Difference between revisions of "Week 8 Questions/Comments-327 11"
From McClurken Wiki
(→New England Divorce, CT, 1655-1678; MD, 1680) |
(→Suzanne Lebsock, The Free Women of Petersburg) |
||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
As Lebsock notes, "Women, more than men, noticed and responded to the needs and merits of particular persons." (142) Throughout this reading, Lebsock emphasized this point. What I find most interesting about the reading, though, is the manner in which it seemed (to me, anyway) that Lebsock almost danced around a fairly obvious point while describing attitudes about slavery and slaves, without coming out and saying it. For me, after reading Mary Cumming's description of her specific slaves ("...Mary is a pretty good worker at her needle, she is now sitting beside me making a slip for herself" (139)) it seemed so patently obvious to me that women's more individualistic approach to slaves was due to their far greater and more meaningful interactions with slaves. While Lebsock goes part of the way--discussing, as Stef mentions, women's increasing likelihood to personalize their wills relative to their actual relationships, not custom or law--she fails to explore why that was the case. While men would interact with slaves more fleetingly, while in transit, overseeing work, or giving orders, it was not--as far as I know--uncommon for white women and their slaves to be performing household tasks at the same time, and in the same location. That is the exact set of circumstances that can lead to regular discussion, to feelings of intimacy, and to a meaningful individual relationship. That seemed even clearer to me when compared with men like Edmund Ruffin, the proslavery apologist who--almost intentionally, it seems--omitted any mention of his slaves from his otherwise intensely personal writings. For Ruffin, his interactions with slaves ("...yanking off his boots, one imagines, stirring up his woodstove, serving his suppers"(140)) tended to be shorter, single-action based interactions, unlike the prolongued interactions between white women and their slaves (as with Cummings, sitting beside her slave while one wrote a letter and the other sewed). -- Nicole | As Lebsock notes, "Women, more than men, noticed and responded to the needs and merits of particular persons." (142) Throughout this reading, Lebsock emphasized this point. What I find most interesting about the reading, though, is the manner in which it seemed (to me, anyway) that Lebsock almost danced around a fairly obvious point while describing attitudes about slavery and slaves, without coming out and saying it. For me, after reading Mary Cumming's description of her specific slaves ("...Mary is a pretty good worker at her needle, she is now sitting beside me making a slip for herself" (139)) it seemed so patently obvious to me that women's more individualistic approach to slaves was due to their far greater and more meaningful interactions with slaves. While Lebsock goes part of the way--discussing, as Stef mentions, women's increasing likelihood to personalize their wills relative to their actual relationships, not custom or law--she fails to explore why that was the case. While men would interact with slaves more fleetingly, while in transit, overseeing work, or giving orders, it was not--as far as I know--uncommon for white women and their slaves to be performing household tasks at the same time, and in the same location. That is the exact set of circumstances that can lead to regular discussion, to feelings of intimacy, and to a meaningful individual relationship. That seemed even clearer to me when compared with men like Edmund Ruffin, the proslavery apologist who--almost intentionally, it seems--omitted any mention of his slaves from his otherwise intensely personal writings. For Ruffin, his interactions with slaves ("...yanking off his boots, one imagines, stirring up his woodstove, serving his suppers"(140)) tended to be shorter, single-action based interactions, unlike the prolongued interactions between white women and their slaves (as with Cummings, sitting beside her slave while one wrote a letter and the other sewed). -- Nicole | ||
| + | |||
| + | In this article I found it interesting that Mary Bolling was able to pick and choose who she wanted her estate to go to. I thought that the first male would get everything, boy was I wrong. I also thought that she was a smart lady by investing in many different things to grow her estate for her children and her grandchildren. Not only was she making money she also knew the law and tried to have a stipulation in her will saying that if the Shore’s bring suit against her, her daughter Ann would receive nothing. I also was amused to know that even in the early 1800’s (around 1819) people were still getting swindled out of their money. Then it was tradesmen and slaves on women, and now its telemarketers and mail order items on elderly people. I also felt for Mary Read Anderson. She was never taught the ins and outs of business, so she always relied on a man and she “was to emphasize womanly weakness in order to justify her dependence on a male protector.”(Women Alone, 119)--Pam Petzold | ||
== Malefactors and Complainants == | == Malefactors and Complainants == | ||
