Gender Equality In America

M4 Assignment 2 SubmissionAssignment  Due January 31 at 11:59 PM

Assignment 2: Gender Equality in America

For this assignment, compare one of the texts that we read for this module with a contemporary description of women struggling for equal rights in America. Choose a recent article from a newspaper, magazine, or journal, which describes an instance of gender inequality in America. This article should be no more than one year old (but the more recent the better).

For instance, you might choose a newspaper article describing the wage gap between males and females doing similar work, a journal article describing recent legislation geared specifically toward women, a magazine article describing unequal funding for women’s college athletics, and so on.

Once you have found your article, choose one of the Historical Documents we read in this module. You should choose a historical document that you think resonates most with the contemporary article you selected—this could mean that the article and document describe the same problem, or that the article shows that a problem in the document has been solved, or that the article shows new ways old problems manifest, and so on.

Write a 2–3 page analysis paper in Word format (not counting title and reference page) that describes the ways the historical document relates to the article you have chosen. You should describe ways the two texts are similar, ways they are different, and what these similarities and differences demonstrate about the changing—or non-changing—place of women in American society and culture. Include an APA formatted title page and reference page.

By the due date assigned, deliver your assignment to the Submissions Area.

All written assignments and responses should follow APA rules for attributing sources.

Assignment 2 Grading Criteria Maximum Points Choose an appropriate contemporary article from the last year.12 Presented a comparison with a relevant Historical Document that described similarities and differences between the two texts and their discussion of gender inequality.32 Presented interesting and challenging conclusions about the changing or non-changing position of women in American society and culture from the time of the Historical Document to the time of the contemporary article.32 Wrote in a clear, concise, and organized manner; demonstrated ethical scholarship in accurate representation and attribution of sources, displayed accurate spelling, grammar, and punctuation.24 Total:100

ntroduction to Documents 9–13

Critics of the Jacksonian Vision

Because most of the original states limited suffrage to male property owners or taxpayers, in the early years of the republic only about one-half of white males were eligible to vote. Later states, including Vermont, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri, either opened suffrage to all white males over 21 or lowered the taxpayer qualifications to levels that allowed almost all white adult males in these states to vote. Meanwhile, during the early decades of the nineteenth century, some of the original states, including New Jersey, Maryland, and New York, also adopted the practices of the newer states by eliminating voter property qualifications. Unfortunately, this movement toward universal white manhood suffrage stymied or reversed the fortunes of free blacks and propertied women, citizens who had enjoyed voting privileges in some of the original states before “white manhood” replaced property as the determining suffrage qualification. Although a few states (Rhode Island, Virginia, and Louisiana) maintained property qualifications, by 1840, more than 90 percent of the adult white men in the United States could vote, but few other Americans had this privilege.

Some Americans opposed the trend toward an electorate of all white males because of who it left out, while others opposed it because it opened government too broadly.  Documents 9  and  10 , each published in 1829 when the commonwealth of Virginia was considering the issue of revising its suffrage qualifications, present arguments for each of these positions.  Documents 11  and  12  are examples of anti-Democratic campaign pieces. The final selection,  Document 13 , is an excerpt from a longer article that equates Jacksonianism with radicalism. According to the arguments in these selections, who opposed Jackson and what were the defects and dangers inherent in this vision for America? What did Jacksonianism threaten?

DOCUMENT 9  Headline: Rights of Women

… Why are we denied the privilege of voting? Why are we eternally to be kept in the bondage of a despotic government? ‘Have we not eyes? have we not hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons,—subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a man is? if you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us,’ shall we not, (no not revenge!) but assert our rights, and expose your gross injustice.

Aye: injustice; gross, flagrant injustice? You are born stronger than we are; and that is the only advantage you have over us. Nature has endowed you with more physical, brute strength, and upon that foundation, you raise up all your boasted pretensions. You can beat us, and therefore you make us your slaves. All your pretended right revolves itself into might. It is the law of tyrants; the triumph of the strong over the weak—and upon this honorable basis, you raise the standard of your power.—Having conquered us, you shut us out of the great means of improvement. You are acting the party of the other discreet conquerors. You first subdue us by force; and then by keeping us in ignorance, you attempt to perpetuate your own power and make us your slaves. This is the history of all despotism; and upon this wise and noble hint you have justly acted?—Have you any better reasons for your usurped dominion?

You say, we have not intellect enough to vote, and assist in the government. Where are the proofs of your superiority? You keep us in ignorance—and then you boast of your superior attainments. You make us embroider for you; thrum upon the guitar or piano; draw sketches of your lordly faces; convert us into spinsters and seamstresses, to make your garments but you exclude us from your best schools.—You prevent us from cultivating science, studying politics, improving our understanding; and then you insist upon our ignorance as the evidence of our menial incapacity—forgetting that we rank among our sex the De Staels and Daciers of France, and the Moors and Edgeworths of England and Ireland.—Thank you, that we have not as much native strength of mind to give our votes properly, as more than half of your sovereign sex! And that with a little advantage of education, we could select fit officers, as well as you can?

