Marriage, Social Conventions, The Bible, and the Oppression of Women

Marital status helped define the social role and legal rights of women. These social roles created an oppression of women that had unseen repercussions. Some liberated women of the antebellum period were beginning to define themselves as intellectual and political creatures outside of their domestic roles. But, these women were few. They were not large enough in number to make any severe impact on the antebellum period. Their vivacity gave hope to the women of the future. Men used the Bible as a source of control over women. Some of the women tried to defend themselves with a more liberal interpretation of the Good Book, but were futile. Certainly there is the plight of oppression told in this paper, but that is not the main argument. It is that women’s changing and poorly defined roles, plus the application of a narrow view of Christianity by men, in the early nineteenth century, led to frustrations and a nonexistence of empowerment for women.

Women took on a whole new identity, or lack thereof, when they married in Antebellum America. Many of their rights were revoked. A marriage meant the merging of two becoming one, according to the Bible, and Antebellum American men took it literally and women morphed into their husbands’ identities. It was a though legally women died when they married.1 Marriage was a legal agreement; it had privileges and responsibilities.2 One would think women of Antebellum America considered a lot of factors before they decided to get married, but it appears as though they did not, because social control had more to do with a woman’s decision to get married, than her actual desire to get married. Since the socially acceptable thing to do was to get married and have children that is what those women did. When a woman did marry, it was really important whom she chose to share her life with, because when a man and woman married they became bound to each other and the choice of mate could, in essence, determine a woman’s happiness for the remainder of her life.3

“Absence of dowry, ease of marriage and remarriage, and a more lenient attitude of the law with regard to women’s property rights were manifestations of the improved positions of wives in the colonies.”4 These are a few of the rights women had before at the end of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth century. A woman’s protected dower rights, established that she could have personal clothing, pre-nuptial contracts.5 There was an empowering right that in the absence of a husband, a wife could control his business and she could assume the position of a husband. These were called “Femme sole” rights.6

It seems men did not believe that women were strong enough to hold positions of leadership. Women were thought to be the weaker sex, and accordingly, they were thought incapable of exerting themselves. Men thought this because they had always been taught it was true. Women were told for so long that they would be nothing more than mothers and wives in their lives, and as a result these women stopped caring and lost any sense of desire to achieve more. Women assumed that they had to conform, because that was all they could be. Some women realized that this theory was absurd, but they were unable to do anything to change it. 7 Women were harder and stronger than men thought they were, but it did not matter, because women were to act like women and stay within the domestic sphere.

There was a “sexual contract” between men and women. 8 Husbands lorded power over their wives and wives had to give their bodies to heir husbands whenever their husbands wanted them.9 In Antebellum America, it was not considered rape when a husband wanted to have sexual intercourse with his wife, regardless of whether she consented.10 Women of Antebellum America had to be strong in order to keep their sanity. They were sexually oppressed in ways that are unimaginable by today’s standards, but they did not view themselves as a political organism; thus, they were rejected from life in the civic arena.11

During the Antebellum American era there was a prominent sexual double standard, but it was weakened by conservative principles of virtue. By the late eighteenth century, this virtue was demanded from both men and women, and if either husband or wife neglected it, a divorce was readily available to either individual. This was a huge advance in the right direction for women’s position in marital rights. Sadly, women that were not provided for by their husbands were considered unfortunate, because they had no way of providing for themselves. An uncaring husband was not a good enough reason for a divorce. All that women legally owned was transferred to their husbands’ estates through marriage. Marriage contracts hindered women’s self-preservation. 12

In the antebellum period, both married and single women were allowed and expected to work. Married women were supposed to and were expected to help their husbands in the family’s work, which was a contrivance of the Bible. In Genesis, the first book of the Bible, the Lord God says “By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food,” he did not exclude Eve from work, and therefore he did not exclude any women of any historical age from work. Women usually worked in the home, but there were some that had specialized jobs helping their husbands: silversmiths, journalists, printers, and others.13 It became the expectation of wives to add to her husband’s gain, profit, and estate.

Starting in the 1840’s, there was a reversal of the few rights women had. Suddenly, a change occurred, a woman’s work outside of the home was condemned.14 The husbands and men that had previously expected their women to work shifted to a more conservative view of the biblical idea that husbands had complete and total control of their wives. So, these husbands did not want their wives to work anymore and manipulated the Bible’s words to suit their desire. Even after all women did to help their husbands, the husbands and innate social control weakened the women’s political status, even though it was legally unaffected.15 Women were expected to act in a feminine manner and that meant they were to do womanly jobs. They were to manage households, work in gardens, sew clothing, do laundry, and other physically unchallenging jobs.16 These are just some of the activities that were considered appropriate for women of the period to do work wise, after this abrupt change happened.

