Founding Mothers

I’ve spent the last two posts boring you all to tears with discussions about our founding fathers and trying to glean from their writings, particularly the opinions of James Madison and Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, what they might think of our current election.  The simple answer, which I’ve avoided because it would make for a very short essay, is that they are dead and so don’t think anything at all of this election.

But after spending so much time on the Founding Fathers, I would be remiss if I didn’t spend at least some small amount of space on a similar consideration of the opinions of our Founding Mothers.

What’s that?  You’ve never heard of the Founding Mothers?

No, you didn’t fall asleep during history class. (Well, you might have.  But that’s not why you missed this part.  Now grab a cup of coffee and stay with me!)  You’ve probably never heard of our Founding Mothers because no one talks about them, or their vital contributions to our country, or about WHY no one ever talks about them.  (I’m give you a hint: no penises.)

So let’s pause and consider some of the contributions of just a few of the women, there at the very beginning, whose influence on our nation can still be felt even today.

1. Mercy Otis Warren helped get us the Bill of Rights and wrote everything you know about the Revolutionary War

Mercy Otis Warren was born in Barnstable, Massachusetts and lived in Plymouth after marrying James Warren, who was a respected politician and sympathizer to the patriot cause.  Because of her connections with various patriots of Massachusetts, including Samuel Adams and John Adams, she was soon introduced to, and corresponded at length with, other revolutionary leaders like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. 

Warren, like Jefferson and Adams, fought for independence using her pen as a mighty weapon, and wielding it with a strength that set her apart and above most of her contemporaries, both male and female.  She wrote satirical plays lambasting Royal Governor Thomas Hutchinson, and was a fierce and loyal supporter of the revolutionary cause.  But her greatest contributions came after the war.

Published anonymously, Observations on the New Constitution was the opposite of the Federalist Papers, railing against the “men who tell us republicanism is dwindled into theory- that we are incapable of enjoying our liberties- and that we must have a master.”  It was one of the earliest, and clearest, calls for a Bill of Rights to be included in the Constitution, something strongly opposed by Hamilton, who argued, “I go further, and affirm, that Bills of Rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.” (Federalist 84)

So you can thank Warren, not Hamilton, for your freedom of speech

The book was so important and influential that everyone thought a dude must have written it (specifically Elbridge Gerry, one of the better-named second-tier revolution-era politicians).  It wasn't properly attributed to Warren for over a century.  Because, c'mon, how could a woman write something so influential?

She also wrote and published (this time under her own name) the first major history of the Revolutionary War, the somewhat cumbersomely titled History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution (1805).  This book was the first to fit the events of the revolution into the narrative structure that is so well-known to us, starting with the Stamp Act first fanning the flames of liberty, through Jefferson drafting the Declaration of Independence (signed on the crucial date of July 4^th, 1776), and past the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown, on up to the ratification of the Constitution.  She singled out Jefferson as the soul of the revolution, citing his declaration as representative of the “the natural equality of man, their right of adopting their own modes of government, the dignity of the people.”  And she marginalized and even criticized John Adams, her one-time literary mentor, to a secondary role in the revolution, and for having a “partiality for monarchy.”

Her words, combined with the fall of Federalism and rise of the Democratic Republicans and the Jeffersonian version of American History, meant that this narrative came to dominate our history books.  Nevermind that history didn’t really happen in quite so neat and tidy a fashion.  Her view of history became our view of history.

And yet, you’ve never heard of her.

At least the same can’t be said for:

2. Abigail Adams was our first female vice-president

John Adams, besides being the guy who made Washington commanding general of the Continental Army, the guy who asked Jefferson to draft the Declaration of Independence, and the single-handed author of the Massachusetts state constitution (no, really!), was the first vice-president and second president.  He is widely considered to be an unsuccessful president, unable to act strongly against France at a time when France was attacking our ships, passed the despicable Alien and Sedition Acts, a clear attack on free speech, and was defeated for reelection by his own vice-president, Thomas Jefferson.

When John Adams was elected our second president, he had a very tough act to follow.  Despite all of his unquestionable political genius and patriotic dedication, he was, quite obviously, not George Washington.  But he did his best, relying on the sound judgement of his closest advisers.  And by “closest advisers,” I’m not talking about his cabinet.  Adams chose to largely keep the same cabinet as Washington, thinking this would help keep the country on a steady course.  Unfortunately, he despised nearly everyone in his cabinet, especially Hamilton.  He couldn’t turn to his vice-president, as Jefferson was actively spreading rumors to turn the nation against Adams.  Instead, Adams relied on his own one-person cabinet: Abigail.

John Quincy was busy.

