprised by the Feme Sole Trader Acts in South Carolina. Obviously these women still had to have permission from their hubsands to be labeled as Feme Sole, but once they got that label they were free to do as they wished as far as their business went. It seems far outside of "progressive" for the time period. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mass, 1675-1680 – Women in county courts ==<br />
<br />
So, pre-marital sex was a big no-no. I'd imagine that the only way the courts found out would be if a) you had a "bastard child" (Mary Chelson) or b) actually told the courts (William and Mary Backway)? So they were both whipped and fined. However, when Rebecca Auborne admits to having a child with Samuel Kemble, she is whipped and he is just ordered to pay child support - why wouldn't he have been whipped like William Backway? - Matt<br />
<br />
I kind of enjoyed reading this section, in the same way you enjoy reading the police blotter. It was like a tabloid with odd spelling- but the punishments kind of appalled me. I realize that lashings were a very common punishment in this time, but some of the sentences seemed extreme for the crime committed. The sentence given to the Backways, for example- by the time of this writing, they were already married. Why was the court still punishing them for something they had done a while back? There was no mention made of a child, so I wonder how they ended up confessing in court to pre-marital sex. I was also startled by the sentence given to Margaret Brewster, which says she is to "strip to the waist" before being whipped. That they would ask a woman to take off clothing seems like it would be very unusual, and none of the other cases mention the woman being told to take off her clothing before being whipped, so this seems like a departure from the norm. - Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== Virginia, 1642, NY 1721-1759 – Widows, Wills and Dower Rights ==<br />
<br />
I found it really interesting that there was a different standard based on where you live. Each of these women receive something from there husband but the Virginia will did not care whether or not she remarried. She was still the woman that had been his wife while he was alive. Was this because of the location or simply because of the customs? –Kayle P.<br />
<br />
== Women’s Estates, Mass, 1664, NY 1747-1759 ==<br />
<br />
This will stuck out to me more then the others. After reading a few, I am sitting here thinking about how their wills were written, compared to how wills are written today. They were literally leaving everything they owned to someone. A dozen napkins? Nowadays if that was left to you, I feel it would be more of an insult and/or a cruel joke. It really just shows you how much stock they put into what they owned. - Matt<br />
<br />
== Suzanne Lebsock, The Free Women of Petersburg ==<br />
<br />
I find it interesting that being an administrator/executor of a will would jump-start a business career for women. Lebsock describes that "as the executors of administrators of their deceased husbands' estates. . .the administrator was obliged to dissolve partnerships, to collect and pay debts, to pursue litigation, to distribute the estate to the proper heirs, and to manage it in the meantime." It seems that women more or less got a crash-course in conducting business and would find some prosperity in their loss. --Heather T.<br />
<br />
It seems women's roles in the church and charity pushed them to make decisions to give their wealth to people in need. Women usually gave to other women, which makes sense because many poor people were widows and orphans. However, women did choose favorites when sharing their good fortune. Women had favorite slaves, daughters, or other women. For women dividing wills was rarely equal. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
Women used their wealth and good fortune based on their own value systems that differed from men's values. Lebsock calls this "persistent personalism."And, this "persistent personalism" drove women to give to charity and the church. Also, to use their money for themselves or to certain individuals. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I liked the difference the author established between the dominant narrative of women's passivity and their caution in investing. Women had every reason to be cautious - they often had less experience, and less resources at their disposal. But that didn't mean that the decisions they were making with their estates and their families estates weren't just as active and thoughtful. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
This essay was certainly not without its own biases. I was with Lebsock up until her explanation of women using their wills to free their slaves. According to Lebsock, the vast majority of southern women were really opposed to slavery deep down, and showed it in their wills, and slavery was really perpetuated by all those evil men. I buy her explanations (personalization) for wills, administration, etc, but this is a little too romanticized for me. --Stef L.<br />
<br />
As Lebsock notes, "Women, more than men, noticed and responded to the needs and merits of particular persons." (142) Throughout this reading, Lebsock emphasized this point. What I find most interesting about the reading, though, is the manner in which it seemed (to me, anyway) that Lebsock almost danced around a fairly obvious point while describing attitudes about slavery and slaves, without coming out and saying it. For me, after reading Mary Cumming's description of her specific slaves ("...Mary is a pretty good worker at her needle, she is now sitting beside me making a slip for herself" (139)) it seemed so patently obvious to me that women's more individualistic approach to slaves was due to their far greater and more meaningful interactions with slaves. While Lebsock goes part of the way--discussing, as Stef mentions, women's increasing likelihood to personalize their wills relative to their actual relationships, not custom or law--she fails to explore why that was the case. While men would interact with slaves more fleetingly, while in transit, overseeing work, or giving orders, it was not--as far as I know--uncommon for white women and their slaves to be performing household tasks at the same time, and in the same location. That is the exact set of circumstances that can lead to regular discussion, to feelings of intimacy, and to a meaningful individual relationship. That seemed even clearer to me when compared with men like Edmund Ruffin, the proslavery apologist who--almost intentionally, it seems--omitted any mention of his slaves from his otherwise intensely personal writings. For Ruffin, his interactions with slaves ("...yanking off his boots, one imagines, stirring up his woodstove, serving his suppers"(140)) tended to be shorter, single-action based interactions, unlike the prolongued interactions between white women and their slaves (as with Cummings, sitting beside her slave while one wrote a letter and the other sewed). -- Nicole<br />
<br />
== Malefactors and Complainants ==<br />
<br />
After reading these complaints, I was struck by the fact that all of these read “after she confessed”. Did all of these women really stand up in court and say yes it was me. I did this horrible thing that you are accusing me of. Were these women force to say these things, simply to get a more bearable punishment? –Kayle P<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in many of these complaints, women were being charged with "fornication" and some with "fornication and having a bastard child." Why is it that only women are being convicted and punished for having sex out of wedlock? Is it all the womans fault? I'm pretty sure it definitely takes two and I highly doubt that these women were just overpowering and forceful and made these men have sex with them. It's absolutely outrageous. In the case of Rebecca Auborne and Samuel Kemble, the courts at least charged both of them for fornication and producing a bastard child; however, only Rebecca receives a physical punishment ("whip't with Fifteen Stripes", along with a monetary payment of 5 pounds and court fees) whereas Samuel Kemble (who actively participated in their fornication as well) was only sentenced to pay court fees and child support. Also, I agree with Kayle in her point she made about all of these women confessing. William Backway and his wife Mary were convicted "by theire own confession in court of committing fornication" (79). How exactly did the court find out about this fornication before their marriage? The text mentions no child involved as other passages do. In another example, Elizabeth Langberry was committed to prison and forced to pay court fees for becoming too drunk and allowing Thomas Ockerby to pull her into his lap. Why would she be punished for something that was not her fault? -- Lindsey S.</div>Lsmith0805https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_6_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 6 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-06T14:38:12Z<p>Lsmith0805: /* SUSANNA HASWELL ROWSON, Charlotte: A Tale of Truth, 1794 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Catherine Scholten, "On the Importance of the Obstetrick Art" 1977 ==<br />
<br />
'''Why did this change occur, and why were women willing to put up with it?'''<br />
<br />
In this article, Scholten brings up a point I had not considered: that '''changes in the way childbirth was viewed and dealt with were connected to religious and social attitudes.''' I knew, of course, that the idea of men as midwives or obstetricians was a social change, and that there were a number of factors associated with that change. What I had not considered was how the religious view of childbirth changed as science changed. '''As science was able to make childbirth less painful for the mother, the clergy actually reinterpreted Biblical texts relating to childbirth.''' This was one effect of scientific changes which I had not considered. -- Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
What interested me the most about this article was the dramatic shift in attitudes with the shift from Midwives to Physicians between the centuries. Throughout the 18th century, it was more of a womanly affair with support and keeping the mother in mind at all times, and then in the 19th century with the male physicians, it came to putting the child first over the mother. Even though Scholten connects this shift to the advancement of science and social changes, '''I wonder why women put up with the shift in attitudes,''' was it because they were so used to the patriarchal system? --Heather T.<br />
<br />
Interesting how men perceived their exclusion from midwifery as prejudice, but thought not at all about female exlusion from just about every other career. Also, once the numbers of men practicing midwifery/obstetrics surpassed the number of women, midwifery is finally adopted by universities for study as a branch of medicine. I do have a question regarding sexual taboos that the essay did not adequately answer: '''if women were not comfortable with male midwives (cutting the umbilical cord under the covers with the lights off? come on!), and husbands were not comfortable with exposure of their wives' bodies to male midwives, and female midwives were not happy with the change, who exactly supported it?''' --Stef L.<br />
<br />
When viewing this shift from a midwife centered birthing system to one that was purely medical, it seems as though it would be would be an important step in the advancement of women's health. However, even though the intensions of some of these male physicians may have been true to the patient it appears that such help was unwanted and even feared by the female community. Male physicians saw this field of medicine as one that had been long neglected and needed to be addressed in order to bring birthing practices from a "primitive society" to one that was civilized. Women on the other hand did not see such a need for male interference and viewed this shift as distressing and corrupting the female communal experience of child birth. Was it that women were alright with living in this "primitive society", in regards to birthing, in order to retain their social and cultural lives as females? -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
In this reading, it really struck out to me the different responsibilities and activities that the midwives would get involved in, such as testifying for bastard children, attending baptisms and funerals, etc. It seemed they made more of a personal connection with the family and the baby. I found the shift from female midwives to males to be really surprising. Society always had a sense of shyness when it came to women. Women were supposed to be ladies and keep their physical beauty and body to their husband and not out in public to non family members. But, I believe with the increase of males delivering babies, those guards of shyness between men and women began to come down, slowly. In return, changing the mannerly way of men and women in society. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
Scholten addresses the transition between childbirth as communal to childbirth as private. Where female midwives were once central to the childbirth process, women were now being excluded from the newly formed professional field of childbirth. Women were seen as unfit for the professional world. In a position that women had previously always filled, they were now hardly allowed to practice midwifery as men were seen as "more useful." Now, men had taken one of the only jobs that women were able to fill at the time.''' I would like to know how midwives of the time felt about their demotion and male feelings of superiority.''' -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
This article was very interesting, that because male physicians started entering this field it "lead to the demand for female physicians." Which I'm sure some women had an "ah ha" moment. However I do see where the community surrounded the mother for support during the childbirth and how that might effect the group dynamic when physicians took the place of these other women. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I find it interesting that midwifery was being phased out by all the physicians who were just starting out in the field. T'''he midwives in my opinion did the same job as the physicians, but because they were female, it made all the difference.''' Now the field is open to both men and women, both sexes can do the job. They may have different ideas about how to do their job, but the end result is the same. ---Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
I found it interesting just how much of a the process of childbirth changed after male physicians began to be involved. Childbirth transitioned to something that was almost like a social event, to something that was private and one-on-one with a physician. Childbearing was an incredibly strong bond that tied women together and before male physicians, women relied only on midwives and their FEMALE friends and relatives to help them through the pains and labor of childbirth. One of the most interesting aspects of childbirth before male physicians for me was the lengths that women (who were very far along in their pregnancy by this time) would go through to make sure their house was ready to receive all the women that would come to help with the labor, preparing drinks and entertainment for them and other things of that sort. From saying that they "would rather die" than have a male physician help them with medical problems relating to childbirth, to an almost total reliance on them, women seemed to have made the change rather quickly. I think this transition shows again the idea that women saw men as superior, and if they said they could do better at delivering a child, they undoubtedly were. --Grace Christenson<br />
<br />
I found this article to be quite interesting. The introduction of practiced obstetrics and male physicians brought about a huge social and cultural shift in women's lives during this time, and I can imagine the mixed feelings that were taking place. Medical physicians could be seen as a good thing. They assist women through the act of birth and they could better help the women if any complications were to arise; however, many women and their husbands had difficult times allowing another man to see her in that state. As one husband stated with regards to the doctor, he "would demolish him if he touched or looked at his wife" (87). For so many years, the acts of pregnancy and childbirth were considered within a woman's realm. They were social bonding events where women came together and helped in any way they could for the mother. -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== JUDITH SARGENT MURRAY, Story of Margaretta, 1798 ==<br />
<br />
'''It is particularly strange to me that a book excerpt written by a woman pretending to be a man about a woman was a best seller.''' Especially one so subtly in support of women's education, at the very least for the sake of the children whom she was raising. I think that had this been written by less eloquent and well-versed of a writer, it would have been blatant in its' authors' sex and vulgar in its' attempt at constructing a fake family. Since Judith Sargent Murray was atypical to her society (and would probably be atypical in today's society) in both sex roles and in intelligence levels, this fake story passed off as a true story succeeds. Even I would've thought this was a man writing if I had not reminded myself of such. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
What is most interesting is the fact that Murray was writing as a man about a young woman. '''To write the description of a good young women from male perspective shows that Murray must have heard or discussed with the men in her life about what characteristics a respectable young woman should own. Are these characteristics important to women? And, if so are they important in the same way their are important to men?''' --Michelle Martz<br />
<br />
'''One quote that struck me was “Persons when holding a pen, generally express themselves more freely than when engaged in conversation; and if they have a perfect confidence in those whom they address, the probability is, that, unbosoming themselves, they will not fail to unveil the inmost recesses of their souls.” While this quote is included in the story of Margaretta in terms of Margaretta, I think that it still says something about Judith Sargent Murray herself. The ideas she expresses in the story concerning education of women were not widely supported in her time. By adopting the point of view of a man writing about womens education, Murray allows herself to write of her true thoughts regarding the subject, ones she likely would not discuss vocally'''. –Clare O<br />
<br />
Would this book have been so popular if the public had known it was a woman doing the writing? Or if Judith Sargent Murray had written under her own name? Especially because of her strong support of women's education.--Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
One woman had all the characteristics and talents; she spoke English and French, she was educated in geography and philosophy and much more. It was interesting to see that eventhough this was a woman disguised as a man, she introduced these thoughts of women having a well rounded education. I wonder if it had been a women with these thoughts, would she have received any/much scrutiny for bringing or introducing ideals such as these. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
It is interesting to see a woman write a man’s point of view. I agree with Sara though that I found it interesting that it was a “man” in support of women’s education and the series was a best seller. It would have been interesting to read the rest of the series. – Kayle P<br />
<br />
This book by Murray is unique because of a few different reasons. First, a woman writing as a man is rare. Secondly, though, this writing portrays a sort of renaissance woman. Murray describes a woman who is good at everything; she can speak the two most important languages of the day, she can cook well, she is able to convey ideas and thoughts clearly through different medias, and she is effective at teaching others (namely her kid). This isn't taking a definitive stance toward any particular pole (typical versus completely atypical gender roles), which makes it a very constructive novel for women's history. <br />
--Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
I was surprised when reading this to know it was coming from a woman's perspective as a man (whew) but it really made me think about how important it was for women to let men know that they were capable of learning and being accomplished. Unfortunately the only way this was possible was to have it told by a man. I wonder how this and other pieces of literature changed the way men thought about the education of women, maybe especially their wives and daughters. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading this because I think it is important to note that a woman can be just as successful as a man when it comes to her writing ability. I was very shocked that Murray took the risk to write as a man during this time period, and did not recieve scrutiny for it. Instead, it ended up a best seller. I think another point that needs to be mentioned is that gender roles seem to be blurred in this reading. A woman writing as a man does not fit into either "typical" gender role during the time period. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
This is a teeny-tiny detail, but it really bothered me - when she's talking about how women should be educated because they educate their children (bottom of the second page), she says the matron educates her "daughter," but also "that mind which is to inform the future man." I don't really know how to interpret this - men are identified with their minds and women aren't? Daughters are just daughters, but sons aren't sons, they're "future men"? It seemed like such messy phrasing, I want to know what it was supposed to be getting at. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
It was so interesting to see a women writing as though from a man's point of view. I think it would have been interesting to read this not knowing a woman was writing it. I think we all would have been amazed that a man was truly so supportive of women's education, in more ways that just for the purpose of "republican motherhood." The fact that Murray had to write under a man's name speaks volumes about the mind set of people of the time. Had she written as a woman, people would have written the piece off as a radial and not worth reading. But since she wrote as a man, while the piece may have been radical, it was a though provoking subject that was probably deemed worthy of discussion-- Grace Christenson<br />
<br />
I find it fascinating that Murray, writing as a man about a woman, was a proponent of education but also took pains to place education squarely within a woman's sphere--indeed, she preempted potential responses, noting, "No, Mr. Pedant, she was not unfitted for her proper sphere." It's also fascinating that Murray discusses her daughter's desire to remain silent--that is, to refrain from being obtrusive with her opinions and thoughts--while at the same time championing the fact of more effective communication when it was written. Perhaps she was commenting on the fact that she found an uncommonly strong voice through her writing? -- Nicole<br />
<br />
== SUSANNA HASWELL ROWSON, Charlotte: A Tale of Truth, 1794 ==<br />
<br />
''"While the tear of compassion still trembled in my eye for the fate<br />
of the unhappy Charlotte, I may have children of my own, said I, to<br />
whom this recital may be of use, and if to your own children, said<br />
Benevolence, why not to the many daughters of Misfortune who, deprived<br />
of natural friends, or spoilt by a mistaken education, are thrown<br />
on an unfeeling world without the least power to defend themselves<br />
from the snares not only of the other sex, but from the more dangerous<br />
arts of the profligate of their own."'' (page 190). <br />
I include this quote because I really think that this is a concept that so many activist leaders could relate to... the dream of wanting a better world, not for themself, but for their CHILDREN. It also is significant because the person for whom Susanna Rowson feels had a bad life was not that of her own, but of Charlotte. Maybe it is that oppression is seen more extensively in those around the oppressed than in the oppressed themself, or maybe Susanna felt her life was NOT oppressed after hearing that of Charlottes. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
The message is the ''honor'' of women is very important. If a women acts against her honor or goodwill, then ultimately she will end in death. I have a question for this story?''' Were men or women reading this story, or both? Or who was the intended audience? These questions could shed some light on how women were perceived to act.''' --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
Although the power and influence of men over women is highly apparent in this time period, I was rather shocked when Montraville essentially kidnapped Charlotte when she refused to go overseas with him due to loyalty and duty to her parents. More shocking however, is that fact that no one attempted to aid Charlotte when she was shrieking and obviously being taken against her will. Particularly Mademoiselle could have alerted someone to what was going on, but perhaps since she came to see Belcour that she was under his influence not to. Furthermore, once Montraville acquired Charlotte as his wife in the colonies, he treated her with indifference and neglect. This shows that males wanted to exert and demonstrate their power over women and once they had secured that power, the women required no more of their attention. –Clare O.<br />
<br />
'''I found it astonishing that this woman was such a successful writer during this time period''', I suppose the themes were acceptable to the vast majority of men who allowed her works to be published. Preaching to young girls to obey her parents; if she dishonors herself and her parents by eloping, she will most certainly live a horrible life and die ashamed. I was curious, on page 194, what exactly does Rownson mean by “sober matron”, I thought her intended audience was the “young and thoughtless of the fair sex”. I''' found the title to be interesting as well, “Charlottle. A Tale of Truth” this implies that this is story is not only true but this is the horrible truth of the consequences of dishonor.''' -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
