Power Couples: Leading Men and Women in Early Philadelphia by William Kowalik

Posted on by
Reply

PowerCouples_for_e-blast_copy_largeWhen you think of George Washington, does Martha pop into your mind too? What about Ben and Deborah Franklin? William and Hannah Penn? I attended a very interesting lecture at the Philadelphia History Museum presented by historian Dr. Cynthia Little entitled Philadelphia Power Couples 1682-1873 that examined the dynamics of these and more “Power Couples” and the significant roles that they both played together in defining a nation.

A very broad and complicated topic, my only complaint about this lecture that I enjoyed, was that an hour-long presentation on the subject of the lives of six significant American couples attributed to Philadelphia in some way, could only scratch the surface of the complexity of these figures and their relationships. She did however provide several sources to keep digging to conduct a deeper personal analysis of these individuals, and explain that this topic is a work in progress. Despite this, Dr. Little was able to fit quite a bit of engaging and interesting content on them. Dr. Little presented the argument as supported by other scholars, that powerful men in American history are equal part of the relationship with their female spouses, and in many cases these women offer a more significant contribution to the American story than their husbands. This Women’s History Month event clearly recognized that. We shouldn’t just think about the Founding Fathers, we should include the founding mothers as well, together, the Founding parents? That certainly is a different way to look at our deeply ingrained narrative of American history as one led by men. Clearly, this isn’t exclusively the case.

Dr. Little examined the relationships between William Penn and Hannah Callowhill Penn, George and Martha Washington, Benjamin and Deborah Franklin, John Ross and Betsy Claypoole—better known as Ross, Richard and Sarah Allen, Stephen and Harriet Smith, and James and Lucretia Mott. These women and men lived extraordinary lives and played a tremendous role in shaping our nation. This is a very varied group of individuals, some very wealthy, some middle class, some free Whites, others free Blacks, and former slaves. One important distinction that must be made is that this group was people with some affluence, status and control in society, and able to practice considerable agency. This likely would not have been the case for most early Americans whose roles would be clearly defined and prescribed and would not experience a similar status as a “power couple.” Alexis de Tocqueville said: “American women never manage the outward concerns of the family, or conduct a business or take part in a political life…no families, are so poor as to form an exception to this rule” (DuBois and Dumenil 187-188). DuBois and Dumenil establish that de Tocqueville’s statement in the 1830s was not always true and “contradicted these assertions” (DuBois and Dumenil 188).

I enjoyed Dr. Little’s inclusion of people who as she stated, “Are people who I think really deserve to be more household names because of their importance in Philadelphia” (Little). People who most people don’t know, but should. This holds true with the Smiths, who were born into slavery, bought their freedom, and become incredibly successful businesspeople both in their own right. “They are really if not the, among probably the top five or ten wealthiest Black families in the United States” (Little). They used their money to support the cause of abolition and to assist escaped slaves. While little is known about Harriet Smith, what is known about her business acumen, and her involvement with the Philadelphia Female Anti-Slavery Society and the Women’s Association of Philadelphia, both organizations were immensely active in the cause of abolition (Little).

Another example of the inclusion of a lesser-known couple (at least outside of Philadelphia) is William and Hannah Callowhill Penn. Many tourists visiting Philadelphia to be convinced that it is Ben Franklin, Philadelphia’s most famous citizen—also included in this lecture, who sits atop City Hall, and not its founder William Penn. William Penn’s founding and running of Pennsylvania was not a job that only fell on his responsibility, but Hannah’s as well. Experienced in accounting and financial matters, Hannah, Penn’s second wife proved to be helpful in these areas, as he was not. Hannah managed both of Penn’s estates and organizational issues (Little). Most interesting is what happens in 1712, William Penn in failing health, suffers a stroke and is rendered incapable of managing the operations and affairs of his proprietary colony of Pennsylvania. Hannah Penn, a woman, takes over and then becomes the proprietor of Pennsylvania (Little). “Both of William Penn’s marriages appear to have been deeply affectionate relationships, but his biographers have portrayed the first as a love match, the second as a matter of convenience” (Hirsch 430). Hannah Penn herself interestingly was hesitant to take over management of Pennsylvania after Penn’s death “for fear of mismanagement” and was “but a woman” (Hirsch 433). Nonetheless, she successfully exercised tremendous agency and control in the first quarter of the eighteenth century, overseeing Pennsylvania.

Philadelphia Power Couples presented the interesting perspective of the powerful women behind, or should I say next to some of the most powerful and significant men in Philadelphia history up to the end of the nineteenth century. These women exercised tremendous authority as skilled craftspeople, businesswomen, dignitaries, philanthropists, religious leaders, and agents for social change. Some of them like Martha Washington, Deborah Franklin and Hannah Penn have often ignored by history and overshadowed by their powerful husbands, but still provided much support to their marriages and accomplishments than is traditionally recognized. Others like Betsy Ross, Sarah Allen, and Harriet Smith far outpace their husbands in their accomplishments or equally match them, and served a considerable amount of time in the spotlight dedicated to various causes, though both partners had something to contribute in their powerful marriages as power couples leading center stage in Philadelphia life was the perfect way to celebrate Women’s History Month with acknowledging and celebrating powerful women who played an important role in this time in Philadelphia and the nation.

