America's First Examples of Progressive Women Fighting Patriarchy & Racial Barriers

In Colonial and post-colonial times in America, marriage was a sure way of securing a well fitted social and economic class rather than freely loving someone and having the option to choose who to marry. Although the rhetoric of affectionate marriage in the early national period presents marriage as a matter of individual choice rooted in emotion, the two novels I analyze force the reader to recognize that marriage is, in the 18th century seduction novel Coquette, primarily a means of economic and social mobility, and in the 19th century historical romance Hobomok, a mechanism of settler-colonialism and racial preservation. These time periods birthed a new type of woman in society that pushes back against being drawn in and trapped by the archaic traditions of marriage that society has set in place for women. Two texts from this time period that exemplify and use the idea of marriage as a means of economic and social mobility is the Coquette by Hannah Webster Foster and Lydia Maria Child’s Hobomok. While each story portrays marriage in their own way, both women protagonists refuse, and fight their societies view of who they should marry. In the Coquette Eliza tries to assert free will but comes to see how her choices have repercussion and her free willed spirit becomes her downfall. As for Mary Conant the American rebel, in Hobomok her situation becomes a bit more complex with racial issues closely intertwined with marital issues. Mary goes against her empirical Puritan society traditions of marriage by marrying Hobomok an Indian before turning around and ending up marrying into a European middle-class family to Mr. Brown. Eliza and Mary are seen juggling relationships between two men and this love triangle dynamic gives a good insight on the complications and the stress of societies constraints on marriage and relationships. The Coquette shows us that marriage remains a primarily economic arrangement, despite the period's rhetoric of affectionate marriage. Hobomok shows us that marriage in the 19th century as a domestic frontier novel is primarily an arrangement meant to preserve racial purity in society over their faith.

Printed in the 1790’s the Coquette was wildly popular and was based on the unfortunate history of Elizabeth Whitman. Elizabeth Whitman was an educated daughter of her dead father who was a clergyman from a well-off middle-class family in New England who was a popular member of large social circles in Hartford and New Haven Connecticut. Whitman was at the time engaged to a clergyman who died in 1775, and later broke off an engagement with another well-respected man in the community. In 1788, she took off from her family which is when she gave birth to a child whose father was unknown, and died of awful fever, alone and among no one she knew or loved. The historical significance this story gives us as readers of Websters Coquette is how it was dangerous and lonely for women to test their rights and explore their desires thus creating a fear for female liberty in this time period. This fear and resistance to conform is portrayed through Eliza Wharton in the novel and she becomes emotionally and mentally consumed by the pressure put on her by the people she thought of as friends and family. This in the end finally consumes Eliza physically as she dies a tragic death much like the death of Elizabeth Whitman.

Eliza Wharton of Hannah Websters Coquette is resistant to the oppressive ideals of womanhood in the post-revolutionary America and the patriarchal society it had cultivated and had no desire to follow these traditions. Eliza values her acquaintances and friendships and believes marriage is the reason why many people lose their close friends and withdraw into unhappiness and describes it as such when speaking with Mrs. Richman. “Marriage is the tomb of friendship” (Webster XII). Using a word like “Tomb” Eliza directly compares marriage to death and to the death of her friendships and gives a strong indication on where she stands on getting married. Just before this remark Mrs. Richman says her friends, “would be happy to see you united to a man of Mr. Boyer’s worth” (Webster XII), using his social standing and economic status into swaying Eliza to marry him builds the pressure for Eliza to pursue marriage. Mrs. Richman is a prime example of an outside influence that forces the old traditions or rules of an arranged marriage or federalist marriage for Eliza to acquire social and economic mobility rather than true love.