I thought Rowson's conversation with the "sober matron" who's checking the book before letting her daughter read it throughout the chapters we read was really interesting. Even though her stated audience was young women, urging them not to go off and elope themselves, she kind of seems to be appealing to the importance of mothers in raising their children properly in a way that I'm not sure we've seen before. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
I agree with Clare, i was also surprised where the rest of the family was when she needed help. Montraville basically guilt-tripped Charlotte into going against her parents and leaving them for him. She was a woman of value, morals and beliefs that she was very strongly rooted in; but eventually gave into the love of her life. So far in class, we talk about how much power the male member of the family has, however, it was interesting to see how much influence and power he had with her, even before he became apart of the family; he was basically giving her ultimatums. (top of 200).... --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading the novel. I thought that for the time it was well thought out and that the reader was able to follow the storyline.''' What was even more amazing to me was that a woman wrote this and published it under her own name. I assumed even women that had attended the schooling were not encouraged to use their schooling other than to help with the rearing of future leaders. Does this mean that they are more works by women of this era, under their own names?''' –Kayle P<br />
<br />
'''Yuck. I am glad that we read this in the same week as the Judith Murray piece, since both are more soapbox than story.''' I found it interesting that the "female" writer reinforced existing gender roles, while the "male" writer offered alternatives for women. Why did Murray choose to use a male voice? Was it because she felt her ideas would be taken more seriously? Because she was afraid of repercussions? '''Getting back to the Charlotte piece though, yuck. This melodramatic thing was a bestseller for 50 years? I would be curious to see what the rest of her work was like. Although, as Rowson suggests within the story, this was probably a novel intended to be passed along to young women by their sober mothers (as a means for controlling them through gullible fear, and perpetuating existing patriarchal marital framework). Why women perpetuated this, more even than men did, I will never understand.''' --Stef L.<br />
<br />
I read this a few years ago in a literature class, and it still makes me cringe out of disgust for certain characters and be filled with sadness for Charlotte. I also wonder, who did she intend to write this for? Men, women, children? It's a tale of betrayal and dishonesty. I'm assuming it was meant to be a lesson of what to do and what not to do. If you disobey your parents, have sex, and run away, you will be punished. Unfortunately for the the characters in this story, their punishment was death. Charlotte did all of what I previously stated and died in the end; Belcour tricks his friend and Charlotte, lies, and betrays and is killed by Montraville; La Rue is just as guilty of lying, trickery, and betrayal as Belcour and also faces a miserable death. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
I thought that this was very interesting because it so obviously enforces the gender roles of the time. It seems to support them, yet Charlotte was so incredibly unhappy with her life with Montraville that it also seems a little unlikely that Rowson actually believed that her life was the best life. The first time that she had felt joy was when her father had resurfaced in her life, and she was dying. I also found it very intriguing that Montraville was not mentioned or seen at all in the last chapter when she was dying. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
It is quite interesting that Susanna Rowson published this novel under her own name. I think it is an assumption and a stereotype that all women had to use masculine pen names to avoid gender discovery. Rowson obviously drew acclaim and success for years after the publication of her work, despite the novel being written by a woman. '''As many of my classmates have already pointed out, I also was struck by how Rowson cemented gender roles in her writing as opposed to challenging them.''' --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
What I want to know is how did this piece of literature that was popular for so many years almost completely disappear? Was it because of the change in gender roles over time? Why did this fall out of the public eye, while works such as "Little Women" or "Uncle Tom's Cabin" continue to be enjoyed today? It is actually a quite fascinating read. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading this story. It was a sad account that showed just how dominant a male influence could be on a young woman. Charlotte valued her family, yet she was still able to be swayed by Montraville into leaving her family and going away with him. In the last few pages, Montraville was not mentioned at all, even when she was dying at the end. The title of the work is 'Charlotte, A Tale of Truth''- ''was this a common story? Was it normal for this time for men to coax young girls into leaving their happy, comfortable lives behind and then for that man to leave her behind? In reading this, I find that this story is not much different from real life experiences many women have today. How often do we hear of a young woman (or a teenage girl) being swept off her feet by a boy and ending up pregnant and alone? (Usually against the will of her parents) Have gender roles really changed that much over the past 200 years?-- Lindsey S.''</div>Lsmith0805https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_6_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 6 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-06T14:37:29Z<p>Lsmith0805: /* SUSANNA HASWELL ROWSON, Charlotte: A Tale of Truth, 1794 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Catherine Scholten, "On the Importance of the Obstetrick Art" 1977 ==<br />
<br />
'''Why did this change occur, and why were women willing to put up with it?'''<br />
<br />
In this article, Scholten brings up a point I had not considered: that '''changes in the way childbirth was viewed and dealt with were connected to religious and social attitudes.''' I knew, of course, that the idea of men as midwives or obstetricians was a social change, and that there were a number of factors associated with that change. What I had not considered was how the religious view of childbirth changed as science changed. '''As science was able to make childbirth less painful for the mother, the clergy actually reinterpreted Biblical texts relating to childbirth.''' This was one effect of scientific changes which I had not considered. -- Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
What interested me the most about this article was the dramatic shift in attitudes with the shift from Midwives to Physicians between the centuries. Throughout the 18th century, it was more of a womanly affair with support and keeping the mother in mind at all times, and then in the 19th century with the male physicians, it came to putting the child first over the mother. Even though Scholten connects this shift to the advancement of science and social changes, '''I wonder why women put up with the shift in attitudes,''' was it because they were so used to the patriarchal system? --Heather T.<br />
<br />
Interesting how men perceived their exclusion from midwifery as prejudice, but thought not at all about female exlusion from just about every other career. Also, once the numbers of men practicing midwifery/obstetrics surpassed the number of women, midwifery is finally adopted by universities for study as a branch of medicine. I do have a question regarding sexual taboos that the essay did not adequately answer: '''if women were not comfortable with male midwives (cutting the umbilical cord under the covers with the lights off? come on!), and husbands were not comfortable with exposure of their wives' bodies to male midwives, and female midwives were not happy with the change, who exactly supported it?''' --Stef L.<br />
<br />
When viewing this shift from a midwife centered birthing system to one that was purely medical, it seems as though it would be would be an important step in the advancement of women's health. However, even though the intensions of some of these male physicians may have been true to the patient it appears that such help was unwanted and even feared by the female community. Male physicians saw this field of medicine as one that had been long neglected and needed to be addressed in order to bring birthing practices from a "primitive society" to one that was civilized. Women on the other hand did not see such a need for male interference and viewed this shift as distressing and corrupting the female communal experience of child birth. Was it that women were alright with living in this "primitive society", in regards to birthing, in order to retain their social and cultural lives as females? -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
In this reading, it really struck out to me the different responsibilities and activities that the midwives would get involved in, such as testifying for bastard children, attending baptisms and funerals, etc. It seemed they made more of a personal connection with the family and the baby. I found the shift from female midwives to males to be really surprising. Society always had a sense of shyness when it came to women. Women were supposed to be ladies and keep their physical beauty and body to their husband and not out in public to non family members. But, I believe with the increase of males delivering babies, those guards of shyness between men and women began to come down, slowly. In return, changing the mannerly way of men and women in society. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
Scholten addresses the transition between childbirth as communal to childbirth as private. Where female midwives were once central to the childbirth process, women were now being excluded from the newly formed professional field of childbirth. Women were seen as unfit for the professional world. In a position that women had previously always filled, they were now hardly allowed to practice midwifery as men were seen as "more useful." Now, men had taken one of the only jobs that women were able to fill at the time.''' I would like to know how midwives of the time felt about their demotion and male feelings of superiority.''' -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
This article was very interesting, that because male physicians started entering this field it "lead to the demand for female physicians." Which I'm sure some women had an "ah ha" moment. However I do see where the community surrounded the mother for support during the childbirth and how that might effect the group dynamic when physicians took the place of these other women. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I find it interesting that midwifery was being phased out by all the physicians who were just starting out in the field. T'''he midwives in my opinion did the same job as the physicians, but because they were female, it made all the difference.''' Now the field is open to both men and women, both sexes can do the job. They may have different ideas about how to do their job, but the end result is the same. ---Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
I found it interesting just how much of a the process of childbirth changed after male physicians began to be involved. Childbirth transitioned to something that was almost like a social event, to something that was private and one-on-one with a physician. Childbearing was an incredibly strong bond that tied women together and before male physicians, women relied only on midwives and their FEMALE friends and relatives to help them through the pains and labor of childbirth. One of the most interesting aspects of childbirth before male physicians for me was the lengths that women (who were very far along in their pregnancy by this time) would go through to make sure their house was ready to receive all the women that would come to help with the labor, preparing drinks and entertainment for them and other things of that sort. From saying that they "would rather die" than have a male physician help them with medical problems relating to childbirth, to an almost total reliance on them, women seemed to have made the change rather quickly. I think this transition shows again the idea that women saw men as superior, and if they said they could do better at delivering a child, they undoubtedly were. --Grace Christenson<br />
<br />
I found this article to be quite interesting. The introduction of practiced obstetrics and male physicians brought about a huge social and cultural shift in women's lives during this time, and I can imagine the mixed feelings that were taking place. Medical physicians could be seen as a good thing. They assist women through the act of birth and they could better help the women if any complications were to arise; however, many women and their husbands had difficult times allowing another man to see her in that state. As one husband stated with regards to the doctor, he "would demolish him if he touched or looked at his wife" (87). For so many years, the acts of pregnancy and childbirth were considered within a woman's realm. They were social bonding events where women came together and helped in any way they could for the mother. -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== JUDITH SARGENT MURRAY, Story of Margaretta, 1798 ==<br />
<br />
'''It is particularly strange to me that a book excerpt written by a woman pretending to be a man about a woman was a best seller.''' Especially one so subtly in support of women's education, at the very least for the sake of the children whom she was raising. I think that had this been written by less eloquent and well-versed of a writer, it would have been blatant in its' authors' sex and vulgar in its' attempt at constructing a fake family. Since Judith Sargent Murray was atypical to her society (and would probably be atypical in today's society) in both sex roles and in intelligence levels, this fake story passed off as a true story succeeds. Even I would've thought this was a man writing if I had not reminded myself of such. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
What is most interesting is the fact that Murray was writing as a man about a young woman. '''To write the description of a good young women from male perspective shows that Murray must have heard or discussed with the men in her life about what characteristics a respectable young woman should own. Are these characteristics important to women? And, if so are they important in the same way their are important to men?''' --Michelle Martz<br />
<br />
'''One quote that struck me was “Persons when holding a pen, generally express themselves more freely than when engaged in conversation; and if they have a perfect confidence in those whom they address, the probability is, that, unbosoming themselves, they will not fail to unveil the inmost recesses of their souls.” While this quote is included in the story of Margaretta in terms of Margaretta, I think that it still says something about Judith Sargent Murray herself. The ideas she expresses in the story concerning education of women were not widely supported in her time. By adopting the point of view of a man writing about womens education, Murray allows herself to write of her true thoughts regarding the subject, ones she likely would not discuss vocally'''. –Clare O<br />
<br />
Would this book have been so popular if the public had known it was a woman doing the writing? Or if Judith Sargent Murray had written under her own name? Especially because of her strong support of women's education.--Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
One woman had all the characteristics and talents; she spoke English and French, she was educated in geography and philosophy and much more. It was interesting to see that eventhough this was a woman disguised as a man, she introduced these thoughts of women having a well rounded education. I wonder if it had been a women with these thoughts, would she have received any/much scrutiny for bringing or introducing ideals such as these. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
It is interesting to see a woman write a man’s point of view. I agree with Sara though that I found it interesting that it was a “man” in support of women’s education and the series was a best seller. It would have been interesting to read the rest of the series. – Kayle P<br />
<br />
This book by Murray is unique because of a few different reasons. First, a woman writing as a man is rare. Secondly, though, this writing portrays a sort of renaissance woman. Murray describes a woman who is good at everything; she can speak the two most important languages of the day, she can cook well, she is able to convey ideas and thoughts clearly through different medias, and she is effective at teaching others (namely her kid). This isn't taking a definitive stance toward any particular pole (typical versus completely atypical gender roles), which makes it a very constructive novel for women's history. <br />
--Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
I was surprised when reading this to know it was coming from a woman's perspective as a man (whew) but it really made me think about how important it was for women to let men know that they were capable of learning and being accomplished. Unfortunately the only way this was possible was to have it told by a man. I wonder how this and other pieces of literature changed the way men thought about the education of women, maybe especially their wives and daughters. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading this because I think it is important to note that a woman can be just as successful as a man when it comes to her writing ability. I was very shocked that Murray took the risk to write as a man during this time period, and did not recieve scrutiny for it. Instead, it ended up a best seller. I think another point that needs to be mentioned is that gender roles seem to be blurred in this reading. A woman writing as a man does not fit into either "typical" gender role during the time period. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
This is a teeny-tiny detail, but it really bothered me - when she's talking about how women should be educated because they educate their children (bottom of the second page), she says the matron educates her "daughter," but also "that mind which is to inform the future man." I don't really know how to interpret this - men are identified with their minds and women aren't? Daughters are just daughters, but sons aren't sons, they're "future men"? It seemed like such messy phrasing, I want to know what it was supposed to be getting at. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
It was so interesting to see a women writing as though from a man's point of view. I think it would have been interesting to read this not knowing a woman was writing it. I think we all would have been amazed that a man was truly so supportive of women's education, in more ways that just for the purpose of "republican motherhood." The fact that Murray had to write under a man's name speaks volumes about the mind set of people of the time. Had she written as a woman, people would have written the piece off as a radial and not worth reading. But since she wrote as a man, while the piece may have been radical, it was a though provoking subject that was probably deemed worthy of discussion-- Grace Christenson<br />
<br />
I find it fascinating that Murray, writing as a man about a woman, was a proponent of education but also took pains to place education squarely within a woman's sphere--indeed, she preempted potential responses, noting, "No, Mr. Pedant, she was not unfitted for her proper sphere." It's also fascinating that Murray discusses her daughter's desire to remain silent--that is, to refrain from being obtrusive with her opinions and thoughts--while at the same time championing the fact of more effective communication when it was written. Perhaps she was commenting on the fact that she found an uncommonly strong voice through her writing? -- Nicole<br />
<br />
== SUSANNA HASWELL ROWSON, Charlotte: A Tale of Truth, 1794 ==<br />
<br />
''"While the tear of compassion still trembled in my eye for the fate<br />
of the unhappy Charlotte, I may have children of my own, said I, to<br />
whom this recital may be of use, and if to your own children, said<br />
Benevolence, why not to the many daughters of Misfortune who, deprived<br />
of natural friends, or spoilt by a mistaken education, are thrown<br />
on an unfeeling world without the least power to defend themselves<br />
from the snares not only of the other sex, but from the more dangerous<br />
arts of the profligate of their own."'' (page 190). <br />
I include this quote because I really think that this is a concept that so many activist leaders could relate to... the dream of wanting a better world, not for themself, but for their CHILDREN. It also is significant because the person for whom Susanna Rowson feels had a bad life was not that of her own, but of Charlotte. Maybe it is that oppression is seen more extensively in those around the oppressed than in the oppressed themself, or maybe Susanna felt her life was NOT oppressed after hearing that of Charlottes. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
The message is the ''honor'' of women is very important. If a women acts against her honor or goodwill, then ultimately she will end in death. I have a question for this story?''' Were men or women reading this story, or both? Or who was the intended audience? These questions could shed some light on how women were perceived to act.''' --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
Although the power and influence of men over women is highly apparent in this time period, I was rather shocked when Montraville essentially kidnapped Charlotte when she refused to go overseas with him due to loyalty and duty to her parents. More shocking however, is that fact that no one attempted to aid Charlotte when she was shrieking and obviously being taken against her will. Particularly Mademoiselle could have alerted someone to what was going on, but perhaps since she came to see Belcour that she was under his influence not to. Furthermore, once Montraville acquired Charlotte as his wife in the colonies, he treated her with indifference and neglect. This shows that males wanted to exert and demonstrate their power over women and once they had secured that power, the women required no more of their attention. –Clare O.<br />
<br />
'''I found it astonishing that this woman was such a successful writer during this time period''', I suppose the themes were acceptable to the vast majority of men who allowed her works to be published. Preaching to young girls to obey her parents; if she dishonors herself and her parents by eloping, she will most certainly live a horrible life and die ashamed. I was curious, on page 194, what exactly does Rownson mean by “sober matron”, I thought her intended audience was the “young and thoughtless of the fair sex”. I''' found the title to be interesting as well, “Charlottle. A Tale of Truth” this implies that this is story is not only true but this is the horrible truth of the consequences of dishonor.''' -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
I thought Rowson's conversation with the "sober matron" who's checking the book before letting her daughter read it throughout the chapters we read was really interesting. Even though her stated audience was young women, urging them not to go off and elope themselves, she kind of seems to be appealing to the importance of mothers in raising their children properly in a way that I'm not sure we've seen before. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
I agree with Clare, i was also surprised where the rest of the family was when she needed help. Montraville basically guilt-tripped Charlotte into going against her parents and leaving them for him. She was a woman of value, morals and beliefs that she was very strongly rooted in; but eventually gave into the love of her life. So far in class, we talk about how much power the male member of the family has, however, it was interesting to see how much influence and power he had with her, even before he became apart of the family; he was basically giving her ultimatums. (top of 200).... --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading the novel. I thought that for the time it was well thought out and that the reader was able to follow the storyline.''' What was even more amazing to me was that a woman wrote this and published it under her own name. I assumed even women that had attended the schooling were not encouraged to use their schooling other than to help with the rearing of future leaders. Does this mean that they are more works by women of this era, under their own names?''' –Kayle P<br />
<br />
'''Yuck. I am glad that we read this in the same week as the Judith Murray piece, since both are more soapbox than story.''' I found it interesting that the "female" writer reinforced existing gender roles, while the "male" writer offered alternatives for women. Why did Murray choose to use a male voice? Was it because she felt her ideas would be taken more seriously? Because she was afraid of repercussions? '''Getting back to the Charlotte piece though, yuck. This melodramatic thing was a bestseller for 50 years? I would be curious to see what the rest of her work was like. Although, as Rowson suggests within the story, this was probably a novel intended to be passed along to young women by their sober mothers (as a means for controlling them through gullible fear, and perpetuating existing patriarchal marital framework). Why women perpetuated this, more even than men did, I will never understand.''' --Stef L.<br />
<br />
