I also found it interesting that the sight of blood or an amputation did not bother Cornelia, but the thought of writing home to the wives of these soldiers is something that upset her very much.

This declaration actually surprised me. I know that it was a turning time for the participation of women politically, but she even states that women would still typically adopt the political beliefs of their husbands. Would she be included in this notion, women adopt the political ideology, and her understanding of what a war effort as a woman would entail?

in the opening of her letter to her cousin, Cornelia states that she was out in the field, was she one of the few women who were allowed on the battlefields? I also found it interesting that although the war had been going on for nearly two years already, she was able to stay so close to her brother's infantry.

that she mentions that not being able to fight has made her regret being a woman for the first time. I'm sure many other girls/women felt that way, much of which was not documented.

Did Sarah Morgan truly understand what the Civil War was being fought over? She does not mention slavery once, only that she values Southern Rights

I was surprised at Ada's reaction to the two Yankee soldiers in the hospital.

Bacot was not the quintessence of hospitality just because she was a woman, she had an opinion about the war just like any man who was fighting

Her point about people not knowing how much African American women helped during the war, is also something most people probably do not think about today either. Taylor says these things should be kept in history for people but still rarely are we ever taught about it.

How would the efforts of these women in teaching the freedmen been taken by the local whites? Their accounts mentioned how the freedmen were eager to learn to read and write, but the reactions to them being taught were not openly discussed in these accounts

. Anderson's account also gives us an interesting perspective against the Lost Cause: the Federal troops in North Carolina would have been Sherman's troops passing through towards Raleigh, and like we've heard so much before, Sherman's men take the plantation's food. But rather than simply wanton stealing, Sherman's forces share the provisions with slaves and shake their hands. Lost Causers would have us believe Sherman's men marched with devilish horns poking from their heads and stole simply to steal.

I think the masters may have sought out their former slaves because they may have still believed in antebellum notions of race, namely that blacks could not survive without the help of their masters. It was a good master's duty to take care of the slaves. The former masters may have found calling their slaves home to be spiritually redemptive after the demoralizing experience of losing the war. Regaining some of their former slaves as servants and sharecroppers provided a way for the former masters to revert to the antebellum status quo of being the "good" masters who kept helpless African Americans alive.

This account also reveals that even after slaves were free they still faced hardship. They faced so much that they returned to their masters.

how many slavers managed to extend their ownership by playing off their former slaves' poverty, illiteracy, and isolation from society.

I wonder if the former master continued supporting this woman each month as a method of reestablishing patriarchy. The Civil War was an emasculating experience for southern men, so perhaps he was reasserting his masculinity by demonstrating that he still had the financial means and the generosity to support his former female slave. The former master's behavior displays a form of negative reciprocity. He sought to make the former slave indebted to him so he could reestablish a type of control over her.

Was this an usual practice following the war?

Clarissa Burdett feels as though the army owes her because her husband enlisted. She blames the army for the beating she received from her master after her husband's enlistment. Her piece made me wonder what the army could do for her? Would they have stormed the master's plantation and taken the children? Or were they too caught up in actually war that they ignored her pleas? How much did they care about the actually slaves versus how much was the war about the ideology of slavery.

Harriet Tubman's biographer wrote her speech just like she would have heard Tubman say it. Would these biographers of freed slaves have written poor white womens' speech in the same way? --Mae D'Amico The biographer's prejudices towards African Americans was sometimes clear in the language she told used, such as calling them "simple people" and "wretches." Therefore I wonder what Harriet Tubman thought of how her story was written by this woman or whether she acknowledged that it came from the culture of the time?

The women who cried with joy at the news that her master's house had fallen showed the hatred slave women felt towards their masters and particularly towards them after they committed the crime of splitting up a family. It also shows how slave women could resist their slavery through lying and other small transgression

I thought it was quite interesting how all of these accounts differed. However the one account that I thought was quite striking was of the woman who stayed with her master's family three years after she was free in order to keep the children she looked after safe. How common are stories such as hers?

I feel that this account really shows some of the reasons behind the animosity towards the North that existed in the South after the war. Families that used to be very well off were "utterly destitute" and barely getting by.

In a situation like Jackson’s it seems that if they slaves really wanted to they could easily take over the farm for themselves. Did this ever happen on plantations or were slaves content with the growing power they had on the plantation and control over the mistresses? And did slaves on southern plantations ever help and protect their mistresses?

When Livermore came across a woman working in the fields and began talking with her, she asked "You are not German? You are surely one of my own countrywomen-- American?" This just points out the stereotypes and class and ethnic issue and assumptions of the time. It was expected to find German women working outside, but not American women.

Livermore's account makes it clear that the women working in the fields considered themselves as much a part of the war effort as "[their] boys on the battle-field." The recognized the importance of continued production of the homefront to the nation's ability to wage war.

dinner was at 12 and supper was at 5

She says that she hopes that she looks motherly to them, is this because she wanted to seem as non-sexual as possible or because she wanted them to trust them?

Alcott's account is interesting for a couple of different reasons. One is the fact that the first casualties that Alcott had to face came from the Battle of Fredericksburg in December, 1862. The men she was caring for may well have been wounded from shots fired from what is today campus. Second is the fact that many looked to Alcott as a mother-figure; at only 30 Alcott is somewhat discomfited by it, but in front of her were likely 20-somethings, looking for a helping hand hundreds of miles from home with horrible injuries that are hard to imagine.

