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::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($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=MpattersonMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T23:06:36ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_15_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 15 Questions/Comments-327 092009-12-03T15:29:59Z<p>Mpatterson: /* Lucy Maynard Salmon, 1897, Vassar Historian who studied domestic service */</p>
<hr />
<div>== ''Comparative source questions'' ==<br />
<br />
'''I’m curious to what extent women truly believed that they were morally superior to men. They certainly used it to justify women taking a part in activities that were not typically approved of for women.''' For instance, one of Clara Lanza’s arguments for women working outside the home in clerical positions was that women’s morality would improve the business world. Some women’s rights activists also used that argument for why women should be able to vote. '''Were they consciously manipulating the rhetoric of the day or did they just naturally assume it to be the truth?''' -- Taylor Brann<br />
'''<br />
<br />
One commonality between some readings for this week is the emphasis that women placed on their eduction.''' Although an education was more available to working class women than it had been during the eighteenth century, '''availability did not always translate to attainability.''' For example, in '''Lucy Salmon's study''', she came across domestic servicewomen working "eighteen hours" a day. This amount of labor would leave little time for women to acquire the skills necessary for what Salmon calls "intelligent work". In another story, 16 year-old '''Sadie Frowne''' worked an arduous eleven hours a day in a sweatshop, but long hours did not stop her from "going to school at night". Her case must have been somewhat exceptional; if most young laborers had opportunities like Sadie, organizations such as the Knights of Labor would have no need to focus their agenda on "taking little girls from the factory ... and educating them". -Seth Mintzer<br />
<br />
== ''Woloch, Chapter 13, Urban Wage Earners'' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Helen Campbell, 1893, study on NY wage laborers, “Shop Girls and Piece Workers” ==<br />
I thought it was interesting how she said that '''the girls who worked in the shops: "she knows far better what constitutes the life of the rich than the rich ever know of the life of the poor...of the woman she so often despises, even when longing the most to be one of them. She imitates where she can..."(bottom of page 294). This is further emphasizing the desire of lower-class women to be like the upper class, to strive for that 'perfect life.'''' It is a striking contrast that the girl hates the rich women, yet longs to be like them. -Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
Interesting article. Do you think focusing on women in poverty made for a more effective argument against the evils of poverty since women were supposed to be part of the work force? -John Rowley<br />
<br />
I think it was a way to emphasize the evils of poverty. Obviously, these women were unable to stay in the domestic sphere. They had no choice but to work. I think focusing on horrible factory jobs that these women had to do definitely emphasizes this. I don't think that focusing on men working these jobs would gain very much attention. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
== Lucy Maynard Salmon, 1897, Vassar Historian who studied domestic service ==<br />
<br />
'''I noticed a difference in the way that working women were described in comparison to the language used about domestic women.''' Working women saw themselves as being immersed in society and into the world but a domestic woman "never read and does not know what is going on in the world." (P. 298) The working women also describe domestic women as having so much time on their hands, almost insinuating that domestic women's work is not equal to theirs. It was interesting how the working women say they enjoy their job more than they would being a domestic woman. They enjoy the freedom they have to go out and work, but then come home and do whatever they please. Their work and home lives are completely separate. Oppositely, domestic women are always around their work, continuously tending to the family and the house whenever it is needed. There are not set hours of work for domestic women.... their work is their life. --- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
I agree with Alex on her ideas about working women. '''They saw themselves as in the world and intouch with society and it made me wonder if they were the real reason behind the push for women's rights? I know middle class women were heavily involved in shaping women's rights but did the efforts of the working class women make a difference?''' Working class women were proud of what they accomplished and according to this article boasted about what they could do, I agree a woman can do anything she sets her mind to but in a way didn't all women shape the womens rights movement? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I think the thing that struck me most about this article was the first industrial advantage. While I know it was not uncommon for a woman to work during this time period I had always thought it was out of necessity. ''' The idea of opportunities for promotion suggests the idea of a career to me as opposed to a job. Do you think jobs with promotions indicate a shift towards careers and less focus on the domestic duties of marriage?''' Later in the piece the young factory operative explains how domestic servants don't make good wives. I suppose I am just wondering what kind of role marriage played when women went looking for work. -John Rowley<br />
<br />
This set of readings reminds me of a ''A Tree Grows in Brooklyn''''''. ''' Like John, I was a little thrown off by the first and second disadvantages listed. My impression of this time period for working women did not include the idea of shopping for a career, which is how the questionnaires seemed to make it sound. Is it safe to assume that domestic servants were basically on-call day and night? In the footnotes, many of the comments from domestic servants mentioned the irritation of working on sundays, one commenting that it's actually extra work. The time that people in most other employment have to relax and be with family and friends is, by design, her busiest time. Like waiters and waitresses today. -erin b.'''<br />
<br />
I agree that the gaining a promotion does make this job seem more like a career. These women seemed content with working. I had also assumed that women that worked did it because they had to. I never thought that they found pride in it. I also agree with Megan that these women had a bigger part in the womens' rights movement than I had previously thought. I'm sure these women thought they had nothing in common with the middle class women working in the movement. Overall, I think they did play a part. It may not have been the part that middle class women would have wanted, but these women were out having careers at a time when women were supposed to stay at home. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
Last year I read a book about modern domestic service, an field that was mostly dominated by latin american women. In the book one of the discussions dealt with the comparisons between women who were live in housekeepers and those that commuted to their job from there own home. I wonder if there was any such comparison with 19th century domestic workers. I'd imagine that young girls were much more likely to live with their employers then older women in the service. But were domestic servants mostly young or older women?----Emma Peck<br />
<br />
As I was reading this chapter, I was most struck by the commonalities between factory and domestic workers during the industrial Revolution and their modern counterparts. This piece on domestic servants and the preceding article on piece-workers in particular reminded me of some of the observations from the book ''Nickled and Dimed''. The issue of free time and the fact that leisure time for the employer means more work than usual for the domestic servant were really prominent in that book as well as in this article. I think it's interesting that some of the basic disadvantages of these jobs seem relativly unchanged from the 19th century. I did find the list of advantages interesting; as someone else mentioned, I'd always thought of these women as working out of necessity, but this piece definitly makes it sound like there is some choice involved. The previous section on piece-workers reflects more of what I usually think of on the topic of poor working women of this time period- women who have to work because there is no other way to support their families. So I found it interesting that both shop girls and domestic servants are portrayed as having (some)other options, and choosing to go into or stay in their specific type of work.- Melissa Patterson<br />
<br />
== Isabel Eaton, 1899, research on black servants in Philadelphia ==<br />
'''Unlike the white women urban workers we read about for this week, this piece shows how little choice black women urban workers had in occupations.''' Most were domestic servants. Even those who were educated or had other job training could not get the jobs they wanted and were qualified for. '''The racial discrimination they experienced kept them locked into a job they felt was socially degrading and that provided little personal freedom and low wages.''' Due to being turned down, or even the fear of being turned down, most were kept them from seeking jobs outside of domestic service. '''So while white women with an education or job training could afford to be independent and had new job opportunities opened to them, black women were less likely to be able to experience this type of independence.'''<br />
--Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
This article is sad because it shows us how race oriented people were even after the Civil War, but it is already a well known that Blacks did not reach any kind of true equality until the 20th century though. Actually, while I was reading this, I came up with kind of a random but related question: '''In the Antebellum South, when there was still slavery, the slaves would "fight back" in any way they could, including pretending to be really stupid so that they may screw up the task assigned to them, etc. So, I was wondering if this form of retaliation might have had any sort of negative impact after the Civil War for blacks searching for jobs (mostly in the south since that is where such things usually took place)?''' -Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
I think that it had to have a negative impact on them after the Civil War. It just perpetuated the stereotype that blacks were stupid and inferior. However, I'm not sure that it would have made a difference if they were the smartest people in the whole world. Whites were convinced that they were inferior and I doubt that they would have been willing to see anything else.-Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
== Clara Lanza, 1891, defends the female office clerk in NY ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Looking at The Office Clerk by Clara Lanza many things stand out to me. '''This piece is justifying the use of women as clerks. However, this justification feeds into the women’s assumed gender roles during that time period as much as the men’s justification as to why women should not be clerks. Both arguments use the overarching gender roles of the time.''' Men argue that women should remain in the home and be good wives and raise their children, they also argue that women fidget, they become anxious, they are temperamental, they giggle, and so on… these characteristics all fit into what women were presumed to be like. The counter this argument, Clara Lanza believes that women are more reliable than men, they come to work when sick, they don’t complain, and they can do all of this while being great wives. Both sides to this argument use what everyone would agree are characteristics of women of that time and the roles people expected them to play, just in different ways. '''This is similar to the arguments for and against women abolitionists and reformers, it is very interesting how gender roles can be used as justifications for different things.''' Based off of the readings about women’s roles as activists for women’s rights I can tell that the same use of gender roles as justifications for and against the movement being used here as well. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I agree a lot with Erin. Ms. Lanza states in the beginning of her response that "Among the woman workers in New York there are none who afford a more interesting study than the vast army of clerks, the work of a clerk being admirably adapted to the sex." '''While I think expected gender roles play a large part- the exactness of women's work, their reliability, and the ways in which they can be trusted- I also wonder if, at this time, there were beginning to be notions of differences between "sex" and "gender", one of the arguments, I think, of the feminist movement during the 20th Century, with gender being thought of as very much socially constructed.''' It almost seems like Ms. Lanza would make many of those in the women's movement at the time or the feminist movement today kind of angry- '''it seems as if in many ways she is very much defending the gender roles and stereotypes about women.''' -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
I think the transition of the office clerk position is very interesting. First it was highly desirable as a male profession then the transition was made and it became a highly desirable female position. I wonder what the reasons were for the switch in gender role assignments. Now in modern society often women are looked down upon for simply performing secretarial work, and if a man did enter in the profession he would probably face ridicule because it is as much a female dominated profession today as it was in the late 19th century--Emma Peck<br />
<br />
== Leonara Barry, on what the Knights of Labor are doing for women, 1888 ==<br />
<br />
This article provides some moral relief from the sources in this week's reading that are exemplary of ideologies which exacerbated conditions for women in the workplace. For example, the "difficulty" American-born girls felt about competing against a "foreign born and colored element," (297) noted and justified by Lucy Salmon, is ridiculous; Isabel Eaton, a black domestic worker, claims that black domestic workers often can't secure work because "white help is preferred" (299). Racial divides like this, so incorporated into American society, emphasize just how radical the Knights of Labor organization was to accept laborers regardless of race or gender. Are their radical methods generally blamed for the groups eventual failure? --Seth Mintzer<br />
<br />
== Sadie Frome, 1902, “Story of a Sweatshop Girl” ==<br />
<br />
I really liked Sadie's story.''' I thought it was neat how she talked about her social activities outside of work- going to school at night and to the synagogue, having her fortune read by a fortune teller, and going out with Henry, to the theater, or dancing or to Coney Island. She seems like the quintessential "new" young woman of the early twentieth century- she is independent, able to save her money, and not ready to settle down and marry Henry, even though he wants her to. She seems very content with her situation right now and her life as it is- as if she is not ready for things to change just yet and is enjoying the benefits of her hard work and her independence.''' I really kind of admire her! -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
I loved Sadie's story. She is a very practical person. She saves money and she knows how to have fun. '''I was a little disturbed by the matter or fact way she talks about getting her finger caught in the needle and how it could result in a broken bone or dismemberment.''' She did not seem concerned that it could happen to her. '''''I think it is funny that she keeps putting Henry off and that she does not want to get married.''''' I admire her independence. LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
Just like LeAnn and Allison said, I also enjoyed reading Sadie's story. It amazed me how she lived such a simple life, yet she was so content because she was independent and making money for herself. I found it interesting how she could only live on $2 a week! She even went on to say she could "have lived cheaper, but we are both fond of good things and felt that we could afford them." (P. 308) $2 a week! That is literally impossible now a days. But Sadie claimed the $2 was enough for her to get by on and live comfortably. '''I noticed the marriage decision she made. It is interesting to see the progression over the course of the centuries. Women insisted on waiting instead of being married in their teenage years. Could it be because they were making a life for themselves and wanted to establish their own independence before getting married?''' --- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
'''I also very much enjoyed Sadie’s story, as she really lived the American dream. Having found trouble in her homeland, her mother and her moved to America, and with the help of family members here, was able to set up a home, find a job, save money, and live decently well.''' I can understand her desire to hold off on marriage, as she was successful in gaining independence and personal autonomy, which would most likely be revoked upon her marriage. Her desire for nice clothes was endearing as it reminded me much of the desires of young women today, and because she was also successful in saving there was no reason for her not to have nicer clothes, especially since she believed that a “girl who does not dress well is stuck in the corner” (311). '''Her independence and savvyness allows her that luxury and because of that - no one puts Sadie in the corner.''' -- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
'''''I found it interesting that Sadie received /modest/$5.50 a week for her work. I don’t know what the average living costs of the time were and I don’t know what the average wage of men or women of the time but $5.50 seems quite a lot compared to the women mentioned in Helen Campbell’s piece on Shop girls and Piece Workers, and modest doesn’t seem to be the right adjective when comparing it to Campbell’s women.''''' Sadie used two dollars per week for living costs, saved one, and one dollar went to spend on clothing and pleasure. <br />
I love the mention of the fortune teller in this piece and the mention to the alarm clock that she can’t believe that because “I don’t see who the clock would know.” –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I also really liked this story. It was definitely a change to read about her social outings. I also thought it was amazing that Sadie made $5.50 a week and was able to support herself, save, and have a little extra spending money. I was also wondering what the average wage of men at the time was. Sadie's pay does seem better than the pay in the piece workers article. I'm just wondering how it compares to a man's pay. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
== ''Woloch, Chapter 16, Woman Suffrage/Women’s Rights'' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Julia Ward Howe, 1899, Reminiscences ==<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading Julia's Reminiscences as she tells her little story. When she said that part about when she said " 'I am with you' I have been with them ever since" I found that very touching. That and the last line about how although she gave a lot to the cause, it was repaid to her thousandfold. '''She was very proud of the work done as she should have been. She spoke of how the first 2/3 of her life were spent believing the masculine ideal of character as the only one...''' I liked the whole thing. She just seemed really endearing and heartfelt. - Christine<br />
<br />
== Stanton and Anthony, 1882, piece in ''History of Woman Suffrage'' ==<br />
<br />
Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony in Political Lessons take a unique and direct approach to gain women’s suffrage. '''Based off of their arguments, I can see why they may have been threatening. They argue that women, in all actuality, are quiet geniuses, unable to voice their opinions and they are frustrated.''' This goes completely against the gender roles of the time, which perceive women to be inferior people who were meant to stay home and care for her family who didn’t really have any real political opinions of her own and who followed their husband’s views. I also think that it was very bold for them to bring up topics such as class and race, and relate them to women's gender roles. I can see why this could be appealing for some and scary for others. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
To be a white man of political position in this time, it must have been pretty intimidating to realize the eventuality of truly universal suffrage. As Stanton and Anthony point out in this, enfranchising african americans and women would more than double the voters, and those numbers would come largely from demographics whose interests weren't protected politically the same way white business-owning men's were. As Erin already said, the presence of these women even through just this passage is fairly intimidating and simultaneously inspiring. That this was written in 1882 and it took so many more years for women to be granted suffrage, and that the evolution of women's rights moved as slowly as it did is relatively surprising. The activism of Stanton and Anthony seemed very inspiring. - erin b.<br />
<br />
== Frances Ellen (Watkins) Harper, 1866 Woman’s Rights convention ==<br />
'''"We are all bound up together in one great bundle of humanity, and society cannot trample on the weakest and feeblest of its members without receiving the curse in its own soul." Strong words that people still need to come terms with today.''' I really enjoyed reading her speech. I feel so much more for the black woman of the time because they were fighting a double fight: race and gender rights were needed. Bringing up the "wrongs" done to the blacks by the whites was a powerful message, especially when she contrasted it to the "rights" that the "white women" keep takling about. - christine<br />
<br />
'''I felt deeply sorry for Frances Harper,''' not only was she a woman but also a black widow who inherited the role of provider for four children, only one of whom she was the true mother to. She quickly points out that if she was a man, she would not have been violated in the same terms and would have been as seen as more equal before law. I think her message of saying giving women the right to vote would not cure all injustice against women, and race would be a big factor. She knows the terms of the country and understands that while big steps are needed the country would work a step at a time to achieve equality. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I also feel sorry for Frances Harper. It would be hard enough at this time to be either a woman or black, but to be both would be incredibly difficult. Even if someone didn't hate you because you were black, they probably thought you were dumb because you were a woman. When we talked about her in class, I wasn't sure that I agreed with her idea of gaining rights for black men before women. After reading this, I think I see her point. Even if women gained the right to vote, black women would still be excluded, either legally or illegally. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
== Shoe women of Lynn, MA, 1874 ==<br />
In Shoemakers of Lynn, these women seemed very robust and seemed to want to do things that man does (such as chew tobacco and spit on the floor) and not be judged that it was not a “lady like” thing to do. '''It’s interesting that she refers to women as slaves to men.''' '''''What I thought stood out was when she spoke about women who are married, that they have no need for anything and have no idea the oppression that those who were not married had to face.''''' -Marsha<br />
<br />
'''Americus provides an interesting counter to women’s suffrage that I hadn’t considered. She wrote that the day she takes the ballot “will bring with it a conviction that the judgment I rely on has failed me, and the arm upon which I lean, is powerless to protect (367).” She felt that women’s suffrage would ultimately question female judgment. Women relied on their husbands willingly, but suggesting that they needed to vote would also suggest that their husbands weren’t what they trusted them to be, and that perhaps women couldn’t trust themselves either if they were able to be so completely deceived.''' -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
'''In many ways, the women’s rights movement was elitist.''' Wealthy women who had the leisure time to campaign for suffrage often asserted that they should vote to help counteract the votes of the working class. Working class women were less likely to participate in the women’s rights movement, therefore''' I thought Ella A. Little’s letter was pretty awesome. Her argument was that wealthy women did not really understand oppression and that working class women who had to “battle” to “earn their livelihood” were in more desperate need for the right to vote.''' I think it is really sad that this opinion is not often heard in the women’s rights movement. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
“Americus” was some character. “Americus” described chewing tobacco and spitting it on the floor as a right. Snoring was also described as a right, because, I suppose, it was more acceptable for men to snore. I thought it interesting that they compared the fact of being a woman to the idea of slavery when as the NWSA they were not fighting for the right of African Amerian’s suffrage, they were first focused on the right for women to vote. '''It amused me that apparently as soon as women gained the right to vote that as a whole they’d be less timid and not afraid of “burglars nights” as well as chew and spit tobacco and snore''' (the latter two mentioned before). –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
== Amelia Barr, (novelist and married) 1896, Speaks out against female suffrage ==<br />
'''I still think that it is a little weird whenever I hear about a woman who did not want rights or did not see them as important to have. Maybe they couldn't miss something they never had?''' In the document, she argued that if women were given rights they would have become tools, made irrational decisions, and be less likely to defend the nation. She also says that women are born graceful and soft and therefore could never do the work that rough men do. If I were a woman in the late Nineteenth Century, I would have just wanted to be seen as an equal to men and know that I would be treated fairly in court or receive an equal distribution of property or wealth from my deceased husband. I wouldn't consider those two examples as doing "the work of the virile virtues of men." - Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I found what Amelia Barr wrote very interesting. '''She’s not against discontented women in the working class fighting for better wages but rather against women in the political realm'''. I think she’s saying women are too fickle to make political decisions like decisions of war and that law would be in danger in the hands of women. Another point, I think she tried to make is that when a women steps out of the “domestic sphere” she put herself at risk for being criticized by a man (creating animosity) and Barr believed only women should criticize other women. - Marsha<br />
<br />
'''I disagree with pretty much everything she has to say but I can totally see the women of her time agreeing with her. She promotes stereotypes which annoys me.''' She asks if women get what they want and if they are allowed to work as men whether they will be happy. She asks if men's work is less tiresome then women's. Basically, isn't work just work? These are definitely interesting questions. LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
'''I can understand why Amelia Barr would have followers, even though I totally disagree, as her arguments are written very well and she has arguments that attack women’s moral and sensible duties, such as their religion, their obligation to their families, and their femininity.''' Specifically her writing about women’s ability to vote and work and that her desire for knowledge was unnecessary and will take away her femininity was interesting to me, and made me wonder''' what she, or others like her, would think of the women of today? Would she see our accomplishments as really our failure as women? '''- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
== Anna Garlin Spencer, 1898, response to anti-suffrage attacks ==<br />
<br />
Spencer's reasoning for why women should have the right to vote was unique. '''She claimed that once the government began to get involved in matters dealing with "any form of educative, charitable or personally helpful work, it entered the area of distinctive feminine training and power." Once the government entered that woman's sphere, it became involved in women's lives, which meant women had a say in what the government did, especially in that female sphere.''' She made it seem like women had the right to be involved because of the government's entrance into their lives. She also implied that without women's suffrage, the government could not adequately function/make beneficial decisions in the woman's sphere of influence. --- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
== Charlotte Perkins Gilman, 20th Century feminist, 1903, The Home ==<br />
<br />
