1   Evaluation of Sources

This investigation will evaluate the extent to which the Separate Spheres Doctrine limited womens’ freedoms in early to mid-1800’s America; it intends to answer the subsequent question: “How did the Separate Spheres Doctrine affect womens’ freedoms in mid-19th century America?” This question has been discussed significantly since its inception by both European and US historians; some believe that women were liberated by their inherent sector, while other historians claim that they were confined to a lifetime of servitude, devoid of their fundamental personal and political liberties.

One of the main sources used is a book credited to Harriet Taylor Mill, “Enfranchisement of Women;” published during the onset of widespread discussion of womens’ rights in 1852 by her husband John Stuart Mill, the book underscores the hypocrisy of having “proper spheres” following the Jacksonian Era--a period of reform in the US extending equal voting rights to all white men. The origin of the source is valuable to this investigation because it provides a woman’s perspective of her condition; thus, a historian studying womens’ freedoms from this time period can learn of the precise restrictions placed in context of her endeavors, but because Mill is from England, her experiences may be less relevant to this discussion than the contrary. Nonetheless, the content is valuable because it describes numerous instances of the restrictions of the women’s sphere. Additionally, the source’s purpose is valuable because it was written to argue against the disenfranchisement of women, and the hopeful circumstances which they cannot already attain due to the nature of their “proper” sphere; hence, a historian can learn of the implicit restrictions posed by the female sector. But, because Mills’s purpose is to advocate for employment equality, her highly radical views might not be reflective of the true condition of women; rather, it is possible that this was merely a method for her to initiate further discussion on the subject matter--likely done to ensue a greater course of action.

Another critical source to this investigation is derived from a book written by the French political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville, titled “Democracy in America, Volume 2;” relevant chapters include Section 3, Chapters IX “Education of Young Women in the United States”, X “The Young Woman in the Character of a Wife,” and XII “How the Americans understand the Equality of the Sexes,” which delve into the state of women in early 19th century America from a European Perspective. The discourse is renowned for its comprehensive insight into a variety of facets of the social-political condition of early American society; thus, it is commonly cited by historians. Its origin is critical to this investigation because it was written by a French historian and political scientist, in other words; thus, a historian studying the womens’ sphere can gather well-informed, first-hand insight of the limitations posed by the womens’ sector; however, because the author’s observations were described from a male perspective, there are fundamental limitations in understanding the full extent of the conditions a woman would describe—fortunately the second source compensates for this. The content is valuable because it entails unequivocal observation of womens’ condition, although he delves into it only briefly as a part of a larger discourse. Because the purpose is to illustrate the religious-political atmosphere of America, a historian studying the womens’ position in American society can learn of the rationale surrounding disenfranchisement on the basis of her sphere; however, because Tocqueville’s purpose revolves around exhibiting findings that corroborate his admiration for American democratic societies, attestation to the womens’ sphere are presented almost entirely to demonstrate their beneficiality to society. Ergo, there remains the possibility that contradicting observations valuable to this particular investigation were left unsaid. 

2 Investigation

Following the Industrial Revolution, the separate spheres was a fundamental principle to both American and European societies, but how did it affect womens’ freedoms in early 19th century America? Historically, the idea that women should be of a separate domestic sphere has been around for centuries in the Western world, dating back as far as the ancient Greeks, such as the well-known philosopher Aristotle, who first described the distinction between the duties of woman and man. Debates over the sexes’ proper spheres continued sporadically over the course of history, reemerging in early 19th century America following the Jacksonian Era, which extended personal and political freedoms to any and all white men regardless of status, but not to women. Some of the most insightful discourse include “Democracy in America” by Alexis de Tocqueville, which describes the role of the sexes during the late 1830’s--attested by his collective observations gathered during his nine month trip to the United States from France--and “The Enfranchisement of Women” by John Stuart Mill and Hariet Taylor Mill, published in 1851: an analysis of the inculcation, coercion and forcible oppression of women from a woman's perspective. The thinkers analyzed the doctrine extensively; Tocqueville firmly asserts that the success of America can be attributed to its separation of the two sexes’ spheres, whereas Mill advocates for the opposite: she argues that the womens’ sphere is an outdated doctrine that unfairly designates their freedoms. This investigation will attempt to determine the restrictions of the “proper” sphere principle on womens’ freedoms through the comparison of these infamous works in conjunction with one another. 