 

Bibliography

Little, Cynthia. “Philadelphia Power Couples 1682-1873.” Philadelphia History Museum. Philadelphia.  24 Mar. 2016. Lecture.

Hirsch, Alison Duncan. “A Tale of Two Wives: Mythmaking and the Lives of Gulielma and Hannah Penn. William Penn: To Honor His 350th Anniversary. Spec. issue of Pennsylvania History: A    Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies 61.4 (1994): 429-56. Print.

DuBois, Ellen Carol, and Lynn Dumenil. “Pedestal, Loom, and Auction Block.” Through Women’s Eyes. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2012. 186-251. Print.

 

Civil War Women at Laurel Hill by Alisha Rivera

Posted on by
Reply

LHCWSome of the greatest places to find the history of women is through its cemeteries, which was my goal this Women’s History month when I went to the Laurel Hill Cemetery to get a better understanding of female participation during the Civil War. The event was called Legendary Civil War Ladies: A One Book, One Philadelphia Event. The One Book, One Philadelphia Event is an event created by the Free Library of Philadelphia where a group of people read a selected work and use Philadelphia as a way to explore it further. This month’s book was Cold Mountain and so it fit perfectly with this event. The Legendary Civil War Ladies is a project that attempted to give eleven women, all of whom participated in the Civil War and are currently buried at Laurel Hill, a story. Focusing on one of the women mentioned in the event, I plan to show how this event worked and how it failed.

The article “The Feminized Civil War” written by Alice Fahs, discusses how women often participated in the Civil War by making the home their battle ground. Female domestic participation in the war was seen as important as male participation in combat (Fahs 1464). However, their participation in the war was only held within their domestic sphere. Martha Coston, one of the women buried in Laurel Hill, participated in the Civil War outside of the sphere set for her.

According to Kerry Bryan, the guide at Laurel Hill, Coston was the wife of an inventor who unfortunately died prematurely leaving her alone with four children. One day, as she was shifting through his things she found some rough plans for a signal flair for ships. His design did not work, but she was able to work on her version for ten years. The finished product became a crucial asset for the navy during the Civil War. Still, with all her accomplishments she did not really gain the recognition she deserved.

According to an article written by Deborah Merritt called “Hypatia in the Patent Office: Women Inventors and the Law, 1865-1900”, women were often tricked by men in the commerce business to either hand over their patents to a man or, if they wanted to fight, hire a male lawyer that also took advantage of them (Merritt 252). Most women inventors at this time did not receive support from male inventors and they often did not receive full payment for their inventions. Merritt even states that “Coston believed that her gender prevented her from obtaining a fair price from governments who purchased her flares” (Merritt 300). While Coston was one of the most interesting women we learn about during the event, we ended up only spending about ten minutes on her.

The event was originally intended to be an outside one where we were supposed to take a tour of the cemetery to see each gravesite for each of the women being discussed. However, it was a cold day and so they moved everything into a cramped room. Bryan was dressed up as Mrs. Elizabeth Hutter, one of the Civil War Ladies, and she gave the tour in the form of a PowerPoint presentation. She did her best to make it feel like we were transported into history, but it did not go smoothly because she read everything out of a binder.

Because of the presentation form, each woman was only given about ten minutes of spotlight time. This was not enough time for every lady because it created watered down versions of each woman’s story. It would have been better if they choose only four or five women to talk about. That way they can give a deep analysis of each woman. In the case of Coston, it would have been interesting to see an original patent for the signal flair or be able to see an original signal flair. Primary evidence would have made the experience a little more interesting.

In addition to this, I feel like the indoor alternative should have been more interactive. People came to the event expecting to roam around the grounds. Instead they had to sit in a small room for an hour and a half. Perhaps they could have had displays set up around the building were people could walk around and spend time with each lady at their own pace. Still, despite the slight letdown of the event, what little information they did present for each woman turned out to be pretty solid. The fact that they created a research project solely based on examining the women in the cemetery gives me hope that other places will soon want to do the same.

Works Cited

Bryan, Kerry. “Legendary Civil War Ladies”. Laurel Hill Cemetery, Philadelphia. 3 Mar. 2016. Tour.

Fahs, Alice. “The Feminized Civil War: Gender, Northern Popular Literature, and the Memory of the War, 1861-1900”. The Journal of American History 85.4 (1999): 1461–1494. Web.

Merritt, Deborah J. “Hypatia in the Patent Office: Women Inventors and the Law, 1865-1900”. The American Journal of Legal History 35.3 (1991): 235–306. Web.

 

Events during Women’s History Month by Kennie Lam

Posted on by
Reply

150210_header_womens_history_monthMarch is the third month in a year under Gregorian calendar. When asked about what happens in the month of March, college basketball fans will spring and answer March Madness, which is the Men’s and Women’s Division I Basketball Championship; Christians will reply Easter, Jews will state Purim, and zoologists will say the mating season of the European hare, and students everywhere will proclaim Spring Break. Perhaps only historians, feminists, and history fanatics will respond Women’s History Month. In this March, I had the honor to attend couple of the events held in the public history institutions in Philadelphia, one at National Liberty Museum, and one at the National Constitution Center.

