I wasn’t aware of the project or the online museum until today, but I like what I see. Some of the exhibits include
First But Not Last: Women Who Ran For President
Clandestine Women: Spies in American History
Latinas in the New World
Chinese American Women: A History of Resilence and Resistance
Claiming Their Citizenship: African American Women From 1624 – 2009
Profiles in Motherhood
There is even an exhibit researched and written by teenagers with Girls Learn International, Inc. It highlights young women who are worthy role models. I admit I have only heard of 6 of the 30 young women listed. That’s actually embarrassing, but probably not surprising.
History is typically taught from an event perspective, or what I would call a top down approach with everything revolving around world wars, presidents, discovery of America, etc. There is really far too much valuable information to squeeze into the curriculum as it is. And of course, history keeps happening. Creative teachers find ways to inject additional information into the curriculum, but they might not even know about many of the women mentioned here. (Keep in mind, I was a math/science teacher not a history teacher.)
I think this resource could be very valuable to teachers and parents alike who want their students/children to have a more balanced perspective on history and women’s contributions to it. After all, we are half of the population and have made great contributions throughout history whether they have been highlighted or not.
For example, I knew about Victoria Woodhull, who announced her candidacy for president in 1870. Unfortunately for her, she wasn’t even old enough to take office and was actually in jail on election day. But I had never heard of Belva Lockwood (shown on the left) who ran for president on the National Equal Rights Party ticket in 1884. She was a lawyer who won the right for women to argue cases before the US Supreme Court. Only receiving 4000 votes, she wasn’t discouraged and ran again in 1888. Remember in 1884 women couldn’t even vote in most of the US. The 19th amendment allowing all US women citizens to vote wouldn’t happen until 1920.
There is a lot to learn at this site and I’m sure more is coming. Check it out. I bet you’ll like what you see. Let me know what you think and what you learned from it.
Sonya Kovalevsky in 1880, photographer unknown (source)
“Ask him to marry one of us? You’re crazy,” said Inez.
“It’s the perfect solution”, replied Sonya’s sister Anna. “A lot of people are doing it. Women can’t study in Russia. At least the aristocracy can’t. It’s considered improper,” as she rolled her eyes. “But married women can travel.”
“And?”
“Don’t you see? If one of us gets married, we can both travel to a foreign university to study. When we get there he can go his own way. Strictly a marriage of convenience!”
So the conversation might have gone, in the winter of 1867 in St. Petersburg, Russia. Anna Krukovsky, her sister Sonya, and their friend Inez wanted to be a part of the new revolution among Russia’s young people. They wanted to see freedom, progress, and a rise in the standard of education for women in their country. In the 1860s and 70s, quite a few young Russian women among the aristocracy were leaving their parents homes to study. They did this by marrying young men of like mind, going abroad to study, and then going their separate ways.
Sonya, born in January of 1850 in Russia, was the daughter of Vasily Korvin-Krukovsky and Yelizaveta Shubert both well educated members of the Russian aristocracy. But, they, like most of us, were products of their own time. This dictated that girls were educated in the home and only in certain subjects. Sonya was raised, primarily, by a nursery maids and governesses. The first governess that she recalls in her fictionalized autobiography of her childhood, The Sister’s Rajevsky, was the “abominable French woman.” This woman was sent away when it was discovered that Anna could barely read. She was replaced by a Russian woman who had been living in England and had completely absorbed the English way of life. She brought a much needed discipline into the household. Under this new governess, Sonya discovered her affinity for science and mathematics. Her uncle, Pyotr Vasilievich Krukovsky , spoke about mathematics and it is said that the walls of her bedroom were papered with pages from a book on differential and integral calculus. Even though she didn’t have the background to understand it at the time, mathematics captured Sonya’s imagination. What she learned, however, was strictly controlled in the household. It had to be “proper” for a young woman.
Anna Jaclard, Sonya’s sister, before 1887, artist unknown (source)
Anna had a flair for literature and had defied the conventions by sending a couple of her stories to St. Petersburg to the attention of Fyodor Dostoyevsky. They had been published and she had been paid. Unfortunately, her father was the first to go through the post on the day her payment arrived, addressed to the housekeeper. He insisted that the housekeeper open it in front of him and explain. Anna was caught. Her father felt betrayed and humiliated, and for a time refused to speak to Anna.