You boast too, of your superior independence of mind.—You say, that you alone can exercise the right ofsuffrage, firmly and freely. Indeed! and what say the disfranchised non-freeholders to this arrogant assumption—and what ought we say to it! That it is not founded in truth—that if we enjoyed greater opportunities of improvement, we too, who know how to make you Lords of the Creation tremble at our feet, could think, and feel and act for ourselves, in matters of government, with as much independence as you do. Make us feel our consequence more, and we shall know better how to value and assert it.’

DOCUMENT 10  Virginia Convention

Benj. Watkins Leigh, one of the most able members of that Convention, is a strenuous advocate ofexcluding all but Freeholders from the right of suffrage. His concluding remark in the following speech is sound and worthy of remembrance.…

Now, Mr. L said, he was against any rule whose natural tendency was to work corruption. But if one man, through the interposition of property, shall possess the power of completely controlling another, to give that other the power of voting, was, in effect, to invite corruption. Now if a landlord can, at will, seize at quarter day, or at the end of the year, on any other fixed term of payment, distrain the property of his tenant, seize every particle of personal property he owns in the world, sell the bed from under his sick wife, and sell the cradle on which his infant reposes, he holds that man by the very strings of his heart. The landlord can do this, and more; he can thereby deprive his tenant voter of the very thing on which his power to vote wholly depends; and therefore he exercises over him, through the possession of property, the most absolute and irresistible influence which one man can exercise over another. He had no idea that any attempt would at this time be made, nor for many years to come, to bring this power directly and openly to bear, for the avowed purpose of controlling the vote of any citizen of this Commonwealth. No man would dare to do it, either now or for a long time to come. But, said Mr. L., let gentlemen remember that this nation is in a state of progress; of progress toward corruption.… It has been the case in all other nations, all the world over: our nation is in its infancy,—and it is with nations as with children, they are ever purest at their birth.…

Sir, said Mr. L. to the Chairman, I am for a property qualification that will act directly, openly, and not by corruption. Yet, here, it is proposed to us, at the first hop, (if I may be pardoned to use a very vulgar expression) to give the right of suffrage to a mere tenant, a lessee for a single year, to a man who is directly and entirely within the influence of another man.

In North Carolina they have approached pretty nearly to the exercise of universal suffrage—(I believe there is the payment of some tax required,) and what is the consequence? Why, sir, I am told that it is a part of the regular system of electioneering to pay the tax for the poor man that he may be qualified. I do not vouch for this statement—but I have it from respectable sources—remember, sir, I do not say the poor man is corrupted—he honestly means to vote, but his tax is paid merely to put it in his power to do so.…

Mr. Chairman, if the general principle I have laid down be a correct one, then the principle of this amendment ought not to be sustained. If you are to have a property qualification at all, it must be in such a shape that its effect can be guarded from corruption: but by the measure proposed, corruption, instead of being guarded against, is rendered all but inevitable. As to universal suffrage, it is a plan for which I believe no gentleman here is disposed to contend: but certainly, sir, some gentlemen here are steering very near the wind.

The gentleman talks about a minority ruling the majority, but I say, that a majority, however great, have no right to take the property of the minority. I do contend, that if I stood alone, the sole possessor ofproperty in a society however large, that society would have no right whatever to take my property away. Such is not the purpose of Government. The purpose, and the only purpose of Government, is to prevent men from doing injustice to each other. All government is negative in its principle: it is a system ofrestraints.

DOCUMENT 11  Why, What Evil Hath He Done?

‘Why, what evil hath he done?’—is an inquiry which a Jackson press, (and but one in the country, has ever) had the temerity to make with respect to the present executive. We will again answer it, in the words of truth and soberness, drawn from various sources and unimpeachable in point of fact.

General Jackson, since his election, has broken every promise, forfeited every pledge, and departed from every principle, which, before his election he professed to hold as sacred or regard as important.—He has gone upon the avowed principle of ‘rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies;’ of turning out those who had voted against him, and putting in those who had voted for him.—He has compelled all who enjoy office, as a compensation for their appointments, and under the penalty of instant ejection, to support his measures, whether right or wrong, and to submit to exactions upon their salaries for the support of new presses and extra publications, and hired election minions.—He   has re-appointed men to office whom the Senate have twice rejected, thereby entirely destroying the share of the Senate in the appointing power, and the weight which the constitution gives it as a body of advice and of restraint upon the executive.