I read this a few years ago in a literature class, and it still makes me cringe out of disgust for certain characters and be filled with sadness for Charlotte. I also wonder, who did she intend to write this for? Men, women, children? It's a tale of betrayal and dishonesty. I'm assuming it was meant to be a lesson of what to do and what not to do. If you disobey your parents, have sex, and run away, you will be punished. Unfortunately for the the characters in this story, their punishment was death. Charlotte did all of what I previously stated and died in the end; Belcour tricks his friend and Charlotte, lies, and betrays and is killed by Montraville; La Rue is just as guilty of lying, trickery, and betrayal as Belcour and also faces a miserable death. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
I thought that this was very interesting because it so obviously enforces the gender roles of the time. It seems to support them, yet Charlotte was so incredibly unhappy with her life with Montraville that it also seems a little unlikely that Rowson actually believed that her life was the best life. The first time that she had felt joy was when her father had resurfaced in her life, and she was dying. I also found it very intriguing that Montraville was not mentioned or seen at all in the last chapter when she was dying. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
It is quite interesting that Susanna Rowson published this novel under her own name. I think it is an assumption and a stereotype that all women had to use masculine pen names to avoid gender discovery. Rowson obviously drew acclaim and success for years after the publication of her work, despite the novel being written by a woman. '''As many of my classmates have already pointed out, I also was struck by how Rowson cemented gender roles in her writing as opposed to challenging them.''' --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
What I want to know is how did this piece of literature that was popular for so many years almost completely disappear? Was it because of the change in gender roles over time? Why did this fall out of the public eye, while works such as "Little Women" or "Uncle Tom's Cabin" continue to be enjoyed today? It is actually a quite fascinating read. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading this story. It was a sad account that showed just how dominant a male influence could be on a young woman. Charlotte valued her family, yet she was still able to be swayed by Montraville into leaving her family and going away with him. In the last few pages, Montraville was not mentioned at all, even when she was dying at the end. The title of the work is 'Charlotte, A Tale of Truth''- was this a common story? Was it normal for this time for men to coax young girls into leaving their happy, comfortable lives behind and then for that man to leave her behind? In reading this, I find that this story is not much different from real life experiences many women have today. How often do we hear of a young woman (or a teenage girl) being swept off her feet by a boy and ending up pregnant and alone? (Usually against the will of her parents) Have gender roles really changed that much over the past 200 years?-- Lindsey S.</div>Lsmith0805https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_6_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 6 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-06T14:08:30Z<p>Lsmith0805: /* Catherine Scholten, "On the Importance of the Obstetrick Art" 1977 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Catherine Scholten, "On the Importance of the Obstetrick Art" 1977 ==<br />
<br />
'''Why did this change occur, and why were women willing to put up with it?'''<br />
<br />
In this article, Scholten brings up a point I had not considered: that '''changes in the way childbirth was viewed and dealt with were connected to religious and social attitudes.''' I knew, of course, that the idea of men as midwives or obstetricians was a social change, and that there were a number of factors associated with that change. What I had not considered was how the religious view of childbirth changed as science changed. '''As science was able to make childbirth less painful for the mother, the clergy actually reinterpreted Biblical texts relating to childbirth.''' This was one effect of scientific changes which I had not considered. -- Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
What interested me the most about this article was the dramatic shift in attitudes with the shift from Midwives to Physicians between the centuries. Throughout the 18th century, it was more of a womanly affair with support and keeping the mother in mind at all times, and then in the 19th century with the male physicians, it came to putting the child first over the mother. Even though Scholten connects this shift to the advancement of science and social changes, '''I wonder why women put up with the shift in attitudes,''' was it because they were so used to the patriarchal system? --Heather T.<br />
<br />
Interesting how men perceived their exclusion from midwifery as prejudice, but thought not at all about female exlusion from just about every other career. Also, once the numbers of men practicing midwifery/obstetrics surpassed the number of women, midwifery is finally adopted by universities for study as a branch of medicine. I do have a question regarding sexual taboos that the essay did not adequately answer: '''if women were not comfortable with male midwives (cutting the umbilical cord under the covers with the lights off? come on!), and husbands were not comfortable with exposure of their wives' bodies to male midwives, and female midwives were not happy with the change, who exactly supported it?''' --Stef L.<br />
<br />
When viewing this shift from a midwife centered birthing system to one that was purely medical, it seems as though it would be would be an important step in the advancement of women's health. However, even though the intensions of some of these male physicians may have been true to the patient it appears that such help was unwanted and even feared by the female community. Male physicians saw this field of medicine as one that had been long neglected and needed to be addressed in order to bring birthing practices from a "primitive society" to one that was civilized. Women on the other hand did not see such a need for male interference and viewed this shift as distressing and corrupting the female communal experience of child birth. Was it that women were alright with living in this "primitive society", in regards to birthing, in order to retain their social and cultural lives as females? -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
In this reading, it really struck out to me the different responsibilities and activities that the midwives would get involved in, such as testifying for bastard children, attending baptisms and funerals, etc. It seemed they made more of a personal connection with the family and the baby. I found the shift from female midwives to males to be really surprising. Society always had a sense of shyness when it came to women. Women were supposed to be ladies and keep their physical beauty and body to their husband and not out in public to non family members. But, I believe with the increase of males delivering babies, those guards of shyness between men and women began to come down, slowly. In return, changing the mannerly way of men and women in society. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
Scholten addresses the transition between childbirth as communal to childbirth as private. Where female midwives were once central to the childbirth process, women were now being excluded from the newly formed professional field of childbirth. Women were seen as unfit for the professional world. In a position that women had previously always filled, they were now hardly allowed to practice midwifery as men were seen as "more useful." Now, men had taken one of the only jobs that women were able to fill at the time.''' I would like to know how midwives of the time felt about their demotion and male feelings of superiority.''' -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
This article was very interesting, that because male physicians started entering this field it "lead to the demand for female physicians." Which I'm sure some women had an "ah ha" moment. However I do see where the community surrounded the mother for support during the childbirth and how that might effect the group dynamic when physicians took the place of these other women. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I find it interesting that midwifery was being phased out by all the physicians who were just starting out in the field. T'''he midwives in my opinion did the same job as the physicians, but because they were female, it made all the difference.''' Now the field is open to both men and women, both sexes can do the job. They may have different ideas about how to do their job, but the end result is the same. ---Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
I found it interesting just how much of a the process of childbirth changed after male physicians began to be involved. Childbirth transitioned to something that was almost like a social event, to something that was private and one-on-one with a physician. Childbearing was an incredibly strong bond that tied women together and before male physicians, women relied only on midwives and their FEMALE friends and relatives to help them through the pains and labor of childbirth. One of the most interesting aspects of childbirth before male physicians for me was the lengths that women (who were very far along in their pregnancy by this time) would go through to make sure their house was ready to receive all the women that would come to help with the labor, preparing drinks and entertainment for them and other things of that sort. From saying that they "would rather die" than have a male physician help them with medical problems relating to childbirth, to an almost total reliance on them, women seemed to have made the change rather quickly. I think this transition shows again the idea that women saw men as superior, and if they said they could do better at delivering a child, they undoubtedly were. --Grace Christenson<br />
<br />
I found this article to be quite interesting. The introduction of practiced obstetrics and male physicians brought about a huge social and cultural shift in women's lives during this time, and I can imagine the mixed feelings that were taking place. Medical physicians could be seen as a good thing. They assist women through the act of birth and they could better help the women if any complications were to arise; however, many women and their husbands had difficult times allowing another man to see her in that state. As one husband stated with regards to the doctor, he "would demolish him if he touched or looked at his wife" (87). For so many years, the acts of pregnancy and childbirth were considered within a woman's realm. They were social bonding events where women came together and helped in any way they could for the mother. -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== JUDITH SARGENT MURRAY, Story of Margaretta, 1798 ==<br />
<br />
'''It is particularly strange to me that a book excerpt written by a woman pretending to be a man about a woman was a best seller.''' Especially one so subtly in support of women's education, at the very least for the sake of the children whom she was raising. I think that had this been written by less eloquent and well-versed of a writer, it would have been blatant in its' authors' sex and vulgar in its' attempt at constructing a fake family. Since Judith Sargent Murray was atypical to her society (and would probably be atypical in today's society) in both sex roles and in intelligence levels, this fake story passed off as a true story succeeds. Even I would've thought this was a man writing if I had not reminded myself of such. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
What is most interesting is the fact that Murray was writing as a man about a young woman. '''To write the description of a good young women from male perspective shows that Murray must have heard or discussed with the men in her life about what characteristics a respectable young woman should own. Are these characteristics important to women? And, if so are they important in the same way their are important to men?''' --Michelle Martz<br />
<br />
'''One quote that struck me was “Persons when holding a pen, generally express themselves more freely than when engaged in conversation; and if they have a perfect confidence in those whom they address, the probability is, that, unbosoming themselves, they will not fail to unveil the inmost recesses of their souls.” While this quote is included in the story of Margaretta in terms of Margaretta, I think that it still says something about Judith Sargent Murray herself. The ideas she expresses in the story concerning education of women were not widely supported in her time. By adopting the point of view of a man writing about womens education, Murray allows herself to write of her true thoughts regarding the subject, ones she likely would not discuss vocally'''. –Clare O<br />
<br />
One woman had all the characteristics and talents; she spoke English and French, she was educated in geography and philosophy and much more. It was interesting to see that eventhough this was a woman disguised as a man, she introduced these thoughts of women having a well rounded education. I wonder if it had been a women with these thoughts, would she have received any/much scrutiny for bringing or introducing ideals such as these. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
It is interesting to see a woman write a man’s point of view. I agree with Sara though that I found it interesting that it was a “man” in support of women’s education and the series was a best seller. It would have been interesting to read the rest of the series. – Kayle P<br />
<br />
This book by Murray is unique because of a few different reasons. First, a woman writing as a man is rare. Secondly, though, this writing portrays a sort of renaissance woman. Murray describes a woman who is good at everything; she can speak the two most important languages of the day, she can cook well, she is able to convey ideas and thoughts clearly through different medias, and she is effective at teaching others (namely her kid). This isn't taking a definitive stance toward any particular pole (typical versus completely atypical gender roles), which makes it a very constructive novel for women's history. <br />
--Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
I was surprised when reading this to know it was coming from a woman's perspective as a man (whew) but it really made me think about how important it was for women to let men know that they were capable of learning and being accomplished. Unfortunately the only way this was possible was to have it told by a man. I wonder how this and other pieces of literature changed the way men thought about the education of women, maybe especially their wives and daughters. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading this because I think it is important to note that a woman can be just as successful as a man when it comes to her writing ability. I was very shocked that Murray took the risk to write as a man during this time period, and did not recieve scrutiny for it. Instead, it ended up a best seller. I think another point that needs to be mentioned is that gender roles seem to be blurred in this reading. A woman writing as a man does not fit into either "typical" gender role during the time period. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
This is a teeny-tiny detail, but it really bothered me - when she's talking about how women should be educated because they educate their children (bottom of the second page), she says the matron educates her "daughter," but also "that mind which is to inform the future man." I don't really know how to interpret this - men are identified with their minds and women aren't? Daughters are just daughters, but sons aren't sons, they're "future men"? It seemed like such messy phrasing, I want to know what it was supposed to be getting at. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
It was so interesting to see a women writing as though from a man's point of view. I think it would have been interesting to read this not knowing a woman was writing it. I think we all would have been amazed that a man was truly so supportive of women's education, in more ways that just for the purpose of "republican motherhood." The fact that Murray had to write under a man's name speaks volumes about the mind set of people of the time. Had she written as a woman, people would have written the piece off as a radial and not worth reading. But since she wrote as a man, while the piece may have been radical, it was a though provoking subject that was probably deemed worthy of discussion-- Grace Christenson<br />
<br />
== SUSANNA HASWELL ROWSON, Charlotte: A Tale of Truth, 1794 ==<br />
<br />
''"While the tear of compassion still trembled in my eye for the fate<br />
of the unhappy Charlotte, I may have children of my own, said I, to<br />
whom this recital may be of use, and if to your own children, said<br />
Benevolence, why not to the many daughters of Misfortune who, deprived<br />
of natural friends, or spoilt by a mistaken education, are thrown<br />
on an unfeeling world without the least power to defend themselves<br />
from the snares not only of the other sex, but from the more dangerous<br />
arts of the profligate of their own."'' (page 190). <br />
I include this quote because I really think that this is a concept that so many activist leaders could relate to... the dream of wanting a better world, not for themself, but for their CHILDREN. It also is significant because the person for whom Susanna Rowson feels had a bad life was not that of her own, but of Charlotte. Maybe it is that oppression is seen more extensively in those around the oppressed than in the oppressed themself, or maybe Susanna felt her life was NOT oppressed after hearing that of Charlottes. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
The message is the ''honor'' of women is very important. If a women acts against her honor or goodwill, then ultimately she will end in death. I have a question for this story?''' Were men or women reading this story, or both? Or who was the intended audience? These questions could shed some light on how women were perceived to act.''' --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
Although the power and influence of men over women is highly apparent in this time period, I was rather shocked when Montraville essentially kidnapped Charlotte when she refused to go overseas with him due to loyalty and duty to her parents. More shocking however, is that fact that no one attempted to aid Charlotte when she was shrieking and obviously being taken against her will. Particularly Mademoiselle could have alerted someone to what was going on, but perhaps since she came to see Belcour that she was under his influence not to. Furthermore, once Montraville acquired Charlotte as his wife in the colonies, he treated her with indifference and neglect. This shows that males wanted to exert and demonstrate their power over women and once they had secured that power, the women required no more of their attention. –Clare O.<br />
<br />
'''I found it astonishing that this woman was such a successful writer during this time period''', I suppose the themes were acceptable to the vast majority of men who allowed her works to be published. Preaching to young girls to obey her parents; if she dishonors herself and her parents by eloping, she will most certainly live a horrible life and die ashamed. I was curious, on page 194, what exactly does Rownson mean by “sober matron”, I thought her intended audience was the “young and thoughtless of the fair sex”. I''' found the title to be interesting as well, “Charlottle. A Tale of Truth” this implies that this is story is not only true but this is the horrible truth of the consequences of dishonor.''' -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
I thought Rowson's conversation with the "sober matron" who's checking the book before letting her daughter read it throughout the chapters we read was really interesting. Even though her stated audience was young women, urging them not to go off and elope themselves, she kind of seems to be appealing to the importance of mothers in raising their children properly in a way that I'm not sure we've seen before. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
I agree with Clare, i was also surprised where the rest of the family was when she needed help. Montraville basically guilt-tripped Charlotte into going against her parents and leaving them for him. She was a woman of value, morals and beliefs that she was very strongly rooted in; but eventually gave into the love of her life. So far in class, we talk about how much power the male member of the family has, however, it was interesting to see how much influence and power he had with her, even before he became apart of the family; he was basically giving her ultimatums. (top of 200).... --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading the novel. I thought that for the time it was well thought out and that the reader was able to follow the storyline.''' What was even more amazing to me was that a woman wrote this and published it under her own name. I assumed even women that had attended the schooling were not encouraged to use their schooling other than to help with the rearing of future leaders. Does this mean that they are more works by women of this era, under their own names?''' –Kayle P<br />
<br />
'''Yuck. I am glad that we read this in the same week as the Judith Murray piece, since both are more soapbox than story.''' I found it interesting that the "female" writer reinforced existing gender roles, while the "male" writer offered alternatives for women. Why did Murray choose to use a male voice? Was it because she felt her ideas would be taken more seriously? Because she was afraid of repercussions? '''Getting back to the Charlotte piece though, yuck. This melodramatic thing was a bestseller for 50 years? I would be curious to see what the rest of her work was like. Although, as Rowson suggests within the story, this was probably a novel intended to be passed along to young women by their sober mothers (as a means for controlling them through gullible fear, and perpetuating existing patriarchal marital framework). Why women perpetuated this, more even than men did, I will never understand.''' --Stef L.<br />
<br />
I read this a few years ago in a literature class, and it still makes me cringe out of disgust for certain characters and be filled with sadness for Charlotte. I also wonder, who did she intend to write this for? Men, women, children? It's a tale of betrayal and dishonesty. I'm assuming it was meant to be a lesson of what to do and what not to do. If you disobey your parents, have sex, and run away, you will be punished. Unfortunately for the the characters in this story, their punishment was death. Charlotte did all of what I previously stated and died in the end; Belcour tricks his friend and Charlotte, lies, and betrays and is killed by Montraville; La Rue is just as guilty of lying, trickery, and betrayal as Belcour and also faces a miserable death. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
I thought that this was very interesting because it so obviously enforces the gender roles of the time. It seems to support them, yet Charlotte was so incredibly unhappy with her life with Montraville that it also seems a little unlikely that Rowson actually believed that her life was the best life. The first time that she had felt joy was when her father had resurfaced in her life, and she was dying. I also found it very intriguing that Montraville was not mentioned or seen at all in the last chapter when she was dying. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
It is quite interesting that Susanna Rowson published this novel under her own name. I think it is an assumption and a stereotype that all women had to use masculine pen names to avoid gender discovery. Rowson obviously drew acclaim and success for years after the publication of her work, despite the novel being written by a woman. '''As many of my classmates have already pointed out, I also was struck by how Rowson cemented gender roles in her writing as opposed to challenging them.''' --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
What I want to know is how did this piece of literature that was popular for so many years almost completely disappear? Was it because of the change in gender roles over time? Why did this fall out of the public eye, while works such as "Little Women" or "Uncle Tom's Cabin" continue to be enjoyed today? It is actually a quite fascinating read. --Jennifer S.</div>Lsmith0805https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_5_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 5 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-29T04:29:50Z<p>Lsmith0805: /* Abigail Adams, Remember the Ladies, 1776 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparative questions or comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Thomas Paine Admits Women Have Some Rights, in 1775, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 288-289 ==<br />
<br />
Paine discusses the conflict within the lives of women. The conflict of being "adored and oppressed." He, also, states that men cannot control themselves as tyrants over women and slaves to them. Women's only protection froms, "They can then only hope for protection from the humiliating claims of pity, or the feeble voice of gratitude." Paine looks at other cultures and discovers that all over the world women are treated less than men. It is interesting that he states, "Our duties are different from yours, but they are not therefore less difficult to fulfil, or of less consequence to society." This statement is very interesting because in history it seems that men's achievements are almost always highlighted over women's. ---Michelle M.<br />
<br />
“When they are not beloved they are nothing; and, when they are, they are tormented.” You can see from Paine’s writing that he thinks that men have acted and behaved badly toward and in the presence of women for a very long time. Does he really think that women have some rights, or is he mocking how women are and how they react in defending their gender?--Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