After reading her descriptions of the unhealthy conditions of the hospitals, I wonder if it is it known how many nurses, doctors, etc. died working in these hospitals?.

Also, I am shocked and impressed by which Alcott endures the suffering she sees. She describes these horrid scenes and events, but she never seems to fearful or phased. How immune to gore would women like her have been? Or is it just her writing style that prevents the true effects of the horror to show through?

Similar to Courtney's question, I was wondering how women like Louisa May Alcott felt about being hired under those criteria? By being hired she is labeled as plain, and therefore unattractive. This fact, however, seems to have no effect on her whatsoever. I am curious about the self-esteem of women of these times

Dix’s description just reiterates that women were supposed to be moral beacons. To me the age range, sober, hard-working and moral aspects make sense. However, I do not understand why nurses had to be single and “plain-looking.” Today we look at nurses as nurturing mother figures and if they were single with no kids they would not have had that experience. When I saw “plain-looking” I was wondering if they saw beauty as a distraction and a curse in society among women. Did beauty correlate with sinful behavior and immoral behavior? I also find it ironic that nurses can be considered a sexual and much feminized job.

Some women were motivated to nursing by patriotism and other by caregiving instincts. Generally, I was wondering how nurses (and armies in general) felt about nursing the enemy soldiers? Were their instances where an army would refuse treatment to a soldier, but a nurse went out of her way to aid him? Or were their women who refused to help enemy solider because of their loyalty?

It was not surprising that society was hesitant about allowing women to lecture and give public speeches. However, I did not know that some African American men were also trying to stop women from speaking even when they were speaking on antislavery and trying to help the cause. Did some African American men want women to stay out of their business from fear that they would hurt their cause?-Courtney Collier I thought it was interesting how the values of society trickled down, with women expected to not speak at public speeches against slavery. To some extent I understand that black men did not want black women to undermine them, perhaps because they felt they got enough of that from society, but it was quite odd to read about. -Kearsten Lehman I wonder how much of the resistance to women speaking out in public about anti-slavery had to do with the ideas of the separate public and private spheres instead of African men being concerned with women hurting their cause to end slavery. Does the expectation of them not speaking out against slavery have to do with inherent purity and what not that was seen with the eventual societa

"Women formed the backbone of the movement, and without their involvement, as William Lloyd Garrison JR, recognized, the leaders would have been powerless" (152). While Garrison's comments were made in 1847, a time when slavery was being spread through the Mexican-American War, rather than being hindered, Jeffrey comes close to ignoring individuals who came later. Throughout the 1850s the Abolitionist movement had a a new burst of life through the Jayhawks in Kansas, the Secret Six, John Brown, and a multitude of others whose actions can hardly be described as anything but the backbone of the abolition movemen

think Hale was voicing a prominent conservative response to the suffrage movement. I believe that many women, especially those of middle-class were so heavily invested in Republican Motherhood and the cult of domesticity as the way women should behave that they opposed suffrage. They believed that voting would bring women into the men's public sphere which was too aggressive for pure, refined, delicate women.

I thought this was really interesting, particularly the quote "I control seven votes; why should I desire to cast one myself". It makes me wonder if women actually really felt that way or if men were putting these ideas in their heads to placate them. This concept also seems like a remnant of republican motherhood to me. -Dana Nordling Did men give women the idea that if they trust their country and the men who are voting that everything will work out?? I question whether all women thought this way. I understand that women could influence their husbands to vote in a certain way but did they always believe that they would actually do it? Is there any way of really knowing

Given the views on sexuality and gender during the 1830s, I can understand why people thought masturbation, particularly among girls, was a sin not a natural human activity. However, I find it interesting that the Female Moral Reform Society tries to attribute the ten-year-old girl's lack of academic success to masturbation while masturbation clearly did not impact the academic success of the theology student. I also find it interesting that they thought masturbation caused insanity and death in the theology student and other young men but sexual intercourse (and orgasms) did not have the same effects on the married women's husbands. Did the belief that masturbation was a sin originate in biblical interpretations?

The letter has a strange tone in the section where Graham says that one might read god's punishment into the suffering of the widows now that they must fend for themselves since they lived in careless luxury when their husbands were alive. She points out that they never needed to learn how to manage finances when they were married, but she still seems to think that it's a moral failing as she points out that "God forgives

Do you think that Henry Blackwell and Lucy Stone were radical? How much of what they said was all talk? Many people make crazy promises in their vows, why wouldn’t you promise to have an equalitarian marriage especially since the protest was not legally binding. I wonder how this marriage actually worked out? Part of me believes that because their daughter took on her father’s last name, Blackwell, rather than the mother’s, Stone, that technically the husband did have “control and guardianship of their children” (246).

Sojourner Truth's argument is nearly flawless against the treatment that women and black women in particular receive. However, the main problem that I had with this passage was the two forms her account came in. One version is written clearly and articulately while the other is not, which one is accurate I am not quite sure but that was probably meant to set Sojourner apart as different which was exactly the point she was arguing against. Her argument is that she, along with other women, deserves to be treated equally and not with disdain

While I appreciate the rhetoric of equality among men and women, I find it extremely ironic that this was written in 1848 when slavery was still legal in many states within America. This declaration only applies to white women, despite the emphasis on "inalienable rights.

I think formatting this declaration like the Declaration of Independence was a smart decision and it probably had something to do with the amount of attention it received.

I think that Sarah Grimke's response that dealt with the translation of the Bible was very clever. In this sense she was smart to argue women's rights through the possible misinterpretation of the Bible. Even today there are many different versions and people interpret them differently.

