Women in the Nineteenth Century Unitarian Controversy Kimberly Hornback

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2007 Women in the Nineteenth Century Unitarian Controversy Kimberly Hornback

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

WOMEN IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY UNITARIAN CONTROVERSY

By

Kimberly Hornback

A Thesis submitted to the Department of History in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2007

The members of the committee approve the thesis of Kimberly Hornback defended on October 25, 2007.

______Neil Jumonville Professor Directing Thesis

______Maxine Jones Committee Member

______Amanda Porterfield Committee Member

The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.

ii

This work is dedicated to my husband and my parents. Without your ability to see farther for me than I can see for myself, who knows where I would be. I am thankful for all of your love.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract v

Introduction 1

1. Private Lives 20

2. Public Lives 37

Conclusion 55

References 58

Biographical Sketch 63

iv ABSTRACT

Despite the work that has been done on the Unitarian controversy in nineteenth century Boston, little is known about the effects of the controversy on women. This study examines the lives of Catharine Beecher, Elizabeth Peabody, and Mary Ware. An analysis of their lives yields answers to the question: How did the Unitarian controversy affect the private and social lives of these women? In addition, this study seeks to uncover some of the broader currents of American thought that accompanied the growth of Unitarianism.

v INTRODUCTION

By 1805, the religious landscape of Boston was undergoing great changes. Some of these changes were due to the emergence of Unitarian theology and the break between the Congregational and Unitarian churches. The Unitarian controversy is not a new subject of study to historians. Much work has been done over the years on the theological and legal disputes contained within the Unitarian controversy. Additionally, the thoughts of leading Calvinist and Unitarian theologians have been well-documented. What has not been thoroughly examined, however, are the effects of this religious disagreement on Bostonian culture and society at large – especially on the women of Boston. Because of the rancorous nature and church-splitting consequences of the Unitarian controversy, it is not likely that the debate or the effect of growing religious liberality was limited to rival theologians. The objective of this study is to look at the effects of the Unitarian controversy on the lives and roles of three white, middle to upper class antebellum women of Massachusetts. For example, how did this controversy affect the private and social lives of the women who had some connections with the theological rivalry? Did the controversy affect them at all? This will be examined on a microcosmic scale through the evaluation of three women: Mary L. Ware, Catharine Beecher, and Elizabeth Palmer Peabody. Moreover, I hope to answer, in some small part, the question that Donald M. Scott raised in his book review of Daniel Walker Howe’s The Unitarian Conscience: what can the growth of Unitarianism tell us about the changes that were transforming American society?1 So, in addition to examining the ramifications of the Unitarian controversy upon women, I hope to uncover some of the broader currents of American thought with regards to women which made room for the Unitarian church to arise in the first place. In the late eighteenth century, New England was a bastion of Calvinist thought. The bulwark which supported this thought was the Congregational church – a loose connection of parish churches which held basic beliefs in common yet still maintained control over their local congregation. The founding tenets of American Congregationalism were based in the hopes of a holy commonwealth in which dissenters

1 Donald Scott, “The Unitarian Conscience: Harvard Moral Philosophy, 1805-1861,” Church History 41, no.3 (September, 1972): 416.

1 were unwelcome.2 Through this commonwealth, the early Congregationalists would act as a city on a hill, thereby serving as an example for the rest of the world. Notably for this early commonwealth was the fact that it operated as both a civil authority and a religious authority. This pattern of civic and religious domination remained in place until the nineteenth century. Due to its early roots in America, the Congregational churches in Massachusetts were supported by taxes collected from the local parishes. Though each church maintained its own control, the parish as a whole supported the individual churches. So, if parish members did not attend a Congregational church – or were not accepted into it due to an inability to prove their own conversion – those members still owed taxes to support the church. These taxes were collected until the year 1823.3 The impetus for the Unitarian challenge found its roots in the growth of a liberal theology which had begun in the Congregational church before the nineteenth century. This theology embraced the rational ideas of the enlightenment, thereby allowing reason to be an instrument of scriptural interpretation and religious guidance. Throughout the latter part of the eighteenth century, a strand of liberal sentiment had been running through the Congregational church. Several Congregational pastors challenged the vigor of The Great Awakening and its proponents such as Jonathan Edwards, and George Whitfield. Whereas traditional Calvinism – and men like Edwards and Whitfield – placed salvation solely within the hands of a God who predestined believers for salvation, others began to give humans more agency. These men looked for an enlightened rationalism within their theology which argued against doctrines of man’s complete depravity and predestination.4 This form of religious doctrine was directly counter to the traditional Calvinist view that God had chosen to save a select group of people and that all others were subject to eternal damnation. Instead, proponents of a more liberal theology invoked what they perceived to be the kindness of God, as well as the ability of

2 J. William T. Youngs, The Congregationalists, Denominations in America, No. 4 (New York: Greenwood Press, 1990), 3. 3 Richard O. Curry, Lawrence B. Goodheart, “The Trinitarian Indictment of Unitarianism: The Letters of Elizur Wright, Jr., 1826-1827,” Journal of the Early Republic, no. 3 (Autumn, 1983): 281-296, 281-282. 4 Gary Dorrien, The Making of American Liberal Theology: Imagining Progressive Religion (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 1.

2 man to reason his way through what had heretofore been supernatural, unknowable territory. The arguments of these early theologians did not, in themselves, produce the disagreements that would later create such a split in the Congregational church. What they do reveal, however, is the fact that there was an increasingly defined theological search for a way of belief that was softer than orthodox Calvinism. For many (such as Elizabeth Palmer Peabody), Calvinism was associated with punishment and censure. Unitarianism, however, allowed for a more benevolent God who was interested in individuals. Reason began to be introduced into religious discussions and, as the politics, philosophy, and social reality of America was changing, so was the religion. Liberal theologians began to develop other ideas such as Unitarianism which, at its core, believed that God’s nature was one rather than three. This, in turn, denied the divinity of Jesus and placed him in the role of an exemplary man rather than a divine. Additionally, proponents of Unitarianism argued that man was not innately depraved. This countered traditional scriptural teachings of original sin and the need for salvation.5 These doctrinal considerations were not the sole factors in the rancor that later erupted in the nineteenth century, however. For orthodox Calvinists, the Unitarian beliefs were a direct refusal of scripture and, thus, a way of life. Further, if scriptural confidence were to be shaken in areas such as the nature of God, original sin, and the divinity of Jesus, it was likely to be shaken even further in other areas. In essence, leaving the beliefs of Unitarians unchallenged was, for the Orthodox, akin to allowing a leak in the dam of morality that would ultimately burst and ruin the young nation. Many Unitarians, however, resented the social control and censure that they felt accompanied Orthodox Calvinism. They also resisted the thought that there was no room for rationalism in religion. They wanted to interpret God differently and wanted the social approbation to do so. So, though the Unitarian controversy erupted over doctrinal issues, its fires were fanned by issues of social control, punishment vs. benevolence, scriptural confidence, rationalism, morality, and independence.

5 Bruce Kuklick, ed., The Unitarian Controversy, 1819-1823 (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1987), vol.1, 3.

3 Though Unitarianism itself was not considered a defined system of belief until the 1820’s (when it broke off from the Congregational church), there were many who departed from traditional Trinitarian beliefs in favor of Unitarian beliefs. The theological differences – as well as the reaction among remaining Trinitarians – were so strong that it necessarily created two systems of belief. Finally, at the turn of the nineteenth century, this mixture of religion and enlightenment reasoning took on a defined form in a polemical debate. The Unitarian controversy arose out of the debate between these two belief systems and their corresponding educational institutions. In 1805, a situation arose at Harvard that revealed all the force of these underlying liberal tendencies and not only changed the face of Congregationalism but also changed the course of Protestant religion in America. David Tappan, a moderate Calvinist and the Hollis Professor of Divinity died and left Harvard’s Professorship of Divinity vacant. As the Hollis professorship was such an influential position in the community, the vacancy became a source of contention for almost two years.6 The professor of Divinity at Harvard was in a prime position to influence the minds of the future and most influential clergymen of the region. This being the case, the appointment to this post mattered a great deal for the religious makeup of Boston.7 Adding to the debate, Dr. Joseph Willard, the president of Harvard died in late 1804 – during the deliberations over the Hollis professorship. Willard had also been a moderate Calvinist.8 With his death, there were now two vital positions at Harvard that needed to be filled. These positions stood to be the determining factors in the religious balance of power at the new nation’s foremost Divinity school. Consequently, they would also permanently alter the delicate religious landscape of Boston. Finally, the Unitarian Henry Ware, Sr. was chosen as the Hollis Professor of Divinity. Additionally, another Unitarian, Samuel Webber, was chosen as the president of Harvard.9 After the long, acrimonious debate, the appointments of these two gentlemen did not create a cessation to hostilities. Rather, their appointments acted as a spark which

6 Conrad Wright, The Beginnings of Unitarianism in America (Boston: Starr King Press, 1955), 274-275; Daniel Walker Howe, The Unitarian Conscience: Harvard Moral Philosophy, 1805-1861 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970), 4. 7 Gaius Glenn Atkins and Frederick L. Fagley, History of American Congregationalism (Boston: The Pilgrim Press, 1942), 129-130. 8 Wright, The Beginnings of Unitarianism in America, 275. 9 Howe, The Unitarian Conscience, 4.

4 ignited Boston for at least two more decades. Over the next few years, there was a strong conservative response to the new liberal balance of power at Harvard. In 1808, for example, orthodox Calvinists founded Andover Theological Seminary in direct opposition to Harvard’s divinity school. Andover was to be a strictly orthodox seminary. To maintain these standards, the founders created a confession of faith which was to be subscribed to by all who were hired to fill professional chairs.10 A quarrelsome debate arose between these two institutions about theological matters such as the trinity, God and man’s roles in salvation, the nature of man, and the importance of scripture. This debate has come to be known as the Unitarian Controversy.11 The debate that initially belonged to theological professors quickly became of regional importance as the issues were spread about in the media of the day. Years after the heat of the controversy waned, the dispute still took up space in the popular periodicals of the day. In 1853, for instance, The New York Daily Times characterized the Unitarian controversy as “one of the warmest and most acrimonious religious controversies…ever waged in a Christian age and community” which led to “bitter estrangements, religious and social.”12 Though all agreed that the strife brought caustic parish divisions, many, such as an 1829 observer in Boston considered that taking a moral stand within the debate was necessary to “try the moral or religious strength of the cause engaged which is nothing more than truth and justice.”13 As a result, scores of people converted to a Unitarian point of view and churches became divided over these theological issues. Ultimately, numerous orthodox Calvinists seceded from their churches and formed new congregations – thereby beginning full-fledged fights over church control, choice of ministers, and the control of property and finance.14 This growth of liberal theology and its resultant actions led to a permanent change in the religious and political landscape of Massachusetts – especially in that it led to a separation between church and state. Because of this, much has been written about the

10 Atkins, History of American Congregationalism, 130. 11 Kuklick, ed., The Unitarian Controversy, 1-2. 12 “Religious History,” New York Daily Times (1851-1857), Nov. 19, 1853, 2. 13 “On Neutrality,” Boston Recorder and Religious Telegraph (1826-1830), Feb. 26, 1829, Vol.14, Iss. 9, 33. 14 Curry, “The Trinitarian Indictment.”, William G. McLoughlin, New England Dissent 1630-1833: The Baptists and the Separation of Church and State, vol. II (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971), 1189-1194.

5 rise of Unitarianism in antebellum Boston. Among the secondary works on the rise of Unitarianism is The Unitarian Conscience: Harvard Moral Philosophy, 1805-1861 by Daniel Walker Howe. The timeframe of this thesis has been derived from Howe’s research. Howe locates the bulk of the Unitarian controversy between the years of 1805 and 1861. This seems to be the case as the national Unitarian denomination was splintering after 1860 – primarily over slavery and abolition issues. Thus, the Unitarians did not have the same momentum which propelled more Orthodox congregations. Though the controversy did maintain its partisans until approximately 1861, the bulk of the vitriolic argument seems to have been prior to 1840. Hence, this thesis utilizes Howe’s start date of 1805 but limits the scope of research to the early 1840’s. The objective of The Unitarian Conscience was twofold: to describe Unitarian moral philosophy in early nineteenth century New England and to show why this philosophy was important to the development of American culture. Also instrumental in understanding the arguments of the Unitarian controversy is The Unitarian Controversy: 1819-1823, edited by Bruce Kuklick. Kuklick’s work contains invaluable letters and sermons written by leaders among both the Unitarians and the Orthodox Calvinists. Finally, The Congregationalists, written by J. William T. Youngs, gives a thorough background on the history of the Congregational church in New England. Though not much has been written about the effects of the Unitarian controversy on women, there are several works on women in antebellum New England that are essential to this analysis. As the research on antebellum women in New England is so vast, it has been necessary to narrow the perusal of these works to the relevant subjects of religion, education, domesticity, and reform. Additionally, to come to a deeper understanding of Bostonian women within the Unitarian controversy, it is mandatory to look at them through the nineteenth century lens of gender separation. Among these important works are Nancy Cott’s The Bonds of Womanhood: “Woman’s Sphere” in New England, 1780-1835, which offers a unique view of the world of antebellum womanhood in New England through the themes of work, domesticity, education, religion, and sisterhood. Within this, Cott addresses the religious rhetoric common to women of the period and she asserts that religion and its rhetoric was a powerful force used among women to both draw them together and establish their roles in society. Anne

6 Boylan, on the other hand, in The Origins of Women’s Activism: New York and Boston, 1797-1840, asserts that organizations of women working together served to deepen racial and class divisions among women. Within this argument, however, she does assert that those of a similar background who worked together did experience an increase in their sense of self-worth as well as their extra-religious social lives. Debra Gold Hansen’s Strained Sisterhood: Gender and Class in the Boston Female Anti-Slavery Society is another work which touches on the lives of antebellum New England women. Hansen seems to agree with Boylan that women claimed a larger public role in antebellum America by their assumption of religious and benevolent roles. According to Hansen, the religious and benevolent activity of antebellum women is evidence of their increasing status in American society. She also attributes religious revival and social activism to economic change which was occurring in Boston.15 This thesis builds on the arguments asserted by Cott, Boylan, and Hansen. Recognizing the religious rhetoric described by Cott, and the social enlargement put fort by Boylan, I will add to Hansen’s argument of the larger public role claimed by women. Specifically, the growing competition for religious adherents and converts made use of religious rhetoric to allow women increased latitude for religious and benevolent activity. An essay written by Nancy A. Hewitt entitled “Religion, Reform, and Radicalism in the Antebellum era,” provides a framework for this thesis. In her examination, Hewitt views domesticity, evangelicalism, and radicalism as markers of the antebellum era as well as of the inquiry of women’s historians. Her research emphasizes the fact that women pursued reform and activism according to their social circumstances and cultural traditions.16 Hewitt demonstrates how historians have adjusted their inquiry over time to increase their understanding of the circumstances and traditions of antebellum women – from an emphasis on female power gained through gender ideals to the importance of religion in the growing activism of women, to an increased focus on women outside of northern, white, middle class society. Throughout these changes in focus, however, Hewitt demonstrates that there has been a consistent confluence of domesticity, religion,

15 Debra Gold Hansen, Strained Sisterhood: Gender and Class in the Boston Female Anti-Slavery Society (Amherst, Mass.: University of Massachusetts Press, 1993), 47, 57. 16 Nancy A. Hewitt, ed., A Companion to American Women’s History (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, Ltd., 2002), 117.

