Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($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=WhechmerMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T22:15:56ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_13-14_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 13-14 Questions/Comments-327 092009-11-24T06:02:25Z<p>Whechmer: </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 />
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 <br />
who are taking advantage of having no white man in<br />
charge of them I still find her letter interesting. <br />
She is clearly struggling with the fact that her "servants" <br />
are not helping her. I did not like how when Willes the slave <br />
yelled she took to her bed cause it "excited" her. Stop whining <br />
and yell back. I know women would never do that but <br />
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 interesting, 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 the black 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 />
== 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 />
== 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 />
== 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>Whechmerhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_13-14_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 13-14 Questions/Comments-327 092009-11-24T05:45:24Z<p>Whechmer: </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 />
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 <br />
who are taking advantage of having no white man in<br />
charge of them I still find her letter interesting. <br />
She is clearly struggling with the fact that her "servants" <br />
are not helping her. I did not like how when Willes the slave <br />
yelled she took to her bed cause it "excited" her. Stop whining <br />
and yell back. I know women would never do that but <br />
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 interesting, 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 />
== 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 />
<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 the black 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 />
== 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 />
== 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 />
== 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>Whechmerhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 12 Questions/Comments-327 092009-11-12T00:49:53Z<p>Whechmer: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparative source questions ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== The Advocate of Moral Reform, 1838 ==<br />
<br />
In The Advocate of Moral Reform I found it interesting that moral reformers were against “the hazard of elopement”. They believed that elopement was an escape from parental authority and “the first step to ruin”. In the story, the girl elopes and is led into prostitution, and is then saved. I am curious how often this type of thing actually happened. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I thought it was strange that when the girl was found in the brothel by the person from her home town, that he himself did not get her out of the place himself, instead he went to the "Moral Reform Society" and asked them to get her out.-Will Hechmer<br />
<br />
== Maria Stewart, 1831, “O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!” in the Liberator. ==<br />
Maria Stewart seems out of her time. She is strong and vigile with her words. She recognizes her part in the constitution by saying that all men are free and equal. I think she makes a loud and vigilant statement when she says principles makes the man not the color of the skin. I thought it was interesting also when she wrote that even though many think blacks are an inferior race that God does not look at them that way. Maria Stewart had professed her faith to God. I think she was expressing that blacks allegiance was to their country and faith to God -not their masters. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
== Letter to Liberator from Andover Female Antislavery Society, 1836 ==<br />
Referring to the meetings of the Female Antislavery Society, this woman was stressing the importance of a woman's role in reform. It was women's Godly duty to reform those in the south, who believed in slavery. Using such words as "scourged sisters" at the South, meaning black women are our sisters and are being tortured by the south. The south must be corrected for their wrong doings. Black women are being opressed and we must reform the south to stop the oppression. She saw it as a degradation of women or what she called "darkness." -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I agree with Marsha in that women stressed their importance in reform. They saw it as their "Christian duty" to help their enslaved sisters. According to these antislavery women, they were justified in condemning slavery because it "robbed women in slavery of virtue". It is interesting that these antislavery women who had their ideals of what it meant to be women believed that slave women had those same ideals. I wonder how southern white women felt about this. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
I think it is always so interesting when people interpret the bible and use it for whatever point they was to make or argue. In this case with the letter, I liked the way the lady wanted to explain how God viewed women-that they had a duty but also that they should not be slaves. I also liked the statement that said it "disregards the relation of husband and wife, brother and sister, parent and child-shuts out the intellect the light of knowledge-whelms hope in despair and ruins the soul." The letter had a lot of good points to make. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Sarah Grimke’s response to the Mass Clergy, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Declaration of Sentiments at Seneca Falls, 1848 (written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Lucy Stone (and Henry Blackwell)’s Marriage Protest, 1855 ==<br />
