Around the mid 1800's: Women and Slaves alike?

Question

Around the mid 1800's, How do you think that the women and slaves were alike? In terms of Goverment and Laws, Economy, and Social Class?

Answer 1

While it is true that women's rights were, by modern measures, rather limited ca. 1850, it is ABSURD to suggest that their overall all status was "virtually the same" as that of slaves.

In fact, it every area, women of that time were in a far better position than slaves. If a comparison is to be made, it would be better to compare their situation (at least legally) with minors, though not in every respect.

Women's EDUCATION
had been growing rapidly. In many parts of the country girls were as likely as boys (through legal requirements of individual states) to have elementary and secondary education.

And by mid-century, the number of women with a college education was increasingly rapidly. These things were encouraged. (This is not to say that women were in all respects regarded as equal, but they were not [no longer?] considered incapable of learning.) In fact, women as mothers were recognized to have an important role in educating their children (hence if boys were to receive a proper education, it depended in part on the WOMEN.

On the other hand, slaves were mostly discouraged from even learning to read. State laws often forbade it, in part to prevent their reading 'abolitionist propaganda' and getting ideas (though many a master violated the law with some of his slaves because they found such skills made the slave more valuable to them and on the slave market). These restrictions often included (though again, in practice, many knew better). Of course, for a slave to receive advanced education was unthinkable.
_________________

RIGHT to VOTE, etc
With respect to the government -- women, though not having the same rights as (white) men, had far more in the way of legal rights than blacks did. They WERE considered U.S. citizens (unlike blacks, according to the Dred Scott Decision [1857]), which included such things as access to federal courts and the 'right of petition' (which they FREELY exercised in their anti-slavery petitions... so much so, that the South forced a "gag rule" on Congress for several years to try to prevent these petitions, largely the work of white New England women, from even being acknowledged as received). Also, their testimony was preferred over that of blacks. (Slaves could not even RAISE certain charges in courts, or testify in certain situations. And even in places that allowed such things, they often would not be BELIEVED.)

Some support the "like slaves" argument by pointing out how much sooner former slaves (males anyway) were given the right to vote. The fact that they were NO LONGER slaves takes a bit out of that argument. But more significant is the fact that MUCH of the support for granting the vote to former slaves was the terrorizing and grotesque trampling on black civil rights in the South just after the Civil War. If they had the vote, it was thought, they might better be able to defend these rights, and not depend on outsiders to do so.

White women's rights (including their most basic physical safety) was NOT threatened in this way, so the situations are hardly parallel. (Meanwhile, women were slowly be given the right to vote in various places at the local level, and to hold office, esp. for and on school boards (cf. the Education connection above) ; at the STATE level, Wyoming was first to give them the right to vote... and pressure was mounting elsewhere.)

DO note that "voting" has not always been seen simply as an individual exercise of a right. Just as in earlier times only those with significant property voted, but were expected to do so responsibly on BEHALF of those depending on them (as well as to have both the vested interest and education to be able to do so responsibly), so as the right to vote spread 'down' to other men, they too were expected as 'heads of household' to responsibly represent the interests of their FAMILIES (both women and children).
_________________

SOCIAL ATTITUDES
toward women and the sense of "class" was VERY different from that toward slaves!! In fact, much of the nation (and VERY much the South) had a sort of idealized view of women, their virtue, and the importance of protecting them, which fit in nicely with ideas of the importance of male chivalry and honor in PROTECTING women and their virtue. (One argument Southern opponents of abolitionists and 'black Republicans' was the threat of black men violating, even marrying, their white women. The irony was that there was precious little evidence of such things happening, while white masters had FREQUENTLY exploited slave women -- as the widespread presence of mixed-race children in the South made evident to all.)

_________________

ECONOMIC STATUS and RIGHTS, MARRIAGE & DIVORCE...
I know less about the details of these matters and the laws concerning them. But a full study of this would take into account the huge CHANGES that were going on in the economy (including the development of industry) during this time. Laws about what a woman could OWN varied from place to place, though even when those rights were limited, we need to consider what provisions/requirements for protection of women's welfare existed, not only as a legal requirement, but also as a social expectation (consider again the "social attitudes").

As for the claim that a married woman was the "property" of her husband -- not helpful. The word choice is more propaganda than careful assessment. As noted above, a woman was NOT considered socially or legally the same way as slaves who WERE owned, could be bought and sold, beat, etc.

(Be careful to check what you hear about these things, because people nowadays are often quick to believe reports of how bad things were in earlier 'less enlightened times'. Example -- the supposed origin of "rule of thumb" as allowing a man to beat his wife, but only with a stick no wider than his thumb, is UTTER NONSENSE. There never was any such law, and the phrase had no such origin. But somehow this explanation, a very RECENT one, has spread. The reason? It was quickly picked up on and spread in feminist literature. That's not to say all feminist literature is faulty, but that we must guard against modern-day assumptions when studying the past.)

Answer 2

Women And Slaves

Answer 3

Women and children and slaves were treated like property instead of human beings.
Until the early 1950's, the World Council of Churches did not feel that women or slaves had souls, therefore were to be treated like lesser beings.

Answer 4

In lots of ways, go read Howard Zinn's People's History and there is an excellent chapter in this book about women's rights.

Answer 5

More or less.