In Charlotte Perkins Gilman's piece, the reader gets the idea that she obviously thinks there is more to women than being housewives and mothers. She argues that women should be able to participate in society and not be stuck at home. '''The idea of a "home-husband" was a funny concept. She said, and I agree, "Never was any such idiot on earth as this hypothetical home-husband. It was not in him to stay in such primitive restrictions. But he has been quite willing to leave his wife in that interestingly remote period." Men are so adamant about keeping females inside the home but having the roles be reversed would be out of the question.''' -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I think '''in order for the women’s rights movement to proceed, people had to move beyond the idea that women were “naturally” moral and nurturing. I don’t think nineteenth-century Americans saw gender as fluid and dynamic, instead it was prescribed by God. In order to change, they needed to learn to see it as less of a biological function, and more of a result of socialization. ''Radicals such as Charlotte Perkins Gilman'' lead the way with ideas that women’s forced isolation in the home made them less capable for a public role rather than a natural lack of abilities.''' -Allison Luthern</div>Mpattersonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_13-14_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 13-14 Questions/Comments-327 092009-11-24T15:36:55Z<p>Mpatterson: /* Sarah and Lucy Chase, Teaching the Freedmen, 1866-1868 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Louisa May Alcott, Hospital Sketches, 1862-1863 ==<br />
<br />
A Union Nurse, shows the experience of Louisa May Alcott as a nurse in the Union Hotel Hospital in Washington, D.C. '''One thing that stood out to me was Dorthea Dix’s call for women nurses. She was specific in that she was looking for “women between 30 and 50 years old, single, sober, hard-working, moral, and plain looking.”''' At first I thought that the age of 30 was a little old to be a cut off considering there must have been so many single, sober, hard-working, moral, and plain looking girls that were between 20 and 30 that would not have families to worry about so they would have the ability to become nurses. But then I realized that perhaps the act of being a young woman and working in close proximity with men would be considered immoral in and of itself. I am curious if they sent any women away because they were too good looking! –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I also thought it was really interesting that Dorthea Dix wanted women between the age of 30-50. I agree with Erin that women probably had to be atleast 30 because it would be seen as inappropriate for a younger women to be working with men. I think that Dix extended the age to 50 because there were probably a lot of widows in their 40's. I thought the requirement that the women be plain looking was funny, but I guess it makes sense. If the nurse was too good looking, the patients would probably be hitting on her all day long. On the other hand, if the patients had not been able to pay for prostitutes, they probably would be hitting on their nurses even if they were "plain looking". -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
Before reading about Louisa May Alcott, '''I never realized how hard it was for female nurses. Not only did they have to endure the casualties of war, taking care of gravely wounded soldiers, but they had to travel long distances to do their work.''' Louisa May Alcott originally lived in Concord but left to move to Georgetown to work as a nurse. At 30 years old, I wonder if she had other options she could have considered before becoming a nurse. '''Was becoming a nurse a last resort or was it something she had wanted to do forever?''' It was interesting to see how positive Alcott was, despite all the broken men she met through her job.''' She claimed to "find pleasure" in her job, working with the soldiers and "cheering these poor souls." It amazed me that someone could be so positive in the midst of such sad circumstances'''. I feel like the fact that many nurses became sick and sometimes died is ironic because they would give up everything they had to work as nurses, yet they ended up suffering more than being rewarded for what they did. --- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
I enjoyed Louisa May Alcott’s piece as it verifies our lecture that nursing was viewed by some as an appropriate wartime occupation for women as an extension of motherhood. Her jobs include sewing bandages, reading to the soldiers, writing letters for them, and just generally seeing to the comforts of the wounded. '''She even calls these men her big babies, secretly wishing the doctor would be gentler with them and regrets when she is sick''' that she cannot care for their needs. '''This was a very optimistic piece, I wonder though if her tone would have changed had she remained longer? Would she have been more overwhelmed and feeling like she was not making much of a difference as time wore on?''' -- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
I liked Louisa May Alcott's writing, it was a decent read. She did not write that much but based on what she did write she provided us with incredible insight to what it took to be a nurse in the Civil War. I loved the line '''"feeling as if I was the son of the house going to war," because becoming a nurse was the closest women would often get to the battles and showed the prestige that Alcott felt went with being a nurse.''' Once she made it to her post in Washington she described the wounded and sick men as "all were well behaved," as if she had not expected them to be. -Megan Mc<br />
<br />
I thought that it was interesting in''' Louisa May Alcott's journal that she attributes 'womanly" qualities to several men at the hospital, "...a heart as warm and tender as a woman's" (the blacksmith) and "Dr. J. haunts the room, coming by day and nighto with wood, cologne, books, ad messes, like a motherly little man as he is."''' -Will Hechmer<br />
<br />
== Mary Livermore, [Northern women on farm during war], 1890 -- Woloch and Major Problems readings. ==<br />
I thought it was interesting that '''Mary Livermore's observation of the women working in the fields at first bothered her. Livermore compared women’s devotion to their family life and maintaining their farms to men’s devotion to the war when she said, “the women had enlisted in the war.”''' This gave women some gender equality and these responsibilities were accepted because it was in the name of family, home, and country. -Marsha <br />
<br />
I really liked the quote "the women had enlisted in the war". '''While most women were not in battle or even serving as nurses, the Civil War changed their lives. They had to take on completely new responsiblities. I wonder if the women knew how much their lives would be changed by the war.''' I think they were caught up in the glory of the war. I bet if they knew how much their life would change, or in the instance of southern women that the war would be in their backyard, they would not have pushed the men to fight. I don't think that they realized what they were getting themselves into at all. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I agree a lot with Katelyn. I wonder if women had any idea of what was in store for them over the next four years as they encouraged their husbands, brothers, and sweethearts to go off and fight and enlist. I definitely agree that they (and I think everybody) was caught up in the "glory" of the war and maybe even romanticized it some- as in the accounts of families and men and women taking picnic baskets and going to watch the First Battle of Bull Run in July 1861. I don't think they had any idea of how long the war would last nor how many lives would be lost. I thought it was really interesting how we talked in class of the men now being pressured to conform to the "ideal" expectations of manhood and masculinity- it is as if it is a complete turn around from the women being pressured. -Allison Godart <br />
<br />
In Modern Problems, Mary Livermore spoke of the work of women. She set a strong and emotional tone that women set forth in the war. I think she was saying that the men in the war were given hope through the inspiring women and “ministering angels.” She also compares women’s “relief societies” to regiments in the war. -Marsha<br />
<br />
<br />
I liked the end of Mary Livermore's selection when she is comparing harvesting and domestic chores. She explains that harvesting is not any harder than "typical" women's work and so females should be able/allowed to do it. She also wants men to know that women are serving the country in the fields doing the harvest in the same way men are in the war serving. The examples she gives help prove her statement that "women had enlisted for the war." I feel '''she is also trying to make the point that men's opinions about women working in the field does not matter because under the circumstances the women are the only ones able to do the work that is necessary in keeping up the estate or home.''' -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
It’s interesting that Mary Livermore was at first a little disgusted to see women working the fields, likely a reaction that most middle-class people would have felt. However, '''while others might have recognized the necessity of it on behalf of the Union war effort, it sounds like Mary might have realized that it was not only important to the war, and she does suggest that it’s only the war that puts women in the fields (though they would have been working them even without the war), but also that women were actually pretty good at the work.''' Of course, she qualifies it by '''saying that they didn’t work as fast as the men, but that they were more precise and artistic about it, which is a stereotype that persisted for a long time (and maybe continues today) regarding appropriate work for women.''' -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== Louticia Jackson’s letter in 1863 ==<br />
<br />
Despite the fact Louticia is having a problem with slaves who are taking advantage of having no white man in charge of them I still find her letter interesting. <br />
She is clearly struggling with the fact that her "servants" are not helping her. I did not like how when Willes the slave yelled she took to her bed cause it "excited" her. Stop whining and yell back. I know women would never do that but I say desperate times call for desperate measures. LeAnn T.<br />
<br />
I think '''this letter demonstrates how unprepared most southern women probably were when left to deal with the slaves on their own, especially male slaves.''' Since most of these women had been dominated by their husbands, it is not hard to understand that they would not be able to deal with a male slave who, essentially, was exhibiting the same type of behavior as their husbands had. '''When white masters left, did they give certain slaves more authority in making sure the plantation work continued on during their absence?''' Also, '''the relationship between Louticia and Willes seems interestin'''g, especially the part about her taking care of him while he was sick (even bathing and rubbing him with her own hands). Was it just that she thought he was that valuable of a slave to her or was something else going on? Was it common for white women to take this much interest in their slaves?--Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
Women all over the south, like Louticia, had problems with slaves when their husbands left because in the slaves eyes their masters left, women were subservient to their husbands (masters) and so were slaves; so who were they going to listen to? In this case I do not agree with how Willes treated Louticia. I agree with LeAnn yell back, stick up for yourself, times had changed with their husbands at war so do whatever it takes to survive. '''I also wonder why her son could not protect her? Did he not want to or did he fear a slave uprising if he tried to give out orders? His actions appeared to contradict how white men acted in the Confederate south.''' -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Eva Jones to Mary Jones, her mother-in-law, 1865 ==<br />
<br />
Evas letters to her mother in law were extremely poignant in their observations about Georgia during the reconstructive era. '''She seems to have been an ardent confederate which was surprising because it said that she had been educated in the north. I find it amazing that even someone who had been educated in northern society could still believe so firmly in the institution of slavery.''' Although the confederates lost the war it seems that the rules set forth by the union army during reconstruction and occupation made it almost impossible for them to succeed. So I can understand why her letters have such a tone of bitterness in them. I don't blame her and her husband for relocating to the north until after reconstruction ended. I wonder if they faced any sort of discrimination there.-Emma Peck<br />
<br />
The line that struck me the most in Eva's letters was "Adeline, Grace, and Polly have all departed in search of freedom without bidding any affectionate adieu," this clearly shows the paternalist ideal the southerners still had. Eva obviously believed that she and her husband had been doing her slaves a favor performing the role of father and providing them with a home and food. She could not understand why her slaves were so eager for freedom and didn't even goodbye before leaving. -Megan Mc<br />
<br />
Commenting on Emma's point about the bitter tone used by Eva Jones in her letters, its seems at least one source of her frustration stems from financial difficulties. While the war negatively effected the economies for both sides of the conflict, the Confederacy's economy was especially crippled. Through Eva Jones's experience, we see some specific economic woes for Southerners; Eva complains that her farm has "only a third-crop planted" and the "promising fields are now under water" (267). Additionally, she claims that "the Negroes and Yankees broke into our smokehouse and swept it of every piece of meat," which left her family starving. When comparing this source to Mary Livermore's experience with the successful, family-run farms in the North, I wonder if the roles among family members of southern farms changed in the same ways as northern farms. -Seth Mintzer<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting and a little humorous when Eva said: "And strange to say, the Yankees won't take our Confederate money!" In my opinion i think this represents the suddenness of the situation of defeat for this women given that she expects the Northerners to except the money of her now defunct "country." -Will Hechmer<br />
<br />
== Accounts of former slaves, 1865-1937 ==<br />
<br />
== VA woman, recorded by abolitionist Laura Haviland in 1866 ==<br />
<br />
== Harriet Tubman, from her white female biographer, Sarah Bradford, 1886 ==<br />
<br />
I can only imagine how much joy Harriet Tubman felt, as well as the joy she brought to the slaves during the Civil War. She was like the face of freedom for those slaves who had lost hope. During the Civil War when she worked for the Union army as a scout, she would show up in Southern territories with gun boats and the slaves probably saw this and were so ecstatic. I did find it interesting, however, that the slaves were at first terrified to see the gun boats coming. '''The best part about this story was when the slaves ran towards the gun boats, completely defying the slave drivers. The gunboats represented immediate emancipation for the slaves, and they knew then they were safe.''' --- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
== Clara Burdett, to notary in Union camp in KY, March 1865 ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that a fugitive slave managed to file a complaint on her former master. '''I would have imagined they wouldn't even have taken that very seriously had she been a freed slave.''' It is very courageous and heart-wrenching how she does try to retrieve her children and speak out against the master. However, the treatment she describes isn't very shocking sadly. - Christine<br />
<br />
== Fanny Berry, in Weevils in the Wheat, 1937 ==<br />
'''I thought it was very interesting that Fanny didn't know that she was freed till a while after emancipation.''' I wonder how long her mistress thought she could get away with hiring out Fanny before she found out. I also thought it was really neat how Fanny went out to be hired help one day and learned that she was freed and lived with the woman who told her so. Now, I am curious though, was this typical? did random people just invite former slaves into their home to work for room and board? -Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
== Tennessee Woman, 1929 [TN Nanny] ==<br />
<br />
This account of slavery recollected by an ex-Mississippi house-servant '''exemplifies the violent resistance with which the slave-owning population of the Confederacy would use to intimidate their slaves during the war, especially women.''' When the nanny entertains ideas of freedom to others, another slave reminds her that "the white folks" would "kill" her if she was caught (275). Whether this was a hyperbolic statement or not, women such as Clarissa Burdett, who received "about three hundred lashes" for being married to a soldier, demonstrate that brutal violence was used (272). Because slave resistance carried such high risks, slaves who did resist their owners showed a lot of courage, no matter how subtly they may have done so. -Seth Mintzer<br />
<br />
== Mary Anderson, NC ==<br />
<br />
I thought Mary Andersons account was good as a contrast to the lives of most southern slaves. It seemed that Mary was a house servant and was well taken care of by her masters, which is probably why she was inclined to work on her masters plantation even after she had been granted freedom. I thought it was especially interesting that Marys mistress addressed her slaves as children. This is probably representative of her behavior towards her slaves, which seemed to be very maternalistic. However if she looked upon her slaves as her children they might have been subject to better treatment. '''I found it interesting that these particular plantation owners sought out there former slaves after freedom, I wonder if they did this as a kindness or if they did it because they knew they could be paid less then white laborers.''' -Emma Peck<br />
<br />
To respond to Emma's post, I feel like a lot of slave mistresses treated slaves as children. They often look down on the slaves and think of them as inferior, just as if they were children. As for the fact that many slave owners sought to keep their slaves, I feel it was out of habit and necessity. They didn't want anyone else to do the work and they still felt that it was the proper place for blacks to serve them. I really don't feel it was out of kindness at all. - Christine<br />
<br />
'''Mary Anderson’s account raises some interesting questions about some freed slaves. How often did slaves return to their old masters? How did their relationships with their previous masters change if they did go back?''' For Mary Anderson, it seemed like the temperament of her masters played a role in her family’s return. Her family seemed to be favored, or at least she was, as she got something of an education. '''If they were treated with relative kindness from their masters, did that make it more likely for ex-slaves to return?''' -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== Katie Darling, in TX ==<br />
<br />
== Sarah and Lucy Chase, Teaching the Freedmen, 1866-1868 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
'''I enjoyed reading Sarah Chase and Lucy Chase’s letters because I did a lot of research on the topic of white northern women going south to teach newly freed blacks for my second paper and I was able to draw parallels between the Chase sisters and Mary Ames (who I focused on for my paper).''' The Chase sisters were from a wealthy family Massachusetts, and had been against slavery since before the war began, and went to Savannah after the war ended as teachers. In the letters, I can tell that becoming teachers in the south was not just about teaching the basics of reading and writing but it was about teaching new ways of life. '''These teachers thought that it was their responsibility to show the newly freed blacks how to be religious, self-sufficient, and how to be good people (by their standards). I have no doubt that the teachers had the best intentions, but I wonder if these rich white women were setting unattainable expectations and standards on black families and what this meant for them.''' --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
'''I thought these letters really showed the complexity of life in the South after the Civil War. Sarah Chase stated that she could hardly see the possibility of the North and South united because the South had an “intensely bitter” feeling “against anything Northern.”''' White people of the South resented all that Northern educators were doing for freed blacks since many white Southerners were uneducated themselves. However, Southern white people would rather not attend school at all than go to desegregated schools. '''Sarah Chase is an excellent example of the common racist feelings among abolitionists. She stated that her purpose was not to make black people equal to white people; she wished that white people always have a higher social standing. Even those trying to help the freed slaves were racist!''' Given the completely pervasive racism, it is not hard for me to realize how difficult life would be for black people after the Civil War. I can see how the Civil War really required a later Civil Rights Movement. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
I agree that these letters really show the complexity of the South after the Civil War. These letters do a good job of showing just how bitter the South was over losing the war. I also think it was great the women like Sarah and Lucy went to the South to educate the freed slaves. If they hadn't, I'm sure these freed slaves would have remained uneducated because I highly doubt that the southerners would have helped them. At least, most of them would not have helped. I think it is easy for us to look back at these letters and think "wow, even the women that taught these freed slaves were racist". However, '''you have to remember that almost every white American, even abolitionists, considered themselves to be superior. For all of their lives, African-Americans had been held down and considered inferior. I do not think Lucy and Sarah would have considered themselves to be racist. I think that African-American inferiority is all they had known all of their lives. They probably thought that they were doing a great thing to help the freed slaves. I think the whole nation, even most Northerners, were pretty racist at this time following the Civil War.''' -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
Yes I agree with Katelyn. I did not mean to put Sarah Chase and other abolitionists out of context, which of course was an idea of "natural" white superiority. I think it is a common misunderstanding in history that abolitionists were trying to fight for equal rights. Complete equality was still far off in the future. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
I agree with what others have said about the racist attitudes of even those whites who were trying to help the former slaves. I think that racism of varying degrees was pretty much built in to US society at that time, and the poverty and lack of education of the black community probably helped reinforce a lot of the stereotypes about blacks being less intelligent or simple, etc. I do think the prejudice that appears in these letters is a distinctly different kind of racism- it's not exactly overt, more the attitude of blacks being like children. It reminds me of my great-aunt's attitude towards african americans- "they should be pitied and given charity because they can't help being ignorant and expecting handouts". I thought the comments about the children's definitions for various words (rational, irrational, etc.) were funny and very true to life; it reminded me of the time I spent tutoring Somali-Bantu refugees in English as a Second Language- they came up with some definitions like that as well. - Melissa Patterson<br />
<br />
I really liked reading the letters that were given- I drew parallels between the experiences of Sarah and Lucy and the experiences of Sarah Jane Foster, who taught at a college for emancipated slaves in Harpers Ferry, West Virginia after the war. Sarah Jane, a Northerner, recounted how ill-treated she was by the people of the town for coming down to teach the freedmen. She was harassed for wanting to teach them- so much so that she was afaid she would not be able to stay in the town and would have to give up her board. I think her story presents another aspect or side of the story that is not commmonly thought of- how much the women who were coming down from the North, primarily, endured and went through in order to teach and educate. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
== Susie King Taylor, Reminiscences of My Life in Camp, 1902 ==<br />
<br />
== Ada Bacot, Confederate Nurse, 1862 ==<br />
I cannot imagine working with wounded men some of them enemies. Ada says she is not sure that she can treat Yankee soldiers the same as Confederate soldiers. At first my reaction was what kind of person wouldn't help out a wounded man he deserves treatment like everyone else. Then I thought about it. That soldier you are helping could have killed your father or brother or son. '''I would like to think I would treat everyone the same but I am not sure I could.''' I think Ada is a good person for at least making the effort to help humanity despite the fact they are the enemy. LeAnn T.<br />
<br />
I was not as shocked to hear that Ada had issues with aiding the wounded Yankee soldiers. As a nurse she was required to assist the wounded, however she also knows that these men have killed men on her own side and once recovered may very well continue to. ''' It does not say, and I would have liked to have known, whether she had family members fighting and if they lived or not, and how that might have affected her position on the subject.''' She continues to check on the men and sees to their needs, but she goes no farther, not even inquiring after their names. '''I do wonder how wide spread this feeling was among nurses both north and south as a general whole and how it affected the medical treatment and success of enemy soldiers in opposing hospitals as this is also a theme in Cornelia Hancock's essay.''' -- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
== Maria Daly, 1862, Northerner in the South (New Orleans) ==<br />
<br />
== Sarah Morgan, 1863, Teen diary ==<br />
'''This diary entry reminded me of the Abigail Adams letters we read earlier in the course because I think both are severely out of context. The editors chose the most radical thing Abigail Adams and Sarah Morgan ever said and placed only those quotes in this book. I researched Sarah Morgan’s diary for the second paper in this class. I discovered that Sarah Morgan expressed support and desire for traditional gender roles of domestic female dependence much more often than her imaginations of fighting as a soldier. Later in the diary, she even renounced women expressing strong patriotic emotions. She said that her brothers’ political thought and action spoke for her.''' -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
This article really stuck out for a number of reasons. '''First of all it seemed more like war time propaganda than a diary entry to me. ''' When I found out that it was a teen diary that changed things for me. As Allison mentioned later in the diary she changed her views, which I don't feel is that uncommon for someone her age to do. ''' Still, what kind of impact did the war have on someone like Sarah who was just entering womanhood?''' Sarah seems to dislike the fact that she can not fight for her country, but at the same time she seems delighted to be able to help out in a womanly way. -John Rowley<br />
<br />
I think the timing of the war just as she reached her maturity made Sarah Morgan more defensive of the old ways, including traditional female gender roles. She had been trained for the role of a white, wealthy Southern woman, and saw the Civil War as a threat to the Southern way of life. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
I agree with John, finding out that Sarah Morgan was a teenager seemed to make this source make a lot more sense to me. It's also really interesting to hear a little bit more about her diary and what a deviation of character this is. The fact that she is a teenager forces me to read her pride in the destruction of her family's home a little differently. -erinb.<br />
<br />
== Cornelia Hancock, Union Nurse, 1863 ==<br />
'''In Cornelia's letters I found it interesting how she exposed the care of soldiers for their fallen comrades, "Help my neighbor first he is worse."''' (206). With the shortage of surgeons and even fewer nurses soldiers waited five days before a surgeon even passed by them or they gained something to eat besides tack. Cornelia glorified her work and said when she was sick she was treated like a "princess" and awarded a medal for her work. This makes me wonder if the romantic ideals of war stemmed from letters like hers? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Well, first of all, I wouldn't think that the newly-amputated should drink wine because of its blood-thinning properties, but maybe i'm underestimating the abilities of civil war dr.s to prevent blood loss. Amid devastating carnage, Cornelia Hancock writes back with so much excitement, encouraging more women to come. "Women are needed here very badly."(205) Later, in the letter to her mother, Cornelia admits that her work is "more superintending that real work."(207) This, to me, expresses the societal significance of the symbol of woman. She served the soldiers in a fairly minor way, but the importance of her presence was elevated by the nurturing, virtuous and caring qualities she represented. -erin b<br />
<br />
