View source for Week 3 Questions/Comments-327 09

== Overarching/comparative comments ==


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

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)

== Katherine Kish Sklar article, “To Use her as His Wife” ==

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


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

== Benjamin Wadsworth, 1712 – Well-Ordered Family ==
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

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.

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.

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

Benjamin Wadsworth’s description of marriage seemed ironic. Marriage was meant to involve mutual affection, yet the husband was always in charge of the wife and the wife was always supposed to be obedient to the husband. I thought the end of Wadsworth’s account was funny because he reminded women that although they really may be superior to their husbands in intelligence, wealth, and class, God still intended them to be ruled by these stupid, poor, common men. That made me wonder if Puritans considered gender roles more binding than social class. -Allison Luthern

== Susanna Wesley, 1732, Evangelical Child-Rearing ==
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.

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

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

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)

== Eliza Pinckney, 1750s, To Improve in Every Virtue ==
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


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


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

== Esther Burr, 1756-57, Tied hand and foot ==
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

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

We talked about the people of the Chesapeake forming networks of mutual aid beyond family because extended kin was very rare. In New England, families have more strength, but there are still societal similarities to the Chesapeake. New England colonists had extended networks, particularly expressed through friendships, as seen with Esther Burr and her friend Sally Prince. Gossip certainly had a powerful role in maintaining or ruining reputations, with the extreme being represented in the Salem Witch Trials. And of course, these friendships and close knit community resulted in meddling. Esther seemed very much interested in her friend’s personal life, and apparently Mr. Burr had a great love for matchmaking (which is stereotypically regarded as a feminine trait, making for entertaining reading). However, Sally seemingly had a certain measure of control in being able to avoid the man courting her, though societal norms, represented in this case by Ester and her reprimands, were pushing her towards marriage. -- Taylor Brann

== Abigail Bailey, 1815, Abominable Wickedness ==
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.  
-Marsha Himes


Abigale Bailey's piece was quite disturbing. I felt that after reading about so much virtue in Eliza Pincknery's piece and the Susanna Wesley's letter's concerning religious practices and child-rearing, this piece was juxtaposed to the previous documents. It is not shocking that a man, a father in 1815 could virtually get away with molestation and incest, especially since as Mr. B noted, that Abigale was "under his legal control". It just illustrates the hard lines drawn between the genders and how women, who seemed to have at least a modicum of control in the child rearing and household affairs actually had no say at all. I felt proud of Abigale to vocalize her fears and suspicions at the cost of her reputation and, as she felt her safety. - Caryn Levine

I thought An abominable wickedness written by Abigail Bailey was very fascinating. An abominable wickedness was about Abigial Bailey finding out that husband had slept with one of their children. First off that is really sick to think that the father would sleep with one of their own children. In early 19th century America there was little that Abigail Bailey could do about this horrible situation.  She did not have prove that her husband was having a relationship with one of their daughters and also she could not get her daughter to testify against him. Also even if she did have information against her husband the Massachusetts Court would have sided with the men and not the women. Her memoir also discusses that when marriages failed it was exceptionally hard on women.  Couples would try to reconcile their differences but if they couldn’t they would need to separate.  Why was it extremely hard for women to obtain divorces? Nick Jesionka

I was mortified by women’s inability to protect their own children from the authority of their husbands. Abigail Bailey rightly suspected misbehavior on the part of her husband but she could not even share her fears with anyone. However, eventually Abigail Bailey reminded her husband that a marriage was supposed to be mutually beneficial.  Although she was under his complete authority, he promised her fidelity and protection. You could almost detect the triumph in her tone when she asserted that she was seeking a separation because he did not hold up his end of the bargain. -Allison Luthern

== New Spain’s (New Mexico’s) moral code as dictated by the Spanish Crown in 1752 ==



== Laws on Slave Descent in VA and MD, 1662, 1664, 1691, 1692 ==

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)

== Skilled slaves in Maryland, 1748-1763, Maryland Gazette ==


== Complaint of Elizabeth Sprigs, indentured servant, 1756 ==
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

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

== Apprenticeship in PA, 1771-1773, Record of Indentures ==
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

== Advertisements, Gazettes of VA, PA, SC, NY – 1751-1776 ==
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


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.