The event at National Liberty Museum was a crowd-sourced portrait exhibit highlighting female role models. This exhibit was on a panel of wall near the entrance, extremely easy to walk by and overlook, and the display itself was rather simplistic. It consisted of couple strings of paper, with the portraits and narratives taped on it. In my opinion, I felt this does not do the event justice. As far as I was aware, there was an empty space that the Museum used as a classroom. Instead of taped the portraits and narratives on a string of paper, they can perhaps utilized the space. However, I understood it was easier said than done. As I observe, the Museum did not have a large number of staff, perhaps which was the reason behind the simplistic execution.

Another event I attended was the Women’s History Self-Guided Tour at National Constitution Center. This event, however, for reason unknown, infuriated me. As the event itself, I found it quite simple. It was simply a preexisted exhibit with Women’s History Month stickers in the showroom. Quite honestly, this surprised me. I was expecting a separate space for those artifacts to be on display. At the same time, with a similar situation to the National Liberty Museum, from my observation, they also did not have a large number of staff. On top of that, they also needed to protect the artifacts from the elements of nature like lights and moist, also from the wondering hands of children and adults.

After my visits to both location, I found both events underwhelming. Aside from the lack of recognition, both events did not seem to have a lot of thoughts put into it. The crowd-sourced portrait exhibit completely relied on the crowd, but as I have mentioned previously, the display was not something of an attention grabber. Its quality was more along the line of something being put together in a rush to reach a deadline. Similarly, when I visited the National Constitution Center, similar emotions occurred to me. As I walked through the preexisted exhibit and tried to locate the artifacts, my reaction after found all of the artifacts was not satisfied, but more to such a degree of surprised with the limited amount of items to show a handful of women fought their way in a patriarch society to leave their legacy. To be honest, I did not expect anything bourgeois from both location, but I believed in the least, these women deserved a display on its own that was not easily overlooked, to signify their importance in our history, and the progress these women led in their era.

Overall, my visits to these events were not entirely fruitful. However, they showed me the general public does not really give much thought into Women’s History Month, to a point where a display consists of string of paper and crowd-sourced materials, and some stickers that highlighted couple of artifacts in a preexisted exhibition can passed as a feature event.

How We Remember: Women in Post-Revolutionary America by Maggie Lindrooth

Posted on by
Reply

 

Betsy-Outside-FlagWhile the credibility of the story of Betsy Ross is debatable among the historical community[1], the American public continues to visit the Betsy Ross House in droves, flocking to learn about the fabled flag-maker and the story of the so-called “first flag.” Located on 2nd and Arch Streets in Old City, Philadelphia, Ross is believed to have lived in what is now the Betsy Ross House museum from 1776-1779, during which time, according to legend, she created the first American flag.  Ross’s story became popular during the last third of the 19th Century.[2] With the help of her descendents, the story gained both popularity and widespread public acceptance. Despite persisting doubts in the credibility of the story of the “first flag” as constructed by Ross’s relatives, the house museum, opened in 1898, has continued to promulgate the idea of Betsy Ross as patriot and flag-maker. The museum creates a shrine-like atmosphere, focusing more on reconstructing fable than on factuality. However, while the museum itself is questionable in its representation, it provides insight into the larger issue of the way that women are portrayed in early American history. In honor of Women’s History Month, the Betsy Ross House featured appearances by a washerwoman, Phillis, who provided authenticity and a glimpse of what life was like for working women during the late 18th Century. This, rather than the myth of Betsy Ross, gave an effective and interesting look into the lives of 18th Century women. Questions of fact and myth aside, the Betsy Ross House serves an important function—to acknowledge and explain the lives of women in the 18th Century.

The Betsy Ross House museum was carefully organized and labeled in a way that reinforced “the cult of Betsy.” The rooms themselves were full of objects and reproductions that purportedly belonged to Ross, including a bible, a walnut chest-on-chest, Chippendale and Sheraton side chairs, her eyeglasses, and her petticoat. These items were displayed in different locations throughout the house and served to highlight different aspects of Ross’s life. The glasses and the bible were displayed in her bedroom, while downstairs in the cellar an interactive exhibit described foods Betsy would have eaten and how she was “so clever” for preserving them in her root cellar. The actor portraying Ross was a pretty young woman, sewing curtains in the room that functioned as the upholstery shop. She explained to passersby what she was working on, and described the experience of making the first flag.

Visitors who made their way to the cellar of the house during the month of March were greeted by Phillis, a freed African-American laundress, as part of the Women’s History Month event Women at Work in Revolutionary America. As part of the reason I chose to visit the Betsy Ross House, I made sure to ask Phillis about her work and her life. She explained that each laundress had her own route and neighborhood that she served. Although work was not usually contracted long-term, Phillis explained that she worked for the woman who lived in what is now the house museum on a monthly basis. However, most houses, she said, were simply a matter of luck and good timing—she would often go door-to-door and knock, asking the woman in charge of the house if the laundry needed to be done. I asked her if there was competition for work, and she said that although there were many laundresses, it was common for each washerwoman to stake out a piece of “territory”—usually several city blocks, in which she would work.. As I knew little about the lives of ordinary women during this time previous to this semester, I was interested to discover that, according to discover that, according to historian Carole Shammas in her article Female Social Structure of Philadelphia in 1775, only 2.3 percent of female heads of household in the Chestnut and East Mulberry Wards worked as washerwomen in 1775.[3]

Interestingly, it seems that Ross too was in the minority of female occupations, as only 4.6 percent of women in these wards worked as artisans, including glovers and upholsterers.[4] This sheds light on the fact that regardless of whether Betsy Ross sewed the first flag for George Washington, her occupation set her apart as a woman who, though married several times, pursued her trade and had a successful business making curtains, flags, and other household linens. Phillis the washerwoman and Betsy Ross, though very different from one another, shed light on the lives of women not through their great accomplishments as patriots, but rather through their occupations, which spoke to a level of confidence and self-assuredness regardless of the money they made.