== Caroline Kirkland, 1863, defends Northern women’s support of Northern men ==<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting to read about a women who was defending the involvement Northern women had during the Civil War. She seemed very passionate about explaining the good they were doing and how they were helping in a positive way. Caroline Kirkland believed in her view so much as to say that if Southern women acted more like Northern women, the war may not have taken place.I thought that was a bold statement. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas, January 1865 ==</div>Mpattersonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/CommentsWeek 12 Questions/Comments2009-11-12T15:52:27Z<p>Mpatterson: </p>
<hr />
<div>In Woloch's reading, (O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!), Maria Stewart, a black Bostonian, played a special role in public life and women's history. When the abolitionist movement began, William Lloyd Garrison published some of her essays in his antislavery journal. In her essays, I really liked how Stewart urged women to pursue self-improvement and assert their rights. A lot of her message was aimed at African American women. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
I agree with Katie but I'd also like to point something else out about the piece "O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!" All throughout Maria Stewart's account, she used revolutionary rhetoric, more often than not using the word "liberty." She also consistently brought up freedoms such as the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech, and it just emphasizes what we learned in class that this revolutionary rhetoric was coming back to haunt the upper and middle class white men that the rhetoric was supposed to apply to. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I thought Maris Stewart's writing was intellectual and extremely well written for a speech. In the essay, she speaks of freedom and equality to Americans. '''I think I understand why she would not see herself as an American- considering the awful circumstances- yet if everyone knew that the fear of the white men was that another race may not "assimilate," why would she not call herself American and attempt to be truly equal? When did the term African American come into play?''' These may be ignorant questions- but I am hoping someone else is in the same boat- Talya. <br />
<br />
I agree with what everyone has said. Stewart's use of the Revolutionary rhetoric creates a very empowering speech. - Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
The reading by Maria Stewart is steeped with rhetoric which was used during the American Revolution. Stewart talks about "this land of freedom" that "all the nations of the earth are crying out for liberty and equality" ect. This piece also sounds like a sermon, and therefore, might have been influenced by the great awakening. For stewart, education plays an important role in the raising of black women's status in society and seems to imply that it is their right for education as much as it is their right to freedom. However, I'm wondering who her audience was exactly because that can change the way her speech is interpreted or recieved. --K. Vance<br />
<br />
When reading Lucy Stone's Marriage Protest, in Woloch's book, I found it interesting that when the couple took their vows, each partner signed a unique marriage "protest". This protest was also read as part of their ceremony! -Katie D.<br />
<br />
'''I really feel that Lucy Stone epitomizes the definition of a feminist, the one that will lead to our modern day definition/perception. She kept her own name, she "refused to 'obey', and challenged the system..."''' The protest itself is riddled with a woman's absolute independence. It takes away any traditional patriarchal "laws" and demands equality from both man and woman. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I was also interested by Lucy Stone's marriage protest, probably because it was so not what one would expect from a woman from the mid 1800s, at least '''I assume this was irregular'''. The things that she was protesting we take for advantage that we dont have to worry about them. For instance women today dont have to worry about their legal existence disappearing with marriage. But for her the things that many women seemed to just accept as their fate she rebelled against. I was also intreged that '''she kept her own name'''. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I was equally intrigued by the marriage of Lucy Stone and was curious if we know anything about how Henry Blackwell was treated after agreeing to this marriage protest. Was he ridiculed by men for not being able to "control" his wife? Was he embraced by woman for being the ideal husband for letting his wife have rights? Or was he simply ignored, as if this case was not out of the ordinary in any way?- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
The fact that Henry Blackwell actually agreed to sign the Marriage Protest was what surprised me. We don't see a lot of men willing to give up that kind of power over their wives before and during this time period. Was he a women's rights activist? -- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
I too was interested in Henry Blackwell's signing of the protest and the omission of his own social fate. It seems to me that he would be an even greater target among the men of the community. I would believe he would be seen as unable to control his wife, a crucial role in the ideal. I also wonder how their marriage was recognized. Lucy Stone and Henry Blackwell's protest has obvious parallels with one of today's greatest issues. --Robert Kopp<br />
<br />
--I'm another person who found Blackwell's role in the marriage protest far more interesting and worth investigating than Stone's. --A. Meyer<br />
<br />
--- Although I can see why my fellow classmates might find Blackwell more interesting because he gave up traditional male power when he married Lucy Stone, I think it is interesting to see both of these individuals as they really tried to make a partnership based on something more than the idea of separate spheres. They were very forward thinking and if I ever get married I would consider acting in a similar way. (I would at least make the "obey" part of vows go both ways or strike it entirely). Julie Castanien <br />
<br />
When I read the piece, "Seduced and Abandoned," in the Woloch book, I could not help but start laughing. I understand that it is not a laughing matter that girl was abandoned by her "fiance" and had to become a prostitute, but the way in which it was written screamed propaganda. The way the innocent girl from the country was persuaded to elope by a villain from the city and then was decoyed into becoming a prostitute only until meeting up with a wholesome man from her hometown is just too unreal. It is amazing how this scenario is consistently used and tweaked to support different causes. But it really shows how the moral reform movement was determined to deliver people to the side of God and how women were at the forefront since the piece was obviously written by a woman. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I agree with Kelly about "Seduced and Abandoned" being so blantantly propagandistic. I have read many similar stories in literature of the day. I wonder, however, how common a story this really was. ''' I realize that it's not exactly something we can get statistics on. I'm sure that it happened quite a bit. However, it seems likely that at least some of these tales are either altered for effect or completely made up. I'm curious as to how the public perception of danger to their daughters compared with reality.''' --Ashley H. <br />
<br />
While reading "seduced and abandoned" all i could think about was the correlations between this piece of propaganda and the novel Charolette Temple. Each have elements of "good girls" being convinced / tricked into leaving their parents behind, traveling to a new place they'd never been and being left destitute. I find it interesting that even though there around 100+ years between the publication of the novel and this piece of propaganda, the authors are still telling the same story. What makes this story so popular? So powerful? Since the same story is being told over and over again, what does it say about the states of society?--K. Vance<br />
<br />
As much as this whole genre emerged as a clear propaganda, the desperate plight of a young woman who wasn't fully supported or who displeased her town or family in any "grievous" manner was something we don't seem to fully appreciate. I think Dr. McClurken's statistics last week suggested how many women turned to prostituion as the only way to support themselves, and I tihnk that's a serious misunderstanding for many modern American women who are paid much closer to equal wages and have ERA-esque salary protections.--A. Meyer <br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting that at the end of the "Seduced and Abandoned" piece, the author pretty much blames the parents for not teaching their children about the dangers of the world. I may be mistaken, but to me this seems to contrast what we talked about on Tuesday about how "proper" women were supposed to be sheltered and were not even supposed to know that prostitution existed. - F. Cobb <br />
<br />
While it was obvious that "Seduced and Abandoned" was blatantly exaggerated for propaganda purposes, I wonder if any of it is even based on real-life occurrences. I mean, the story was supposedly related to the Advocate of Moral Reform by the girl herself. –Kaitlyn G. <br />
<br />
I was very intrigued by the '''Declaration of Sentiments drafted by Elizabeth Cady Stanton. The way she manipulated the Declaration of Independence is the perfect example of women using revolutionary rhetoric to get what they want.''' If you placed the two next to one another and asked someone to tell the difference, I think it would take quite a bit of reading (probably up until she starts blaming men for everything) before they could figure it out. Stanton proved to be very clever and I just hope there were many more women like her fighting for what they believed. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
--- I admire Elizabeth Cady Stanton's ability to use rhetoric as well, and in particular I love the way she wrote the Declaration of Sentiments. As Alex mentions below it called women as well as men to realize and address the problems facing American Women. I think her transition from the traditional rhetoric of the revolutionary period to language that is more specific towards the station of women was great and showed her radicalism, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of the women under this government, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to demand the equal station to which they are entitled." --- Julie Castanien<br />
<br />
'''I think this document shows some of the legal training Stanton was exposed to, reading her father (a judge)'s law books.''' As dramatic and over the top as this peace is, it sets out some of the grievances and problems, which the age of enlightenment believed was a necessary firs step for any revolutionary effort. I think this document is under-appreciated. --A. Meyer<br />
<br />
In the Declaration of Sentiments I liked how they included that women need "to wise up" basically. '''They wrote that they need to no longer declare themselves satisfied with their present position or assert that they have all the rights they want. Basically, stop accepting their lot just because that's how things are and start fighting it. I don't think they realized though that some women didn't see a problem with how things were.''' In Sarah Josepha Hale's piece, for example, she says she is fine to not vote herself and is proud to vote by her proxies. --Alex K.<br />
<br />
When reading the Declaration of Sentiments, what struck me especially was the last passage, added exclusively by Lucretia Mott. This section was peculiar, for not only did it continue the argument for the equality between men and women, it argued for equal participation in "various trades, professions, and commerce." '''Basically Lucretia Mott was arguing for equal opportunity and pay in the workplace - a feat still in progress today.''' ~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
In Woloch, the "Letter to the Liberator" piece really seemed to strike at the heart of women and their role in reform. and specifically this letter addresses slavery. "Woman has a place, for she forms a part in God's created intelligent instrumentality to reform the world. God never made her to be inactive - nor in all cases to follow in the wake of man... We believe God gave woman a heart to feel - an eye to weep - a hand to work - a tongue to speak. Now let her use that tongue to speak on slavery." Those words state that is every woman's right and responsibility and duty to play an active role in reform. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in the "letter to the liberator" that the author emphasizes the fact that slavery is happening here, in america. She writes that slavery isn't happening in china or india or some other far off country but within the united states. With such emphasis placed upon the idea that its happening here, I'm wondering how often people denied the practice of slavery with denial or a not in my backyard mentatlity. On another note i find it interesting that she invokes Washington as the "protector of women and a friend of equality and human rights" when Washington, himself, owned slaves for all of his life. It was only after his death that he made arrangments to free some of his slaves, but only after his wife, Martha Washington had died. On the other hand many of his slaves gained their freedom earlier than expect because Martha, fearing for her life and a slave rebellion, freed them. However, that was slighly off topic. Basically, I'm wondering if people denied the exsistence of slavery or just choose to over look it giving emery and the society a reason to explicitly write that slavery was occuring here. --K. Vance<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the rhetoric of liberty and patriotism used in the "Letter to the Liberator." Emery writes, "Is not woman abused--woman trampled upon---woman spoiled of her virtue . . . and this, not in India---not in China---not in Turkey---not in Africa---but in America . . . in the birthplace of Washington, the father of freedom, the protector of women, the friend of equality and human rights!" Emery reminds Americans of their own fight for freedom, and she calls for America to become a morally superior nation. Even the use of the phrase, "On such a creed, we base the constitution, which binds us together," feels reminiscent of the writings of the founding fathers. ---Ashley H. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting to read about Sojourner Truth and how she felt about the situtation and the rehtoric that she used. Up until this point the majority of women we have heard from have been white, middle-upper class women with very good educations. But here is a woman who was a slave, who cannot read or write. She was also deeply religious and I thought it was very interesting to read her speach and reading the various Biblical references that she makes to prove her point, as well as using her life story to express her belief in women's rights. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I also enjoyed Sojourner Truth's piece. It was interesting to see how different the two version were. The one recollection written twelve years after the actual speech is the more famous one, though the first one is probably the most accurate. Why do you think the second author made these changes? - F. Cobb <br />
<br />
It was interesting to read that when Elizabeth Cady Stanton urged women to secure the vote in the “Declaration of Sentiments” other women’s rights supporters felt it would make the “whole movement ridiculous.” I am sure that none of them could imagine that <br />
the right of suffrage would end up becoming the cornerstone of the women’s rights movement. <br />
It was really interesting that Lucy Stone decided to get married and at the same time challenged the institution of marriage which had forced women to give up their rights. I found it remarkable that she even had her husband sign a “marriage protest” and the document was published in a newspaper. We’ve read about other women who have refused to get married because they did not want to lose their rights but Mrs. Stone was the first one who challenged the marriage system of her day.-Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting that securing the vote for women almost didn't appear in the Seneca Falls Convention's Declaration of Sentiments because of support issues. Now it's really the first thing anyone thinks about when they hear the word Seneca Falls Convention. Maybe people though that women would be asking for too much in too short of a time period if they included voting. Or maybe they though that it would overshadow some of the other things they were trying to accomplish. -- Jennifer Feldhaus <br />
<br />
It amazes me that almost every arguement used for or against Women's rights involved biblical references. Women arguesd God made them just as intelligent and capable as men and men, like the editor of Harper's Magazine, argued that the Women's rights movements were "opposed as it was to divine revelation, time-honored proprieties, and biblical authority." (158) I wonder what the arguements would be if God, The Creator, or religion weren't allowed to be invovled. Even though during this period the Great Awakening was peaking, I wonder what women who did not follow that movement and were less-religious thought. What were their arguements? "The American Femal More Refore Society Warns Mothers About "Solitary Vice" was to me a hysterical piece. I found it particularly funny that they called it a "body and ''soul-destroying'' sin." -- Emily Miller<br />
<br />
I thought the article on Sojourner Truth was very interesting. It was great to get her perspective on women't rights. I agree with Mary P that her use of Biblical references were a great way to make her point and the fact that as a slave she probably worked harder everyday than a lot of white men did at the time just proved that women could do anything the men could do. <br />
I also found the Marriage Protest by Lucy Stone interesting to say the least. That is definately extreme feminism for that time. I can see why she was "ridiculed and persecuted" but if you are that against the ideas of marriage at that time why go through a marriage at all? Why not stay single and just live together? Although I don't know how radical that idea would have been at the time but at least you kept your identity. ~~ Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
I found the first 2 documents in MP pages 141- 143 a bit too flowery. The woman who is addressing the other ladies paints a lovely picture of all the good that they have accomplished for the poor. It makes me wonder if they spent most of their time patting their selves on the back rather than doing foot work on the street helping out the poor. ---Cheryl<br />
<br />
The two documents by Isabella Graham were a bit flowery, but it is interesting to note that she says "the men could not allow our sex the steadiness and perserverance necessary to establish such an undertaking." It is so interesting how women are really beginning to use the 'us vs. them' approach when talking about women and men. Girl Power! -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
I, too, enjoyed the speech by Sojourner Truth, but what I found most interesting was the inclusion of southern dialect by Frances Gage. Obviously, being that Sojourner was from a Dutch-speaking New York family, her accent would have been anything but Southern. Perhaps by making Sojourner sound like a Southern slave, Gage was trying to appeal to Southern slaveowners. When Gage wrote this version of Sojourner's speech, it was during the Civil War and at the height of the Abolitionist movement. This context obviously influenced how/what she chose to emphasize from Sojourner's speech.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the essay on Sojourner Truth. She spoke well on equal rights. Her comparisons of physical strengths and intelligence as qualifiers for equal rights should have been an eye opener for all there. She showed that women could be physically strong, intelligent and take a great amount of pain. I like when she spoke how someone had said women can’t have equal rights because Jesus wasn’t a women. I have heard similar musing before in women’s groups how all men come from women. She is a very inspiring speaker.---Cheryl<br />
<br />
One of the things that stood out to me about Sojourner Truth Speaks was that not only did she use biblical references in a way she seemed to be challenging the traditional held views of the church, especially when she talks about how since Eve did sin first men should stop holding women back but instead allow them a chance to make up for what "they" did. -Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In the essay "Free Black Women in the Abolitionist Movement" I found all the different factors that made it more acceptable for black women to speak publicly very interesting. While female speakers are still not fully accepted by all, the need that black men saw for the abolition cause seems to temporarily out weigh gender stereotypes. -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
I also enjoyed the "Free Black Women in the Abolitionist Movement" piece. The three sources of hostility (anti-black feelings, anti-abolitionist sentiments, and hatred of "public" women) were interesting. There were so many obstacles they had to overcome in order to be heard and taken seriously. In addition to these obstacles, they also had several conditions to make sure not to piss people off. For example, black male leaders applauded black women speakers until they began to criticize black men, black women they were more acceptable for audiences if they exuded "feminine qualities," women writers generally only found an audience when they wrote on "feminine" subjects and black women poets and essayists were able publish works mainly only with the aid of prominent abolitionists. They had a lot working against them. --Alex K.<br />
<br />
The "Seduced and Abandoned" article portrayed the young girl in the story as kinda mindless. She is just an innocent young girl swept up by the objective evil that causes her to fall into bad things. Her rescue, is kinda odd, since the business man from her village just happened to go to the circus that one time, as a grand exception. Of course, he saves her. Such a story is in direct contrast with the other articles, such as "O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!" and "Reply to the Massachusetts Clergy." I certainly don't think that some girls did end up in terrible situations that they could not forsee, but I do get the sense that these grand moral reform ideas implicitly included female mindlessness. I suppose it all relates to women being the passionless, moral barometer of society who only have experience in the pure household. Of course, Sarah Grimke made the exact opposite statement when she wrote that womens displacement from equality has "introduced confusion into the world." pg 239 For her, inequality is the problem, for the minister she is responding to, it is equality. Its such a polarized mindset. I wonder if Lucy and Henry's marriage was deemed null if they signed agreements that were in direct contrast with the law regarding marriage at the time... -Chris Plummer<br />
<br />
<br />
The piece “Free Black Women in the Abolitionist Movement” touched briefly on the gender and race expectations of the time and how women reformers rebelled against these stereotypes. I know some of the pieces touched upon the idea of solidarity under the title “women,” yet pieces in both Woloch and Norton touched upon the idea of white reformers vs. black reformers. I was wondering how clear a divide there was between white and black reformers? White and black abolitionists? White and black suffragists? I know in the 1960s women’s movement, there was a great division among various ethnic lines; I’m wondering whether anyone knows if a similar race divide existed? Were black abolitionists/suffragists seeking rights different or separate from white women? Were there issues they both agreed on and fought for? --Mary Beth Dilla<br />
<br />
My question is in regards to Sojourner Truth. What I want to know is if she faced double the amount of prejudice that other women's rights activists faced since she was African American as well as a woman. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
We've spent a lot of time talking about activism and reformers and how the middle class reformer was created. Most of these women attempted to conform their lifestyles to that mold, while espousing views that radically challenged the tenets of the middle class family ideal. I'm very interested in how someone like Sojourner Truth could be so welcomed by reformers, and how this transformation to reform efforts that directly challenged the root of the reforming era because they tackled the middle class ideal. --A. Meyer<br />
<br />
When reading Sarah Grimke's piece, I was really astonished about how progressive it was. I was under the impression, that even though the moral reformists and abolitionists pushed their gender roles outside their expected spheres, they still maintained relatively conservative lifestyles to todays's standard, but Grimke's rhetoric reminded me of a 1960s feminist. One part in particular that really brings the 20th century liberal movement to mind is Grimke's comment that "whatever is right for man to do, is right for woman to do," a perfect slogan for a Title 9 activist. ~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
Reading the "Seduced and Abandoned" piece, I was struck by the language the author used. The entire article is something of a masterpiece of purple prose: "abode of death", "vile proposition" (which makes it sound as if elopement is a direct path to prostitution), "House of infamy", "School of immorality and debauchery", etc. It's certainly a very heavy handed warning, and the utter convenience of the girl's rescue makes me immediatly question the veracity of the story. Did audiences of the time see these types of pieces as heavy handed, and realize that they were heavily contrived, or did this type of article actually work as a persuasive piece? I also noticed the parallels to "Little Red Riding Hood", what with comparing the "gentle-manly looking man" and others of his ilk to a wolf, and emphasizing the girl's naivete and the fact that she strayed from the path of rightiousness. Not surprising, given that Little Red Riding Hood is sort of "Seduced and Abandoned" for young children. - Melissa Patterson</div>Mpattersonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_11_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 11 Questions/Comments-327 092009-11-05T15:27:14Z<p>Mpatterson: /* Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Mary Anne Sadlier's Bessy Conway ==<br />
<br />
I found it really interesting that Bessy, upon leaving Ireland to come to America, said that she was planning on returning to her family in a few years. Was it common for men and women who left Ireland to plan on returning one day? Also, I thought it was cool that Bessy was able to return home and help her family, it seems very ideal, like this is what the typical Irish immigrant woman would strive to do, leave home on her own (getting her burden off her family) and making enough money to turn around and help support her family. So what was Mary Anne Sadlier's goal in writing this story? -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
It was very obvious that Bessy loved Ireland. I also wonder how many Irish immigrants that wanted to return home one day actually did. The trip to America had to be an extremely long trip. For her to come to America, work hard in difficult circumstances, and then make the trip back to Ireland took a lot of strength and courage. I just wonder how often situations like this actually happened. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I think that Bessy Conway was one of the lucky ones because she was able to go and had a job lined up for her with a place to live. She was one of those who embraced the myth of so much opportunity in a new world. She was a hard worker and expected the same of others around her (especially the other servants in the house.)-Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I found the mixed chapters we read of Bessy's story put a sense of reality on the true plight of young Irish women and men. From the early chapters discussing her families struggles and her earnestness to leave her home to help her family made me wonder if all young immigrants cared the same for Ireland and their families as Bessy? Chapters 6 and 15 stood out the most to me with their discussion of religion and how it was so important eventually leading to Bessy's dismissal was this normal in America? Did Americans fear religious takeover from the Irish immigrants? -Megan W. <br />
<br />
I thought the pictures of the starving people was awful and it was hard to read the chapter about Bessy's starving family. They kept their faith in God and kept saying that God would save them. I cannot imagine having enough food. Bessy was definitely a very lucky girl that she had a good job and earned quite a bit of money. It think it is interesting that Mary Anne Sadlier made Bessy out to be a hard worker which and implied that is why she was successful. Bessy just had a better opportunity then most. The author made the other servant out to be lazy which is why they ultimately were lost to poverty. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== Jannicke Saehle, 1847, Norwegian immigrant’s letters ==<br />