We talked about the idea of women as "adored and oppressed" in my Women's Studies class last year - positive and negative sexism, I think we called it, and discussed how the two reinforced each other. But other than pointing out that women are in trouble whether married or not, he doesn't go actually talk very much about that problem; rather, he seems to see women's oppression as a result of their emotional fragility, and asks men to give them a bit more credit without suggesting that their roles need change at all. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
The reading in which Thomas Paine admits women have some rights was an enjoyable and surprising read. The fact that a man is defending women’s rights in any way during this time is amazing, and even more, such an influential writer as Thomas Paine. The words tyranny and oppression are used quite a bit, these words I have found to be used in many of these revolutionary writings. Tyranny and oppression are two of the most taboo words of the time due to the fact that America itself is oppressed by a tyrannical force. -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
== Excellency in Our Sex by Judith Sargent Murray, 1790 ==<br />
<br />
I really liked the line "was this activity properly directed, what beneficial effects would follow. Is the needle and kitchen sufficient to employ the operations of a soul thus organized? I should conceive not. Nay, it is a truth that those very departments leave the intelligent principle vacant, and at liberty for speculation. Are we deficient in reason?" (page 135) because it exhibited that women thought about the same things that we, as women, today think about them. Really, it is a lot nicer to think about women wondering about their status than to accept it unwillingly or on religious basis. I know this is probably not the case for most women, but probably for educated ones this was the case. Too bad not every woman was Judith Sargent Murray or Abigail Adams. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
It was really clever of the author to bring God and religion into the argument to show how women and men are equal. Obviously, what she writes about "...our souls are equal to yours; the same breath of God animates, enlivens and invigorates us..." This is an undeniable fact that no one can really argue too much. -Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== A Carolina Patriot by Eliza Wilkinson, 1782 ==<br />
<br />
"What contemptible earth worms these authors make us! they won't even allow us the liberty of thought, and that is all i want. I would not wish that we should meddle in what is unbecoming female delicacy, but surely we may have sense enough to give our opinions" (page124). I really like this quote because unlike that of Judith Sargent Murray, Eliza Wilkinson seems less anachronistic in her expression of female empowerment. Still it is nice to read --Sara S.<br />
<br />
Eliza Wilkinson is annoyed with the fact that all men see women as “dairy and household” workers. She also feels oppressed by the men in her life. It seems to me with the upcoming fight with the British, she is hoping that her thoughts and writings will actually become a beacon of freedom for her and other women. -- Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
First, I want to point out the irony of the words that the man that Eliza Wilkinson talks about in this source: "I would rather explore unknown regions, blessed with liberty, than remain in my native country if to be cursed with slavery." How incredibly ironic. I was also very impressed with her eloquence. She seemed better educated than almost all of the other primary sources that we've read. She referenced Homer, which showed her knowledge of the classics. I thought that this was extremely interesting and impressive of Ms Wilkinson. --Mary Beth M<br />
<br />
== Mary Jemison Views the Revolution ==<br />
<br />
In Mary Jemison’s account of the “War for Independence through Seneca Eyes,” it is extremely apparent at how little the English think of the Seneca. When the Native Americans were sent for to discuss the impending revolution with people of the colonies, they decided to observe a strict neutrality. This was perfectly fine with the colonial people. However, the British soon requested the help of the natives and in order to secure their assistance, the British offered many gifts and rewards. Furthermore, they “merited all the punishment that it was possible for the white man and Indians to inflict upon” the colonials. These offerings proved too seductive, and the Indians were swayed. However, once the support of the natives was agreed, the English took advantage of them. This is particularly apparent when the British invite the natives to watch the rebels being whipped, but are instead tricked into fighting for their lives, which many did not escape with. This manipulation by the British, to use the natives for their own means and essentially lie to them about great rewards shows that they believed anything would be justified, so long as they won the war. --Clare O<br />
<br />
One thing I found striking was Mary Jemison's preoccupation with food - she went from describing a grisly death of a prisoner of war to the state of the corn harvest in just a few sentences. Women don't seem to have participated in the fighting, but Mary Jemison describes experiencing the war through more traditionally feminine jobs like caring for her children and trying to feed her village. --Katie C.<br />
<br />
Mary Jemison being captured by the Indians was confusing to her. She goes back and forth from “our Indians and my Indian brother” to “the Indians”. She stayed loyal to the Indian tribe until they ran out of food. She took her kids and left to pursue other avenues to get food, and never returned. I will say this until the food shortage she does not appear to go along with the decision to do battle for the British, but she does recognize these Indians as her family even if she does not see eye to eye with their actions. -–Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Sarah Osborn, Camp Follower, Recalls the Revolution, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
Many of our readings discuss the growing patriotism of women in reaction to the revolutionary war. Sarah Osborn’s account particularly stood out because of her active role in helping the troops fighting. She helped the men by washing, sewing, and cooking for them. Most interesting is when General Washington himself asked her if she “was not afraid of the cannonballs?” to which she replied “No, the bullets would not cheat the gallows” and that “it would not do for the men to fight and starve too.” This bold response shows the manner in which patriotism affected women, that they would put aside their fears and pull their own weight in the war for the land of liberty. --Clare O<br />
<br />
I actually found this reading quite confusing. Who's doing the writing? She's described as a Deponent, which Wikipedia describes as someone giving testimony outside of court in preparation for a trial. What was the trial? Also, I didn't understand what she meant by the quote Claire cited above, "the bullets would not cheat the gallows." I did find the exchange with the Quaker women who asked her to stay interesting. Would she be waiting for her husband to find her again after the war, on the off chance he survived? If that's what they were offering, I'm not surprised at all she choose to stay with the people she knew rather than waiting it out with strangers. --Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Phillis Wheatley, 1768, An address to George III ==<br />
<br />
Its interesting that The Revolutionary War is typically viewed as the colonists fight for independence but through the readings on Wheatley, Murray and Adams it proves that there was another war being fought within colonial life. It was extraordinary that Phillis was educated and treated to such a level that she was practically treated like a daughter by her masters allowing her to be able to cultivate these parallels between the struggles for freedom with Britain and slavery. Being a slave and woman what she wrote seems out of place in the subservient world women and especially slaves lived in at the time. Although, all but Adams wrote under false names they still carried a sense of entitlement to speak out against the lifestyle given to them. Which made me question whether the fight for freedom against Britain was seen as by women as their ticket to finally speak out or was it the male mindset that was being altered towards what role women were supposed to play?<br />
-Rachel T.<br />
<br />
Phillis Wheatley was an amazing woman that definitely stands out. She is not the typical African slave most of us hear about when discussing colonial and revolutionary America because she was well educated, and practically treated like a daughter from her masters/family. I found it interesting in her poem that she makes political references directly to the King, and she was educated enough to know how to speak in metaphors through her poetry to express her attitudes and true political feelings, something that most white women of her time didn't even posses. --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Grace Galloway’s diary, 1778-79, Philadelphia ==<br />
When it comes to discussing the American Revolution, it is rare to come across literature that discusses the point of view of the Tories and even less when it comes to the Tory-women. In reading this this diary snippet, I was not only intrigued by the different view of the revolution, but also at how Grace seemed more annoyed about the war in general and cared for neither side, despite her loyalist husband. I wonder how many women were just like Grace when it came to having an opinion (or lack thereof) about the war and how many of them were put out of their homes, despite the fact they did nothing personally to aide or hinder any side of the fight.--Heather T<br />
<br />
When reading the excerpt from Grace Galloway, I also thought it was interesting that this entry was coming from a loyalist’s point of view. Typically, when discussing the American Revolution, it is rare to see writings from loyalists and for me personally, loyalists are a group that I had never really heard a lot about until a few years ago. When most Americans think of the American Revolution, they think of a war between the colonists and the British. We are always taught that the colonists fought against the British to rebel against the tyranny and oppression the British were imposing, and the colonists wanted to break away. In fact, many colonists wanted to remain under British rule and they were considered “loyalists” to Britain. In comparing Grace Galloway to Abigail Adams, Grace seems like the kind of woman who would complain about something but never act upon doing anything to change it. She was upset about being evicted from her home yet she just dealt with it. Abigail Adams on the other hand was a strong woman who not only voiced her opinions on matters but she was one who would fight for something she believed in. --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Abigail Adams, Remember the Ladies, 1776 ==<br />
<br />
Abigail comes off as a very strong and motivated woman in these letters. With each response back from John Adams, she seems to become even more determined. I personally enjoy the exchange between him and her where they refer to each other as "saucy". - Matt<br />
<br />
I loved reading these letters. They were very proper for the time period and at the same time you can see that they real do care for one another. John and Abigail really seem to genuinely care for one another and show they are not only strong individually but as a couple. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
I've always liked Abigail Adams- she was far ahead of her time in her expectations for the treatment of women, and not afraid to be an activist. I had thought of her as being very unusual and I suppose she was, but some of the other readings, like the letter by Eliza Wilkinson, hint at a bit more egalitarianism than I had imagined. -Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading the letters sent between Abigail Adams and her husband. I think she knew it was a lost cause asking her husband to “remember the Ladies”, but her argument was a very good one. Her approach and her diction were very well thought out: “Give up the harsh title of Master for the more tender and endearing one of Friend.” Her Husband’s response to this was probably expected though no less disappointing; “I cannot but laugh.” -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
Abigail Adams was a great read! One thing that seemed important is that she mentioned women's right to vote in her letter to Mercy Warren, which is one of the first times we've seen that. I also liked her ambition to join a petition to Congress with Warren, showing that they did not fear facing males. --Mary Beth M<br />
<br />
Abigail Adams is one of my personal favorites when discussing women in the Revolutionary time period. She is an important icon in the future women’s rights movements as she was a major voice advocating for them from the beginning. She was an empowered woman, and I respect her because even though she lived during a time when women were meant to be submissive to their husbands, she had no problems in expressing her beliefs to her husband. She advocated for equal rights for women and women’s suffrage and I especially loved the line when she wrote to John Adams stating “If particular care and attention is not paid to the Ladies we are determined to foment a Rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or representation.” By reading through these few letters between John and Abigail, there is no doubt that they loved each other. They joke with each other (referring to one another as being “saucy”) and even reading through John’s letters to Abigail, it is obvious that he respects her. -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Benjamin Rush, “Thoughts upon female education,” 1787 (Philadelphia) ==<br />
<br />
Reading through the "Principals of the Academy" and the rules that women would have to follow for the branches of literature, my first question is were the men disciplined in all of these rules? Specifically section II where they had to write fair and legible and shape every letter properly and use the points and capitals as needed - were men expected to write that way as well? And in section VIII, they wanted to connect the education with regular instruction in the Christian religion, what would happen if they weren't as accepting of the religion aspect? - Matt<br />
<br />
== Taylor & Duffin Report Molly Brant's Opinions and Influence, 1778 Daniel Claus assesses Molly Brant's Influence, 1779 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Esther DeBerdt Reed, “Sentiments of an American Woman,” 1780 ==<br />
The Esther piece is special simply because it is written about women in the Revolution by a woman in the Revolution. <br />
Esther mentions that a woman’s patriotism is pure. As mothers and wives they surpass a man in their love for the public good. <br />
My favorite line in the piece is, “But it has been said, that they may apprehend, that, in the course of a long war, the view of their distresses may be lost, and their services be forgotten” (p. 116). With the minimal works we still have, how much have we lost?--Kris<br />
<br />
I agree with Kris, this is indeed a special piece. Esther is expressing her love for her country and her appreciation of the patriotic things women in history have done. She asks women to support the soldiers and proclaims that they are equally as patriotic as those soldiers fighting in the war. My favorite quote is in connection to the one Kris quoted on page 116, "Forgotten! never; I can answer in the name of all my sex. Brave Americans, your disinterestedness, your courage, and you constancy will always be dear to America, as long as she shall preserve her virtue." -- Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Thomas Jefferson’s Slaves Join the British, 1781 ==<br />
<br />
Jefferson was known for keeping detailed records of his slaves and this is no different. He takes note of the slaves that left for the British and the ones that have died. It interesting to see the records that were kept. – Kayle P<br />
<br />
== An Anonymous Woman Claims Women's Rights in 1780, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 293-294 ==<br />
In my view this woman was saying that men have different roles from the women when it comes to feelings and emotions and she wanted to make sure that people knew there are great women out there. In her view men have fewer emotions than women (when they are at war is an example). ”Our ambition is kindled by the fame of those heroines of antiquity, who have rendered their sex illustrious, and have proved to the universe, that, if the weakness of our Constitution, if opinion and manners did not '''''forbid''''' us to march to glory by the same paths as the Men, we should at least equal, and sometimes surpass them in '''''our love''''' for the public good.” On the same token, she wanted the men to know that, anything a man can do a woman can do too, but women put more emotion and heart into it then a man ever could. That may be our downfall, but it may also be our strength over the male gender.--Pam Petzold</div>Lsmith0805https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_5_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 5 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-29T04:23:38Z<p>Lsmith0805: /* Grace Galloway’s diary, 1778-79, Philadelphia */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparative questions or comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Thomas Paine Admits Women Have Some Rights, in 1775, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 288-289 ==<br />
<br />
Paine discusses the conflict within the lives of women. The conflict of being "adored and oppressed." He, also, states that men cannot control themselves as tyrants over women and slaves to them. Women's only protection froms, "They can then only hope for protection from the humiliating claims of pity, or the feeble voice of gratitude." Paine looks at other cultures and discovers that all over the world women are treated less than men. It is interesting that he states, "Our duties are different from yours, but they are not therefore less difficult to fulfil, or of less consequence to society." This statement is very interesting because in history it seems that men's achievements are almost always highlighted over women's. ---Michelle M.<br />
<br />
“When they are not beloved they are nothing; and, when they are, they are tormented.” You can see from Paine’s writing that he thinks that men have acted and behaved badly toward and in the presence of women for a very long time. Does he really think that women have some rights, or is he mocking how women are and how they react in defending their gender?--Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
We talked about the idea of women as "adored and oppressed" in my Women's Studies class last year - positive and negative sexism, I think we called it, and discussed how the two reinforced each other. But other than pointing out that women are in trouble whether married or not, he doesn't go actually talk very much about that problem; rather, he seems to see women's oppression as a result of their emotional fragility, and asks men to give them a bit more credit without suggesting that their roles need change at all. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
The reading in which Thomas Paine admits women have some rights was an enjoyable and surprising read. The fact that a man is defending women’s rights in any way during this time is amazing, and even more, such an influential writer as Thomas Paine. The words tyranny and oppression are used quite a bit, these words I have found to be used in many of these revolutionary writings. Tyranny and oppression are two of the most taboo words of the time due to the fact that America itself is oppressed by a tyrannical force. -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
== Excellency in Our Sex by Judith Sargent Murray, 1790 ==<br />
<br />
I really liked the line "was this activity properly directed, what beneficial effects would follow. Is the needle and kitchen sufficient to employ the operations of a soul thus organized? I should conceive not. Nay, it is a truth that those very departments leave the intelligent principle vacant, and at liberty for speculation. Are we deficient in reason?" (page 135) because it exhibited that women thought about the same things that we, as women, today think about them. Really, it is a lot nicer to think about women wondering about their status than to accept it unwillingly or on religious basis. I know this is probably not the case for most women, but probably for educated ones this was the case. Too bad not every woman was Judith Sargent Murray or Abigail Adams. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
It was really clever of the author to bring God and religion into the argument to show how women and men are equal. Obviously, what she writes about "...our souls are equal to yours; the same breath of God animates, enlivens and invigorates us..." This is an undeniable fact that no one can really argue too much. -Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== A Carolina Patriot by Eliza Wilkinson, 1782 ==<br />
<br />
"What contemptible earth worms these authors make us! they won't even allow us the liberty of thought, and that is all i want. I would not wish that we should meddle in what is unbecoming female delicacy, but surely we may have sense enough to give our opinions" (page124). I really like this quote because unlike that of Judith Sargent Murray, Eliza Wilkinson seems less anachronistic in her expression of female empowerment. Still it is nice to read --Sara S.<br />
<br />
Eliza Wilkinson is annoyed with the fact that all men see women as “dairy and household” workers. She also feels oppressed by the men in her life. It seems to me with the upcoming fight with the British, she is hoping that her thoughts and writings will actually become a beacon of freedom for her and other women. -- Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
First, I want to point out the irony of the words that the man that Eliza Wilkinson talks about in this source: "I would rather explore unknown regions, blessed with liberty, than remain in my native country if to be cursed with slavery." How incredibly ironic. I was also very impressed with her eloquence. She seemed better educated than almost all of the other primary sources that we've read. She referenced Homer, which showed her knowledge of the classics. I thought that this was extremely interesting and impressive of Ms Wilkinson. --Mary Beth M<br />
<br />
== Mary Jemison Views the Revolution ==<br />
<br />
In Mary Jemison’s account of the “War for Independence through Seneca Eyes,” it is extremely apparent at how little the English think of the Seneca. When the Native Americans were sent for to discuss the impending revolution with people of the colonies, they decided to observe a strict neutrality. This was perfectly fine with the colonial people. However, the British soon requested the help of the natives and in order to secure their assistance, the British offered many gifts and rewards. Furthermore, they “merited all the punishment that it was possible for the white man and Indians to inflict upon” the colonials. These offerings proved too seductive, and the Indians were swayed. However, once the support of the natives was agreed, the English took advantage of them. This is particularly apparent when the British invite the natives to watch the rebels being whipped, but are instead tricked into fighting for their lives, which many did not escape with. This manipulation by the British, to use the natives for their own means and essentially lie to them about great rewards shows that they believed anything would be justified, so long as they won the war. --Clare O<br />
<br />
One thing I found striking was Mary Jemison's preoccupation with food - she went from describing a grisly death of a prisoner of war to the state of the corn harvest in just a few sentences. Women don't seem to have participated in the fighting, but Mary Jemison describes experiencing the war through more traditionally feminine jobs like caring for her children and trying to feed her village. --Katie C.<br />
<br />
Mary Jemison being captured by the Indians was confusing to her. She goes back and forth from “our Indians and my Indian brother” to “the Indians”. She stayed loyal to the Indian tribe until they ran out of food. She took her kids and left to pursue other avenues to get food, and never returned. I will say this until the food shortage she does not appear to go along with the decision to do battle for the British, but she does recognize these Indians as her family even if she does not see eye to eye with their actions. -–Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Sarah Osborn, Camp Follower, Recalls the Revolution, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
Many of our readings discuss the growing patriotism of women in reaction to the revolutionary war. Sarah Osborn’s account particularly stood out because of her active role in helping the troops fighting. She helped the men by washing, sewing, and cooking for them. Most interesting is when General Washington himself asked her if she “was not afraid of the cannonballs?” to which she replied “No, the bullets would not cheat the gallows” and that “it would not do for the men to fight and starve too.” This bold response shows the manner in which patriotism affected women, that they would put aside their fears and pull their own weight in the war for the land of liberty. --Clare O<br />
<br />
I actually found this reading quite confusing. Who's doing the writing? She's described as a Deponent, which Wikipedia describes as someone giving testimony outside of court in preparation for a trial. What was the trial? Also, I didn't understand what she meant by the quote Claire cited above, "the bullets would not cheat the gallows." I did find the exchange with the Quaker women who asked her to stay interesting. Would she be waiting for her husband to find her again after the war, on the off chance he survived? If that's what they were offering, I'm not surprised at all she choose to stay with the people she knew rather than waiting it out with strangers. --Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Phillis Wheatley, 1768, An address to George III ==<br />
