My questions are not the sort of questions that should be answered "or else." They're just to get us started. Please pose questions of each other and attend first to what classmates generate unless you are compelled to respond to mine. You can also use this space to add to your own presentation--whatever there was no time for.
Frances Willard:
Did the source say whether and how Willard’s lesbianism was shielded from public view? On what evidence does the source make the lesbianism claim. For those of you who study 19th century same sex friendship—can you shed any light on how women's sexualized friendships were viewed--and of course how public ethos was affected, if at all?
I was intrigued by the narrative of Willard (and WCTU folks)' moving from parlor to church to public halls—and there meeting resistance. Do you have an example of how that resistance was articulated/expressed?
Victoria Woodhull:
I was fascinated by the “fraud culture” that Hull was raised in, wondering if a person’s sense of rhetorical self is enhanced by such experience. The visitation by Demosthenes is quite provocative—suggesting a familiarity with famous rhetors and self-taught rhetors. Rhetoric resists “authenticity”—except as a construct (in contemporary theory) and “bad rhetoric” would advocate false “truths.” (But maybe Woodhull’s involvement with clairvoyance and elixirs was sincere.) So my question is about her education: any information on that score? And—can you rehearse the Beecher-Tilton scandal and its connection with obscenity? You have posed the best question yourself: How would Royster and Enoch position her in their narratives?!
Maria Stewart:
I was struck by the cluster of activities noted at the bottom of page 3: Stewart composes compositions and declamations—in other words participates perhaps in the shift from oral to literate culture—and then becomes a teacher: all of these do indeed position her as an important figure in rhetoric-composition history. Is there any indication in her rhetorical production suggesting a rise of essayist literacy that substitutes for or begins to overtake oratory? Also--declamation is often considered a school exercise--divorced from real political clout. Is there more about this form? I'm curious whether scholars like Clark and Halloran would be able to use her literate and oral production to support their "decline" narrative or whether African American women’s use of both forms belongs in an alternative tradition--which is what Royster would argue I guess. Evidently she was part of the Freedmen school movement? How indeed does Royster plot her? Do we know anything about her pedagogy?
Eliza Roxcy Snow:
It seems to me that Snow undermines the dominant feminist narrative that 19th c. women’s political activism necessarily goes hand in hand with resistance to patriarchal practice. I’m curious about how Snow specifically muddies the commonplace that plural marriage is an effect of patriarchy—or does she approve of patriarchy hands down? Or is patriarchy conceptually unavailable to her--not a category of analysis? Or is it actually available (if not by that name) and if so would you characterize Snow's extensive work founding and strengthening women’s- sphere organizations (Exponent, Relief Society, hospitals, youth groups) a response to “patriarchy”? Any words about her conversion experience?
Ernestine Rose:
I am very curious about the dialogues that the one biographer scripted for Rose. I’m curious because dialogue is a powerful genre that easily shams egalitarianism (representing give and take) while in reality making a partisan argument and fixing power relationships. Biography is history and circulates as such, so what is your sense of how Rose is enlarged or diminished or tamed or lionized by these dialogues? What was the biographer trying to accomplish? Maybe just an example will be fun to look at. I’m also wondering if her English is accented and what effect this would have on her ability to gain good press.
Emmeline Wells:
Do you have specifics about what it meant to grant suffrage within a territory or region? What sorts of matters did women vote on? Would polygamy have been over-turnable at the territorial level? If this requires too much research, then never mind. Is there any information about how Wells was received (and how her arguments were received) by Anthony and Stanton and national women’s organizations? Can you do a reading of one of her Exponent editorials, if these are readily available, discerning to whom she would be addressing her arguments or observations? Broad public or local public? How would she have addressed a "universal" audience (Perelman)?
Again--go your own directions if you wish.
16 comments:
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=101820025147&h=UziOC&u=yT5jf&ref=nf
Bust of Sojourner Truth has just been unveiled in the capital. See link above!
Hey, does anyone know about the word count for the CCCCs proposal? Or, Dr. Romano, do you have any idea? I assume not more than 500 words...I've been looking at the website directions but I haven't found anything thus far...