Continuing the point above, Ivy Schweitzer in her article “Resurrecting Friendship from the Tomb of Marriage” indicates that women such as Mrs. Richman and Eliza’s other friends who play this outside roll or influence are linked to the systematic patriarchy that society, specifically men have set for them. For example, “Foster's female circle is not the nurturing sororal world described in Carroll Smith-Rosenberg's classic essay on women's friendships of the period but is fully "penetrated" by the intolerant patriarchal values of the elite Federalist culture it ventriloquizes” (Schweitzer 6). In other words, her “friends” she holds near and dear are exactly what she ideologically wants to avoid in life, and she slowly builds up pressure from the outside that makes her act hastily without thinking of the self-destructive behavior she was participating in. She continues this point by explaining how the contradictions of Eliza’s female friends carry the same repressive patriarchal mindset that she feels she is running from when she thinks of herself as a wife to any man as it was synonymous to death in her eyes. Schweitzer in support of this point notes that many critics who study the Coquette argue that “the female community, before and after Eliza's death, is not only ambivalent about her discordant desires, but downright murderous” (Schweitzer 6). Eliza, while she considers these people around her as “friends”, not only do their ideologies not align but they bring to life the same repressive principle as Major Sanford “who causes the heroine's "fall," and produce "sadistic" impulses symbolically linked to his demonic machinations” (Schweitzer 6). In other words, Elizas friends whether or not they do it with ill intent or not, play the same toxic influential role as Major Sanford does in driving Eliza from her own desires to follow a course, she was not yet ready to take or did not desire to follow that ultimately leads to her untimely death.

Eliza’s response to Mrs. Richman gives affirmation to her idealism that marriage is the death of her friendships and acquaintances she holds dearly and wishes to hold onto rather than move on from. Eliza demonstrates this early on in the novel, “I hope, said I, that my friends are not so weary of my company, as to wish to dispose of me. I am too happy in the present connections to quit them for new ones” (Webster XII). Using the word dispose gives another indication of a death of her friendships and her as well as she sees marriage as absolute isolation from all of your true pleasures and does not wish to give these up. Finding a husband was more of a concern for those around her and close to her. Even the people she enjoyed spending the most time with and talking to were pushing the idea of getting married to Mr. Boyer. Lauren Davis in her article “Entangling Alliances: “The Coquette” and Allegories of Independence in Transatlantic Context” supports how Eliza is fighting off her friends as much she is fighting the men trying to marry her. “In this context, Eliza’s constant exhortations to her friends to let her “enjoy her freedom” suggest that their expectations of submission disrupt her pleasure as much as Boyer’s attentions themselves” (Davis). Davis continues to explain how this point makes the novel focused more on Eliza’s desire for control over her life than independence from men. This is important to note because as Eliza approaches the end of the novel her mindset becomes clearer that it is not a matter of if she will marry, its matter of who and when she will marry. According to Davis Eliza’s need for control seems to overshadow the theme of independence for women in the Coquette.

While Eliza finds Mr. Boyer agreeable yet boring in the same sense, she knows he is not the worst prospect for a husband and her friends all push her to marry him. Eliza makes it clear outright in the beginning of the story that she has no interest in marrying Mr. Boyer and compromising her life or friends in any way. It is important to note that Eliza is seemingly leading Mr. Boyer on throughout the story as she is led on by Major Sanford. These instances are the evidence of Eliza being a flawed protagonist. It seems she would like to have her cake and eat it to all-in-one bite as she teases one man and indulges in the other. It is ironic how she is so selfish and rightly so but in the sense that she is so unwilling to marry and compromise her happiness for anyone in her life, yet she describes marriage as a “selfish state” (Webster XII). This irony feels intended to show how overtly against marriage she is and her unwillingness to settle and give up anything that gives her true happiness especially her social sphere she has cultivated. Eliza would much rather prolong her real emotional attachments to people she loves rather than to make a contractual agreement to a man in order to support her livelihood. Ivy Schweitzer in her article “Resurrecting Friendship from the Tomb of Marriage” argues Eliza’s equalitarian values of friendship offers a discourse to the traditional federalist marriage. Schweitzer describes Eliza in relation to this discourse as “ultimately not sustained, socially or psychologically, by this alternative, she insistently appeals to friendship as the principal moral and egalitarian relation of a public social sphere” (Schweitzer 6). Eliza’s friendships allowed her to cross into a larger social sphere which she thrived on and used as a mode of affiliation across differences in societies social ranks. Schweitzer described this as a trope of democratic possibility in early American society, meaning Eliza was a symbol or pioneer for democracy in her way of living freely between social spheres.