Much of the Betsy Ross House felt rather contrived and at times overly-mythologized, but the Women at Work exhibit gave an interesting, insightful overview of women like Phillis, who more often than not are passed over in larger histories in favor of legendary figures like Betsy Ross. The majority of the house museum allowed me to see just how persistent and entrenched the Betsy Ross myth really is—the entire museum was organized around stories passed down from Ross’s relatives, who by 1870, had begun to promulgate the myth of Betsy Ross and the American flag.[5] There is little to no evidence, as Laurel Thatcher Ulrich points out in her article How Betsy Ross Became Famous, that Ross herself invented the flag’s design, and rather that she was simply hired to make Pennsylvania naval flags in 1777.[6] In fact, different versions of the flag abounded. However, Ulrich goes on to attest, it is not the flag that matters, but Betsy herself. Betsy Ross, the so-called creator of the flag and ordinary seamstress, holds a place in the hearts of the American people precisely because she was so normal.[7] She fills a void in early American history with her story—in a time swirling with romantic ideas and tales of the founding fathers, Ross provides a female figure—a patriot, a “talented businesswoman”[8], and a wife who, although she led an average life, has managed to cement herself firmly in the American popular consciousness. She represents a way for women to connect with the glorious American beginnings—a role that women like Phillis, whose lives were equally as average and equally important, are unable to fulfill. Due to her descendants’ carefully crafted and passed-down stories, Ross’s legacy endures and has become the stuff of legend. However, we must keep in mind the women like Phillis—the women who perhaps had no offspring, or whose descendants were unable to tell her story. For they, too, are the face of 18th Century America.

 Works Cited

 

[1] Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, “How Betsy Ross Became Famous,” Common Place 8, no. 1 (2007). Accessed January 26, 2016, http://www.common-place-archives.org/vol-08/no-01/ulrich/.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Carole Shammas, “The Fmeale Social Structure of Philadelpha in 1775,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, 107, no. 1 (1983): 75.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ulrich.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

New Century Trust and “Miss Representation” by Deja Sloan

Posted on by
Reply

 

NCTOn Wednesday, March 23, I attended a special viewing of the 2011 Documentary “Miss Representation” at Philadelphia’s New Century Trust located at 1307 Locust Street. New Century Trust is an organization that is dedicated to helping women empower themselves and each other. The official vision/slogan of New Century Trust is “To improve the educational, economic and social status of women and girls.” [1]I chose this event because March was an extremely busy month for me, and this was one of the only events that could fit into my schedule. It was very easy to find the event, as it was one of the first to appear when I searched for women’s history events in Philadelphia. I had to pay $10 to attend, which seemed a little unnecessary at first, but I understood why once I realized they are a non-profit organization that operates solely to improve women’s status in society.

Upon arriving, I was asked to sign in and explain how I found out about the screening. I was then led into the main room of the house where they were serving food and drinks. There were about 30 women in attendance, most of which were in their late 30s to mid 40s and working for different non-profits around the city. I attended the event alone, so I initially felt out of place, but eventually some of the women came up to introduce themselves in an effort to make me feel welcomed. After about 45 minutes of socializing, we were all led upstairs to view the movie. They did not give much background on the film before screening it, and only offered a question and answer session afterwards. The documentary focused on the ways in which women are dehumanized in the media, politics, and in society in general. It explained the many ways in which women’s contributions to history often swept under the rug or demoted. According to the project’s official website, “The media is selling young people the idea that girls’ and women’s value lies in their youth, beauty, and sexuality and not in their capacity as leaders. Boys learn that their success is tied to dominance, power, and aggression. We must value people as whole human beings, not gendered stereotypes.”[2] There were endless examples of the hyper-sexualization of women in pop culture today, which was extremely interesting to acknowledge especially since it is something I am so used to seeing as normalized. This was perhaps the most informative part of my visit, because it explained the correlation between the historical oppression of women and how it led to how women are treated in media and so widely perceived today.

The question and answer session after the movie was brief, but also extremely informative. It allowed us to discuss some of the issues mentioned in the documentary more closely, and hear some of the personal stories of the women who could personally resonate with issues described in the film. These personal accounts really helped put the history into context, and gave us a better feel of how important women’s history still is.

Overall, I really enjoyed my visit to New Century Trust. I felt very welcome, and being one of the youngest women there, I felt as though the other women who attended were impressed with my interest in the importance of women’s history. I do, however, have a few critiques to offer. First of all, when I arrived everyone was dressed semi- professionally. There was nothing wrong with this, beside the fact that I was not notified. I showed up in a flannel shirt, jeans, and old sneakers. It made me feel out of place in the beginning but as I said before, the women in attendance were very welcoming. Eventually the feeling of alienation faded away, but I would have preferred to know this earlier so I could have been prepared. The only other critique I have is that the organization failed to really put the documentary into context before the viewing. I had heard about the documentary before, but it still would have been nice to get a concrete background on what we were about to see, and why it was important.. Of course the documentary itself was full of women’s history, but getting at least some general background on the film would have made it feel more like a detailed event.