I enjoyed this piece, it provided a lot of information about immigrants (though certainly not the majority of the poor Irish who suffered an awful journey across the Atlantic.) Jannicke Saehle obviously has some money as she was able to site see once arriving in America. I found her statement about sea sickness, “And after five minutes my turn came, also, to contribute my share to the Atlantic Ocean,” quite humorous. <br />
I also found it interesting her mentioning the abundance of food in America and that Americans tended to toss the extra to swine while people in her homeland starved. I certainly hope Johannes, her brother to whom she was writing, was not one of the starving people for I would hate to hear of all the waste if I were to be one of the starving poor. <br />
One question, though, how common were the museums that she described with wild animals? –Megan Mc<br />
<br />
I didn't realize that museuems of the kind she was describing existed at this time period in New York...I wonder if she was mentioning the Museum of Natural History. I have been there but who is the soldier with no head? I don't remember seeing that last time I went to any history museums. Her story was nice to read, because unlike so many others she truly seems to be living a better life in America. Even her passage over seemed to be blessed with good fortune. the tone of Jannickes story was happy and upbeat making her seem like the type of person who would find the silver lining in ever episode. However I wonder if she was trying to play things up a bit to comfort her family that maybe was worried about her well being?--Emma Peck<br />
<br />
== William Sanger, New York Prostitutes, 1858 ==<br />
I found it interesting that Sanger sympathizes with the prostitutes in his study and that he blamed fathers, husbands, and families for not doing their job. The immorality is from the failures of these figures in women's lives. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I also found Dr. Sanger's belief that the women he interviewed were victims of their environment (and not necessarily prostitutes because of a moral flaw in character, etc.) very interesting. I think it could be applied in geographical concepts and ideas, too- for example, the belief in "environmental determinism" (or the idea that your environment and surroundings have a major impact on who you are as a person) versus "environmental possibilism", where your environment can place some limits on you, but you are essentially responsible for who you are and what you do. I also found it interesting that, in discussing the reasons why some of the women would have cited "Inclination" as a reason for their becoming a prostitute, Dr. Sanger also mentioned and acknowledged female desires. In most of what we have discussed in class, we have talked about how women were expected to be "pure" and "chaste", while only men could actually have sexual desires and emotions. Dr. Sanger states, "The force of desire can be neither denied nor disputed, but still in the bosoms of most females that force exists in a slumbering state until aroused by some outside influences." Thus, he still, in many ways, is reinforcing the belief that women (while acknowledging that they might actually have "desires"- shocking!)should keep these repressed and private. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
I agree that it is very interesting that Sanger blamed husbands, fathers, and the environment for these women becoming prostitutes. I think that a lot of that comes from the fact that women were expected to be so "pure" and "chaste". Obviously, they really weren't so pure and chaste. I mean I definitely don't think a woman would become a prostitute just because she likes sex. The women that Sanger studied were young, poor immigrants. They needed to make money and there were not many job opportunities for them. I think there's more to it than just that their husbands and fathers failed them. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I didn't find the statistics gathered by Sanger to be other than what I expected. Young, immigrants, poor, etc. I did find it amusing that he (as well as everybody else) was convinced women were passionless and just would not be inclined to do such a "profession". - Christine<br />
<br />
The causes for women turning to prostitution were varied but most were centered around what others did to them. Family abandoning them, violated, alcohol were some of the reasons. I thought what was particularly interesting was the number one reason: they voluntarily went into prostitution to gratify their own sexual passions. If the survey is true, why would Sanger feel sympathetic towards the women? The choice was theirs in most cases. -Amy Van Ness <br />
<br />
I do not think that all of those women choose to go into prostitution for sexual gratification. There was such a taboo against women who sold themselves that none of those women would do it if not for necessity. The women were probably lying. I felt awful that they had to resort to this to support their family. I am surprised that there were so many that said their family turned them out. I cannot imagine getting thrown out of my house. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that a fair number of women seemed to choose “inclination” as the reason they were prostitutes, which basically means they just liked sex. I personally have a hard time understanding why anyone (even people who really like sex) would choose to be a prostitute unless they had no other means to support themselves. So, how many of these women were actually telling the truth? Were they perhaps to proud to admit that they were prostitutes because they were unable to support themselves another way? Wouldn’t it be worse for them to imply that they were lusty and passionate when it was understood that women were uninterested in sex rather than that they were just simply poor and needy? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
To me Dr. Sanger was reinforcing the notion that women were more primative and needy of men, given that many said that they were in the profession to satisfy their own desires and that the powerful impact that men had on their becoming prostitutes. Although it is interesting to see the doctor blaming some of the issue on men. - Will Hechmer<br />
<br />
I also have a problem with the category of inclination. Every one of those examples listed stated that these women became prostitutes due to need for income rather than need for sex. It seems very much like a stretch to me that those women would become a prostitutes in order to “gratify the sexual passions”, and am more inclined to believe in the analysis of inclination for an “easy life” which suggests need for income and goods. Sanger himself did not believe this though he refused it because he was of the notion that white women did not want sex, and that he often blamed the men who should be responsible. He was definitely a man of his time. It was however interesting as it looked into other jobs women did besides keeping house and trying to stay virtuous.-- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
This article was interesting especially the survey at the beginning listing examples as to why these women became prostitutes. One of the answers that had me questioning was “Too ill to work.” These women would be too ill to work but felt fine enough to have sex for money. Dr. Sangers’ analysis was fascinating as well, he was trying to work out why the women would turn to prostitution. He did not seem to believe the answer of “inclination” as the intro to the article states he saw women as passionless. It seems in many of these historical documents men either saw women as passionless perhaps virtuous or they saw them too passionate and needed to be married in order to keep them in their place. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
This might be naive of me but I noticed a lot of the women who became prostitutes said it was because they were seduced and abandoned by lovers, now that is very unfortunate and all but is it necessary to go into prostitution afterwards? I know that losing ones virginity would "ruin" an unmarried girl but why are these girls telling everyone that they were ruined? Maybe these girls were not being discreet about their "torrid" affairs but I feel like it could have been beneficial for them to lie about them! Obviously in cases where they ended up pregnant this would not be possible but there must have been some cases where they could have gone home and no one would be the wiser! -Emma Peck<br />
<br />
== Xin Jin's Contract, 1886 ==<br />
<br />
I just find it very strange that there were contracts for prostitution. It seems short, but rather thorough. They make sure to include what happens if shes sick, pregnant, or runs away. The three most plausible situations I suppose. - Christine<br />
<br />
While this passage was short, it was clear and concise of the punishments women (Xin Jin)would face if they violated their contracts. I did not find it fair that Xin Jin was brought here and owed the family money but was given no means necessary to fulfill her payment other than prostitution. Did Americans find this to be a valid occupation? After reading this contract I wonder if other immigrants faced the same sort of contract or forms of punishment if they did comply? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
After reading this entry, I wondered if all the terms and conditions these girls had to abide by just for passage to America was really worth the risk. If a girl became sick, she had to work longer; or if she became pregnant, the deal was off and she was sent back to China. I feel like sickness and pregnancy were pretty frequent, and to me, its any wonder that these girls actually put themselves through it. It is understandable though, that they only were prostitutes to pay for their passage and afterwards may lead a normal life, but it just seems like such a traumatic thing to go through. ---- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
The language used in the contract made it sound like the customer was renting a car, rather than dealing with a human being: “if a customer asks to take her out” and “she shall be returned within 100 days (239)” come to mind. I’m curious who wrote up the contracts and ran the brothels? Were they whites or other Chinese? Whites hardly considered the Chinese to be human, so it wouldn’t be a surprise if they considered it like renting out property, but you’d hope the Chinese would have slightly more respect for their own people. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I also thought this contract (and the others like it) was very interesting. I would however, have liked to have known the after stories to go with these contracts. The time at first (four and one half years) seems very small, however like Alex stated, I would think sickness and pregnancy would accumulate a lot of extra time for these ladies. I would like to have known the actual amount of time they had to work, whether they received their freedom, or whether they lived to see the end. Were they in the habit of using birth control? How effective was it? These contracts would be very interesting to see in a much larger context to see how the women fared at the end of them. -- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
It does seem strange to have a contract for prostitution - but if prostitution was going on in their homeland, it would only seem strange to us. Would the women that were prostituted out see this as an opportunity for them, considering they were told they would eventually have freedom? (even though they were lied to and never given their freedom) Another point, it would seem as a no end situation if they got a disease because I would think their chances of getting a disease are so much higher with multiple partners. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-76 ==<br />
I still think it's crazy that the price of passage/ food for some Chinese women coming to America was prostitution. I guess if things were worse back in China the option to become a prostitute might seem bright, but I don't know. The terms for this "occupation" was usually for a few years. These women must have been in real need; I don't think selling my body would ever be worth coming to America for me. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
To add to what Amy was saying about the length of time a woman would have to serve her term, I find it excessive that if a woman were to "escape and be recovered" (p.238), at least in the case of Yut Kum, then they were asking for a life sentence. I find this extremely excessive. And also, conception is noted as a "sickness" (p. 238); was pregnancy common with concubines? Granted, I doubt that a servant's mistress would be too concerned with the latest birth control methods. -Seth Mintzer<br />
<br />
The wording of these contracts sounded to me more like slavery than several years of servitude. “Yet Kum consents to prostitute her body to receive company…”; “Ah Ho distinctly agrees to give her body to Mr. Yee for services as a prostitute…”; “She makes her body over to the woman Sep Sam, to serve as a prostitute…”. Each of these contracts emphasizes the fact that the Chinese women no longer owned or controlled their own bodies. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
I agree that these contracts seem more like slavery that several years of servitude. I also wonder how often these women became pregnant. What about STDs? I doubt that the "owners" of these women were practicing safe sex. Were disease and pregnancy a big problem for prostitutes at this time? - Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
== Susan Shelby Magoffin in Santa Fe, 1846 ==<br />
Although the writer of this piece was far from the “civilized” East Coast of the United States, I still found that the cult of domesticity still impacted her. She was very proud of her ability to manage her household, including the servants. In her opinion, success was attained when she could “gain one bright smile and sweet kiss, from my good, kind husband.” She was very concerned with making her home a refuge for her husband when he returned from work. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
I found it comical that Susan Shelby Magoffin thought she needed to "be more expert in ... Spanish" (p. 236) so that she could get advice about men. It is not surprising that she would make the effort to interact with other cultures given her interactions with American women were probably limited. For example, she will be the "only traderess" (p. 235) at the American-thrown Spanish ball. - Seth Mintzer<br />
<br />
== Citizen protest of rape of Indian women in California, 1862 ==<br />
I thought that this was a very interesting piece. I was very happy that a citizen would protest the rape of Native Americans even if the ones committing the crime were officers in the US army. I did find it particularly interesting though that the person refers to one officer as possibly being a "pretend Lieut." I would be curious to know if impersonating soldiers was at all typical if the men could get away with it,(or at least think they could get away with it).-Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==<br />
<br />
This piece made me kind of sad, especially for the mother, who I feel like realizes what her daughter wants to do and knows that getting an education will be good and beneficial for her, but still does not want to let her go. I feel like the mother in many ways perhaps feels cautious towards the "white men" and the missionaries and distrusts them, and yet, despite this, she sees the merits of an education for her daughter, as well as her daughter's excitement, and feels she must let her go. I think this relates a lot to what we talked about in class about possible tensions within families as a result of attempts at assimilation, especially between generations. The daughter is excited for this opportunity and to ride on the "iron horse" and to see the land where there are plenty of red apples to eat for everybody, while the mother is watching her traditional world rapidly change all around her because of the white settlers and missionaries- she has to give up her wigwam and now live in a log house, for example. She is a "foreigner" in her own home. At the same time, I also feel sorry for the daughter, as well. After all her excitement at the opportunity to go East, she watches the "lonely figure" of her mother vanish as she drives away, and then feels as "frightened and bewildered as the captured young of a wild creature." (p.241) I wonder if this was her first time being away from home and all by herself? I feel as if maybe her mother knew exactly what the daughter was getting herself into, but she still let her go- maybe so the daughter could realize it for herself? It is a hard lesson. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
One of the first things that I noticed when reading this piece was the absence of a father. Her brother Dawee does not seem to be old enough to be part of the decision making process. When faced with the decision, her mother seems very reluctant to let Zitkala-Sa go away but is unable to make a firm decision. Do you think this situation would have been different if there was a father figure? Would he have let Zitkala-Sa go away to the white-run school as easily as the mother did? Would she have been as eager to go? - John Rowley<br />
<br />
With reference to Allison's comment about Zitkala-Sa's mother feeling like a foreigner in her own home, I can only imagine that when Zitkala-Sa returns to her mother, that feeling will strengthen. The assimilation process at these white-run schools were designed to reinvent the children and discouraged any practice of native traditions that might be waiting for her upon her return to her mother. One time I saw pictures of students when they first arrived to a school and after they were "westernized". The differences with astonishing- I bet when Dawee came back to visit, his mother didn't even recognize him! Additionally, the pictures only portrayed physical changes (i.e. a haircut), but I bet these were negligible compared to the spiritual changes of religious conversion. -Seth Mintzer<br />
<br />
I agree with Allison, this was a very sad piece, both for the mother and Zitkala-Sa. It was interesting that the mother did not trust the missionaries and stated that they lie, yet she finally decides to let her eight year old child go with them. I also found it interesting that her mother makes the housing changes after Dawee comes back from being "educated." So the influence of the education is indeed working through the children in the efforts to change the way that the Native Americans lived. The fact that even Dawee, having been through the education experience provided by the missionaries, does not think Zitkala-Sa should go makes me wonder why the mother and even Zitkala-Sa did not listen to him. At the end, when Zitkala-Sa gets to the school, her description of how frightened she was was very sad. The men who came to Zitkala-Sa's village are referred to as missionaries. At this point, how large of a role did religious organizations play in taking Native American children to schools for the purpose of assimilation? Or was it a combined religious and educational purpose? Also, what kind of education they received at these schools would be interesting to know? -Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
Reading this piece, I felt very sad for both the mother and the daughter. It must have been such a difficult decision for Zitkala-Sa's mother to make. On one, hand, she already lost three years out of her sons life, and I'm sure he came home as a very different person from what he was like when he left, but on the other hand, the educational opportunities for Zitkala-Sa must have been hard to ignore. I thought the aunt's foresight on the issue was interesting, when she commented that as Zitkala-Sa grew up there would be fewer and fewer real Dakota and more white men. That recognition of the slow decline of her culture just struck me as very sad, and it made me wonder if that was a common viewpoint among the adults of the tribe. Finally, It was interesting to see how the missionaries tempted Zitkala-Sa into going with them, and how little enticement was actually needed before she was willing to go to the missionary school. ~Melissa Patterson<br />
<br />
== Mrs. A. M. Greene, in Colorado Territory -- Frontier life – 1887 ==<br />
<br />
Mrs. Greene's writing about the life in Colorado was very interesting. She was willing to do anything for her husband, even if it meant sacrificing her own comfort and happiness. She clearly hated where they had moved to, and missed her family greatly. It would seem that she would have picked up and moved if given the chance. But the funny thing is, when she is given the chance by her husband, she refuses and says "Go without you, no, never." (P. 242) I feel as though Mrs. Greene focused on the landscape and other tangible things, instead of looking at the glass half full and realizing she was safe, with her family, etc. But it was probably extrremely hard to leave your home land and move cross country, enduring a rough journey, only to find a place where there was nothing but desert and where you were isolated from everything and everyone. That was probably the hardest part for her. ---- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
== Violet Cragg requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==</div>Mpattersonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_10_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 10 Questions/Comments-327 092009-10-29T14:51:07Z<p>Mpatterson: /* Louisa S. Cheeves McCord, “Review of Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” 1853 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Sarah Haynesworth Gayle, “An Alabama Diary,” 1828, 1833 ==<br />
<br />
'''In Sarah Haynesworth Gayle’s diary she talks about how her slaves are no longer as obedient as they had been previously. She describes them as lazy and full of complaints. Even her favorite slave would not listen. What is interesting is that she takes this as an attack on herself''', she states “I am unable to accommodate myself to the disagreeable change.” I’m not exactly sure what she was expected to do, or what she could do. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I also found it interesting that she was taking the slaves' disobedience so personally. I guess it goes back to what we talked about in class, that most southerners thought slaves were happy to be slaves and that they had a paternal relationship with them. She's probably confused because she thinks that her slaves have such a great life so why would they disobey? It's crazy the way that people can make themselves believe things that are obviously not true. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
Sarah Haynesworth’s diary entry where she was complaining about slave’s disobedience was written in 1828, I am having a hard time figuring out where this change in the slaves is coming from. In this context of time, this was before Nat Turner’s rebellion in 1831, but way after other attempted slave rebellions. So, I am curious as to where this change was coming from? – Erin Sanderson <br />
<br />
'''Maybe Sarah Haynesworth Gayle's means of discipline was not as threatening to the slaves as it had been under her parents and felt that they could rebel more strongly without a proactive master.''' Though I don't think that their was goal to to be sold (a group that size may have had slave families), nothing is said about actions taken by mr or mrs Gayle to correct their behavior and Mrs. Gayle seems to use the sale of her slaves as vengeance to the poor behavior they had been exhibiting. - Will Hechmer<br />
<br />
== Angelina Grimké Weld, 1839, “The Cruel Mistress” ==<br />
I think it's interesting Angelina Grimke Weld, when referring to the abuse of the Cruel Mistress towards her house servants, points out that this woman had no shame in the abuse towards them. Weld goes on and on about these horrible atrocities of the abuse and stated throughout this piece that this mistress was a respectable Christian women. This made Weld as an abolitionist stand out as only a few. The abuse of slaves was accepted and probably expected in order to remain in control of them in the eyes of a slave owner. This slave holder without a doubt probably made a spectacle to make sure the slaves remained obedient. This female mistress seems extremely temperamental. '''The pious and vulgar language used against her slaves was likely her attempt to make sure they knew she was above them in every manor -race, class, and possibly better in Gods eyes as well. I am curious to know how they thought God looked at a black person, did they think God perceived them as they did?''' -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I think it is interesting that this woman is such a paragon of virtue according to upper society and she is kind and generous to the poor but cannot see what a tyrant she is toward her slaves. '''It is also interesting to see a woman who id depicted in a cruel light. They are supposed to be the kinder gentler sex and here she is committing atrocities toward her slaves. It is an abuse of power and yet because they are property she cannot see it as such.''' I am sure that women all over the south commited cruel if not crueler acts then their husbands. Women sometimes are much crueler then men so I am sure they thought of new ways to punish their slaves all the time. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
'''Slavery obviously had a serious emotional and psychological impact on slaves, and the Grimké reading shows how slavery could impact whites.''' In the case described here a woman is cruel and abusive, faultfinding, and prone towards emotional outbursts that could be extended beyond her slaves and onto her family. There’s also the matter of hypocrisy in being accepted by the community as a good Christian in spite of these vicious faults. '''However, I’m curious what kind of psychological effects slavery had on men and woman of the South who did not believe in slavery, rare as they were, but who witnessed its horrors. Angelina says “one who is a slaveholder at heart never recognizes a human being in a slave (217).”''' But people like the Grimké sisters saw human beings, and constantly witnessing violence done to others can be quite a harrowing experience. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
<br />
One thing that I was not quite sure about in this article was who slavery was doing the most damage to. While the the descriptions of the beatings of the slaves did make me feel for them, it seemed to me that the point of the article was to show how bad slavery made the slave-owning women become. '''''Were the descriptions of the punishments that the slaves faced more horrendous due to the fact that a women was administering them? Would this writing have been less effective if it had described a slave-owning male?''''' -John Rowley<br />
<br />
I like the question that John brought up in his post, I think that Angelina Grimke purposely depicted a slave owning female as opposed to male. At least in my opinion it seemed like it would be more shocking to Northern women to read of the cruelty being administered by their southern counterparts. I think her story might have been less shocking if she had depicted a tale of a cruel master. I noticed that the husband (if he existed) of the mistress in question was not mentioned during the story. Beating and whipping definitely appeared as punishments that would be associated with male slave owners and not mistresses.I was horrified that a supposedly gentile woman could administer such terrible beatings. '''It is much easier as the reader to conjure up an image of an evil slave owner not of his wife.''' -Emma Peck<br />
<br />
'''I think that Angelina Grimke Weld's account of the treatment of slaves really made me realize the extent to which slaves were abused. They not only had to suffer through physical torture/abuse, but also dealt with verbal abuse, especially by their mistress in this case.''' I think people mostly focus on the abuse of slaves who worked outside, from the manual labor and the whippings, but I think that the "house-servants", as Grimke calls them, also suffered just as much if not more. What I found odd was how the mistress claimed to be such a devout Christian and prayed and sang praises at the family altar daily, and then a couple of hours later, a slave was taken their to whipped inhumanely. It just didn't make sense to me how someone could be so two-faced and hypocritical. I think Angelina Grimke Ward summed up the mindset of slave holders in one simple sentence: "Slaveholders think nothing of them, because they regard their slaves as ''property'' the mere instruments of their convenience and pleasure." (Woloch, P. 217)--- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
== Louisa S. Cheeves McCord, “Review of Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” 1853 ==<br />
Personally, I liked McCords sarcasm, "Bravo! Mrs.Stowe! Your deductions are bold things, and override sense and reason with wonderful facility." She really attacked Stowe pretty hard with this review, though. And, '''I find it slightly suprising that she would be so pro-slavery, being that she grew up in the North. It seems to me that she should have been a little sympathetic towards slaves.''' But, perhaps she had slaves in the North too, and it wasn't much different to her than the South. I am curious to know if that may have been the case or not. -Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
I also very much liked this piece. Louisa’s writing was smart, witty and fantastically snarky! '''I thought this was a great form of rebuttal, undermining the integrity of the argument presented as well as the author by sarcastically saying that Stowe was only perpetuating common ideas and lies about slavery. ''' By over exaggerating several ideas in the book, such as: “The poor negro, astounded by the torrent of progress, which, bursting over the world, now hangs menacingly (for to the wild man is not civilization always menacing?) above him, would vainly follow with the stream, and is swept away in the current” Louisa discourages readers of Stowe to believe Stowes writing which Louisa shows to be fantastical and unreliable. -- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