Eliza begins her fight against marriage strong, but eventually society starts to eat away at her confidence, and she begins to feel the pressure to choose between the two men she had been “Coquettish” with throughout the novel Mr. Boyer and Major Sanford. Eliza’s dilemma falls with her moral values as she is a flawed protagonist and waits until it is too late to choose between her suitors. Eliza’s indecision between these two men demonstrates her battle with emotion and reason “In regard to these men, my fancy and my judgment are in scales. Sometimes one preponderates, sometimes the other. Which will finally outweigh, time alone can reveal” (Webster XXVI). Eliza does not want to marry but if she does, she wants to elevate her lifestyle and social class and not stay stagnant where she measures in society as she sits. As mentioned, before she knows Mr. Boyer is a fine suitor in plain sight but she is naturally attracted to the handsome, wealthy, and charming Major Sanford. Readers can sympathize with her desire to wait to marry and choose when she is ready but in the same sense are frustrated with Eliza’s desire of a man who is described as a womanizer. Eliza, while she fights for her right of free will with no obligation to anyone, she still dreams of living a lifestyle above her current means. The desire for materialistic things is what blurs her vision of what would make her truly happy in life rather than the things Sanford could provide for her.

As mentioned above, Sanford pursues Eliza for his sexual desire and would much rather marry someone in the same social class or higher in order to further his own. This point is supported in the article “Libertine America” by Leonard Tennenhouse. “Although he has taken a fancy to Eliza, he is “much courted and caressed” by Mr. Lawrence, “a man of large property,” who, Sanford reports, “intends to shackle me in the bonds of matrimony” (131)” (Tennenhouse 13). Tennenhouse continues to further explain that the women are completely detached from the conversation when talking about matrimony and it reinforces how marriage is thought of simply as a means of social and economic mobility rather than an emotional bonding. This reaffirms how marriage is strictly set up as a specific form of elite breeding among the rich and middle classes to move up in society rather than to find love in life. Eliza is just as guilty of this mindset as Major Sanford and it subsequently becomes both of their downfalls in life by losing sight of their emotional needs.

Eliza was quoted wanting a life of luxury in a marriage to further her status, she also holds no control in making that choice. Men held all the cards in society and Lauren Davis breaks this down further by explaining that Eliza is used to “explore the possibilities available to women who wish to be as independent as the nations for which they are so often symbolically deployed but ultimately concludes that the independent nation cannot be accurately represented in the body of a woman until the material conditions of women’s lives have changed” (Davis 1). To expand on Davis’s point Eliza may try to live life free with no one swaying her choices she makes but eventually becomes mentally and emotionally backed into a corner. It is not possible for a woman to control her own life until women as a whole move into a mindset like Eliza’s and push back against patriarchal rules set for them. This helps create the symbol or representation that she is a democratic woman in this archaic time period that puts down women for exploring their rights and freedom of choice. Eliza falls to this societal backlash and while it is not entirely her fault the novel does not let the reader forget that Eliza made the choices that got her where she is.

It is self-destructive for Eliza to be attracted to Major Sanford who does not have her best interest at heart until she is dead and gone at the end of the novel and Major Sanford sees what his destructive behavior did to her life. This happens because she is blinded by his ability to provide for her, and he consequently winds up being her defining moment by having a child out of wedlock with Sandford. This resulted in Eliza being an outcast and dying in social shame after losing hope of being with Mr. Boyer. Tennenhouse explains how the societal forces impact relationships and the fault may not be on one specific person but rather the outside forces of society, “stories condemn neither the seducer nor the woman seduced so much as the underlying cause of seduction, which it attributes to the disparity between desire and economic necessity” (Tennenhouse 13). This explains how it is neither parties’ fault as it is society that cultivates economic and social class systems that condemn certain relationships from occurring and creep into the minds of people and this reflects in their choices. In other words, if Eliza and Major Sanford did not feel like they had to worry about their economic and social classes they might be different people. To clarify, Eliza and Major Sanford may be more open to loving someone for marriage rather than marrying for economic mobility and social acceptance if they were not such an important factor to society. As readers we get to see the other side of these characters, briefly in the end of the story as Eliza dies in depression and shamed by society and Major Sandford feels guilt and grief for taking part in the destruction of Eliza’s and his own life.