The marriage protest I compared to a modern day pre-nuptial agreement. With Lucy having this agreement read at her wedding she took a strong stance for women's rights as did her husband and those who attended the wedding. I think her fight against William Blackstone's words, "the existence of the wife is suspended during marriage." spoke louder than any sewing circle. Lucy wanted an equal partnership in her marriage and with this agreement believed she would get it, but I question how was the protest enforced? Did her husband truly agree to all six points in the protest? If so, I strongly commend him for standing by his wife in her fight for women's rights and hope he set a further example for marriages in the 1850s. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Sojourner Truth (Isabella Van Wagener), 1851 (Ohio Convention). ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Isablle Graham and Society for Relief of Poor Widows, 1806 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Anti-Slavery Convention of American Women, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== American Female Reform Society Warns Mothers of “Solitary Vice”, 1839 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== 1848, Elizabeth McClintock and Elizabeth Cady Stanton defend the Declaration of Sentiments and the 1848 convention ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== 1852, Sarah Josepha Hale, editor of Godey’s Lady’s Book ==<br />
<br />
While this passage consisted of only a paragraph, I found it interesting how Mrs. Hale took a stance on voting. She did not think women needed the right to vote when they could influence the men in their lives, yet did the men not have the final say so in the home? I think this passage took a step backwards for the women's movement, while yes women could attempt to influence men did they really? This was not like the Native Americans in which women could keep food from men if things did not go their way. I think this passage serves to represent women as subservient to their husbands and or sons. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Julie Roy Jeffrey, “Ordinary Women in the Antislavery Movement,” in the Introduction to ''The Great Silent Army of Abolitionism: Ordinary Women in the Anti-slavery Movement'', 1998. ==<br />
<br />
I liked this essay by Julie Roy Jeffrey. I liked how she talked about the plain, average woman being a big part of the abolition movement. William Lloyd Garrison Jr said that the "leaders would have been powerless" without their help. Jeffrey talks about individual movements that were created after the national antislavery effort was ended in the mid Nineteenth century. She also mentioned how the involvement in this effort put women outside their sphere like we talked about in class. The end of the essay mentions several women who were a part of this movement that I think was important to include. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Nancy Isenberg’s “Women’s Rights and the Politics of Church and State in Antebellum America,” (1998) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Shirley Yee, “Free Black Women in the Abolitionist Movement,” in ''Black Women Abolitionists: A Study in Activism, 1828-1860'', (1992). ==</div>Whechmerhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_11_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 11 Questions/Comments-327 092009-11-05T03:14:13Z<p>Whechmer: </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 />
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 />
<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 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 />
== 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 />
== 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); were pregnancies common within 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 />
== 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 />
== Citizen protest of rape of Indian women in California, 1862 ==<br />
<br />
<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 />
== 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>Whechmerhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_10_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 10 Questions/Comments-327 092009-10-29T04:29:59Z<p>Whechmer: </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 />
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 />
== 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 />
== 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 />
== Rose Williams’s Story in the Federal Writers’ Project Interviews, 1941. ==<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 />
<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 />
<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 />
== Connecticut woman asks other free black women to sign anti-slavery petitions, 1839 ==<br />
<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 />
<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 />
== 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</div>Whechmerhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_10_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 10 Questions/Comments-327 092009-10-29T03:23:06Z<p>Whechmer: </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 />
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 />
== 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 />
== 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 offical in the Confederancy, Mary Boymin Chestnut may have lived/visited near or in Charleston which is port city having access to good that may have been brought over from China which had just experienced the second opium war. <br />
<br />
== Rose Williams’s Story in the Federal Writers’ Project Interviews, 1941. ==<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 />
<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 />
<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 />
== Connecticut woman asks other free black women to sign anti-slavery petitions, 1839 ==<br />