<br />
Its interesting that The Revolutionary War is typically viewed as the colonists fight for independence but through the readings on Wheatley, Murray and Adams it proves that there was another war being fought within colonial life. It was extraordinary that Phillis was educated and treated to such a level that she was practically treated like a daughter by her masters allowing her to be able to cultivate these parallels between the struggles for freedom with Britain and slavery. Being a slave and woman what she wrote seems out of place in the subservient world women and especially slaves lived in at the time. Although, all but Adams wrote under false names they still carried a sense of entitlement to speak out against the lifestyle given to them. Which made me question whether the fight for freedom against Britain was seen as by women as their ticket to finally speak out or was it the male mindset that was being altered towards what role women were supposed to play?<br />
-Rachel T.<br />
<br />
Phillis Wheatley was an amazing woman that definitely stands out. She is not the typical African slave most of us hear about when discussing colonial and revolutionary America because she was well educated, and practically treated like a daughter from her masters/family. I found it interesting in her poem that she makes political references directly to the King, and she was educated enough to know how to speak in metaphors through her poetry to express her attitudes and true political feelings, something that most white women of her time didn't even posses. --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Grace Galloway’s diary, 1778-79, Philadelphia ==<br />
When it comes to discussing the American Revolution, it is rare to come across literature that discusses the point of view of the Tories and even less when it comes to the Tory-women. In reading this this diary snippet, I was not only intrigued by the different view of the revolution, but also at how Grace seemed more annoyed about the war in general and cared for neither side, despite her loyalist husband. I wonder how many women were just like Grace when it came to having an opinion (or lack thereof) about the war and how many of them were put out of their homes, despite the fact they did nothing personally to aide or hinder any side of the fight.--Heather T<br />
<br />
When reading the excerpt from Grace Galloway, I also thought it was interesting that this entry was coming from a loyalist’s point of view. Typically, when discussing the American Revolution, it is rare to see writings from loyalists and for me personally, loyalists are a group that I had never really heard a lot about until a few years ago. When most Americans think of the American Revolution, they think of a war between the colonists and the British. We are always taught that the colonists fought against the British to rebel against the tyranny and oppression the British were imposing, and the colonists wanted to break away. In fact, many colonists wanted to remain under British rule and they were considered “loyalists” to Britain. In comparing Grace Galloway to Abigail Adams, Grace seems like the kind of woman who would complain about something but never act upon doing anything to change it. She was upset about being evicted from her home yet she just dealt with it. Abigail Adams on the other hand was a strong woman who not only voiced her opinions on matters but she was one who would fight for something she believed in. --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Abigail Adams, Remember the Ladies, 1776 ==<br />
<br />
Abigail comes off as a very strong and motivated woman in these letters. With each response back from John Adams, she seems to become even more determined. I personally enjoy the exchange between him and her where they refer to each other as "saucy". - Matt<br />
<br />
I loved reading these letters. They were very proper for the time period and at the same time you can see that they real do care for one another. John and Abigail really seem to genuinely care for one another and show they are not only strong individually but as a couple. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
I've always liked Abigail Adams- she was far ahead of her time in her expectations for the treatment of women, and not afraid to be an activist. I had thought of her as being very unusual and I suppose she was, but some of the other readings, like the letter by Eliza Wilkinson, hint at a bit more egalitarianism than I had imagined. -Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading the letters sent between Abigail Adams and her husband. I think she knew it was a lost cause asking her husband to “remember the Ladies”, but her argument was a very good one. Her approach and her diction were very well thought out: “Give up the harsh title of Master for the more tender and endearing one of Friend.” Her Husband’s response to this was probably expected though no less disappointing; “I cannot but laugh.” -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
Abigail Adams was a great read! One thing that seemed important is that she mentioned women's right to vote in her letter to Mercy Warren, which is one of the first times we've seen that. I also liked her ambition to join a petition to Congress with Warren, showing that they did not fear facing males. --Mary Beth M<br />
<br />
== Benjamin Rush, “Thoughts upon female education,” 1787 (Philadelphia) ==<br />
<br />
Reading through the "Principals of the Academy" and the rules that women would have to follow for the branches of literature, my first question is were the men disciplined in all of these rules? Specifically section II where they had to write fair and legible and shape every letter properly and use the points and capitals as needed - were men expected to write that way as well? And in section VIII, they wanted to connect the education with regular instruction in the Christian religion, what would happen if they weren't as accepting of the religion aspect? - Matt<br />
<br />
== Taylor & Duffin Report Molly Brant's Opinions and Influence, 1778 Daniel Claus assesses Molly Brant's Influence, 1779 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Esther DeBerdt Reed, “Sentiments of an American Woman,” 1780 ==<br />
The Esther piece is special simply because it is written about women in the Revolution by a woman in the Revolution. <br />
Esther mentions that a woman’s patriotism is pure. As mothers and wives they surpass a man in their love for the public good. <br />
My favorite line in the piece is, “But it has been said, that they may apprehend, that, in the course of a long war, the view of their distresses may be lost, and their services be forgotten” (p. 116). With the minimal works we still have, how much have we lost?--Kris<br />
<br />
I agree with Kris, this is indeed a special piece. Esther is expressing her love for her country and her appreciation of the patriotic things women in history have done. She asks women to support the soldiers and proclaims that they are equally as patriotic as those soldiers fighting in the war. My favorite quote is in connection to the one Kris quoted on page 116, "Forgotten! never; I can answer in the name of all my sex. Brave Americans, your disinterestedness, your courage, and you constancy will always be dear to America, as long as she shall preserve her virtue." -- Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Thomas Jefferson’s Slaves Join the British, 1781 ==<br />
<br />
Jefferson was known for keeping detailed records of his slaves and this is no different. He takes note of the slaves that left for the British and the ones that have died. It interesting to see the records that were kept. – Kayle P<br />
<br />
== An Anonymous Woman Claims Women's Rights in 1780, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 293-294 ==<br />
In my view this woman was saying that men have different roles from the women when it comes to feelings and emotions and she wanted to make sure that people knew there are great women out there. In her view men have fewer emotions than women (when they are at war is an example). ”Our ambition is kindled by the fame of those heroines of antiquity, who have rendered their sex illustrious, and have proved to the universe, that, if the weakness of our Constitution, if opinion and manners did not '''''forbid''''' us to march to glory by the same paths as the Men, we should at least equal, and sometimes surpass them in '''''our love''''' for the public good.” On the same token, she wanted the men to know that, anything a man can do a woman can do too, but women put more emotion and heart into it then a man ever could. That may be our downfall, but it may also be our strength over the male gender.--Pam Petzold</div>Lsmith0805https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_5_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 5 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-29T04:18:31Z<p>Lsmith0805: /* Phillis Wheatley, 1768, An address to George III */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparative questions or comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Thomas Paine Admits Women Have Some Rights, in 1775, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 288-289 ==<br />
<br />
Paine discusses the conflict within the lives of women. The conflict of being "adored and oppressed." He, also, states that men cannot control themselves as tyrants over women and slaves to them. Women's only protection froms, "They can then only hope for protection from the humiliating claims of pity, or the feeble voice of gratitude." Paine looks at other cultures and discovers that all over the world women are treated less than men. It is interesting that he states, "Our duties are different from yours, but they are not therefore less difficult to fulfil, or of less consequence to society." This statement is very interesting because in history it seems that men's achievements are almost always highlighted over women's. ---Michelle M.<br />
<br />
“When they are not beloved they are nothing; and, when they are, they are tormented.” You can see from Paine’s writing that he thinks that men have acted and behaved badly toward and in the presence of women for a very long time. Does he really think that women have some rights, or is he mocking how women are and how they react in defending their gender?--Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
We talked about the idea of women as "adored and oppressed" in my Women's Studies class last year - positive and negative sexism, I think we called it, and discussed how the two reinforced each other. But other than pointing out that women are in trouble whether married or not, he doesn't go actually talk very much about that problem; rather, he seems to see women's oppression as a result of their emotional fragility, and asks men to give them a bit more credit without suggesting that their roles need change at all. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
The reading in which Thomas Paine admits women have some rights was an enjoyable and surprising read. The fact that a man is defending women’s rights in any way during this time is amazing, and even more, such an influential writer as Thomas Paine. The words tyranny and oppression are used quite a bit, these words I have found to be used in many of these revolutionary writings. Tyranny and oppression are two of the most taboo words of the time due to the fact that America itself is oppressed by a tyrannical force. -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
== Excellency in Our Sex by Judith Sargent Murray, 1790 ==<br />
<br />
I really liked the line "was this activity properly directed, what beneficial effects would follow. Is the needle and kitchen sufficient to employ the operations of a soul thus organized? I should conceive not. Nay, it is a truth that those very departments leave the intelligent principle vacant, and at liberty for speculation. Are we deficient in reason?" (page 135) because it exhibited that women thought about the same things that we, as women, today think about them. Really, it is a lot nicer to think about women wondering about their status than to accept it unwillingly or on religious basis. I know this is probably not the case for most women, but probably for educated ones this was the case. Too bad not every woman was Judith Sargent Murray or Abigail Adams. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
It was really clever of the author to bring God and religion into the argument to show how women and men are equal. Obviously, what she writes about "...our souls are equal to yours; the same breath of God animates, enlivens and invigorates us..." This is an undeniable fact that no one can really argue too much. -Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== A Carolina Patriot by Eliza Wilkinson, 1782 ==<br />
<br />
"What contemptible earth worms these authors make us! they won't even allow us the liberty of thought, and that is all i want. I would not wish that we should meddle in what is unbecoming female delicacy, but surely we may have sense enough to give our opinions" (page124). I really like this quote because unlike that of Judith Sargent Murray, Eliza Wilkinson seems less anachronistic in her expression of female empowerment. Still it is nice to read --Sara S.<br />
<br />
Eliza Wilkinson is annoyed with the fact that all men see women as “dairy and household” workers. She also feels oppressed by the men in her life. It seems to me with the upcoming fight with the British, she is hoping that her thoughts and writings will actually become a beacon of freedom for her and other women. -- Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
First, I want to point out the irony of the words that the man that Eliza Wilkinson talks about in this source: "I would rather explore unknown regions, blessed with liberty, than remain in my native country if to be cursed with slavery." How incredibly ironic. I was also very impressed with her eloquence. She seemed better educated than almost all of the other primary sources that we've read. She referenced Homer, which showed her knowledge of the classics. I thought that this was extremely interesting and impressive of Ms Wilkinson. --Mary Beth M<br />
<br />
== Mary Jemison Views the Revolution ==<br />
<br />
In Mary Jemison’s account of the “War for Independence through Seneca Eyes,” it is extremely apparent at how little the English think of the Seneca. When the Native Americans were sent for to discuss the impending revolution with people of the colonies, they decided to observe a strict neutrality. This was perfectly fine with the colonial people. However, the British soon requested the help of the natives and in order to secure their assistance, the British offered many gifts and rewards. Furthermore, they “merited all the punishment that it was possible for the white man and Indians to inflict upon” the colonials. These offerings proved too seductive, and the Indians were swayed. However, once the support of the natives was agreed, the English took advantage of them. This is particularly apparent when the British invite the natives to watch the rebels being whipped, but are instead tricked into fighting for their lives, which many did not escape with. This manipulation by the British, to use the natives for their own means and essentially lie to them about great rewards shows that they believed anything would be justified, so long as they won the war. --Clare O<br />
<br />
One thing I found striking was Mary Jemison's preoccupation with food - she went from describing a grisly death of a prisoner of war to the state of the corn harvest in just a few sentences. Women don't seem to have participated in the fighting, but Mary Jemison describes experiencing the war through more traditionally feminine jobs like caring for her children and trying to feed her village. --Katie C.<br />
<br />
Mary Jemison being captured by the Indians was confusing to her. She goes back and forth from “our Indians and my Indian brother” to “the Indians”. She stayed loyal to the Indian tribe until they ran out of food. She took her kids and left to pursue other avenues to get food, and never returned. I will say this until the food shortage she does not appear to go along with the decision to do battle for the British, but she does recognize these Indians as her family even if she does not see eye to eye with their actions. -–Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Sarah Osborn, Camp Follower, Recalls the Revolution, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
Many of our readings discuss the growing patriotism of women in reaction to the revolutionary war. Sarah Osborn’s account particularly stood out because of her active role in helping the troops fighting. She helped the men by washing, sewing, and cooking for them. Most interesting is when General Washington himself asked her if she “was not afraid of the cannonballs?” to which she replied “No, the bullets would not cheat the gallows” and that “it would not do for the men to fight and starve too.” This bold response shows the manner in which patriotism affected women, that they would put aside their fears and pull their own weight in the war for the land of liberty. --Clare O<br />
<br />
I actually found this reading quite confusing. Who's doing the writing? She's described as a Deponent, which Wikipedia describes as someone giving testimony outside of court in preparation for a trial. What was the trial? Also, I didn't understand what she meant by the quote Claire cited above, "the bullets would not cheat the gallows." I did find the exchange with the Quaker women who asked her to stay interesting. Would she be waiting for her husband to find her again after the war, on the off chance he survived? If that's what they were offering, I'm not surprised at all she choose to stay with the people she knew rather than waiting it out with strangers. --Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Phillis Wheatley, 1768, An address to George III ==<br />
<br />
Its interesting that The Revolutionary War is typically viewed as the colonists fight for independence but through the readings on Wheatley, Murray and Adams it proves that there was another war being fought within colonial life. It was extraordinary that Phillis was educated and treated to such a level that she was practically treated like a daughter by her masters allowing her to be able to cultivate these parallels between the struggles for freedom with Britain and slavery. Being a slave and woman what she wrote seems out of place in the subservient world women and especially slaves lived in at the time. Although, all but Adams wrote under false names they still carried a sense of entitlement to speak out against the lifestyle given to them. Which made me question whether the fight for freedom against Britain was seen as by women as their ticket to finally speak out or was it the male mindset that was being altered towards what role women were supposed to play?<br />
-Rachel T.<br />
<br />
Phillis Wheatley was an amazing woman that definitely stands out. She is not the typical African slave most of us hear about when discussing colonial and revolutionary America because she was well educated, and practically treated like a daughter from her masters/family. I found it interesting in her poem that she makes political references directly to the King, and she was educated enough to know how to speak in metaphors through her poetry to express her attitudes and true political feelings, something that most white women of her time didn't even posses. --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Grace Galloway’s diary, 1778-79, Philadelphia ==<br />
When it comes to discussing the American Revolution, it is rare to come across literature that discusses the point of view of the Tories and even less when it comes to the Tory-women. In reading this this diary snippet, I was not only intrigued by the different view of the revolution, but also at how Grace seemed more annoyed about the war in general and cared for neither side, despite her loyalist husband. I wonder how many women were just like Grace when it came to having an opinion (or lack thereof) about the war and how many of them were put out of their homes, despite the fact they did nothing personally to aide or hinder any side of the fight.--Heather T<br />
<br />
== Abigail Adams, Remember the Ladies, 1776 ==<br />
<br />
Abigail comes off as a very strong and motivated woman in these letters. With each response back from John Adams, she seems to become even more determined. I personally enjoy the exchange between him and her where they refer to each other as "saucy". - Matt<br />
<br />
I loved reading these letters. They were very proper for the time period and at the same time you can see that they real do care for one another. John and Abigail really seem to genuinely care for one another and show they are not only strong individually but as a couple. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
I've always liked Abigail Adams- she was far ahead of her time in her expectations for the treatment of women, and not afraid to be an activist. I had thought of her as being very unusual and I suppose she was, but some of the other readings, like the letter by Eliza Wilkinson, hint at a bit more egalitarianism than I had imagined. -Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading the letters sent between Abigail Adams and her husband. I think she knew it was a lost cause asking her husband to “remember the Ladies”, but her argument was a very good one. Her approach and her diction were very well thought out: “Give up the harsh title of Master for the more tender and endearing one of Friend.” Her Husband’s response to this was probably expected though no less disappointing; “I cannot but laugh.” -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
Abigail Adams was a great read! One thing that seemed important is that she mentioned women's right to vote in her letter to Mercy Warren, which is one of the first times we've seen that. I also liked her ambition to join a petition to Congress with Warren, showing that they did not fear facing males. --Mary Beth M<br />
<br />
== Benjamin Rush, “Thoughts upon female education,” 1787 (Philadelphia) ==<br />
<br />
Reading through the "Principals of the Academy" and the rules that women would have to follow for the branches of literature, my first question is were the men disciplined in all of these rules? Specifically section II where they had to write fair and legible and shape every letter properly and use the points and capitals as needed - were men expected to write that way as well? And in section VIII, they wanted to connect the education with regular instruction in the Christian religion, what would happen if they weren't as accepting of the religion aspect? - Matt<br />
<br />
== Taylor & Duffin Report Molly Brant's Opinions and Influence, 1778 Daniel Claus assesses Molly Brant's Influence, 1779 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Esther DeBerdt Reed, “Sentiments of an American Woman,” 1780 ==<br />
The Esther piece is special simply because it is written about women in the Revolution by a woman in the Revolution. <br />
Esther mentions that a woman’s patriotism is pure. As mothers and wives they surpass a man in their love for the public good. <br />
My favorite line in the piece is, “But it has been said, that they may apprehend, that, in the course of a long war, the view of their distresses may be lost, and their services be forgotten” (p. 116). With the minimal works we still have, how much have we lost?--Kris<br />
<br />
I agree with Kris, this is indeed a special piece. Esther is expressing her love for her country and her appreciation of the patriotic things women in history have done. She asks women to support the soldiers and proclaims that they are equally as patriotic as those soldiers fighting in the war. My favorite quote is in connection to the one Kris quoted on page 116, "Forgotten! never; I can answer in the name of all my sex. Brave Americans, your disinterestedness, your courage, and you constancy will always be dear to America, as long as she shall preserve her virtue." -- Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Thomas Jefferson’s Slaves Join the British, 1781 ==<br />
<br />
Jefferson was known for keeping detailed records of his slaves and this is no different. He takes note of the slaves that left for the British and the ones that have died. It interesting to see the records that were kept. – Kayle P<br />
<br />
== An Anonymous Woman Claims Women's Rights in 1780, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 293-294 ==<br />
In my view this woman was saying that men have different roles from the women when it comes to feelings and emotions and she wanted to make sure that people knew there are great women out there. In her view men have fewer emotions than women (when they are at war is an example). ”Our ambition is kindled by the fame of those heroines of antiquity, who have rendered their sex illustrious, and have proved to the universe, that, if the weakness of our Constitution, if opinion and manners did not '''''forbid''''' us to march to glory by the same paths as the Men, we should at least equal, and sometimes surpass them in '''''our love''''' for the public good.” On the same token, she wanted the men to know that, anything a man can do a woman can do too, but women put more emotion and heart into it then a man ever could. That may be our downfall, but it may also be our strength over the male gender.--Pam Petzold</div>Lsmith0805https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_3_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 3 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-15T04:22:54Z<p>Lsmith0805: /* AN ABOMINABLE WICKEDNESS ''Abigail Bailey, 1815'' */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching/comparative comments ==<br />
<br />
