|The Log of Mystic Seaport: Four Essays|
Decency and Order: Women and Whalemen in the Pacific
Joan Druett, of Hamilton, New Zealand, is a professional writer with a particular interest in Pacific history and culture. Her popular study of whaling wives-Petticoat Whalers-is now in press.
We could see canoes coming loaded with natives both men and women. Just before they reached the ship the women jumped overboard and swam for the ship and the canoes reaching the ship about the same time the men jumped up into the chains and politely assisted them on board by pulling them up the chains by the hair of their heads and then marching them up to us would point at them and say "Tobak". As for modesty that was all left on shore as it was of no marketable value on board of a ship. The men were entirely naked while the women had nothing but a bunch of reeds or rushes fastened around their hips and hanging down halfway to their knees and they were in the market for anybody for a piece of tobacco an inch square which they would hand to their husband (if they had any such institution) or father or whoever it might be who would receive it with evident delight.
While the women were occupied in their traffic the men would be going around amongst the crew with hats and mats and strings of coconuts. . . . 1
So Alfred Peck recalled his visit to Ocean Island in the late 1850s. The reminiscences of such men who went a-whaling and then came home to write about it became an accepted literary genre in the nineteenth century, and it was all a lot of seemingly harmless fun. No whaling tale was worth its salt without a gory mutiny or two, a couple of pugnacious whales, and an assortment of dusky beauties. The women had to be there, and they had to be seductively amenable, as in the jaunty rhymes of the log of the Nantucket ship Dauphin, commanded by Captain Zimri Coffin in 1820, devised by Charles Murphey, the naughty third mate:
And now our decks with girls are filled
Of every sort and kind
And every man picked out a wife
The best that he could find. 2
It was the most unashamed of escapist literature, part of the romantic legend of whaling, and deservedly popular. But how true was it?
Primary source materials, and particularly spun-sugar reading like the rhyming log, have to be studied with some care. In the words of' Sandra Myres, who has so perceptively researched the writings of westering women, "Reminiscences are particularly unreliable, either because the writer forgot the details of the initial experience or because she, or he, chose to delete, add to, or embellish certain events."3
In the nineteenth century strict adherence to truth in so-called factual accounts was not a necessity; actually, mixing fact and fiction was perfectly respectable and expected. In the case of the Dauphin log, which in tone is blatantly frivolous, this would seem particularly applicable. Obviously, the grains of truth need sifting from the mass of sensation. How typical was the womanizing whaleman? And if the prostitution did occur, was it as sordid as described in Peck's account, or as carefree and swashbuckling as young Charles Murphey inferred?
The former seems much more likely. The journal kept by Second Officer Higgins on the 1845 voyage of the ship Ann Alexander provides substantiation. On 29 January 1848 he recorded: "PM fine weather. Byron's Island in sight and about forty or fifty canoes alongside with four or five Natives in each one.... There was some of the Ladies came to be our wives. ... " The next day, "when the decks were washed off there were several canoes came alongside and two Ladies. One of them could satisfy all hands easy enough; at least she did several and wanted more for a head of tobacco a piece."4 A long way indeed from the frivolity of young Charles Murphey with his:"Twas here the girls, including all (To speak it rather dryly) The sailors' amorous wants supplied And think they are hon'red highly.'
While this fits the romantic tradition, one is entitled to wonder what Captain Coffin and Captain Sawtell thought of the fun. When one reads Peck's much more scornful and authentic sounding account, one wonders even more why a presumably house-proud whaling master would allow these goings on on his newly washed decks. Sawtell at least seems to have found it distasteful: he noted later in his own journal, on 28 July 1849, that four men were off duty, "three of them by their own bad conduct in port. 4 years ago they would abhored the thought. (How has the mighty falen)."5
So what were his motives in permitting the sordid transactions of the insatiable lady? It seems a waste of a day of whaling and a day of recruiting. No doubt he was pragmatic enough to reason that some men would desert if they had no sexual outlet, and that others would desert if they were allowed to find sexual partners on shore. It was logical, therefore, that it was better the activity should take place on board of the ship rather than on a tropical island, which was seductively beckoning in itself. Nevertheless, one feels certain that this reprehensible recreation would have been sternly forbidden had Mrs. Sawtell been on board.