This letter is a good representation of beliefs about women being changed in the Second Great Awakening. The AFAS not only asserts that women are more pious than men, but that anti-slavery allies women across race lines.

I find it very interesting that the “responsibilities of women” that women were supposed to follow during this time was also used to support women abolitionists. Most of their reasoning on why women should be able to protest slavery seems to derive from religion. This is ironic to me because not long before religion was used to justify slavery. Is it because women were not seen as more moral and spiritual that they were able to use the word of God as a way to fight slavery?

When Stewart writes that "according to the Constitution of these United States, [God] hath made all men free and equal", it shows how the rhetoric of egalitarianism spread beyond the limits the Founders intended for it.

Were enslaved African American Women reading the Liberator? How much of the Liberator was being read by mixed audiences?

Although this account stresses the villainy of men, it really places most of the blame on the shoulders of the parents. It seemed as though the author was saying that men and even cities were villainous and full of debauchery, but there is not much they can do about that. Instead of trying to fix the cities where the problem lies, the blame falls on the parents, as “not having done their duty, in warning their child of the evil of sin, and the snares of the wicked” (235). I do not see how attacking the parents rather than the source of the problem would be helpful.

I don't understand why a man would trick a girl into leaving her home, and instead of marrying her, he just leaves her? Why not just stay where they originally lived and leave her?

The biblical allusions in this text (such as the one to the Good Samaritan) seem to line the reform movements up with God and holiness. Considering that they often used religion as a reason behind their causes, it is not surprising that it is sprinkled throughout their stories as a constant reminder of their moral obligation to these causes. - Amy Wallace Why was there animosity among moral reformers about circuses? -Suzannah C. Why are the letters published anonymously. Is it so that it would be harder to disprove the stories that they were telling? Or was there fear of backlash for what they were claiming to be doing?

In A Letter to the Liberator, O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!, Reply to the Massachusetts Clergy, and a few other of the readings used religion as a way to argue for women's rights. I find it interesting that religion and the Bible can be used and has been used as a means to explain why women are inferior and has also been used as to show why women should be equal. How did people react to these arguments that the Bible actually advocates for women to be equal?

Many of the anti-slavery sources come from the early decades of the nineteenth century; the latest is from 1852, the same year Uncle Tom's Cabin was published. What is there of literature closer to the explosion of the country in the 1860s? What are women saying of Bleeding Kansas or the spreading of slavery from the war with Mexico?

Unfortunately he did succumb to the patriarchal views of his time in that he viewed women as primarily asexual beings which made the top reason for prostitution in his study: Inclination being so shocking perhaps

I am skeptical of the category "inclination" in the list of reasons why women became prostitutes. Maybe "inclination" meant that the jobs available to women back then were so egregiously menial or that work was so hard to come by, that the last place to turn was prostitution

I was really interested in Sanger's study and was surprised by his findings. I think in many cases people can often associate prostitution with poverty or a desperate need for financial stability. In this study however, Sanger finds that one of the top reasons for New York prostitution was "Inclination" or pleasure. In his sample her used 62% were immigrants and I am curious if the European culture played a role in the women's answers? I assume that immigrants were not told to be anti-sexual in their society as American women were. Or was this a way for women to fight their stereotypes

I know we talked about the difference in how people saw the sexuality of white women and of black women. Reading this piece, I wonder if these military men thought the same way about Indian women as they did with Black women. At this time what are the perspectives of sexuality of women of other ethnic minorities?

While this occurs in California, the residents there could have known what was happening in other parts of the country with other Native Americans; in Minnesota a Sioux uprising had been ongoing since August and had already killed hundreds of civilians. Was it possible that the Californians were worried of an uprising by the Native Americans in retaliation of the rapes?

I found it interesting that someone reported this incident and called for the perpetrators of the rapes to have their statuses in the U.S army taken away.

The report of the rape had huge connotations within the garrison troops there. Rape was a capital offense within the Federal army during this period, and if the soldiers were identified, they could face a courts-martial and death. The newspaper is calling upon the Army to follow its own rules and seek justice against the perpetrators.

At first she says that she had no idea what the lady was saying but by the end of the reading she writes seems to understand what the lady was saying.

As a native Spanish speaker, I found it interesting that she translated all the words that she used in Spanish but failed to translate the phrase "mi alma". Mi alma means my soul, usually used as a term of endearment towards another. She also mentions her husband, I'm just curious as to if she was talking about her husband or if she was talking about another love. She is an 18 year old, so I wouldn't be surprised if she fell in love with someone else.

In Xin Jin's contract, it says that if she becomes pregnant, she must work another year. Were there high abortion rates among Chinese immigrant women working as prostitutes during this time? If so, did it have to be done in secret, or was this practice accepted? -Katherine Miller So she has a prostitution contract and in the contract it mentions that if she has the four loathsome diseases then she shall be returned; connecting this to the 'Major Problems" readings titled "Bills of Sale of Chines Prostitutes . . ." they mention four diseases as leprosy, epilepsy, conception, and "stone woman". I'm wondering if these are the same diseases as mentioned in Early American Women?

Is it known whether the majority of these women were actually released from their contracts of indenture?

This system of indentured prostitution seems like it would give very little opportunity after the indentured period was over. They were receiving no wages during this time and it was likely hard for immigrant women to find jobs after finishing. This may have resulted in many women remaining in prostitution after their service was over

In these accounts we read the term for a prostitution's service were roughly four years. Was that the norm for the Chinese society?