He has cruelly and wantonly refused to execute treaties made with Indian nations, which have been ratified by the Senate, approved by every President, and adjudged valid by the Supreme Court.—He has claimed and exercised supreme power over the people, congress and courts of the United States in his late veto message, and advanced doctrines subversive of the foundations of the government, connected with the disgraceful and dishonest appeals of a demagogue, for the purpose of prejudicing the different parts ofthe community against each other.—He has made frequent and illegal use of the veto power, without any reference to principle in its use; for he has applied it in some cases, and not in others which were of a precisely similar character. He has applied it in capricious and wanton attempts to ruin the internal improvements of the country, to break down industry and destroy its profits, to introduce an unsettled currency, and depreciate to a great amount the value of property.…

He has enacted in time of peace greater taxes for the people than any previous President, and squandered them on profligate favorites, for idle and totally useless purposes. He has threatened to beat Senators, and rejoiced because Representatives were cudgeled for the free expression of their opinions. He has threatened to shoot fellow citizens while in the peaceable pursuit of their business; invited ministers ofthe gospel to his house under the pretence of cordial intercourse, and then driven them into corners and bullied them; approved of schemes to cheat the public treasury of its funds, and appropriated those funds to a great extent in bribery and corruption.

Will any of our fellow-citizens, after a proper consideration of these charges, every one of which has been substantiated by irrefutable proof, bestow their suffrages to continue the elevation of a man, whose character is thus ‘marked by every act which may define a tyrant?’

DOCUMENT 12  Reasons for Not Supporting the Democrats: A Satire.

FOR THE  NEW-HAMPSHIRE SENTINEL.

Roman Catholics.

Those who are in fear of Roman Catholics getting too much power, let them unite with the Catholics at the polls, and support such men as wish to put the government into the hands of one man; for they can do but little harm while the government is in the hands of the whole people.

Slavery.

Those who are opposed to slavery, let them send such men to Congress as will unite and assist in putting the government of the U. States under the control of the slave-holding States.

Intemperance.

Those who are opposed to intemperance, let them send such men to the Legislature to make laws, as are in the habit of using ardent spirit themselves; also of selling it to the drunkard, whose wives and children are suffering for want of victuals and clothing.

Sin and Wickedness.

Those who are opposed to sin and wicked men; let them encourage such, by rewarding them with the highest offices of honor and profit.

Taxes.

Those who are opposed to paying large taxes, let them condemn such men as were in office previous to 1829, for their extravagant and wasteful expenditures, and support such men as will expend and squander away nearly double the amount; also send such men to Congress as are opposed to dividing the proceeds of the PUBLIC LANDS among the States; whereas New-Hampshire would probably receive yearly about sixty thousand dollars; also such men as will unite with, and support a President who has promised to give this land away to the States wherein it is situated!!

Laborers’ Wages.

Those who have complained of the laborers’ wages being so low, and of the rich grinding the poor; let them send such men to Congresses as are opposed to encouraging our own industry; such men as are in favor of destroying our own manufactories, by reducing the duties of foreign goods, or taking them off altogether, as in the article of silk brought from Europe, and compete the laboring class of this country to enter into competition with the paupers of Europe. By destroying our own manufactories, you will release perhaps 10,000 females in New-England alone, who are now at work for high wages in the factories, and who will come home and soon reduce the wages of those who are now otherwise employed.—The same with the men.

Party Spirit.

Which has been the cause of civil wars, and of destroying the lives of hundreds of thousands of men, if not millions, and brought distress upon women and children: let all those who are opposed to it, support a man for President who will turn out of office every man that did not vote or hurrah for him, and put in such as will hurrah for him.

Educating Children While Young.

Those who are in favor of public schools and of educating children when young, and when they are incapable of doing much business, instead of being obliged to go to school at the age of 19 or 20, to get an education sufficient to do the common business of life, as is the case with many for want of sufficient funds; let them support such men as Mr Isaac Hill, who made such a hue and cry about Mr Bell, when Governor, for recommending that $60,000 literary fund money to be distributed among the towns in the State for the benefit of common schools; when Mr Isaac Hill wanted the same to be appropriated to the building of a College in his own town. However to the credit of Mr Bell and his friends in the Legislature, and to the mortification of Mr Hill and many of his friends, the money was distributed among the towns for the benefit of common schools.

Internal Improvement.

Those who are opposed to the appropriation of the public money for internal improvements, as the Legislature of New-Hampshire did a few years ago; let them support a President who signed a bill appropriating—thousand dollars toward the improvement of the Cumberland river in his own State; also many other similar bills, and refusing to sign the Wabash bill, and many others of a similar kind.

BOOK WORM

DOCUMENT 13  Selections from  “Radicalism”

·  ‘Order is Heaven’s first law, and, this confessed,

·  Some are, and must be, greater than the rest.’