7 and social activism.17 Further, she argues that there is still much to be learned about these antebellum women and the complexities of their activism. Also, she emphasizes the need to draw connections among the agendas and visions of diverse groups of men and women. For the purposes of this thesis, Hewitt’s defined areas of domesticity, religion, and social activism have been enlarged to become home, church, and community. The interconnection of these realms is where the examination of women within the Unitarian controversy takes place. By so doing, this thesis will illuminate a little examined aspect of the lives of antebellum women in Boston. The concept of domesticity is one that is found in most literature on women in the nineteenth century. In May of 1807, an anonymous writer contributed a piece to The Monthly Anthology and Boston Review which described a common view of the realm of women. The author stated that “these pretty favourites of nature must not too curiously peep into the dark and winding recesses of science. The delicacy of their minds may be made still sweeter by apportioning their time to the endearing order and peaceful security of domestick life…”18 Sources such as these have fostered the idea among historians that there were limited and clearly defined spheres for antebellum men and women. Though the women of Boston would have considered themselves separate from the men around them and would have acted accordingly, it is not entirely clear when examining the lives of these women that they operated solely within a domestic sphere. Though the focus among antebellum women was largely domestic, there was some room for crossover between men and women – especially in the intellectual and religious arenas. Though women were largely precluded from public expression of their ideas to a mixed audience, they were avid consumers of the news of their day. In their article “Political News and Female Readership in Antebellum Boston and its Region,” Mary and Ronald Zboray examine the often overlooked participation of antebellum women in the news of their day. Through their research of thirty collections of Boston family papers, the Zboray’s prove that Bostonian women were well-versed in the political culture that surrounded them. They were quite familiar with the news of multiple newspapers and often discussed popular issues in letters, diaries, and within their family

17 Hewitt, ed., A Companion to American Women’s History, 117-119. 18 The Monthly Anthology, and Boston Review Containing Sketches and Reports of Philosophy, Religion, History, Arts and Manners (1803-1811), May, 1807 Vol. 4, Issue 5, 253. APS Online

8 circle. This element of female readership challenges the concept that antebellum women were solely occupied with domestic activities or the perusal of novels, sentimental literature, and recipe books. So, though the domestic sphere was a dominant residence for women, it did not preclude their participation in the news, controversies, discussions, or decisions of the day.19 Just as these women were involved in the political debates of Boston, they were also involved in the religious debates. The Unitarian controversy was a major issue in Boston and middle-class women were very aware of the issues at hand, as well as the theological considerations. They were familiar with the dilemmas facing the Bostonian religious establishment and gave serious thought to these issues. They were, however, antebellum women and, as such, did not have the public platform that men did at the time. This being the case, the women must be looked at as a sub-group within the largely male-dominated Unitarian controversy. It is not enough to examine the theological and legal ramifications of a large-scale religious debate while ignoring the social and religious upheaval that affected a portion of the population. Also, it is important to assess the effects of the controversy upon women who were a vital but under-explored part of the controversy. Because women were considered separately from men, they would have been affected in different ways from the well documented men of the time and would have reacted within their own accepted social format. A discussion of domesticity would not be complete without consideration of gender roles and the roles which women were both assigned and volunteered for. The concept of separate gender spheres was extremely popular in antebellum America. It is also the starting point from which many historians view the early nineteenth century. According to Rosemary Zagarri, this separation is notable in the rights discourse of the early republic. In her estimation, men were dignified by liberties which allowed choices while women were given benefits which, in turn, imposed familial and social duties upon them.20

19 Mary Saracino and Ronald J. Zboray, “Political News and Female Readership in Antebellum Boston and its Region,” Journalism History, Spring 1996, 2-14. 20Rosemarie Zagarri, “The Rights of Man and Woman in Post-Revolutionary America,” The William and Mary Quarterly, April 1998, 203-230.

9 Nancy Cott also acknowledges the “separate spheres” ideology so prevalent in the early nineteenth century. For her, however, these spheres were developed as a by- product of changes in the economy, work, and education of women. For instance, as industrialization increased, men began to work outside the homes and women remained within the homes. This left women within their own sphere and, out of this, a canon of domesticity developed.21 Anne Boylan’s The Origins of Women’s Activism is framed to answer the question of how the nineteenth century gender system, and its accompanying ideas of feminine and masculine spheres came into place. Her conclusion is that women used the ideology of spheres of the nineteenth century to emphasize equality among men and women and to mitigate the concept of female subordination to men. This was possible because women had a realm of duty that was equally important as that of men. Additionally, as women subscribed to the ideology of separate spheres, they further enhanced the idea of their own uniqueness and importance. This spherical ideology was an element in the development of female activism.22 Finally, Linda Kerber analyzes the differences between the two sexes with regards to the state. Kerber looks at the obligations and benefits of citizenship which were required of and offered to both men and women. She grounds her understanding of the nineteenth century spheres in the fact that women were exempt from some obligations of citizenship but required to fulfill others. Also, they were exempt from some of the benefits of citizenship (such as voting) while men had free access by virtue of their being male.23 Though historians disagree on the origin of the separate spheres ideology – and some, such as Catherine Kelly, would argue that the spheres were nonexistent but rather gendered examples of broad transformations of the household economy – the fact that an ideology of separate spheres existed and was commonly referred to by antebellum men and women is an incontrovertible fact.24

21 Nancy Cott, The Bonds of Womanhood: “Woman’s Sphere” in New England, 1780-1835 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977). 22 Anne M. Boylan, The Origins of Women’s Activism: New York and Boston, 1797-1840 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2002). 23 Linda K. Kerber, No Constitutional Right to be Ladies: Women and the Obligations of Citizenship (New York: Hill and Wang, 1998). 24 Catherine Kelly, “Gender and Class Formations in the Antebellum North” in A Companion to American Women’s History, ed. Nancy A. Hewitt (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 2002), 100.

10 Whether women were relegated to a domestic sphere because of economic changes, a system of civic obligations, or personal subscription, it is clear that antebellum women also considered this domesticity to be a force that would change the world around them. Antebellum sources reveal the fact that middle-class women considered themselves to be strategically placed to affect the country. They understood that they were relegated to a domestic circle. They also understood that there was a level of power to be obtained within this circle. In an article entitled “Woman’s Sphere,” for example, an 1835 contributor asserted that “since the days of Eve,” a “woman’s duties remain the same. She is still the wife and companion, the mother and adviser.” According to the contributor, however, there had been an expansion in the role of woman, as “her influence as a member of the community is now exerted over a more spacious field.”25 Though the article’s author was careful to remind everyone that “woman must never forget that home is the very centre of her sphere,” the author did not back away from the idea that “when the real good of society is concerned, the influence of the one is worth as much as that of the other.”26 Within the acceptable domain of women lay religion and reform. An aspect of the religious activity condoned for middle-class women in antebellum Boston was charity – benevolence and activism. Charity was a virtue condoned Biblically and it was an evident character strength of the oft-referenced virtuous woman from Proverbs 31 in the Bible. Charity was an attribute which did not violate the nineteenth century ideals of motherhood, piety, and domesticity.27 It was an area in which a woman became not only the mother of her own children, but of needy ones around her. In Boston, middle and upper class women formed Bible studies, Sunday schools, sewing circles, organizations to help the sick and needy – such as the Massachusetts General Hospital, the Boston Dispensary, the Boston Female Asylum, and the Dorcas Society, which clothed the poor – and evangelical societies such as the Female Seaman’s Friend Society, which attempted

25 “Woman’s Sphere,” American Ladies’ Magazine; Containing Original Tales, Essays, Literary & Historical Sketches, Poetry, Criticism, Music, and a Great Variety of Matter Connected with Many Subjects of Importance and Interest (1834-1836), May 1835. Vol. 8, Iss. 5, 262. 26 “Woman’s Sphere,” American Ladies’ Magazine, 266. 27 Jane H. Pease and William H. Pease, Ladies, Women, and Wenches: Choice and Constraint in Antebellum Charleston and Boston (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1990), 115.

11 evangelizing to Seamen.28 Within these groups, women were often able to control the agenda of the societies. Even more, women in Boston were actually operators of many charitable operations – such as orphanages and shelters.29 These organizations were places in which women were able to leave the domestic circle and involve themselves politically, economically and civically at an administrative level while maintaining the ideals of true womanhood. Antebellum rhetoric about women was a conflation of ideas about femininity, morality, and charity.30 That being the case, the benevolence and reform activities in and around Boston had Christian undertones or foundations. A woman could work yet be feminine. She could be a pious woman and also a public moral crusader. Finally, a woman could leave her home, busy herself about the community, and be publicly lauded for her charitable and benevolent acts. In many ways, benevolence was a dwelling place of women just as much as the home was. Noticeably, Bostonian benevolence organizations shifted focus in the years of 1812-1820. Although concern for women and children still marked the core of women’s activity, societies developed which operated solely for religious purposes.31 As Boston was in a flurry of religious controversy, this fact is not surprising. Clergymen and churches were vying for the ears of the faithful in Boston during these years. Newspapers, letters, and diaries of the time period point to a popular participation in the religious debates. The concern over the growth of Unitarianism sparked many orthodox Christians into action and women were not immune to this. In a two year time period, for example, three new societies for women arose in Boston. A Female Bible Society, Female Society for the Promotion of Christianity among the Jews, and a Female Tract Society appeared – all under the umbrella of orthodox Congregationalism. Additionally, at least two societies were formed which provided assistance to those young men who were studying for ministry within the congregational church.32 What this reveals is the fact that women were deeply interested and involved in the religious conflict of the day. Though they may not have publicly debated the finer theological

28 Ibid., 124-136. 29 Ibid., 136. 30 Lori D. Ginzberg, Women and the Work of Benevolence: Morality, Politics, and Class in the Nineteenth- Century United States (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), 1. 31 Boylan, The Origins of Women’s Activism, 25. 32 Ibid., 25.

12 points, they took action in the ways that were acceptable for them. Both the Congregationalists and Unitarians of Boston were seeking to gain the hearts and souls of Boston’s Christians and women engaged in this effort, as well. Mary Ware, Catharine Beecher, and Elizabeth Palmer Peabody are examples of women who were fully engaged in the fight for souls. In each of their cases, the benevolent activities to which they subscribed were dictated by their standards of faith. The acceptable, motherly form of activism acquired another branch, however, in the 1830’s. What had, before, been charitable benevolence or social reform intended to alleviate spiritual and physical want gained a parallel branch of reform. During the 1820’s and 1830’s, women’s groups began to arise which focused on issues of reform that would affect society at large – both culturally and politically. Rather than focusing their attentions primarily on widows, orphans, or the unsaved, women also began to shower attention on causes such as abolition, moral reform (i.e. prostitution and prohibition), and suffrage. These later organizations consented to a general view of womanhood and the place of women in society that was different – and broader – than those who had come before them.33 In her analysis of organizational life in Boston, Anne Boylan reports the primary difference in the two groups to be that later reform societies were willing to identify with all manner of clients, and to encourage women to identify with those of their sex who needed help.34 The emphasis, then, became one of gender and reform rather than spirituality and social respectability. Also, with this emphasis on the sisterhood of all women, there was an exhibited awareness of men as separate and culpable forces.35 These two branches of benevolence and reform were inhabited by different types of women. Largely, the women of Boston who joined more liberal societies (such as those that supported moral reform or antislavery) were usually religious liberals who also challenged the traditional view of women’s roles in society. Conversely, those women who assisted one another in benevolent societies tended to be

33 Anne Boylan, “Women in Groups: An Analysis of Women’s Benevolent Organizations in New York and Boston, 1797-1840” in History of Women in the United States: 16: Women Together: Organizational Life, ed. Nancy F. Cott (New Providence: K.G. Saur, 1994), 49. 34 Ibid., 49. 35 Ibid., 50.

13 religiously orthodox – as well, maintaining their traditional views of women’s roles in society.36 Another branch of reform which was also an acceptable form of female labor was education. It was commonly considered an important thing for Northeastern women to be somewhat educated. In order for women to play their roles as “republican mothers” they needed to be able to read and have a basic education.37 This education was, however, limited to the upper-middle class of women and was originally fashioned as a function of social order. In terms of social class, it was important to have at least a basic understanding of history, philosophy, and the classics. Without these road markers of taste, people were assumed to be of a lower, more “vulgar” class and with this education, women were enabled to be part of a social and cultural elite.38 Around the turn of the nineteenth century, this education was to be used primarily at home. It was expected that women of the republic be able to nurture their children in the rhetoric and ideals of the new nation. So, though early education was considered an important part of upper- middle class womanhood, it was primarily domestic in its usefulness.39 Within the first few decades of the nineteenth century, however, there was a subtle change in the education of women. Whereas in the post-revolutionary period, there had been a smattering of schools for women, there instead began to be hundreds. Schooling for women became a more standard practice than before. Additionally, the growing middle class of America became part of this educational trend. Many women attended these educational institutions not only to refine their understanding but also to gain training for the profession of teaching.40 This revealed a shift in the acceptable roles of women in America. Albeit, women (especially in the Northeast) were no strangers to education, their reasons for education began to change. No longer were their minds and training to be utilized strictly at home. Instead, women were preparing to take a place in civil society to train minds and souls that were not part of their families. Women as teachers were still considered to be within the acceptable realm of true womanhood, yet it

36 Ibid., 57-59. 37 Michael Goldberg, “Breaking New Ground: 1800-1848” in No Small Courage: A History of Women in the United States, ed. by Nancy F. Cott (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 179-236, 195. 38 Mary Kelley, Learning to Stand and Speak: Women, Education, and Public Life in America’s Republic (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2006), 21-23. 39 Ibid., 23-25. 40 Ibid., 23.