There is also no doubt that a great deal of this kind of convenient prostitution did go on, all around the Pacific. Plenty of contemporary and shocked observers went to some trouble to describe it. John Dyes, writing in a letter to Sailors' Magazine, dated 28 November 1840, on board the U.S.S. Vincennes in the Bay of Islands, New Zealand, described, "The ships filled with nativewomen dancing all day Sunday. The American ships are just as bad as English and French," he protested, ". . . and in many cases outstript them in some of their vices afloat in the harbour." John B. Williams of Salem, the second American Consul to the Bay of Islands, substantiated this in even more thunderous terms. "Merciful Heavens!" he wrote in his journal. "When a ship arrives her decks are almost instantly lined with native women-a floating castle of prostitution. How can it be different when the Master and Officers set the example?"6
The missionaries, who were striving to reform the easy-going natives, agreed with him. They had to struggle with European opportunism as well as the natives' own traditionally relaxed attitude toward sex. Dwight Baldwin of Lahaina wrote, in 1846:
A few nights since, after midnight, our police hauled out of the windows of the lodging place of one firm of our merchants eleven (11) young Hawaiian girls who had sold themselves to pollution-slaves to the Devil their own lusts. One of this firm was our late Dep. Consul who came out with Mr. Abell-another proprietor was our present Dep. Consul who came out with Judge Turrill, his bro. in law-a third was a professor of religion, of respectable connections, from N.York. 0 tempora! ! 7
It is understandable, therefore, that some missionaries and some owners expressed approval when some masters began to carry their wives on voyage. As Charles W. Morgan put it, when Captain Prince Ewer took Mrs. Ewer on the 1849 voyage of the Emily Morgan, "This custom is becoming quite common and no disadvantages have been noticed. . . . There is more decency on board when there is a woman." While Morgan himself believed there were disadvantages in sending a woman to sea, he acknowledged that they were far outweighed by the beneficial effects. The Reverend Samuel Damon remarked that taking a wife seemed "a very sensible custom."8
The women themselves seemed to believe it. The very idea of being an arbiter of morals gave a whole romantic aura to the rather uncomfortable prospect of spending several years at sea.
When we are told that one Mrs. Wallis heard that the native women swam naked, it is no surprise to learn that she insisted on shipping along next voyage. To her grim displeasure it was true. At Pleasant Island, she wrote in her journal, "The girls came on board for the vilest of purposes." Those girls were sent packing, "as the sailors were afraid of the captain's woman." 9
There was a parallel sense of righteousness in Mary Hayden Russell's letters written on the English whaler Emily in 1823. Mary visited a Malay village, and the natives sang that the Emily was a good ship, for it "bring good Capt'n, no get drunk good Capt'n." Mary recorded this in her journal-letter Of 29 July with perceptible complacency, but was the credit hers? Would Captain Russell have been paralytically intoxicated if she had not been there? It seems hardly likely.
One of those to question the salutory effect of captain's wifes on crews' morals, in a most unexpected and astounding manner, was the missionary Luther Gulick. Several missionaries had publicly condemned the dissolute habits of the whalemen, and Gulick and his brother Theodore were particularly outspoken. Luther was a member of the Melanesian Mission, and was stationed at Ascension Island (Ponape) in the Caroline Islands from 1852 to 1859.
In August 1857 he published a most inflammatory letter in the Boston Journal of Missions. The New Bedford Whalemen's Shipping List Merchants' Transcript of 5 January 1858 described its contents with affronted passion, declaring the letter "an amazing attack on whaler captains which was strenuously denied by the Honolulu Commercial Advertiser and the New Bedford Whalemen's Shipping List." Luther Gulick had written: "You may not be fully aware that most of the ships which you are sending to this ocean are the most disgusting of moral pesthouses. Not only are the sailors given to every crime, but the captains with nearly all their officers practice in these seas vices similar to those which brought destruction to Sodom and Gomorrah."
Luther and Louisa Gulick, ca. 1870.
The furor that ensued can be vividly imagined. As Gulick himself wrote later, "The letter excited indignation both in America and the Pacific Ocean, and particularly at Honolulu, where a large whaling fleet was soon after congregated.... I was told," he added with indignation, "that a missionary had nothing to do with such matters, and that it was especially amiss to state such things to the American public where the character of the seafaring world was not known." Gulick then proceeded to pen another letter in defense of his stand, and sent it to Samuel Damon's newspaper, The Friend, Honolulu, in November 1858.