Attending this event was not only a history lesson, but a lesson in sociology as well. Miss representation brought to life some of the ideas mentioned in “Do we still need women’s history” For example, according to the article, “Gender is a tempting and powerful framework. Far more inclusive than the category of women, it raises questions not so much about what women did or did not do, but about how the organization of relationships between men and women established priorities and motivated social and political action.” [3]This was one of the prominent themes in the movie, as it emphasized the importance of not putting the responsibility just on women to improve their status in society, but on men too. Even in the Q&A after the screening, it was brought up that no men attended the event. We discussed how feminism needs to be understood by all genders to advance women in society, much like what Kessler- Harris says in the article.

[1] “Our Vision.” New Century Trust: Committed to Women and Girls Since 1882. Accessed March 31, 2016. http://www.newcenturytrust.org/who-we-are.

[2] “The Issue – The Representation Project.” The Representation Project. Accessed March 31, 2016. http://therepresentationproject.org/film/miss-representation/the-issue/.

[3] Harris, Alice K. Do We Still Need Women’s History? December 7, 2007. Accessed March 31, 2016. https://blackboard.temple.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-4823111-dt-content-rid-50213064_2/courses/LA_MN_HIST_3225_1901956_639/Do We Still Need Womens History.pdf.

Women and the Betsy Ross House by Taylor McGoldrick

Posted on by
Reply

The Betsy Ross House in Old City not only covers the life of Ross herself, but also looks inBRHto the life of her washerwoman, Phillis. Phillis worked for Ross from 1776 until the 1780s when Betsy moved out of the famed house. She was born into slavery, and was an indentured servant until the age of twenty-one, when she was given her freedom. The Betsy Ross house has made her a part of the exhibit for Women’s History Month, giving the Philadelphia public not only a look into a woman’s life during the Revolutionary Era, but a free African American woman’s life at that time.

The house itself is a self-led walking tour that takes visitors throughout the entire house and allows them to view each room and see what it was used for. Ross herself is of course a feature on the tour, but for the month of March, the Betsy Ross House has added her laundress Phillis to the tour. For her exhibit, located in the basement of the house, Phillis talks about her job of washing Ross’ clothes and linens. Originally employed by the former owner of the house, when the owner died, Ross kept Phillis on as her washerwoman.

Phillis describes her job as being done once a month, where she comes in and cleans the entire house’s wash load, for less than what was at that time two pounds. She also describes the process in cleaning linens and clothes, which she says can take up to three days. Washerwomen were expected to come and go straight to the laundry room to clean, and that was their only obligation to the household. She described how clothes were boiled in hot water that was dyed blue to take out the stains from wearing pieces for multiple days. She also mentioned how one of the tricks behind whitening clothes was to clean them with urine, because the ammonia would help to bleach any stains on pieces of cloth.

Phillis was able to learn her “valuable domestic skills…which she used to support herself when she received her freedom” while she was an indentured servant in her youth.[1] As stated earlier, Phillis gained her freedom when she turned twenty-one, and afterwards she became a laundress. Her career choice was not uncommon for a free African American woman of the time. In fact, free African American women in the south would sometimes actually hold slaves themselves and “The slaves…generally pursued the domestic work occupations of their holders,” one of these common occupations being a washerwoman.[2] Though Phillis owned no slaves, she still represented a free black woman at this time and the careers that she could pursue.

In terms of how the event portrayed Phillis and her work, I feel that it was lacking in information. The house itself was interesting to see, but in terms of engaging activities, especially for younger visitors, there was really not much to do. Phillis’ presentation was short, and it was more or less an explanation of her job, and not her life or any significant contributions she may have made. The website goes into some detail about her, but there is not much past her age, when she became free, and how she ended up becoming a washerwoman. I would have liked to see a more in-depth and engaging presentation on the life of Phillis. Even if Phillis was not a real person, it would have been useful to see insight into the actual life of a free African American woman living in the north rather than just the jobs that she may have held.

Phillis represents a typical free African American woman of the time. While she is able to obtain freedom and find a job, like most of her fellow free women at the time, her work reflects the types of jobs that they were generally funneled into at this time. Even as free men and women, many African Americans were only able to obtain service jobs for white families. Though paid for their jobs, it is still a very low wage and similar to work that they might have performed should they have lived in the south at the time.

The house itself did not seem to know much about the event either. Though it was listed as a women’s history month event online, when I went in and inquired about the event, the staff was unsure what I meant at first. There also seemed to be little preparation as well. There were no listed times on the website, so when I arrived at opening, I was told that Phillis was not scheduled to come in for another half hour. After waiting, the event still did not begin on time because the actress portraying Phillis was still setting up at the scheduled start time. I feel that the event was both poorly planned and advertised and the staff was not very helpful either.

Though we are fortunate to have such a historical site as the Betsy Ross House, I feel that it is not utilized to its full advantage. Much of the house is simply rooms with small blurbs about what each space was used for. In terms of engaging activities, there really is not much offered. Outside of the two actors that were working when I visited, there were no interactive activities, something that I believe is important for children who visit the site. Overall, I found the event to be disappointing. It was merely a character that little was known about and there was no insight into her or any of the people she may have represented. Though the main focus of the house is, of course, Betsy Ross, it is still important to give just insight into all of the characters that are included in the museum, something I wish the Betsy Ross House would have worked harder at.