14 is important to note that, though teaching fell within the acceptable range of domestically-inspired tasks, it was no longer in itself domestic. Rather, women were gaining an acknowledged place as trainers within the civil realm. It was a logical next step for women to become teachers. They were already seen to be endowed with a duty particular to womankind – that of “the physical, intellectual, and moral education of children…the care of the health, and the formation of the character, of the future citizen of this great nation.”41 Women were not just to be mothers and character guides of their children. Rather, they considered themselves in a national light – as moral and intellectual guides for every future citizen. Children, also, were not simply seen as children. Rather, they were resources who were instilled with female instruction in anticipation of the day when they would be running the country. In this light, and as public education became gradually more systematic, women were the natural choice to act as teachers for the young of the nation. Many of these women were unmarried young ladies who wanted a profession. Though they were limited in their choice of professions because of the domestic emphasis placed on women, these young ladies were able to use the domestic phraseology of the day to actually form a profession for themselves outside of the home. The roles of women within the subtly changing landscape of education were growing. Although earlier educated women had belonged primarily to elite families, the beginning of the nineteenth century saw a surge of middle class women attending educational institutions. The growth of these institutions also precipitated an increasing need for teachers. The advanced need for teachers required more administrators, and so on. The educational changes of antebellum America were perpetuating more changes. Women, then, were no longer simply being trained for their place in the home. Instead, they became teachers, teacher trainers, school administrators, and fundraisers. So, as the role of education grew in antebellum America, its needs grew as well. These needs included noticeable gaps in the quality of education, as well as punctuated awareness of the privation that abounded in educational resources, facilities, and pay for those who

41 Catherine Beecher, “Essay on the Education of Female Teachers”, in Pioneers of Women’s Education in the United States, ed. Willystine Goodsell (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1931), 172.

15 were poised to make education their career. Nineteenth century education reformers stepped into these gaps. Building on the idea that women were naturally fitted for the job of teaching America’s young men and women, reformers were thus able to request and lobby for better funds, resources, and permanency for women’s institutions. For many reformers, this role in itself became a profession. In her 1835 Essay on the Education of Female Teachers, Catharine Beecher addressed some of these needs of women’s education. In her argument for the financial endowment of schools for women, Beecher was careful to put the onus of control upon men. Her argument was that, without the permanence of female institutions that comes from monetary investment and corporate oversight, communities were “almost entirely dependent upon chance, both for the character and the perpetuity of schools”.42 Her powers of cogency came to bear as she reminded the men that, under such conditions, “the character, the conduct, and the continuance of those who are so extensively to mould the character of the future wives and mothers of this nation, are almost entirely removed from the control of those most deeply interested”.43 In short, Beecher contended that money was required if the men with whom she argued were to maintain any control over the educational development of women. By doing this, Beecher used the separate sphere ideology of the day to enhance opportunities for women. Beecher, a religious and social conservative, joined the ranks of other education reformers of the time. Despite the verbal agreement with the popular sentiments regarding women and their place in the home, she used the language of domesticity to both advance the role of teachers in the nation and to further her own career as teacher and education reformer. Education and educational reform, then, was a primary place for the convergence of domesticity, religion, and social activism. Mary Kelley evaluates the role of education in the lives of women of the early republic. Her recent publication, Learning to Stand and Speak: Women, Education, and Public Life in America’s Republic, proclaims that learning and the accompanying aspirations of learning played a “key role in the unprecedented entry of women into the nation’s public life.” Additionally, Kelley argues that education afforded middle and

42 Ibid., 168-169. 43 Ibid., 169.

16 lower class women with a degree of “cultural capital” that at least somewhat elevated them in social life.44 In her book, Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America, Linda Kerber presents the argument that the improvement of schooling in the early republic was the greatest social change to affect women because it opened their way to the modern world. She also places the closing of the literacy gap between men and women to be between the years of 1780 and 1850, as well as putting the vast improvements to female education between the years of 1790 and 1830 – precisely during the time of the Unitarian controversy. For Kerber, these improvements in education could be traced to the idea of republican motherhood – in which “the creation of virtuous citizens was dependent on the presence of wives and mothers who were well informed.”45 Additionally, Kerber argues that there was a growing emphasis on educational training for women because the new print culture demanded the participation of literate adults.46 In his essay, “Breaking New Ground: 1800-1848,” Michael Goldberg also addresses the vast changes that occurred in women’s literacy and education between the revolution and 1840. He briefly accounts for the rise of women’s seminaries after 1810 and places their origin within a new ideal of women’s education that arose around 1810. According to Goldberg, the idea of women’s sphere was very strong but was enlarging to include more knowledge of topics such as literature, physiology, and moral philosophy. In addition to the changing beliefs on women’s education, Goldberg contends that teaching and administration became opportunities that enabled women to support themselves – thus changing the options that had previously been available to women.47 In 1844, Horace Mann, the secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education, reported that during his first seven years as secretary the number of male teachers in the state had grown by 159. In contrast, the number of

44 Mary Kelley, Learning to Stand and Speak, 34-35. 45 Linda Kerber, Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980), 199-200, 229. 46 Ibid., 200. 47 Michael Goldberg, “Breaking New Ground: 1800-1848,” in No Small Courage: A History of Women in the United States, ed. Nancy F. Cott, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 195-197.

17 female teachers in the state had grown by 990.48 Clearly, women were eagerly taking advantage of the opportunities that education afforded them. Mary Ware, Catharine Beecher, and Elizabeth Palmer Peabody shared the emphases placed on religion, education, domesticity, and reform by nineteenth century New Englanders. Each of them was well-educated by Bostonian standards and each taught school at some point. Two of them remained unmarried and eventually opened their own schools – becoming education reformers as well as teachers and administrators. The three are divided in their allegiance to a particular religious doctrine. Two were Unitarians and one was an Orthodox Calvinist. Besides these differences, there are multiple shared traits among the women. They were all young, middle-class, white women around the time of the Unitarian Controversy; they were each committed to reform in one shape or another; they were connected with a male member of the Trinitarian-Unitarian dispute; they each lived in Boston or its near vicinity; and their lives were shaped and directed by their conversion experiences. In analyzing secondary sources on the Unitarian controversy and antebellum womanhood, as well as primary sources such as diaries, letters, newspaper articles, magazine articles, published manuscripts, and sermons, it is my hope to discover the effects of the Unitarian controversy on the religious, familial, and communal choices that these women made. Additionally, by investigating the public activities fueled by their religious choices, I seek to ascertain whether or not the involvement of these women in the religious quarrel of their day impacted society. Finally, I question what the lives of these women in the midst of the Unitarian controversy can tell us of the larger forces that were at work in American society. The value of this study is that it delineates the direct changes that occurred in the private and public lives of Bostonian women because of the Unitarian controversy. Additionally, it illuminates the cultural shifts taking place in Boston during the first part of the nineteenth century. Chapter one will examine the private lives of three women: Mary L.Ware, Catharine Beecher, and Elizabeth Palmer Peabody. Primarily, the early lives of these women will be discussed with a focus on their conversion experiences.

48 James M. Wallace, “The Feminization of Teaching in Massachusetts: A Reconsideration,” in Women of the Commonwealth: Work, Family, and Social Change in Nineteenth Century Massachusetts, ed. Susan L. Porter (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1996), pp. 44-45.

18 Additionally, chapter one will explore the family life, education, and religious struggles of each of these women. The final aspect of chapter one will be the impact of the Unitarian controversy on the private lives of these women. Specifically, did it affect them and, if so, how? Also, did the Unitarian controversy impact both their religious choices and their religious and educational opportunities? Following the discussion of the private lives of these women, chapter two will introduce the public lives of Mary Ware, Catharine Beecher, and Elizabeth Palmer Peabody. The emphasis in chapter two will be on the public roles that each of these women played in their church and/or community. Specifically, what avenues of reform, activism, and benevolence did they travel and how were these influenced by both personal choices and the Unitarian controversy? Finally, the thesis will conclude with a discussion of the impact of the Unitarian controversy on the women of middle class Boston.

19 CHAPTER ONE: PRIVATE LIVES The focus of this chapter is on the private lives of Mary Ware, Elizabeth Peabody, and Catharine Beecher. Specifically, I examine the domestic, religious, and educational aspects of their lives – especially with a view towards their conversion experiences. The final objective of Chapter one will be to appraise the impact of the Unitarian controversy on the religious choices and opportunities of Mary Ware, Elizabeth Peabody, and Catharine Beecher. Mary L. Ware (1798-1849) was the wife of Henry Ware, Jr. – first a minister of the Second Church in Boston and, following the resignation of his pastorship, the Harvard professor of Pastoral Theology and Pulpit Eloquence – and the daughter-in-law of Henry Ware, Sr., the contested Harvard Hollis Professor of Divinity.49 Mary was born Mary Pickard – the daughter of an English merchant who had decided to remain in Boston. She was very close to her mother who died when Mary was thirteen years old. Upon the death of her mother, Mary’s father became despondent. As a result, Mary lived with her grandparents in Boston where she also attended school. After two years of this living situation, she attended a boarding school in Boston.50 Early in her life, Mary was baptized into the Episcopal Trinity Church in Boston but, by the time she was sixteen, she was searching for some other religious truth. She was dissatisfied with what she heard from the pulpit of her church and desired something else which would lead her towards virtue. It was evident from this point that she was not as interested in keeping religious doctrines as she was in something which would encourage her towards piety. The result of this dissatisfaction was a private devotional life of prayer, reading, and meditation through which she became convinced that she “had been leading a very different life from that which was requisite to form the character of a true Christian.”51 One of her answers for attaining Christian “perfection” was to become a member of the church. She viewed this as a duty which she must perform in order to obey the commandments of God.52 Mary thought for over a year about this desire, however, as it

49 Howe, The Unitarian Conscience, 12, 14-15. 50 R.L. Carpenter, Some Account of Mrs. Henry Ware, Jun. of America: Derived from Dr. Hall’s Memoir (London: The Christian Tract Society, 1853), 2. 51 Edward B. Hall, Memoir of Mary L. Ware, Wife of Henry Ware, Jr. (Boston: Crosby Nichols, & Co., 1853), 25-26. 52 Ibid., 27-28.

20 was unusual for one her age to join the church. She was concerned that there might be some frivolity or unworthiness in her pursuit of the church due to her youth and, as a result, asked for counsel from various sources. A letter from the Unitarian minister, Reverend John E. Abbot ultimately encouraged Mary in her religious pursuit and she decided that she should not long delay her act of service. Mary joined the Third Church in Hingham, MA in the spring of 1815 but moved back to Boston by the summer of that same year. In Boston, she availed herself as much as possible of the teachings of Dr. William Ellery Channing, a leader in the Unitarian movement.53 Mary Ware’s conversion during this period of time was not without consideration of the doctrinal issues of the Unitarian Controversy. She was aware of these theological rifts and, indeed, there is evidence that she gave some thought to denominational disputes. To Mary, however, the answer was simple. She did not consider the different opinions within the Christian church to be that essential. In fact, she decided “that all the various denominations of Christians on the earth were united in one spirit and one mind, in all the important doctrines of religion.”54 Mary Ware did not concede that theological dogma was vital to the Christian. Rather, she deemed virtue and piety to be most important and she gave herself up to whichever denomination she felt would best excite those qualities within her. Additionally, she could not agree with the dourness of conventional Calvinist thought. She “never could have any gloomy views of religion” and pursued increasing experiences of the “cheering influence” of religion.55 During her protracted conversion ordeal, it was a Unitarian minister who encouraged her pursuit of religious experience. Also, as a new member of the Christian church, she was strongly influenced by the leading Unitarian minister Dr. William Ellery Channing. He excited her feelings and her admiration so much, in fact, that she both “wished” for and “dreaded” an interview with him.56 After Mary finally received the opportunity to talk with Dr. Channing she wrote a letter to a dear friend and shared that she was “trembling at the very centre of [her] heart” and was, in turn, “foolish”, “weak”,

53 Ibid., 30-32, 41, 43. 54 Ibid., 30. 55 Ibid., 52. 56 Ibid., 47.

21 and “everything irrational.”57 Despite her emotions, Mary was still able to communicate clearly. As immediately reported to her friend, Mary wrote that “I told him as well as I could, with what views and feelings I presumed to deviate from the path in which I had been led by my parents, what he had done for me, and what I hoped to do for myself.”58 This deviation from her parents’ doctrine often produced an uncomfortable relationship between Mary and her father, her only remaining parent. He disagreed with her preference for Unitarian preaching and this caused “at times some trial of feeling and a conflict of duty.”59 In spite of this, Mary continued on her religious path and was not deterred even by her father’s death when she was twenty-five. After this new trial, Mary left for Britain where she spent the next two years with her father’s family – primarily caring for the sick among them and their village. During this time abroad, it is clear that her doctrinal views had solidified. Though previously she had expressed a belief that all Christian doctrines were united, her letters home communicated firm opinions in favor of Unitarian doctrines. Following her first sole journey in England, for instance, Mary wrote to her friend Anne that her first attempt at journeying alone was good as she was able to converse with a clergyman. “Though he happened to be a Methodist,” she wrote, “he was a rational and learned one,” and she was able to enjoy her conversation with him.60 Mary’s negative emphasis on the clergyman’s doctrine – as well as her surprised concession of his intellectual capabilities – point to a biased and decided religious conviction in her mind. If, before, she had considered all Christians to be equal and doctrinal differences to be unimportant, her years in Britain revealed a solidified stance in favor of Unitarianism. In addition to her repeated preferences for Unitarianism in letters home, Mary also made frequent mention of Dr. Channing. He had influenced her greatly and she often thought of him while she was out of America. Upon meeting her cousin in England, for instance, she immediately wrote to friends that her cousin’s mind “is just in that state which requires free discussion upon subjects of faith and practice” and she expressed a desire that her newfound cousin could

57 Ibid., 48. 58 Ibid., 48. 59 Ibid., 43. 60 Ibid., 109.

22 have “the same privileges which I have had in Mr. Channing.”61 So, not only did Mary feel gratitude for Channing’s teachings in her own life, she was eager that those same teachings should be passed on to those who were not familiar with them. What had begun as a calm doctrinal preference with regards for cheerfulness and piety became a bold, impassioned view of a doctrine to which Mary hoped others would convert. Finally, after two years spent abroad caring for the sick, Mary came home and showed herself to be the wifely model which Henry Ware, Jr. had been looking for.62 Upon Henry and Mary’s engagement, Henry wrote to his sister that he “desired a pattern and blessing for my parish, and I have found one. I have wished some one to bear my load with me, and to help, confirm, and strengthen my principle by her own high and experienced piety, and such I have found.”63 The issues of Mary’s father and the praise of her soon-to-be husband both point to a singular fact. Though she was a single woman in the early nineteenth century, Mary had quite a bit of autonomy in her personal life and faith. In turn, this autonomy gave her an influence which resided outside of the traditional, domestic sphere of women. She was not going to join her husband to become a wife and mother alone. She was going to be an example to her parish, and her own religious virtue was going to strengthen and help her husband. In short, Mary was going to share in Henry Ware’s professional duties. In a letter written to a close friend in January of 1827, Mary acknowledged that she keenly felt a deep sense of responsibility with regards to her future husband. Henry Ware, Jr. was a prominent Unitarian theologian and pastor in Boston. Additionally, he was a widower and a father of two. When Mary agreed to become Henry’s wife, she also agreed to publicly align herself with the Unitarian cause, help Henry pastor a church, and help him parent two children who were not her own. She wrote to her friend Emma that she was no longer the “self-dependent, self-governed being” of old. Also, she wrote that she had bound herself, “by an irrevocable vow, to live for the future in the exercise of the great and responsible duties which such a connection inevitably brings with it.”64 Mary, indeed, lived up to the responsibilities which weighed so heavily upon her prior to her

61 Ibid., 115. 62 Carpenter, Some Account of Mrs. Henry Ware, 4, 14-15. 63 Hall, Memoir of Mary L. Ware, 25-26. 64 Ibid., 182.