Damon did not publish it. He reportedly remarked, "Perhaps the less said on this subject the better." This only served to fuel Luther Gulick's righteous wrath: he proceeded to publish privately a four-page document of potential dynamite. It contained three letters and three lists. 10
The first letter, addressed "To My Personal Friends, And the the Friends of Virtue," was dated Ascension Island, Pacific Ocean, August 1859. In it he described the circumstances of writing the 1857 letter, its effects, and also the reasons for wishing to publish the second letter, the one that Samuel Damon had failed to print.
At Honolulu so great was the pressure that even some religious and missionary men were convinced I had gone too far and wrote me to that effect, the mere fact of which, so far as it was known, had a very disastrous influence among the immoral, though there were many who decidedly approved....
The facts given can only be seriously denied at a distance. I have visited many whalers since the excitement, and none deny the general truthfulness of my statements; those whose vessels were populous with prostitutes could not, others would not.
Soon after the report reached me of the discussions concerning my letter, I wrote an article for the Friend, of Honolulu, which I trusted its worthy editor, the friend of morality and of seamen, would publish. This reached him Nov. 1858, but was not inserted as late at least as the issue of Feb. '59. I cannot consent to its suppression even though it be the published opinion of so honored a personal friend as the Rev. Mr. Damon, that "perhaps the less said on this subject the better."
Gulick then attached the letter he had sent to Damon and that Damon had neglected to publish. It was addressed "To Captains and Owners of Whaleships" and was dated February 1859. It began:
DEAR SIRS: - In a letter addressed to the Christian Owners of Whale Ships, and which there was good reason for fearing would meet the eye of but few of even such owners, I made certain statements that have received unexpected and I hope beneficial publicity nothwithstanding the obloquy brought on myself.
In again writing on the subject I take great pleasure in saying that there have been a few noted exceptions to the general course of immorality practiced in these seas. We have been visited by some Captains and officers whose influence over their crews and the natives has been admirably for right and strict morality, that though even such ships must necessarily bring great evil with them, we hail their approach to our harbors.
In the next paragraph he proceeded to apologize to those who may have been offended when they did not deserve offense. "What was written was not occasioned by acts of insult, slight, unkindness, or even impoliteness, or any thing that could be distorted," he assured them.
Having said thus much, let me now give a fact but one of the many that might be given illustrating the general statements of my first communication. Seventy-four vessels have visited the two harbors of the tribe in which I live, since Sept. '52. Ten only of them have not been the public residences of native females during the whole time of' their stay in port, some of them always finding their homes in the cabin, while others live in the steerage and forecastle, females alone being thus domiciled. The Captain has but to say that he does not wish them, and they do not come near, while he secures just as good supplies, and has as little trouble with his men as others, as is proved by the experience or the ten captains just mentioned ...
Then, with a self-justifying sentence "we regret that these things cannot be told without its seeming to those we expose an act of personal enmity," Luther Gulick announced his motive in publishing this document: to establish his case by listing the vessels that had called at Ponatik Harbor in 1858, 1859, and 1860, and the vessels that had touched at Boston Island, Marshall group, together with their masters' names and the information of whether prostitutes were allowed on board or not. The lists had been provided by Luther's brother Theodore.
My brother gives over his own signature, a detail of facts, for which I am equally responsible. I was not at first prepared to take this step, but the time has it seems to me come, when it is no longer best to conceal the names of those who sin thus publicly, in violation too of their Article, and then deny it. Let not those owners whose vessels' names do not appear on our published list, be certain that their property is not at all involved, for since Sept. 1852, ninety vessels have entered the harbors of this tribe, most of them American whalers, and only thirteen of these have not been public brothels, which gives a fair indication of' the morality of their fleet at large wherever like opportunity offers.
To every friend of humanity I subscribe myself, yours,
LUTHER H. GULICK.
The third letter was a short explanation of the lists, provided by Theodore Gulick, and was headed, "To the Lovers of Truth and Morality." He described the two important harbors of the island, Kiti and Ponatik. "At Kiti alone, where a missionary resides, public prostitution on ships is prohibited. During the last two seasons only about one ship out of four has visited Kiti harbor." Then he explained that in the lists the "word forbidden is placed against all those on which open prostitution was prohibited." For our purpose, it is significant that the lists included a notation when a captain's lady was on board.
"These things are not done in a corner," wrote Theodore Gulick. "When a ship casts anchor in Ponatik, it is soon known from one end of the tribe to the other whether prostitutes are desired on board."