 

[1] Historic Philadelphia. 2016. “Betsy Ross House: Meeting Phillis the Laundress.” Betsy Ross House. Accessed March 20, 2016. http://historicphiladelphia.org/betsy-ross-house/betsy-ross-upcoming-events/. (March 20, 2016)

[2] Stanley Engerman, “Free Black Women Slaveholders,” in The American Mosaic: The African American Experience, ABC-CLIO, 2010-, Accessed March 20, 2016, http://africanamerican2.abc-clio.com/.

Decoding Women’s History at the National Constitution Center by Meghan Madonna

Posted on by
Reply

ncc1As I sat and waited in the middle of the main exhibit of the National Constitution Center, I wondered if anyone would show up for this event.  After all, there were TWO whole benches designated for the space where “Decoding the Video” would be held.  Finally, another couple and three-person family joined me, reviving my hope that maybe someone else cares about women’s history (who is not writing a paper for their class in women’s history)!  The event started and I was pleasantly surprised by how interesting the content was, which I will classify as the “positive” of attending this event.  Although generally enjoyable, there were “negative” aspects of this presentation, such as the location and disinterest of the speaker.  This review will address both positives and negatives, but will hopefully encourage the masses that there’s always something new to learn at their local historical events.

To start, the subject of the presentation was a modern and refreshing take on historical content.  The video was a remix of Lady Gaga’s “Bad Romance” music video, made to teach viewers about the Women’s Suffrage Movement.  More specifically, the period of the movement lead by Alice Paul.  This video was mostly about the fight for the vote, but contained many “Easter eggs” which told a much more detailed history.  These “Easter eggs” were then explained alongside a PowerPoint by the presenter.  With little more than a textbook paragraph on women gaining the right to vote in high school as my background knowledge, this was welcomed information.  While I must admit, I took a class at Temple where I learned in depth about the Suffrage Movement, but that is obviously not the case for everyone attending this event.  Even with this additional knowledge, the presenter brought up facts I had never learned about, such as the actual events of the final ratification.  There was a scene in the video where a vote was obviously going on, with men wearing either a yellow or a red rose on their suits, but the specifics were not included, prompting the presenter to explain.  Tennessee was the last state to ratify the 19th Amendment, with supporting legislators wearing yellow roses and opposing wearing red.  The last legislator to vote was wearing a red rose, with his being the deciding vote, he switched his position and voted to ratify the Amendment.  The presenter elaborated on this story by telling us the legislator’s mother had called him the night before and said to vote for the 19th.   I found this as a fascinating moment in history as well as a triumph over the long-held bias that motherhood can make a woman anti-feminist.

Another interesting topic brought up was the nature of Abigail Adam’s impact on politics.  One of the lyrics in the video was, “Remember the Ladies” and would have gone overlooked as significant if it was not clarified by the presenter.  Abigail had apparently told John as he left to draft laws at the Continental Congress in 1775 to, “Remember the Ladies” when writing legislation.  He obviously did not listen to his wife, but this monumental instance of advocacy for female agency is important to the representation of high status females’ view of their own worth and capabilities.  Intrigued by this moment in history, I decided to do independent research just to verify that she meant it the way the presenter said she did.  From this I found an extension of the quote where she basically says she did not want him to create the same world of their ancestors, where the husbands have all the power.[1]  All of these ideas, events, and vital moments of women’s history were alluded to or packed into this short, educational video.  These are reasons why I really liked the event, especially because if I watched the video on my own, I definitely would not have caught all of the little secret objects that symbolized massive factors of the movement.

However, I also found issues with the event that left me with a weird, incomplete feeling.  For one thing, the location was slightly obnoxious.  Set in a mini, closed-off space in the middle of the main exhibit, it was difficult to hear and pay attention to the presentation.  People were constantly walking in and out, or passing by, squinting at the screen, then shaking their heads and walking away.  Openness and accessibility are without a doubt, beneficial to any event, but can also cause interruptions.  There was also the behavior of the presenter that did not sit right with me.  While he was very knowledgeable and considerably engaged with the audience, he gave off the impression that he had somewhere better to be.  This could have been because of the audience size or possibly it was just not his day, but it made me personally feel like an imposition.  In fact, when I asked where the presentation was being held, most of the employees did not even know it was going on.  One helpful guy who pointed me to the area with the benches even said, “Yeah I think it’s still happening” in reference to the event.

All of these “negative” factors together brought back the question we started the semester with, “Do We Still Need Women’s History?”  After all, walking around the main exhibit led me to discover a lot of interesting information on women’s contributions to the Constitution and their role in government itself.  These were not even specifically deemed part of Women’s History Month either, but part of the regular exhibit, available to all visitors.  Should women’s history be changed to, “gender history” as Alice Kessler Harris advocates?[2] Does the information I found in this main exhibit answer this question?  Maybe we have come to the point where women’s history is just history now, or should extended to gender history.  To counter this possibility, I reflected back on the attitudes of both the presenter and the visitors scoffing when they found out the subject matter of the presentation.  People still find women’s history as non-essential, not even worth sitting down for a twenty minute event, even if Lady Gaga is involved.  This is why I would still argue that women’s history needs to exist and be taught at every level of education.  Learning about Alice Paul being force fed in jail is just as, if not more, exciting than the repetitive teaching of how the Bill of Rights was established.