23 marriage. Though their marriage was marked by sickness and suffering, Henry Ware was very happy with his wife and they lived peacefully with one another. The religious convictions and choices that Mary Ware made greatly affected her family life and, with her emphasis on responsibility, she was a faithful and industrious partner in all of the pursuits, illnesses, and tasks of Henry Ware, Jr. They were so closely knit, that, upon Mary’s death bed, she clutched a note that Henry had written to her prior to his own death. It read “dear, dear Mary, if I could, I would express all I owe to you. You have been an unspeakable, an indescribable blessing. God reward you a thousandfold! Farewell, till we meet again.”65 Unlike Mary Ware, Elizabeth Palmer Peabody (1804-1894) was a woman who placed much emphasis on doctrinal differences. Her adherence to Unitarianism reflected her vocal disdain for Calvinist theology. Ultimately, Elizabeth became a well-known Unitarian figure. Unlike Mary Ware, Peabody was not directly tied to her religious choice through any of her male family-members. In fact, her father was quite often absent and she never married. Rather than through an immediate, familial male influence, Elizabeth’s decision to pursue liberal theology was influenced by her mother, who first introduced her to Unitarian ideas and to Dr. William Ellery Channing.66 Elizabeth Peabody’s mother, Sophia Palmer Peabody, was a vital influence in her life. As a child, Elizabeth and her two sisters were largely instructed by their mother.67 Sophia Peabody had previously taught girls at Andover and, in 1812, she opened a school insider her home in Salem. There, Elizabeth was instructed in fundamental skills such as writing, arithmetic, and geography, as well as history, literature, and languages. The curriculum included readings that were common to boys at college preparatory academies.68 This fact early impressed itself upon Elizabeth’s mind and she was later to assert that “the idea that women were less capable of the highest education in literature and science, and of authorship on any subjects, truly never entered my mind.”69 Elizabeth Peabody grew up with a strong belief in her intellectual capabilities. While she

65 Ibid., 433. 66 Bruce A. Ronda, Elizabeth Palmer Peabody: A Reformer On Her Own Terms (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1999), 46-47. 67 The International Kindergarten Union, Committee of Nineteen, Pioneers of the Kindergarten in America (New York: The Century Co., 1924), 19. 68 Ronda, Elizabeth Palmer Peabody, 40-41. 69 Ibid., 41-42.

24 was a young woman in school, Elizabeth took on the supervision of her sister Sophia’s education and, at sixteen, she established her own school. Elizabeth’s interest in education never waned and she later became an educational leader and reformer, as well as a publisher. In addition to education, Elizabeth Peabody put her intellectual faculties to use by analyzing theology. Indeed, before she was yet twenty years old, Elizabeth wrote to her younger sister, Sophia that theology “is a science of all others the most interesting, the most absorbing, and the most important.”70 In the same letter (dated 1823), Elizabeth gave a list of suggested readings to her sister – from which she was to derive an understanding of Unitarianism. Once Sophia had a grasp of theology, Elizabeth wrote she “would introduce [her] into the region of Controversy,” of which “letters to Dr. Channing and Mr. Norton’s review of it is the first I would recommend because it takes up the important doctrines of the Unity or Trinity of God – and after that the whole controversy between Dr. Wood and Dr. Ware.”71 She also informed Sophia that “there are many – very many more books which I have perused in relation to this controversy that I know would be instructive but I must limit my advice to a few.”72 Additionally, Elizabeth suggested that Sophia “wait to begin this enquiry till you have time and feel like it – for it should absorb your whole soul as it did mine when I pursued it.”73 It is clear from her letters that Elizabeth Peabody was well-read in theology and, specifically, in the arguments of the Unitarian controversy. Additionally, Elizabeth’s passion for Unitarian ideas was all-encompassing and dominated much of her early life. This regard for theology and interest in Unitarian ideas sprang from Elizabeth’s strong distaste for the Calvinist ideas she had grown up around. She was very intellectual in her pursuit of religious truth and, in a letter later written to her nephew, Elizabeth claimed that “it seemed personally original with me to reject Calvinism, and I early clearly felt the moral argument against it.”74 It was around that time in her life that Elizabeth took Sophia’s education upon herself – “determined she should never hear of

70 Bruce A. Ronda, ed., Letters of Elizabeth Palmer Peabody: American Renaissance Woman (Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1984), 59. 71 Ronda, Letters of Elizabeth Palmer Peabody, 60-61. 72 Ibid., 63. 73 Ibid., 64. 74 Ibid., 15.

25 any of the terrible doctrines” of Calvinism.75 Elizabeth turned early to a more personal, benevolent idea of God than she had yet heard of. In the process, she turned away from her view of a heavy-handed, Calvinist God who “was looking down upon the earth, and spying round among the children to see who was doing wrong, in order to punish the offenders by touching them with a long rod he held in his hand, thus exposing them to everybody’s censure.”76 Elizabeth Peabody, then, associated Calvinism with punishment and social censure whereas she viewed Unitarianism to be the revealed truth of a benevolent, interested God. A leading influence in Elizabeth’s pursuit of Unitarianism was Dr. Channing, a prominent figure of the Unitarian movement. He became a mentor figure in Elizabeth’s life and they wrote numerous letters back and forth. Channing had a major impact on Elizabeth and, through him, she gained an idealistic, loving conception of God which was in opposition to her view of a corrective, orthodox Calvinist God.77 Channing encouraged Elizabeth personally, as well as religiously, and Elizabeth gained a sense of balance between the emotion and the intellect from Channing.78 For example, Channing encouraged Elizabeth to steer away from too strong a reliance on logic, thereby allowing some room for divine workings and emotion. Elizabeth later claimed that, through encouragement such as this, “Dr. Channing gave me back my childhood faith.”79 In pursuit of this faith, and in gratitude to him, Elizabeth offered her services as an unofficial secretary for Channing after 1825. One of her duties was to copy his sermons for wider publication. Also, later in her life, Elizabeth published a memoir of Channing. By 1828, Elizabeth was very close to Channing and was at his home most evenings.80 He and Elizabeth were quite close and he was the primary influence in Elizabeth’s religious and intellectual life. He was not the only one, however. The entire Unitarian circle of Boston and Cambridge was attractive to Elizabeth. She felt strongly drawn to that elite circle of Boston society and almost hero-worshipped those who made up that circle. In her own thirst for knowledge and truth, Elizabeth was

75 Ibid., 15. 76 Ibid., 16. 77 Ronda, Elizabeth Palmer Peabody, 77. 78 Ibid., 64. 79 Ibid., 65. 80 Ronda, ed., Letters of Elizabeth Palmer Peabody, 17-18.

26 drawn toward those who seemed to have life figured out in a systematic, rational manner. In a letter dated May, 1821, Elizabeth described this particular society. Her enthusiasm for the Unitarian way of life was barely suppressed as she remarked that “everybody is as wise as they think they are and everybody knows something and there is a constant exertion to keep upon level.”81 This exertion was a delightful temptation for someone of Elizabeth’s intellectual makeup and she dove into proving herself to this unique society at once. She longed to join the Unitarian women whose business was not “dress and visiting” but rather being “engaged in some pursuit or other which is engrossing.”82 Elizabeth felt that “there is indeed a constant stimulus to improvement. You seem to be moving all the time for everything about you is in a state of progressive improvement and if you stand still- bye and bye they will forget you were ever one of them.”83 Rather than stand still, Elizabeth was determined to continuously improve and, in the process, prove herself to indeed be “one of them.” At the same time that Elizabeth was exploring the Unitarian way of life and the issues of emotionalism and rationalism in religion, she was avidly reading the writings generated by the Unitarian Controversy. Through her mother, she already had a bias towards liberal theology but, as her letters to Sophia reveal, she immersed herself into the debate and became a devotee of Unitarian doctrine.84 Elizabeth’s religious decision was extremely rational. The combination of her mother’s influence, her own private study, and Dr. Channing’s personal interest proved to be what was needed to lead to a rejection of Orthodox Calvinism. Finally, by the time Elizabeth was eighteen, she was living as a single woman, teaching school, and involved with prominent Unitarian families from Boston.85 Elizabeth Peabody remained single and became a notable reformer in the realm of Kindergarten education. Also, as time went on, she became a leader among the Transcendentalist movement, where she became publisher of the popular Transcendentalist publication, The Dial. Besides Elizabeth Peabody, there were other notable female reformers of her time. Catharine Beecher (1800-1878) became well known for her reform activities in the

81 Ibid., 55-56. 82 Ibid., 55. 83 Ibid., 55-56. 84 Ronda, Elizabeth Palmer Peabody, 62. 85 Ibid., 52-53.

27 interests of education, morality, domesticity, and female professionalism. She was also the daughter of Lyman Beecher, a famous proponent of evangelical Calvinism and an opponent of the Unitarians.86 As the daughter of Lyman Beecher, it was impossible for Catharine not to think of religion. Her father placed such an emphasis on conversion that Catharine, as a young adult, would become sick with anxiety over the issues surrounding her conversion.87 The main religious problem for Catharine was that she could not reconcile herself with the quantity of guilt her father said she should feel over her sins. She also did not feel like she was able to completely submit herself to God. Lyman was looking for an emotional conversion experience in his daughter, and Catharine simply did not feel that passionately about it.88 Still, Catharine perceived that she needed some sort of religious help and she repeatedly engaged in discussions with her father and brother. At one point, she wrote her brother that she was “greatly afflicted” and that she felt “no realizing sense of [her] sinfulness, no love to the Redeemer, nothing but that [she was] unhappy and needed religion.”89 Her unhappiness finally became so great that it threw her into a deep, heavy depression. She described it this way: “my hours are passing away as the smoke, and my days as a tale that is told…I lie down in sorrow and awake in heaviness, and go mourning all the day long.”90 Catharine finally found an answer to her conversion dilemma. Although she never did have the deep experience that her father and brother desired for her, she nevertheless stayed within the confines of Calvinist society. In this respect, Catharine seemed to see religion as a form of social leadership rather than a form of inward piety towards God. For instance, upon the publication of Catharine Sedgwick’s New England (a book which was critical of Calvinist theology) Beecher was quite vocal in her opposition to Sedgwick. Sedgwick had converted to Unitarianism and Beecher was fully disapproving of Sedgwick’s position. She never attacked her on a doctrinal level, however, but rather a social one. Catharine Beecher believed that Sedgwick had become

86 Kathryn Kish Sklar, Catharine Beecher: A Study in American Domesticity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973), 5; Howe, The Unitarian Conscience, 8. 87 Sklar, Catharine Beecher, 33. 88 Ibid., 32. 89 Ibid., 39. 90 Ibid., 42.

28 an enemy of the faithful Calvinists and had turned her back on “those whom the Calvinists consider their best and truest representatives” thereby doing “more injury to the cause of truth than Dr. Ware or Professor Norton.”91 For Beecher, (especially after her study of mental and moral philosophy) salvation became an issue of social morality rather than deep, inward piety. This transition in her thinking helped her on various levels. Not only did it allow her some relief from the fruitless introspection she had undergone but it also allowed her to build a standard around which she could educate women from all backgrounds.92 For Catharine Beecher, education took on a largely domestic slant. As a sixteen year old girl, she had lost her mother and became the female leader of the large Beecher family. Prior to this time, Catharine had been enrolled in school where she won academic honors and social approbation. Upon her mother’s death, however, she withdrew from school to care for her family. Within a reasonable time Catharine gained a stepmother. This greatly altered her role within family life – largely freeing her up to turn her attentions toward her own domestic arrangements. By 1822, Catharine was engaged to Yale professor, Alexander Fisher. Within a year, however, her fiancé died in a shipwreck and Catharine’s expectations of domestic happiness were dashed. She had gone from a happy woman who looked forward to being the wife of “the greatest mathematician and philosopher in the country,” to a woman who wrote that she was “not what I was…and never shall be again.”93 With such a drastic change in her life plans, Catharine was left to plot a course for her own support as a single woman. Following Fisher’s death, she tutored his younger siblings. In this capacity, she gained a greater understanding and interest in math and science. Before long, her appetite for learning had grown and she eagerly looked forward to the improvement of her own mind.94 Still, though, Catharine was in a position that required practical industry for personal and familial support. She felt that the best form of employment was to teach, and wrote that “generally speaking there seems to be no

91 Ibid., 44-46. 92 Ibid., 78-80. 93 Barbara M. Cross, ed., The Educated Woman in America: Selected Writings of Catharine Beecher, Margaret Fuller, and M.Carey Thomas (New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1965), 5. 94 Sklar, 51-53.

29 very extensive sphere of usefulness for a single woman but that which can be found in the limits of a school-room.”95 Within these limits, however, Catharine felt that “women of superior mind and acquirements…might have accomplished what, in a more circumscribed sphere of action, would have been impossible.”96 Armed with this mindset, she took the most logical step available to her and spent the next eight years operating the successful Hartford Female Seminary. Catharine’s years in Hartford were decisive for her. While there, she gained the religious viewpoint that stayed with her the rest of her life. Despite her religious disagreements with her father, she and Lyman formed a social alliance by 1823. In keeping with her sentiment that “if I can not be a Christian I will try to be as near like one as I can,” Catharine obtained Lyman’s permission to join his church.97 This step was just the beginning of an alliance between the two Beechers and marked a beginning of Catharine’s imitation of her father’s social and religious leadership. By 1825, Lyman Beecher had decided to move to Boston and begin a revival in an effort to check the ascendancy of Unitarianism. To him, Boston was the place “that new England [was] to be regenerated, the enemy driven out of the temple they have usurped and polluted, the college to be rescued, the public sentiment to be revolutionized and restored to evangelic tone.”98 Catharine whole-heartedly agreed with her father’s plan and urged her brother to join her father’s efforts in “that peculiarly interesting and desolated field.”99 When Catharine went to Boston, she equated the spiritual efforts of her father with morality. Social morality and leadership became a form of religion to Catharine and, in this, her emphasis turned away from the state of her own soul. Her view of Lyman’s work in Boston was that “The Lord…is raising a standard there and calling his children to gather round it…With the moral influence which He [God] may enable such men as Papa…to exert, we may hope for great things in Boston.”100 Although salvation and intimacy with God did not appear in Catharine’s sentiments, moral influence did. As far as the Unitarian controversy was concerned, Catharine viewed it as a competition for

95 Ibid., 52. 96 Ibid., 52. 97 Ibid., 65 98 Ibid., 67. 99 Ibid., 66 100 Ibid., 67.

30 the social and moral leadership of Boston rather than a search for spiritual truth. Her view of woman as the moderator of this leadership continued on throughout her life. For instance, in her popular domestic manual The American Woman’s Home, Catharine largely summed up her religious views. In a discussion of charity, she admonished women that they were to align themselves with the character of Christ. It is illustrative that Catharine named the most important part of this character to be a policy of “self- denying benevolence” in which “doing good will become the chief and highest source of enjoyment.”101 This policy of “self-denying benevolence” became the social morality that popularized Catharine Beecher and which took the place of her father’s religion. Later, when she became a well-known purveyor of domestic wisdom, Beecher contended that “children can be very early taught that their happiness, both now and hereafter, depends on the formation of habits of submission, self-denial, and benevolence.”102 In her own life, Catharine’s beliefs had steered away from the rigidity of Calvinism. Though she maintained a belief in many of the basic tenets of Calvinism, she could not reconcile herself with others (such as indwelling sin). In an effort to deal with this dichotomy, Catharine transferred her religious beliefs from orthodox salvation to a form of moral philosophy. Also, instead of touting orthodox beliefs, she publicly proclaimed this moral philosophy – yet she did so from the confines of the orthodox community of her father. The position of women within American society was undergoing changes during this time period. These shifts were occurring in the economic realm, the domestic realm, and, thus, the social realm. Changes were also occurring in the religious domain.103 What the lives of Ware, Peabody, and Beecher reveal is that there was a growing sense of autonomy among women with regards to religion. Particularly in Boston, Unitarian theology was a great challenge to the established authority and dominance of the Congregational church. Though there were other denominations in existence, none had enough momentum on its own to threaten Congregationalism. The growth of Unitarianism into its own denomination, then, provided a huge challenge to traditional

101 Catharine Beecher & Harriet Beecher Stowe, The American Woman’s Home: or, Principles of Domestic Science; being a Guide to the Formation and Maintenance of Economical, Healthful, Beautiful and Christian Homes (Boston: H.A. Brown & Co., 1869), 235; via WorldCat 102 Catharine Beecher, The Christian Family, in Cross, ed., The Educated Woman in America, 87. 103 Ginzberg, Women and the Work of Benevolence; Cott, The Bonds of Womanhood.