This theme translates into Mary Conant’s life in Lydia Maria Child’s story Hobomok but takes an interesting twist as Mary’s Puritan society holds a different set of constrictions for marriage. As a Puritan, Mary is forbidden to marry outside of the church and her religion and neither of her lovers throughout the novel, Hobomok and Charles Brown follow Puritan rule. Similar to Mrs. Richman in the Coquette, Mary’s father is a good example of someone who puts the pressures of her strict Puritan beliefs over her head to keep her a pure woman of the church and to preserve her honor in society. The first instance this occurs is when Mr. Conant is talking about Charles Brown in front of Mary and slanders the religion and beliefs of Mr. Brown and consequently drives her into her rogue ways of leaving their settlement. "but the two men who like Nabab and Abihu have offered strange incense to the Lord, which he commanded them not? Verily, in due time he will send forth his fire and destroy them from the face of the earth” (Child 9). Referring to Mr. Browns Episcopalian religion and making it clear as day to Mary that she could never be with him happily and free of conflicting feelings of shame from her family. This moment gives Mary the hopelessness feeling that brings her to the forest to perform her love ritual in order to find the right husband and true love for her which is where the love triangle dynamic is first introduced. Even though Hobomok evokes fear from Mary initially it is the first time Mr. Brown, Mary, and Hobomok are all acquainted with each other and it happens during Mary’s ritual to attract a husband.

In Ezra Tawil’s article “Domestic Frontier Romance, or, How the Sentimental Heroine Became White” he supports the idea that Mary performs this ritual from hearing her father scold the religion and beliefs of her hearts holder Mr. Brown. “the primary force that has propelled her there: her father's interdiction. Though there is a perfectly suitable mate for Mary in Charles Brown, Mr. Conant forbids the union on the grounds that Brown is an Episcopalian” (Tawil 12). While Mr. Brown is a respectable young man, the empirical ways of Mary’s father’s Puritan religion, she is still forbidden from marrying him. Tawil explains how this is the force that propelled Mary into performing the love ritual in the first place. Tawil claims the blame lays somewhat on her father for Mary’s insubordination later on in the novel when she later starts a life with Hobomok. After Mr. Brown was expelled from the settlement and rumors of his death spread Mary truly lost control of her emotions, and out of anger and grief she gave herself to Hobomok and thus following the fate of her own ritual she started in the beginning of the novel. “Her eye first rested upon Endicott’s Hollow, where, as she supposed, it had been first revealed to her that Hobomok was to be her husband” (Child 94). In the moments leading to Mary’s departure with Hobomok her spiritual talk to Mr. Browns dead soul shows her reluctance to go with Hobomok but recognizes her fate from the ritual she began. This motif of the same place the novel took off shows again the complications of the love triangle and the compromise she is making for her happiness and freedom from her strict Puritan family.

Ezra Tawil touches upon this in his article and gives insight to how the foreordained marriage in Puritan society still has a hold on Mary as she applies it to the ritual, she performs in order to justify leaving and marrying Hobomok. “This aphoristic expression of resignation explicitly links the belief in marital fate to the irrelevance of female desire and conjugal love more generally” (Tawil 13). In other words, Mary submits to what she believes is the predetermined course she is supposed to take because of the actions she took and the faith she still holds onto while at the same time trying to break free from its constraints. Tawil also gives examples of two outside forces and how they work to force Marry into Hobomok’s arms unintentionally. “Conant's interdiction removes a potential husband from circulation, Mrs. Oldham's superstitions lead Mary to perform the ritual which conjures his Indian substitute. Together, they see to it that Mary goes native” (Tawil 13). This is an interesting viewpoint of how the love triangle shifts and moves into racial issues and also as stated before how each Mr. Conant and Mrs. Oldham both sway Mary in two different directions. Mr. Conant uses aggression, and the fear of God to push Mary away and make her disinterested in following her Puritan tradition. As for Mrs. Oldham she uses spiritualty such as the ritual to sway her into following what she believes her fate is given to her by God. These two characters are symbols for how the Puritan society has cultivated an empirical stance on marriage and holds it so near and dear to their traditions. In consequence Mary’s pressure eventually drives her to flee and make “irrational” decisions like marrying outside of her race as well as her religion pushing the gap from her parents even more.