She was, not just as first lady, but at every time of their lives, his most trusted and most capable adviser.  More than that, John Adams was not really John Adams, but just one half of the political team of "John Adams" that they created together.  Their mutual trust and dedication to each other is clear in their considerable correspondences, which began always with “My Dearest Friend.”  Many in the government even took to referring to Abigail as “Mrs. President,” acknowledging her vital role in the administration.  In fact, some historians have argued that Abigail was the driving force behind her husband signing the much reviled Alien and Sedition Acts, the blackest spot on the Adams presidency.  Of course, while she supported the measures, nothing in the historical record indicates that she was active in convincing her husband to sign them, making this rumor maybe the first example of an embarrassing, cowardly act by Congress retroactively blamed on a woman.

Meanwhile, Abigail set herself apart from her male contemporaries with her unwavering support of women’s rights.  In her letters to her husband during the Second Continental Congress, she reminded him, “Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them than your ancestors…Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could.”  (John didn’t accomplish much on this score, which is hardly surprising, considering his would have surely been the only such voice in all the Congress.)  She later wrote to her husband, “If you complain of neglect of Education in sons, what shall I say with regard to daughters, who every day experience the want of it?”  Then, in another letter, pointed out that women were every bit as patriotic as the men of this country, despite being excluded from having any voice in the governing of the nation.  “Yet all of history and every age exhibit instances of patriotic virtue in the female sex; which considering our situation equals the most heroic of yours.”

Up until our own time, no other First Lady has formed such a strong partnership with her presidential husband, advising him so openly on all matters and being a true political force in forming our nation.  Although neither of them alone were as formidable as the sum of their parts, it’s intriguing to speculate that if we could bring the Adams partnership into the future, could it be Abigail who would be the better choice to run for president?

3. Anne Hutchinson gets banished, helps found a new colony

If you’re not from the town of Portsmouth, Rhode Island (as I am), you’ve probably never heard of Anne Hutchinson. So here is the basic story:

Anne was a Puritan, born in England, married to a successful merchant, and a follower of the Puritan preacher John Cotton.  She came to Boston in 1634, where she and her husband were well-received by Cotton and governor John Winthrop.  She began hosting Bible study groups for women in her home each week, which became popular; so popular that she had to start one for men as well.  Soon, she was being accused by Cotton and Winthrop of preaching heretical views.  She was placed on trial, and eventually banished.  She was forced to trudge for days through the New England snow (did I mention she was pregnant?) before settling, with her family and many others who supported her and followed her, on an island called Aquidneck Island, also known as Rhode Island, which they purchased from the Narragansetts.  This was the founding of Portsmouth, Rhode Island, marked by the signing of the Portsmouth Compact, which the town of Portsmouth will point to as the beginning of American democracy.

Today, a statue of Anne Hutchinson stands outside the Massachusetts State House, where a plague declares her a “Courageous Exponent of Civil Liberty and Religious Toleration.”

Bullshit.  That plague gets it completely wrong.  Anne is being commemorated as someone who was persecuted for her heretical religious beliefs, her life being set up as a testament to the injustice of religious intolerance in government and the need for a separation of church and state.

But Anne was just as Puritan as any Puritan in Boston, and more than most, probably.  The Portsmouth Compact reads:

“We whose names are underwritten do hereby solemnly in the presence of Jehovah incorporate ourselves into a Bodie Politick and as He shall help, will submit our persons, lives and estates unto our Lord Jesus Christ, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and to all those perfect and most absolute laws of His given in His Holy Word of truth, to be guided and judged thereby.”

Not exactly the model of secular democracy.  Indeed, the actual differences in belief between Anne Hutchinson and John Cotton and the rest of the Massachusetts theocratic government is something called the Antinomian Controversy, which is such a splitting of hairs over slightly different interpretations of the meaning of grace that I’m not going to bore you with trying to recount it.  Suffice to say, people who spoke publicly about these different ideas of grace were in danger of banishment.

But Anne, as it became clear during her trial, never spoke these ideas in public.  Only in her own home. At her trial, John Winthrop tried to trick her into admitting her guilt, but she was far too intelligent and clever to fall for that.  Winthrop, after two days of constantly questioning her, utterly failed to prove her guilty of anything punishable by more than disapproving look.

Near the end of the second day of the trial Hutchinson, who at this point had basically won and would in no way have been banished, asked to address Winthrop and the court.  She said, “You have no power over my body, neither can you do me any harm- for I am in the hands of the eternal Jehovah, my savior… Therefore take heed how you proceed against me- for I know that, for this you go about to do to me, God will ruin you and your posterity and this whole state.”