31 Calvinism and all of its tenets. Specifically, it offered people a chance to go to a softer, more rational God.104 This option was not only available for men, however. Women, too, gained an alternative to their traditional Calvinist upbringing. Also, whereas Orthodox Calvinism demanded an obvious conversion experience, Unitarianism offered a more restrained and, in a sense, private option.105 As this religious option gained more momentum in the vicinity of Boston it, inevitably, gained more credence and social approval. This new social element, in turn, became a refuge for women whose autonomous religious choices cost them security in their personal relationships. Thus, Mary Ware was able to cope with the disapproval of her father, and Elizabeth Peabody was sheltered from the anger of her female family members.106 In The Bonds of Womanhood, Nancy Cott asserted that “no other avenue of self- expression besides religion at once offered women social approbation, the encouragement of male leaders (ministers), and most important, the community of their peers.”107 The encouragement of male leaders is a very obvious factor in the conversion experiences of these three women. In every instance, a male member of either their family or their affiliated denomination was a strong influence in their conversion. Mary Ware, for instance, did not join the church until she had received the encouragement of Unitarian ministers John Abbot and Channing. Though Elizabeth Palmer Peabody’s primary religious influence was her mother, Channing had a huge impact on her life and he regularly encouraged her in her faith. Finally, Catharine Beecher had the influence of her father, Lyman Beecher, and her brother, Edward.108 This element of male influence also had negative effects, however. These effects actually counter (in a small way) Cott’s argument that religion allowed women social approbation. Though it is true that religion gave women an acknowledged place of purpose in society, it also allowed them to counter traditional roles of dependence and male approval.109 In effect, religion “enabled [women] to rely on an authority beyond the world of men and provided a crucial support to those who stepped beyond accepted

104 Ronda, Elizabeth Palmer Peabody, 45. 105 Ibid., 61. 106 Ibid., 44-45. 107 Cott, The Bonds of Womanhood, 141. 108 Sklar, Catharine Beecher, 39. 109 Cott, The Bonds of Womanhood, 159.

32 bounds.”110 Because Christianity asserted a heavenly authority higher than man, women did not have to rely strictly on the opinions or traditions of their fathers, brothers, or leaders. The Unitarian controversy illustrated this shift in women’s roles. By allowing for such a break in the traditional religious and social structure of Boston, the Unitarian controversy gave women more of a place to disagree with the men in their lives. This disagreement was encouraged by the fact that the Unitarian church became a social structure which offered a community of like-minded believers. This religious deviation, in turn, led to a very real sense of conflict and social disapprobation. Mary Ware experienced this conflict with her father who objected to her preference for Unitarianism. Mary saw this as a conflict of duty. It is illustrative of changing women’s roles in the early nineteenth century that Mary ultimately sided with the duty of religion over her traditional familial duty.111 Catharine Beecher also experienced the disapproval of the males within her immediate social circle when she was unable to experience the kind of conversion that they wished for her. Lyman Beecher asserted that his daughter’s inability was the result of “depravity, and fear, and selfishness.”112 To add to the criticism, Catharine’s brother, Edward, cut off all correspondence when Catharine said she couldn’t surrender to God.113 Of each of these women, Elizabeth Palmer Peabody is the only one who did not experience great conflict with the men in her society over her conversion. This is largely due to the fact that, prior to Channing, there were no strong male influences in her life. Rather, Peabody’s mother was her primary influence. The life of Catharine Beecher, however, reveals that the religious autonomy offered to women was not strictly limited to those who were Unitarians. It is evident that women were gaining more personal freedom in their religious choices. Whether this freedom resulted from an increase of liberal ideas within the church or from other social arenas is a question that warrants further study. Though the Unitarian controversy was largely a theological debate between rival theologians, it had great effects on society. The dissemination of this liberal thought gave

110 Ibid., 140. 111 Hall, Memoir of Mary L. Ware, 43. 112 Sklar, Catharine Beecher, 40. 113 Ibid., 41.

33 people an alternative to the pressures of orthodox Calvinist pressures. In a sense, it made the demands of Calvinism seem more severe. In the conversion experiences of each of the three women discussed above, the stress and burdens of Orthodox Calvinism, as well as their rejection of some of these demands, are evident. In every instance the impact of Calvinism is apparent. Whether a woman dismissed orthodoxy to turn to liberal theology or used the tools of Orthodoxy to form her own niche in the world, each conversion experience reveals the prevalence of a longstanding New England religious tradition. For Mary Ware, Calvinist theology was too dour. She couldn’t “have any gloomy views of religion,” so she turned to Unitarian theology.114 Even so, the intense, prolonged introspection so familiar to New England Calvinism is evident in Mary’s conversion experience. For her, however, the anxiety was not related to the state of her soul. Rather, she had social anxieties about the appropriateness of joining a church at a young age. So, she waited for over a year until she was encouraged by a member of the clergy.115 Finally, Mary’s rejection of the cheerless Calvinist doctrine, accompanied by the introspective tools of the Calvinist conversion experience, led her into the liberal fold. Catharine Beecher’s religious encounters were tormenting. The orthodoxy of her father and brother were so suffocating as to cause her physical sickness and emotional depression. At one point, as Lyman was “addressing her conscience,” Catharine “was seized with most agonizing pain” and remained sick for three days.116 Ultimately, Catharine never could reconcile the Calvinist view of her innate sinfulness. She simply couldn’t muster up the guilt that was required of her for a true conversion. She also did not feel as though she could completely submit herself to God.117 After two years of this trauma, Catharine finally relied on her earlier vow “if I can not be a Christian I will try to be as near like one as I can.”118 For her, religion became less about inner piety than it was about social morality. Without the Unitarian controversy, however, this option would not have been available for Catharine. She was enabled to have a different sort of Christianity precisely because of the Unitarians. What the controversy did for Catharine Beecher was to allow her to maintain a social morality that aligned with her father against

114 Hall, Memoir of Mary L. Ware, 52. 115 Ibid., 30-32, 41, 43. 116 Sklar, Catharine Beecher, 33. 117 Ibid., 32. 118 Ibid., 65.

34 their perceived religious enemies. The religious conflict in Boston not only gave people another avenue for pursuing God, it also softened the one that had been in place since the birth of the nation. In an effort to win the souls of Boston, Lyman Beecher and those who retained an orthodox stance were willing to join forces with those who were like- minded to them though possibly less fervent. Had there not been a common “enemy” however, Catharine might still have been at the mercy of her father’s disapproval. The least anxiety-ridden religious experience among these women was enjoyed by Elizabeth Palmer Peabody. From her childhood, Elizabeth had been exposed to liberal theology and she was, in a sense, culturally acclimated to the ideas. Elizabeth never really had a conversion experience, per se. There was no defined period in her life where she felt a personal lack and a need to search for God. Religion was, in essence, an intellectual, rational decision for Elizabeth. Her bitterness against Calvinism, however, reveals another aspect to her religious choices. Though she never had a moment where she made a deliberate, positive choice for Unitarianism, she was consistently and consciously running away from Calvinism. For her, religion was a choice of the lesser of two evils. In a letter to her nephew, Elizabeth recalled that “These dreadful doctrines [of Calvinism] and my protest, kept my mind in great ferment.”119 In her case, the stress of Calvinism was the catalyst for a long life of liberal theology and social reform. To retain a social standing in Boston and be taken seriously, however, Elizabeth had to join with an acceptable body of believers. Outside of traditional Congregationalism, Unitarianism was her best bet. Whereas Catharine Beecher maintained her social ties and operated within a network of orthodoxy, Elizabeth wanted out of orthodoxy completely and needed a new social network. In essence, Unitarianism provided her with a social cushion of like-minded people who were all turning away from traditional Calvinism. An inquiry into the private lives of Mary Ware, Elizabeth Peabody, and Catharine Beecher reveals that the Unitarian controversy, indeed, influenced them. In the first place, the rise of Unitarianism highlighted the traditions of Calvinism that were prevalent in Boston. Additionally, Unitarianism gave an acceptable alternative to what people perceived as pressures of Calvinism. The rational aspects of Unitarianism aligned more readily with Enlightenment ideals and Bostonians were more inclined to subject scripture

119 Ronda, Elizabeth Palmer Peabody, 44.

35 and divinity to their own reasoning than previous generations. As Unitarianism grew in acceptability, it allowed for a social refuge to those who deviated from the religious paths of their family members, as well. Therefore, women such as Mary Ware and Elizabeth Peabody were welcomed and respected within a community outside of their families. Alternatively, Catharine Beecher was enabled to align with orthodox New Englanders in taking a social stance against Unitarians without, herself, living a completely orthodox lifestyle. Finally, another benefit of looking at these women in the light of the Unitarian controversy is that it highlights the importance of male influence outside of the home for nineteenth century women. Despite the fact that there was a clear autonomy in religious conviction, each of these three women was heavily influenced by a male in her life. These men were not, however, always family members. This further advances the point that the rise of Unitarianism allowed a more developed social approbation for women while wreaking havoc on their relationships at home. As a result, for example, Mary Ware was led to a conversion to Unitarianism by Rev. Abbot – a man not affiliated with her father. Also, Mary often cited her love and respect for Channing whereas she hardly mentioned her own father. This dichotomy of affection is revealed in the fact that, despite her giddiness, Mary’s first discussion with Channing revolved around his assistance in her deviation from the religion of her parents. Elizabeth Peabody was also given a social status outside of the home which had nothing to do with her father or her extended family. Rather, Channing oversaw much of Elizabeth’s development and she placed more of her life within these Unitarian confines than within familial relationships. Likewise, Catharine Beecher was the recipient of much male influence. Whereas her father and brother initially sickened her with their repeated harangues about the state of her soul, they were also social models which served her well in later years. Finally, by socially aligning herself with their cause against Unitarianism, Catharine was able to make a place and a name for herself in conservative Boston society.

36 CHAPTER TWO: PUBLIC LIVES The middle class of Boston was, like the growing Unitarian influence of Boston, confined to a small percentage of the nation as a whole. Yet, this small section of the population had great impact over the rest of the country. As Nancy Woloch reports in Early American Women: A Documentary History, middle-class Americans “set standards of behavior toward which those of lesser means aspired.”120 These Americans were the prime participants in and supporters of social structures such as schools, churches, and benevolence organizations, as well as proponents of a literary culture – be it through books, periodicals, or correspondence.121 So, though the middle class of America was “concentrated in the urban Northeast and represented only ten to fifteen percent of the growing population,” it had a mighty impact on the thoughts, attitudes, and developments of early America as a whole.122 Within this growing segment of the population, women of the young nation were gaining more opportunities than they had experienced before. As Joyce Appleby suggests in her book Inheriting the Revolution, Americans in the “middling” ranks of society were in the process of finally detaching America from its old roots while, at the same time, they were the ones defining what a democratic society would look like.123 Though Appleby asserts that the status of women did not change, I would argue that no segment of society was immune from this democratization.124 Religion, economics, labor, family life, entertainment, and reform were all candidates for egalitarian change. Though women did not have the status and liberties that they enjoy in present-day America, they were (albeit inconspicuously) gaining some ground in their civic position. In as much as this growing middle class was changing, the role of women within it was changing as well. The participation of women within the Unitarian controversy illustrates this fact.

120 Nancy Woloch, Early American Women: A Documentary History, 1600-1900 (New York: The Mcgraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1997), 149. 121 Ibid., 149 122 Ibid., 149. 123 Joyce Appleby, Inheriting the Revolution (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2000), 54-55. 124 Appleby, Inheriting the Revolution, 54-55 Appleby argues that the status of women remained the same – not to change until “later events challenged the reigning patriarchal definition.” She also maintains that “The surviving common law…unobtrusively sustained the domination of the master in the home and workplace.”