Clearly, Luther Gulick, despite his protestations, was no unbiased reporter. His desire to end prostitution by exposing it makes his account as subject to question as are the reminiscences of the period. We must scrutinize the evidence closely before accepting it.
Any survey that eliminates 25 percent of the sample-the "about one ship out of four" that visited the port of' Kiti-is instantly suspect. One feels persuaded to assume that the masters who chose to anchor at Kiti knew that the harbor did not have girls available and that their choice was deliberate.
There are omitted ditto marks on the Ponatik and Boston Island lists. What did they mean? Did Captain Corsen of the bring Kohola ban girls on his ship at Boston Island (now Ebon) in 1859 and then relent at Ponatik in March 1860? Did the masters of the bark Oscar and ships Montezuma and Marengo allow prostitution at Boston Island? The log of the ship Marengo is singularly unhelpful. On Sunday 15 April 1860 it read:
Continues light breezes Steering WNW 3PM Saw Roatches Island bearing NNW Distance 12 Miles Middle part Calm and rainy Latter part light breezes heading to the WNW Several canoes Came of from the island traded with them for broom stuff &c So ends.
Monday April 16th Commences with light breezes heading WNW Middle and latter part moderate breezes steering NW crew employed in various jobs."11 The next page is cut out. Not a trace of writing remains between the dates of 16 April and 29 April. This may appear to confirm the Gulicks' accusations.
The arrivals at Ponape and Ebon can be checked further in Robert Langdon's index to the Pacific ports that the whalemen visited.12 This valuable index confirms many of the arrivals in the Gulick lists, and, surprisingly, gives a great many more. Were these the vessels that anchored in Kiti in preference to Ponatik? The index does not say, but if these unmentioned vessels numbered ten or less (the 25 percent of the total sample) then it would seem likely that these are the names of the so-called moral vessels. However the number is fourteen. Why did the Gulicks not list them? Because such a large number did not fit their case? 13
Did these vessels all have strict masters? If they did, and their number is added to the seven that the Gulicks admitted were chaste, then the Gulicks' case is well lost. Twenty-one strict masters out of a total of fifty-one (if the ditto marks that are missing are taken as read) makes a very respectable 41 percent. If the ditto marks that were missing implied that the masters were moral, then the ratio is even higher.
There is little doubt that the Gulicks manipulated the facts for their own very obvious reasons. But why did they implicate Mrs. Drew and Mrs. Grinnell among the vessels that allowed prostitution? Why did they not mention Mrs. Roswell Brown aboard the Belle, Mrs. Thomas Russell aboard the Lancaster, and Mrs.Thomas Williams aboard the Florida? They must have known that Eliza Williams, for one, had been on Ponape, for she spent a very, pleasant week as a guest of Reverend Sturges, the missionary, when the Florida called there in December 1859." 14
Certainly, the Gulicks were familiar with the moral rectitude and spiritual backbone that characterized the captains' wives they had hosted on the islands. For example, on 2 April 1855, Betsy Morey of the ship Phoenix of Nantucket had written:
At eleven oclock AM came to anchor in 7 fathoms of water at Ascension Island.... The next day after our arrival here it Raind almost incessantly all day, and the People on Board wer Every Preparation Possible to Smoke the Rats from the Ship which wer gitting verry Numerous, and it was verry essential for me to make a Haste, retreat somewhere, here we was as Strangers in A Strange Land.
fincley our pilot advised me to go to Another Harbour about six miles from here to doctor Gulicks and stop with them he informed that they wer missionaries and I should find them to be verry kind People.
I made up my mind verry Readily to go although it was A Great cross to me leave the Ship where I could not see her However I Got Ready the Boat was Loward and Husband and Mr. Brigs and the Boats Crew Proceeded to the Doctors found his Lady at home she appeared Glad to see us, invited in the Doctor had gone from home on Business he soon Returned he Also appeared verry pleasant and Sociable I stopt here three nights Husband came after me and we took our leave of these Dear Christian People, with A hope that God will Bless them, and they will be the Means threw him of inlighting those Poor Natives and at last they may all be Brought into the Kingdom of Heaven. 15
It is difficult to understand how men who had met women of Betsy's ingenuous spirit could be sufficiently ungallant to include the names of two of Betsy's whaling sisters in their accusatory document, unless they were trying to prove an unstated point: that a woman on board did not have the salutory effect that their "friend" Samuel Damon proclaimed.