Count is 5000. If you do a panel, your individual contribution will shrink considerably. For now, go ahead and use the 5000 characrers
I forgot!!! to remind you to turn in your draft proposals need to be in by Friday so that I can edit them.
More on Wells: When women in Utah were granted the right to vote, they were not eligible to vote in federal/national elections. The idea was they could vote on local (territorial) issues. While I have not seen any scholarship about how both national and local politicians believed women would overturn polygamy, at this particular moment in history, the analogy compared polygamous wives to slaves. The sentiment was that society's wrongs would be corrected through the franchise.
In the speech excerpted on the handout (http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/resources/archives/five/wells.htm), Wells was speaking in The Woman's Exponent to both a Mormon and non-Mormon audience (many scholars point to the national interest this particular issue held -- there appeared to be a kind of fascination with the Utah case). She is explicitly addressing non-Mormons in this particular piece as her arguments make evident. Again, she works to compare the Mormons to the New England colonists, and discusses the way Mormon women are educated to make their own choices (a predominant belief was that Mormon women were forced into polygamous marriage) for Mormons believed their selection of spousal partner lasted into eternity. Mormon women had every reason to act/choose with care.
Wells was not known as a public speaker, but she was, during the time of the State of Utah constitutional convention, extremely active in politics, as she worked to include the amendment allowing women to vote in the constitution. She was interviewed by the "non-Mormon" territorial paper, the Salt Lake Tribune.
Again, the issue of the constitutional amendment for women's suffrage was, in Utah, largely partisan. Liberal republicans (Lincoln's party) were opposed to women's suffrage in Utah because it meant the Mormon Church would have more political clout. Conservative democrats were in favor of women's suffrage. The democrats were primarily Mormon in Utah. The amendment passed and the Utah women were able to vote in local/state elections in 1896 (a quarter century before women nationally were granted the right to vote).
Susan B. Anthony wrote the women of Utah a letter congratulating them, but wisely assuring them that suffrage alone would not bring about social change. She did not touch polygamy or the Mormon Church in the letter.
On polygamy: in 1870, women were allowed to vote; in 1886 (or thereabouts),the right was taken away due, largely, to national efforts to delegitimize polygamy and cut off the power of the Mormon Church.
The president of the Mormon Church is believed to have divinely inspired visions through which he can change the direction/practices of the Church. In 1890, the then-president had a vision to end the practice of polygamy.
Of course, many non-Mormons and many Mormons looked upon this vision with some skepticism. The Mormons had lost a lot of political clout (and the Church had been de-recognized by the US government); additionally, many polygamists (men) were jailed. It was a low point for the Mormons and they wanted to regain their economic, political, and cultural clout in Utah. Since plural marriage seemed to be the poison issue, the Church appeared to make a strategic decision. Of course, Mormons also perceived this and many submitted reluctantly (or not at all).
In any event, the 1890 vision turned the tide for Mormons in Utah. By the time the constitutional convention rolled around, they had regained lost ground and were able to include in the constitution the amendment granting women the right to vote.
So, Anthony might not have mentioned polygamy in the wake of the Utah constitutional convention because by that point, it had been officially renounced by the Mormon Church.
As Paul reminded me yesterday (and he might be clearer on the details at this point), Wells in early 1900s ran for a seat in the US House of Representatives (and was defeated in a primary, I believe).
First, to address some of Dr. Romano's questions:
Woodhull had little to no formal education of which to speak, though she was literate and it is clear from the knowledge and texts she brings to her speeches that she spent a lot of time familiarizing herself with the discourses (political, religious, social, financial) of her more educated audiences.