37 The changes taking place during the first half of the nineteenth century were immense. Greater industrialization, democratization, and an increase in the availability of printed materials throughout the nation shifted the roles and expectations of women. Specifically for middle-class white women in the Northeast, there were new and distinct roles to play which arose in the areas of religion, education, social activism, and family life. The role of women within the family changed from its earlier eighteenth century version. As more men in the urban Northeast worked outside of the home and a greater middle-class was born, women became the rulers of the home. Whereas before the men had assumed primary authority over family life, they now had less dominion in the domestic arena. In a sense, the growing delineation between men’s work and women’s work gave a greater place for women to exercise their clout. Additionally, the role of women within marriage developed into more of a partnership than it had ever been. Whereas men controlled a more public realm, women controlled the domestic realm. The difference was that the man was no longer the supreme ruler of both spheres.125 As the economic situation changed for middle class Americans, there were subsequent changes in family life. In short, husbands brought home income and wives took charge of domestic affairs.126 The result of this change was that women gained more influence in their homes and, therefore, in the lives of their husbands and children. Though women had always performed functions in which they watched over their homes and the people within them, the nineteenth century saw an increase in the value placed on these jobs and the women who did them.127 As a result, records from this time period reflect a significant emphasis on the woman’s sense of domestic mission. With this sense of mission in mind, women not only accepted the phraseology of the “cult of domesticity,” they encouraged it and pressed each other into it. The impact that women had on the climate of their home, and the children within their home was considered to be largely spiritual. It is in this sense that women exerted a great amount of authority and influence within their homes, as well as outside of their homes. In her essay “The Cult of True Womanhood,” Barbara Welter emphasized that women’s literature of the day used “careful manipulation and interpretation” to convince women of

125 Goldberg, “Breaking New Ground,” 180. 126 Ibid., 153. 127 Ibid., 154.

38 the value of their domestic role and the holiness to be found within this role.128 Sources of the time support the idea that there was a cultural push to endear the domestic role to women. In 1828, for instance, an anonymous contributor wrote a column in The Religious Intelligencer affirming the proper sphere of women. The author boldly proclaimed that “the true sphere of woman’s greatness is the domestic circle” where she may “bless, comfort, console, cheer, animate, ornament, brighten, sweeten, and aid.”129 It is clear, however, that it was not magazine influence alone that prompted women to find value in their domestic mission. Middle-class women of the nineteenth century clearly saw themselves as more than sweet ornaments who could bless their households. Rather, they saw themselves as saviors of the culture and they promoted this view to one another. In essence, the belief in the domestic role of women was not simply a conspiracy used to keep women in the home. Rather, women and men of the early nineteenth century truly believed that the strength of women operated well within the home and they were an apparatus for furthering the mission of the new republic. Catharine Beecher, for example, in her book A Treatise on Domestic Economy for the Use of Young Ladies at Home and at School, emphasized that “the formation of the moral and intellectual character of the young is committed mainly to the female hand. The mother writes the character of the future man; the sister bends the fibres that hereafter are the forest tree; the wife sways the heart, whose energies may turn for good or for evil the destinies of a nation. Let the women of a country be made virtuous and intelligent, and the men will certainly be the same.”130 Another author in 1838 wrote that woman was “the mistress” of the family home in which lay “the school of the forming mind, the nursery of public virtue or of public vice.”131 In a similar vein, the author of a sermon given to Weekly Visitor and Ladies’ Museum in 1817 commented on the parallel between the home and the nation. According to the author, it was a common belief that a “well-regulated family is a miniature of a

128 Barbara Welter, “The Cult of True Womanhood: 1820-1860” in History of Women in the United States: 4: Domestic Ideology and Domestic Work, ed. Nancy Cott (Munich: K.G. Saur, 1992), 71. 129 “Woman,” The Religious Intelligencer…Containing the Principal Transactions of the Various Bible and Missionary Societies, With Particular Accounts of Revivals of Religion (1816-1837) March 15, 1828, Vol.12, Iss. 42, 663, APS Online. 130 Woloch, Early American Women, 160 131 “The Woman Question,” The Western Messenger Devoted to Religion, Life, and Literature (1835-1841), Nov. 1838, Vol. 6, Iss. 1, 16, APS Online.

39 perfect form of government,” and that “in an enlightened community,” women are “the companions and not the slaves of men.”132 Through statements such as these, it is clear that at least a portion of middle-class New England women did not feel their roles to be insignificant or imposed upon them. Thus, it is crucial to realize that the efforts women put into their families, homes, communities, and religious duties, were considered by them to be imperative to the functioning of the republic at large. They were not, in most cases, poor substitutes for a career that never was. Equally, their efforts were not put forth simply because of careful manipulation by women’s literature. Rather, their efforts were necessary for the public trust which women felt had been placed in their hands. With regards to religion, women were considered to be morally superior to men. This conviction was acknowledged and preached by both men and women of antebellum America. This moral superiority, naturally, was often viewed by women as a way in which they might yield influence. Catharine Beecher, for instance, wrote in 1832 that women had yet to realize their highest destiny. According to Beecher, this destiny was to “gain and maintain” influence over men. In this quiet capacity, women might “form and send forth the sages that shall govern and renovate the world,” as well as “send the thrill of benevolence through a thousand youthful hearts.”133 Women then, according to Beecher, were to consider their domestic positions as platforms of influence and power. The participation of women within religion was a past-time which was both encouraged and fitted nicely within the acceptable realm of women. Also, the messages of religion were instrumental in firming the foundation of female moral superiority. As northeastern urban areas grew, more religious, civic, and social organizations arose to compete for men’s attention. Boston and other similar cities were no longer dominated by a central religious establishment. Men, then, had other arenas for socialization than the church. For women, however, an exclusion from political, economic, and much of civic life limited their social and voluntary options.134 As women found personal support within religious establishments, they were also given more agency through churches and the

132 “A Lay Sermon: Respect Due to Husbands,” Weekly Visitor and Ladies’ Musem (1817-1823), Dec. 27, 1817, Vol.1, Iss.9, 136, APS Online. 133 Catharine Beecher, “Female Influence,” The Bouquet: Flowers of Polite Literature (1831-1833), Oct. 6, 1832, Vol.2, Iss. 9, 70, APS Online. 134 Richard D. Shiels, “The Feminization of American Congregationalism, 1730-1835,” in History of Women in the United States: 13: Religion, ed. Nancy Cott (New Providence: K.G. Saur, 1993), 17.

40 topics of clergymen. Subjects such as morality, benevolence, and family life were as important to religious leaders as they were to women.135 So, if women were to gain and maintain influence over the men in their lives – as Catharine Beecher suggested – this search for influence was strengthened and made pure by the church. If in other areas of life women were prohibited from participation with men, religion was one area where they were encouraged to seek authority and use it. By utilizing the concepts that women were morally superior, keepers of civic virtue, pious mothers of children both at home and in society, and natural, duty-bound teachers, the women of Boston were poised to influence the society around them. Such a bitter, public struggle as the Unitarian controversy, then, could not fail to change these women. In shaping the social and religious terrain of Boston, the controversy also helped to form the role of middle-class women in society. Finally, because these women were socially active, they in turn helped to define the path that Unitarianism and Congregationalism would take. In an 1860 compilation of memorable women, Mary Ware was extolled as having “nothing startling or brilliant in her career,” but, instead, a life that was “characterized throughout as a course of noiseless, unostentatious, practical philanthropy.”136 In discoursing upon Mary’s quiet, philanthropic posture, the biographer was lavishing high praise upon Mary Ware. Philanthropy and charity were virtues that were consistently preached to antebellum women. They were also causes that were regularly taken up by antebellum women. Further, in their pursuit of charitable causes, women were enabled to transcend the domestic sphere and take an important place in their community. In comparison to Elizabeth Palmer Peabody and Catharine Beecher, Mary Ware’s life was rather hushed. Also, whereas Elizabeth and Catharine remained single, much of what Mary accomplished was done under the umbrella of her husband and his duties. She did not become a great crusader, author, or educator. Additionally, Mary Ware did not take part in sweeping educational reforms. Her nature was quiet – a fact which she reflected upon in 1824 as she wrote “I am sure now that I never shall learn to be

135 Ibid., 17. 136 Joseph B. Johnson, Heroines of our time: being sketches of the lives of eminent women, with examples of their benevolent works, truthful lives, and noble deeds – 1860, in History of Women, Reel 336, no. 2303 (Microfilm, New Haven: Research Publications, 1975), 63.

41 loquacious…I felt the inconvenience of my silent habits at home, and…I must suffer still more among strangers, with whom agreeability is a necessary passport.”137 Despite her taciturn tendencies, however, Mary was well-known to Bostonians of her era for two reasons. Her steady, benevolent nature made an impact on all that she ministered to, both at home and abroad. Additionally, were it not for Mary’s efforts and abilities, Henry Ware, Jr. would not have enjoyed the success that he did as a leading Unitarian author, pastor, and professor. Years after her conversion to Unitarianism, Mary Ware (Pickard at the time) traveled to Britain to visit her father’s family. As all of her stateside relations had died, Mary was at liberty to choose whatever path she wished. At this time, Mary wrote “I seem to hang so loosely on the world, that it is of little importance where I am, as it regards duties, and it is an advantage to enlarge one’s ideas, which I feel ought to be improved.”138 Of these duties, Mary wrote to a friend that “the first and only important object of existence is to promote, as far as my powers may extend, the cause of holiness.”139 Armed with loneliness and her twofold purpose of spreading holiness and enlarging her ideas – as well as a letter of introduction from Dr. Channing – Mary made her way to Britain. Once there, Mary’s religious sensibilities and acts of charity became well-known – both in Britain and in the U.S. Chiefly, while visiting family in Yorkshire, Mary’s family and many in the village came down with typhus fever. A good bit of her time in Yorkshire was spent going “from house to house, imparting knowledge, cleanliness, and comfort: freely sharing her scanty means, and her large resources of wisdom, energy and courage.”140 For Mary, this was a trying experience – especially as she had no companionship. Of this time, Mary wrote that “this village is the most primitive place I ever was in…the inhabitants almost entirely of one class, and that of the poorer kind of laboring people, ignorant as possible, but simple and social…I am entirely destitute of every thing like companionship…I must feel a great deficiency.”141

137 Hall, Memoir of Mary L. Ware, 119. 138 Hall, Memoir of Mary L. Ware, 95. 139 Hall, Memoir of Mary L. Ware, 95. 140 Carpenter, Some Account of Mrs. Henry Ware, Jun. of America, 9-10. 141 Hall, Memoir of Mary L. Ware, 138-139.

42 Despite her lack of companionship, however, Mary’s influence gave her “an opportunity of doing much good with little trouble.”142 Specifically, Mary wrote that “there are very many cases of the fever in the village, and as I am almost the only person in it who is not afraid of infection, I still have full employment in assisting the poor sufferers.”143 In these trying ministrations, Mary felt herself buoyed by her Unitarian connections and her religious beliefs. Primarily, Mary believed that she “could not have lived through all that [she had], unless God had protected [her].”144 She also wrote often of Dr. Channing and leaned heavily upon the teachings that she had received from him. Also, upon her arrival in Britain, she immediately discovered a Unitarian chapel which she boldly attended despite vocal disapproval – such as by the woman who exclaimed “we ought to tolerate all denominations but those dangerous enemies to religion, the Unitarians, I cannot pass their chapel without shuddering.”145 When she had grown much older, Mary considered this time in Yorkshire to be a vitally important chapter of her life. Before she died, in fact, Mary expressed a wish that she could write about that time in her life for her children. She felt that it was a training ground for much greater trials that came to her. Since the sorrows had passed, Mary felt that “one almost forgets whether outward things were agreeable or not. The spiritual, intellectual life is the most prominent; the progress of our own characters, the affection which met our affection, the satisfactions of the soul, are all that leave any lasting impression upon the memory.”146 Indeed, by the time Mary returned to Boston, her character was formed in such a manner as to impress the well-known Henry Ware, Jr. When Mary chose Unitarianism early in her life, her choice was based on the fact that she felt Unitarianism would most encourage her towards piety. Her Unitarian teachings, in turn, encouraged her in trying circumstances. Finally, the lessons on duty and philanthropy which she learned as a result of these circumstances stood her in good stead once she was married to Henry Ware, Jr. and they marked the remainder of Mary’s life. In the course of their marriage, the Wares experienced quite a bit of sickness. Henry Ware, Jr. was never very healthy and he had to hand over his parish duties at the Second

142 Ibid., 138-139. 143 Ibid., 154. 144 Ibid., 154. 145 Ibid., 110. 146 Carpenter, Some Account of Mrs. Henry Ware, Jun. of America, 19-20.

43 Church in Boston to his Assistant Pastor, Ralph Waldo Emerson. He then went abroad for a year and a half with his wife in an effort to regain his health. During this trip, Mary left her infant son behind, as well as the other children, and joined her husband in his quest for health. Her time in Europe was largely spent nursing her husband and helping him with his writings and religious efforts. In fact, had it not been for Mary Ware, Henry may not have gained the fame that became his with the publication of his book The Formation of Christian Character. Mary was later to acknowledge that this most famous of Ware works was largely written during their European tour. She wrote that “its pages are to my memory a sort of diary of our progress…thus were my evenings spent in alternate writing, reading, and criticism, until I almost felt as if I had written the book myself!”147 Indeed, Henry may never have known the cost that his wife paid in her ministrations to him. A letter written to her physician from Rome gives a glimpse of what this time was like for Mary who found herself “not for a single day free from positive pain,” but “determined to keep out of sight all physical as well as mental distress.”148 She also disclosed to her physician that “the degree of tension to which every faculty was stretched, all the time, was just as much as my reason could bear unshaken; and more than it could have borne, I believe, had not my nerves found relief in hours of tearful prostration, when Henry was asleep, or so far out of the way as not to detect it.”149 Finally, however, this unsettling period in the Ware life was over and Mary returned home with her husband. Upon their return to Boston, Henry Ware joined the faculty at Harvard. He remained in the Professorship of Pulpit Eloquence and Pastoral Care until his death in1843.150 Again, Mary Ware was a driving force in the success of Henry Ware, Jr. during all of these experiences. Whereas Henry focused on his faculty duties, Mary focused on her husband’s students, as well as serving as a direct assistant in her husband’s reading and writing endeavors. Often, when Henry’s eyes failed, Mary would read to him and do his writing for him.151 Additionally, she cared for her husband’s students in ways that were long remembered after her death. When these students were

147 Hall, Memoir of Mary L. Ware, 224. 148 Hall, Memoir of Mary L. Ware, 229. 149 Ibid. 150 Howe, The Unitarian Conscience, 14-15, 314-315. 151 Hall, Memoir of Mary L. Ware, 287.