Did the presence of a virtuous female on board a whaling vessel have little or no effect on the way her husband ran his ship? After all, as Amelia Bloomer once wrote, husband and wife then were considered as one, and that one was the husband, his wife being merely his appendage. Wharton's Law-that the wife is merely servant to the husband -was still valid. A whaling sister might exchange her house for a ship, but her husband was still the domestic Jehovah. As we have already seen, it is improbable that a sober captain would get drunk just because his wife happened not to be present. If the Gulicks were, indeed, making this unstated case, then their argument was most probably correct.
At least, however, on the ship Frances Henrietta, Mrs. Drew had sufficient influence over her husband for him to make certain that prostitution did not occur when she was on board. But where did she go while the girls were on board? If she stopped at a mission house, then the Gulicks' document is doubly carping, and if she saw their letters later, as perhaps she did, then her sense of injustice would have been doubly strong.
Furthermore, for all their moralizing, the missionaries themselves had less influence on Ponape morals than Luther Gulick liked to claim: the prostitutes stayed away from the ships at Kiti not because the missionary who lived there stopped the practice, but because the local nahnken banned it. 16
We can only guess at Mrs. Grinnell's humiliation at witnessing prostitutes aboard the Arab, but the humiliation of another whaling wife has been more clearly recorded. This was Mrs. Randolph, of the ship South Boston, which the Gulicks reported to have allowed prostitutes on board at Ponatik in February 1860. It is a mystery why the missionaries did not report her, for she was most certainly on board the ship at the time. Eliza Williams of the ship Florida visited her just a few weeks later, and on 3 April 1860 she wrote "Mrs Randolph is not at all well. She was very much pleased to see me.... She has not been on deck for 6 weeks. She has been seasick ever since they left the Islands-5 months." 17 Seasick? No wonder. Other reasons for not wanting to go on deck are implicit. It is impossible not to speculate on the numbers of women who went through a similar experience.
Some were pragmatic enough to live with it. Clara Wheldon was able to write to her family in August 1869 that "sailors need harsh sounding words of command, and the stearnest of treatment, without which they would soon be unmanageable." Perhaps other women, recognizing that sailors were men, and often as uninhibited by conventional morality as the island natives, were able to rationalize prostitution in much the same way. 18
Surprisingly enough, despite her image of frailty, the average woman in the nineteenth century was probably better fitted to cope with male weakness than a female today in a similar situation. Recognition of female virtue and male sensuality was integral to the popular and sentimental concept of 'True Womanhood' that Barbara Welter has so intriguingly described: "All True Women were urged, in the strongest possible terms, to maintain their virtue, although men, being by nature more sensual than they, would try to assault it. Thomas Branagan admitted in Excellency of the Female Character Vindicated that his sex would sin and sin again - they could not help it....19
It was also part of this philosophy that men should be grateful for this difference in the sexes. They were taught that women would save them from their own weak and carnal natures, because well-raised women were "the more refined and virtuous" sex, and that frequent association with them would save them from contamination by "low pleasures and pursuits."20
As the Gulicks deliberately or unwittingly suggested, this sometimes did not happen. To improve the morals of a vessel and to guard the natures of the weak young men in the forecastle (to say nothing of the steerage and the cabin) was a very fine aim indeed, but the women themselves may have been the first to recognize, if tacitly, that this was not likely to occur. Men would be men, six months in a whaling vessel did not make a plaster saint of a boy, and the morals of the voyage depended, ultimately, on the morals of the husband and master, to say nothing of frustrations, the quality of the ship, the quality of the crew, and the luck of the voyage.
Nevertheless, the women did not have to like it when men took so little notice of the sensibilities of the lady on board. Mary Brewster, wife of Captain William E. Brewster of the Stonington whaler Tiger, for one, wished "to have no connection with their actions I abhor."
While whaling at Magdelina Bay on the Baja California coast in 1847, Captain William Hussey, of the bark J. E. Donnell, came to visit one day. He caught her at a bad moment: Mary was just sitting down to a dish of fresh oysters, which were her favorite treat.
Now, Captain Bill Hussey had a mistress on board his vessel. "Oh shame, shame is not felt here," Mary had written when she discovered this. He had had sufficient delicacy to leave her behind, nevertheless, Mary Brewster knew that her guest was living in sin. She decided to take a strong stand, and show him what she thought of his behavior. She darted from the cabin before he descended, only to return an hour later, "so prim."
