Reading and Discussion Questions

English/History 3300

Reading and Discussion Questions

Linda Kerber, Women of the Republic

_____________________________________________________________________

Coverture (Chapter 5)

Joshua Waychoff

In Chapter 5 of Linda Kerber’s Women of the Republic, the main them was covertures and how the property of the woman became the man’s once she was married. The chapter talks about many court cases that dealt with women trying to do business with their property, but couldn’t unless it was in a certain situation where the husband acknowledges his wife doing business and gave his consent. The revolutionaries wanted to get away from the grip of Britain, and yet they were still treating their own wives the same way Britain had treated them. It seems to me that they had a problem with “power.” They didn’t like the power of the King being asserted over them, but they enjoyed the power and control they had over their own household. I believe it would’ve been more beneficial to the family if they had let women do what they wanted with their property because it was another way to bring income into the household.

________________________________________________________________________

Divorce (chapter 6)

David Epps

I found the chapter on divorce interesting. At this time, there were so many rules and practices that restricted women I was surprised to find that divorce was a practice that occurred frequently. It was a civil contract that could be broken. Women ware given a wide range of situations in which they could file for a divorce like extreme domestic abuse or desertion. I wonder though, was divorce a way to protect the woman or was it a way for society to protect the man and his status in that society? (p. 159)

-Harrison Kyle Johnson

With the complete lack of any reasonable concern for women's ownership after her husband's death was a shock. Women lost any and all property once they married the man. Her land, if she owned any, became his land to "sell" for whatever reasons. If she were to marry, her husband sells her land, and then he dies, she would have no legal ownership and would most likely be tossed out.

Another thing that struck me as interesting was that "women were not seen as political beings". for what reason? what does it mean to be a "political being" and why was a woman incapible of being just that?

Abby Tapp

I found chapter 6 to be interesting. I never knew that divorce even really existed during this time. Normally, you don’t really hear of divorce being a popular idea in American history until much later. I thought the story about Nathaniel Fenton and his wife Sarah was shocking. He had applied for a divorce and she backed him up and supported the divorce because she admitted that she was pregnant by another man before she married Nathaniel. I was very shocked by this not only because she was pregnant by another man other than her husband but because she openly admitted it to the government. This seems to me to be very uncharacteristic of this time period.

Michelle LaFalce

I particularly enjoyed the chapter on divorce (chapter 6). I found it interesting that, “The femme covert, the invisible, “covered” married woman, was uncovered-notorious even-when she was divorced” (159). This notion that a divorced woman was “uncovered” and now visible to society is odd to me. Just because she is divorced, does not make her active in the political realm of society. I also didn’t understand why the Puritans believed that marriage was like a civil contract and could be broken if necessary. I would think that the Puritans, with such a strong religious background, would not encourage divorce, even under trying circumstances. This is off topic but, I heard a quote on the news (Good Morning America) this morning that went something like this, “If you educate the women of Africa, you educate the families of Africa.” I cannot remember who said it, but it made me think of the “Republican Mother” and how it applies today even in different countries. Chapter 7, page 190 says, “A woman could not enter the academy, because it offered not disembodied knowledge but a classical curriculum designed to prepare young men for survival in a political world.” If the women were so important to the families, why then could the curriculum not be changed to be fitting for a woman? Women were relied upon for so much and they could not on many occasions even get a formal education. Ironic then is the term “Republican Mother” if the mother is not educated. How then is she to teach her family?

Joseph Benise

In the book written by Kerber I found something in chapter six that I thought intriguing to be that women were more looked upon as a important to the “family economy”. On page 167 Kerber says “The people who described their marriages to divorce courts left little doubt that marriage was, among other things, and economic relationship” (Kerber 167). I also that it was interesting that the General Assembly of Connecticut received divorce petitions after the war and considered some of the pleas between 1789 and 1818 and that a majority of the cases were considered to be abusive treatments. It was hard for the women to gain the estate unless the courts had a resamble doubt such in the case of domestic violence or if the male spouse cheated. Even though divorces were just as hard to get passed in the New Republic as they were in the colonies. This ties into the Republican motherhood in the sense that a major role for women that represented a stage in the “process of women’s political socialization”. Even after the war women were still second class citizens below white men but had a political role in the domestic life but gained some political unity. The attachment website that was explained in New York is http://www.brandeslaw.com/grounds_for_divorce/history.htm

Carla Ledgerwood

The implications that the Revolution had on the family structure during the war was underestimated by the men. In any war, when the males leave the family to fight a war, the female is left to run the household and take care of finances. (Now our soldiers get a paycheck direct deposited to expedite the financial support.) During the Revolution, women proved to be more than capable of living "independently" given their restraints. While Revolutionaries were encouraging sons to take the opposite side of their Tory fathers, they were not willing to let the wives choose the Patriots over their husbands. To me, this shows that the men/husbands knew their wives were capable of forming an educated opinion outside their marriage. They were not willing to open "Pandora's Box." The divorce statistics before, during, and after the war show the change in women's attitudes on marriage and family structure. Although most petitions were made by women anyway, during the war women began to petition for divorce over abandonment. They realized they no longer had to submit to their husbands if the husband failed in his duties. They needed to be able to remarry for financial support. Before the war, women rarely asked for divorce. After the war, women began to ask for divorce over the issues of adultery and fraud as well. Women were no longer willing to settle for bad behavior.

(However, abuse and cruelty were not listed in the statute, so divorce was not as easily granted for these accusations). The subject of divorce is interesting during this period anyway because it was one more way to rebel against the King. England did not recognize divorce, so the Patriots were willing to entertain the thought just to show they would not listen to the King's authority over their issues.