44 sick, she nursed them, when they were discouraged and lonely she fed and comforted them, when they were destitute she provided for them. Her work was such that it prompted the following post-mortem comment from her son: “As a Professor’s wife, I do not think father’s heart was more in the school than was hers. I suspect she knew everything about it, and was his constant assistant and counselor.”152 Mary Ware was such a private and busy individual that it is difficult to pinpoint any particular public activities of which she was a part. She was notable among people who knew her for constant benevolence to those who came to her for help. She did not participate in any one benevolence society, but rather helped wherever she found a need. Illustrative of a mind bent on altruism, Mary wrote a short note to a neighbor which apologized for an inability to visit due to the appearance of a man who requested help from the Wares. Mary wrote that “I have today got at the poor man’s wardrobe for the first time, and determined to beg for some means to supply it with a few decencies…but I am full of wrathful indignation at being sneered at for taking him in…So let the poor suffer as much as they may – no relief – for others will be idle and want relief too!”153 Her mind was bent upon charity and she gave it wherever she could. This is further illustrated by the reminisces of one of the many theological students who partook of her aid. He wrote of her in an effort to dissuade those who felt they couldn’t participate in the community because of their housekeeping duties. This theological student perhaps best described Mary’s public activities when he wrote that “she seemed to keep house better than anybody else, to exercise a larger and freer hospitality…while, after all, her domestic cares were only an incident in her daily duties. She seemed to have time for every great out-door or general interest, and to be full of schemes of benevolence and kindness. And it was the easy, natural way in which she performed these double functions that gave me such a sense of her power.”154 These facts seem to line up with Debra Gold Hansen’s estimation that religion gave New England women “a legitimate outlet for public activity that was separate from their husbands and fathers.”155 Yet, it also points to something beyond Hansen’s

152 Ibid., 290-293. 153 Hall, Memoir of Mary L. Ware, 282. 154 Ibid., 282-283. 155 Hansen, Strained Sisterhood, 57.

45 proposal. In Mary Ware’s life, religion not only provided an outlet for public activity, it also provided a sense of domestic autonomy. Henry Ware, the Harvard professor, Unitarian theologian, parish pastor, and domestic reformer, needed help. His help came from a woman who was respected on her own merits. So, in addition to her activity which was separate from her husband and father, Mary lived a life which also actively affected and changed the lives and circumstances of the men in her life. In terms of public activity, Elizabeth Peabody had a life that was quite different than that of Mary Ware. Though they were both Boston Unitarians who were highly influenced by their religious choices, their public works were vastly different. Mary Ware’s benevolent works were run largely out of her home and in keeping with her quiet, steady personality. Elizabeth Peabody, however, had a bold public life which was equally in keeping with her forthright personality. Education was important to Elizabeth Peabody at an early age and it gained importance as she grew older. Specifically, Elizabeth Peabody became a notable education reformer. Initially, Elizabeth taught several of her own private schools until, in 1834, she aligned her own educational ideas with those of Bronson Alcott, a leading Transcendentalist, and helped him run the Temple School. Elizabeth agreed with Alcott on many of his unconventional educational philosophies. Notably, she believed that the intuitive powers of a child should be nurtured as well as the intellectual powers, in order to bring truth and shape the child’s moral nature.156 In Elizabeth’s mind – as well as Alcott’s – a child must be met and educated on his or her own level. Elizabeth reasoned that “a plan of education, founded on the idea of studying Spirit in their own consciousness, and in God, -- is one that will meet children just where they are.”157 This reasoning, of course, stemmed from a decided religious opinion that did not assign form to “Spirit.” In a departure from traditional Christianity, it was an educational plan that sought to bring understanding out of a child, rather than to impose understanding on a child from without.158 As a result, Bronson Alcott and Elizabeth Peabody did not expect

156 Ronda, Elizabeth Palmer Peabody, 114, 119. 157 Elizabeth Peabody, Record of a School: Exemplifying the General Principles of Spiritual Culture, 2nd ed. with an explanatory preface, and other revisions (Boston: Russell, Shattuck & Company, 1836), v-vi. 158 Ronda, Elizabeth Palmer Peabody, 87.

46 orthodox Christians to place children in their care.159 From the beginning, then, Elizabeth’s educational philosophies were directly tied to her religious beliefs. In turn, her public activities were used to draw people towards her religious beliefs. Eventually Elizabeth Peabody left Alcott and his experimental Temple School. Though they had agreed on the concept of spiritual truth intrinsic in a child, Elizabeth disagreed with some of Alcott’s methods. Specifically, Elizabeth felt that he was too invasive with his students. He valued a collective conscience over private conscience and used his pupils’ journals to teach Self-Analysis. Elizabeth had a strong opinion about this and wrote that “the instinctive delicacy with which children veil their deepest thoughts of love and tenderness for relatives, and their reasonable self gratulations, should not be violated I think, in order to gain knowledge, or for any imagined benefit to others. Indeed, no knowledge can be gained in this way.”160 To Elizabeth, this method of teaching was akin to “tearing the rosebud open, or invading the solitude of the chrysalis, with the hope of obtaining insight into the process of bloom or metamorphosis.”161 Additionally, Elizabeth’s living arrangements with the Alcott family had reached explosive proportions. Various heated disagreements, as well as invasions of privacy, encouraged Elizabeth to leave the Alcott home. Finally, in August of 1836, Elizabeth resigned her position at Temple School.162 During her employment with Alcott, Elizabeth had been very busy in other pursuits. In addition to her manuscript publishing, Elizabeth was also investigating other methods of religious inquiry, as well as new friends she had come in contact with through Alcott. In 1835, Elizabeth had a conversation with Emerson’s wife that illustrated her evolving religious ideals. She remarked that Unitarianism was “terra firma” upon which transcendentalism could be built.163 Elizabeth’s respect for Unitarianism was as strong as it ever was, but it was clear that she saw it as a building block for something better, rather than as an end in itself. In light of these shifting ideals, Elizabeth was busy forming relationships with eminent transcendentalists who were forming a circle around

159 Peabody, Record of a School, vi. 160 Ibid., viii. 161 Ibid., viii. 162 Ronda, Elizabeth Palmer Peabody, 129. 163 Ibid., 123.

47 Emerson.164 These personal connections were essential to the next period of Elizabeth’s life. Over the next several years of her life, Elizabeth Peabody chose not to teach and, instead, styled herself as a sort of social and intellectual commentator. She wrote numerous articles and collected many manuscripts of her contemporaries. Elizabeth continued on in the transcendental tradition, and, in 1840, she opened the West Street Bookshop. This bookshop became a meeting point for the transcendentalists, as well as a lending library. Hoping to reach a large audience, Elizabeth addressed reform concerns through various means. She chose domestic and foreign books to sell, acted as publisher for books and The Dial (the transcendentalist quarterly), and hosted seminars for notable reformers such as Margaret Fuller.165 Elizabeth thrived economically and intellectually during this period of her life. She was also surrounded with like-minded friends. As time went on, however, the interest in transcendentalism died down and Elizabeth’s mother became ill. In 1851, Elizabeth closed down the bookshop at West Street and, after a period of time, Elizabeth returned to her first love of early childhood education.166 In 1860, Elizabeth Peabody opened a kindergarten in Boston. It was the first English-speaking kindergarten in the U.S.167 Based on the ideas of Friedrich Froebel, Elizabeth’s kindergarten emphasized “the education of children by a genial training of their spontaneous playful activities.”168 Froebel’s idea of a “child-garden” was immediately received and loudly praised by Elizabeth Peabody. To her, the kindergarten was “the gospel of salvation for children and “kindergartning is not a craft, it is a religion.”169 Through this “religion” Elizabeth hoped to awaken children to goodness and beauty. She considered that being “active powers of good and beauty is to be religious, and also to be free from superstition; to love God instead of being afraid of Him; to make their lives a reasonable service, and thus become free from priestcraft and spiritual tyranny.”170 Elizabeth Peabody worked tirelessly in the establishment of kindergartens in

164 Ibid., 129. 165 Ibid., 184-186. 166 Ibid., 241. 167 Ibid., 273. 168 Elizabeth Palmer Peabody, Lectures in the Training Schools for Kindergartners (Boston: D.C. Heath & Company, 1902), 2. 169 Ibid., 83, 88. 170 Ibid., 87.

48 the United States. She traveled extensively to teach about kindergartens and wrote numerous essays. Elizabeth also consistently trained other teachers in this new method. Her agreement with Alcott on the whole education of a child – moral, intellectual, spiritual, and physical – had not changed. She did hope, however, that Alcott would agree with her “that Froebel’s method of cultivating children…is a healthier and more effective way than self-inspection.”171 As Elizabeth Peabody had argued with Emerson’s wife that Unitarianism was the “terra firma” upon which other religious truths could be realized, her early adherence to Unitarianism likewise acted as a foundation for her public life. Elizabeth’s old hatred for traditional religious views was still active even as she discoursed about kindergarten in her old age. As a young woman, Elizabeth had warned her sister Sophia about the tyranny of Calvinist views. As an old woman in the 1870s, Elizabeth still spoke of this tyranny in her kindergarten lectures. Her life had long been a publicly viewed balancing act between her reformist, liberal tendencies and the religious conservatism around her. In the praise of kindergarten as a method for inspiring goodness and beauty – while steering children away from spiritual tyranny – Elizabeth was enabled to use the universal principles made popular by Unitarianism to, again, negate externally imposed religious expectations. Catharine Beecher, like Elizabeth Peabody, was an avid participant in education. Whereas Peabody’s latter life included more socially liberal reform issues such as women’s suffrage and anti-slavery, however, Catharine remained a conservative reformer. Catharine did believe that women held important functions in American society and she addressed these issues from a more conservative platform. Specifically, Beecher saw the home as a central place for social conscience, moral control, and as a means of pursuing national unity.172 Catharine’s public success was revealed in the paradoxical fact that she addressed her ideas to the nation from a professional position in an unmarried status. Though she liberally doled out information on running a household, taking care of children, marriage, and the proper roles of women, she did it having never had her own home, husband, or children.

171 Ronda, Elizabeth Palmer Peabody, 305. 172 Sklar, Catharine Beecher, 151-165, 172-174.

49 As Beecher urged her father’s ideas on the Boston Unitarians, she also encouraged her own in the school that she began in Hartford. Catharine Beecher considered that women were “best fitted” to shape minds and she heartily set herself to this goal.173 Initially, her attempt to run a school was quite stressful due to her lack of funds and location. Within a few years, however, it became clear that teaching scores of young women in a basement with no materials was not practical. As a result, Catharine drew up plans for the Hartford Seminary which would have a study hall to accommodate one hundred-fifty pupils, as well as six recitation rooms.174 She received the funding that she was looking for, though it was not without a battle. Catharine stated that many of the men found it absurd but “the more intelligent and influential women came to [her] aid, and soon all…was granted.”175 This fact alone was vital in shaping Catharine’s later philosophies and attitudes towards women. She later wrote that “this was my first experience of the moral power and good judgment of American women, which has been my chief reliance ever since.”176 In catering to this belief in the moral power of women, Catharine Beecher built a name for herself, both as a teacher of teachers and as a domestic authority. While at the Hartford Seminary, Catharine began to look into other branches of education for young women. Specifically, she was interested in taking the education of young women to a higher level – both in what they were being taught and how they were being taught. In an 1829 essay she wrote, Beecher asked her readers just “what is the profession of a woman?”177 She contended that mothers and teachers were the primary formers of character and that they had never been trained for their roles. As far as Catharine was concerned, the profession of a woman was “to form immortal minds, and to watch, to nurse, and to rear the bodily system…upon the order and regulation of which, the health and well-being of the mind so greatly depends.”178 Catharine’s evangelical background and social morality came into play here, where she argued that

173 Ibid., 97. 174 Goodsell, Pioneers of Women’s Education, 124. 175 Ibid., 124. 176 Ibid., 124. 177 Catharine Beecher,Suggestions Respecting Improvements in Education Presented to the Trustees of the Hartford Female Seminary and published at their request (Hartford: Packard and Butler, 1829) in Goodsell, Pioneers of Women’s Education, 147. 178 Ibid., 147.

50 women were to “form immortal minds.” Additionally, at this early point in her career, Catharine publicly argued that women were uniquely suited for professions, just as men were. With this argument, Catharine further opened the door for women to be both educated and employed. For, where there was a need for women to be educated, there was also a need for them to be trained. Naturally, there needed to be women in place who were capable of giving this training. Once the training and education was complete, there would be opportunities for unmarried women to travel the country while filling a respected position. A vast, changed social system was compacted in Beecher’s arguments – one in which women were able to use traditional sphere ideology and evangelistic fervor to leave their traditional roles and branch out into other areas. Put in her own words, Catharine argued that “if all females were not only well educated themselves, but were prepared to communicate in an easy manner their stores of knowledge to others; if they not only knew how to regulate their own minds, tempers and habits, but how to effect improvements in those around them, the face of society would speedily be changed.”179 In 1830, Catharine had been administrating and teaching in the Hartford Seminary for a decade. Those years were difficult ones for her that she described thus: “My school soon numbered over one hundred; and yet I had only one room and one assistant, while I had both to teach the higher branches and to study them myself; not having been taught them in my school days. I also had to prepare my teachers, who like myself had never been trained for these departments…Meantime all the responsibilities, which in colleges are divided among the president, the professors, the tutors, and the treasurer, rested on me. Ten years of such complicated labor, study, and responsibility destroyed health.”180 Indeed, in 1830, Catharine suffered a nervous breakdown and left Hartford Seminary. Though she had to leave, Catharine’s years in Hartford were formative ones for her which she felt gave her the experience to speak with authority on a variety of subjects. Catharine spent the time after Hartford in a wide variety of pursuits. She wrote various manuscripts, taught at schools, trained teachers, and helped her father. Nothing during this time came to great fruition, however. Even her family considered Catharine

179 Ibid., 150. 180 Catharine Beecher, An Address on Female Suffrage (1870), in Goodsell, Pioneers of Women’s Education, 200.

51 to be constantly trying new things and failing at them. Her sister Harriet is quoted as saying “I had no proper appreciation of her character and motives of action…I considered her strange, nervous, visionary, and to a certain extent unstable. I see now that she has been busy…about one thing…this plan of educating our country by means of its women and this she has steadily pursued.”181 For Catharine, this concept of education was to take place with regards to the home as well as the schoolroom. In fact, she saw the schoolroom as one of the few viable options to married life. To Catharine, it was vital that young women “pursue their education with the expectation that, unless paramount private duties forbid, they are to employ their time and talents in the duties of a teacher, until they assume the responsibilities of domestic life.”182 This emphasis on domesticity is, perhaps, what caused Catharine Beecher to be most well-known by the women of her generation. She wrote large, very popular manuals on the caretaking of various responsibilities. Catharine was, apparently, aware of the fact that she might not be considered an authority on the matters from which she derived her livelihood. So, in her popular manual The American Woman’s Home, Catharine took great pains to place her credentials in the introduction. Here, she leaned on her upbringing as well as her years in Hartford. She wrote that she was “the eldest of nine children by her own mother, and four by her step-mother; and having a natural love for children, she found it a pleasure as well as a duty to aid in the care of infancy and childhood.”183 Additionally, she mentioned that “at twenty-three, she commenced the institution which ever since has flourished as The Hartford Female Seminary.”184 Her manual was a success and was followed by an enlarged edition as well as a sequel, “The Domestic Receipt Book, widely circulated by Harper’s in every state of the Union.”185 Within these books was advice on effectively laying out the architecture of a home, exercising, raising children, caring for animals, ventilating the home, cooking, charity,

181 Harriet Beecher Stowe to Lyman Beecher and Henry Ward Beecher, 9 September 1851, Beecher Family Papers, quoted in Sklar, Catharine Beecher, 234. 182 Catharine Beecher, An Essay on the Education of Female Teachers (New York: Van Nostrand and Dwight, 1835) in Cross, The Educated Woman in America, 74. 183 Catharine Beecher and Harriet Beecher Stowe, The American Woman’s Home: or Principles of Domestic Science; Being a Guide to the Formation and Maintenance of Economical, Healthful, Beautiful, and Christian Homes (New York: J.B. Ford and Company, 1869), 15, via worldcat. 184 Ibid., 15. 185 Ibid., 15.