Not all women were domestically restrained. Some omen had other servants and workers that ran their households. The upper class women had leisure time now, and decided to become ladies. The image of the “lady” was of utmost importance. All women aspired to be ladies. It was a status symbol. Idleness had been a sign of laziness and then it had been transformed to help define the upper class. Regardless of class and occupation, whether it was a life of social lady or a mill workingwoman, both were distant from positions of power. American women were the largest disfranchised group in the nation’s history, and they retained this position longer than any other group. Issues like this concern with being a lady added to the perception of helpless women. Women stopped exercising the few rights they had, and that was the beginning of the dysfunctional subordinate status of women.17

Georgia was an interesting microcosm for the rest of the United States at his time, regarding women’s legal status. “The philosophies, facts, practices, and sentiments governing the political and civil rights of white women in Georgia between the Revolution and the Civil War were confused, fickle, contradictory, and paradoxical.”18 Georgia’s society did not allow women to vote, and it is not because they were legally incapable, but that the “theory and practice granted [no]” voting rights.19 The Constitution did not neglect women, but they were not addressed. The country’s founders wanted a way, in which, if it was approved later, for women to have the ability to gain an amendment and the right to vote, which they did some 150 years later.

Married women had little to be excited about, for they knew once legal marriage commenced, their individual identities ceased to exist. They did not get involved in the political sphere for two reasons: they did not deem it socially appropriate or they were ignorant and did not care to get involved. That is, of course, regarding the majority. There were some women in Georgia that did have leadership positions in the political sphere. It is evident that they were not looked on as political leaders, but role models for other women by whom they did live vicariously. “The men of [Georgia] rarely acknowledged that [female leaders] existed.”20

Even with some Georgia women holding leadership positions around the state, Georgia adopted the English common law that erased the existence of a woman when she married, in 1784. All that she owned became her husband’s property and all that she gained during her marriage automatically became her husband’s property. Women of the time did not understand this, because it was ludicrous and unfair. Antebellum women saw no hope of escaping this common law. Women’s caliber of oppression was not as acute as slaves, and they were only allowed a certain amount of bravery, if they wanted to be socially acceptable. Good women of the ear were afraid of the world and of being alone.21 A social convention of the time period was dependent and fearful women made for an appropriate society.

Females were never given the equal opportunities that men had, unless they had special circumstances such as a husband’s death. They were always second to men economically.22 Women did not see any point in trying to have any sort of economic aspiration because they knew that there was no way that they could get ahead.23 If a woman did have a job, it had a lot to do with whether or not she was single or married. Single women had more change for occupational opportunities than married women had, although, there were some husbands that allowed their wives to work.

Women valued relationships with other women because they were not considered equals of men. They depended on one another for friendship, companionship, and a healthy way by which to gauge their successes. Quilting and sewing in large groups was a popular way in which to have an intrinsic support system. Women sat around all day, and talked, quilted, or sewed. All women, married and unmarried were able to do this. It was socially acceptable, and it was legal for all.24

Women of the antebellum age were not seeking radical role models. Even so, there were two prominent women that regenerated an uproar regarding the political and social status of women. The Grimké sisters were beginning the shift back to female liberty. Angelina and Sarah Grimké were two prominent pro-active women for their time period. Politically, they were decades ahead of the antebellum ideology. They called for women to rise up against slavery together, and in doing so, would be exalting themselves, as a gender, into a role of authority.25 They used the Christian religion to help give them credibility when they discussed the equality of women and men. The sisters’ arguments were that if God views men and women equally, which he does, according to the Bible, then men should view women equally also. The Bible was an important part to their argument for women’s equality.

In 1837, a group of Congressional ministers condemned these sisters for acting like men, for muddling in affairs inappropriate for women.26 These women had been urging southern women, like themselves, to break the law. The Grimké sisters showed men of the age what could be possible for women. They had been staunch abolitionists in their hometown of Charleston, South Carolina. Since the south was so conservative regarding political issues, they moved north. It can be assumed that people, women especially, involved in the abolitionist movement did not understand the oppression of women, because if it is wrong to oppress a race, then it has to be wrong to oppress a gender. 27