The girls began to work on their mother and eventually were able to convince their parents to hear one of the stories. This resulted in a slight relaxing of restrictions. Anna was allowed to correspond with Dostoyevsky, and they were allowed to order books on various topics. Due to the influence of one of her father’s friends, a tutor was retained to teach Sonya science and mathematics, although, her father still considered it to be an “unusual and unfeminine” area of study. Sonya flourished, but soon reached the extent of what her tutor could teach her. When Sonya began to hint at her desire to go abroad to study her father drew the line and refused to even consider it.
It was after this, during a winter in St. Petersburg, that the girls began their plotting. The girls first approached a young man of the aristocracy with their proposal. He was a young professor at the university and surely would understand. He politely refused, but was sympathetic to their cause and didn’t expose them. This rejection didn’t stifle the girls’ enthusiasm for the idea. There don’t seem to be any romantic ideals attached to the idea. In their minds the proposal was strictly a matter of practicality and therefore the girls didn’t take the rejection personally.
While in their village Palibino, they had made the acquaintance of a young student. The son of the vicar, Vladimir Kovalevsky was a serious young man who studied archeology and geology at the university and wanted to continue his studies in Germany. He had a disagreement with his father over a number of things, including his involvement with the young people in the new movement in St. Petersburg. Because of this, he had moved out of his home, and into a small rented room in the city. In discussing their circle of friends, they decided that Vladimir might be a likely candidate for their plan.
There were many opportunities for the young people to socialize under supervision, so the girls were able to get to know Vladimir. They decided that he would be perfect for their marriage scheme. The three of them approached him at a casual gathering in a friend’s house. To their surprise, he agreed, with one change in the plan. He wanted to marry Sonya.
Although Sonya had often felt unloved, all indications are that the Krukovsky parents loved their children though they may have been somewhat removed. They had been persuaded to allow Anna to write for publication and Sonya to study “unfeminine” subjects, but they were in many ways very conventional. Vladimir was young, but of good birth with a promising career ahead of him, so he would probably have been accepted as a match for Anna. She was 23 at the time, an age where she was a little old to be unmarried. However, Sonya was only 17 and of course the expectation was that the older daughter should be married first. Their father flatly refused to consider the match.
The girls were so determined that Sonya decided to force her father’s hand. One evening when the household was busy preparing for a dinner party and both of the girl’s parents had gone out in the afternoon, Sonya dressed for dinner and slipped out of the house without being seen. She went to Vladimir’s room where he was waiting for her. They waited anxiously for footsteps in the hallway, knowing it wouldn’t take long. Sonya had left a note for her parents. She asked them to forgive her, but to understand that this was what she wanted. She knew that it would be humiliating for them, and that being found alone with Vladimir would require their marriage.
At home, Sonya’s parents had arrived late as expected. When the guests had assembled and the table was set, they noticed that Sonya was missing. Anna told them that she had gone out, and there was a note on her dressing table. After reading the note, their father said nothing, but left the house. When he returned he introduced Sonya’s fiancé to the guests.
The marriage proceeded as planned. The young couple lived in St. Petersburg for six months until Vladimir finished his studies, then moved on to Heidelberg, Germany. Here Sonya was able to study with celebrated mathematicians and scientists of the day. Anna and Inez both eventually joined them. They were able to travel and meet many well-known people, authors as well as scientists.
In her biography of Sonya, Anna Carlotta Leffler describes Sonya as a person who demanded a lot from her close friends and acquaintances. She tended to be jealous of other people and the things in their lives, even of her husband’s work. She says of Sonya that “Her own individuality was far too pronounced to allow her to live in harmony with others.” Sonya threw herself wholeheartedly into new activities such as dancing and horseback riding and gave this same devotion to writing literature and her study of mathematics. This devotion allowed her to become the first woman to be a member of the Russian Academy of Science and the first European woman to become a full professor at a university. This appointment was privately funded at the University of Sweden in 1884.
