American History

personally i felt the book sucked, was long, boring, etc.

however, it is very well written, arguments are backed, etc. Kerber wrote a masterpeice if this subject interest you.

i only read it for class. so if your looking for some quick info about the book:

the main point of it is republican motherhood: the idea that women in the revolution could have a political influence, without being able to vote, by shaping the ideals and morals of their children, boys to vote and lead, and the girls to raise other good boys.

i would definately read the entire introduction 2 times as it overviews the whole book. the last 10 pages are worth reading too
Rating: 3 / 5

The Revolutionary Era in American history was revolutionary largely for white men. Unfortunately, humans are a notoriously contradictory lot, as aptly demonstrated by the immediate aftermath of independence and the creation of a radical new republic, as the social and legal repression of women and minorities continued despite egalitarian rhetoric of rights, liberty, and freedom. The situation was arguably better for the former, however, as (white) women did see some gains, though only within the context of their traditional domestic sphere. The core definition of gender, according to Joan W. Scott in her article “Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis,” is its role as a “constitutive element of social relationships based on perceived differences between the sexes” and “a primary way of signifying relationships of power.” Linda K. Kerber’s “Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America” seeks to demonstrate how these two functions intersected and interacted in a crucial, transformative time in American history. The end product is a good springboard for anyone interested in women’s studies, but is also ultimately incomplete.

In attempting to explain and account for the current state of affairs in Europe, many Enlightenment thinkers composed sweeping panoramas of the march of human history that also almost always neglected women. In the English Whig tradition, which was arguably an even greater influence on the ideology of the American Revolution, women did not fare much better. Lacking the concept of the “presocial family,” Whig theorists often framed their thoughts on politics and the state in terms of the father-son relationship. In the end, women entered and emerged from the American Revolution with little theoretical guidance on what should be their role in the new republic. The definition of female patriotism that did emerge from the war was what George Washington described as “the love of country . . . blended with those softer domestic virtues.” The duty of women was to suffer the hard times, support the military, and “maintain their innocence”; in other words, to passively endure while the men performed feats of republican heroism. Women’s contributions were seen overall as a self-evidently justified “free gift” to the nation, while women themselves seemed to have made political decisions based predominantly on their roles as wives, mothers, and managers of households. Their most common political act, the petition, is fundamentally based on a position of subordination that relies heavily on rhetoric of humility.

The post-war years saw little legal gain for the female population, especially in terms of divorce and coverture laws, but education was a different matter. Though colonial America had a highly literate overall population, teaching girls was not a high priority. Since girls were going to be simply wives and mothers, it was believed, they did not need to learn much, and those who did were unnaturally masculine and an intrusion into the male sphere of scholarship. Both the Revolutionary War and the emerging Industrial Revolution did much to alter this. While the expansion of capitalism and the free market made printed communication essential, it was also believed that republics were built on the virtue of their citizens and that only education could ensure that future generations had this virtue. It would come not from a formal branch of government, but from churches, schools and the home. Hence the ideology of the Republican Mother.

The early years of the United States, according to Daniel Feller in his book “The Jacksonian Promise,” were a “glimmering moment [where] everything seemed possible,” including “the revolutionizing of human character” and “raising a generation of perfected youth.” This gave women a new and major role: they were to be the mothers whose knowledge and virtue were the crucial influences in shaping future citizens. Women were still not allowed far beyond the home, but what they could do in the home had been enlarged. Lacking as they did any Whig or Enlightenment thought to build upon, women of the early United States eventually transformed their traditional domestic sphere into a center of the “new public ideology of individual responsibility and civic virtue.” Though at the end of the day Americans did not choose to explore the obvious implications of their egalitarian ideals, women did manage to attach new significance to their timeworn roles as wives and mothers. The goal of the Republican Mother was an inherently political one: she was to “encourage her sons’ civic interest and participation” and “educate her children and guide them on paths of morality and virtue.” Of course, the Republican Mother ideal was always vulnerable to absorption into the Victorian “cult of domesticity,” which is arguably precisely what happened. In the words of Feller: “By the 1840s the idea of a distinct feminine character was transmuting from an instrument of change to a bulwark of stasis, from a way to arm women for uplift to a rationale for confining them in the circle of home and family.” Kerber, on the other hand, believes that the Republican Mother was in fact only the first stage of women’s political socialization, a process in which they simply lagged behind men but would one day catch up.

“Women of the Republic: Ideology and Intellect in Revolutionary America” is a intriguing but limited look into a frequently neglected aspect of the American Revolutionary era. Limited, because it seems to focus mostly on Northern women, while African-American women are never even mentioned. Kerber’s sources are nicely varied, however, as she draws on both modern-day scholarship and contemporary materials such as diaries, plays, speeches, articles, and court documents. It has been common practice to catalogue women’s personal papers under their husbands’ names, she notes in the bibliography, and women have been subsequently buried in family records so that it is difficult to locate them. Given that restriction, Kerber has still done an admirable job incorporating women’s own writings into her book. Nevertheless, because it is so narrow, Kerber’s book is best read alongside other works also covering Revolutionary women of different backgrounds and from different angles. (For example: T.H. Breen’s fascinating work “The Marketplace of Revolution: How Consumer Politics Shaped American Independence” contends that, as “women had long exercised broad discretion over day-to-day household expenditures . . . [and] regularly dealt with the shopkeepers and itinerant traders who merchandised imported British goods,” they played a huge role in the boycotts and non-importation movements that marked the pre-war years beginning in the 1760s with the Stamp Act. Without women, these protests would most likely have failed. Kerber, though she acknowledges the effectiveness of mobilizing citizens against British fashions, dismisses such economic appeals as “the most frivolous terms.”) Only then will the historian be able to develop a fuller understanding of gender and the American Revolution.
Rating: 3 / 5