"To Use Her as His Wife" and the memoir of Abigail Bailey helped to define where women fell during this time in regards to the law. What I found interesting about both situations, even with their vast differences, they both were about women whose lives were left to be determined by the men that surrounded them. It is never clear what Martha Root wanted for her life as she was the one who in the end was responsible for raising the child. Root's opinion never appeared to come up for debate as it was overshadowed by the cultural and societal norms set by the male members of the community. The more drastic example of this legal inequality can be felt in Abigail Bailey's confession of her husband and daughters incest driven relationship. She is clearly broken that this immoral and sinful activity is taking place within her own home and she cannot even protect her own child. She continually comments that she "knew not that I could make legal proof" and even when she was able to bring her husband in front of the law it was by the help of her brothers and over a property settlement, not the rape of his daughter. It leaves the question if men were considered more morally upright than women as the choices they made guided the entire community? --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Katherine Kish Sklar article, “To Use her as His Wife” ==<br />
<br />
I found “To Use Her As His Wife” to be a very interesting read. I had no idea that a fundamental feature of an 18th century marriage was bridal pregnancy. Why don’t we hear stories about bridal pregnancy more often (Martha Root’s story)? It is also intriguing that these women were not chastised for their pregnancies out of wedlock, mainly because their children were not seen as bastards. How did these premarital pregnancies affect the family life after the couple was married? --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
<br />
This article also changed my view of women's place in colonial society. I had imagined a much more strict adherence to the taboo on premarital sex, and a much harsher criticism of women who engaged in it. Instead, the phenomenon of "bridal pregnancy" suggests to me that society had come up with a way to handle apparently inevitable cases, and both the man and woman could, through marriage, retain their place in society and their dignity. It was this fact, that pregnancy before marriage did not necessarily ruin the woman, which surprised me. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the excerpt “To Use Her as His Wife”, I was surprised by the fact that Elisha and Joseph Hawley’s mother had a very privileged position in the community, regardless of the fact that her husband had committed suicide. I would have thought that fact would have tainted her reputation in society, I supposed her good connections with the rest of her family helped her in society. Another thing that surprised me about this excerpt was the age of marriage. The ages were all much older than I was expecting: the women were getting married at 25, 27, and 34. -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
This article completely threw me off when reading it. First, I was suprised at how prevalent it had become for women to become pregnant before marriage, let alone how common it was for them to engage in premarital sex. I always assumed there was such a strict religious presence that these were things that just didn't happen, and when they did they were just unspoke of. I was also shocked when the author mentioned the Hawley family, and how they were still considered "one of North Hampton's prestigious families" even after Joseph committed suicide. The colonists were very religious people, and i wouldn't think iot would be looked very highly upon to have a member of your family committ suicide. --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
I found the wording in the document on page 81 to be very interesting. Elisha is called a "gentleman" as Martha is called a "spinster." Both are gendered, but Martha's status as an unmarried woman is more important than what family she came from. - Michelle M.<br />
<br />
This article was very intriguing to me. I honestly learned alot. I always thought that there was very few acts of pre-marital sex and waiting until marriage was encouraged because that part of the religion was stressed. Therefore, the concept of Bridal Pregnancy was new to me. The statistic that one in every third pregnancy was a bridal pregnancy/premarital baby was very surprising and reminded me of today and how there has been a rapid increase in teenage pregnancies. I found the line "Lines of descent mattered as much as wealth and was as important as wealth, presitge, and power were maintained." I guess it makes sense, because the link of the family is matched to the wealth and power. But in the case of Rebekah, by being a prominent figure in the community as the "Dairy Expert" gave her her prestige, and great seat in church. Even in church there was a split of hierarchy. -Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Benjamin Wadsworth, 1712 – Well-Ordered Family ==<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Wadsworth’s sermon discussing “A Well Ordered Family,” he describes that the ideal family is one in which the wife is submissive to the husband, but that they should be loving and affectionate to one another. He also describes a quarrel or disagreement as “the Devil’s work.” On one hand, he states that if a wife is not “so young, beautiful, healthy…” etc, God still requires the husband to love her and be not bitter. This sounds like a fairly positive position for women. However, Wadsworth goes on to say that if a husband is not “well-tempered,” the wife still is required to love and particularly obey him. In my view, this would allow husbands to be abusive or ill-tempered without repercussion because women must be submissive and obey them no matter what. This model ultimately failed and the stratification between men and women grew further. <br />
--Clare O.<br />
<br />
I found the way Wadsworth talks about love striking. It's a "duty" to be "performed," as is "plainly commanded by God." That's quite different from how we talk about love now, as an ethereal thing which people fall in or out of. It's discussed as less of an emotion and more of a character trait, to strive for despite the many potential flaws in one spouse that he lists. It's interesting how his list for women differs from his list for men - he tells them to love and obey their husbands even if he has less "abilities of mind" or is of a "more common birth" - I wonder if more-educated or wealthier women marrying lower-status men was common enough to merit such a comment?<br />
<br />
To use her as a Wife: Paternity Suit brought to life the shift in family structures. The change from pre-modern to modern family structures happened much earlier than I expected. The paternity suits in this period made progress towards answering religious and social questions that we have today including the issue of child support, whether or not a man should have to marry a woman bearing his child out of wedlock and what the issue is with marrying a different social class. --kris<br />
<br />
Aside from Wadsworth's assertion that the husband is the "head of the woman," this assesment of marriage seems dead-on. He says that although your spouse may not be the embodiment of all your romantic fantasies, responsibility and duty should overcome. This is still a relevant message (at least to me!). What caught my attention most was a quotation in the introduction. Wadworth says, "Tho tyranny is burdensome and hateful, yet it's counted a smaller evil that meer anarchy, and confusion." The English civil war had recently happened, the attempt at instituting a large-scale puritan utopia had failed. Is this (and without its context, it's tough to tell) a glossing over, or a justification for more secular government? --Stefanie<br />
<br />
I find it interesting how easy it seemed at the time to sin and then be forgiven. It seems that many people at the time were committing sins right and left, yet as long as you confessed that what you had done was wrong you were forgiven. And then people like Joseph Hawley sinned multiple times. I always thought of that time period as being super religious and strict. But the Kathryn Kish Sklar reading my thoughts on that have definitely changed. It is almost as if the church was afraid of losing people. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
== Susanna Wesley, 1732, Evangelical Child-Rearing ==<br />
<br />
I'm finding it difficult to work out what we can understand from this about "typical" child-rearing. She discusses her children going into less-strict homes than hers and learning songs and playing and such awful things, so presumably other households weren't this strict. She also talks about how her girls didn't learn to sew until they could read well, and comments that few women read well because they learned to sew first - so did most families not let their girls study reading so much? Or is she talking about her own generation, and now girls are getting more education? Is her desire for her girls to know how to read and speak well religiously motivated like the rest of her theory of child-rearing seems to be, in which case it might be more common, or is it a personal thing? - Katie C.<br />
<br />
I agree with Katie. Wesley seems to be special kind of mother. She reminds me of a Tiger Mom. She believes that "self-will is the root of all sin and misery" (p. 41), which drives her parenting ideals. Everything from prayers to eating is strictly controlled in Wesley's home. As Katie said, Wesley does not to see the norm. I would be interested in knowing her husband's views and doctrines on child rearing. - Michelle M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the letter from Susanna Wesley to her son to be very interesting. Many of her child-rearing practices seemed harsh and extreme by today’s standards, yet I saw many things in her letter that I can relate to my own experiences with babysitting. That “cowardice and fear of punishment often lead children into lying…”; lying and disobedience “must never pass unpunished…” and if a child does something unacceptable but with good intentions, “the obedience and intention be kindly accepted, and the child with sweetness directed how to better for the future.” -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
== Eliza Pinckney, 1750s, To Improve in Every Virtue ==<br />
<br />
I was an immediate fan of Eliza Pinckney who wrote out her resolutions each year on her birthday, I could easily relate to her fears and wishes in living her life. She simply wanted to be a good person: “not regard the frowns of the world”, “subdue every vice and improve in every virtue”. The most amazing thing about Eliza was how in depth she wrote about her “Servants” and how she wanted so badly to be a good Mistress to them: “to make their lives as comfortable as I can.” -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
In comparing and contrasting Eliza Pinckney's essay to Susanna Wesley's considering they both are referencing aspects of child rearing, I found them to be the complete opposites of each other. Wesley's view on raising children seems to be focused more on punishment, because as a Puritan she believed all children were born bad and they were "ignorant of all good". She maintained a strict way of life, and it seems as though Puritan children were robbed of any normal childhood they should have been able to enjoy. Pinckney appears to have loved children and she encouraged them to do better, therefore not focusing on their mistakes or the punishments that Wesley seemed such a fan of. I also admire Eliza Pinckney her for her dedication to wanting to be a better person in all aspects of her life: as a mother, a wife, a mistress to her servants, a sister and a "sincere and faithful friend". --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== New Spain’s (New Mexico’s) moral code as dictated by the Spanish Crown in 1752 ==<br />
<br />
I'm surprised there was such concern about class in New Spain, since it doesn't seem to have existed in quite the same way in the English colonies. I'd also love to read a more precise definition of seduction. The most interesting part of this law is that NOT marrying a woman is a serious offense - if someone has seduced someone and then doesn't marry her, then that apparently does her serious injury, though not him. (I guess he's the one not embarrassed by being turned down, just as her lineage or reputation won't be hurt by marrying someone above her?) I wonder, did lower-class women ever seduce Dukes and Counts? It certainly doesn't seem to have happened enough to be mentioned here, but I guess those native girls were just all over the nobility. - Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Laws on Slave Descent in VA and MD, 1662, 1664, 1691, 1692 ==<br />
<br />
It seems as if the laws in Virginia got harsher from 1662-1691 in regards to children being born to an Englishman/woman and a slave. In 1662, the child was free if the mother was free, but the child was a slave if the mother was a slave. The Christian Englishman/woman parent has to pay double the fines for committing the act. In 1991 if an English woman were to have a baby with a black man, she had to pay a fine one month after the child were born. The mother was taken into possession of the church for 5 years, but the child was taken for 30 years. I found that to be interesting. Why would a supposed Christian punish the child, especially worse than the mother was punished? -- Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Skilled slaves in Maryland, 1748-1763, Maryland Gazette ==<br />
<br />
This essay says, "Because the crafts open to men far outnumbered those open to women, fewer female than male slaves had the opportunity to escape field labor." <br />
It kind of surprises me that they would have women working in the field so much. Were there not many opportunities for domestic work, even in the mid-eighteenth century? In addition to that quote, shortly after in the same passage is an ad posted for a female slave that says, "A brisk likely Country-born Negro Wench about 18 or 19 years of Age, who is a good Spinner; with a Child, about 18 months Old."<br />
This quote suggests that it was common for women to partake in domestic work. Which is true?<br />
--Mary Beth M<br />
<br />
== Complaint of Elizabeth Sprigs, indentured servant, 1756 ==<br />
<br />
I was shocked when I read that letter from the girl to her father. I know that not all people came over to the New World willingly but I thought that most of them enjoyed being here once they got here. I would have never guessed that this girl was treated like, if not worse, than a slave and then started to beg her father who threw her out, for more. It makes me wonder what rights indentured servants had since they were not technically property, or were they? – Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Apprenticeship in PA, 1771-1773, Record of Indentures ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Advertisements, Gazettes of VA, PA, SC, NY – 1751-1776 ==<br />
<br />
While reading through the various gazettes, I noticed in the 1750's, girls were more or less being offered lessons in needle work and other types of crafts, where as the boys were being taught the reading, writing and arithmetic. They appeared to have been kept the sexes separate as well. Fast forward twenty years and it seems the girls are being offered the same craft work, but they are also able to learn the reading, writing and arithmetic, plus various other areas of interest (music being a common theme). - Matt<br />
<br />
== AN ABOMINABLE WICKEDNESS ''Abigail Bailey, 1815'' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I really was directed to the passage "Though all the conduct of Mr. B. from day to day, seemed to demonstrate my apprehension that he was determined, and was continually plotting, to ruin this poor young daughter, yet it was so intolerably crossing to every feeling of my soul to admit such a thought, that I strove with all my might to banish it from my mind and to disbelieve the possibility of such a thing(43)" because it made her daughter a passive, not conscientious, partner to her father, which would make it at the very least sexual assault, which is not at all what she is worried about. So much for being a good mother. I think it'd be interesting to see the story from the father's viewpoint or the daughters to figure out if it was consensual or not. Regardless, sexual predator=okay; incest=grounds for divorce. --Sara<br />
<br />
In Abigail Bailey’s memoirs, “An Abominable Wickedness,” she describes how her husband had begun an incestuous relationship with one of their daughters. This particular account illuminates the lack of power of women during this time period in two distinct ways. First, Abigail Bailey was only able to have her husband arrested with the help of her brothers. It is astounding that women lacked rights to the extent that the law would ignore the fact that her husband was abusing their daughter, simply because a woman reported it. Secondly, the daughter who was being abused denied the opportunity to testify against her father. While her reasoning for this is unclear, it is possible that she was so afraid of the power the male authority of the household had over her that she refused to testify. <br />
--Clare O. <br />
<br />
This essay was the most compelling for me to read. It disgusts me that a father would abuse his child and engage in an incestuous relationship with them, but it further disgusts me that during this era there was almost nothing the mother could do about it. As a woman,and as a "feme covert" she lacked the basic rights and power she needed to put a stop to the behavior,(because of course this placed her in the same category with children, idiots and criminals) and although she was allowed to divorce her husband (amazingly) there was no way for him to be punished for his crimes because the daughter he was abusing refused to testify. I agree with Clare that she was most likely afraid of the outcome, and if the outcome of the trial didn't do as she planned, she would suffer even more after the fact. --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== TIED HAND AND FOOT -- ''Esther Burr, 1756-1757'' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
First of all, I love that this is from Aaron Burr's mother (which is not important, I just like Aaron Burr). More importantly the line by Mr. Ewing which states that women should talk about "things that they understood. He did not think women knew what Friendship was. They were hardly capable fo anything so cool and rational as friendship (41)." First I had to wonder, was he talking about the Quakers when she captialized the word "Friendship" or was that just making it a proper noun instead of the contemporary usage of the word. I have to wonder. Second, funny that after reading how busy and tedious her life is in this journal I am saddened by the lack of respect for her sex (if not for herself) she deals with. Obviously he had to have viewed her as somewhat of a companion (not unusual for a woman of her status when you consider the Adams, Adams and Jefferson correspondence of the same time period) or he would not have discussed "women" with her as though she was not one of them, but still an insult to ALL women is an insult to particular women. --Sara<br />
<br />
What I found interesting in the Esther Burr letters:<br />
-The push for women to be married came from women just as much as it did from male ministers (excusing the fact that she was married to a minister).<br />
-Not marrying was considered a "murder of self." (Page 39, Woloch)<br />
-Did women in this era always refer to their husbands as "Mr Burr?"<br />
--Mary Beth M<br />
<br />
What I found interesting was that she was able to keep a diary. Most of the time we are taught that women are not suppose to be taught to write and you even see that in some of the later readings that young girls had been taught to read the bible and nothing else. And in reference to what Mary Beth said, I don’t think that it is only their husbands they refer too. I think that that she refers to everyone with a title. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
What I enjoyed about these letters is the glimpse of life in the early 18th century. Esther Burr's diary is a particularly rich resource for historians trying to understand better the daily lives of upper-class colonial women. I liked her descriptions of her recovery from childbirth, her conversations with her husbands and guests, and her day to day occurrences. I thought it was interesting how she still did spinning and spent a day with other ladies doing this task even though she was well off as a minister's wife. I also found her anger at her friend when she discovers that she turned down a proposal very telling. She is angry at her because she feels that their was no reason to turn him down, he was even a minister like her husband. It makes me wonder how many women settled to marry men they did not particularly like because of pressure from family and friends. Was spinster-hood something to be truly afraid of?--Heather Thompson</div>Lsmith0805https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_3_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 3 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-15T04:09:25Z<p>Lsmith0805: /* Eliza Pinckney, 1750s, To Improve in Every Virtue */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching/comparative comments ==<br />
<br />
"To Use Her as His Wife" and the memoir of Abigail Bailey helped to define where women fell during this time in regards to the law. What I found interesting about both situations, even with their vast differences, they both were about women whose lives were left to be determined by the men that surrounded them. It is never clear what Martha Root wanted for her life as she was the one who in the end was responsible for raising the child. Root's opinion never appeared to come up for debate as it was overshadowed by the cultural and societal norms set by the male members of the community. The more drastic example of this legal inequality can be felt in Abigail Bailey's confession of her husband and daughters incest driven relationship. She is clearly broken that this immoral and sinful activity is taking place within her own home and she cannot even protect her own child. She continually comments that she "knew not that I could make legal proof" and even when she was able to bring her husband in front of the law it was by the help of her brothers and over a property settlement, not the rape of his daughter. It leaves the question if men were considered more morally upright than women as the choices they made guided the entire community? --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Katherine Kish Sklar article, “To Use her as His Wife” ==<br />
<br />
I found “To Use Her As His Wife” to be a very interesting read. I had no idea that a fundamental feature of an 18th century marriage was bridal pregnancy. Why don’t we hear stories about bridal pregnancy more often (Martha Root’s story)? It is also intriguing that these women were not chastised for their pregnancies out of wedlock, mainly because their children were not seen as bastards. How did these premarital pregnancies affect the family life after the couple was married? --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
<br />
This article also changed my view of women's place in colonial society. I had imagined a much more strict adherence to the taboo on premarital sex, and a much harsher criticism of women who engaged in it. Instead, the phenomenon of "bridal pregnancy" suggests to me that society had come up with a way to handle apparently inevitable cases, and both the man and woman could, through marriage, retain their place in society and their dignity. It was this fact, that pregnancy before marriage did not necessarily ruin the woman, which surprised me. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the excerpt “To Use Her as His Wife”, I was surprised by the fact that Elisha and Joseph Hawley’s mother had a very privileged position in the community, regardless of the fact that her husband had committed suicide. I would have thought that fact would have tainted her reputation in society, I supposed her good connections with the rest of her family helped her in society. Another thing that surprised me about this excerpt was the age of marriage. The ages were all much older than I was expecting: the women were getting married at 25, 27, and 34. -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
This article completely threw me off when reading it. First, I was suprised at how prevalent it had become for women to become pregnant before marriage, let alone how common it was for them to engage in premarital sex. I always assumed there was such a strict religious presence that these were things that just didn't happen, and when they did they were just unspoke of. I was also shocked when the author mentioned the Hawley family, and how they were still considered "one of North Hampton's prestigious families" even after Joseph committed suicide. The colonists were very religious people, and i wouldn't think iot would be looked very highly upon to have a member of your family committ suicide. --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
I found the wording in the document on page 81 to be very interesting. Elisha is called a "gentleman" as Martha is called a "spinster." Both are gendered, but Martha's status as an unmarried woman is more important than what family she came from. - Michelle M.<br />
<br />
This article was very intriguing to me. I honestly learned alot. I always thought that there was very few acts of pre-marital sex and waiting until marriage was encouraged because that part of the religion was stressed. Therefore, the concept of Bridal Pregnancy was new to me. The statistic that one in every third pregnancy was a bridal pregnancy/premarital baby was very surprising and reminded me of today and how there has been a rapid increase in teenage pregnancies. I found the line "Lines of descent mattered as much as wealth and was as important as wealth, presitge, and power were maintained." I guess it makes sense, because the link of the family is matched to the wealth and power. But in the case of Rebekah, by being a prominent figure in the community as the "Dairy Expert" gave her her prestige, and great seat in church. Even in church there was a split of hierarchy. -Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Benjamin Wadsworth, 1712 – Well-Ordered Family ==<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Wadsworth’s sermon discussing “A Well Ordered Family,” he describes that the ideal family is one in which the wife is submissive to the husband, but that they should be loving and affectionate to one another. He also describes a quarrel or disagreement as “the Devil’s work.” On one hand, he states that if a wife is not “so young, beautiful, healthy…” etc, God still requires the husband to love her and be not bitter. This sounds like a fairly positive position for women. However, Wadsworth goes on to say that if a husband is not “well-tempered,” the wife still is required to love and particularly obey him. In my view, this would allow husbands to be abusive or ill-tempered without repercussion because women must be submissive and obey them no matter what. This model ultimately failed and the stratification between men and women grew further. <br />