To me it seems as though because slavery was outlawed and men had had no more direct access to women who didnt really have much of a choice, this was the next best thing they could come up with.

How many of these women were truly aware of the nature of the contract they were signing?

because of the large amount of immigrants that came into the country, some of them had to have a positive experience and outlook, otherwise people would not have continued to come to the United States. Not all of the experiences had to be bad

Were immigrant women more likely to have a more positive experience out west than in the city? Is this account an exception to the common account of a single immigrant woman in a rural area?

Everything in this letter is so happy that the sincerity of the account should be questioned

I was shocked that Bessy’s family was more included to send their daughter than one of their sons. Was it Bessy’s ambition and willingness that resulted in her coming to America? Or, was it that the boys were required at home? – Kasey Moore I was curious why a prostitute would recruit a woman to become a prostitute, doesn’t that mean there is more competition for her/less money to be made? –Kasey Moore

Who was Sadlier? Why did she write this? What biases should we be watching out for?

What happened to mixed children that were so white they could pass off as white? There are cautionary tales in literature about just such people like in Pudd'nhead Wilson by Mark Twain and Absalom, Absalom! by William Faulkner, but what generally happened to the?.

After reading this week’s readings and the discussion in class, I am somewhat confused as how men were able to have interracial sex with their slaves and not get in trouble for it when it was against the law. Why did they bother to make the law in the first place if they were not going to enforce it? Or since slaves were considered property, did it really not matter how the owner treated them? Or was the law to keep white women and black men away from each other?

If it was mostly common for slaveholders to own only 5-6 slaves why is our common perception of slavery that of the large plantation? Is it because more slaves lived on lager plantations and we view it through that experience, or is there another reason?

Grimké states, "for even were slavery no curse to its victims, the exercise of arbitrary power works such fearful ruin upon the hearts of slaveholders, that I should feel impelled to labor and pray for its overthrow with my last energies and latest breath" (215).

This account was horrible to read. It not only describes the horrible treatment of slaves by their mistresses, but the hypocrisy of the fact that these mistresses professed themselves as Christians and gave to charities, while they treated their slaves inhumanely. The reason behind this contradiction was summed up in one sentence by Weld, "One who is a slaveholder at heart never recognizes a human being in a slave." To them, it was not hypocritical, because slaves were not people in their opinion.

After reading this account, I wonder how some people, such as Weld, were able to see the injustice and the cruelty inflicted upon African Americans, but others were not, and participated in the most heinous acts of violence. What was the public's reaction to this account? Would the Welds have faced any legal punishment for exposing such truth?

Given McCord's views, I would love to have seen her reaction to Reconstruction, particularly to the Reconstruction Amendments, African American public office holders, and African American education since former slaves clearly proved that they were not facing extinction or the menaces of civilization during this time period.

The point that enslaved black women were "genderless" until it suited the masters connects to the larger problems the feminist movement has had with excluding and oppressing black women to benefit middle to upper class white women.

I wonder if the rise in miscarriages among slave women in the Antebellum South was not solely caused by the over-working, malnutrition, and abuse of the women? Jennings mentions accounts of slaves chewing cotton roots to prevent conception and other substances to induce miscarriages. If abortions were common among slaves, how many of the miscarriages were self-inflicted as opposed to master or overseer related?

Not only does this document illustrate the conditions of African-American women during the civil war era, it also illustrates the pervasiveness of sexual assault within the slave community. Mrs. Virginia Hayes Shepard recounts her mother's story of an interracial sexual encounter, and it seems likely that it could have been sexual assault. She also speaks of Diana who was sexually assaulted and abused by her master, Gaskins. The power dynamic between white men and slave women was heartbreaking. -Katherine Miller That Diana was able to manipulate her own sale to subvert Gaskins' intentions shows that slaves were able to resist in limited but significant ways. Diana, "the sharpest black woman you ever saw", was still operating the framework of slavery, but she could indirectly influence that system. --Sarah Palmer

This document shows how deeply ingrained the ideas from the white middle class came to society.

This document makes me wonder about the relations between free blacks and enslaved. The writer seems to be compelling the other women to empathize with the slaves. Was this just the rhetoric of charity to remind people why they should spend more time with this cause or was there a divide between the two groups of African Americans?

It's easy for us to root for freedom from slavery these days; however, it's important to understand he meaning of "freedom" back in this period of time.

In Lucinda’s letter prior to Tuesday’s class I would have been shocked that an African-American woman would want to go back into slavery after having her freedom given to her by her late mistress. However, on Tuesday, we discussed how hard it would be for an African-American woman to make it on her own without slavery to shelter her and give her food. I can now see why she wanted to be with her husband instead of being free.

When you read Rose's account, one of the first things to pop out is the phonetic style of writing. This was very common, especially in the 1860s when Northerners were going south to fight the war, having their first experiences with blacks, and writing about their encounters. And yet, that same phonetic writing style is not present when dealing with white ethnicities,

In Rose William's account she says that the auction man said "What am I offer for dis portly, strong young wench. She's never been 'bused and will make de good breeder." Does this mean the man who sold her was advertising her solely for childbearing purposes? What the auction man would imply is that the buyer was under the idea that this was going to be her role.

Maybe long ago she knew it was all wrong, but then over time realized she had no power to change it . . . and then started doing opium?