To close, I would recommend this event for the exact reasons stated above, we need women’s history!  There were obviously drawbacks and the fact that it was in the Constitution Center already predisposed me into knowing this event was not at the top of their list of importance.  That being said, I thought the content was actually very imaginative and proved there are still ways to draw the youth into historical events.  As long as people keep attending and hosting these events, and groups keep making videos like the one analyzed, women’s history will hopefully stop being overshadowed.

[1] Mara L. Dodge, “Abigail Adams,” Historical Journal of Massachussetts, Vol. 43, No. 2, (July., 2015), 138.

[2] Alice Kessler-Harris, “Do We Still Need Women’s History,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 54, No. 15, (December 7, 2007), B6-B7.

Beyond Suffrage and the Right to Vote by Nicole Thomas

Posted on by
Reply

Beyond Suffrage and the Right to Vote

sbaIn the month of March, our nation celebrates Women’s History Month and organizations throughout the country bring together lectures, events, and exhibits to honor the achievements of Women from the past. In Philadelphia, there were many different events being held throughout the city to celebrate Women’s History Month. The event I chose to attend was held at the National Constitution Center. I thought it would be interesting to view their advertised exhibit about Women’s roles in the Constitution. I went with pretty high expectations, as I thought a place as well known as the National Constitution Center would have a great Women’s exhibit, but unfortunately, my enthusiasm for this event went from high to low very quickly.

Going into the Constitution Center main exhibit, I expected to see at least a section of the room that was very clearly dedicated to women’s history month, something that would stand out amongst everything else, to celebrate women’s achievements in history. I was disappointed when I found out that this “exhibit”, which was really just a few small pieces of women’s history, were scattered throughout the main exhibit and I really had to search for them. They did not stand out as I had hoped. There were only four aspects of Women’s history that were on display. These included the following: some information about a few women in their virtual touch screen “American National Tree”, a letter by Susan B. Anthony and a few items from the women’s suffrage movement, Sandra Day O’Connor’s Supreme Court robe and an equal rights amendment button from the 1970s. Although I did find these items interesting, I wanted so much more. I understand that the Constitution Center was presenting women’s events that were relevant to the Constitution, but I still expected a more elaborate exhibit at least for this celebratory month.

The Nineteenth Amendment and women’s suffrage were the two most prominent aspects of women’s history that the exhibit focused on, but this focus was very broad and it left out some other very important changes that came along with suffrage and voting.   In Reva B. Siegel’s article “She the People: The Nineteenth Amendment, Sex Equality, Federalism, and the Family,” she mentions that the passing of the Nineteenth Amendment not only gained women the right to vote, but that “in the immediate aftermath of ratification, both the Supreme Court and Congress understood the Nineteenth Amendment to redefine citizenship for women in ways that broke with the marital status traditions of the common law” (1018). This right went against everything that a “true woman” should be, and now America’s “new woman”, with her extravagant hats and comfortable pants, was able to participate in the voting process, one of the most important parts of American society, without the need of man. These are among many of the very important changes that women went through in the process of gaining the right to vote, and sadly, they are not really mentioned in the exhibit.

The Constitution Center offers other Women’s History Month events, including a lecture and an interactive show that have gotten great reviews and I am sure they are wonderful, but I chose to go to the general exhibit and to do the “Women’s History Self-Guided Tour” because I wanted to see how or if they changed the main exhibit to integrate some kind of special tribute to women’s history. What I found did not feel special, and I walked away from this experience thinking about how much women’s history is really available to the public. The information that is available to the general public about the history of women is so selective and I feel that if I hadn’t learned so much about women’s history in college, I would never have the knowledge that I do now, without having to do my own research. The most pleasing aspect of my trip was the area of the gift shop that had an entire revolving rack of children’s books dedicated to women, which I found very amusing and totally unexpected due to the limited amount of information on women in the exhibit. There were several coloring books dedicated to famous American women and the first ladies. There was also a paper doll book called “Fashions of the First Ladies Paper Dolls”. These coloring books are just about the only kind of women’s souvenir you could buy, besides a few Betsy Ross items and although they were coloring books which were very clearly made for little girls, they made me feel a little bit more hopeful, and a little bit jealous that I never had one growing up.

Works Cited

Siegel, Reva B. “She the People: The Nineteenth Amendment, Sex Equality, Federalism, and the Family”. Harvard Law Review 115.4 (2002): 947–1046. JSTOR. Web.

“Women Still Not Recognized” at the National Liberty Museum by Blake Cohen

Posted on by
Reply

NLMI traveled to the National Liberty Museum as my Women’s History Month event.  I chose to travel here because online it said that they would have a special exhibit dedicated to Women’s History Month.  I chose to come to this event because I had never been to the National Liberty Museum and thought it would be interesting.  It was also pay as you wish month, so as a poor college student this appealed to me.  Unfortunately, I was less than impressed.