Although it began as a marriage of convenience with separate living arrangements, Sonya and Vladimir developed a close relationship. They would often walk and talk all day. Eventually, Anna moved to Paris and Inez moved on, leaving the couple alone. They shared great intelligence and devotion to their work. Later, they shared great devotion to their daughter, Foufi. Unfortunately, their life together was short. Vladimir died, Foufi was left with friends in St. Petersburg, and Sonya was alone. She would spend most of the rest of her life this way. To her friends, she seemed to always be searching for something. Perhaps for the acceptance and love that she didn’t feel as a child, and didn’t find in a marriage of convenience.
Resources Sonya Kovalevsky; a biography, and Sisters Rajevsky; being an account of her life by Sonya Kovalevsky by Anna Carlotta Leffler Women in Mathematics by Lynn Osen Notable Women in Mathematics edited by Charlene Morrow and Teri Perl
Anne Hutchinson on Trial by Edwin Austin Abbey (source)
The “separation of church and state” has been a continuing issue in our American history. Most often it comes up with regard to our public schools. Over the years, these issues have ended up in the courts, with things being decided in the favor of keeping religion out of the schools, but the issues never really go away. Still prayers are said before football games, at graduations, and even as late as 2004 the school board of Dover, Pennsylvania tried to introduce Creationism into the high school biology classroom in the form of Intelligent Design.
I’m not surprised that the effort continues. The United States is one of the most religious nations on earth with hundreds of different religions and Christian denominations. What does surprise me, however, is that the effort is usually led by evangelical Christians. The reason this surprises me is that evangelical Christians were in large part the driving force behind the First Amendment clause being written into the Constitution.
We don’t have a state religion in the United States, but that wasn’t always the case. During colonial America, many colonies did have official religions that were supported by the state and tax money. In the north, the Congregationalist church (formerly the Puritans) was the official church of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, in the south, the Anglican Church was the official church of Maryland, Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia. There certainly were states without an official religion, most notably Rhode Island which was established on the principle of freedom of religion. But in many of these colonies, evangelicals found themselves at odds with the established churches. One person who is of particular importance to the idea of “separation of church and state” is Jeremiah Moore. Taking up the cause of Moore and many other Baptist preachers who had been arrested for preaching without a license in Virginia, Thomas Jefferson would introduce a bill into the legislature that would eventually be passed and sever the tie between the Anglican Church and the state of Virginia. He would then go on, with others, to insist on the addition of a clause in the Constitution that ensured freedom of religion.
Evangelicalism is characterized by the belief that you can have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. Although Evangelicalism didn’t really begin as a movement until the 1730s, the idea that you could have this communion with God through the Holy Spirit did exist. One woman who believed and taught this idea is Anne Hutchinson.
Marshalsea prison where Anne’s father spent 2 years after being convicted of heresy (source)
Anne Hutchinson, born Anne Marbury in 1591, was the daughter of an Anglican minister in England. Her father had strong Puritan leanings and was censured by the church on more than one occasion. He spent time in prison for his preaching and for a time was under house arrest. He was a strong believer in education and in a time that it was unusual for women to be educated, he taught both his boys and his girls. At the age of 21, not long after her father’s death, Anne married William Hutchinson. Together they began to follow the teachings of John Cotton and John Wheelwright. These two ministers preached similar messages emphasizing grace and a “moment of conversion”, and deemphasizing a salvation based on works.
By 1633, Cotton’s message, which didn’t strictly adhere to the Anglican Church doctrines, was attracting attention from the church and he found it necessary to flee to America. After a time, Anne felt the Spirit leading her to follow Cotton to Massachusetts and she and William, with their 11 children, sailed for Boston in 1634. They flourished in Boston. William was successful in trade, and Anne found a place in the community helping others and attending childbirths where women often congregated. At some point, she began to share with these women the message she had learned from Cotton and Wheelwright.
Men would often congregate to discuss recent sermons and theology, but there were no such meetings for women. As more and more women became interested in what Anne had to say, she began to have meetings for them in her home. This eventually led to meetings twice a week attended by as many as 80 people. They would review the sermon, discuss it’s meaning, and often disagree with it. Anne began to espouse her own teachings. Principle among them was the “covenant of grace” as opposed to the “covenant of works.” She emphasized “an intuition of the Spirit” or “a personal revelation” as the true evidence of a person’s salvation rather than their good behavior.