This shows that even some of those that seem moral for opposing slavery were not doing it for reasons of equality as we might think today. Racism was so engrained in the culture that even those that opposed slavery were still racist. This is one of the reasons that free blacks still had many problems of discrimination.

While I do agree with these points about how interesting it is to hear from a woman at this time who was able to have some sort of compassion on the slaves that her family owned, I do not necessarily see Sarah rejecting the concept of slavery as a whole.

I found it interesting that Sarah was so passionate about a slave that she had. I knew that not every family that had slaves thought of them negatively but I found it interesting that a she would think so highly of a male slave. – Katie Way I find it interesting that Sarah still cares about Mike, one of her former slaves, years after he is sold. Just before he was sold, Sarah complains about Mike, how he has become "insolent and inattentive" (213). He even would retort that "he wanted him [the horse] too" when she told him that she wanted to use the horse left for her.

1. The relationship between husband and wife during this period (1828) can be seen as more romantic. The love between Sarah and her husband is more important that economic wealth evident when she states, “his profession will support us and it will not in the least mortify me, to in the humblest situation.” (212) Sarah is willing to give up her wealth in order to be with a man she feels compassion towards. 2. Sarah, also, describes that changing relationship between masters and slave owners, “I was not allowed to excessive tyranny or injustice of any sort toward them and the other side, the most implicit submission was exacted toward me. When I used improper language to them they went to my mother for redress- and if I commanded what was proper & reasonable they are not hesitate.

Was the Lakota society patriarchal? The tale reflects a matrilocal community, but the women are portrayed as the weakest characters, a trait of patriarchal societies. They show some characteristics attributed to white women. The mother is selfish, lustful, and easily gives in to her immoral desires

Was it rare for women to run boarding houses in this region? As far as I could discern from Mary Ballou's account, the area she lived in was populated by a variety of people belonging to numerous ethnic groups and that the majority of these people were men.

I agree with Katherine, they were so lucky to get their child back on the Oregon trail! It was also amazing to me how good of an attitude Knight seemed to keep on her journey . . . through losing her child , to dealing with drunk Native Americans , sick children and dead livestock. On top of all that she was pregnant the whole time

Was a report of bad behavior threatening to these girls? I assume most girls didn't need to be reemployed after they left that factory and were married

How do the very structured lives of the employees at Lowell contrast with the freedoms and openness that many women were pushing for? -Ryan Quint

They were trained to be nothing but moral, just, and nurturing. I never knew how much of a role Beecher played in the teacher train process.

Both teachers started schools for both boys and girls in relatively poor agricultural towns; what I think is interesting is that they both mention teaching parents through the “Domestic Economy”. Part of me thinks this was necessary in that you can’t educate a child who is improperly fed or has bad health. More importantly, habits need to start in the home so they can be reproduced in the next generations. The other part of me questions how much the parents willingly accepted the advice in “domestic economy” because one, a lot of advice wouldn’t apply to farmers and two, these teachers were writing to their benefactor.

On page 152 Sedgwick states "From my own experience I would not advise anyone to remain unmarried, for my experience has been a singularly happy one." I find it interesting that she didn't necessarily take the stance that all women should remain independent/unmarried. She recognized the hardships, judgement, and potential loneliness that came with being an unmarried woman.

It is an interesting argument that the education of a man determines his welfare, but it is the education of a woman that secures the family's interest. This puts the woman in a more powerful role than the man and legitimizes the need for her education. It is also interesting that Beecher does not discuss the intellectual equality of the sexes, as no gain would come from the decision. She instead encourages women to fulfill their duties to the high standards she puts forth

The best and most horrifying lines in her passage for me is where she describes the hurt feelings she receives from her husband, repressing a harsh answer, confessing fault, and and not defending herself are the "golden threads with which domestic happiness is woven."

What struck me the most from this passage was how relatable it could be today. The notions were of course extreme, but it was that view and treatment of women then, that has led to the mistreatment of women now.

I don't think the letter is solely unusual because Emma writes about love. Catharine Sedgwick wrote sexual entries in her journal during the same time period. I think both Emma's letter and Catharine's journal entry simultaneously reflect the freedom women had to express their views on romance while also revealing some of the negative consequences of Romanticism for women. Both pieces show the burdens placed on women now that they have almost the sole responsibility for choosing their husbands based on romantic values.

I thought that women who were school teachers weren't allowed to marry? Or did that practice come along later in the century?

It seems to me that the daily lives of women, the school, and the Lowell factory are all very similar in at least one aspect. All three follow very structured rules that repeat every day and every week. Nothing changes when they go to these places; they work from morning till night under extreme conditions. I guess it easier to control people with a set schedule is in place.

For the most successful book until Unlce Tom's Cabin you would want to hope that it would have a bigger positive impact for women, but i think that its success comes from the fact that it does not play into woman's push for more social and political power.

I thought Mademoiselle La Rue was a very interesting part to this late 18th century equation. She seemed like the last person a high paying parent would want educating their child. In the description, " . . . and on coming to England [La Rue] had lived with several different men in open defiance of all moral and religious duties . . ." , La Rue seems like the type of woman that is mostly left out in these late 18th century texts

Susanna Rowson is not just outlining the social concequences of absconding with an impertinant match, but the religious implications as well. Charlotte Temple, who's name is in itself a religious allusion to virtue and church, loses her purity with her actions. Temple not only committed a crime against her family when she ran off with a soldier, but a crime against God. This crime could only end in death--a beautiful death which again exemplifies her original purity.