"You think you can intimidate me by making me stand here while you ask me stupid questions?  I have fifteen children.  You guys are amateurs." - Hutchinson (I assume)

In other words, she called heresy on Winthrop and all of Massachusetts.  In blatant defiance of those passing judgement on her, she passes judgement on them.  This is a woman who would have gone free, who did not have to be banished.  Instead, she essentially chose banishment, rather than submit to the authority of Winthrop.

She was brought to trial partly for her insistence on a slightly different theological interpretation of the meaning of grace, but mostly for daring to teach her ideas to other people.  In particular, in daring to teach them to men.  As a woman, she was forbidden to direct her Bible teachings to anyone besides other women.  Yet she was so popular, her teachings had such an influence on the community, that she had to start a special Bible study meeting for men.  This directly challenged the authority of Cotton and Winthrop, and led to her trial, where they tried to paint her as part of a larger group of trouble-makers (many of whom were men who followed Anne and had already received banishment for publicly espousing her ideas), but that strategy backfired on them. 

But instead of submitting to men who insisted that she stay quiet as a woman ought to, or seek their permission and their opinions about how and what to teach, Anne stared them in the eye and refused to blink.

Roger Williams, who had earlier been banished for his own heretical teachings, founded Providence Plantations in the name of religious freedom.  His experience in Massachusetts had convinced him that religion must be kept out of civil government, not for the sake of government but for the sake of religion.  Anne Hutchinson, on the other hand, chose to be banished not so much for her religious beliefs, but rather because she refused to be told what she could or could not teach by men whom she considered as at least equals, if not inferiors.

And by joining her settlement with Williams, Anne Hutchinson helped establish the colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.  (She eventually moved to New Amsterdam after her husband died, where she was killed by an Iroquois raiding party near what became known as the Hutchinson River.)

From these examples, it becomes clear that from the beginning of this nation, women have been fighting to be held as equals to men in civil society.  They have faced banishment, ridicule, marginalization by a male-dominated society, and these are hardly the only examples to be found in our history.  But slowly (very, very slowly), our society has moved ever closer to the promise of equality made at our founding, and now we are poised at the edge of a momentous step forward: the election of our first female president.

Now, I’m not saying to vote for Hillary because she’s a woman.  No, you should vote for her because she’s the most qualified, most experienced, most honest, least corrupt of all the (roughly) 300 people who have run for president this election cycle.

But she is still subject to the same attacks faced by Mercy Otis Warren, Abigail Adams, and Anne Hutchinson, which, after hundreds of years of social progress, is disgusting and disturbing.

Hillary has been the subject of lies perpetuated by political rivals, implicated in non-existent scandals, and been vilified because she challenges the conservative status quo.  She's portrayed as dishonest, despite her statements being evaluated as more honest and truthful than any of the other presidential candidates, including during the primaries.

She is accused of murder, which is the kind of disgusting and outrageously false claim that is so ridiculous people have to keep shouting it or it’ll disappear.  Yet, the Republican political witchhunt over who to blame for the tragic events in Benghazi found her blameless, and pointed to a Republican-controlled Congress obsessed with cost-cutting reducing the State Department's security budget.

She is accused of being corrupt for giving speeches to Wall Street investment firms and working for the interests of banks.  Banks located largely in New York.  When she was a Senator from New York.  And yet, her voting records shows BOTH support for banks and increased financial regulation, which doesn’t sound like corruption to me.  That sounds like good economic judgement.

And her honesty is questioned because she had a private email server while Secretary of State.  The only scandal here seems to boil down to Hillary not asking for permission first.  She’s described as arrogant, or criticized for hubris, but I can’t help but wonder if she were a man doing the same thing, would he be described as a real leader, who cuts through the bureaucratic red tape and gets stuff done?  I kinda want a leader who gets stuff done and doesn’t always wait for permission.

If she displays arrogance or hubris, it seems to be no more, indeed far less, than most male politicians you could think of.  And any legitimate criticism of her pales before her Republican opponent, who appears to be a giant orange water balloon full of arrogance and hubris with a frowny face drawn on it.

Unretouched photo.

Hillary is attacked in ways that all of our founding mothers would have found familiar, and she perseveres just as they did.  Character attacks, smear campaigns, gender-based double standards, allegations that her husband will be the one making the decisions; Abigail Adams would have been quick to encourage new Sedition Acts, and Anne Hutchinson would have stared them down and dared them to banish her again.

But this is now, and Hillary’s not getting banished.  She not going anywhere, and my daughter will live in a world where she will know that there is nothing that she can’t accomplish, including becoming President of the United States. 

In case you haven't guessed by now, I'm with her.