Nothing is good, great, or high, but by comparison. The genius of a republican government does not forbid the existence of different grades in society—as that would be the simplicity of a state of nature simplified. When there were but two living souls, Adam was master, and Eve dependent. Among the most unsophisticated savages, distinctions in rank have always existed. In a Republic, the doctrine of equality is recognized so far that no respectable employment is, in itself, a disqualification for any office or honor or profit, and certain privileges common to all, are inseparable from the name of citizen. Starting thus on an equality, every man is architect of his own fortune, and generally finds himself, at forty or earlier, in that place in society for which he is fitted—if he be not, the disappointment is generally the fault of nobody but himself.… Why have we, among our people, anything of Radicalism? Why is the system of leveling down preached and attempted to be practiced? Is it because there are classes of men in higher standing than belongs to them by right of purchase of their own exertions? Or because there are those who live in the enjoyment of privileges conferred by birth, which abridge those of persons less fortunate in their parentage? Or, because the high standing, however obtained, of any class, is a disadvantage to others? None of these abuses exist here. Whence, then, have we Radicalism?

It is an imported exotic—and one, which we trust will never thrive, for any length of time, in our country. Though the ultra-radicals, by establishing newspaper-organs, feeing lectures, proposing strikes for wages, undertaking to make the producer accomplish what is the consumer’s province, the regulation of the market, and other movements, have endeavored to keep themselves in a party distinct from all others; their treacherous Jackson friends, by commending their measures and slighting their candidates, have so far stinted their growth.…Jacksonism and Radicalism amount…to about the same thing; it is only in the names, that there is any difference. The policy of the leaders of both parties is the same—or appeals to ignorance—or, where ignorance is less, to prejudice—and where the subject is tolerably well-informed, to his vanity.…

The demagogue, having his aggrandizement in view, is heartlessly blind to all the mischief his maneuvering may occasion. What cares he, that inflammatory speeches guide the mob against the dwelling of a citizen, whose opinions may not be agreeable to the sovereign people?—that the torch is applied to Protestant and Romish church?—that about the ballot-boxes are the scenes of tumult and murder?—that, in furtherance of his disorganizing policy, the temple of God is deserted for the ‘cathedral,’ where nonentity is worshipped? That the laws, binding man and wife together are denounced as onerous and unnecessary, and that a community of property is more than hinted? All these and more ill effects are fairly traceable to Radicalism.

Heaven speed the time, when each man shall think and act for himself, dispassionately and calmly. There must be different standings in society—if those who fill one which they dislike would better it, let each individual act for himself—or if they will combine, let it be for their own improvement—to raise themselves, instead of wasting time and means in futile endeavors to pull others down with them. Such a course is as foolish as his would be, who should spend his life in leveling a hill which he had but once to cross. Universal education is nominally one of the working-men’s measures—let them put it in effect, and practically carried out, it will make them not only what they desire to be, but what everybody would have them. We speak of those who style themselves as workingmen, for political purposes. As they gain in knowledge, their discontent will diminish—and they will throw off the self-assumed inferiority which their leaders have taught them to put on for effect; and feel, as they ought, that in this country all men are born ‘free and equal’—and that dogmas or doctrines to the contrary are not for American citizens.

QUESTIONS

Defining Terms

Identify in the context of the chapter each of the following:

Old Hickory

Martin Van Buren

“spoils system”

George Bancroft universal white manhood suffrage

Radicalism

Probing the Sources

· 1. How was Jackson portrayed by his friends and foes?

· 2. What were the central arguments for and against universal white manhood suffrage?

· 3. What role did morality and religion play in the campaigns of the Age of Jackson?

· 4. What did each side say about money and economics?

Interpreting the Sources

· 1. Why was Jackson so controversial? What types of voters supported him and opposed him? Why?

· 2. Attack ads, scandal-mongering, and an unbalanced focus on image rather than substance are criticisms often made against modern campaigns. To what degree do these judgments also describe the elections of the Age of Jackson? Provide examples from the documents.

· 3. Would you have voted for Martin Van Buren in the presidential election of 1836? Justify your answer.

· 4. What were the underlying assumptions of those who supported Jackson and those who opposed him?

Additional Reading

For entertaining introductions to Andrew Jackson, see Robert Remini, The Life of Andrew Jackson (2001) and H. W. Brands, Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times (2005). For the politics of the era, see Daniel Feller’s The Jacksonian Promise: America, 1815 to 1840 (1995), Lawrence Frederick Kohl’s The Politics ofIndividualism: Parties and the American Character in the Jacksonian Era (1989), and Joel Silbey’s Martin Van Buren and the Emergence of American Popular Politics (2005). Serious students of the period should consult Arthur Schlesinger Jr.’s 1946 Pulitzer Prize-winning classic, The Age of Jackson (2005). Also ofinterest is Charles Seller’s provocative study on the impact of capitalism, entitled The Market Revolution: Jacksonian America, 1815–1846 (1991).