I do think much of her preparation for speeches came from her observations of her father and other Second Great Awakening revival speakers while the family was on the road. She must have learned a great deal about coping with apathetic and hostile crowds, and what would work to keep people engaged. In the speeches I read, I noticed a tendency to gradually build up to more passion and emotion, and even then always being
Details on the Beecher-Tilton Scandal. Henry Ward Beecher and Mrs. Elizabeth Tilton had an affair, and Elizabeth confessed it to her husband, Theodore, who then reported it to his friends in the women’s movement, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Victoria Woodhull. Earlier, Tilton had asked his wife to recant it in writing, fearing negative publicity, which she did. But Woodhull went public with the affair in The Weekly, seemingly as vengeance for
I’m also including a link with an interesting illustration of the affair, that even includes a picture of Woodhull and Tilton swimming together!
http://faculty.uml.edu/sgallagher/BeecherTilton.htm
I’m wondering if Woodhull’s privilege (her being a wealthy white women with support from prominent white men like Cornelius Vanderbilt) is what has kept her out of the limelight in more recent scholarship. While there are plenty of books and online resources exclusively devoted to her, where would she fit in an anthology—especially in the work of scholars who center their work around the idea of marginalization and lack of privilege. I don’t want to discount the extremely valuable and important work that Royster, Enoch, and others have done, but I also think there is a way that we can analyze the merits and rhetorical strategies of speakers while being aware of the advantages they’ve had. Could we create a space for Woodhull in an anthology or study that examines the ways nineteenth century female rhetors have used or worked against the “cult of true womanhood,” and might she be alongside rhetors like Wells who also worked against the true womanhood ideals (even though she and Wells would likely vehemently disagree on the eugenics movement)? Ernestine Rose would be welcome in such an anthology too—as Beth noted, she too doesn’t seem to “fit.”
A few words about Snow. From her “A Sketch of My Life,” it doesn’t seem that she sees the marriage relationship in terms of an oppressive order. Nor does she view plural marriage in such light. Granted, at first when she heard of the practice she says that “the subject was very repugnant to my feelings—so directly was it in opposition to my educated prepossessions, that is seemed as though all the prejudices of my ancestors for generations past congregated around me.” But as she then notes, “As I increased in knowledge concerning the principle and design in Plural Marriage, I grew in love with it, and today esteem it a precious, sacred principle.” She also describes her plural marriage to Joseph Smith as “one of the most important circumstances of my life, I have never had cause to regret.” (16-17). She, like Wells, was an ardent supporter of the practice, believing that it was mandated by God. The work that she did with the women’s organization, Exponent, etc weren’t attempts to challenge patriarchy at all. In fact, the Relief Society’s was actually organized by Joseph Smith who then called his wife Emma to be the organization’s first president. The RS continues to function today as an auxiliary of the priesthood, along with the youth groups and children’s organizations.
As for her conversion, she explains how around the age of twenty-six Joseph Smith came to her father’s home to preach. The Snow parents were Baptists but they encouraged their children to “examine all creeds” and thus she found herself employing her motto to “prove all things and hold fast that which is good.” This “prompted me to investigation, as incredulous as I was; and the most impressive testimonies I had ever heard were given by two of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, at the first meeting of the believers in Joseph Smith’s mission, which I attended.” However, it wasn’t until four years later that she was baptized, her mother and sister having previously converted. She writes, “The spirit bore witness to me of the truth. I felt that I had waited already a little too long to see whether the work was going to ‘flash in the pan’ and go out. But my heart was now fixed; and I was baptized on the 5th of April, 1835. From that day to this I have not doubted the truth of the work.” (9-10).
There’s plenty more to say about the conversion process for Snow and what it meant throughout her life. Likewise for how women were/are viewed in the church. I’d be happy to share more with those interested in this history.
My last comment was soooo off topic that I just deleted it, but in the Daily Lobo today there was a letter about how women are better teachers than men, and the reasons given smacked of the cult of domesticity…but back to the task at hand:
I think some other people expressed interest in hearing about the dialogue in the 1950's biography of Ernestine Rose, so I will answer Dr. Romano's question. I took a closer look at the book, Ernestine L. Rose and the Battle for Human Rights by Yuri Suhl. The book isn’t riddled with made up dialogue, but there is some there. I think I called it quaint—the book has a tone to it that actually reminds me of the tone found in Annarose’s find of the childrens’ book about Victoria Woodhull. One of the best examples of the made up dialogue is the entire first chapter of the book, covering her early years, which contain conversations with her father. A snippet:
“It is no use arguing, father. I will not marry that man.”
“But the contract has already been signed.”
“I have not signed it and I will not honor it. I beg you, father, tell him that I regard this contract null and void.”
“This I will not do.”