The story of Charlotte's abandonment was a fictional telling of what was realty for many women during the Revolution and immediately after. As British soldiers and officers, personified by Montraville, came over to the colonies and the wide expanse of the North American continent, it was easy for them to abandon their wives and other camp follower

Rowson's work was quite interesting in that while it explains the dangers of falling in love with the wrong person, it does not explicitly place the blame upon Charlotte.

At first, when I began reading the story, I thought it would be one of empowerment and independence for women. Yet, as I continued I found that not only was Rowson cautionary towards woman independence, but the story's message itself is a detrimental one even in today's society. Especially with authorial intrusions, Rowson paints women to be weak, vulnerable creatures, who are only safe from the uncontrollable urges of men by staying under their parents or guardians surveillance. Though I understand she writes in the culture of her time, I do not see Charlotte's tale to be one of going against gender roles, but rather one of perpetuating those that existed in the time.

I wonder what Murray was trying to accomplish by writing it from a male perspective.

Murray puts a great deal of pressure on women to be well rounded so that they may educate their children properly. She also mentions the importance of language and articulating one's thoughts. On a side note, what happens to these women and their skills once their children are grown? They are proficient in multiple languages and crafts. Do they continue to utilize these skills?

Mr. Vigillius' daughter must know English, French, sewing, geography, history, etc, and all the feminine nuances that will make her virtuous. The parents tell their daughter, "every thing in future depends upon her own exertions." Women could not choose what they wanted to do or learn, they were told by their ever present "watcher" (vigil means watched in Latin), male society.

While Murray presses for a broad curriculum in female education, she crafts her argument within the constraints of patriarchal society: women are educated to benefit husbands, sons, and the greater society, not for their own enlightenment (although she does acknowledge the benefits of female education for a woman fallen on hard times).

I wonder if Murray wrote this story from the perspective of a wealthy, white father to try to persuade other upper-class men to have their daughters educated?

The fact that women were writing novels, let alone reading them, also is a testament to the progress gradually being made. -

Given that childbirth seems like a gender norm for women and it seems like gender norms would push women to be midwifes, why would a man want to be one? Won't gender norms of the time tell us that men wouldn't want to be associated with the feminine?

A man not being allowed or choosing to not be a part of their child’s birth sounds very odd to me.

I think Kasey raises a good point about educating midwives. I recognize that Scholten's essay focuses on the changes in midwifery in American from 1760-1825, but I feel like she should at least acknowledge the changes that occurred in midwifery immediately after the period she studied. Scholten does not point out how acutely uncomfortable Dr. Ewell and other physicians felt delivering babies as demonstrated in primary sources like Letters to Ladies. Instead, she portrays them as enterprising doctors. She also does not acknowledge that a large enough group of doctors believed that women should deliver babies that by 1848 Dr. Samuel Gregory and Dr. Israel Talbot founded the Boston Female Medical College with the specific intent to produce female doctors for upper-class families uncomfortable with male doctors. I feel like Scholten keeps her period of study so narrow that she draws conclusions without including information about a profession that was still continuing to dramatically change after 1825.

I know the piece gives credit to science as a reason for a shift of midwifery but was it also because men saw the power it gave the women and thought it was too much? Or was it the fact that men were viewed as superior in science?

This piece takes a very practical look at what differences must be made in women's education to accommodate the changes in the American environment from that of Great Britain. Even though much of what Rush said was coming from a patriarchal perspective, I found it admirable the ways in which he attempted to account for the changes in the new space.

Something to consider with Rush’s lecture on women’s education is that his target audience was men. It was men who were leaders and who he had to convince of this new educational system for women. I am not saying that he does not believe what he is saying. However, he is not going to convince men in a strongly patriarchal society that women should have a more academic curriculum because it would better the women themselves

Benjamin Rush’s proposal is progressive on its face, but ultimately it’s advocating female education as patriarchal indoctrination, intended to make women better helpmeets, not educated citizens for their own sake.

Benjamin Rush's branches of literature seem only to apply to "refined women" or the upper classes. How would a poor family afford the education of their daughters in subjects like keeping books, vocal music, and dancing?

ABIGAIL ADAMS, REMEMBER THE LADIES, 1776

The education that Phillis Wheatly received from her owners shows a significant difference in how slavery in the north was in many ways often times different from slavery in south. Phillis recueved a full education from the family. She was also was sent on a trip to England by her masters, where she published some poetry that she had written. I find all of this very interesting and believes that it helps to show how at least some slaves in the north were luckier than the majority of slaves in the south.

This poem has subversive tones to it. i think this parallels what we were learning about slaves resisting their masters by using sarcasm and other subversive tones. This was a direct form of resistance that would have been hard to punish someone for, especially in a poem because it would have been hard to prove her intent. - Amy Wallace I'm not as convinced that Wheatley's poem is meant to be sarcastic Though she would later support the Revolution, there is no telling what Wheatley's mindset was in the late 1760s. Though British troops landed in Boston in 1768, the same year her poem was published, real violence would not break out until two years later with the Massacre. Who's to know that Wheatley did not welcome them?

I recently learned in Prof. Mackintosh's class, History of the American Revolution, that colonists tried to use the rhetoric of slavery to describe their relationship to Great Britain before the Revolutionary War. The British would not take them seriously because the Colonists owned actual slaves.

Jemison didn't directly address her opinion about the Native American/British alliance. Once four of the six tribes allied themselves with Britain, were the Native American women expected to hold strong political opinions in the same way that colonial women were, or did their separation from the situation ease this expectation?