I love the sarcasm McCord uses in this review! She seems like she would have been an interesting woman to know, and certainly not someone you wanted to cross. It was interesting to see the slaveholder's critique of Stowe's work, particularly, McCord's comments on Mrs. Shelby. I liked the way McCord used Stowe's own words against her to point out Mrs. Shelby's hypocrisy in being appalled by the treatment of the slaves but defending them rather weakly. The defense of slavery at the end of the piece is interesting, but in some respects it doesn't seem to ring quite true with the author's earlier comments on slavery. On one, hand, the commentary on Mrs. Shelby's ineffectual complaints seems to show some sympathy towards slaves: "[...]it might be possible- quite as easy, perhaps- to dispose of [the slaves] in families to some humane neighbor [...], instead of tearing them apart and selling them to some brutal slave dealer..."pg. 219. On the other hand, however, McCord is completely unapologetic about the existence of slavery and her only acknowledgment of the ill-treatment of slaves is immediately followed by her insistence that the Christian values of American slave holders make their slavery better: "shorn of the barbarities with which a slavery established by conquest and maintained by brute force is always accompanied, we have begun to mingle it with the grace and amenities of the highest Christian civilization". The sheer arrogance behind this defense just floors me- slavery is not just an unfortunate part of life, no, slavery is actually God's will for the African people, and by enslaving them, slaveholders are actually saving them...Absolutely mind blowing but very well written. Clearly this woman was highly intelligent and knew it.- Melissa Patterson<br />
<br />
== Mary Boykin Chestnut’s diary, 1861 ==<br />
Mary Chesnut, a woman of very high social standing, smoked opium? '''“It enables me to retain every particle of mind or sense or brains I ever have, & so quiets my nerves that I can calmly reason & take rational views of things otherwise maddening.” (pg 221) She was very clear why she used the drug, but these statements made me curious about the popularity of opium. Did her friends use it too? Was it expensive or hard to obtain? Was there any social stigma against it?''' –Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
I was also curious about Mary’s use of Opium. I know opium was used as medicine before morphine was popular, however I wonder as to how it was used. '''In her diary, Mary said: “I quickly took opium…”, does this mean it was still in its seed form or was it processed into a liquid or pill? Or was smoking an appropriate behavior for women?''' '''I was also very much intrigued by Mary’s very confusing ideas about slavery.''' In one section she writes that “ours is a monstrous system & wrong & iniquity” and in yet another that” my countrywomen are as pure as angels- tho surrounded by another race who are- the social evil!” She appears to think slavery is wrong, however at the same time she retains a very racist attitude that seems to oppose her earlier statement. Maybe she ought to lay off the opium before she begins to ponder theoretical issues... -- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
Having a husband that was a lawyer and official in the Confederacy, Mary Boymin Chestnut may have visited Charleston which is port city having access to goods that may have been brought over from China which had just experienced the second opium war. Being in the upperclass, having disposable income, and '''having a rebellious nature (keeping a secret diary in a lock box to write whatever social commentaries she wants sounds a little rebellious for a lady at this time to me)''' and having an unhappy domestic life, seems to fit in with using opium in my opinion. She seemed like an interesting person to me, denouncing the clergy and arguing that slavery is a "curse" becuase of the bad that it brings out in people instead of the human rights that the slaves have as people. - Will Hechmer<br />
<br />
Like the previous posters I was rather confused/shocked by the casual mention of her using opium. I suppose I have the same question as above how often did people of her status use opium? Another thing that caught my attention was her saying “I was amused. Said Elizabeth was his /present/ wife.” this is an example of what we talked about earlier in the semester about “now wives” and such. –Megan M.<br />
<br />
I was, like everyone else that posted, shocked by the way Mary's discussed her use of opium. It seems strange to me that a woman in her position would be using drugs. I am also curious as to how many other women were using opium. Was this common? -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
== Rose Williams’s Story in the Federal Writers’ Project Interviews, 1941. ==<br />
<br />
'''The introduction to this narrative stated that it was in a slave woman’s best interest to have children because it decreased her likelihood of being sold.''' The benefits are not so clear in Rose Williams’s case because her owner did not let her choose her partner. I think this provides a good example to show that slavery could be a quid pro quo relationship. Rose’s owner did something nice for her, bought her along with her parents, and then used that as a bargaining tool to get what he wanted out of her. Of course the slaveholder always had the upper hand, but I think it is important to note that some bargaining occurred. As I was reading for another class, I came across a slave woman who remarked about her master: “I own him and he owns me.” The master-slave relationship was anything but simple. –Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
'''I agree with Allison's statements and the second paragraph in this piece sums up slave women perfectly stating, "child-bearing increased her value as a slave..." (226).''' Slave women were less likely to be separated from their children because slave-owners wanted to keep the mother around for reprodution and to train her children to be the ideal slave for the master. But, in the case of Rose Williams, did she really profit from being sold alongside her parents? The slave-owners and slave relationship appeared to be a give and take, even though the owner normally won slaves learned from masters mistakes. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I agree with both Allison and Megan, the master/slave relationship was not simple. Not only did the masters control the work that the slaves did but dictated their lives in general. Rose Williams' is a good example of this. '''It is an interesting relationship because though every aspect of her life was controlled, she still felt like still owed it to her Mr. Hawkins to be with the man who he chose for her. Mr. Hawkins would be getting more slaves out of the deal, but what would Rose be getting? I guess the better question would be, what wouldn't Rose be getting? and that would be whipped.''' Rose states, "De nex' day de massa call me and tell me, "Woman, I's pay big money for you and I's done dat for de cause I wants yous to raise me chilllens. I's put you to life with Rufus for dat purpose. Now, if you doesn't want whippin' at de stake, yous do what I wants."" I think what stood out to me most in this reading is how Rose was treated. I realize that slaves were property, and owners could do what they wanted. But in my crazy mind, I imagined that slaves would do their work but would be able to have their own families or personal time once work was done, I didn't think that these families were forced upon women as means to get more slaves for their owners. I guess I always just assumed that slave women wanted families of their own, this definitely wasn't the case! --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
This was a very sad story to me for several reasons. First, while she was interviewed in 1941, it was sad to read that she even referred to herself as a "nigger" several times. It just shows how ingrained it was into her brain and how slavery had really quite diminished her own self-worth. '''Additionally, at the end of the story when she speaks about how after she was forced to procreate with rufus she lost all desire to have anymore children, struck me as interesting. This is something that is often common in women who have been raped. While we may not consider the situation rape because she eventually gave in, we have to be mindful that she was basically under duress to have intercourse with a man she did not want to be with.''' That is RAPE. She clearly still had emotional damage. I think that as humans, regardless of how educated we may be, we know the difference between ourselves and animals---and clearly Ms. Williams was treated like an animal. -Mary Turner <br />
<br />
<br />
I assumed the same thing Erin did about slave women wanting families of their own. I enjoyed reading Rose Williams's story. Although her life was almost 100% dictated by her master, she found subtle ways to undermine his authority, like showing Rufus who was in charge when she was forced to live with him. Also, it was interesting to see the male/female relationship at work. Rose showed no respect to Rufus, and pretty much wore the pants in their relationship. But the male/female relationship was very different between Rose and her master. She did what he wanted, although she didn't agree with it. It just goes to show how '''white superiority was so strong while the way Blacks interacted with one another was so different.''' --- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
== Lucinda, a free woman, requests reenslavement, 1813 ==<br />
Reading this document made me sad. I can only imagine the turmoil going through Lucinda, deciding to give up her freedom so that she could be with her husband. She must have loved him very much. But I wonder, Perhaps Lucinda did not only stay because of her husband. I mean, that was a big part of it, but she may also have been scared to leave the area that she lived in for so long. Her husband may have been the major factor, but maybe she just really did not want to go to Tennessee. -Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
I thought this was a really interesting, and unique, document- I'm sure there must not be many like it. Lucinda, like Kristina stated, must have deeply loved her husband- so much so that she requests to be reenslaved even when she has gained her freedom. Why would she do this? Even if she was reenslaved, there was always the possibility that her husband might be sold off and she would be separated from him then. Lucinda, however, takes this risk, which I think shows remarkable bravery and courage, as well as loyalty and devotion to her husband. I wonder what her previous experiences were with enslavement- maybe under her "late" mistress, Mary Matthews, she was treated fairly well and therefore had no real perception of how violent slavery under a different master or perhaps on a different plantation could be. I wonder whether this knowledge would have influenced her decision in any way? -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
It was very incredible to read that a slave would willingly be put back into slavery after being freed just to be with her husband. I think this qualifies as proof that love can make you stupid. This situation is a clear example of the many ways that slave owners could use family to keep control over slaves. While separating families (or the threat of it) and laws preventing freed blacks from living in the state controls blacks, but it also seems like it could be a check on other slave owners. If slave owners who considered the possibility of freeing their slaves after their deaths see that some of the freed slaves go right back to being slaves again, they’d probably be less inclined to bother. Also, freed blacks willingly entering slavery again helped reinforce the idea of paternalism. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
This petition was incredibly interesting in the fact that Lucinda refused freedom to be able to stay with her husband. She was asking to be re-enslaved since the state did not allow emancipated slaves to stay within the state. I find this remarkable. I would’ve thought she would have gone North, find work in whatever area she could and then save up some money to buy his freedom. However, she asked to be bought by her husband’s owner. I feel like this would probably have, as Taylor also mentions, convince white slave masters that slaves needed a father figure in their idea of paternalism. –Megan M<br />
<br />
I thought this account was kind of inspiring and sad at the same time. This woman achieved what most slaves only dreamed about-freedom. Once she attained it, however, she did not want it. She did not want to be free without her husband. I think it shows that love is very powerful and was still very much a part of people's marriages even in the 19th Century and even for slaves. I thought this woman was brave and romantic. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I felt really sad after I read this. She was finally free but couldn't be happy because her husband was not with her. That definitely shows how much she loved him and how important he was to her. Freedom was a dream for slaves. She was incredibly brave to refuse freedom in order to stay with her husband. I wonder how often situations like this happened. I agree with Megan that it would have made sense if Lucinda went to the North and tried to save money in order to buy his freedom. Maybe Lucinda felt that she may never have been able to afford it. I agree with Taylor that Lucinda willingly reentering slavery reinforces the idea of paternalism. Her master was probably thinking that her life was so great being a slave that that is why she stayed. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
== Connecticut woman asks other free black women to sign anti-slavery petitions, 1839 ==<br />
I felt the persuasion utilized in this argument was very compelling. I would have felt guilty if I had been a free Black woman and had not acted. She uses everything that women are supposed to care about(taking care of their family) as a reason for other women to get involved. Her descriptions are also very vivid and provide a picture of the hardships of slave women and their children. How common and how effective were these types of addresses in getting women involved?--Nancy Lee<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 />
This article shows that the media was utilized by northern abolitionists prior to the civil war in order to discourage slavery. I do not know how effective Still's desire to attack slavery by "wave[ing] majestically the banner of peace, liberty, and equal rights" (Still, 178) actually was. It seems to me that such non-violent methods, while they do raise awareness, is like trying to put out a blazing inferno with a drop of water. On the other hand, because white slaveowners used violent methods to strike fear and intimidation into their slaves and because the average slave-owning family only had a few slaves, it makes sense that if the few slaves of a household tried to fight fire with fire (i.e. violent resistance), it may have proved to be not only futile, but perhaps even fatal. - Seth Mintzer<br />
<br />
== Mrs. Virginia Hayes Shepherd’s memories, 1937 ==<br />
I found Mrs. Hayes recollection of slavery to be on the mark and amusing. The story of her youth is important to understanding what a former slave family had to go through after the Civil War, but the short paragraphs on Diana stood out the most to me. Diana appeared to be cunning and knew how to outwit the white man, when slaves were thought to be "child-like" Diana outsmarted her master. She knew she could not run away from slavery, but she knew how to manipulate it to her advantage and this proves any slave-owners theory on slaves as false in my eyes. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
After reading Mrs. Hayes account, I feel like her experience as a slave was quite different from the typical slave experience. Hayes writes about her master, saying, "He never bothered to collect their [slaves] wages himself. Our master allowed his slaves so much freedom that we were called free niggers by slaves on other plantations." (MP P. 181) Mrs. Hayes knew she had a decently good life for being a slave but was very aware of the plights of nearby slaves and was sympathetic to their troubles. The things Mrs. Hayes said about Diana and how she was treated by her master probably describes many female slaves lives. I thought it was interesting how the mistress was sympathetic towards Diana, after she was assaulted. I would have expected the opposite; that the mistress would have just ignored the problem. It was almost as though the mistress and Diana shared a similar experience, both being abused by the master/husband, sexually for Diana and physically for the mistress. --- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
The paragraph beginning "At the jail..." on 182 is really touching. All the kids, oblivious to the severity of the situation and just the fact that these mothers were forced to sit in jail, completely out of control of their families' fate and without any warning as to what may happen in the future. For those old enough to understand, that experience was undoubtedly very different from the way the kids remember it. -erin b<br />
<br />
== Thelma Jennings, “Sexual Exploitation of African American Slave Women,” 1990 ==<br />
I agree with Thelma Jennings that African American slave women were sexually exploited. Reading the stories they told of the atrocities imposed by white slave owners was horrifying and at sometimes difficult to read. Jennings stated that the ideology of race played a key role and explained the view white slave owners. Though some slaves were treated better than others, I think it’s important to remember that when slave owners bought a slave they became your property and were looked at as capital. It was the idea of investing in your capital to produce more then they could make more money. African American slaves - particularly women which Jenning’s referred to, were considered as an item not as a person. Though it is twisted to think people are property, they did then, and it allowed white slave owners to take advantage of their slaves in any and every way they could. -Marsha<br />
<br />
Thelma Jennings writes the sad tale of women who are sexually exploited. They were forced to have sex with other slaves so that there would me more slaves. Many white men gave no consideration to women who were married and would force them to have sex with others despite this. This is disturbing and I imagine that the women who were subject to this sexual abuse have a wealth of bitterness. I could never live under these conditions and I have respect for the endurance of these women. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
When Thelma Jennings wrote that slave women would go so far as to induce miscarriages and practice abortion in order "deprive" their owners of what they most wanted (more slaves in order to increase their productivity and therefore their wealth and social standing), I was astonished. I can understand it being a form of passive resistance, and slave women perhaps wanting to assert some control over their lives in any way that they could, but I can't imagine being so resentful and bitter (perhaps that is not the best word, but I can't think of a better one right now....) that a woman would take the life of her child. Did she feel it was in the child's best interests- maybe to prevent him/her from suffering the way that she felt she was suffering? I'm not sure. That statement just totally blew me away- it made me realize how far some slave women were really willing to go in order to demonstrate, in their own way, their contempt and hatred of the situation they were in. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
I noticed in one of the testimonies that a woman whose father was a white slaver owner and her mother a slave described her mother as being very light skinned and favored amongst the white. That seemed to be a pattern in the literature on the south that I have read that those who were light skinned were more likely to be exploited into having sexual relations with their masters. Would women like her and mulatto children have been treated differently by their fellow slaves? I wonder if they would have been resentful and bitter towards these women and children even though they were almost always the victims. -Emma Peck<br />
<br />
I thought it was really sad to read about the exploitation of black women and slaves. These women seemed to be the last ones on the totem pole. They were described as genderless. Not only were they forced to have sex with white men, but they were also forced at times to mate with black men to reproduce the type of offspring that the master wanted. I think it's despicable that after a woman got pregnant that she was forced to work in the fields or forced to do work in general and at the same time received physical abuse. I did like the ending of the essay, however, that even though these women received such treatment they had faith that the future would be different. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
This article sheds light on the practice of sexual abuse of a slave by their owner. I found it surprising that, according to one line of questioning, "Twenty-two [interviewees'] ... fathers were white men" (Jennings, 186) and in another line of questioning, "Thirty-six of the interviewees ... noted that the master himself was guilty of interracial sex" (Jennings, 187). These interviews show that, not only sexual abuse, but slave breeding was a visible component to the institution of slavery. This article makes me wonder how the wives of slaveholders felt about their husbands extramarital affairs, since they ''must'' have been aware it was happening. Did they support their husbands actions from either a financial or social standpoint? -Seth Mintzer<br />
<br />
The names and descriptions these women recall being used towards them are really disturbing, along with the parallels to the breeding of livestock. It is also interesting to note the kinder things that these former slaves have to say about their masters, as in the paragraph on 185 about marriage. The fact that these women were allowed weddings inspires a tremendous amount of appreciation. Slavery was such an abomination but it was also the day-to-day reality for those who experienced it. -erin b</div>Mpattersonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_5_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 5 Questions/Comments-327 092009-09-24T14:21:33Z<p>Mpatterson: /* Abigail Adams, Remember the Ladies, 1776 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparative questions or comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Phillis Wheatley, 1768, An address to George III ==<br />
<br />
I think Phillis Wheatley had an extremely rare story. She was a slave who was taught by her owners to read and write, she was sent to Europe to publish her poems and was freed upon her return.''' What is more rare is that Phillis was not only literate but aware of the politics of the time, as shown in her address to George III'''. As a slave who was owned I wonder what parallels she drew between that and the colonies that were owned by England. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I do like Phillis Wheatley's story. I'm sure it was very rare to even have such education and praise, and to be sent to England to publish poetry for a white woman, so for a slave to achieve such heights is quite remarkable. '''I also find the subject of her poem rather shocking, seeing as how she is/was a slave'''. To speak out against the king (or anyone) for that matter and be black AND a woman must have taken real courage. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
== Eliza Wilkinson, Carolina Patriot, 1782 ==<br />
This reading was very interesting. I felt that Eliza painted the British in a very harsh light (which I know was the point), but '''she just seemed like a bit of a hypocrite. One sentence really caught my eye: "The Americans are obliged to commit unavoidable acts of cruelty; the defense of their country requires it; you seek their lives and liberties, and they must either kill or be killed." So, its ok for the Americans can be mean and cruel, but if the English are then that’s ten times worse?''' Also in this reading, Eliza tells a bit of a story some man told her about someone, (I'm assuming the someone is an analogy for the British and his farm is an analogy for the Americans), encroaching on his farm taking more and more from him. And, at the end he asks, "is this not slavery?" Now that is pretty ridiculous because as a North Carolina planter, I'm sure he had slaves, or at the very least, neighbors who had slaves. '''So, as long as the Americans are not treated like slaves, then it is fine, but they can still have slaves of their own.'''<br />
One more sentence in this reading really caught my eye, When Eliza is talking about Homer and she says, "what contemptible EARTH WORMS these authors make us!" She is expressing her displeasure over not even having the liberty to think, and she says that that is all she wants. She writes of how the men would not want women to be a part of political matters, and she does not care. She wishes only to think for herself. -Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
'''The Revolution seems to mark a period where women can start voicing political opinions without being attacked for it.''' Eliza Wilkinson, at least in her letters, claimed the right to express her political sentiments and rages about how authors make women out to be weak and fit for nothing more than menial tasks, or in more visceral language, appearing as “contemptible ''earth worms'' (124).” '''Interestingly, she apparently had political discussions not just with her female friends, but with males as well. She talks about a conversation with a Patriot officer. Whether or not he took her opinions seriously, I don’t know, but the fact that he was willing to talk with her about politics suggests a change in attitude from earlier colonial times.''' Of course, Eliza is an elite with a fair amount of power, giving her the opportunity and station to speak up. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Eliza Wilkinson is rather bloodthirsty when she talks about how it is acceptable for "Americans" to be cruel to the enemy. I think it is funny how she talks about how everyone is equal but Americans are at the same time superior. I did like how she said that men should not restrict a woman's right to think for herself. I liked her patriotism and the fact that she spoke her mind about what she thought of the revolution despite the fact that women are not supposed to think about such things. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Grace Galloway’s diary, 1778-79, Philadelphia ==<br />
I thought '''it was rather interesting that Grace Galloway "resented the intrusion of politics into her personal life."''' I feel like this may be the reason why it took women so long to start getting involved in "men's affairs" because many women, like Grace, did not care for it. They would rather just be housewives and be content with that. -Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed Grace Galloways entry she seemed so stubborn and defiant! I loved it. '''It was interesting to read her entry in comparison to that of Eliza Wilkinson. Both women although on opposing sides had very strong opinions and seemed to have no qualms with sharing them.''' I was impressed by the fact that Grace stayed behind when her husband and daughter left for England (even her reasons might have been selfish!) The fact that Grace was penalized for her views was interesting '''I wonder if they would have persecuted her even if she had been apolitical just because of her husbands tory status which she would have been automatically associated with.''' <br />
--Emma Peck<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading Grace Galloway's diary entries. Especially since she was alone, her strength in standing up for what she believed is admirable. There was a qoute in the introduction before the entries that spoke volumes concerning how she felt about her marriage: ''''"Liberty of doing as I please makes even poverty more agreeable than any time I spent since I was married."' Hmm, maybe not a content housewife. Her argument against her property being seized based on her husband's political opinions makes sense since women had no part in politics, why should they be held accountable? Given her circumstances of having everything confiscated, how did she and other women in her position survive?''' - Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
== Abigail Adams, Remember the Ladies, 1776 ==<br />
'''I love this letter'''. When Abigail wrote this letter to her husband she hoped that he would include women in the new code of laws. She wasn't afraid to say that if they were not recognized they would rebel. He laughed at her request for women to be included in those laws. She even wrote to her friend Mercy Warren, trying to get a petition going of their greviances. '''An interesting point was when Abigail wrote back to her husband and said, "we have it in our power not only to free ouselves but to subdue our masters."''' She was telling him that women had a lot more power than men realize. By the power of persuation and a woman's wit and charm, women could get their masters to submit to whatever they wanted. Abigail was very "saucy" and is not afraid to tell her husband what she thinks and admits she will fight against laws that have no representation for women. I like that Abigail saw this as a golden opportunity for women to seek out more liberties and express themselves in this new government these men were creating. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I particularly like how John writes, '''"But your letter was the first intimation that another tribe more numerous and powerful than all the rest were grown discontented." I have the feeling that he is kind of mocking her''' by saying that this is the first he has ever heard of women being discontented with their social status. But, what he says about women being the biggest "tribe" of them all is correct because if all the women decided to ban together under one common goal, they could deny the men everything until they got what they wanted. '''This is unrealistic, though, because to make it effective, most if not all women would have to have a common goal to reform''', and (especially at that time), it appears that not all women cared enough to have a political say in things, etc. -Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