To help understand the love ritual that is mentioned above and its purpose better it needs to be broken down a bit. The love ritual is one of the more complicated and loaded metaphorical symbols in this novel that first brings race into the story as the shifting focus on the influence of Marry’s choices. Shirley Samuels in her article “Women, Blood, and Contract” she breaks down and explains the significance of Mary cutting her arm during the ritual and the unknown note she wrote with the red blood on the white cloth that brings the Indian and white races together. When analyzing Mary calling to her husband during the ritual after she has cut her arm and written the note, Samuels notes:

“Elements of this ritual include blood letting, ritualistic writing, and incantation. The incantation accompanies a symbolic series of steps performed "on the margin of the stream." This margin marks a separation between worlds even greater than Mary Conant imagines, since the person who comes to her at this moonlight hour, a person who will indeed later claim a husband's power, is the handsome Indian warrior Hobomok” (Samuels 3).

Samuels is claiming that Mary performing this spiritual ritual, and with Hobomok entering the circle she has created a situation where two far away worlds collide with one another in a society that condemns this mixing of different races and interracial marriages. Samuels is using the red stream of blood on the white cloth to represent these two races coming together eventually later on in the story. The bloody note Marry writes is never seen or read aloud which leaves it to be strictly a symbol for the reader to interpret as her fate to marry Hobomok later on in the novel. The red blood and white cloth work together to show the races coming together as “redskin” was a common derogatory term used to describe a Native American in this time period. Samuels also notes this margin is larger than Mary could ever imagine which is seen through her haste actions throughout the novel without thinking of the repercussions of her actions. The love ritual sets the theme for racial purity in the novel here and it develops throughout as Marry carries out what she believes is her predetermined fate.

This ritual eventually falls into place as Mary and Hobomok marry and have a child together, but Mary faces her largest confliction when Mr. Brown returns to the plot. Samuels further explains that the contract of blood is a symbol for the death or vanishing of Hobomok in the novel once Mr. Brown returns. “the blood that is proffered to seal a contract about marriage foreshadows interracial marriage proposals, and the probably predictable outcome of such contractual offers is death” (Samuels 6). This claim is saying that the blood in their contract was a warning for interracial marriage in the novel and that the outcomes result in death. Reading into this a bit further we see all Native American presence vanish by the end of novel. Hobomok reluctantly leaves his wife so she can marry her white true love and her child with Hobomok is forced to reassimilate into white culture. This coincides with Samuels claim that this ritual was essentially a warning for the interracial marriage between Marry and Hobomok and the destruction of one or the other would occur, in this case its Hobomok.

Once the word of Mary and Hobomok’s marriage breaks within the town and Mr. Skelton reluctantly informs Mr. Conant of the news and he is beside himself. It is here we see the novels plot turn more towards racial purity as a more prominent theme. Mr. Conant was so disturbed by the news he says, “I find I could more readily have covered her sweet face with the clods, than bear this; but the Lord’s will be done" (Child 70). In other words, Mr. Conant would have rather she died and to bury her than her be married to a Native American. This shows how much more race was an issue to society as they set up telling Mr. Conant in an intervention type setting where they sit him down and break some bad news to him. Harry Brown in his article “The Horrid Alternative”: Miscegenation and madness in the frontier romance” mentions Jared Sparks in his article the “North American Review” and argues his point to support how society views interracial marriage and a birth of a mixed-race baby in Hobomok as a negative, rather than an indication towards a new social view of races coming together. “while Hobomok and Mary Conant's marriage and offspring seem to signal new social possibilities, Sparks's review overlooks this element of the novel in order to reinforce the reigning cultural view that the Indian and European races must remain separate” (Bown). The child of Mary Conant and Hobomok is ultimately the symbol that dispels any new social possibilities as he is born and raised under Indian customs then forced to fully assimilate into a white American culture. This is also seen as way to whitewash any remanence of Indian background from Little Hobomok’s life.