“Then I will.”
More so than the dialogue (which doesn’t occur much but does occur—and lots of times more between secondary and tertiary actors in Rose’s story than with Rose directly) is the sense that Suhl is doing some creative writing by trying to show what Rose was thinking about every step of the way. Here is a good example:
“If Ernestine had kept a diary, the entry for February 9, 1857 would probably read as follows: Had unusual experience today…met with poet Walt Whitman…tall, bushy-bearded, striking…alive to the world…[this goes on for awhile—basically a paraphrase from Ernestine Rose’s perspective of a diary entry that Whitman DID write]…must re-read the Leaves now that I’ve met the poet”
Throughout this book there are instances where it feels like the author is injecting emotion into Ernestine and others—using a lot of adjectives and exclamation points.
What does this do for Ernestine Rose? I think it makes her seem mythical, or fictional. I also feel like the over-use of exclamation and descriptive adjectives for what people were thinking make the story seem—cute? Like, look at this—a feisty lady who did lots of stuff. Isn’t that neat?
I should also note that the 1950's biographer had a great respect for Ernestine Rose.
In his intro he admits to taking some liberties with dialogue in the earlier years, but claims that all other dialogue and quotes were taken from speeches and letters. Kolmerten, the author of the more recent book that I read, claims that some of these speeches and letters are misquoted or misused, so I'm not even sure what to make. She does point out, though, the extreme devotion Suhl (the 50's biographer) and his wife (his research assistant, basically) had for Ernestine, and feels a kinship with them for their commitment in "keep[ing] alive the memory of an extraordinary woman."
Oh, and one more thing-- the 1950's book refers to Ernestine Rose always as "Ernestine", while the more recent one refers to her as "Rose". The 1950's book also calls other prominent women by their fist names (Susan for Susan B. Anthony, for example), but men by their last names. An interesting discrepancy, for sure. I don't think it connotes respect for the subjects, but I don't know if it's just a product of the time or something else.
What is most interesting about Maria Stewart is her almost immediate thrust toward publication of her work. Not only is Stewart known as the first black woman to speak for civil rights, she is America’s first Black Woman Political Writer. Perhaps were it not for William Lloyd Garrison and his Liberator, Maria may not have been heard. Her first speeches were seen in Garrison’s paper as early as 1831. Her movement from declamation, the final test of the rhetorician’s skills, to publication not only of her speeches, but also of more extensive works such as her largely biographical Meditations was most noteworthy. She precedes the published work of Harriet Jacobs “Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl,” which was not published until 1861. Stewart, of course, experienced a major religious conversion following the death of her dear friend and mentor, David Walker. I suggest that this event provided some strength beyond this world to speak out and become intensely involved in her work. I have to do some more work on Stewart’s transition from declamation to publication. How did she come to have the prescience to follow this trajectory? I find it just amazing that an African American woman of her time could have accomplished this. I have her entire meditations and am trying the find the spot in them that speaks about this. Additionally, based on my study of Maria Stewart, I suggest that she belongs to an alternative tradition of which she is an originator. She is an anomaly; there are no others like her. I can’t find any evidence that Maria Stewart was involved in the Freemen school movement in which Lydia Maria Child was involved. This movement found its feet in the 1850’s and began to materialize then and through the end of the Civil War. Maria Stewart was already firmly established as the African American female originator of the essayist tradition as Royster indicates. I shall report later on this if I am able to find any connection between Stewart and the Freedman School. The basis for any teaching of Stewart was based on the Bible and her well regard argument against the teaching of misogynist Paul who urged that women follow men. I should point out that I am placing Paul in the misogynist category based on my studies of his life and works. This is not Stewart’s designation. She, in fact, believed that Paul would not have objected to her activism had he known what African American women were dealing with.
I want to comment on the common theme of conversion that emerged in our presentations despite our adopted rhetors being from different time periods and walks of life. I found myself wondering if conversion provided women rhetors with more clout, so to speak, as they spoke for what they believed.
I forgot to post because I'm a huge loser. I'm really sorry.