'''So, Abigail Adams is pretty much awesome, right?''' In these letters we’ve got her threatening to start a rebellion if the ladies are ignored. Obviously, she is joking to a certain extent, but '''her use of the patriot’s rhetoric is interesting: “we will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation (128).”''' Sounds familiar, but John Adams conveniently ignores her fair points, though he does pay the ladies a “compliment” about how their “Tribe is more numerous and powerful than all the rest.” He throws back a few snappy one-liners and shows he can use hot button words too, particularly about “the Despotism of the Peticoat.” '''Still, Abigail gets the best line: “That your sex are Naturally Tyrannical is a Truth so thoroughly established as to admit no dispute.” It seems that though it is acceptable for women to have political sentiment, it doesn’t mean men will necessarily take it seriously. How surprising. I’m sure Abigail was quite objectionable to that dismissal and quite loud about it too. Oh, to be a fly on the wall in the Adams household! I'll bring the popcorn!''' -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I didn’t realize Abigail Adams was such a strong women. In her correspondence to her husband, John Adams, she was determined that he “remember the ladies.” She argues that if attention is not paid to the ladies that they will foment a rebellion and not hold themselves bound by any laws in which they have no voice, or representation. This is an extremely strong stance to take and one for which I doubt many women could take. '''I am curious of how much leeway Abigail Adams had based on who she was and who she was married to, if a unknown poor colonial women had been so outward about her rights, what would have happened? At the same time, Abigail Adams had a great deal of power in her household when her husband was away, that had to have impacted her views as well'''. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think Erin makes a really good point- I also wonder if Abigail's courage to voice her opinion and strength of character is a result of her social standing and also the fact that John was away from home for periods of time. I wonder if this is an example of the male head of household (in this case, John) giving his wife more liberty to run the farm (or plantation, maybe)while he was away, similar to what we talked about in class? '''I really also like Abigail as a person, and I think her marriage to John is very interesting, as revealed in the letters. I wonder how typical their marriage was of the period?''' They both seem to respect each other quite a bit, while not being afraid to be humourous or candid in their own individual opinions. One of my favorite lines is when John states, in response to Abigail's request that he "Remember the Ladies", "But your Letter was the first Intimation that another Tribe more numerous and powerful than all the rest were grown discontented.- This is rather too coarse a Compliment but you are so saucy, I wont blot it out." Abigail seems to be a very determined and energetic woman- I think it would have been really neat and interesting to have known her. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
As much as this correspondence speaks to Abigail's "sauciness," I think '''it paints an interesting portrait of their relationship. They seem to have a very clever, teasing tone with one another. This sort of correspondence really seems to fit in with the archetypal perception of the era, with everyone feeling empowered by new freedoms, but I wonder how typical the Adamses were''' in the colonies. '''''Did everyone read the line about the "first intimation that another Tribe..." as being sort of jokingly mocking?''''' -- erin b<br />
<br />
Just wanted to say, I love Abigial Adams. Imagine if every woman of the time had her education, relationship with John, it'd be amazing. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
I thought it was really neat that Abigail Adams was able to write to her husband with her terms. The fact that their relationship in that time period was on that level was interesting. Although John Adams shot her idea down, he gave it some thought. Not many men would even listen to their wives about political stuff such as this. Clearly, the Adams’ marriage was different from many of those in the Revolutionary time. I also enjoyed that the little section included the letter from Abigail to John and back, and then Abigail's letter to her friend Mercy.–Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Well it goes without saying that I loved these letters...I mean how could you not! But it was really refreshing to read '''the correspondence between John and Abigail it did not seem as dated and formal as some of the other correspondence we have read. There seemed to be a genuine ease and mutual respect for one another that was prevalent throughout'''; even when John gently shot her down basically. But I guess we can comfort ourselves with the hope that she probably gave him hell when he came home for not "remembering the ladies" I feel like every week the women become a bit more brazen in their correspondence and various writings, I love it!<br />
--Emma Peck<br />
Oh I do love Abigail Adams! I wonder how much her upbringing influenced her opinions and willingness to challenge her husband on political matters? The Adams seem to have a great deal of mutual respect for one another, but John Adam's response to Abigail's "remember the ladies" remarks still makes it clear that while he obviously has no probem with her voicing her opinions, that doesn't mean he's going to take them seriously. I first ran across these letters in the book ''Founding Mothers'' by Cokie Roberts, and really enjoyed the glimpses these letters give us of John and Abigail's relationship. They were both remarkable people, and Abigail especially seems to be a bit ahead of her time politically. - Melissa Patterson<br />
<br />
== Benjamin Rush, “Thoughts upon female education,” 1787 (Philadelphia) ==<br />
<br />
'''I found it interesting how Benjamin Rush considered a sound female education to be a "domestic education".''' He believed women needed to be "trained to manage efficient households, and as mothers, they had to raise virtuous citizens." (Woloch, 130) When he used the word "trained", he seemed to be implying that someone else would train women in their duties, meaning the men would. I found it ironic that Rush said, "It becomes us [the men] therefore to prepare them [women], by a suitable education, for the discharge of this most important duty of mothers." (Woloch, 131)''' What makes men so qualified to teach women how to do domestic and motherly duties, when they have no idea what those duties entail? Rush and other men felt it was their obligation to teach women to do jobs they were already doing.''' I also felt as though Rush assumed women could not do any of the jobs/talents he listed, such as learning the English language, or bookkeeping. I have a feeling that Rush and other men were under the impression that motherly and domestic duties were simple to understand and easy to do, yet I think Rush had never heard the saying "easier said than done." ---- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
'''I thought it was interesting how Benjamin Rush directed his argument and his speech to the "Gentlemen" in the audience, even though he was discussing female education''' and what he thought should be done or corrected in the present education systems in order to better prepare women for their roles as wives and mothers. I think this is evidence that the men were still thought to be "responsible" for their wives and daughters- society at this time still seems to be very much a patriarchal one by reading what Benjamin Rush has to say. I suppose it will still be a while (perhaps not until the early-to-mid 19th Century would be my guess, when you have a lot of reform movements, among them education reforms)before women have more of a "voice" in their own education. Here, the females seem to play a "secondary role" to that of the Gentlemen, even though they are the ones receiving the education. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
Thoughts upon Female Education is addressed (for the most part) to men, post Revolutionary War, advocating the increase in female education. '''Since it was addressed to men, the benefits of an educated female were directed towards the male concerns of economic, political, religious, and social logic that would thus persuade them that this education would be good (for the men).''' He stated that by educating females they would be helpful to their husbands in their business and personal affairs, '''they would be “an agreeable companion for a sensible man” (132), it would prevent superstition, they would be better suited for domestic affairs and rearing of the children, and that “the government of them will be easy and agreeable” (133).''' I also found it humorous that among these sensible arguments, the advocating for dance within education was important because it “promotes health and renders the figure and motions of the body easy and agreeable”. (132) Among these rational thoughts of intelligence, handiness, and, social morality, that a woman’s figure would be as important as the rest and ought to be addressed in their education was interesting and amusing. – Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
== Judith Sargent Murray, 1790, “on the Equality of the Sexes” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Taylor & Duffin Report Molly Brant's Opinions and Influence, 1778 Daniel Claus assesses Molly Brant's Influence, 1779==<br />
'''Both Taylor and Duffin’s report and Daniel Claus’s assessment indicate that the British viewed Molly Brant as a vital political connection''' as she represented British interests to Native Americans. As seen in Taylor and Duffin’s report, the fact that the British gave Molly Brant all the money she wanted shows their high opinion of her. '''Brant was also powerful within Native American communities'''. She persuaded a fickle chief to reaffirm his alliance to the British. Molly must have been a very intelligent woman to command the respect of both English and Native American leaders. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
I agree that the British viewed Molly Brant as a vital political connection. It's amazing that a woman was able to persuade and gain the respect of the British and Native American leaders. I also found it interesting that she had such a great influence in a time when most women were expected to be seen but not heard.--Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
== Esther DeBerdt Reed, “Sentiments of an American Woman,” 1780 ==<br />
I admire women during the American Revolution because they took this opportunity to try to change things for themselves. I think their experiences made them stronger and gave them a stronger sense of who they were outside of the home. They were not afraid to speak out. They knew the purpose of this war and supported their families - even if that meant throwing themselves into harm's way. Esther Deberdt Reed did not want women to go unnoticed for their bravery in this war. She doesn's take away the bravery of men but men were the ones who were looked at as "the hero." '''She said it beautifully when she wrote, "we should at least equal, and sometimes surpass them in our love for the public good."''' -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
'''I loved how Esther DeBerdt Reed spoke so strongly and patriotically. She believed that women could be as patriotic as men, even if they were not doing the same duties in the war.''' I agree with what Marsha about what Reed wrote about "surpass[ing] them in our love for the public good." She believed that through strong patriotism and support for the country, the women could be active participants in the war, since they were not allowed to fight or take part in other areas of the war effort. She believed the men needed to know that the women were offering their help in any way possible. '''At the end of her writing, she writes, "Receive with a free hand our offering, the purest which can be presented to your virtue."''' Although the women could not participate as much as they may have liked, they were still more than willing to support the men who were fighting for them, in any and all ways possible. ---- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
I agree with Alex that Esther DeBerdt Reed spoke very strongly. I feel like Reed made a great case for women in her writing. She discussed the influence of Volumnia and other Roman ladies on ancient Rome. She also writes about women from different countries supporting their country's war efforts. Reed also calls on women to behave the same way that they did at the beginning of the Revolution. She wants them to return to supporting the cause, sometimes with extreme measures. I also liked that she signed it "An American Woman". She probably did that partly so people would not criticize her and partly to inspire the other women of America.--Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
Reed does a good job invoking lofty comparisons of the efforts of the American women to those of historic and biblical women. It took me a while to get at what, exactly, she was calling the women of America to do as a wartime effort. From what I can tell, it's little more than to wear "cloathing more simple; hair dressed less elegant." It's pretty language and a strong voice, but I guess I'm just disappointed that she is mostly just recommending cutting back in order to help finance the effort. -- erin b<br />
<br />
== Thomas Jefferson’s Slaves Join the British, 1781 ==<br />
<br />
Although this article was not very long, nor really an article it provided a lot of clues about the slaves of Jefferson. '''This list definitely makes it appear as if Jefferson saw them as property.''' Especially when he includes in the list the children of some of his slaves instead of saying “Name, ____’s daughter” or something to that extent he simply writes “Hanah’s child.” The names also bring to mind what we talked about in class last week about the naming conventions. The names on the list are more Anglican than African with names like Patty, Sam, and Lucy. The name Quomina is the only one that seems to stick out. This shows that Virginia was more like the Northern states in that respect.–Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I also noticed that most of the slave names were more Anglican than African. I thought it was interesting that so many of the slaves joined "the enemy". I would have thought that since they were Thomas Jefferson's slaves they would have joined the American side of the war. Why did so many slaves join the British side? Were they technically "allowed" to since they were owned by Jefferson? --Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
== Sarah Osborn, Camp Follower, Recalls the Revolution, 1837 ==<br />
I found the writings from Sarah Osborn effective in studying women's roles during the Revolutionary War. At a time when women were still seen as only belonging in the home, she followed her husband and the army throughout the colonies. '''She performed domestic duties such as cleaning, mending clothing, and cooking for soldiers but was also seen as a member of the army.''' The point I found most interesting was at the surrender in Yorktown when Sarah thought something bad had occurred, asked a question and recieved the reply, "Are not you soldier enough to know what it means?" I found this to mean the soldiers treated her as an equal and should know the rules of the army, "mans world". Sarah Osborn broke traditional ideas of womens work in the eighteenth century and was able to see first hand the building of America. -Megan W. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Jemison Views the Revolution ==<br />
I liked the article that featured Mary Jemison's views on the Revolution. The was in depth and described the actions of the Iroquois Indians in detail. I could tell that she accepted the Indians as her people when she said "my Indian brother", and '''when she said "...'''we''' sustained no loss in the war..." She felt she was a part of the tribe and they were her family.''' She describes how some Indians decided to go against the treaty that was made with the colonists to help the British fight. She describes many battles that were fought, and how ultimately many of her people suffered. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
Mary Jemison's view of the Revolution was really interesting especially since she shares the Indian perspective of the war. She points out how they broke their treaty with one side because the British told them the rebels would be beaten easily and gave them gifts. Mary basically implied that the Indians were bought with gifts to fight for the British. She states the Indians were "hired to commit depredations upon the whites, who had given them no offense. '''She does not seem to agree with the decision to fight for the British. She does accept the Iroquois as her people even if she does not agree with the things they do.'''- LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
'''For as much as Mary Jemison’s appearance of aligning herself with the Iroquois through her speech such as “our Indians”, it almost seems tenuous and superficial as she also interchangeably uses distancing words such as “the Indians” or just “they”. This fragile state of association is also shown by the fact that at first sign of food shortage, she quickly took her children and left the Iroquois. This paragraph (third from the bottom) says nothing about her husband, friends, or the connections she had formed with the people in the Iroquois village and her concern about how they would have fared, and also the fact that she never went back.''' I think this article was interesting to see how the Iroquois women viewed the American Revolution and part the Iroquois played, but just as much, '''''I think, maybe, that this article also should warn us about overstating her emotional connection to the Iroquois themselves?''''' – Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
While reading this article, it seemed to me that the Seneca Indians were pawns in the conflict between colonists and the British. Mary Jemison makes references that, not only was neutrality not an option, but that aligning with either side was a warrant for death. This source also allows us to read into the cultural differences between the war tactics of natives and colonists. While the ceremonial torture of Boyd which "took out an intestine ... and drove him round it [the sapling] till he had drawn out the whole of his intestines" may perpetuate the stereotypical image of the savage native, the colonists were "burning and destroying the huts and corn-fields; killing the cattle, hogs and horses, and cutting down the fruit trees belonging to the Indians throughout the country ... [which left] not a mouthful of any kind of sustenance left." In my opinion, the strategic military tactic of starving every man, woman, and child of a village is no more barbaric, if not more, than the torture of a soldier who would kill you if given the chance. -Seth Mintzer<br />
<br />
== Thomas Paine in 1775, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 288-289 ==<br />
'''As a modern reader, I found Thomas Paine’s essay very condescending. I also had difficulty locating the rights Thomas Paine admitted that women possessed, as indicated by the title. Paine spent most of the essay pitying women:''' “Cruel distempers attack their beauty- and the hour, which confirms their release from those, is perhaps the most melancholy of their lives. It robs them of the most essential characteristic of their sex (288).” This article did not acclaim a woman’s older years as a time of potentially more social respect and authority; instead Paine asserted that older women were very depressed because they lost their beauty. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== An Anonymous Woman Claims Women's Rights in 1780, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 293-294 ==<br />
<br />
This passage while short in length summed up womens rights effectively stating women were stronger patriots then men. The writer is asking for equality even though women "[s]ometimes surpass them in our love for the public good." Women surpassed men in their love for country and fight for freedom by willingly allowing their sons and husbands to fight and maybe die for their country. Did all women feel the same as this writer that they were willing to give up vain items (hair accessories) at the end of the Revolution just as they were able to stop drinking tea at the start of the Revolution? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I liked the opinions of this woman who was defending her rights. She had good points to make including mentioning famous heroines and when she said "...women have been seen forgetting the weakness of their sex, building new walls.." She is describing how women are strong and not only take on the burdens and stress of being a female and living day to day but also taking care of their families and those around them. -Amy Van Ness</div>Mpattersonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_3_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 3 Questions/Comments-327 092009-09-10T14:40:32Z<p>Mpatterson: /* Susanna Wesley, 1732, Evangelical Child-Rearing */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching/comparative comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In the Nancy Woloch reading '''I found the use of the family to be very functional to the colonizers, and it changed greatly through time based off of necessity. This meant major changes in the placement of women in society.''' In 1672 family was a “fundamental economic unit” (25) and meant the health of the colony. Due to the focus on family harmony, women were able to remarry and create new homes that would be more beneficial to society. Furthermore, men often left their estates to their spouse. This meant that women had a certain amount of power. By 1712, the power of women was minimized and a hierarchy among the family unit arose where men were on top, then women, followed by male children and female children. At this time, women were supposed to be obedient to their husbands, and in return, the husbands would treat the women as a piece of themselves. Divorce was rare. By 1815, women had virtually no power. Divorce was almost non-existent and “married women had no independent legal existence, property rights, or control over their children”(42). Women’s roles changed quickly based off of what function the family needed to have at that particular time. '''It’s no wonder why so many women ran away.''' –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
After spending some time last week learning about the lifestyles of the Native American women, through the lense of the somewhat bias English colonists, '''I found it interesting this week to see that as the settlers faced certain unfamiliar obstacles in their new surroundings, they adapted to many of the Native Americans' way of life. It almost seems like once they had to roll their sleeves up and actually make a living for themselves here, they realized that at times-- women must tend the field, people must marry several times, and community networks become the heart of the social structure, all of which had been elements of Native American life that the colonists had previously thought to be unnatural.'''--[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 17:44, 9 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
What connects these pieces are the issues of morality and religion. These works reflect how morality and religion affected the family/household (Wadsworth and Wesley), law (Bailey) and daily life/work. Issues of morality and religion play a part in our lives today, but not nearly as much. Today we must abide by very secular and rigid institutions of government and education. For Colonial woman however, religion and issues of morality were the dominant institution. It affected their daily lives. Gender for them was not something recognized by law, but rather recognized by the bible. For some, this led to relatively better conditions. For others, harsher standards of living and a longer path to legal and societal equity. – Natalie Weiner<br />
<br />
== Katherine Kish Sklar article, “To Use her as His Wife” ==<br />
<br />
It is stated on page 80 that '''Martha Root pushed her claim against Elisha even though her actions incurred further risks to her reputation and hence to her future ability to marry. So why would she do this?''' Another question that came up in the reading was the issue of marriage. '''Would Martha have even wanted to marry Elisha after he ruined her reputation?''' --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
'''It seemed that most of a woman's support in a case of having a child out of wedlock came from the church, which i find surprising because of the "man being above the woman" idea that they followed.''' In the article wasn't it the church that took the father of the child to court after Martha received a settlement? - Will Hechmer<br />
<br />
I was surprised to find out how relaxed the attitudes towards getting pregnant before marriage was. Though Martha did not win her case, the fact that she could take him to court to try to get him to marry him indicates to me that perhaps women had a little more control over their lives that I had previously thought. Perhaps women used pregnancy as a way to get more influence on their marriage, since who you married was so important at the time. -John Rowley<br />
<br />
== Benjamin Wadsworth, 1712 – Well-Ordered Family ==<br />
Wadsworth begins by talking about how a husband and a wife are supposed to love each other, take care of each other when they are sick..etc. '''I was surprised when I first read this because it seemed almost like an equal relationship.''' Of course, then I read the part about the husband being the wife's head and that he is meant to govern over her.''' Wadsworth says that the "husband's government ought to be gentle and easy, and the wife's obedience ready and cheerful". I think Wadsworth's choice of words is important. He makes it sound that like the husbands gently guide the wives along and that the wives are happy to be told what to do.''' The influence of religion on married life is very evident. Quarelling is "the Devil's work" and it dishonors God. Today, it's pretty clear that every married couple argues sometimes and that doesn't mean you are doing the "devil's work". -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I agree with Katelyn. When I first read this, it seemed as if he were counting men and women to be (almost) the same, then he pulls the whole, "man is the woman's head" thing. The quote that really caught my eye was when he was talking to women and said, '''"God has made him (husband), your head, and set him above you, and made it your duty to love and revere him." So, there is a STRONG implication that men ruling women is a religious decree and anyone who were to break that would then be unholy.'''-Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
I agree with both of the comments made by Katelyn and Kristina, the article by Wadsworth really struck me. The quote on page 27 stuck out "[f]amily, whatever its liabilities, remained the most important social institution..." Women could not do anything outside of the family, were required to fall back on it, and let her husband have complete rule over her and if he died before her, the eldest son took over the estate. It was a never-ending cycle once a woman was married that she was never to have control over her mind/body/land/or any other asset. '''Religion was a much stronger contributing factor in those days, but did God really approve of a women becoming completely inferior to her husband? I do not think that is written in the Bible, so did colonists relate problems back to Adam and Eve instead?''' -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I agree with the previous comments made about the Husbands and Wives Article written by Benjamin Wadsworth. At the very beginning it seems that men and women are equal by saying that there love is mutual and it should be performed by each and overall that they both needed to work together in order to have a good family. Then Wadsworth’s views turn completely around by saying “the husband is called the head of the woman” and that they ought to be under their husband’s government. '''Did all Puritan men around this time feel the same way as Wadsworth? ''' Nick J<br />
<br />
Benjamin Wadsworth’s description of marriage seemed ironic. Marriage was meant to involve mutual affection, yet the husband was always in charge of the wife and the wife was always supposed to be obedient to the husband. '''I thought the end of Wadsworth’s account was funny because he reminded women that although they really may be superior to their husbands in intelligence, wealth, and class, God still intended them to be ruled by these stupid, poor, common men. That made me wonder if Puritans considered gender roles more binding than social class.''' -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