Continuing the point above Brown goes further to support the idea that racial separation was the over arching theme of the novel Hobomok. “"Little Hobomok," who in his childhood is a "fearless young Indian" (148), is eventually transformed into Charles Conant,” (Brown). The transformation of Little Hobomok like the changing of his name so no one would address him by Hobomok is important to note as the middle name is often never required for signatures or when asked their identification so the name Hobomok would cease to exist. Brown continues by describing Little Hobomok further as, “a "distinguished graduate at Cambridge" who passes as a full-blooded white (150). Although Child's vision of national emergence is bloodless compared to Cooper's, the implication is the same: the Indian must vanish” (Brown). To Browns point the novel makes it clear that the Indian presence must vanish as they change Little Hobomok’s name and push him toward a very average life for a young white boy. Sending him to a prestigious white college, dressing him in the white societies fashion and changing his name they successfully erase the Native American presence in the novel and very openly as well. This further supports how Child’s novel moves more away from new social possibilities and more toward racial purity.

Mary’s suffrage does not come without reward as Mr. Browns death was mistaken and his return to revive lost love with Mary was her dream come true. When Mr. Brown returns, the love triangle comes full circle as all three participants are once again all together to dispute final marriage decisions. Reluctantly Hobomok “gives” Mary back to Mr. Brown as he knows her heart is true to Mr. Brown and not himself. While Mary and Mr. Brown marry in the end back at their settlement this novel relinquishes its rejection of the binding of a Puritan and an Episcopalian and moves more into the rejection of an interracial marriage of a white woman and a Native American. This shows marriage and race at the forefront of issues this novel wants the reader to focus on as it challenges two major marital values in Colonial America mentioned by Tawil in her article, “the residual Puritan injunction against marrying in the direction of Catholic Europe, on the one hand, and an emergent injunction against marrying across racial lines, on the other. Mary's return to her community of origin effectively resolves this contest” (Tawil 14). This reinforces that an interracial marriage is a major theme in this novel and how the forces of society can have a great impact on a woman and a marriage altogether. The Coquette portrays marriage to the reader as a simple means of economic and social growth despite the rhetoric of affectionate marriage. Hobomok on the other hand portrays marriage in the 19th century as the transformation from religious purity to racial purity as we see religion take a back seat to race in the novel.

The Coquette by Hannah Webster Foster and Lydia Maria Child’s Hobomok both show marriage in a way that can greatly damage or ruin a woman’s livelihood and happiness. Eliza in the Coquette shows how economic and social class in America controls the dynamic of how relationships are formed in order to acquire mobility in class rather than find true love. Eliza dying an outcast and in social shame when she was once a beloved member of large social spheres shows the ultimate downfall of the democratic woman in America. In Hobomok we see racial impurity as a major confliction in Mary’s life that she cannot escape no matter how hard she tries. Mary’s Child with Hobomok is the ultimate symbol for racial impurity as they turn a young Indian boy and pass him for fully white and force him into a life of white culture thus erasing the Indian presence from the novel. Each of these stories while different, show a similar theme in societal control over marriage whether it be religion, race or money or social status, love was lost.

Works Cited

Brown, Harry. ""the Horrid Alternative": Miscegenation and Madness in the Frontier Romance." Journal of American and Comparative Cultures, vol. 24, no. 3, 2001, pp. 137-151. ProQuest, https://www.libproxy.umassd.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.libproxy.umassd.edu/scholarly-journals/horrid-alternative-miscegenation-madness-frontier/docview/200652036/se-2?accountid=14573.

Child , Lydia Maria. Hobomok . University of North Dakota , 1824.

Davis, Lauren E. "Entangling Alliances: The Coquette and Allegories of Independence in Transatlantic Context." Early American Literature, vol. 50 no. 2, 2015, p. 385-414. Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/eal.2015.0046.

Foster , Hannah Webster. The Coquette . SAMUEL ETHERIDGE, 1797.

Shirley Samuels. “Women, Blood, and Contract.” American Literary History, vol. 20, no. 1/2, Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 57–75, doi:10.1093/alh/ajm049.

Schweitzer, Ivy. “Foster’s Coquette: Resurrecting Friendship from the Tomb of Marriage.” The Arizona Quarterly, vol. 61, no. 2, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005, pp. 1–32, doi:10.1353/arq.2005.0009.

Tawil , Ezra. Domestic Frontier Romance, or, How the Sentimental Heroine Became White. Roland Barthes Mythologies , 1998.

Tennenhouse, Leonard. Libertine America . Duke University Press , 1999.