The sisters began expressing their views regarding the lack of rights of women to women parlors at peoples’ homes. In 1836, Angelina Grimké called on women to do four things in her Appeal to the Christian Women of the South. They were told to study up on the subject of slavery. They were told to pray on the subject. They were told to speak out regarding slavery. They were told to act on the subject of slavery. Angelina and Sarah were challenging the position of women. They were daring women to try different progressive approaches to living life. They believed that women, as a gender, could be so much more than what was expected of them, which was to be housewives and children producers. The Grimké sisters knew that if they were to make strides in working towards some sort of equality, or at least an awareness for the women’s cause, they would have to attack issues that seemed more like an injustice, than a lack of women’s rights.28

Sarah M. Grimké, in 1837, wrote Letters on the Equality of the Sexes and the Condition of Women. She made sure to note that these letters were about the condition of free Christian women in the United States. The key to this radical literature being, of course, that these women were Christian, and they were oppressed by a conservative version of their religion. The motto of woman, when she is engaged in the great work of public reformation should be,-“The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; or whom shall I be afraid?” She must feel, if she feels rightly, that she is fulfilling one of the important duties laid upon her an accountable being “unnatural,” is in exact accordance with the will of Him to whom, and to no other, she is responsible for the talents and gifts confided to her.29 Sarah Grimké took the words from the Bible and manipulated them to be a revolutionary principle by which women were to govern their lives. This motto which she composed using a Psalm was a resourceful way to incorporate the Bible, a piece of writing that has been the most highly esteemed literature of all time. The motto was to lead women to their social freedom.30 She took the biblical words and lent their meaning to her political stratagem and purpose. Grimké also continued by asserting that women had these obligations to God, the Father. 31 She claimed that women had these congenital liabilities that impelled them to work in adherence with His decree. Grimké said his will to be done was that women were people, and should be treated in all aspects of life as such.

It is apparent that women were viewed as the keepers of societal morals. A lack of women would mean that a once virtuous society would be diminished and ultimately destroyed morally. Men believed that women should act like women, and part of a woman’s role was to keep her husband from doing mischievous things. Her sister, the year before, had claimed “WHATEVER IT IS MORALLY RIGHT FOR A MAN TO DO, IT IS MORALLY RIGHT FOR A WOMAN TO DO.”32 Angelina equated the idea that, in the fall of mankind, both women and men were equally wrong, and since God viewed them equally that was what society should do: view them equally too.33 Unfortunately, men did not see this as true, and therefore, they did nothing for the betterment of women, but instead they did the opposite.

Most women did not have any sense that they were being oppressed, because no generation before them had changed what was considered standard. Maybe they had a subconscious sense of what is not defective does not need repair. The Grimké sisters were an important part of the spawning idea of women’s rights. Unfortunately, in 1838, after years of resistance, the sisters gave into pressure from resolute conservative criticism and stepped down from advocating women’s rights.34 One of the influential groups that encouraged the withdrawal from leading the women’s rights effort was The General Association of Massachusetts. This organization was a group of ministers and other church officials that claimed it was their job to protect the churches under their keeping.35 They came together and wrote the Pastoral Letter, which was a negative and condescending response to the work of the Grimké sisters. They claimed the exact opposite of what the Grimké sisters had tried to prove, by using the Bible too.

The General Association declared that a women’s competence was based solely on her aptitude of dependence. It can be presumed that the Association was treating women like young and naďve girls. Which created a weird sense of misplaced roles in society, such as the husband became like a father, and the wife like a daughter. I believe that this group is a relatively accurate account of how the majority of American society felt during this era. The Pastoral Letter continued by thanking women for helping strengthened and broaden the kingdom of the Lord. Then, it called on the devotion of the General Association’s churches and others for aid in rejecting women that act like men. The letter said that women were important for lots of things, but they should stay true to their role as women, and they should not be in a man’s role. In Sarah Grimké, Response, she claimed that her womanhood was her bondage, and rightly so at this historical period. 36 The idea of gender created a parallel situation to slavery ensures the theory that slavery and gender oppression were not all that far apart in Antebellum America.