--Clare O.<br />
<br />
I found the way Wadsworth talks about love striking. It's a "duty" to be "performed," as is "plainly commanded by God." That's quite different from how we talk about love now, as an ethereal thing which people fall in or out of. It's discussed as less of an emotion and more of a character trait, to strive for despite the many potential flaws in one spouse that he lists. It's interesting how his list for women differs from his list for men - he tells them to love and obey their husbands even if he has less "abilities of mind" or is of a "more common birth" - I wonder if more-educated or wealthier women marrying lower-status men was common enough to merit such a comment?<br />
<br />
To use her as a Wife: Paternity Suit brought to life the shift in family structures. The change from pre-modern to modern family structures happened much earlier than I expected. The paternity suits in this period made progress towards answering religious and social questions that we have today including the issue of child support, whether or not a man should have to marry a woman bearing his child out of wedlock and what the issue is with marrying a different social class. --kris<br />
<br />
Aside from Wadsworth's assertion that the husband is the "head of the woman," this assesment of marriage seems dead-on. He says that although your spouse may not be the embodiment of all your romantic fantasies, responsibility and duty should overcome. This is still a relevant message (at least to me!). What caught my attention most was a quotation in the introduction. Wadworth says, "Tho tyranny is burdensome and hateful, yet it's counted a smaller evil that meer anarchy, and confusion." The English civil war had recently happened, the attempt at instituting a large-scale puritan utopia had failed. Is this (and without its context, it's tough to tell) a glossing over, or a justification for more secular government? --Stefanie<br />
<br />
I find it interesting how easy it seemed at the time to sin and then be forgiven. It seems that many people at the time were committing sins right and left, yet as long as you confessed that what you had done was wrong you were forgiven. And then people like Joseph Hawley sinned multiple times. I always thought of that time period as being super religious and strict. But the Kathryn Kish Sklar reading my thoughts on that have definitely changed. It is almost as if the church was afraid of losing people. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
== Susanna Wesley, 1732, Evangelical Child-Rearing ==<br />
<br />
I'm finding it difficult to work out what we can understand from this about "typical" child-rearing. She discusses her children going into less-strict homes than hers and learning songs and playing and such awful things, so presumably other households weren't this strict. She also talks about how her girls didn't learn to sew until they could read well, and comments that few women read well because they learned to sew first - so did most families not let their girls study reading so much? Or is she talking about her own generation, and now girls are getting more education? Is her desire for her girls to know how to read and speak well religiously motivated like the rest of her theory of child-rearing seems to be, in which case it might be more common, or is it a personal thing? - Katie C.<br />
<br />
I agree with Katie. Wesley seems to be special kind of mother. She reminds me of a Tiger Mom. She believes that "self-will is the root of all sin and misery" (p. 41), which drives her parenting ideals. Everything from prayers to eating is strictly controlled in Wesley's home. As Katie said, Wesley does not to see the norm. I would be interested in knowing her husband's views and doctrines on child rearing. - Michelle M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the letter from Susanna Wesley to her son to be very interesting. Many of her child-rearing practices seemed harsh and extreme by today’s standards, yet I saw many things in her letter that I can relate to my own experiences with babysitting. That “cowardice and fear of punishment often lead children into lying…”; lying and disobedience “must never pass unpunished…” and if a child does something unacceptable but with good intentions, “the obedience and intention be kindly accepted, and the child with sweetness directed how to better for the future.” -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
== Eliza Pinckney, 1750s, To Improve in Every Virtue ==<br />
<br />
I was an immediate fan of Eliza Pinckney who wrote out her resolutions each year on her birthday, I could easily relate to her fears and wishes in living her life. She simply wanted to be a good person: “not regard the frowns of the world”, “subdue every vice and improve in every virtue”. The most amazing thing about Eliza was how in depth she wrote about her “Servants” and how she wanted so badly to be a good Mistress to them: “to make their lives as comfortable as I can.” -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
In comparing and contrasting Eliza Pinckney's essay to Susanna Wesley's considering they both are referencing aspects of child rearing, I found them to be the complete opposites of each other. Wesley's view on raising children seems to be focused more on punishment, because as a Puritan she believed all children were born bad and they were "ignorant of all good". She maintained a strict way of life, and it seems as though Puritan children were robbed of any normal childhood they should have been able to enjoy. Pinckney appears to have loved children and she encouraged them to do better, therefore not focusing on their mistakes or the punishments that Wesley seemed such a fan of. I also admire Eliza Pinckney her for her dedication to wanting to be a better person in all aspects of her life: as a mother, a wife, a mistress to her servants, a sister and a "sincere and faithful friend". --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== New Spain’s (New Mexico’s) moral code as dictated by the Spanish Crown in 1752 ==<br />
<br />
I'm surprised there was such concern about class in New Spain, since it doesn't seem to have existed in quite the same way in the English colonies. I'd also love to read a more precise definition of seduction. The most interesting part of this law is that NOT marrying a woman is a serious offense - if someone has seduced someone and then doesn't marry her, then that apparently does her serious injury, though not him. (I guess he's the one not embarrassed by being turned down, just as her lineage or reputation won't be hurt by marrying someone above her?) I wonder, did lower-class women ever seduce Dukes and Counts? It certainly doesn't seem to have happened enough to be mentioned here, but I guess those native girls were just all over the nobility. - Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Laws on Slave Descent in VA and MD, 1662, 1664, 1691, 1692 ==<br />
<br />
It seems as if the laws in Virginia got harsher from 1662-1691 in regards to children being born to an Englishman/woman and a slave. In 1662, the child was free if the mother was free, but the child was a slave if the mother was a slave. The Christian Englishman/woman parent has to pay double the fines for committing the act. In 1991 if an English woman were to have a baby with a black man, she had to pay a fine one month after the child were born. The mother was taken into possession of the church for 5 years, but the child was taken for 30 years. I found that to be interesting. Why would a supposed Christian punish the child, especially worse than the mother was punished? -- Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Skilled slaves in Maryland, 1748-1763, Maryland Gazette ==<br />
<br />
This essay says, "Because the crafts open to men far outnumbered those open to women, fewer female than male slaves had the opportunity to escape field labor." <br />
It kind of surprises me that they would have women working in the field so much. Were there not many opportunities for domestic work, even in the mid-eighteenth century? In addition to that quote, shortly after in the same passage is an ad posted for a female slave that says, "A brisk likely Country-born Negro Wench about 18 or 19 years of Age, who is a good Spinner; with a Child, about 18 months Old."<br />
This quote suggests that it was common for women to partake in domestic work. Which is true?<br />
--Mary Beth M<br />
<br />
== Complaint of Elizabeth Sprigs, indentured servant, 1756 ==<br />
<br />
I was shocked when I read that letter from the girl to her father. I know that not all people came over to the New World willingly but I thought that most of them enjoyed being here once they got here. I would have never guessed that this girl was treated like, if not worse, than a slave and then started to beg her father who threw her out, for more. It makes me wonder what rights indentured servants had since they were not technically property, or were they? – Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Apprenticeship in PA, 1771-1773, Record of Indentures ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Advertisements, Gazettes of VA, PA, SC, NY – 1751-1776 ==<br />
<br />
While reading through the various gazettes, I noticed in the 1750's, girls were more or less being offered lessons in needle work and other types of crafts, where as the boys were being taught the reading, writing and arithmetic. They appeared to have been kept the sexes separate as well. Fast forward twenty years and it seems the girls are being offered the same craft work, but they are also able to learn the reading, writing and arithmetic, plus various other areas of interest (music being a common theme). - Matt<br />
<br />
== AN ABOMINABLE WICKEDNESS ''Abigail Bailey, 1815'' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I really was directed to the passage "Though all the conduct of Mr. B. from day to day, seemed to demonstrate my apprehension that he was determined, and was continually plotting, to ruin this poor young daughter, yet it was so intolerably crossing to every feeling of my soul to admit such a thought, that I strove with all my might to banish it from my mind and to disbelieve the possibility of such a thing(43)" because it made her daughter a passive, not conscientious, partner to her father, which would make it at the very least sexual assault, which is not at all what she is worried about. So much for being a good mother. I think it'd be interesting to see the story from the father's viewpoint or the daughters to figure out if it was consensual or not. Regardless, sexual predator=okay; incest=grounds for divorce. --Sara<br />
<br />
In Abigail Bailey’s memoirs, “An Abominable Wickedness,” she describes how her husband had begun an incestuous relationship with one of their daughters. This particular account illuminates the lack of power of women during this time period in two distinct ways. First, Abigail Bailey was only able to have her husband arrested with the help of her brothers. It is astounding that women lacked rights to the extent that the law would ignore the fact that her husband was abusing their daughter, simply because a woman reported it. Secondly, the daughter who was being abused denied the opportunity to testify against her father. While her reasoning for this is unclear, it is possible that she was so afraid of the power the male authority of the household had over her that she refused to testify. <br />
--Clare O. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== TIED HAND AND FOOT -- ''Esther Burr, 1756-1757'' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
First of all, I love that this is from Aaron Burr's mother (which is not important, I just like Aaron Burr). More importantly the line by Mr. Ewing which states that women should talk about "things that they understood. He did not think women knew what Friendship was. They were hardly capable fo anything so cool and rational as friendship (41)." First I had to wonder, was he talking about the Quakers when she captialized the word "Friendship" or was that just making it a proper noun instead of the contemporary usage of the word. I have to wonder. Second, funny that after reading how busy and tedious her life is in this journal I am saddened by the lack of respect for her sex (if not for herself) she deals with. Obviously he had to have viewed her as somewhat of a companion (not unusual for a woman of her status when you consider the Adams, Adams and Jefferson correspondence of the same time period) or he would not have discussed "women" with her as though she was not one of them, but still an insult to ALL women is an insult to particular women. --Sara<br />
<br />
What I found interesting in the Esther Burr letters:<br />
-The push for women to be married came from women just as much as it did from male ministers (excusing the fact that she was married to a minister).<br />
-Not marrying was considered a "murder of self." (Page 39, Woloch)<br />
-Did women in this era always refer to their husbands as "Mr Burr?"<br />
--Mary Beth M<br />
<br />
What I found interesting was that she was able to keep a diary. Most of the time we are taught that women are not suppose to be taught to write and you even see that in some of the later readings that young girls had been taught to read the bible and nothing else. And in reference to what Mary Beth said, I don’t think that it is only their husbands they refer too. I think that that she refers to everyone with a title. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
What I enjoyed about these letters is the glimpse of life in the early 18th century. Esther Burr's diary is a particularly rich resource for historians trying to understand better the daily lives of upper-class colonial women. I liked her descriptions of her recovery from childbirth, her conversations with her husbands and guests, and her day to day occurrences. I thought it was interesting how she still did spinning and spent a day with other ladies doing this task even though she was well off as a minister's wife. I also found her anger at her friend when she discovers that she turned down a proposal very telling. She is angry at her because she feels that their was no reason to turn him down, he was even a minister like her husband. It makes me wonder how many women settled to marry men they did not particularly like because of pressure from family and friends. Was spinster-hood something to be truly afraid of?--Heather Thompson</div>Lsmith0805https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_3_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 3 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-15T03:57:15Z<p>Lsmith0805: /* Katherine Kish Sklar article, “To Use her as His Wife” */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching/comparative comments ==<br />
<br />
"To Use Her as His Wife" and the memoir of Abigail Bailey helped to define where women fell during this time in regards to the law. What I found interesting about both situations, even with their vast differences, they both were about women whose lives were left to be determined by the men that surrounded them. It is never clear what Martha Root wanted for her life as she was the one who in the end was responsible for raising the child. Root's opinion never appeared to come up for debate as it was overshadowed by the cultural and societal norms set by the male members of the community. The more drastic example of this legal inequality can be felt in Abigail Bailey's confession of her husband and daughters incest driven relationship. She is clearly broken that this immoral and sinful activity is taking place within her own home and she cannot even protect her own child. She continually comments that she "knew not that I could make legal proof" and even when she was able to bring her husband in front of the law it was by the help of her brothers and over a property settlement, not the rape of his daughter. It leaves the question if men were considered more morally upright than women as the choices they made guided the entire community? --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Katherine Kish Sklar article, “To Use her as His Wife” ==<br />
<br />
I found “To Use Her As His Wife” to be a very interesting read. I had no idea that a fundamental feature of an 18th century marriage was bridal pregnancy. Why don’t we hear stories about bridal pregnancy more often (Martha Root’s story)? It is also intriguing that these women were not chastised for their pregnancies out of wedlock, mainly because their children were not seen as bastards. How did these premarital pregnancies affect the family life after the couple was married? --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
<br />
This article also changed my view of women's place in colonial society. I had imagined a much more strict adherence to the taboo on premarital sex, and a much harsher criticism of women who engaged in it. Instead, the phenomenon of "bridal pregnancy" suggests to me that society had come up with a way to handle apparently inevitable cases, and both the man and woman could, through marriage, retain their place in society and their dignity. It was this fact, that pregnancy before marriage did not necessarily ruin the woman, which surprised me. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the excerpt “To Use Her as His Wife”, I was surprised by the fact that Elisha and Joseph Hawley’s mother had a very privileged position in the community, regardless of the fact that her husband had committed suicide. I would have thought that fact would have tainted her reputation in society, I supposed her good connections with the rest of her family helped her in society. Another thing that surprised me about this excerpt was the age of marriage. The ages were all much older than I was expecting: the women were getting married at 25, 27, and 34. -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
This article completely threw me off when reading it. First, I was suprised at how prevalent it had become for women to become pregnant before marriage, let alone how common it was for them to engage in premarital sex. I always assumed there was such a strict religious presence that these were things that just didn't happen, and when they did they were just unspoke of. I was also shocked when the author mentioned the Hawley family, and how they were still considered "one of North Hampton's prestigious families" even after Joseph committed suicide. The colonists were very religious people, and i wouldn't think iot would be looked very highly upon to have a member of your family committ suicide. --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
I found the wording in the document on page 81 to be very interesting. Elisha is called a "gentleman" as Martha is called a "spinster." Both are gendered, but Martha's status as an unmarried woman is more important than what family she came from. - Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Benjamin Wadsworth, 1712 – Well-Ordered Family ==<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Wadsworth’s sermon discussing “A Well Ordered Family,” he describes that the ideal family is one in which the wife is submissive to the husband, but that they should be loving and affectionate to one another. He also describes a quarrel or disagreement as “the Devil’s work.” On one hand, he states that if a wife is not “so young, beautiful, healthy…” etc, God still requires the husband to love her and be not bitter. This sounds like a fairly positive position for women. However, Wadsworth goes on to say that if a husband is not “well-tempered,” the wife still is required to love and particularly obey him. In my view, this would allow husbands to be abusive or ill-tempered without repercussion because women must be submissive and obey them no matter what. This model ultimately failed and the stratification between men and women grew further. <br />
--Clare O.<br />
<br />
I found the way Wadsworth talks about love striking. It's a "duty" to be "performed," as is "plainly commanded by God." That's quite different from how we talk about love now, as an ethereal thing which people fall in or out of. It's discussed as less of an emotion and more of a character trait, to strive for despite the many potential flaws in one spouse that he lists. It's interesting how his list for women differs from his list for men - he tells them to love and obey their husbands even if he has less "abilities of mind" or is of a "more common birth" - I wonder if more-educated or wealthier women marrying lower-status men was common enough to merit such a comment?<br />
<br />
To use her as a Wife: Paternity Suit brought to life the shift in family structures. The change from pre-modern to modern family structures happened much earlier than I expected. The paternity suits in this period made progress towards answering religious and social questions that we have today including the issue of child support, whether or not a man should have to marry a woman bearing his child out of wedlock and what the issue is with marrying a different social class. --kris<br />
<br />
Aside from Wadsworth's assertion that the husband is the "head of the woman," this assesment of marriage seems dead-on. He says that although your spouse may not be the embodiment of all your romantic fantasies, responsibility and duty should overcome. This is still a relevant message (at least to me!). What caught my attention most was a quotation in the introduction. Wadworth says, "Tho tyranny is burdensome and hateful, yet it's counted a smaller evil that meer anarchy, and confusion." The English civil war had recently happened, the attempt at instituting a large-scale puritan utopia had failed. Is this (and without its context, it's tough to tell) a glossing over, or a justification for more secular government? --Stefanie<br />
<br />
== Susanna Wesley, 1732, Evangelical Child-Rearing ==<br />
<br />
I'm finding it difficult to work out what we can understand from this about "typical" child-rearing. She discusses her children going into less-strict homes than hers and learning songs and playing and such awful things, so presumably other households weren't this strict. She also talks about how her girls didn't learn to sew until they could read well, and comments that few women read well because they learned to sew first - so did most families not let their girls study reading so much? Or is she talking about her own generation, and now girls are getting more education? Is her desire for her girls to know how to read and speak well religiously motivated like the rest of her theory of child-rearing seems to be, in which case it might be more common, or is it a personal thing? - Katie C.<br />
<br />
I agree with Katie. Wesley seems to be special kind of mother. She reminds me of a Tiger Mom. She believes that "self-will is the root of all sin and misery" (p. 41), which drives her parenting ideals. Everything from prayers to eating is strictly controlled in Wesley's home. As Katie said, Wesley does not to see the norm. I would be interested in knowing her husband's views and doctrines on child rearing. - Michelle M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the letter from Susanna Wesley to her son to be very interesting. Many of her child-rearing practices seemed harsh and extreme by today’s standards, yet I saw many things in her letter that I can relate to my own experiences with babysitting. That “cowardice and fear of punishment often lead children into lying…”; lying and disobedience “must never pass unpunished…” and if a child does something unacceptable but with good intentions, “the obedience and intention be kindly accepted, and the child with sweetness directed how to better for the future.” -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
== Eliza Pinckney, 1750s, To Improve in Every Virtue ==<br />
<br />
I was an immediate fan of Eliza Pinckney who wrote out her resolutions each year on her birthday, I could easily relate to her fears and wishes in living her life. She simply wanted to be a good person: “not regard the frowns of the world”, “subdue every vice and improve in every virtue”. The most amazing thing about Eliza was how in depth she wrote about her “Servants” and how she wanted so badly to be a good Mistress to them: “to make their lives as comfortable as I can.” -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
== New Spain’s (New Mexico’s) moral code as dictated by the Spanish Crown in 1752 ==<br />
<br />
I'm surprised there was such concern about class in New Spain, since it doesn't seem to have existed in quite the same way in the English colonies. I'd also love to read a more precise definition of seduction. The most interesting part of this law is that NOT marrying a woman is a serious offense - if someone has seduced someone and then doesn't marry her, then that apparently does her serious injury, though not him. (I guess he's the one not embarrassed by being turned down, just as her lineage or reputation won't be hurt by marrying someone above her?) I wonder, did lower-class women ever seduce Dukes and Counts? It certainly doesn't seem to have happened enough to be mentioned here, but I guess those native girls were just all over the nobility. - Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Laws on Slave Descent in VA and MD, 1662, 1664, 1691, 1692 ==<br />
<br />
It seems as if the laws in Virginia got harsher from 1662-1691 in regards to children being born to an Englishman/woman and a slave. In 1662, the child was free if the mother was free, but the child was a slave if the mother was a slave. The Christian Englishman/woman parent has to pay double the fines for committing the act. In 1991 if an English woman were to have a baby with a black man, she had to pay a fine one month after the child were born. The mother was taken into possession of the church for 5 years, but the child was taken for 30 years. I found that to be interesting. Why would a supposed Christian punish the child, especially worse than the mother was punished? -- Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Skilled slaves in Maryland, 1748-1763, Maryland Gazette ==<br />