Nicole Forleades

Chapter 6 Reading Response:

The title of this chapter “Domestic Liberty” Freedom to Divorce caused me to pause for just a moment. Divorce is something I saw as an idea that was more relevant to 2007 than 1774. At the start I read “Women participated little in political ritual because they were thought to lack political responsibility” (159), this was an idea that we have read about many times though out this book. But with the concept of divorce this gave women some control over their lives and allowed them to make a move into a male controlled world. Kerber shows us through an example that this idea of divorce came to be defended as a republican right of particular interest to women because they were the ones who sought it out more frequently (159). Many women sought to gain a divorce from a husband who had deserted her and leaving her in economic trouble. Also Kerber states that for women who were married to sailors who left and never returned a divorce petition was an efficient way of declaring a lost sailor missing and presumed dead (163). So yes women were not really allowed to participate in any type of political activity I feel that through their being able to ask for a divorce it was allowing them to have a say in their own lives for a change

________________________________________________________________________

Education (Chapter 7)

Mechelle Puckett

February 27, 2007

Reading Response- Kerber Ch. 5-9

I wanted to comment briefly on Kerber’s methodology. Kerber utilizes a wide variety of sources, often going directly to original court documents. It appears that she has really completed some in depth research. However, there are so many references to other works, sometimes it feels like her own voice is lacking. Sometimes I am unsure when she is paraphrasing a source or when she is writing her personal thoughts. For example, see pages 215-221. Here, Kerber writes about Rush’s ideas on education in the classics. I am not trying to say that this is entirely bad, but that the read is a little cold. I would like to see her expound more on certain points. How does Kerber feel about whether education in the classics would have benefited or disadvantaged young women? Is she purposely not forming an opinion?

Also, I thought the paradox of women’s’ education was really interesting. Finally, it was decided that women should be formally educated, but not for the purpose of equality. Rather, women should be educated so that they could be good Republican mothers. More importantly, instead of women utilizing education as a way of prospering on their own intelligence, a better education made a woman more attractive in the marriage market. They are still in a position of subservience to husbands, only now, they must work harder to be educated, in order to keep up his accounts and teach his sons. At least, it was a start.

Gerrit Breves

The facts about women’s life in the early republic and their change within the following years, was comprehensible, measurable from my 21st century point of view and logical. But there were some examples in the Education and Intellect chapter, which made me smile…at least laugh, but only because the examples were so curios.

- Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the Republic Franklin, the founder of the first public library in Pennsylvania, the President of “The Academy and College of Philadelphia” and an open-minded person, as I think, had a nearly illiterate wife. I don’t know why but normally I suggest intellectual people have an intellectual partner. Well, I don’t want to mention that Deborah Franklin was mentally disabled or dumb. But reading and writing are fundamental columns of a modern society. Maybe I’m not completely able to put myself in an eighteenth century world and their way of thinking.

- Elbridge Thomas Gerry, statesman and diplomat, who wrote love letters to a young lady. Stupidly, she wasn’t able to read, because her grandfather thought, that all girls needed to know is how to “make a shirt and a pudding”. Finally he didn’t marry her. Instead he married in 1786 Ann Thompson, the daughter of a wealthy New York merchant. Hopefully, she was able to read and write.

- The different lengths of the book lists of Isaiah and Mary Thomas were comprehensible, but also terrifying. The extent of Isaiah’s catalogue was 31 times bigger (or more than 3000 %) than Mary’s.

- From my 21st century perspective I would consider the painting of Ezra Stiles and his first wife sarcastic. Unfortunately, I just found a picture of Ezra Stiles.

Ezra Stiles:

http://cgfa.sunsite.dk/k/king1.jpg

Eve Fletcher

Kerber: Women of the Republic

While reading chapter seven, I was amazed by the negative and harmful attitudes that both men and women held toward attempts to educate women. Today it seems absurd to believe that intelligence would somehow reduce a woman’s femininity. Yet, certain elements of chapter seven still remain relevant, like Benjamin Rush’s comment that, “I have sometimes been led to ascribe the invention of ridiculous and expensive fashions in female dress entirely to the gentleman order to divert the ladies from improving their minds. . .” (203). Benjamin’s comment reminded me of the portraits of Ezra and Elizabeth Stiles. Ezra’s portrait portrays him in front of his library, while in Elizabeth’s portrait, detail is only given to her face and dress. Still, the popular images or ads of today seem to depict men involved in actions (sports, driving, working), while popular images of women tend to simply portray them posing in fashionable clothing or primarily focus on their looks. Today there is still so much attention given to female fashion and image, and it still seems that beauty is sometimes more valued than intelligence.

http://locutus.ucr.edu/%7Ecathy/lm/LM1790.html

(Link to Lady’s Magazine/ 1790 issue)

Rebecca Gilliland

I found the chapter on Intelligence and Intellect to be invigorating. On page 224, Mary Wollstonecraft’s views and insinuations that women might one day enter the same professional fields as men caught my eye. She targets Rousseau’s argument about the “empire of women” by stating that women should not be so reliant on men and their home’s and that they need to extend outside of their gender conceptualizations to strive for a more intellectual sphere. Wollstonecraft insinuates that women can one day work in the same professional fields as men; she appears to be implying that women embody the same ideals and therefore should be entitled to the same rights. I thought it ironic that American women specifically looked for a female stereotype to represent them. They didn’t use Wollstonecraft because she was dead. This is ironic because much of the male based literature uses ancient examples to back their theories and was not expected to present a stereotypical example around to combat the skepticism and ideological attacks. Why did American women feel that they needed a “spokeswoman”? Why could they not just rely on the literature that had preceded them like most of the men? Was it because of their status, place, and challenge to male dominated culture that caused them to do this, or did they feel that it would help their cause? Why if the educational system was so invigorated why did it still take another century before women the right to vote? Was there anything in particular (besides legislation) that inhibited them?