Wilkinson recalls her friend Major Moore comparing the oppression of the British as akin to forcing the colonists into slavery. That she runs a plantation and so controls slaves who are literally slaves doesn't enter into her language. She reproduces the major's comment with pride and without connecting it to the slavery she participates in and profits from. In her final paragraph, she writes, "Blush, O Britons, and be confounded! your delight is cruelty and oppression; divested of all humanity, you imitate savages; neither age nor sex can move compassion; even the smiling babe suffers by your hands and innocently smiles at its oppressor."

Although Thomas Paine may have been enlightened in regards to women's oppression, he did not make the similar connections of equality when it came to race. when he compares the various Native American tribes to each other as examples of barbarous oppression to women, he begins to only come off as overwhelmingly ethnocentric.

It seems that Payne, like early English settlers, was thrown off by the dismantling of the traditional English patriarchy. It definitely strikes me as odd . . . mainly because Payne was an enlightenment writer and I would expect more from him in this aspect.

Despite Paine's acknowledged that women should have more rights in this letter the tone still managed to come across as rather patronizing.

With Judith Sargent Murray and Esther DeBerdt Reed, we see women using religion as a force for liberation instead of repression. Like the Quakers, Murray invokes the idea of spiritual equality: “our souls are by nature equal to yours…we are not fallen lower than yourselves”. Reed draws on concrete women of the Bible and history to promote political activism in women.

Many of these sources reveal very little about the common American woman during the Revolution. The sources that are actually written by women all come from elites like Eliza Wilkinson, Grace Galloway, Abigail Adams, or intelligent, educated women like Judith Sargent Murray and Phillis Wheatley. While Sarah Osborn reveals what life was like for a camp follower, her recollections are self-censored because they are a part of an application for government pension. I think it would be interesting to find out about the experiences of the average American woman living on the homefront during the war.

I felt that Eliza Wilkinson and Grace Galloway's accounts allowed for many different comparisons of the way women led their lives during the time of the revolution.

I'm not sure if I understood this reading. Here’s how I see it: Miss Molly lives with important Indian men. Her brother is in the front lines of the revolution which is a mixed race unit (Whites and Indians). Molly somehow knows he is going to penetrate the British Arm and the she is paid for this information. The power that these military men seem to give Molly is incredible; she clearly has an important role a communicator between Indians and Whites making her a valuable spy. However her power is limited in that she thinks the military move is risky, but that won’t stop them. Yet, men seem a heed her advice and value her opinion.

In "Sentiments of an American Woman" , Esther DeBerdt Reed seems like she's making a "rally the troop" speech in which is she attempting to make women involved and in support of the Revolution. Ester is a Patriot and is trying to appeal to women that might be patriots as well. She's showing that women are just as important in the efforts of the Revolution. I wonder if her words appealed to any women and if it appealed to any change?

Oddly though, several of these slaves are said to have returned to Jefferson before being listed as dead. Why did they return?

It appears as though a fair number of Thomas Jefferson's slaves who joined the British were female. How could African American women contribute to the British cause when they had so few rights to begin with? -

This account is a good example of a way women could contribute at the time. It shows how Osborn followed her husband and the troops and was able to help them by cooking for the troops.

While a small point I was taken by the three way a women could become indentured. She could sign indentures before leaving Europe, her parents/community could sign her industries if she were poor, or she could apprentice. I guess I just always assumed indentured servant were people coming over from Europe

A line that stood out to me in this article was "She was considered too poor and too burdened by the costs of supporting her young children to pay any taxes." This intrigued me on two levels. One being that in this day in age, and even a few centuries back, taxes were often heavy on the poor and cut from the rich. Yet, here it seems single women were exempt because of their poor status. Though this seems more logical, it is definitely not the common practice in America for last two centuries. I was also intrigued by how this gave single women a power they did not have married. They could be independent and enjoy freedoms that men were allowed, but married women forbidden

On page 90, she talks about "giving in to" her father's wishes that she marry Marine even though she had no desire to re-marry. Her justification was that her father had treated her and her family very well. It seems as though marriage was chosen strictly on an economic or political basis, rather than romantic desires. I have to wonder if women of this time period felt fulfilled in their relationships.

The insight into the lives of the slaves at Mount Vernon through George Washington's records was amazing.

If my father was "King" Carter I'd complain about lazy slaves too. Landon Carter grew up with everything he'd ever need given him. Never having to work for his own welfare, and rather living off Robert Carter's coattails left only a sense of dependency and a certain, undeniable elitism in Landon Carter.

Although the title of the document is "Landon Carter Complains about his Female Slaves" Carter complains about male slaves too

The examination of Abigail Hobbs reveals the flawed technique used to question accused witches.

he case of Elizabeth Goodman makes me wonder why women who were barren or miscarry were targeted during the witch hunts. What if a woman was not barren, but her husband sterile? It is unnatural for a woman to be without child but unthinkable for a man to be impotent.

It is hard for me to understand why Brainerd spent so much time and effort trying to "revive" Native Americans if he was Presbyterian and believed in predestination. For example, what was the point of preaching to a women until she felt extremely guilty and distressed if her fate was already predetermined?

While women were viewed as more egalitarian in the Society of Friends, I feel like the women themselves were not totally equal in their ability to exert a huge amount of control over their communities.

am curious as to what happened to the people who attended Anne Hutchinson’s meetings? If heresy was such a terrible offense, did anything happen to those that listened to and followed her? Or did the Puritans only view Hutchinson as the threat and thought that by chopping of the head of the snake they could destroy the views she was sharing?