<br />
This essay says, "Because the crafts open to men far outnumbered those open to women, fewer female than male slaves had the opportunity to escape field labor." <br />
It kind of surprises me that they would have women working in the field so much. Were there not many opportunities for domestic work, even in the mid-eighteenth century? In addition to that quote, shortly after in the same passage is an ad posted for a female slave that says, "A brisk likely Country-born Negro Wench about 18 or 19 years of Age, who is a good Spinner; with a Child, about 18 months Old."<br />
This quote suggests that it was common for women to partake in domestic work. Which is true?<br />
--Mary Beth M<br />
<br />
== Complaint of Elizabeth Sprigs, indentured servant, 1756 ==<br />
<br />
I was shocked when I read that letter from the girl to her father. I know that not all people came over to the New World willingly but I thought that most of them enjoyed being here once they got here. I would have never guessed that this girl was treated like, if not worse, than a slave and then started to beg her father who threw her out, for more. It makes me wonder what rights indentured servants had since they were not technically property, or were they? – Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Apprenticeship in PA, 1771-1773, Record of Indentures ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Advertisements, Gazettes of VA, PA, SC, NY – 1751-1776 ==<br />
<br />
While reading through the various gazettes, I noticed in the 1750's, girls were more or less being offered lessons in needle work and other types of crafts, where as the boys were being taught the reading, writing and arithmetic. They appeared to have been kept the sexes separate as well. Fast forward twenty years and it seems the girls are being offered the same craft work, but they are also able to learn the reading, writing and arithmetic, plus various other areas of interest (music being a common theme). - Matt<br />
<br />
== AN ABOMINABLE WICKEDNESS ''Abigail Bailey, 1815'' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I really was directed to the passage "Though all the conduct of Mr. B. from day to day, seemed to demonstrate my apprehension that he was determined, and was continually plotting, to ruin this poor young daughter, yet it was so intolerably crossing to every feeling of my soul to admit such a thought, that I strove with all my might to banish it from my mind and to disbelieve the possibility of such a thing(43)" because it made her daughter a passive, not conscientious, partner to her father, which would make it at the very least sexual assault, which is not at all what she is worried about. So much for being a good mother. I think it'd be interesting to see the story from the father's viewpoint or the daughters to figure out if it was consensual or not. Regardless, sexual predator=okay; incest=grounds for divorce. --Sara<br />
<br />
In Abigail Bailey’s memoirs, “An Abominable Wickedness,” she describes how her husband had begun an incestuous relationship with one of their daughters. This particular account illuminates the lack of power of women during this time period in two distinct ways. First, Abigail Bailey was only able to have her husband arrested with the help of her brothers. It is astounding that women lacked rights to the extent that the law would ignore the fact that her husband was abusing their daughter, simply because a woman reported it. Secondly, the daughter who was being abused denied the opportunity to testify against her father. While her reasoning for this is unclear, it is possible that she was so afraid of the power the male authority of the household had over her that she refused to testify. <br />
--Clare O. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== TIED HAND AND FOOT -- ''Esther Burr, 1756-1757'' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
First of all, I love that this is from Aaron Burr's mother (which is not important, I just like Aaron Burr). More importantly the line by Mr. Ewing which states that women should talk about "things that they understood. He did not think women knew what Friendship was. They were hardly capable fo anything so cool and rational as friendship (41)." First I had to wonder, was he talking about the Quakers when she captialized the word "Friendship" or was that just making it a proper noun instead of the contemporary usage of the word. I have to wonder. Second, funny that after reading how busy and tedious her life is in this journal I am saddened by the lack of respect for her sex (if not for herself) she deals with. Obviously he had to have viewed her as somewhat of a companion (not unusual for a woman of her status when you consider the Adams, Adams and Jefferson correspondence of the same time period) or he would not have discussed "women" with her as though she was not one of them, but still an insult to ALL women is an insult to particular women. --Sara<br />
<br />
What I found interesting in the Esther Burr letters:<br />
-The push for women to be married came from women just as much as it did from male ministers (excusing the fact that she was married to a minister).<br />
-Not marrying was considered a "murder of self." (Page 39, Woloch)<br />
-Did women in this era always refer to their husbands as "Mr Burr?"<br />
--Mary Beth M<br />
<br />
What I found interesting was that she was able to keep a diary. Most of the time we are taught that women are not suppose to be taught to write and you even see that in some of the later readings that young girls had been taught to read the bible and nothing else. And in reference to what Mary Beth said, I don’t think that it is only their husbands they refer too. I think that that she refers to everyone with a title. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
What I enjoyed about these letters is the glimpse of life in the early 18th century. Esther Burr's diary is a particularly rich resource for historians trying to understand better the daily lives of upper-class colonial women. I liked her descriptions of her recovery from childbirth, her conversations with her husbands and guests, and her day to day occurrences. I thought it was interesting how she still did spinning and spent a day with other ladies doing this task even though she was well off as a minister's wife. I also found her anger at her friend when she discovers that she turned down a proposal very telling. She is angry at her because she feels that their was no reason to turn him down, he was even a minister like her husband. It makes me wonder how many women settled to marry men they did not particularly like because of pressure from family and friends. Was spinster-hood something to be truly afraid of?--Heather Thompson</div>Lsmith0805https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_2_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 2 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-06T05:46:28Z<p>Lsmith0805: </p>
<hr />
<div>So little is known about the complex and diverse group of Native American women. How much should we trust the accounts of literate white men and women? How can we be sure that we recieve an unaltered and unbiased view of these women's lives? We cannot, thus, it is imperative that we take an objective eye when reading others narritives on a people without a clear voice in our history books. Although it is interesting and beneficial to compare the differing accounts of Mary Jemison and Mary Rowlandson we do not have the accounts from their captors. -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
The arrival of Europeans can truly mark the end of one people's way of life through conforming to a foreign model of religion and social structure demonstrated through changing gender roles. Through many of these early encounters as well as from ''The First Ship'' reading that both parties view of each other was completely alien. As told my Mary Rowlandson and Mary Jemison, it is evident the social structure that they were forced into was foreign with gender roles carried out in a nontraditional sense. These contrasts, in ways of life sharply decline, as seen in the story of Sarah Ahhaton were she was made to feel remorseful for her adulterous actions. Actions that some fifty years early would have "incur no ill repute or insult" according to Champlain. It is clear that when Europeans arrived in America they encountered a people whose female members shared a mutual respect with male members, maintaining positions of power in both the public and private world. Although, documentation throughout this time was heavily biased, the permanent shift in culture and life ways for the Native Americans is abundantly clear. -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
In chapter one of Woloch, it is said that “all tribes adhered to a gendered division of the labor.” This division of labor was very interesting to the Europeans who wrote about Indian life, as women had many responsibilities that required hard labor. John Heckewelder didn’t seem to have much respect for the Native American women or of “savage life” in general. He talks of the women harshly saying: their “labours… are hard, compared with the tasks that are imposed upon females in civilized society; but they are no more than their fair share…” This opinion is opposed by Samuel de Champlain who is harsher on the Native American men saying they “do nothing but hunt for deer and other animals…make cabins and go to war.” This seems a healthy list of duties to me, but compared to the long list Champlain provided of the women’s duties, it seems small and of little consequence. Some European accounts of Indian life seem to think that these tasks seem fair and are often shared among the men and women out of respect to each other. This respect between the two sexes seems to be somewhat universal in many of the essays. Both women and men alike have a say in the government, particularly among the Iroquois. I was surprised that this seemed less shocking to the Europeans than the amount of work the Native American women did. -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
The European accounts of the Native American marriages, I found very interesting. Samuel de Champlain describes it as “a sort of marriage” while Heckelwelder looks down upon it: “Marriages among the Indians are not, as with us, contracted for life; it is understood…that the parties are not to live together any longer than they shall be pleased with each other.” It seems that there was a lot of, for lack of a better term, “sleeping around” and that children could “not be sure of being legitimate. What I found more interesting than anything else were the personal accounts of the two women who had been taken captive. I found myself asking myself what I would have done in that situation. Mary Rowlandson obviously disliked her captors, though her opinion of them may have changes slightly in their moments of kindness. Rowlandson had a husband and other family members waiting for her at a home she had already formed roots in. Her captors were her enemies and she naturally thought poorly of them. Mary Jemison’s scenario is more unique. She was young when she was taken and when given the chance to be free, she chose to stay with her adopted Indian family. Did she stay out of convenience because she had nothing to go home to? -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
I also found the accounts of the two women taken captive interesting. Since most Native American stories and traditions were passed down orally rather than written I think it's important to use these accounts to add to Native American History. I think that you can neither believe all, some or none with what you read with these accounts. I would be more skeptical of the male accounts since they were observing based on their beliefs of what women's roles should be. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
European culture coming to the "new" world did destroy in part the Native American way of life and structure. This group of people had a system of justice (chiefs and councils) and the men and women had a working relationship that is so rarely seen in other cultures that was basically demoralized by these new settlers. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
In reading Heckewelder's account of the division of labor and responsibility within Delaware Indian families, I was struck by the parallels and differences between the narrative of an American non-Native American woman and that of a Native American woman. While Native American men performed the majority of the more intense physical labor, women also had responsibilities that took them out of the house and allowed them to play a key role in the foodgathering. Additionally, the fact that the parents of both interested parties would bring food that had been caught/grown by their child fascinated me, because unlike the European/early US model of women's worth, a woman in Native American societies brought to the marriage her skill sets as related to food growth and scavenging, and those skills played an important role in finding a partner. In European tradition, a woman would bring to a marriage the dowry that her father/family could afford, bringing to the table on her own behalf only her character and looks. In assessing a potential daughter-in-law's farming and cooking skills, parents could consider more than charm. -- Nicole Steck<br />
<br />
I was particularly intrigued by the account of John Heckewelder and the way in which he described the gender roles of the Delaware Indian Families. Heckewelder was thorough in his descriptions about the work of the women. However, he was always quick to compare their labor with that of the men and made it clear that the women's work was inferior. Because the men were out hunting, they were doing work in which "their existence depend[ed]" (32). It is evident by looking at this text that Heckewelder was assessing the Native Americans through the lens of the static European gender roles that existed at the time. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
I found the first chapter of Woloch’s book quite interesting, and it seems to shed some light on the varying social structures between the American natives and the European colonists. In many native tribes, it was customary for the women to not only play the wife, mother and housekeeper role, but they were the main agriculturists for the tribes as well. Viewed as being savage by the colonists, these native women were only doing what they considered to be their “fair share” of the duties. Although their work was considered hard and strenuous just as well as the men’s, they were still accustomed to performing those duties and they were still responsible for everything else involving family life. They were not forced into slave labor, nor were they forced to remain in their relationships or marriages when they became unhappy. In comparison to the white women settlers, I feel as if the native women had more rights and freedoms than they did. In some cases, native women were even allowed to serve as council members. It’s amazing to see how much culture and environment has an effect on an overall perspective and way of life. --Lindsey S.</div>Lsmith0805https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 1 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-01T02:34:00Z<p>Lsmith0805: /* Overarching questions */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching questions ==<br />
What really struck me about these readings is the conflict between gender history, women's history, and their subdivisions. It seems that none of these disciplines can never satisfy the historical audience because of the attention, or lack of attention, given to a specific person or groups of persons. I was also struck by how women's history had to work to stand alone from general history, but then lacked the consideration of women of different races and cultures. Is this issue still prevalent today? Or has the topic of women's history evolved beyond this issue?--Heather Thompson<br />
<br />
Being the second time I have been required to read this section (which is why I was so quick about posting) I have to comment on the fact that the concept of social history and its restraints have a larger meaning to me now, further in my education, than they did the first time I read this. Being primarily a Religion major, it is easy to see how different perspectives and different outlooks on gender, race, socioeconomic class, culture and community play a huge role in the shape of the story of history. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
All the texts within the reading seem to have this common bond of striving to rise from oppression in order to reach this goal of acceptance within a scholarly world dominated by white males. Interestingly enough, once white women find this acceptance they are reluctant to fully encompass all women through race and culture. It seems to me that the once oppressed (white women) have now become the oppressor in an attempt to maintain their position of power with their male counterparts. By the end of it all where do black women fit in? For the are treated like second class citizens by their fellow females as well as in their culture define by a public "world" and domestic "sphere" that is exclusively male dominated. --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
In the intro the editor asks the question: “is it possible to take the same approach to writing a comprehensive history of all of America’s women, or must historians employ different categories of analysis for different groups while simultaneously avoiding dichotomous thinking?” After reading the four articles, I believe the field is still not sure how to answer the question. In the first essay Haulman explains the history of women’s history, and how the study of women opened more research on other subjects. While creating a new way to look at the past, women’s history also invited other areas to be explored, like, race and class. While race and class contribute to the study, they also complicate women’s history. It is interesting to look at women’s history is at the same time unifying and dividing. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
One of the most interesting points in the Kate Haulman’s essay is her idea of gender roles and how certain activities are deemed to be fit for one gender and not the other. She asks “If a man knits, is he still a “man”? And is knitting still “woman’s” work?” It would be interesting to see how the field of gender studies addresses the blurring of gender roles that has become more and more prevalent in recent years. For example, would a stay at home dad be considered a man since he is taking on a domestic job traditionally viewed as feminine? Or would a breadwinning woman be viewed in masculine terms? -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
When reading through these articles, I noticed a distinct parallel between the Haulman and Bock essays, and another between the Castaneda and Alexander essays. Although all four essays focused on the oppression of women and the need to focus on American Women’s History, Haulman and Bock’s essays focused on American Women’s History in general, whereas Castaneda and Alexander’s essays seemed more racially motivated rather than gender oriented. I found the approaches that all 4 women took interesting, especially Haulman’s approach by actually breaking down the meaning of each word in “American Women’s History”. It really made me think how the simple breakdown of each word categorizes American women’s history as a whole. Which women were considered American? Were African-American women considered American? Or Mexican-American women? What is the definition of American? Does it mean to be born a citizen of the nation, or maybe minority women weren’t considered American at all because they had no rights under the constitution. In all essence, even white middle class women lacked specific rights under the Constitution, because the document was geared mainly for male dominance. I commend Castaneda and Alexander for their drives to seek equality for minority women in history, however I feel as if to be seeking equality, the terms must be equal as well. For example, Alexander states that “feminism is a useful paradigm for White women, the attempt to force Black women into the same interpretive model is not applicable….” I understand the racial differences between the two groups, but when speaking out about feminism as a whole, I believe it is important for women to maintain together as one large group, not broken down into varying divisions. By maintaining one single large group, I feel as though more of an impact can be made. -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Kate Haulman ==<br />
<br />
I found many things in the first essay, by Kate Haulman, to be very interesting. I had never before questioned or even considered the definition of “woman” or “female”. On page four when she comments on Lerner’s suggestion of assessing male and female cultures at the intersection of said cultures. She says the approach of “add women and stir” would keep women marginalized from history rather than part of the whole. Haulman also touches upon the fact that one woman does not represent the whole. When including women in the study of history we must take into account factors such as race, religion, income, etc. On page five, Haulman makes a very interesting reference to an essay by Joan Wallach Scott in which she calls for “…the consideration of “woman”, “female”, and “feminine” as concepts shaped by the societies in which they existed, rather than static realities.” I found this reference to be very interesting as well as completely true. --Emma C.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Gisela Bock, "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" ==<br />
<br />
On page 11 in "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" by Gisela Bock the author mentions "The concept 'gender' has been introduced into women's history and women's studies in the 1970s as a social, cultural, political and historical category, in order to express the insight that women's subordination, inferiroity and powerlessness are not dictated by nature, but are social cultural, politcal and historical constructions." To me, this can be expanded to inlcude all other categories of identities (i.e. race, sexuality, culture, etc.) and is behind the complexity found in historical study. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
The first thing that really jumped out at me in reading was on page 10 under Public versus private. "Male workers, male politicians and male scholars perform their tasks only because they are born, reared and cared for my women's labour". This is entirely true, even in most cases today. Personally speaking as one of the few males in this class, I know that the person I've become, is almost entirely because of my mother and her availability to me growing up. -- Matt<br />
<br />
Gisela Bock's article made some of my favorite points from this reading. I agree with the assertion she seems to be making that dichotomies are not sufficient, and that in order to truly understand the history of any group, the subjects of study need to be given credit for greater subtlety in their lives than any dichotomy allows. The idea of "public vs. private" for example; Bock points out that women's work in the "private sphere" shaped the public sphere, because it was women whose parenting had the greatest effect on the men who occupied the "public" sphere. So, women were working in the public sphere as well, but simply in a different way then were the men they influenced. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== Castaneda ==<br />
<br />
A repeated theme in these essays was the need to move beyond a dichotomous framework for understanding women's history (women are more than just non-males, whiteness and maleness should not be considered the norm). The Castaneda essay was a little thorny for me because, while encouraging historians to seek cultural roots in precolonial norms, she refers several times to "third-world nations." Isn't this phrase in itself reinforcing a dichotomy? --Stefanie L.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Alexander ==<br />
<br />
In Alexander’s article she states, “Early studies of race and gender failed to recognize that race does not only operate as an additional oppressive force but it also forms the foundation of how Black women live their daily lives, and what kinds of liberation strategies they embrace (pg.20)” This quote stands out because it emphasizes that race is not an oppressive force but an identity. The strong ties Black women have to their race affect them just as much as being women. Their race sets their experiences apart from other women. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the differences between the early written records (pre 1975) of white and black woman's histories fascinating. By comparing the different articles it can be ascertained that historically histories written about white women focus on child rearing, giving birth and homemaking; whereas histories written about black woman focus on sexuality and their "role" as whores and vehicles for sex. Interestingly, although different, both histories focus on woman's relationship with and influence on white men proving that woman’s significance and history was synonymous with the history of white men. -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
I found the second article in our reading very interesting. What does it really mean to be a "working mother"? When I was younger, I had a friend who had a "stay at home mom." I am still close to this friend and I can see how close she is with her mom and I am almost envious of their relationship (my mom works outside the home). I also saw how much her mom did around the house (chores, tutored one of her children, nannied other children, cooked,etc.) all without getting paid. <br />
<br />
I also liked the "Women of Color" article by Antonia I. Castaneda. In a sociology class I had, I learned that white men often carry the stereotype that Black women are exotic/forbidden/loose. I find this ironic because White slaveholders had relationships with their Black women slaves. <br />
<br />
Finally, I was interested to read about gender equality vs physiological difference and how gender roles are socially constructed throughout history. What/who determine's men's and women's roles? <br />
<br />
--Catherine Kennedy</div>Lsmith0805 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