'''(Wadsworth's balancing act)''' I agree with Allison about how ironic his description of marriage was. He says "It is their duty to dwell together with one another." (P. 28) The ironic thing was that he says how men and women should "dwell" together, which implies equality, yet he says the woman must submit to the husband and obey him. Another interesting thing I found was that Wadsworth says "Though he governs her he must not treat her as a servant, but as his own flesh; he must love her as himself." (P. 29) Wadsworth contradicts himself because he makes references such as the "husband's government" yet calls for men to see their wives as equals. --- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
I also wanted to comment on the wife/husband relationship. He does make it a point of the man's superiority, but he also does say that the wife should be treated with love and respect and not like a servant. He didn't have to add in that last part, but he did, and I like that. However, then he goes on to say how the wife must love the husband no matter what. Even if the wife is smarter or from better beginnings, she better recognize the husbands superiority. That part of course, while is no good today, is very reflective of the times. -- Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
== Susanna Wesley, 1732, Evangelical Child-Rearing ==<br />
'''The letter from Susanna Wesley was by far the most impressionable reading, to me, this week. The best way for me to put it is that it really freaked me out.''' I suppose it is because her methods of child-rearing were a bit alien to the methods of the typical American family today. Yet, I actually found it interesting that I did see some similarities :(on the bottom of page 32) she talks about rewarding children for doing good things, which I think is a relatively good policy. '''Throughout the reading I felt like she was talking about some well trained dogs that she had, not her children. It was literally as if she were training pets.''' A particular sentence caught my eye, on page 32, where she said "That civil behavior which made them admired when they were at home by all who saw them was in a great measure lost,..." I can just imagine her friends coming over for lunch one day and commenting on how well trained her children are. Now, I am all for well behaved children, but the methods by which she makes them so well behaved seems a little too excessive. '''They are not allowed to be kids. They are adults by the time they are old enough to walk. Was this a typical religious family upbringing in the 1700's?'''-Kristina .S.<br />
<br />
Susanna Wesley has some pretty interesting instructions of how to raise children. '''I know that the Puritans thought that children were born evil and needed to be taught right and wrong but I think her methods were rather excessive.''' Before a child is one year old they were taught to "fear the rod". We would call beating children child abuse. I did not like her strict routine and none of us would ever survive if we had to live in that time now. The only part I liked about her essay was how she thought girls should be able to read above all other things. I think that is very important for girls especially in a time period where many could not read. LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
I agree with what LeAnn mentioned above- '''I did think it was interesting that Susanna thought that young girls should be taught to read before they learn skills such as sewing, etc. By placing an emphasis on education, I think she also might be reflecting some of the beliefs of the Puritan society in general. However, I am not sure if the Puritan emphasis on education and self-improvement applied just to males or to women and young girls, as well?''' Susanna Wesley's statement, certainly, makes it seem as if this belief and value was extended to women, as well- but '''I am not sure if the Wesley family was an exception or reflective of the greater society as a whole.''' I also wonder about the role of region in influencing educational practices- '''did the southern colonies place such an emphasis on educating males (and perhaps females, as well), or was their focus more on commercial production, etc.? I think Susanna's statement brings up questions not only of gender roles and expectations but also the influence of geography and location.''' - Allison Godart<br />
<br />
As Allison mentioned, this letter also made me wonder about the status of female education outside of Puritan New England, and I also wondered if Susanna Wesley's emphasis on making sure girls could read well was unique to her household or something that was practiced throughout Puritan society. As some other people have mentioned, I found the contrast between S. Wesley's position on educating women and her attitude towards physical punishment and breaking children's spirits very interesting. There are certainly portions of her letter that sound like good common sense guidelines for child-raising, such as rewarding a child for demonstrating obedient intentions, or not punishing them for the same thing twice. Other aspectss of the letter really bothered me however, particuarly the section that recommended teaching children to fear the rod by the time they were a year old so that they would learn to cry softly. In modern society I am fairly certain that would be called child abuse, and even in historical context I think I was bothered by that remark because of the contrast with some of Susanna's other suggestions. At the end of the letter I was left with one final question: Susanna Wesley stresses the importance of girls learning to read, but mentions nothing about writing. Would she have taught her daughters to write and read, or was reading only seen as important so that they would be able to read the Bible?- Melissa Patterson<br />
<br />
'''One thing to keep in mind is that Susanna Wesley rules may not have reflected that of the majority of people living in England at the time. The reading says that she is from a place called Lincolnshire, from which many Puritans migrated.''' I think that her "rules" made sense for her particular lifestyle, but I also think that some of the ideas that Wesley, and the Puritans were indoctoring into their children may not have been condusive to the mission of colonization. '''After all, at a time when people are trying to settle a new area, and are faced with unfamiliar lands, it seems that for practical purposes they should have encouraged free thinking, imagination, and ingenuity from their youth.''' --[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 17:55, 9 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I’m not surprised that this document is one of the ones most commented on because it did leave a very strong impression on the reader. In a time where there have been countless debates over spanking children as punishment, the idea of a parent using a rod to frighten a child barely one year old so that they cry softly seems absurd. <br />
'''Another thing I found rather odd in the letter was on page 31 “nor were they ever permitted to call each other by their proper names without the addition of brother or sister.”''' Nowadays I don’t know anyone who calls their sibling “brother” or “brother Jacob” (unless you count Buster in the tv series Arrested Development). The relationship between siblings today is a rather casual one, usually including nicknames for each other not calling each other by their family relationship. The addition of the title “brother” or “Sister” to one’s name brought about the image of a monastery or an Abbey in my mind. --Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I found reading Susanna Wesley's letter to be very enlightening. '''Many people see women being at home as a simple task and not very important, yet Wesley contradicts that view. She explains all the different methods that are used for raising a child throughout their young years and I realized that a great amount of work and time was placed into this.''' What I found especially interesting was how important it was for girls to be taught to read. We always talk about how women did not learn to read or write during this time, yet Wesley says "That no girl be taught to work till she can read very well." (Page 33) The way she stressed the importance of reading for girls struck me as odd and enlightening, and glad that she understood the importance of educating women, rather than just confining them to household duties as they were accustomed to. ---- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
== Eliza Pinckney, 1750s, To Improve in Every Virtue ==<br />
'''Eliza Pinckney's list of resolutions explains a lot about all of the roles that women were expected to fill in early America.''' Her first few resolutions are religious. She wanted to be a better Christian and to trust in God. Some of her other resolutions seem similar to many common resolutions today. When she says she wants "to be decent but frugal in my own expences", she sounds like many women who vow to stop spending so much money on themselves. She also vows to be a better wife, mother, daughter, and friend. These resolutions are probably the New Year's resolutions of women today. I think it was important to read the piece by Pinckney. It shows all of the different roles that women are expected to fill, many of which are still relevant today.- Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
<br />
I liked the document by Eliza Pinckney. It showcased one woman's focus in her life during the eighteenth-century. Along with other women of the time who lived in the colonies, Pinckney devoted most of her time and attention to her family. Each year she addressed the fact that her husband, children, and relatives were very important to her and wanted to do and be everything she could for them. Today, women and men alike, make resolutions to become a better wife, mother, father, or brother. '''I thought it was interesting that Pinckney's actions paralleled those that can be seen today in the twenty first century.''' -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading Eliza Pinckney's document. Not only did she illustrate common colonial gender roles regarding family and religious piety, but she also seemed to have a genuinely good heart. '''It was somewhat surprising to read her resolutions regarding slaves. She talks about being a "Good Mistress" and wishes not to be "tyrannical" over them. This is not the image of slave ownership that many white males seem to paint in their documents.''' - Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
I found Eliza Pinckney's one of the most interesting articles. The fact that she kept a list of resolutions for herself and updated them yearly showed just how serious she took them. '''Was this a common practice for women, in her similar position, of the time? ''' - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
== Esther Burr, 1756-57, Tied hand and foot ==<br />
'''In Esther Burr's journal you can see the basis she has in Puritan traditions.''' She relies on her faith, family, and her social network of friends. She refers to doing a lot of spinning, taking care of her children and awaiting her husband arrival from trips. She implicates in her letter to her friend that she must marry and not wait so long to do so. Also, '''at the same time she's not afraid to share her opinion, not that she does it that often. ''' She even astonishes herself when she makes a comment about what Mr. Ewing says about women and friendships. She was not afraid to hold her tongue "I talked him quite silent." '''The men around her were either appalled by her comments or surprised that she had an opinion on the idea of women not being capable of having friendships.''' The perception that men had of women was very different then. '''I think there were women in society (especially those from the elite) that were very intellectual. Were they afraid to show their intellectual abilities in public around males in society?''' -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I think that is a really good question- perhaps women of colonial America were afraid to appear "superior" in some ways to some men, or that they were worried they would be judged critically for stepping outside of traditional gender roles and boundaries. I think a lot of men in the colonial period might have taken women for granted, in a way, and assumed certain gender roles and behavior as "fact", rather than allowing for interpretation or allowing each individual women to define who she was for herself. '''I think many males may have seen colonial women as a large, homogenous group with similar qualities (often dictated, perhaps, by the males themselves or by societal customs)rather than as individual people with distinct and different character traits and aspirations.''' - Allison Godart<br />
<br />
We talked about the people of the Chesapeake forming networks of mutual aid beyond family because extended kin was very rare. In New England, families have more strength, but there are still societal similarities to the Chesapeake. '''New England colonists had extended networks, particularly expressed through friendships, as seen with Esther Burr and her friend Sally Prince. Gossip certainly had a powerful role in maintaining or ruining reputations,''' with the extreme being represented in the Salem Witch Trials. And of course, these friendships and close knit community resulted in meddling. '''Esther seemed very much interested in her friend’s personal life, and apparently Mr. Burr had a great love for matchmaking (which is stereotypically regarded as a feminine trait, making for entertaining reading).''' However, Sally seemingly had a certain measure of control in being able to avoid the man courting her, though societal norms, represented in this case by Ester and her reprimands, were pushing her towards marriage. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the letters by Esther Burr they provided a lot more insight into the daily wives of women at the time. '''Though I do wonder why it was necessary to write to her friend about how April 6-9 was “all devoted to spinning folks.” The most interesting section to me was April 13, 1756 when she writes “How shall I get along when I have got ½ dzn. Or 10 Children I cant devise.”''' We’ve seen graphs and statistics of the demographics of the time period but just to see a woman write nonchalantly about having 6-10 children, as if it really was no big deal, stuck out at me. However, I suppose this is because of the differences between now and then. --Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
== Abigail Bailey, 1815, Abominable Wickedness ==<br />
Abigail Bailey's memoir was very interesting to read. '''Laws intended for men and women did not always protect women. Probably not in this case either. ''' Abigail admits her loyalties to her husband but when she realizes her husband is having an incestuous realtionship with their daughter she is unable to ignore it. She confronts him and threatens to take him to justice. She justifies her actions by saying to him that she is "acting on principle and with mature consideration." She knew that if her daughter did not testify against her father that it would be very hard to prove what he had done. '''She probably felt that one would believe her. Afterall, Abigail was a woman and women should not speak out against their husbands. The value of a man's word over a womans was not the same then.''' Instead of putting her daughter through the ridicule of the community she confronts her husband. She threatens to use the process of the law to scare him. '''She believes that the legal system will not uphold the law for her. ''' Abigail uses the one power she does have over her husband - she refuses to be intimate with him. <br />
-Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
'''Abigale Bailey's piece was quite disturbing.''' I felt that after reading about so much virtue in Eliza Pincknery's piece and the Susanna Wesley's letter's concerning religious practices and child-rearing, this piece was juxtaposed to the previous documents. It is not shocking that a man, a father in 1815 could virtually get away with molestation and incest, especially since as Mr. B noted, that Abigale was "under his legal control". '''It just illustrates the hard lines drawn between the genders and how women, who seemed to have at least a modicum of control in the child rearing and household affairs actually had no say at all.''' I felt proud of Abigale to vocalize her fears and suspicions at the cost of her reputation and, as she felt her safety. - Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
I thought An abominable wickedness written by Abigail Bailey was very fascinating. An abominable wickedness was about Abigial Bailey finding out that husband had slept with one of their children. First off that is really sick to think that the father would sleep with one of their own children. In early 19th century America there was little that Abigail Bailey could do about this horrible situation. She did not have prove that her husband was having a relationship with one of their daughters and also she could not get her daughter to testify against him. Also even if she did have information against her husband the Massachusetts Court would have sided with the men and not the women. Her memoir also discusses that when marriages failed it was exceptionally hard on women. Couples would try to reconcile their differences but if they couldn’t they would need to separate. '''Why was it extremely hard for women to obtain divorces?''' Nick Jesionka<br />
<br />
'''I was mortified by women’s inability to protect their own children from the authority of their husbands. Abigail Bailey rightly suspected misbehavior on the part of her husband but she could not even share her fears with anyone.''' However, eventually Abigail Bailey reminded her husband that a marriage was supposed to be mutually beneficial. Although she was under his complete authority, he promised her fidelity and protection. '''You could almost detect the triumph in her tone when she asserted that she was seeking a separation because he did not hold up his end of the bargain.''' -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree that this document about Abigail Bailey and her husband’s incestuous obsession with their daughter is very disturbing. The status of the “feme covert” along with a general issue of family virtue kept both mother and daughter from successfully stopping the husband’s / father’s infidelity except for through the help of male relatives. '''This shows that women were doubly controlled (perhaps in equal efficacy) in their actions not only through legal rights but also morality and their ability to uphold family honor facing civic supervision and judgment.''' -- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
This article definitely differed from Esther Burrs diary where she councils her friend on having a happy marriage and being a dutiful servant of God. Esther seems genuinely happy in her marriage and lot in life. '''I wonder which was closer to the norm in colonial society a situation like hers or a situation like that of Abigails.''' I was horrified by the authors summary of the story where he noted that Abigail's husband took her on a trip to New York and deserted her there! Obviously he was an all around upstanding husband and father. The story is constantly reiterating the dominance that Mr. B had over both her and her children. WIves and children were taught to obey and honor their parents. The only ammunition that Mrs B seemed to have was that her husband had not upheld his half of the marriage. It is understandable why she apparently did not seek legal action right away. Id imagine that if it came down to her word against his the court would side with the husband. Her husband also sounded like a tyrant so she was probably afraid of the repercussions for herself and her children if she made an unsuccessful attempt at getting him arrested.-Emma Peck<br />
<br />
== New Spain’s (New Mexico’s) moral code as dictated by the Spanish Crown in 1752 ==<br />
I hope that everybody who read this excerpt found it as morally deplorable as I did! Spanish settlements tried to restrict the interaction (especially marriage) of "unequal" classes and races to a greater degree than the settlements of other European states and this decree exemplifies the legal privileges that "socially superior" citizens had in their communities. How would these laws effect the citizens of higher social standing differently than the citizens of the lower classes? -Seth Mintzer<br />
<br />
== Laws on Slave Descent in VA and MD, 1662, 1664, 1691, 1692 ==<br />
<br />
I am completely shocked by some of these laws. Basically, if I understood the readings correctly, freewomen who had children with slaves, could then be subject to slavery herself. Is that right? I found it particularly disturbing that under the Virginia, 1691 law, if a woman has a bastard, half negro child, then she owes the church to which she belongs a fine of 15 pounds. Also, she has to serve time as a slave at the discretion of the church, and her child is at the discretion/mercy of the church as well. '''I thought this was completely illogical, unethical, and against everything moral that I know in life. I think that once again, these laws are a reflection of the FEAR that white men have, of women and people of different ethnicities than their own. How lame!'''--[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 18:47, 9 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
This article which addresses Virginia and Maryland laws on the status of interracial liaisons and resulting children was very specific in stating the differences held for men and women and the legal status of the children. It was stated in the beginning that '''these laws were to discourage and prevent interracial relations but they also show the real concerns addressing issues of ambiguity on the legal status of the children and sexual partners as well as controlling social morality. I am especially interested in the reasons for these laws concerning white women and their children with male slaves. How necessary was the need for these preventative laws? Were there many cases in which these laws were actually enforced? When did this really become an issue?'''-- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
I was shocked with the extremity of the laws that were in place in regards to relations between white colonists and slaves. Children of mixed decent seemed to have almost as poor a lot in life as slave children, since they were bound to servitude for up to thirty years in Virginia. '''I was surprised that the penalties for men and women were so strict, I wonder if this is a reflection on the emphasis and influence of church and religion in the lives of the colonists. Obviously it must have been considered a sin and one of serious moral repercussions. What would be the penalty for any of the slaves in question? Since they were already bound in servitude was a punishment considered unnecessary? I also found myself wondering if this was a common occurrence at the time'''.---Emma Peck<br />
<br />
== Skilled slaves in Maryland, 1748-1763, Maryland Gazette ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Complaint of Elizabeth Sprigs, indentured servant, 1756 ==<br />
Elizabeth's Sprigs complaint to her father is pretty sad. '''I am not sure if all she says is true. She might be exaggerating bu then again maybe she is not. I really wish we knew what she did to get her father to throw her on a ship where she was indentured.''' I felt terrible for her as she asks for clothes and not something else she may have wanted. The short but vivid description really worked and if i were her father I would send her the clothes if not paying out so she would not be indentured. '''I never really thought about being indentured could be as bad as being a slave.''' -LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
The reading that stuck out to me the most was the Sprigs reading. Here we have a girl in Maryland writing a letter to her father in England asking for aid. Why is she doing this? Because he sent her away as an indentured servant as a punishment for bad conduct and disobedience! Huh. Um, '''I’m thinking this is maybe a bit of an overreaction on daddy’s part. Still, if that’s not an incentive to be well behaved I don’t know what is. Is this the 17th century equivalent of taking your kid into a jail cell to scare them straight?''' '''''Whether or not Elizabeth is exaggerating her condition (which Wolach suggests she is not) is less important than the very fact that her father could make her an indentured servant in the first place''.''' As his daughter, she’s essentially his property, and he has the power to sell her, rent her off, whatever. What happened if she survived her indenture? Was she free and left in the colonies or was she sent back to her father? How often did this happen to other girls? Would her father have sent a son away for misbehaving? And what ''exactly'' did she do to make him react like this? --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== Apprenticeship in PA, 1771-1773, Record of Indentures ==<br />
The list of indentures of 1771-1773 was interesting to read. '''The document mentioned that women apprenticeship was different than that of young men, which was unsurprising. Most of the work and skills learned by the females was housewifery, to read the bible, or write legibly.''' The entries listed were of women whose terms were anywhere between three to fourteen years. I thought that was a very long time. One example is of a woman named Abigail Adams, whose term was 14 years and one month, was taught to read the bible, write legibly, learn multiplication, and houswifery. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Advertisements, Gazettes of VA, PA, SC, NY – 1751-1776 ==<br />
'''I was surprised that there were so many advertisements for schools for young women.''' I found the ad for Mrs. Duneau's boarding school in South Carolina very interesting. Most of the other ads mentioned teaching needlework to the young ladies, but that was one of the only subjects that was taught. However, Mrs. Duneau's school taught French, English, math, geography, writing, and of course, needlework. '''I was also surprised that many of the school's included gentlemen and young women in their ads.''' This is probably because many of the schools were opened and operated by women. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I thought it was particularly interesting that these schools were called "Adventure Schools" and that the courses offered included quilting, lacework, and embroidery. What exactly was the adventure part? I guess it could be the fact that the schools allowed girls to leave their homes if they were boarding schools. - Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
I found the advertisements pretty interesting. I am from Williamsburg so had seen some advertisements for schools for young women before; learning to sew, how to become a proper lady, housewifery, etc, but never had seen one for a young man. I knew they had apprenticeships but did not know they attended schools like women did. '''I also found interesting how different the ad for a school was compared to that of finding a slave, both adverstisements are looking for people and how women were referred to in a slave ad compared to wanting a young woman, "proper young lady" for a school.''' -Megan W.</div>Mpattersonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_2_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 2 Questions/Comments-327 092009-09-03T14:49:41Z<p>Mpatterson: /* Captive John Tanner in 1830 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-reading Questions -- These are particularly important... ==<br />
<br />
Just and observation I've made: '''the readings in Woloch about the rules and conduct that men and women should follow is a striking resemblence to social rules set forth by Confucius and his followers in China several hundred years prior to this.''' It just seems interesting to me that although the Europeans at this time always thought of themselves as superior to other peoples and cultures, that people in China hundreds of years before had already discussed and implemented these social rules. - Will Hechmer<br />
<br />
For the readings this week I came up with a question that related throughout all of the texts:<br />
1. '''Why did Native American women's roles offend the Europeans and do we think it still would today?''' Or have the perceptions the Europeans had of women shape women's traditional roles today?<br />
<br />
---I believe that the Europeans were offended primarily due to the differences in marital practices. First, the Native Americans had sexual relations with "potential" spouses BEFORE they were to be married. This violated a religious practice of pre-marital abstinance that Europeans followed. Christians in particular beleive that a woman should be pure and virginal at the time of marriage. Second, it offened Europeans that the Native Americans could "divorce" or change partners so readily. As John Heckwelder notes, "Marriage among the Indians are not, as with us, contracted for life" (MP pg. 30).--[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 05:24, 3 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''A common feature I noticed within the captive stories and whether they were able to adjust to their new lives appears to be their age and the roles in which they assumed.''' As with Mary Jemison and also John Tanner, they were both young without attachments, and could easily adapt into their new lives as made easier by being fully adopted into the tribe as a sister / daughter and son / brother. In the case of Mary R, she was a middle aged woman, set in her ways, having a husband back home as well as a church, friends, and a role within American society in which she was part of. These differences appear to have an effect on how the captives adjust to their new lives or not in these particular sources, and makes me wonder if this could be common to others as well or if there are other factors that were missed. – Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