In 1636, it became clear to officials in Boston, that many people were developing opinions that weren’t considered orthodox within the church. The fault for this was laid at the feet of Cotton, Hutchinson, and Wheelwright (who had recently arrived from England.) A number of meetings were held, particularly with Cotton, to try to sort out what his specific teachings were and where they differed from the official church doctrine. (This controversy still exists today between different denominations, with some emphasizing that works have nothing to do with the state of your salvation, and others emphasizing that your faith is not assured unless there is evidence of the fruit of good works.) By late 1636, things came to a head and Hutchinson and her followers were accused of heresy.
Anne was accused of antinomianism and familism. Antinomianism literally means “against the law” and Familism was a sect that emphasized a feeling of divine love. Both of these ideas were considered to be dangerous for fear that they could lead to immoral behavior. Neither accusation is really accurate. While Anne believed that she and others like her, received salvation purely by the grace of God and that this could be experienced and felt by the believer, thereby providing “proof” to the individual, they were not immoral people. By all accounts, Anne was highly respected in the community and very active in helping people, in spite of having a large family of her own.
John Winthrop, Governor of Massachusetts, presided over Anne’s trial (source)
By 1637 when Anne came to trial, her primary accuser John Winthrop had become governor of Massachusetts. He feared that if the people in the colony did not remain “pure” that God would not protect them. It was a difficult life for the settlers. Just before Anne’s trial, the settlers had engaged in a war with the Pequot Indians. Many Puritans believed that Indian attacks, poor crops, natural disasters, or any misfortune was God’s judgment for sin. Another aspect of this trial was that Anne had risen to a place in the community that Winthrop did not deem “fitting to her sex.” Men had begun to attend Anne’s meetings. In fact, one of her admirers was the previous governor of the colony, Sir Henry Vane. It was not considered proper for a woman to teach men. Cotton, in an attempt to distance himself from Anne, even accused her of promoting licentious behavior by having men and women together in her home for these meetings. The entire situation was filled with politics, fear of judgment, and probably no small amount of misogyny.
On the first day of the trial, Anne met their arguments point for point, probably frustrating them greatly. However, on the second day, Anne gave them her message. She told them that she was assured of her salvation because of a “personal revelation.” The court deemed her a heretic and sentenced her to banishment from Massachusetts. She remained under house arrest throughout the winter in the home of Joseph Weld in Roxbury. It was a severe winter in which she was separated from her family.
In the spring, a church trial was held, in which Anne was excommunicated. During the winter, William and some other men made plans to leave Massachusetts. Twenty-three men would ultimately sign what became known as the Portsmouth Compact. They purchased Aquiddeck Island from the Narragansetts and formed a new settlement. This was near Providence Plantations which had been established by Roger Williams with specific provisions for freedom of religion.
At some point after the death of William in 1641, Anne and some of her family moved to a place in eastern New York. Here she and all but one of her children and other family members were massacred by the Indians. She had had good relationships with the Narragansett Indians in Portsmouth and may not have realized how tense the relationships were in her new home. Her daughter Susanna was away from the house and by some accounts was captured and held for several years before being ransomed to her remaining family in Boston.
As with many historical figures Anne’s life is viewed through many lenses. She is seen as a heretic, a libertine, and a feminist, or as a woman who simply followed the dictates of her conscience. She definitely stepped out of the generally accepted role of women in Puritan society. Ultimately, she was a victim of both secular and church politics, but she was also a woman who insisted on her religious liberty.
Resources Life of Anne Hutchinson: With a Sketch of the Antinomian Controversy in Massachusetts by George E. Ellis God In America – PBS special
For example, I knew about Victoria Woodhull, who announced her candidacy for president in 1870. Unfortunately for her, she wasn’t even old enough to take office and was actually in jail on election day. But I had never heard of Belva Lockwood (shown on the left) who ran for president on the National Equal Rights Party ticket in 1884. She was a lawyer who won the right for women to argue cases before the US Supreme Court. Only receiving 4000 votes, she wasn’t discouraged and ran again in 1888. Remember in 1884 women couldn’t even vote in most of the US. The 19th amendment allowing all US women citizens to vote wouldn’t happen until 1920.