<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 />
<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 />
== 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</div>Whechmerhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_9_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 9 Questions/Comments-327 092009-10-22T00:07:06Z<p>Whechmer: </p>
<hr />
<div>== '''General Questions''' ==<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
---------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
'''Chapter 7 '''<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “Matrimonial Risks,” 1815 ==<br />
<br />
I think Emma is funny. I also find it very endearing that she was very concerned for her sister's matrimonial well-being. This highlights the new role of women being the nurturing, caring, raising type. Even as the old sister, she takes on the role of looking out for her younger sister. I enjoy how she herself ended up being a cougar who enters a doomed marriage. - Christine<br />
<br />
== Caroline Gilman, “The Deferential Wife,” 1838 ==<br />
<br />
I found Gilman's story to be tragic. In a time when marriage was romanticized and a young women felt leaving her "paternal home" was not something to be dread; the story of Gilman's husband losing all of the romance from the beginning of their marriage is heart-wrenching. I also found that while strides had been made in married life, women such as Gilman, still bit their tongue instead of expressing an annoyance with their husband. The difference between the sexes is made apparent but I did enjoy Gilman stating she wanted marriage to remain romanticized. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I feel like a lot of these expectations on women persisted well into the twentieth century. To some extent, wasn't this the sentiment (or the challenging of this sentiment) that was the basis for a lot of the marital humor that appeared on shows like I Love Lucy? I think that the negotiation of a "companionate marriage," or maybe more specifically, the meaning of marriage in general, continues in a lot of ways to today. -erin b<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin. I felt there were a lot of modern connections in this article. I think Caroline's idea that a woman must defer in a relationship to the man's way of doing things could also be seen in any modern issue of Cosmo. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== Catharine Beecher, “System and Order,” 1841 ==<br />
<br />
Were these books intended for women who had not gone to the womens academies at the time? or did Beecher just have a different view on how/when house work should be done which conflicted with what was taught at the schools? I found it interesting that unlike many previous articles we've read, the subject of equality is disregarded as a frivolous and impossible question to answer and "there would be no possible advantage in the decision." isnt this a subtle way of saying that men and women should be equal? -Will Hechmer<br />
<br />
<br />
== Catharine Sedgwick, “First to None,” 1828 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Connell Ayer, “The Widowed State,” 1832-33 ==<br />
<br />
Here we see not only the dependence of women economically, at the time, on men but in her diary entries we also see the signs of the level of romantic love that was popular at this time. She appears to have a very close nit family, which we can see in her letters to and from her children. maybe i missed something, but why was there a decrease in remarriage that was previously more prevalent? did they think that marriage absolutely had to be a romantic engagement and that the idea of a practical marriage was completely gone? - Will Hechmer<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Chapter 8 – School and Mill'''<br />
<br />
<br />
== Eliza Ann Mulford, “Rules of the School,” 1814 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “A Rationale for Female Education,” 1819 ==<br />
I think this work is interesting because Emma Willard's goal was to educate women on the same subjects that were taught at men's colleges. She was profound in using such words as national prosperity, national and unparalleled glory, a nation wise, and to defend her liberties, to persuade members of the legislature. I think she meant that it was essential to educate women in a way to maintain these liberties. I think when she refered to the shackles that the revolution removed from the nation she also compared the shackles to that on women. She made it evident that it was important to focus on educating women on moral and intellectual importance than frivolous things like dress and fashion. I think she thought women had an obligation to their children, family, and themselves and she took it very seriously - so should those determining education of women. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
== Miss Burnham’s Report, “A Choctaw Mission School,” 1824 ==<br />
As I was reading Miss Burnam's Report, I kept thinking why would the parents of the Native American children bring them to this school? Choctaws were more civilized into American cultures than before but I don't think enough to want to send their children off with strangers that taught a different way of life. I think those parents (in order to survive) knew this was the only way to protect their children and to merge them into American society in a peaceful way. In Miss Burnam's report, she mentioned difficulties with some of the children. They would get emotional because they felt their brother or sister was not getting the same treatment as them. The children were compassionate and concerned for their families. Learning about God gave them a sense of being a sinner and being forgiven, and this made them feel guilty because in the eyes of what they were being taught, it meant their families were sinners. One of the girls said her family was all bad and another girl said her brother was stupid and she worried about him. I think these children were torn by what they learned as young children with their families and what was new and unknown. When your young it sometimes makes it easier to adapt. I think some of these girls adapted well, loved their teachers and attached themselves to them because that did not have their parents around. The teacher became more like a parent to them. - Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
<br />
After reading this report, I compared Native Americans leaving their children at the school to parents leaving their children at college. In both cases it is hard for child and parent, and for a first time generation college student it is even more of an eye opener, much like the Native American children. They were unfamiliar with customs, scared to leave parents, felt they had different treatment than other family memebers, and turned to teachers (college case professors) for guidance and someone to rely on when away from home. I agree with Marsha the children were torn and unsure how to react in a new place with strangers. With time I feel the girls adjusted well and were able to learn and feel comfortable with their surroundings. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Letters from Teachers, “Reports on Western Schools,” 1847 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Rules of the Mill from Lowell and Lancaster, 1820-1840 ==<br />
Although the ability to seek work in a new town, independent of family could be seen as an advancement for young women of the early nineteenth-century, I thought the rules of the Lowell textile mills seemed to echo our old friend patriarchy. These female workers were clearly at the bottom of the power hierarchy beneath the factory management, overseer, and the boarding house keepers. They appeared to have very little freedom of movement or actions. I was curious if these rules would have been different if the Lowell factories had a male workforce. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== Harriet Farley, “A Letter from Lowell,” 1844 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== The Voice of Industry, “A Spirit of Protest,” 1846 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Chapter 9 – Western Frontiers'''<br />
<br />
<br />
== Amelia Stewart Knight, “Crossing the Plains,” 1853 ==<br />
<br />
== Mary Ballou, “A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush,” 1852 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Petitions of the Cherokee Women’s Council on Removal, 1817, 1818 ==<br />
The Cherokee women who composed this address spoke of the great injustice of being forced to move beyond the Mississippi. These women said that they have done what white Americans had wanted: many converted to Christianity, they farmed, and educated their children, sometimes sending them to missionary schools. However, I think these women’s action of addressing the male leaders about a political issue is more reminiscent of Native American women’s traditional gender roles before contact. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== Sarah Winnemucca, “Life Among the Paiutes,” 1883 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== A Sioux Tale, “A Woman Kills Her Daughter” ==</div>Whechmerhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_4_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 4 Questions/Comments-327 092009-09-17T02:00:50Z<p>Whechmer: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-source questions/comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Anne Bradstreet, “A Spiritual Autobiography,” ~1670 ==<br />
<br />
Anne Hutchinson is now one of my top 10 favorite women in history. The overall summary of her trial is stated on page 103: she was charged with dishonoring the community fathers, of holding meetings at her home in a manner inappropriate to her sex, and of insulting ministers at a private conference by accusing them of laboring under a Covenant of Works. Anne Hutchinson then admits having a revelation where God told her that he would destroy her prosecutors. This was considered heresy. Anne was then sentenced to banishment from the jurisdiction. Overall, I just found the trial to be hilarious. Some of the accusations were such a stretch. I especially enjoyed the accusation that Anne broke the law of the fifth commandment, honoring your mother and father. It took me a minute to figure out that that they actually thought that this meant honoring the “fathers of the commonwealth” (seriously!? …Yes) the governor states on page 105, “if they be the fathers of the commonwealth, and they of another religion, if you entertain them then you dishonor your parents and are justly punishable.” …wow….<br />
I was also surprised at how blunt the puritan men were about the status of women. When Anne Hutchinson was being sentenced, the governor states: “Mrs. Hutchinson, the sentence of the court you hear is that you are banished from out of our jurisdiction as ''being a women not fit for our society''….” Harsh words. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I had one main question when reading the trial, I had no idea what a Covenant of Works was. I googled it, and I came up with this definition:<br />
<br />
The covenant of works is God's promise to Adam. In return for perfect obedience, he would merit God's reward. The reward in this covenant does not result from grace; rather, it is a debt owed to Adam for keeping his part of the covenant. Unfortunately, Adam failed to keep the covenant and "after the fall, the free gifts on which salvation depends were withdrawn, and natural gifts corrupted and defiled" (Calvin). [[http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/novel_18c/defoe/puritanism.html#works]]<br />
<br />
However, I am still confused as to what Anne Hutchinson was being charged with. She was charged with accusing ministers of laboring under a Covenant of Works. What exactly does that mean? -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I was also confused about what that means. I know Dr. M said in class that she was charged with saying bad things about the ministers and going against the church so I'm guessing that is what that means. -- Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
When I read Anne Bradstreet’s spiritual autobiography, I was amazed by the necessity of Puritans to deny their individual wants, needs, and rationale. Anne described joining the church as ‘submitting’. When Anne was sick, she said God was trying to humble her. Then once God finally granted Anne children, she began a new struggle to extinguish their individuality and worked “till Christ bee formed in you [her children].”(pg 100) Given this context, one can see that an individual thinking on his/her own, such as Anne Hutchinson, was very radical and seen as dangerous. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
I was surpised in this article that Anne Bradstreet considered whether the Catholic doctrine was right when she herself was a Puritan (she decides to stick with her Puritan beliefs) but that moment of questioning was interesting to me, especially given the violent history that Catholics and Protestants had in the previous century and the mistrust that each side had for the other. - Will Hechmer<br />
<br />
== Anne Hutchinson’s trial, 1637 ==<br />
Regarding Anne Hutchinson's Trial<br />
I find it interesting that whenever the governor asks her a question that she rebukes it. In particular, when the governor asks her why she keeps a meeting at her house on a set day. She responds that is lawful for her to do so. Implying that she has not broken any law and then puts "unlawful act" in his lap by saying "can you find a warrant for yourself and condemn me for the same thing?" Meaning do you not have a religious meetings in your home. She is witty and clever with her words in proving her case. The governor seems to stumble to find fault towards her act of meeting. With each question the governor asked she has a rebuttal. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
Anne Hutchinson’s transgressions seemed to take on a deeper significance to Puritan leaders because of her gender. Not only did she express a different, radical theology, she, a woman, preached this theology to men. When the court asked her if she taught men, Anne Hutchinson artfully replied that she was teaching the men of the court at that very moment. To these leaders, Anne Hutchinson threatened their religion and their patriarchal social order where women never had authority over men. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
The transcript of Anne Hutchinson’s trial had me wondering about the recording techniques of the 17th century. How did they go about making courtroom transcripts? It’s not like they had recording equipment. I really doubt anyone could have written fast enough to keep up with everything everyone was saying. You’d have to be the Jesse Owens of scribes to keep up with some of those long monologues of Anne Hutchinson. Did they have several people recording at the same time? Or maybe the transcriber just asked everyone to speak really slowly? All kidding aside, that brings up issues of how accurate and trustworthy these trial records are. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== Lancashire, England Women’s Meeting structure, Quaker women in 1675 ==<br />
The Quakers seemed to give equality more of a chance than Puritans. This document reiterates many common themes of female inferiority. Women were weaker and they needed to stay at home with their families. However, this epistle ends in a way that really strengthened women. The female authors of this document asserted that God could make the weak strong and even used a masculine, military analogy. Puritans would never refer to women as “valliant Souldiers of Jesus Christ” or arm them with “Armour of Light” and “the Sword of his Eternal Spirit.” (pg 113) -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
Although the Quakers did give women a more active role, it seemed like the women's meetings were more for the purpose of policing each other. They had the "authority" to "Judge" and "Condemn" those who had done something wrong. So, were all of these matters dealt with just among the women's meetings or were there some offenses that were brought before the men's and women's meetings jointly? There is also a reference to the "new Covenant." Is this a distinct belief difference as opposed to the "covenant of works" (referred to in Anne Hutchinson's trial)? -Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
== David Brainerd, 1746, account of the Great Awakening ==<br />
<br />
A Remarkable Instance of Awakening-Woloch Reading<br />
The ideas ministers had during the Great Awakening seize to amaze me, as in David Brainerd's case he really did believe he was saving the young Indian woman. "This was indeed a suprising day of God's power, and seemed enough to convince an atheist of the truth, importance, and power of God's word." He believed her not being able to control herself nor speak to anyone was a sign that God had reached her and the Anglo way of life was coming forward in Native American culture. My question is did Native Americans really wish to conform? Or did they see it as a way to avoid confrontation, when they were now outnumbered by the settlers? But overall did ministers think they were reaching all the people they saw as "uncivilized"? -Megan W. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Narrative of Old Elizabeth, published in 1863 when she was 97, about her religious conversion in the 1770s. ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Elizabeth Godman lawsuit (1653); Elizabeth Godman tried for witchcraft, 1655 ==<br />
<br />
I understand that it was a completely different time and that the Puritans and other early colonists believed in witchcraft. But, when I started reading this story it almost made me laugh. Mr. Atwaters had dreams about witches while his son was sick so that made him think that a witch made his son sick. It just seems so crazy to me. I was also surprised that Elizabeth could sue her neighbors for calling her a witch. I guess since this instance was before the 1692 witch trials in Salem Village, maybe it wasn't taken so seriously. Why do you think Elizabeth Godman's situation was different from the witch trials in Salem Village?--Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought the claims against Elizabeth Godman along with the fact that she filed a lawsuit was interesting. Many of the people claiming she was a witch seemed to think that their pigs or chickens died because of her; because she was a witch. I thought that was comical. I liked the fact that she was able to sue them too. The time of the trial was before the Salem Witch trials so maybe that is why the claims did not have enough justification. I am sure if they were made in 1692 she would have lost the case. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Bridget Bishop convicted of witchcraft 1692; “Casco Girls” accuse George Burroughs, 1692 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
The Salem witch trials I could not help but wonder where they came up with the ridiculous accusations, pigs dying after a visit from a women equaled her being a witch, did any of the citizens ever consider alternatives? I think the magistrate felt they were given a power and to secure general security they would convict a woman for looking at a child the wrong way or muttering a prayer seen as an incantation. In the case of Bridget Bishop, I did wonder did she wish to be seen as a witch?Or did all of the offenses against her make the claim of her being a witch come true? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I agree that they really do jump to conclusions. It is like they think there could be no other possible reason why the pigs died. I think it goes back to what we talked about in class, that maybe the accusers were accusing people of witchcraft to show that they are holy. Because only the truly holy people could recognize evil? Religion is such a huge influence on the NE colonists. I think that cases like Bridget Bishop and George Burroughs show just how strong that influence was. --Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
== Elizabeth Sandwith Drinker, wealthy Philadelphia woman, diary – 1758-1794 ==<br />
<br />
I think Elizabeth Sandwith Drinker's diary entries really reflect the discrepancies between the experiences of different colonial women, as a result of race, social and class status, geographic location, etc. Elizabeth is described as a "wealthy Philadelphian", and thus I think her accounts and experiences differ dramatically from those of other women- not just women living in different regions or areas (i.e., the Southern colonies), but also in her own town. For example, Karin Wulf describes the "Hucksters" in Philadelphia who were "at the lower end of the scale" (p.101) and would purchase second-hand or damaged goods and then re-sell them on the city streets as a way to earn money. Conversely, Elizabeth describes the work that others are doing for her: "Phebe Morris here this Afternoon fitting a Gown for me...", "George Baker drove up Polly Campbell, whome I have hir'd this day to tind my little Henry...". She also describes the frequent comings-and-goings of different maids in her service. Her experiences are in stark contrast to the every-day experiences and lives of the female slaves on Landon Carter's Virginia plantation,whom he refers to as "sordid creatures" (p.83). Carter states, "I have ordered the wench to be tyed up and severely slashed to keep her care if possible; but I am afraid it will not be long enough remembered." (p.83) From these excerpts, the reader can safely conclude that Elizabeth was leading a very different life than those of African American female slaves. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
== Landon Carter complains about his female slaves (1771-1773) ==<br />
You can read throughout his complaints, he sees himself to be superior to them, calling them "absurd" and "lazy and careless." As he complains about how someone must be there when they are cutting down the tobacco or they will do it wrong. Is someone around to show his slaves how to properly do it or explain to them? I'm sure the complaints of slaves being in pain are legitimate and Landon Carter is just not sympathetic to their aches and pains. He disregards their complaints and treats them like work horses. He says they need a "good whipping" and that will make the pain go away as it cured Mrs. Dairy Mary's "invisible pain in her hip." Then eventually he admits that no matter what the punishment they still will not work well because they are negros. I think that during that time that negro slaves were looked at inferior to the white colonists but what was the degree of treatment of slaves? Was Landon Carter's assumption about negro slaves generally agreed upon or was he the exception? When I read George Washington Assigns Work to His Slaves, there wasn't any comments about slaves being mistreated. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
Landon Carter’s diary showed that he was frustrated with what he saw as the stupidity and laziness of his slaves. I think it is more likely that these slaves were engaged in a passive aggressive resistance to his authority. A slave woman such as Sicely, the cowkeeper, had very little control over her own life, but she could ruin her master’s day by allowing a cow to wander into a swamp. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
<br />
Landon Carter must have been extremely annoyed and fed up with his female slaves to record their laziness and his agitation in his journal so often. He mentioned the women being over dramatic, claiming they are sick but in actuality are not, and being bored with their work so mistakes are made. To me,he doesn't seem like a "typical" southern slave owner. Most would force their slaves to do work and not except excuses for their laziness. He seemed to be giving up in his last entry claiming that he can't do anything to train them to do their work. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