The idea of gender equality was something of a foreign concept to the traditionalist American perspective of the 19th century, which saw a rise in the polarization of femininity, dubbed the “Cult of Domesticity.” This philosophy advocated for the separation of the proper spheres—the women focused on the private sector and the men focused on the public sector. Their duties were constrained to these two roles. A woman who wanted to adhere to a non-domestic occupation, such as business or politics, was indisputably barred from doing so, as it was believed that the two sexes were designed to adhere to particular duties. “American woman cannot escape from the quiet circle of domestic employments. Nature has appointed such wide differences between the physical and moral constitution of man and woman; her manifest design was to give a distinct employment to their various faculties, and they hold that improvement does not consist in making beings so dissimilar do pretty nearly the same things, but in getting each of them to fulfill their respective tasks in the best possible manner. Thus by attempting to make one sex equal to the other, both are degraded; and from so preposterous a medley of the works of nature nothing could ever result but weak men and disorderly women.” It is apparent, according to Tocqueville, that disobeying this delicate balance would result in nothing but  disorder; thus, it is justifiable to separate the two sexes in their delegations entirely. This was acknowledged by Mills: “Many persons think they have justified the restrictions on women's field of action when they say that the pursuits from which women are excluded are unfeminine; and that the proper sphere of women is not politics or publicity, but private and domestic life.” It's evident Tocqueville and Mills can concur that women do not possess freedom outside of their immediate, domestic sector in the workforce, confined on the basis of maintaining a natural order; this is further corroborated by historian Barbara Welters, “arguments of biological inferiority led to pronouncements that women were incapable of effectively participating in the realms of politics, commerce, or public service. The true man would provide security, while the true woman would take on the obligations of housekeeping, raising good children, and making her family’s home a haven of health, happiness, and virtue, fulfilling her domestic duties for the greater good.”

As previously mentioned by Welters, equality of the sexes was determined on the basis of biological determinism and dichotomy--the division or contrast between two opposing elements--rather than the basis of equality today; this is evident in Tocqueville's argument; “There are people who would make of man and woman beings not only equal but alike, granting to both the same functions, imposing on both the same duties, and giving to both the same rights; they would mix them in all things—their occupations, their pleasures, their business;” But what is this discussion of pleasures, business, and rights that Tocqueville mentions? According to Mills, the “rights” in question are synonymous for voting rights: “We do not imagine that ``men'' in this memorable document (the Declaration of Independence), does not stand for human beings, but for one sex only; that ``life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,'' are ``inalienable rights'' of only one moiety of the human species; and that ``the governed,'' whose consent is affirmed to be the only source of just power, are meant for that half of mankind only, who in relation to the other, have hitherto assumed the character of governors;” so, women were not only restricted in their field of work, but were entirely lacking in voting rights and proper political representation altogether.” This claim can be substantiated by Harriet Martineau, a fellow British suffragist, who claims that the Declaration of Independence is faulty, as it is said to “derive their just powers from the consent of the governed,” while lacking said consent from women altogether; furthermore, she states “the case is so plain I might close it here; but it is interesting to inquire how so obvious a decision has been so evaded as to leave to women no political rights whatever.” It can be reasonably deduced based on the preceding culmination of historical documentation that women did not have the right to political freedom; they could not provide “consent,” or their legal vote to the American government, thus they did not have a say in the lawmaking process by which they had to abide. 

Women exhibited very few instances of marital freedom as well. Evident per Mills account, who stated that women could not exhibit financial or proprietary independence from their husbands; “the joint income of husband and wife would be the same as before; the woman would be raised from the position of a servant to that of partner. How preferable is it that part of the income should be of the woman's earnings, even if the aggregate sum were little increased by it, rather than that she be compelled to stand aside so that men may be the sole earners! Under the laws respecting the property of women, she who contributes to the family cannot be treated in the same manner as one who is a dependent on the man for subsistence,” and as Tocqueville concedes: “It may be said that women learned by the use of her independence to surrender it without a struggle when the time comes for making the sacrifice.” A man and wife were considered one person under the law, that being the husband; thus, a married woman—unmarried women were not under the same restrictions—could not own property, sign legal documents, enter a contract, acquire an education, testify against her husband in court, or keep her own salary if she was to go into a paying, domestic occupation outside of the home.

