Abstract

Amanda Ewoldt
Dr. Logan
LIT 6009
22 February 2009
Cohen, Daniel A. “The Respectability of Rebecca Reed: Genteel Womanhood and Sectarian
Conflict in Antebellum America.” Journal of the Early Republic, Vol. 16, No. 3 (Autumn, 1996), pp. 419-461. http://www.jstor.org/.

The Respectability of Rebecca Reed: Genteel Womanhood and Sectarian
Conflict in Antebellum America

In this essay, Daniel Cohen investigates Rebecca Reed’s involvement with the burning of the Ursuline Convent of Mt. Benedict. He defines the antebellum ideals of “respectability” and “gentility,” and applies them to the history and character of Reed, in an attempt to uncover the truth of the narrative Six Months in a Convent. Respectability denotes “laudable moral or religious character and conduct,” whereas gentility denotes a person’s manners and style of living—especially that of dress (424).

Reed met heavily with public criticism with her narrative, and any validity that she might have had was dismissed by historians. One of the reasons for this was that her credibility was hurt with the subsequent publication of the Maria Monk’s similar narrative, Awful Disclosures. Monk’s tale was later debunked (421). In the controversy that followed the destruction of the Convent, Reed’s respectability and pretentions to gentility came under fire, especially as she defended herself publicly—something that a True Woman would be loathe to do (425). Cohen refrains from making any judgments until all the facts of the “case” were discussed, but holds that the unorthodox Rebecca Reed was a cagey opportunist who used her networking skills to further her education and improve her station in life.

Cohen examines the biographical details given in Six Months in a Convent against the documented facts of census returns, probate records, city directories, and unpublished Catholic records and correspondence, as well as published articles (421). By using this information, he is able to look at both accounts of the story, pinpoint the commonalities, and frame the issue in the bigger social issues of female respectability and decorum.

A brief synopsis is as follows: according to Reed, she was welcome to the Ursuline establishment and visited the Superior often. The Catholics of the community, the Superior of the Convent, and the Bishop, courted her earnestly against the wishes of Reed’s Protestant family (433-36). After her admission to the Order, she began to resent the asceticism of convent life. Believing that there were plans to kidnap her and take her to a convent in Canada, she escaped and sought refuge with a Protestant family. The Superior of the Ursuline took a different view of the situation, as she had reservations of the suitability of Reed for the convent. The girl was disadvantaged, shiftless, and relentless (437-40). By the time that Reed effected her escape, they had already decided to throw her out. In addition to these opposing viewpoints, Cohen lays out the ensuing public controversy that both Reed, the Superior, and their respective followers engaged in.

The essay is remarkably eye-opening. First person narratives are notoriously untrustworthy, especially if the prefatory matter asserts the truth and virtue of the author. In Cohen’s essay, the real Rebecca Theresa Reed was revealed—not as the poor victim as her narrative assumes nor as the villainess the public labeled her—but as a bright young woman in a disadvantaged position. She had few prospects but a strong enough presence of mind and few scruples when it came to playing the Protestants and Catholics off against each other. Cohen’s essay would be useful in other projects having to do with women in the nineteenth century, the meaning of True Womanhood, and the tricky ways that women had to use when walking the delicate line of propriety. It would also be useful in research having to do with the history of American sectarian rivalries between Catholicism and Protestantism.

Food for Thought:

This essay was an absolute gold mine. Not only did it explain the situations plainly, but it gave me a hefty wish-list of reading material. I had been unaware that the Superior had written an Answer to SMIC. Now that I know, it would be prudent for me to see if I could track it down. That way I would have two sets of evidences in front of me so I could compare and contrast for myself. It appears that Cohen may also have written a book on the topic. I want to track that down as well.

I love footnotes; they’re awesomely helpful if you pay attention to them.

I liked Cohen’s style of writing. When I’m properly engaged and able to use my brain, my style closely resembles his. He gathers the information and lays it out in a clear manner that the reader can follow with ease. It makes for a more interesting “dialogue” between writer and reader—the reader can follow along with the writer and is able to make leaps of logic and connections at the same time. He also seems to be rather noncommittal—he lays out the facts as they are, points out the inconsistencies, asks questions, and then proceeds to answer them with more information. The reader is mainly left to make up their own mind, rather than having any one particular view shoved at them. It’s an unusual tactic in a field which is so adamant about making an argument and then backing it up. He did the opposite. He gave the evidence, and then made a reasonable claim. I like that. It’s less intimidating.