Posted on by Jean Lee Cole

Truth and reconciliation

This post from Rector Grey Maggiano at the Memorial Episcopal Church website hits close to home.

New deacon Natalie Conway, they recently discovered, was descended from people who had formerly been enslaved by Memorial Episcopal’s founding rector, David Ridgely Howard, whose family owned the Hampton plantation north of where Towson Town Center mall stands today.

This discovery inspired some 50 members of the congregation, including Deacon Conway, to travel together to Hampton plantation last week to learn more about their collective history.

Parishioners of Memorial Episcopal and St. Katherine of Alexandria churches tour the grounds of the Hampton plantation, formerly owned by Memorial rector David Ridgely Howard. Photo courtesy Memorial Episcopal Church, Baltimore.

This history intersects with the WLCB because David Ridgely Howard was the half-brother of Margaretta Sophia Howard Ridgely, the mother of Eliza Ridgely, first secretary of the WLCB. Eliza grew up at Hampton and later lived in the Mt. Vernon neighborhood, just around the block from founding member Hester Dorsey.

A number of other Club members also attended Memorial Episcopal–during a time when the church fervently supported segregation. In fact, Clara Love and Katie Kazmierski spent some hours poring through church records early on in our research, when we were trying to find WLCB club members and where they lived.

As we’ve discovered, the history of the WLCB is intertwined with some ugly, long-hidden (and carefully hidden) truths about Baltimore and racial attitudes in the United States as a whole. The present-day parishioners’ visit to Hampton is a step toward reconciling this past with a more hopeful future. Read Grey’s post here.

Posted on by Jean Lee Cole

Why the WLCB opposed suffrage

Anti-suffrage Quartette, Women's Journal, 1912
This 1912 cartoon from the pro-suffrage Woman’s Journal offers arguments from, left to right, “White Slavers,” “Antis,” “Big Biz,” and “Liquor.” https://ehistory.osu.edu/exhibitions/1912/womens_suffrage/interest

We have been puzzled and disappointed throughout our research on the WLCB by their reluctance to embrace suffrage. Many, in fact, were adamant “antis,” the name given to those opposing the women’s vote. This group happened to coincide with Club leadership, and as a result very little by way of pro-suffrage expression appears in any of the Club documents. Members who worked for the women’s vote did so outside the Club meetings.

How could these women, who sought artistic and professional independence and autonomy, NOT want the right to participate as full citizens?

A key reason, as documented in this op-ed by Goucher history prof Jean Baker appearing in today’s Baltimore Sun, can be encapsulated in a single word: racism. They were willing to sacrifice their own right to vote in order not to extend it to black women.

After the 19th Amendment passed, it was left up to the individual states to ratify and implement it in state law. And in Maryland, Baker writes, “Democratic legislators argued against women moving beyond the domestic sphere into a male public space and also expressed their fears about enfranchising black women.”

It’s mind-boggling to think that women were so committed to white superiority that they were willing to sacrifice their own rights. It’s mind boggling, but true. And it’s worth keeping in mind that people will overwhelmingly opt for self-interest over equality when given the choice.

Amazingly, Maryland did not ratify the amendment until 1941, which was also the year the WLCB officially disbanded. A revealing coincidence, one might say.

Posted on by Ellen Roussel

Early grapplings

I must admit I came into this project with some preconceived notions about the Woman’s Literary Club of Baltimore. After an entire semester taking a class called American Feminist Public Intellectuals, in which we thoroughly grappled with the ideas of authority and identity and how these are influenced by gender, race, education level, and even appearance, I found myself resenting the Woman’s Literary Club. After all, it is a group of primarily (totally??) middle- to upper-class, educated, white women gathering to assert their literary prowess and celebrate their intellectual accomplishments. To me, some of the cluckings of the Club seem rather frivolous when considered against the social and historical background of this time period. Some women, primarily black women, do not have the same advantages during this time period, and I find it difficult not to resent a club that claims to promote the intellectual development amongst women of “similar tastes.” Were there any black women in the Club at this time? Would an educated black woman even be allowed in? What are these “similar tastes” in regards to, and who determines if they are enough to let an individual into the Club? I do realize that I have a rather cynical view of the Club. For me, my personal challenge with this project will be to set aside my own initial views and opinions, and approach the Club with an open mind so as not to belittle their grand-scheme accomplishments. After spending some time with the 1890 minutes written by Eliza Ridgely, the first secretary of the Club, I don’t know that I can say that I have done a complete 180 in terms of this sour taste in my mouth in regards to the Club. However, I will say that it is a pretty grand and significant thing to be able to interact with these women in this medium. I look forward to continuing to peer through this window in history as the Club takes its form in the early years of its development.