Was Captain Hussey embarrassed? Did he stammer and blush? Hardly! He grinned wolfishly, rubbed his hands, and sat down and ate her oysters. 21
1 This description of Ocean Island is from Alfred E Peck, retrospective account prepared in the Seaman's Hospital, Honolulu, ca. 1861, after a voyage 1856-61 on an unnamed vessel, Capt. Newman, Nicholson Whaling Collection, Providence Public Library, Providence, Rhode Island, hereafter cited as NWCPPL; microfilmed as Pacific Manuscripts Bureau (PMB) 797.
2 Charles Murphey journal of the ship Dauphin, 4 September 1820-July 1823, NWCPPL.
3 S. Myres, Westering Women and the Frontier Experience 1800-1915 (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press,1982), p. xviii.
4 Clement C. Sawtell, The Ship Ann Alexander of New Bedford, 1805-1851 (Mystic: Marine Historical Association, 1962), p. 52.
5 Ibid. p. 58.
6 Robert W. Kenny, "Yankee Whalers at the Bay of Islands," American Neptune 12 (1952): 39, 40
7 Baldwin to Dr. Anderson of Boston, 15 December 1846, Hawaiian Mission Children's Society, Honolulu, Hawaii.
8 Diary of Charles W. Morgan, 25 July 1849, Charles W. Morgan Papers, Coll. 27, vol. 3, G. W. Blunt White Library, Mystic Seaport Museum, hereafter cited as MSM.
9 M. D. Wallis, Life in Feejee, or, Five Years among the Cannibals (Boston: William Heath, 1851), p. 202.
10 Gulick's letter to "Christian Owners of Whale Ships" was widely published in New England whaling ports. His letter to "My Personal Friends and to the Friends of Virtue" was published on his own press in 1859. Evidently the 1860 lists were published as an addendum. See Francis X. Hezel, S.J., The First Taint of Civilization: A History of the Caroline and Marshall Islands in Pre-Colonial Days, 1521-1885 (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1983), pp. 147, 330 (note). A copy of the document itself is held by the library of' the Hawaiian Mission Children's Society, Honolulu.
11 Log of the ship Marengo, 1859-1861, NWCPPL, microfilmed as PMB 875.
12 Robert Langdon, ed., Where the Whalers Went: An Index to the Pacific Ports.... (Canberra: Pacific Manuscripts Bureau, 1984), p. 13. This, of course, is not all-comprehensive, for it is an index to just one collection: the collection resulting from the New England microfilming project that was initiated by the Pacific Manuscripts Bureau. However, the collection is huge, and the index valuable because of that.
13 The vessels were: Gideon Howland, Williams, 10-11 January 1859; St. George, Pease, 25 January 1859; Midas, Tallman, 5-6 February 1859; Belle, Roswell Brown and wife 21-22 February 1859; Endeavour, Wilson, 30-31 March 1859; Superior, Wood, 18 May 1859; Young Hector, Hagar, 9-25 November 1859 (in Gulick's 1858 list); General Scott, Huntting, 30 November-27 December 1859; Florida, Thomas Williams and wife, 1-12 December 1850; Chandler Price, Holcomb, 4-17 January 1860 (reported at Ebon); Martha, Manchester, 11-21 January 1860; Lancaster, Thomas Russell and wife, 20-30 January 1860; and Oregon, Toby, 19 February 1860. All these vessels anchored at Ponape, but at which harbor is not known.
14 Harold Williams, ed., One Whaling Family (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1964), p. 101.
15 Mrs. Israel Morey, journal on board the ship Phoenix, 1853-55, Nantucket Whaling Museum, Nantucket, Massachusetts, microfilmed as PMB 385.
16 Hezel, First Taint of Civilization, p. 147.
17 Williams, One Whaling Family, p. 130.
18 Mrs. Clara Kingman Wheldon, journal and letters on board the bark John Howland, Old Dartmouth Historical Society Whaling Museum, New Bedford, Massachusetts, microfilmed as PMB 274.
19 Barbara Welter, "The Cult of True Womanhood 1820-1860," in The American Family in Social-Historical Perspective, M. Gordon, ed. (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1978), P. 315.
20 Ibid., P. 316.
21 Mrs. Mary Brewster, Journal on board the ship Tiger, 1845-48, 30 January-2 February 1847, Log 38, MSM.