I think what disappointed me in this event, was not what it was but how small it was.  I knew going into it, and doing my research on the event online it was going to be a wall of all these different women that people see as heroes.  I thought that when I saw it I would be amazed because online they invited people to send pictures in from all around the world, and add some if you were to come to the museum.  This wall of pictures was very small.  There were at most thirty pictures on the wall, and honestly most of them were people’s personal pictures or drawings.  I was hoping there would be more known women throughout the years with more historical influence.

There were some things nice about the exhibit.  I thought that people could bring in their own pictures or draw their own, added a really nice personal aspect to the exhibit.  The theme of the National Liberty Museum is heroes, so it was all about why these women were heroes.  This reason did make it enjoyable to read not only the historical women, but to read and learn about why people’s mothers and grandmothers were heroes.

One of the women that was on the wall was Malala Yousafzai, who I think it was one of the most influential women of our time.  Malala was born in 1997, in Pakistan.[1]  Malala began speaking out about her opposition for the Taliban’s resistance for education, especially for women.[2]  Malala and her father both received death threats, but this did not stop them for speaking out.[3]  In October 2012, Malala went to school and on her way home she was hunted down and shot by a gunman.[4]  This incident gained a lot of attention in the news, which prompted over two million people to sign the right to education petition.[5]  After Malala healed, she was seen on many different TV programs talking about what she stands for.  The way she stuck up for women, makes her a very influential and notable women from our time.

I think the fact that the exhibit did not impress me continues the trend that is seen with women.  Throughout the Women’s history they have continually been pushed to the side and have been forgotten about.  They haven’t got the same rights as men including the right to vote.  They also had to fight hard and put up strikes to get workers rights.  When it comes to dealing with women it does not seem like the same energy is put in.  This is why this exhibit disappointed me, because it just did not seem like time was put into it.  To make this exhibit better, I think more research could have been put into it.  They could have gathered more pictures of influential women throughout history, and they could have put some more information of them on the back of the pictures so we could learn about them.  I did not need the whole museum dedicated to women for the month of March, but it would have been nice if what they dedicated to women to feel like more effort was put in.

Overall, I was not impressed by the National Liberty Museum’s Women’s History Month exhibit.  It was nice that they did showcase some influential women, like Malala Yousafzai, but they could have added more.  The exhibit fit with the theme of the museum, but it would have been nice if they put more effort into the exhibit.

 

Biblography

“The Malala Fund.” The Malala Fund. Accessed March 31, 2016.

https://www.malala.org/malalas-story.

 

 

 

 

[1] “The Malala Fund.” The Malala Fund. Accessed March 31, 2016. https://www.malala.org/malalas-story.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

National Constitution Center’s Women’s History Inclusion by Lisa Bugasch

Posted on by
Reply

 

NCCTo make the most out of Women’s History Month, I went to the National Constitution Center to view their exhibits and see how they incorporated women’s history into the Constitutional history of the United States. I had not been to this site for many years – not since I was a child- and my nostalgia for the history showed here made me expect magic and inspire national pride in me. I expected to learn about the founding of our nation and here about the key players that shaped the United States into what it is today. My childlike wonder may have caused me to be naïve, but I truly was expecting more women included in the main exhibits, especially since the museum boasted about its female history in a pamphlet about Women’s History Month. The National Constitution Center is lacking in the incorporation of female contributions to the development of this nation.

I visited the Richard and Helen DeVos Exhibition Hall, which is a chronology of the making of the United States. While I commend this exhibit for its interactivity, I am concerned about its lack of female contributions. The center had a pamphlet detailing the “Must-see highlights” in their exhibit to celebrate Women’s History Month. The seven highlights included shout outs to t, and a surprisingly inclusive American National Tree offering biographies of influential American citizens. The fact that there are only seven highlights that they chose from the entire museum is troubling. The NCC’s mission statement reads that “the Constitution Center brings the United States Constitution to life by hosting interactive exhibits and constitutional conversations and inspires active citizenship by celebrating the American constitutional tradition,” (National Constitution Center). The main exhibit shows a startling lack of female contribution to the United States Constitution history. Along with the women that they did mention, they could have included Florence Kelley and the National Consumers’ League, the implications of Roe v. Wade, and more women of color just to name a few. Asserting that their exhibits show “celebrate the American constitutional tradition,” while barely showing female contributions diminishes and belittles the contributions that they did make.

With all of their faults, the NCC’s American National Tree exhibit does merit some celebration. This exhibit allowed patrons to learn about over influential citizens through biographies. It showed the history of many women as well as men. This exhibit even seemed to have just as many women as there were men. I was impressed by this contribution, and I wished that they would have done more of this throughout the museum.

The National Constitution Center has the potential to become an effective representation of the importance of constitutional history. In order to do this, they must include more information about women. They should focus more on movements, events, and collective accomplishments rather than the lives of individual women. This shows the female’s greater contributions to society today, (Alice-Kessler Harris and Sonya Michel). They cannot erase the importance of women from constitutional history. By doing this, they risk the alienation from an entire gender. When young women enter this institution they deserve to see their faces represented in the exhibits. Inspiring active citizenship among one gender inspires a lack of self-efficacy in the other.

 

References

“About the Constitution Center,” Constitutioncenter.org  http://constitutioncenter.org/about

“How to Build a Women’s History Museum,” Alice Kessler Harris and Sonya Michel.  History

News Network, 2014. http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/157004