The source wasn't about Willard in any substantial degree. It kind of only mentioned her in passing. Whast it said was that she was a lesbian and that her female lovers called her "Frank." However, my own research indicates that her identity was carefully constructed to preserve femininity. Her mother and secretary were constantly exchanging letters about what they'd dress her in so that she'd appear appropriately womanly.
The largest resistance was met in a stormy mob outside one of the public halls, I think in Philadelphia. Apparently people were super enraged by the thought of these women speaking *in public* rather than by the actual content of the speech. Also, the WCTU caught a lot of flack within the press for publically denouncing liquor and advocating women's right; many editorials from that time are inexistence. This movement created a marked ambivalence among viewers and listeners who opposed these women speaking in public but also supported the morality and "cleansing" that Prohibition would provide.
I'm pasting in Katie's presentation on Amelia Bloomer:
Amelia Bloomer
(1818-1894)
Amelia Bloomer was a 19th century social activist who advocated for women’s rights and temperance. Surprisingly little has been written on Amelia Bloomer, but I will provide what information I have been able to gather.
Education and Early Life
Bloomer received very little formal education. Instead, she was educated in her home by her mother. As an adult, Bloomer taught school for less than a year. When Bloomer married Dexter Bloomer, he encouraged her to write for his newspaper, Seneca Falls County Courier. Later, when Bloomer had the chance to begin a women’s temperance periodical, her husband discouraged her from pursuing the opportunity, claiming women were ill-informed and ill-suited to activist roles.
The Lily
Bloomer established her own bi-weekly newspaper, The Lily, in 1849 in Seneca Falls, New York. The paper initially focused on temperance, but evolved to emphasize women’s rights. Elizabeth Cady Stanton was a regular contributor to this periodical. The Lily continued until 1853, and it has been credited with serving as a model for later periodicals dealing with women’s suffrage.
Bloomer says of The Lily:
It was a needed instrumentality to spread abroad the truth of the new gospel to woman, and I could not withhold my hand to stay the work I had begun. I saw not the end from the beginning and little dreamed whereto my propositions to the society would lead me. (qtd. in Bloomer 45)
Dress Reform
Bloomer is best known as an advocate for the modified dress code for women that included loose pants gathered at the ankle topped by a short dress or skirt and vest, rather than the more restrictive dress of confining corset and uncomfortable skirts. Though named after Bloomer, the dress was initially worn by New England temperance activist Elizabeth Smith Miller (aka Libby Miller). Miller shared her costume with Stanton, who adopted the clothing as well. Bloomer began wearing the clothing as well, and defended it rigorously in The Lily.
Bloomer argues:
I found the dress comfortable, light, easy and convenient, and well adapted to the needs of my busy life. I was pleased with it and had no desire to lay it aside, and so would not let the ridicule or censure of the press move me. (qtd. in Bloomer 69).
Bloomer wore the outfit on all occasions for several years, but ultimately abandoned it. There were several reasons for this: although the dress initially called attention to issues of women’s rights, in the end, Bloomer and other activists believed the dress detracted from their promotion of women’s rights. Says Bloomer: “In the minds of some people, the short dress and woman’s rights were inseparably connected. With us, the dress was but an incident, and we were not willing to sacrifice greater questions to it” (70). On another occasion, Bloomer asserts, “Women are not sufficiently free and independent to dare to strike for health and freedom” in dress (71). And Bloomer pointed to the invention of the crinoline as sufficient comfort and health modifications to give up the bloomer style of dress.
Later Life
Bloomer continued to promote suffrage and wrote widely for a variety of periodicals throughout her life. She led suffrage campaigns in Nebraska and Iowa, and served as president of the Iowa Woman Suffrage Association from 1871 until 1873. And even though she is known most commonly now for her part in dress reform, Bloomer made significant contribution to women’s rights during her lifetime.
Resources:
Bloomer, Dexter C. Life and Writings of Ameilia Bloomer. Boston: Arena Pub. Co., 1895. Reprinted 1975 by Schocken Books, New York. Includes bibliographical references.
Coon, Anne C. Hear Me Patiently: The Reform Speeches of Amelia Jenks Bloomer, Vol. 138. Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc., 1994.
The Lily: A Ladies' Journal, devoted to Temperance and Literature. 1849-1853
Post a Comment