52 and a great many other topics. Her goal in all of it, however, was to educate women. For Catharine Beecher, education was the bond that held together the two most important aspects of womankind: religion and family. She considered the family to be “the aptest earthly illustration of the heavenly kingdom, and in it woman as its chief minister.”186 Reform and benevolence activity among early-nineteenth century women has, as Lori Ginzberg stated, long been viewed “as an assertion of social control.”187 It is true that, in their own ways, Mary Ware, Elizabeth Peabody, and Catharine Beecher saw themselves – as women – to be uniquely fashioned for morally guiding the society around them. Nevertheless, reform and benevolence primarily became a way for these women to express their religious and moral commitments. In each case, their benevolence activities were directly related to their deeply personal, autonomous religious and professional choices, as well as their personalities. The impact of the Unitarian controversy on the public lives of these women is revealed in the choices that they each made upon their conversions. Mary Ware gave thought to the different religious options around her and hazarded her family’s disapproval to choose Unitarianism. Her choice was guided primarily by the fact that she felt Unitarianism to be the doctrine most likely to lead her into piety and holiness. She was a strong adherent to Unitarianism for the rest of her life and her public acts of benevolence and reform were consistently decided both by her doctrinal affiliation and by her personality. For Elizabeth Peabody, the choice for Unitarianism was largely intellectual. She detested the traditional doctrines she had grown up around and was drawn to the opposing view offered by Unitarianism. Additionally, she was guided by a strong, mentor relationship with Dr. Channing. Elizabeth’s religious doctrines revealed themselves very strongly in her educational ideas and every reform effort that she became a part of displayed her religious views. Throughout her life, she opposed the traditional Christian views which she felt were tyrannical and she fought them in everyway that she was able. For her, Unitarianism was the foundation upon which her public works were built.

186 Ibid., 19. 187 Ginzberg, Women & the work of Benevolence, 2.

53 Catharine Beecher differed from Mary and Elizabeth primarily in the fact that she was not a Unitarian. In her perusal of religious questions, however, the Unitarian controversy played an equal part. Catharine was highly influenced by her father, Lyman Beecher, and had an extremely difficult time choosing a religious path outside of what he desired. Finally, though she was not able to experience the spiritual renewal her father desired, she was able to coordinate with her father on a social and moral level. As Lyman fought against the Boston Unitarians, Catharine aligned with him socially and gained a tacit acceptance in the orthodox camp. This acceptance was largely due to the fact that orthodox Congregationalists felt themselves very threatened and anyone who would join the moral fight was welcomed. For the rest of her career, Catharine remained a conservative Christian whose beliefs were opposed to liberal Christians. She took the argument outside of the theological arena, however, and into a social and moral one. In essence, Catharine Beecher helped to take the sting out of the orthodox argument and, in some small measure, helped to level the playing field between the two camps.

54 CONCLUSION

In pursuing their religious convictions and reform tendencies, white, middle-class antebellum women gained a measure of personal autonomy and authority that had heretofore been elusive to them. The liberal breach of orthodox congregationalism in Boston helped to open the doors to this growing autonomy and social liberalism for women. Whether, as in the case of the Orthodox, there was a concerted drive for souls or, as in the case of the liberal religionists, there was a need to offer charity and self- expression, doors were opening to further religious purposes. By using the rhetoric of morality, piety, motherhood, and separate spheres, middle-class women were the logical proponents of these causes. A study of the Unitarian controversy and its impact on both women and society is vital to developing a further understanding of antebellum New England. The controversy is a key to two subjects that are vital to the historian of early American history. First, there were developments in family structure, women’s roles, and social opportunity that were directly linked to the Unitarian controversy. A thorough look at this rancorous debate between Trinitarians and Unitarians is necessary for a full understanding of the lives of antebellum men and women of Boston. Second, the controversy allows for a greater understanding of the larger changes that were occurring in the nation. In perusing the lives of Mary Ware, Catharine Beecher, and Elizabeth Palmer Peabody, it is clear that the Unitarian controversy most definitely affected the private and social lives of antebellum women. Not only did the public rise of liberal theology affect them, it also permanently altered the domestic and social roles of antebellum women who lived in the vicinity of Boston. This alteration took shape in two primary ways. First, the popularity and public nature of liberal religious ideals – made more public and accessible through the Unitarian controversy – assisted in a breakdown of traditional family dynamics. The availability of new doctrines (especially ones that emphasized a non- authoritarian view of God and a capacity for holy individuality) gave women an opportunity to choose their beliefs within a more accepting social system than had previously existed in Massachusetts. Also, the existence of both Congregational and Unitarian religious communities lent support to women who found themselves at odds

55 with family over their religious choices. Although post-revolutionary Boston had been dominated by orthodox beliefs and a Congregational system, this system rapidly declined in the early nineteenth century. The result was a religiously fragmented city speckled with communities that supported a variety of ideologies. The religious support systems that existed outside of the family were factors in the growing autonomy among women. Additionally, as women gained more extra-family choices and supports, fathers and husbands witnessed a minor deflation in authority. This, in turn, altered the family structure of antebellum Boston and allowed women more self-determination than had previously existed. The second way in which the Unitarian controversy altered the domestic and social roles of antebellum women in Boston was in the direct establishment of more social opportunities. With the growing belief that women were specially fitted for religious virtue, it became natural for women to assume the role of guardians both in their family and in society. This, along with a growth in leisure opportunities for the middle class, led to a more common acceptance of women as leaders of benevolence societies. Primarily, spiritual reform and educational reform joined the ranks of purely benevolent societies. Women were no longer simply filling the task of helping widows and orphans. Rather, they responded to the missions-oriented terms of society that had been dictated by the Unitarian controversy. Spiritual needs began to be a matter of importance among women as they sought to convert souls both domestically and internationally. Thus, societies were created that helped reform prostitutes, alcoholics, and seamen; missionaries left the comforts of home and went to foreign shores; families moved west to help establish communities of faith; and schools were established which would properly educate children in the correct forms of faith. Though they utilized the rhetoric of domesticity to enlarge their social boundaries, these new areas of need allowed women to enlarge their definition of the domestic sphere and further join the ranks of society. Antebellum women who responded to the needs created by the Unitarian controversy became administrators, teachers, fundraisers, public speakers, missionaries, writers, and publishers. These new opportunities made it so that women were able to live independently and avoid poverty while remaining unmarried if they so chose. Therefore,

56 the independent authoress, reformer, teacher, tutor, administrator, or lecturer became a more common sight in New England than previous days. Finally, the Unitarian controversy was encouraged and initiated by broader currents of American thought and culture. The changes that were transforming American society were the impetus for the growth of Unitarianism in Boston. The Unitarian controversy highlighted the fact that Americans were in the process of redefining their beliefs about every aspect of their lives – down to the fundamental creeds of religion. Thus, the redefinition of religious orthodoxy was both welcomed and encouraged. Also, the emphases upon early republican opportunity, mobility, and zeal so aptly described by Joyce Appleby were not relegated to primarily secular avenues. Rather, they invaded the religious realm as well. The result was a greater democratization of society and religion. These accepted currents of change in America led to a direct challenge of the religious establishment of Boston by Unitarians. Ultimately, the result was a permanent change in the religious, familial, and social landscape of antebellum Boston.

57 BIBLIOGRAPHY

“A Lay Sermon: Respect Due to Husbands.” Weekly Visitor and Ladies’ Museum (1817- 1823), 27 December 1817, 136.

Appleby, Joyce. Inheriting the Revolution. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2000.

Atkins, Glenn Gaius and Frederick L. Fagley. History of American Congregationalism. Boston: The Pilgrim Press, 1942.

Beecher, Catharine. “An Address on Female Suffrage (1870).” In Pioneers of Women’s Education in the United States, ed. Willystine Goodsell, 165-87. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1931.

______. “An Essay on the Education of Female Teachers (1835).” In Pioneers of Women’s Education in the United States, ed. Willystine Goodsell, 165-87. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1931.

______. “Female Influence.” The Bouquet: Flowers of Polite Literature (1831-1833), 6 October 1832, 70.

______. “Suggestions Respecting Improvements in Education Presented to the Trustees of the Hartford Female Seminary and Published at their Request (1829).” In Pioneers of Women’s Education in the United States, ed. Willystine Goodsell. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1931.

Beecher, Catharine and Harriet Beecher Stowe. The American Woman’s Home: or, Principles of Domestic Science; being a Guide to the Formation and Maintenance of Economical, Healthful, Beautiful and Christian Homes. Boston: H.A. Brown and Co., 1869. Via WorldCat.

Beecher, Catharine. “The Christian Family.” In The Educated Woman in America: Selected Writings of Catharine Beecher, Margaret Fuller, and M. Carey Thomas. Barbara M. Cross. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1965.

Boylan, Anne M. The Origins of Women’s Activism: New York and Boston, 1797-1840. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2002.

______. “Women in Groups: An Analysis of Women’s Benevolent Organizations in New York and Boston, 1797-1840.” In History of Women in the United States: Historical Articles on Women’s Lives and Activities: 16. Women Together: Organizational Life, ed. Nancy F. Cott, 41-65. New Providence: K. G. Saur, 1994.

58

Carpenter, R.L. Some Account of Mrs. Henry Ware, Jun. of America: Derived from Dr. Hall’s Memoir. London: The Christian Tract Society, 1853.

Cott, Nancy F. The Bonds of Womanhood: “Woman’s Sphere” in New England, 1780- 1835. New Haven: Yale University, 1977.

Cross, Barbara M. The Educated Woman in America: Selected Writings of Catharine Beecher, Margaret Fuller, and M. Carey Thomas. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1965.

Curry, Richard O. and Lawrence B. Goodheart. “The Trinitarian Indictment of Unitarianism: The Letters of Elizur Wright, Jr., 1826-1827.” Journal of the Early Republic, no. 3 (Autumn, 1983), 281-296.

Dorrien, Gary. The Making of American Liberal Theology: Imagining Progressive Religion, 1805-1900. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.

Ginzerg, Lori D. Women and the Work of Benevolence: Morality, Politics, and Class in the Nineteenth-Century United States. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990.

Goldberg, Michael. “Breaking New Ground: 1800-1848.” In No Small Courage: A History of Women in the United States. ed. Nancy F. Cott, 179-236. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Hall, Edward B. Memoir of Mary L. Ware, Wife of Henry Ware, Jr. Boston: Crosby Nichols & Co., 1853.

Hansen, Debra Gold. Strained Sisterhood: Gender and Class in the Boston Female Anti Slavery Society. Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press, 1993.

Hewitt, Nancy A. “Religion, Reform, and Radicalism in the Antebellum Era.” In A Companion to American Women’s History. ed. Nancy A. Hewitt, 117-131. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 2002.

Howe, Daniel Walker. The Unitarian Conscience: Harvard Moral Philosophy, 1805- 1861. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970.

Johnson, Joseph B. “Heroines of our time: being sketches of the lives of eminent women, with examples of their benevolent works, truthful lives, and noble deeds.” In History of Women, Reel 336, no. 2303. Microfilm, New Haven: Research Publications, 1975.

Kelley, Mary. Learning to Stand & Speak: Women, Education, and Public Life in America’s Republic. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2006.

59 Kelly, Catherine. “Gender and Class Formations in the Antebellum North.” In A Companion to American Women’s History. ed. Nancy A. Hewitt, 100-116. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 2002.

Kerber, Linda K. Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1980.

______. No Constitutional Right to be Ladies: Women and the Obligations of Citzenship. New York: Hill and Wang, 1998.

Kuklick, Bruce, ed. The Unitarian Controversy, 1819-1823, I. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1987.

______. The Unitarian Controversy, 1819-1823, II. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1987.

McLoughlin, William G. New England Dissent, 1630-1883: The Baptists and the Separation of Church and State, II. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971.

“On Neutrality.” Boston Recorder and Religious Telegraph (1826-1830), 26 February 1829, 33.

Peabody, Elizabeth P. Lectures in the Training Schools for Kindergartners. Boston: D. C. Heath & Company, 1902.

______. Record of a School: Exemplifying the General Principles of Spiritual Culture, 2nd ed. with an explanatory preface and other revisions. Boston: Russell, Shattuck & Company, 1836.

Pease, Jane H. and William H Pease. Ladies, Women, & Wenches: Choice & Constraint in Antebellum Charleston & Boston. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1990.

“Religious History.” New York Daily Times, (1851-1857), 19 November 1853, 2.

Ronda, Bruce A., ed. Letters of Elizabeth Palmer Peabody: American Renaissance Woman. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1984.

______. Elizabeth Palmer Peabody: A Reformer on Her Own Terms. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999.

Scott, Donald. The Unitarian Conscience: Harvard Moral Philosophy, 1805-1861. Church History 41 (September 1972): 414-416.

60 Sheils, Richard D., “The Feminization of American Congregationalism, 1730-1835.” In History of Women in the United States: Historical Articles on Women’s Lives and Activities: 13. Religion, ed. Nancy F. Cott, 3-19. New Providence: K. G. Saur, 1993.

Sklar, Kathryn Kish. Catherine Beecher: A Study in American Domesticity. New Haven: Yale University, 1973.

The International Kindergarten Union, Committee of Nineteen. Pioneers of the Kindergarten in America. New York: The Century Co., 1924.

The Monthly Anthology, and Boston Review Containing Sketches and Reports of Philosophy, Religion, History, Arts and Manners, (1803-1811), May 1807, 253.

“The Woman Question.” The Western Messenger Devoted to Religion, Life, and Literature (1835-1841), November 1838, 16.

“Woman.” The Religious Intelligencer…Containing the Principal Transactions of the Various Bible and Missionary Societies, With Particular Accounts of Revivals of Religion (1816-1837), 15 March 1828, 663.

“Woman’s Sphere.” American Ladies’ Magazine; Containing Original Tales, Essays, Literary & Historical Sketches, Poetry, Criticism, Music, and a Great Variety of Matter Connected with Many Subjects of Importance and Interest (1834-1836), May 1835, 262.

Wallace, James M. “The Feminization of Teaching in Massachusetts: A Reconsideration.” In Women of the Commonwealth: Work, Family, and Social Change in Nineteenth-Century Massachusetts, ed. Susan L. Porter, 43-61. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1996.

Welter, Barbara. “The Cult of True Womanhood: 1820-1860.” In History of Women in the United States: Historical Articles on Women’s Lives and Activities: 4. Domestic Ideology and Domestic Work, ed. Nancy F. Cott, 48-71. Munich: K. G. Saur, 1992.

Woloch, Nancy. Early American Women: A Documentary History, 1600-1900. New York: The Mcgraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1997.

Wright, Conrad. The Beginnings of Unitarianism in America. Boston: Starr King Press, 1955.

Youngs, J. Williams T. The Congregationalists. New York: Greenwood Press, 1990.

Zagarri, Rosemarie. “The Rights of Man and Woman in Post-Revolutionary America.” The William and Mary Quarterly, April 1998, 203-230.

61 Zboray, Mary Saracino and Ronald J. “Political News and Female Readership in Antebellum Boston and its Region.” Journalism History, Spring 1996, 2 (13).

62 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Kimberly Hornback was raised in Tallahassee, Florida. She attended Florida State University where she received both her BA in History and her MA in American History. Professionally, Kimberly has worked as both a teacher and a private tutor in Tallahassee. She has an avid interest in teaching and writing – especially in the areas of Religion, History, and Literature. Kimberly currently resides in Tallahassee with her wonderful husband and she intends to continue her studies.

63