Landon Carter is a whiner. He complains when his slaves make mistakes and whips them to help them remember to do their jobs right. I do not understand how he can think that will make them work harder. To me that would just make me angry and I would do worse then I did before. I guess maybe he tried to help Mary Mcginis daughter but that was not really help. When things do not get done it could be for another reason then they were lazy. He is so arrogant and feel superior to his slaves. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== George Washington's slave list (1786) and slave work assignments (1786-88) ==<br />
I thought it was a bit odd the way some of the work assignments were referred to. The reference "all the plows...were plowing the Corn and the Hoes weeding it" seems like the people doing the work were just pieces of equipment. - Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
I found George Washington’s listing his slaves to be rather interesting. He seemed to be very much aware of all of them. He knew all of their names, though of course the majority had no surnames, and jobs. He also knew which children went with what parent, listed by their mother not father, and how old these children were. Were all slave owners so knowledgeable of their slaves? Or was this common practice, along the lines of knowing all the details of your property? It did seem like GW was simply cataloging his property more than anything, particularly when he listed some slaves as blind, lame, or old. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== Eulalia Perez Recalls her work in a mission in Spanish CA in early 19th Century (1877) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Karin Wulf, “Women’s Work in Colonial Philadelphia,” 2000 ==<br />
<br />
Karin Wulf concludes her article by stating that "work", especially for women of 18th Century Philadelphia and other urban cities, became "an important source of personal and community identity." (p.103) She continues by arguing that many workers identified with their work, especially if it "enmeshed them in networks of obligation and association." I am wondering if a colonial woman's perception and close identification of her work as being related to her place in the larger community is resulting from a sense of wanting to feel "needed" by others, especially if the woman who was working (either outside or inside the home) was single or a widow. Perhaps work offered such women a means of fulfillment- a way to feel that they had an obligation and responsibility to fulfill to the larger community. I'm not sure if I am making much sense. I guess I am thinking that upon the death of their husbands, or if they were single and did not have any children, working allowed such women to feel that they were "needed" (I can't think of a better word)and could contribute to the community and society in their own way. I think exploring the emotions and motivations of the women to take up work would be very interesting, though probably difficult to research. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
Karin Wulf describes how women made money despite the fact that they were not really to work the men were. Retailing was huge for women in colonial times. Wulf says that women could have made up half of the retailing business and I find that interesting because there are still more women in retail then there are men. I like how she pointed out that even rich widows worked shopkeepers at high end stores. Women from all social classes made money. Most women needed income after they became widows because their husbands did not leave them their entire inheritance. Most of that would go to there sons. I like this article because we are not taught that much about how women made money in colonial times. -LeAnn Taggart</div>Whechmerhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_3_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 3 Questions/Comments-327 092009-09-10T02:40:28Z<p>Whechmer: </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 />
== 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 />
== 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 />
== 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 />
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 />
== 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 />
== 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 />
== 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 />
<br />
Abigale Bailey's piece was quite disturbing. I felt that after reading about so much virtue, 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 />
== New Spain’s (New Mexico’s) moral code as dictated by the Spanish Crown in 1752 ==<br />
<br />
<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 />
== 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 />
<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>Whechmerhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_2_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 2 Questions/Comments-327 092009-09-03T02:37:37Z<p>Whechmer: </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 />
<br />
<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 />
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 />
== 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 />
<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 />
== 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 />
<br />
<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 />
<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 />
<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 />
== Mary Musgrove assists the Georgians in Dealing with the Choctaws, 1734 & Mary Musgrove Seeks aid for past service from GA, 1747 ==<br />
<br />
<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 />
== Father Le Jeune on necessity of teaching native women, 1633 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Native women resist Jesuits, 1640 ==<br />
<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 />
== 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</div>Whechmer 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