During America’s youngest days, marriage was supposed to evolve as the Christian model had described the union. It was supposed to be a monogamous and lifelong journey between two people. Authorities of the antebellum period set out to reconstruct this marriage model to be a social standard. This created an inflexible and normative caste for women, which created an intrinsic duty of women. They were placed within this expectation to be a mother and a housewife.37

It is amazing the impact that antebellum men’s interpretation of Christianity had on the oppression of women. The narrow reading of the Bible allowed men to justify anything. The laws had been designed around the literal reading of the Scripture. In the book of Genesis, the Lord speaks directly to Eve and says that part of her punishment for forcing her husband to eat the fruit will be that Adam “will rule over” her in all that she does.38 The Christian value that was piled on women and marriage almost equated enslavement. A woman had to fulfill the expectation of society, or she was a social deviant, and considered abnormal. If she could not do as society dictated correctly, then she was an unfulfilled agnostic woman. So, women were enslaved because of their gender. She did not have to do backbreaking work like the actual slaves, but she had to comply with the standards of society and the standards of her husband. Middle class married white women were not capable of being ladies. They did not have the monetary sources. They were not black and, therefore, not slaves either. They lived in this awkwardly agonizing limbo-like state where they did not have rights because they had signed away any that they had when they signed marriage documents at a Christian marriage ceremony.

1. Nancy F. Cott, Public Vows (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2000), 7.

2. Nancy F. Cott, “Giving Character to Our Whole Civil Polity: Marriage and the Public Order in the Late Nineteenth Century,” in U.S. History as Women’s History: New Feminist Essays, ed. Linda K. Kerber, Alice Kessler-Harris, and Kathryn Kish Sklar (Chapel Hill, NC and London: The University of North Carolina Press, 1995), 107.

3. Cott, “Giving Character to Our Whole Civil Polity…” 107.

4. Gerda Lerner, “The Lady and the Mill Girl: Changes in the Status of Women in the Age of Jackson, 1800-1840,” in A Heritage of Her Own, ed. Nancy F. Cott and Elizabeth H. Pleck (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1979), 183.

5. Lerner, 183.

6. Lerner, 183.

7. Cott, “Giving Character to Our Whole Civil Polity…” 112.

8. Cott, “Giving Character to Our Whole Civil Polity…” 109.

9. Cott, “Giving Character to Our Whole Civil Polity…” 109.

10. Cott, “Giving Character to Our Whole Civil Polity…” 109.

11. Nancy F. Cott, The Bonds of Womanhood (New Haven and London: ale University Press, 1977), 199.

12. Nancy F. Cott, “Divorce and the Changing Status of women in Eighteenth-Century Massachusetts,” in Women and Power in American History: A Reader Vol. I to 1880, ed. Kathryn Kish Sklar and Thomas Dublin (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1991), 90-94.

13. Lerner, 183.

14. Lerner, 184.

15. Lerner, 184.

16. Cott, Public Vows, 63.

17. Cott, “Divorce and the Changing Status of Women…”, 93.

18. Eleanor M. Boatwright, “The Political and Civil Status of Women in Georgia, 1783-1860,” in History of Women in the United States: Historical Articles on Women’s Lives and Activities, 3. Domestic Relations and Law, ed. Nancy F. Cott (K.G. Saur, Munich, London, New York, Paris: Yale University, 1992), 56.

19. Boatwright, “The Political and Civil Status of Women in Georgia…” , 56.

20. Boatwright, “The Political and Civil Status of Women in Georgia…” , 58.

21. Boatwright, “The Political and Civil Status of Women in Georgia…” , 59.

22. Cott, The Bonds of Womanhood, 20.

23. Cott, The Bonds of Womanhood, 21.

24. Nancy F. Cott, “Eighteenth-Century Family and Social Life Revealed in Massachusetts Divorce Records,” in A Heritage of Her Own, ed. Nancy F. Cott and Elizabeth H. Pleck (New York: Simon and Schuster), 111.

25. The Public Years of Sarah and Angelina Grimké: Selected Writings, 1835-1839, ed. Larry Ceplair (New York: Columbia University Press, 1989), 251.

26. The Public Years of Sarah and Angelina Grimké…, 252.

27. The Public Years of Sarah and Angelina Grimké…, 252.

28. The Public Years of Sarah and Angelina Grimké…, 252.

29. Sarah Moore Grimké. Letters on the equality of the sexes, and the condition of woman. [Microform]. Boston, Mass. I Knapp, 1838.

30. Psalm. 23 New International Version.

31. Grimké, Sarah. Letters on the equality of the sexes….

32. Angelina Grimké. Appeal to the Christian Women of the South. [Microform]. New York, NY: American Anti-slavery Society, 1836.

33. Grimké, Angerlina. Appeal to the Christian Women….

34. The Public Years of Sarah and Angelina Grimké…, 266.

35. “Pastoral Letter of the General Association of Massahusetts, June 28, 1837,” n.d., <>(24 March2003).

36. Sarah Moore Grimké. “Letter in Response to the Pastoral Letter,” n.d. <> (24 March 2003).

37. Cott, Public Vows, 3.

38. Gen. 3.19 NIV.

Here are some links to try: