Week 3 Questions/Comments-327 13

Overarching/comparative comments At the heart of Puritan culture seems to be the want to tell other people what they should do. Cotton Mather does so with his theory of "well ordered families." Benjamin Wadsworth has a myriad of opinions on what families should be like. Families should love each other, spouses should be patient with each other, husbands should be gentle and easy while wives should be cheerfully obedient. Real life cannot adhere to a should statement, were they really aware of how nuclear families worked? --Mae D'Amico After Tuesday discussion and after looking at the readings, I am curious to know if there were ever any cases in colonial times in which women killed their husbands in order to gain their freedom and rights they had lost during the marriage? - Morgan H. I like how in the forward for chapter 2 “Well ordered families” it says that “Abuse of a wife by her husband was prohibited by law in 1672 unless it be in his own defense upon her assulte.” I think that this brings up what was said in lecture that occasionally women would through their men out. It shows that the new colonies where a lot rougher of a place then England that they had a actual law to say this. I believe that this would have been unheard of in England at this time. Ike C. Katherine Kish Sklar article, “To Use her as His Wife” Although I believe that a marriage between Elisha Hawley and Martha Root would have been miserable for the both of them, I commend her for trying to do the best by her children as she could within her society. In addition, Jonathan Edwards defense of Martha Root in the court case was fascinating. His position as a pastor in the puritan community made him a very unlikely candidate for launching a gender bias defense. -Kearsten Lehman Elisha Hawley is the embodiment of male privilege in the the To Use Her as His Wife reading. Hawley tries to shirk his responsibility to Martha Root and their children by hiding behind the excuse that she was not a virgin when he met her. Not marrying her almost got him excommunicated by Jonathan Edwards, Puritan leader and Root's defense, but in the end nothing truly happens to Hawley. He apologizes and marries rich which Root had some very uncertain years, her life in the hands of male representatives. Edwards for going so far to defend Root gets dismissed from his pulpit, another punishment for taking a woman's side in a gender biased society. --Mae D'Amico While I personally find Edwards' reinterpretation of the Bible moving and I laud him for his attempts change some of the gender bias in his society, I cannot help but wonder how the married life of Hawley and Root would have been had it occurred. Although Root would have attained the financial support, would Hawley have willingly provided it? Edwards tried to revise the social norm so that a man would have to marry the woman he produced a bastard child with against the man's will. Would Edwards' actually led to a healthy married life that was free from abuse for women like Root, if their husbands were clearly reluctant, if not resentful, like Hawley? Do later anti-seduction laws have similar unintended consequences? -Mary Fesak On page 79 it is mentioned in passing that Martha Root did not manage to marry someone else during her pregnancy to avoid abandonment. How common was abandonment of pregnant women to lead them to marry others? - Ryan Quint Sklar asks if class prejudice was as apparent as gender prejudice in the civil courts on page 75. Was it as apparent? What was the effect of class prejudice? - Becca Sherman I was surprised by the dates for the people in the article. Considering the time and conditions, two of these people lived very long lives. One of them, Ester Warham, lived to be 92 years old. This is 27 years longer than the average lifespan in New England at about that time. That is older than anyone that I know now! Also Solomon Stodard lived to be 86 years old. These are respectably long lives today and would have been amazingly long lives in 17th and 18th century America. Ike C. Benjamin Wadsworth, 1712 – Well-Ordered Family The arranged marriage aspect of the patriarchal society mentioned by Wadsworth was interesting. He stated that "Parents should act wisely and prudently in the matching of their children", which adds another element to his discourse on the proper behavior of married individuals. Thus,colonial women in New England appear to have had not have much if any say either in their prospective partners or in their marriages. -Kearsten Lehman Like we discussed in class, Wadsworth includes family organization included hierarchical lines. Because life was more stable in New England than in the Chesapeake (Wadsworth was a Puritan minister in Boston), families could afford the time and effort that it takes to create a patriarchal family structure that reflected their government's structure as well. -Suzannah Carretto Although Wadsworth clearly defines a patriarchal society and familial hierarchy, I was surprised by the evenness between his descriptions of duties of husbands and wives. Yes, he says that wives must obey their husbands, but he also says both husbands and wives are “much to blame” if they do not treat their spouses properly, as they are both commanded by God. Although men are in charge of the family, both must answer to God. – Jess Hopkins Wadsworth’s reminder that a husband shouldn't treat his wife as a servant but "as his own flesh; he must love her as himself” made me think of our discussion in class of English common law and the notion that a marriage was a mutual obligation where two people became one. -Dana Nordling As we discussed in class, this gives detail on the demographic difference between New England and the Chesapeake women. However, I find it interesting when Wadsworth mentions how "Well-Ordered Families" laid the foundation for "Republican Motherhood" because for White women in English colonies, the family remained the most important social institution. -Melanie Houston. Susanna Wesley, 1732, Evangelical Child-Rearing  Child Rearing – I find it interesting that children during this time seem to be treated more like little adults than real children. Did kids during this time ever get a chance to be children? And would all mothers during the colonial period raise their children in the same way or depending on the location would some children have more freedom than others? Would a mother be treated harshly in a community if she did not bring her child up in the correct fashion? -Morgan H. The descriptions about what children should and should not do was very interesting. They were not allowed to play loudly, and they had many responsibilities at a relatively young age. This reminded me of some of the theories around the Salem Witch trials. Some historians argue that it may have partially been a result of the supressiveness of children in the culture. - Amy Wallace Susanna Wesley’s piece on child-rearing obviously had a great deal to do with religion. From the way she wrote it sounds like she saw her religion as a job and if she failed to do that job it would be all her fault if the children didn’t go to heaven. I could not see a genuine love she had for God but rather saw him as a boss that she must please all the time. Wesley could have used her children to make her look more religious and devout. – Courtney Collier On page 31 she states, "self-will is the root of all sin and misery." I feel that this summarizes her view of children. However, as I was reading this, I couldn't help but wonder how these children could grow up and be successful members of society without any independent thought. How could they develop a personality/identity without experimentation and safe spaces to play/learn? The whole idea is very foreign to me. -Katherine Miller I truly enjoyed the comment on page 30-31, “In the esteem of the world they pass for kind and indulgent whom I call cruel parents, who permits their children to get habits which they know must be afterwards broken”. This comment was an interesting perspective on spoils and uncontrolled children, a perspective that I have to agree with. Children should be taught while they are young and moldable. -Kasey Moore While I agree with Susanna Wesley on some points I thought that her letter was a bit extreme. I think that children should be allowed to play and have fun. She says in the first paragraph “ but the family usually lived in as much quietness as if there had not been a child among them”. I don’t understand why it was not okay to hear kids laughing and playing. Maybe she is only talking about crying but even then kids will be kids. I don’t think they always have to be quiet and reserved. I do agree with her on her view of teaching children at a young age how they need behave. She makes valid points but some are a little extreme. – Katie Way Wesley offers a very interesting interpretation of children in that they are inherently evil from the start. . . Apparently it was a Puritan parent's job to break their child before it was just too late. I thought it was very interesting that a Puritan woman in 1732 would write such an informative letter, I think that her apparent literacy speaks volumes about the Puritan's dedication to education. I also found the parenting methodology described as being very similar in strictness to the Puritan religion, did anyone else notice this? It seems like Puritans were very strict and demanding with their children, while the Puritan church was very strict and punishing towards its followers. Probably not a coincidence, but I thought it was worth noting. - Tanner Carlton

I have to question why the Puritan children were treated and raised in such a different way compared to the Puritan church, even though the Puritans had the most strict religion? The beginning of the passage even said, "The will of a parent is to a little child in the place of the will of God." Every act of obedience should be commended and rewarded; every child was instructed on how to do well for the future. How did the raising of Puritan children impact the way children viewed their Puritan religion specifically? -Melanie Houston

This piece definitely points to the fact that Wesley, (as well as many other Puritan mothers, I'd imagine), creates a rather narrow path for her child from the very start; however, I did not find this to be as "strict" as I think it may have come across to others. To a devout Puritan, your religion is the most important thing to you. It determines the state of your soul after death. If this is the belief that you subscribe to 100%, then, as a mother, you will surely do the best that you can to ensure the same life for your children. That John Wesley wrote his mother for child-rearing advice, and that his mother wrote this clear and blunt list without qualifying her knowledge the way that a lot of women writers of the time do shows the degree to which Susanna felt comfortable claiming authority on child-rearing. Maybe this is because child-rearing was part of her sphere, but Susanna's language also just makes her seem like a very, very self-assured, strict woman, far more so than Esther Burr, for example.-Sarah Palmer Eliza Pinckney, 1750s, To Improve in Every Virtue I was most struck with her choice of words in this document. For instance, when she says "to make it my Study to please him." The fact that study is capitalized too shows that she is determined to devote her whole being to his happiness, and shockingly is happy to do it. I also realize that her resolutions are inhuman in a sense because no living person could be that much the essence of perfection; she is setting herself up for failure. It goes with the idea of the culture in the 18th and 19th centuries, that the woman was to be the perfect spiritual guide of the home and husband, when such ideals paves the way for "fallen women' being more and more common. No one can live up to these expectations. -Katie Redmiles It is interesting to see the priorities Pinckney outlines and what constituted as her "duties." As was expected from all women, she resolves to govern her passions and "subdue every vive and improve every virtue." A married woman's most important duty in life was to serve her husband and to raise their children to be virtuous and pious, and she reflects this in her writing. -Suzannah Carretto I think Eliza Pinckney’s “To Improve in Every virtue” was interesting. The fact that a she had a list of roles and rules of how she needed to act was something I had never heard of. And she would read these in the morning and the evening, everyday, I am not sure I could do that. I think that some of these things are good to abide by and follow, but the emotion one seems kind of difficult. Why did women always hold themselves to such high standards during this time? Was it the men that were telling them they have to act a certain way?-Katie Way At the end of her letter, Pinckney goes into details of how she treats her servants (slaves) well, and accommodates them as much as possible. The gentle words she uses to describe her interactions with the people she owns lead into a false sense of security by many slave owners. That security would be smashed by slave revolts throughout the years, including the one across the river from UMW, at Chatham. - Ryan Quint I think Pinckney’s list of resolutions illustrates just how much was expected of women during this time simply due to the fact that she kept a list of daily reminders of all her duties and roles that she was supposed to fill just to keep it all straight in her head. It sounds exhausting to me. -Dana Nordling I noticed in Pinckney’s resolutions, her main priority is to make everyone else happy, to be a good Christian, wife, mother, daughter, sister, mistress, and friend. It seems that in order to be a “proper” woman in eighteenth century South Carolina, one must place everyone else’s needs before her own. That seems a little extreme. I wonder if Wesley’s idea that “self-will is the root of all sin and misery” plays any part in this and if this is more of a concept for women than men. – Jess Hopkins New Spain’s (New Mexico’s) moral code as dictated by the Spanish Crown in 1752 New Spain's moral code presented in this excerpt is quite similar to England's at that time. Honor and virtue were the most important aspects of family life and dictated what families were expected to be, especially in the upper classes of society. The rules of marriage in relation to social status reflect those of England, which can also be seen in Sklar's article, where Elisha's elevated status above that of Mary was detrimental to his family's reputation. -Suzannah Carretto Laws on Slave Descent in VA and MD, 1662, 1664, 1691, 1692 Legally, slavery was determined through the mother's line, which would mean that if a child's mother was a slave, the child would then also be a slave. This was very interesting, because the rich white men who made these laws may have had an alterior motive. This law would leave them free to have an affair with a slave woman, and not have to worry about claiming the child that may have been born as a result. It is also interesting because it shows how little they thought of African American men, if they weren't even supposed to be head of their households, as this matrilineal law implies. -Amy Wallace The slave laws are unusual because they reversed centuries of precedent set by European law. European law dictated that a child should inherit the condition of the father, not the mother. The passage of such laws reflects the extent to which the white men feared the social and economic results of miscegenation and sought to control the offspring of relationships between free white women and slave men. The laws also exemplify white male attempts to control the behavior of white women and blacks in an effort to keep the white patriarchal status quo. -Mary Fesak Skilled slaves in Maryland, 1748-1763, Maryland Gazette I find it interesting that in the reading just before skilled slaves, it spoke of ALL children born to African American women were to go into slavery. Slave tasks were not necessarily defined by gender roles. In the this reading however, the tasks assigned seem to follow the typical trend of gender roles. I understand the difference between "skilled" labor and not, but does 50 years for slaves really have that big of an impact on whether or not their tasks fall within the confines of typical European gender roles?- Charlotte O In one of the ads it says "a lusty likely health Mulatto woman", I find it interesting that the author of that ad just had to include the word "lusty". It reminds me of the eroticization that we talked about with Native American women. I wonder how adding the quality of "lusty" would affect who would purchase this slave and if they would use her sexually. - Sandra Sanchez Interestingly enough all advertisements for woman slaves or "wenches" require a list of all of their certain talents such as weaving, spinning, and household business. I noticed that when men and children are listed they don't have any certain attributes or qualifications that come with their description. It's an interesting thought that the slaves that are men and children are less descriptive than the women slaves. I wonder why this is so? - Tanner Carlton Complaint of Elizabeth Sprigs, indentured servant, 1756 I found Sprigs account to be very provocative and rash. I was surprised with the audacity of her complaint. Though, of course it was well deserved, but as I read I wondered what sort of punishment did she face after this letter was sent? Was it common for fathers to send away their children to harsh employers or into servitude itself? When would her sentence be over? Her language also was as good indicator of how women were taught in those times, for there are many spelling and grammatical errors. -Katie Redmiles I find it ironic that white indentured servants who suffered such horrible conditions as Elizabeth Sprigs experienced could go on to become slave owners or the masters of indentured servants, however kind to their slaves (like Molly Bannaky). -Mary Fesak Although it's not surprising to me that in a patriarchal society a father could send his daughter off to indentured servitude for something as little as misbehaving, i don't quite understand how white women, who ultimately played a huge role in maintaining the chesapeake colonies could be treated so horribly, be it their diet or other types of abuse.- Charlotte O.

That her father could basically sell her into short-term slavery (and considering the death rate of indentured servants, there's a good chance this was the condition for the rest of Elizabeth's life) because she displeased him really shows that when we discuss coverture and male power over women, this is a complete power of the patriarch. Not every father would go as far as Elizabeth's father did, but a lot of them could because of the extremely vulnerable and dependent condition of women under the law. -Sarah Palmer Apprenticeship in PA, 1771-1773, Record of Indentures The accounts of apprenticeship in Pennsylvania obviously gave women at that time an opportunity for a good education. However, in almost all of the accounts, they mentioned that they must teach them to read the Bible. Was this task given so that when they became mothers they could spread the Christian faith to their children, or was it because the perception of women at the time was negative and they sought to purify the women? Were boys also taught to read the Bible at such an early age? In my opinion if that was their goal they should have taught the Bible to boys more because they would become the head of the household. –Courtney Collier Is there a difference between learning to read and write and what they considered "schooling?" I noticed a differentiation between these two terms. Did schooling include any other forms of education such as math or history? -Katherine Miller Advertisements, Gazettes of VA, PA, SC, NY – 1751-1776 What interested me the most was that the Boarding School in South Carolina (pg.61) was really the only school which focused on education women in the book subjects rather than the housewifery skills. It was no surprise to me that the Mistress of the school was from London. –Kasey Moore AN ABOMINABLE WICKEDNESS Abigail Bailey, 1815 An Abominable Wickedness by Abigail Bailey is a perfect example of the consequences of the powerless feme covert in colonial society. When Bailey found out about the incestuous relationship between her husband and daughter, she was unable to get his arrested without the help of her brothers. Then the daughter was unwilling to testify against her father. Why would the daughter be unwilling? societal norms promoting the submissiveness of women? Fear of the patriarch? Fear in general towards her abuser? I would say all three of these explanations are plausible. --Mae D'Amico Abigail Bailey explains how difficult it would be to get her husband arrested for his incestuous relationship with his daughter, she further explains that this is due to the fact that her daughter was not allowed to speak to her, she didn't think her daughter would testify, and that she had no legal rights. Due to the fact, as both Bailey and Mr. B point out, that Bailey was under her husband's legal control, how could she go against him? Is this a common thing? Are there other stories of the period where there are laws against incest yet a lack of reporting due to the fact that women didn't have many rights? If there was a lot of underreporting of these crimes, I see a modern day parallel with rape and other forms of violence against women. - Sandra Sanchez TIED HAND AND FOOT -- Esther Burr, 1756-1757 Esther Burr's accounts of her daily life through her daily letters portray her as being the main caregiver to her children as her husband is constantly out giving sermons. It was probably common for the time period for women to do most of the upbringing of their children; but Esther's case appears to be a bit more unusual in that she appears to have a bit more freedom than other women for she only had three children(not sure if that situation changed) as she mentioned in one of her letters. In addition, she was unusual in that she debated with scholars in her town on the feelings of women. -Kearsten Lehman Firstly, I think the expression “tied hand and foot” is telling of the overwhelming task of being a mother. Secondly, I wonder if Esther had a midwife or someone to deliver her baby. She spends plenty of time reporting to her friend of the people who were not there for the delivery. Thirdly, what is “spinning frolick or folks” on page 38. - Kasey Moore