I wonder how Anne Hutchinson's trial/case would have been handled if she were a man? -D. Nordling The record of Anne Hutchinson's trial shows the extent to which the Puritan church/government feared dissent, no matter how large a group in constituted. I wonder what caused the Puritans to decide banish and excommunicate Anne Hutchinson and not a harsher punishment, since she committed heresy?

Anne Bradstreet's autobiography of the Massachusetts Bay Colony at the time of Puritans struck me as interesting. Women were not typically taught how to write or even make their own accounts of their lives during this time period or even as a woman dominated by the Puritan faith. Anne Bradstreet also exclaims that she is not of the elect which is interesting based on the amenities she is afforded. -

She seems to be wrestling with some powerful doubt, yet most of her writing is her reaffirming the doctrine she has been told. What is really her beliefs?

Not so much because she experienced the religious awakening but because her writing is so clear and much easier to understand than most writings from this time

I find it strange that he bothered because he was a Calvinist and therefore would have believed that some people were predestined for heaven and some people were predestined for hell. It seems like a strange waste of time to me for him to work on converting people that already had their fate predetermined by God.

It is hard for me to understand why Brainerd spent so much time and effort trying to "revive" Native Americans if he was Presbyterian and believed in predestination. For example, what was the point of preaching to a women until she felt extremely guilty and distressed if her fate was already predetermined?

While women were viewed as more egalitarian in the Society of Friends, I feel like the women themselves were not totally equal in their ability to exert a huge amount of control over their communities.

I am curious as to what happened to the people who attended Anne Hutchinson’s meetings? If heresy was such a terrible offense, did anything happen to those that listened to and followed her? Or did the Puritans only view Hutchinson as the threat and thought that by chopping of the head of the snake they could destroy the views she was sharing?

I wonder how Anne Hutchinson's trial/case would have been handled if she were a man? -D. Nordling The record of Anne Hutchinson's trial shows the extent to which the Puritan church/government feared dissent, no matter how large a group in constituted. I wonder what caused the Puritans to decide banish and excommunicate Anne Hutchinson and not a harsher punishment, since she committed heresy?

Anne Bradstreet's autobiography of the Massachusetts Bay Colony at the time of Puritans struck me as interesting. Women were not typically taught how to write or even make their own accounts of their lives during this time period or even as a woman dominated by the Puritan faith. Anne Bradstreet also exclaims that she is not of the elect which is interesting based on the amenities she is afforded.

She seems to be wrestling with some powerful doubt, yet most of her writing is her reaffirming the doctrine she has been told. What is really her beliefs?

Both Anne Bradstreet and Old Elizabeth explain their religious experiences and how they came to God in different ways. Anne Bradstreet explains how there were times where she was tempted and was defiant and how she struggled to finally find God. Old Elizabeth on the other hand writes this beautiful account of finding God and even when she didn't live in an area that had "no religious instruction" she still felt like she had God. I wonder what causes the difference between Bradstreet and Elizabeth?

I wonder if Landon Carter’s (MP 82) lazy slaves were not in fact lazy but had their minds and spirits “carried away to spiritual things” like that of Old Elizabeth (Woloch 117)?

Rarely are accounts of women whose daily life slipped outside of the norms of being wives and mothers in the colonial period mentioned in history. Thus the tales of the various women: single, wives, and widows who become entrepreneurs in the colonial cities(mainly) are erased. Although men were often the providers for women in the patriarchal society of the 18th century colonies, women without such support either created their own through shops or various other means such as retailing or becoming hucksters who were people generally women that sold goods out of a basket.

The witch trial accounts were fascinating in that a variety of contradictory evidence was given by the accusers. Additionally, the spectral evidence offered to the court was often dated years prior to the trials which made those already ridiculous accusations become the accusers taking advantage of previous conflicts for their own gain. Additionally, if witchcraft was performed years prior, why would they not mention it until the witchcraft trials?

solid Parts

SHE ought not to be an Ignorant, Stupid, Indolent, or a dull Person; and especially not incapable of conceiving Matters distinctly, or judging of Things aright: Neither ought she be a Self-Indulger, Slothful, or Lazy; nor a Light, Dissolute, or Daring Person: She ought not to be inconsiderate, negligent, or forgetful; nor proud, passionate, or obstinate: Neither peevish, morose, or surly; nor fearful, doubtful, or wavering-minded: neither ought she to be a Tipler or Drunkard, nor a Tatler or Vagabond, nor a covetous, or mercenary Person.

Fat or Gross

Practice too YOUNG

Qualifications most requisite and absolutely necessary for WOMEN practising this ART.

A C C I D E N T S

MONSTROUS

THEIR great Ingenuity and Dexterity in this ART, has

Maubray, John

The Female Physician, Containing All the Diseases Incident to that Sex, in Virgins, Wives, and Widows

Of lingering or tedious LABOURS

From the rigidity of the membranes when pushed down with the waters.

A Collection of Cases and Observations in Midwifery (Volume Two) Smellie, William

loath

Os Internum

Os Pubis

membranes when pushed down with the waters

mouth of the womb

CASES IN MIDWIFERY

I ordered her to be undressed, put naked in her bed

and kept quiet, that, if possible

disported

globular

diaphoresis

cawdle

draught.

swam up and returned

abating

emollient and laxative glyster

friends seemed anxious and uneasy about the situation

flag