A thorough analysis of various works attributed to the discourse of womens’ rights during the early 19th century indicate that women possessed severely limited freedoms outside of her inherent sphere. In their works, Mills and Tocqueville repeatedly present parallels that can be used as evidence to support this conclusion, conceding that the separate spheres serve as a buffer to womens’ field of work, women’s suffrage, and independence from their spouses—whether that be for better or for worse from their perspective. 

References

“Women's Suffrage  :  Classroom Materials at the Library of Congress  :  Library of Congress.” The Library of Congress, loc.gov/classroom-materials/womens-suffrage/. 

Davis, Ben. “Some Examples of Personal Freedom.” MVOrganizing, 6 Mar. 2021, mvorganizing.org/what-are-some-examples-of-personal-freedom/#What_are_some_examples_of_personal_freedom. 

Schmidt, Samantha. “Thousands of Women Fought against the Right to Vote. Their Reasons Still Resonate Today.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 9 Aug. 2020, washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/local/history/anti-suffrage-women-vote-19-amendment/. 

“Women's Rights Movements: First Wave.” LibGuides, libguides.msubillings.edu/c.php?g=902154&p=6492383. 

Women's Rights [Ushistory.org]. ushistory.org/Us/26c.asp. 

Bibliography

“The Expansion of Democracy during the Jacksonian Era – America in Class – Resources for History & Literature Teachers from the National Humanities Center.” America in Class, 26 Feb. 2021, americainclass.org/the-expansion-of-democracy-during-the-jacksonian-era/.

“De Tocqueville America.” Constitutional Rights Foundation, crf-usa.org/election-central/de-tocqueville-america.html. 

By:   Bryan Caplan, et al. “How Free Were American Women in the Gilded Age?” Econlib, 5 Apr. 2018, econlib.org/archives/2010/04/how_free_were_1.html. 

Miranda. “Harriet Taylor-Mill and the Enfranchisement of Women.” Miranda Yardley, 23 May 2019, mirandayardley.com/en/harriet-taylor-mill-and-the-enfranchisement-of-women/#:~:text=The%20radical%20'The%20Enfranchisement%20of,course%2C%20their%20own%20reproductive%20function. 

“The Cult of Domesticity – America in Class – Resources for History & Literature Teachers from the National Humanities Center.” America in Class, 26 Feb. 2021, americainclass.org/the-cult-of-domesticity/. 

Martineau, Harriet. “‘Political Non-Existence of Women,’ Society in America: Volume 1, 1837 .” Free Ebooks, Project Gutenberg's Society in America, 22 July 2016, gutenberg.org/cache/epub/52621/pg52621.txt. 

EOW , John Stuart Mill & Harriet Taylor Mill, the Enfranchisement of Women., laits.utexas.edu/poltheory/jsmill/diss-disc/eow.html. 

Tocqueville, Alexis de, and Henry Reeve. “Democracy in America.” Democracy in America, Part II., Gutenburg, 2006, gutenberg.org/files/816/816-h/816-h.htm. 

Lewis, Jone Johnson. "Separate Spheres Ideology." ThoughtCo, Jan. 6, 2021, thoughtco.com/separate-spheres-ideology-3529523.

Kerber, Linda K. “Separate Spheres, Female Worlds, Woman’s Place: The Rhetoric of Women’s History.” Journal of American History (Bloomington, Ind.), vol. 75, no. 1, 1988, p. 9, doi:10.2307/1889653.

Ap.gilderlehrman.org. 2021. The Legal Status of Women, 1776–1830 | AP US History Study Guide from The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. [online] Available at: <ap.gilderlehrman.org/essay/legal-status-women-1776%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%E2%80%9C1830> [Accessed 10 December 2021].

“History - Historic Figures: Harriet Taylor (1807 - 1858).” BBC, BBC, bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/taylor_harriet.shtml.