Maybe I am just cynical because I have been in a few of Dr. McClurken's classes and have had to read many primary source documents (in fact many of these look familiar) but I find it very hard to trust a lot of these writings. Practically all of these writings are from a European perspective that was trying to make sense of what they were seeing through a distorted lens. This is not their fault of course because they did not have the advantage of Wikipedia to give them some background knowledge of what they were going to encounter. Just thinking about running into a culture that has had limited to zero contact with Europeans I can only wonder how both sides interpreted each other. The Europeans have the advantage in written history here so we get a very biased view of what is going on during this time. Even when the Europeans are attempting to be honest there is a perspective here that we are missing that I wish we had more access to. Even with my frustration (it is a good frustration mind you) reading primary source documents is a constant reminder that history does not come in neatly packaged text books we get in elementary school. It is the compilation of primary sources and the interpretation of each historian through time that makes history. /rant --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 07:24, 3 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Though the focus seems to be on differences in the relationships between men and women for the Europeans and the Native Americans in these documents, I was a little surprised in what I found similair. In both cultures there seems to be a large focus on marriage. I am not that familiar with the way marriages worked in Europe but the way Champlain described the suitors didn’t seem that different from my impression of the way it worked in Europe at the time. John Tanner also described how his mother was so intent on setting him up on a marriage. The emphasis on marriage and family seemed like it could have been more of a unifying force than a dividing force, though it often wasn’t. - John Rowley<br />
<br />
I agree, I was actually more surprised by the similarities than the observed differences. But I suppose, again, this is through the lens of the Europeans, who could have been applying familiarity to things and practices. --erin b<br />
<br />
== Roger Williams Remarks on Narragansett women – 1643 ==<br />
<br />
After reading the Roger Williams little excerpt about him and his findings on the language and the people on the Narragansett women, I am left wondering how does he seem to have such a different view than other Europeans of his time. He believes that the land belonds to the Native Americas; he even tries to live and learn from them, to study them, even going so far as to publish a dictionary on their language arranged topically. '''What makes his perspective so different from the other European documentations and studies?''' - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting that Roger William's had such a different view than other Europeans at his time. Before reading this article, I expected more of a negative view of the Native Americans and their "heathen" lifestyle. I was surprised by the way he described their work. I agree with Caryn that the work sounded a lot more difficult the way that Williams described it.- Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
While reading Roger Williams' Narragansett Women, I noticed that his description of the labor that the females did was, in his mind, much more challenging than described by John Heckewelder and Mary Jemison. I also noticed a parallel between Mary Rowlandson and Williams opinion that as Williams put it, "Indian women has escaped Gods curse on Eve." Of course Rowlandson described these feeling in a negative light but the idea was certainly the same. - Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
I feel like Roger Williams gave the Indians a lot of respect in his writing, as opposed to others who saw Indians as savages, etc. He recognized that, although the Indians had a different way of life, they worked hard for their living. I found it interesting how an issue such as "polygamy" was not even made to be a big issue by Williams, while another European may have seen it as absolutely disgusting. He noticed the differences in society between the Europeans and Indians, but found ways to justify why they did what they did and I think that was honorable of him, to respect the cultural differences. ---Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
== John Heckewelder’s 1819, Women’s Lives among the Delaware ==<br />
<br />
John Heckewelder describes the Native American women in Delaware. He comments about the differences and some of the aspects of lives between the Native Americans' lifestyles and the Europeans'. Among them are marriages: marriages among the Indians are not contracted for life. He also mentions the varying work men and women have. Men construct the house in which they are to live in, hunts, traps. Women take care of the home, sometimes become their husband's helpmate while he is hunting, tills the ground, gets the firewood, and pounds the corn in mortars. '''I think this group of Native American women followed the same kind of pattern that most European women followed at the time and would not offend most outsiders.''' Heckewelder's notes may prove that because most of the duties of the Native American women were similar to that of European women, there was no real reason to be shocked or offended. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting the way Heckewelder described marriage between Native Americans. It's the complete opposite of the way marriage was in Europe at the time. A Native American bride was usually not forced to marry or even to stay married. Native American women are not treated as much like the husband's property, as were the European women. I also found it interesting that Native American men would find whatever food that their pregnant or sick wife was craving.-Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I too found this extremely fascinating. I couldn't help but think American women's lives would have been different if Native American traditions like marriage were adopted and incorporated, and early settlers had moved away from the European standards of marriage. Would American women have had more power? Would this have lead to greater education before? Could this equality of marriage led to equality through suffrage sooner? - Natalie Weiner<br />
<br />
<br />
John Heckewelder’s description of Women’s Lives Among the Delaware is a much different account than from what other colonizers have described. While many Europeans have a biased view through ethnocentric eyes, Heckewelder seemed to empathize with the Native American way of life. Though I do think that he viewed his way of life as better and more civilized, he sees Native American way of life as understandable for a less civilized group. While he believes that Native American women’s work is difficult compared to women’s work in the civilized world, it is nothing compared to the work of the men. Heckewelder’s description of the women’s work as well as marriage practices seems much nicer than other descriptions from onlookers of the time who had a cynical view. The Native American family/societal structure seems like a nice way for women to live, to work cheerfully, to raise families, and to have the ability to leave when unhappy. I wonder if it is because John Heckewelder was able to live among the Indians for 15 years that he was able to see the true side of Native American life, rather then traders whose observations were short lived and distant. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
'''John Heckewelder's description of a woman's role in society is still seen through a Europeans eyes''' though I agree with Erin that it was less so then other European observers it is still bias. He still believes that women have no power where men have all the power in society. I liked that he grasped the fact that the women did not think they were being worked like slaves by farming. I would also like to note that Heckewelder when talking about marriages only mentioned that women will please her husband so that he will not leave her but said nothing about men pleasing their wives. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
John Heckewelder wrote of the differences in the daily lives of the men and women of the tribe he saw. '''What struck me most was particularly the word choice “The husband may put away his wife whenever he pleases, and the woman may in like manner abandon her husband.” Despite the fact that divorce was incredibly uncommon in Europe, he spoke of the men leaving their wife as if it was no big deal. Yet, he used the word /abandon/ when describing the wife leaving the husband which has a harsher connotation in my opinion.''' Another interesting thing I noticed was that Heckewelder said that the men’s job was to build the house which shows the Delaware tribe he was familiar with was not matrilocal- Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
== Pierre de Charlevoix, 1721, “Iroquois Women in Government” ==<br />
<br />
Pierre de Charlevoix's "Iroquois Women in Government" seemed on the surface to glorify the hierarchy which held women at the top but unraveled into an explanation of how Iroquois men only allowed the women to seem powerful. I wonder how much of Charlevoix's account was true and how much was a biased opinion based in Western ideals of the Patriarch Royalty. '''This piece prompts me to wonder if Charlevoix felt challenged by the reversal of gender empowerment and the implication and influence that could have on western women. ''' - Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
In this article Pierre de Charlevoix writes about how Iroquois women had a substantial role in their government. Even though it was rare for women to rise to the position of chief, the role of chief was inherited through the matrilineal line. As we discussed in class the older women of the tribe could unseat male chiefs. The Iroquois women had a lot more political opportunities than their European and fellow Indian counterparts. After reading the article I wonder why Native American Women had less political opportunities than the Iroquois. Nick Jesionka<br />
<br />
After reading this article, I believe that Charlevoix was surprised at what he saw amongst the Iroquois women. I think he was fascinated by the fact that they held roles in the government and had more power in some areas, which Charlevoix was not accustomed to seeing. although Charlevoix speaks of women's power in the tribe, he does say at the end, "On some occasions, the women have an orator, who speaks in their name, or rather acts as their interpreter." This poses the question, did women really have that much power and leniency among the tribe as everyone thought? Or was it just in certain circumstances that they needed a male to speak on their behalf? --- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
I thought one of the most interesting aspects of Pierre de Charlevoix's account of Iroquois women in government was in his opening paragraph, in which he states, "...the nearer we view our Indians, the more good qualities we discover in them: most of the principles which serve to regulate their conduct, the general maxims by which they govern themselves, and the essential part of their character, discover nothing of the barbarian..." (p.12) His representation of the Native Americans he encounters as being in a large manner very civilized (he continues on in his account to describe their proceedings as carried on with a "wisdom and coolness" and that "those violent passions, which have so much disgraced the politics even of Christians, have never prevailed amongst the Indians over the public good...") differs in great measure to Mary Rowlandson's description of the Native Americans as "ravenous Wolves" (p.17), which implies a sort of barbarianism. I'm not sure if these two different perspectives are a result of the difference in gender on the part of the observers, or simply different experiences with different native groups, or perhaps a combination of both. - Allison Godart<br />
<br />
== Mary Rowlandson’s account (1681) and Mary Jemison’s account (1824) ==<br />
<br />
Also a topic I found important between the articles written by both "Mary's" were the differences/similarities of the women's experiences with the Eastern Woodland Native Americans. How each woman's experience varied based off tribe/age of capture/and release date (if released). -Megan<br />
<br />
'''I was particularly interested in the role religion played in their experiences, especially Mary Rowlandson.''' Her faith seemed to justify her experience, which in turn strengthened her sense of righteousness in the face of perceived barbarism. The topic of Christianity shaping the colonists' interactions with the native Americans seems important when looking at the overall experience. --Erin B.<br />
<br />
I think Erin raises a really good point about religion and the way it influenced or affected the experiences of the captives. I thought one of the major themes in Mary Rowlandson's captivity account, that of her trying to determine why God would allow and even help the "enemies" (the Native Americans)to survive and thereby inflict further injury on the English, resonates still with us today. I think many people still, in contemporary society, question God and his motives when they are faced with a troubling situation or a difficult time in their life- asking themselves, for example, why God would allow such things to happen. An individual's response (whether they believe it a test of faith and believe they will come out stronger because of it, or whether they take an entirely different approach) I think is highly individualistic and unique to the person. - Allison Godart <br />
<br />
<br />
Mary Jemison provided an interesting point of view in which she is not entirely dis fond of living with the Indians. She was captured and lived with the Seneca Iroquois tribe for many years. '''I think this is an interesting example of another way that Europeans, especially European men, were shocked with the Native Americans and their lifestyle.''' Many white female captives were treated humanely, took up the duties of the women of the tribe, and may have been treated more equally than if they returned to white society. This decision was confusing to most white men. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading both of these accounts. They were both so varied that it was interesting to see the differences and similarities among the captive's situations. The main issue that caught my eye in the Rowlandson account was the employ of God during her whole captive experience. She would quote the bible and see situations through a very thick religious lens. I particularly liked how she commented on page 18 that "strangely did the lord provide for them." Essentially, wondering why, if God was on her (and the English peoples) side then why was he letting the "heathens" live? It is something that she brings up a couple of times through her account. But, what I found interesting was that she believed her God was watching over the Natives, even though they were not Christians. (at least that was how it seemed to me)<br />
In the Jemison account, I really liked how she talked about the benefits for women living among the Seneca tribe. And how she even compared, on the bottom of page 21, the Native woman’s life to that of an English woman’s.-Kristia S.<br />
<br />
The accounts of Mary Rowlandson and Mary Jemison who were captured by Native Americans were the most interesting things I read. '''I though it was fascinating in Rowlandsons account how one minute they were going to bash her head in and the next her master was giving her water to wash with and being kind.''' Mary Jemison had a more positive account of Native Americans and I liked how she said Native Americans were only cruel to their enemies but to their friends they were wonderful. That is not so different from the Europeans who were also cruel to their enemies. --LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== Samuel de Champlain, 1616 ==<br />
<br />
'''The Champlain and Heckewelder readings provide as interesting contrast in the interpretations by Europeans regarding Native Americans. About a hundred years separates their accounts. Champlain was, of course, an explorer, and Heckenwelder was a missionary trying to convert the Indians to Christianity.''' Champlain comments on the figures of the Indians, with a special interest in the women’s appearances, including the fact that “their breasts hang down hardly at all.” Truly an important thing to note. He also tends towards the idea that the men are lazy and the women do most of the work. Heckewelder doesn’t bother commenting on appearances, perhaps due to his being a missionary, but he labels the women’s work as “quickly and easily performed.” Their fatigue is not comparable to the tireless work of the hunting men. Though the interpretations differ on the view of labor and gender roles (which may be a result of the particular tribe they visited and at what time of the year), both accounts are influenced by European thinking. Champlain writes the men off as lazy and unmanly because they appear to lie around while the women do the farming. Heckewelder completely dismisses women’s work, putting forth that the families depend solely on the men’s hunting. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The article that Samuel de Champlain writes about Huron Women is good account of Native American Women. In the article he discusses the roles of women and men and how to him they women do a lot more work then the men do. He called the men lazy and described the women as really hard working and having most of the responsibilities. Overall it was a good account of the Huron tribe. Nick Jesionka<br />
<br />
'''Samuel de Champlain seemed to focus quite a bit of his attention on the courtship of the Natives.''' It was a big change compared to Europeans after all. He spoke of men and women running from cabin to cabin at night, enjoying whoever’s company they please. Then in the next paragraph he brings up the point of how the husband cannot be sure the child his wife bears is actually his. We talked about this in class, this is astonishing to Europeans as the “need” a male heir to carry on the family name or be the next in line to the throne (if they are royal.) –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I agree that the difference between Native American and European men when it comes to children is amazing. Champlain writes about how when a woman has children, her preceeding husbands come visit and claim the child is his. In Europe, women wouldn't have had so many ex-husbands, if they even had one ex. If the paternity of a child was questioned, his mother and the child would be stigmatized. I understand why Champlain was so interested in this, it is completely different from the practices he was used to. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
This reading of Samuel de Champlain was a stark contrast to the readings of other European settlers/observers that I read in the Woloch reading. Champlain believes women to be servants to the men, and he says "they follow their husbands from place to place in the fields, where they serve as mules for carrying the baggage." (Page 25) He also noticed that the men "do nothing" except for hunting and other simple tasks, which are in no comparison as difficult as the women's tasks. I wonder what made the observations/accounts so different between Champlain and say, Roger Williams. Was it just a personal bias/values that made the articles so different? Or was another factor in play also? --- Alex Mankarios <br />
<br />
Did anyone get the impression that maybe there was a hint of jealousy among the Europeans when it came to the courtship of Native Americans? Perhaps they resented being so sexual restricted within their own communities, and felt that the only proper way to address those feelings were to pass negative judgments upon a culture they could not understand. After all, doesn't our culture resemble the pre-colonial Native Americans when it comes to modern day dating and marriage? Now days, it practically unheard of to marry a person you have not already lived with for a while. When a couple splits, the children usually go with the mother, or whoever is the more secure "bread winner." American's today divorce over the slightest irreconcilable differences, and there is little to no stigma on divorcees anymore, they way there had been in the past. Men court women with expensive gifts, and women usually turn to their family and network or "village" of best friends to help them decide if they should marry a man. It is really not much different from how the Native American's approached marriage several hundred years ago. So, I suppose that after all the Europeans effort to assimilate Native Americans into their way of life, modern day Americans have assimilated to the Native American way of life.--[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 07:22, 3 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Mary Musgrove assists the Georgians in Dealing with the Choctaws, 1734 & Mary Musgrove Seeks aid for past service from GA, 1747 ==<br />
<br />
I can't say that I was surprised to read the 1747 letter written by Mary Musgrove, as historical evidence often shows that, the European settlers and traders often "went back" or renigged on promises, treaties, and debts that were made to the Native Americans. However, I did find the format of her letter interesting. Instead of just coming right out and asking for what she wants, she diligently lists all of the qualifying reasons why she is owed respect and currency first, and then she gets around to asking for what she wants secondly. It all sounded like something I would imagine a lawyer to do. Perhaps just saying "hey you owe me money" would not have sufficed. It's tragic that all of that explanation and justification was warranted, to seek out something that she and/or the people she represented were due anyways.--[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 05:36, 3 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Captive John Tanner in 1830 ==<br />
<br />
The major thought that came to my mind while reading this was how multiple Native American women wanted a young white son. I feel that if the roles were reversed and a white woman had a male Native captive, there wouldn't be any other woman who would want him or any hostility regarding it. I find it interesting that he was so valued that Net-no-kwa was so interested in having him. '''Did they find the whites valuable or was he simply filling the role of a son?''' - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
I found this section interesting because it tells about a woman in a posittion of power, which would certainly have been unusual among the Europeans of the time. Reading this, I wondered if the Europeans were willing to let her continue acting as a tribal leader because they thought a woman might be easier to deal with? I also found the sections about drinking very interesting. It doesn't seem like the Native Americans realize the control that the Europeans could gain over the tribe by introducing them to alcohol. And the Europeans would presumably find it more disturbing to see a woman getting drunk than a man, which plays into any views of the Indians as savages or heathens.- Melissa Patterson<br />
<br />
== Father Le Jeune on necessity of teaching native women, 1633 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Native women resist Jesuits, 1640 ==<br />
In this document submitted by French Jesuits, we get a glimpse into the European males' attitude towards gender roles and its response by Native women. Although in some pre-contact societies women and men had a division of gender roles, the relationship was otherwise equal (in other words, wives weren't subordinate to their spouse.) This article sheds light on the great lengths that some Native women would go through to avoid the oppressive European policies. For example, in this particular document, a native woman actually runs away at the thought she will have to "obey her husband." I believe the historical significance of this story also shows how native women were not quietly submissive, but on the contrary, actively resistent. - Seth Mintzer<br />
<br />
== Wamponoag women of Martha’s Vineyard, 1727 ==<br />
<br />
The readings provided some thoughtful insights into changing Native American lifestyles as colonists worked towards converting them to Christianity. '''Particularly interesting to me was determining the reasons why some women were easily converted (at least outwardly) and some women were very resistant.''' In one reading a women runs away, not “wishing to obey her husband” in his desire to convert, risking harsh retribution, while in another reading the women were more receptive and more pious than the men. The second reading also gives some possible reasoning why these women were easier to convert. I think the biggest factor was that many of the women were young and unlikely to be set in their ways, and therefore more receptive to conversion. Sarah Ahhaton's story provides support for this, as there were older women who were seemingly more traditionalist and subversive in their approach towards the English. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
As shown in the Pious Wampanoag Women of Martha’s Vineyard and the Adultery Trial of Sarah Ahhaton, the Europeans seem to be pushing their own ideas of woman morality upon the Native Americans that can be compared to as was made example by Eve from the bible. As is with the Adultery Trial and some of the conversions, women appear very susceptible to have a lapse in judgment where their passionate natures take them over. However they are being held accountable for their actions in ways that men are not due to the notion of woman’s virtue and their job of upholding and demonstrating social morals. '''I think it is possible that the hope of the Europeans is that should the women at least be successfully converted, the society and future generations will then follow suit''' and could be as believed half of the battle being already won such as was with the husband of Hannah Tiler who “overcame his evil by her goodness” (MP- Christianity p. 24). – Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
== Sarah Ahhaton’s trial, 1668 ==<br />
<br />
'''The story of Sarah Ahhaton, a Native American woman, is one that shows the dynamics of the old, pre-colonization, ways of life and the new, Christian way of life'''. In looking at the French Explorer Samuel de Champlain’s description of the lives of Huron Women and Men in 1616, he describes the marriage practices of the Huron. In this pre-colonized society, marriage is much different than the “civilized” Europeans. Women and men were able to be intimate with different individuals without jealousy it was the standard practice. By 1668, when Sarah Ahhaton told her story of adultery, there was a change in marriage practices due to the influence of European colonizers and the spread of Christianity. The change in women’s roles in such a short period of time must have been difficult, and often confusing. In a society were women were highly regarded, their role shifted to one of subordination. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
== Ann Marie Plane's essay ==<br />
'''In the account of Sarah Ahhaton’s adultery, I was really struck by the double standard for men and women.''' The rift in her marriage began when her husband, William, was not treating her very well and possibly having an affair of his own. Sarah turned herself in for her crime, but William’s position as an interpreter and Christian minister meant it would not have been difficult for English officials to investigate or correct his behaviors. This response is likely a result of English culture, which viewed women as lascivious and unable to control their desires. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
'''I like how Plane described Native American women as the group whose lives were possibly the most radically changed by European contact.''' Before contact, Native American gender relations involved a certain amount of give and take. Men may have held leadership positions, but much of their power depended on the support of women. After contact, the power held by men increased and the power held by women decreased. This deprived women of the means to defend themselves, for example, against an abusive husband, as in Sarah Ahhatan’s case. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the account of Sarah Ahhatons adultery to be extremely poignant. It truly showed in my opinion some of the negative effects the colonists had on the native americans. In many Native American societies women were highly respected and held a firm place in society and were allowed more freedoms within marriage. Yet Sarahs treatment exhibited none of that kind of treatment. It was evident the influence that the Europeans had on there culture at that point was a negative one. I found the part of the essay where the author discusses the negative aspects of european culture that the Native Americans picked up extremely interesting. Although the protestant marriage was supposed to be a well founded joining of two people in the faith in a happy marriage, women were often treated poorly by there husbands. So even though the Native Americans are being taught by the Christian doctrine they picked up the bad habits of the Europeans instead of the good habits. Also the double standards between men and women were particularly evident in her account of the trial because Joseph who was also married and had committed adultery presumably faced no punishment whatsoever. In addition the claims of adultery that were supposedly committed by her husband didn't seem to have been investigated any further. -Emma Peck<br />
<br />
I also found the double standard in the way Sarah Ahhaton was treated compared to both her husband and Joseph interesting -- and, not surprising.''' So, why did this happen? How did the change in the way Native American women and men viewed marriage occur? Were there some tribes who were more resistant to this than others? If so, why?''' -Nancy Lee</div>Mpatterson 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