Your Most Obedient & Humble Servant Season 3 Discussion Questions

Episode 43: "That B**** Maria Goodwin"

1. Why can letters be a good source to use when telling women’s history?
2. What do we know about Sarah E. Nicholas and Jane H. Nicholas Randolph? How might this context influence the way we interpret this writing?
3. What might we learn from this letter about everyday life in Baltimore at this time?
4. What might we learn from this letter and the interpretations from Kathryn Gehred and Amelia Golcheski about the idea of the “domestic sphere,” as well as the expectations of women and girls at the time?
5. Can you make any connections between this source and any other US history themes, topics, or events?
6. What questions do you have about the letter? What surprised you? What does it make you wonder?

Link to Episode 43

Episode 44: "I Am An Idiot About Play"

1. Why can letters be a good source to use when telling women’s history?
2. What do we know about Lady Georgiana Spencer and Caroline Howe? How might this context influence the way we interpret this writing?
3. How might these letters reveal connections between gambling and religious beliefs in 18th century society?
4. How do these letters and the scholar’s interpretation showcase gambling as both a social activity and a potential moral failing for aristocratic women at this time?
5. In what ways might the correspondence between Howe and Spencer illustrate friendship and the importance of networks and connections for women during this time?
6. How and why does Dr. Julie Flavell approach the topic of mental health and psychology in their analysis? Was her approach effective and/or beneficial in telling the history? 
7. Can you make any connections between these sources and any other US history topics or events?
8. What questions do you have about these letters? What surprised you? What do they make you wonder?

Link to Episode 44

Episode 45: "You Must Not Complain Of My Silence"

1. Why can letters be a good source to use when telling women’s history?
2. What do we know about Elizabeth Mason and Mary Barnes Mason? How might this context influence the way we interpret this writing?
3. The episode is part of the season on wit. Do you think it fits that theme? Why or why not?
4. How might this letter either affirm or reject ideas about gender roles or expectations for women and girls?
5. How does Elizabeth Mason’s letter provide insight into the daily lives of enslaved individuals like Minta, and what does it leave unsaid? Does this limitation of the letter have an impact on history and the process of telling history?
6. How does Dr. Kate Steir’s interpretation of the letter contribute to our understanding of class distinctions within the Virginia gentry and/or motherhood at this time? Do you find their analysis convincing?
7. Can you make any connections between these sources and any other US history themes, topics, or events? 
8. What questions do you have about the letter? What surprised you? What does it make you wonder?

Link to Episode 45

Episode 46: "The Ambassadress Is Nothing But Blunt"

1. Why can letters be a good source to use when telling women’s history?
2. What do we know about Abigail Adams and John Quincy Adams? How might this context influence the way we interpret this writing?
3. What might Abigail Adams’ letters teach us about the role of women in diplomacy and politics at the time?
4. What might Abigail Adams’ views on slavery, as expressed in her writing, tell us about complicated ideas about race at the time?
5. Can you make any connections between these sources and any other US history topics or events?
6. What questions do you have about these letters? What surprised you? What do they make you wonder?

Link to Episode 46

Episode 47: "To Persevere In Grace & Faith"

1. Why can letters be a good source to use when telling women’s history?
2. What do we know about Phillis Wheatley and Obour Tanner? How might this context influence the way we interpret this letter?
3. How might this letter change our perceptions of the American Revolution?
4. What is, what Dr. Tara Bynum describes as the “risk of the twist?”
5. What does Bynum mean when she says that her research is “definitely close reading,” but not “reading against the grain?” Why is that an important distinction?
6. Can you make any connections between this source and any other US history topics or events?
7. What questions do you have about the letter? What surprised you? What does it make you wonder?

Link to Episode 47

Episode 48: "Political Subjects are too often at Variance"

1. Why can letters be a good source to use when telling women’s history?
2. What do we know about Elizabeth Willing Powel and Elizabeth Parke Custis? How might this context influence the way we interpret this letter?
3. How might this letter either affirm or reject traditional ideas about gender roles?
4. This episode is a part of the show’s season on wit, do you think it fits in that category? Explain.
5. Can you make any connections between this source and any other US history topics or events?
6. What questions do you have about the letter? What surprised you? What does it make you wonder?

Link to Episode 48

Episode 49: "Deposition of Phillis Tatton"

1. What kinds of information do pension files provide that a letter may not? Why might this type of source be useful for learning about women in history?
2. What might we learn from this source and the interpretations given about marriage at this time by Riley K. Sutherland and Kathryn Gehred?
3. Who were “camp followers,” and how might our understanding of the Revolutionary War change when considering their part of the story?
4. What are some limitations of this source?
5. What might this source tell us about how different women experienced war in different ways?
6. How might this source tell us something about the lived experiences of women like Phillis Hinkley Saunders Tatton, who experienced this time period between the American Revolution and the Civil War?
7. What questions do you have about this source? What surprised you? What does it make you wonder?

Link to Episode 49

Episode 50: "The Feathers are the only Tolerable Ones"

1. Why can letters be a good source to use when telling women’s history?
2. What do we know about Martha Washington and Eleanor Parke Custis? How might this context influence the way we interpret this letter?
3. What was femme covert and femme sole status?
4. How does this letter and the discussion between Dr. Alexandra Garrett and Kathryn Gehred inform us about women’s influence and power at the time?
5. What might we learn from this letter and the discussion about the importance of family and kinship networks?
6. What might we learn from this letter about the different meanings marriage had for women at this time, particularly women of different social, economic, or cultural identities?
7. Based on this letter, in what ways might you compare and contrast the lives of 18th century women with women today in terms of political, legal, and more informal kinds of power?
8. What questions do you have about the letter? What surprised you? What does it make you wonder?

Link to Episode 50

Episode 51: "O Women of America!"

1. What is the difference between history and memory?
2. How is a speech different from a letter in terms of the kinds of historical information it provides? Are there limitations? Why might a speech, and this specific speech, be useful for learning about women’s history and Black American history?
3. What do we know about Frances E. W. Harper and the intended audience of this speech? How might that context influence the way we interpret it?
4. In her speech, Harper states, "I am not sure that women are naturally so much better than men that they will clear the stream by the virtue of their womanhood." What does she mean by that? Does she challenge or affirm ideas of gender roles at the time?
5. What can this speech tell us about the ideological connections between moral responsibility and citizenship, particularly the right to vote? 
6. How does Harper's identity as a Black woman, specifically a member of the free Black elite in Baltimore, influence her perspective on political power, gender, and moral responsibility?
7. Can you make any connections between this source and any other US history topics or events?
8. What questions do you have about the speech? What surprised you? What does it make you wonder?

Link to Episode 51

Episode 52: "Screaming Among Her Fellows"

1. Dr. Patricia Kalayjian and Dr. Lucinda Damon-Bach‘s work, the Sedgwick Online Letters project, is “born digital,” meaning that it began as an online collection, rather than as a published print collection of letters that was moved online. They argue that this format is more “democratizing,” what do they mean by that?
2. Why can letters be a good source to use when telling women’s history?
3. What do we know about Catharine Maria Sedgwick and Eliza Cabot Follen? How might this context influence the way we interpret this letter?
4. What kinds of information do we learn about Sedwick from this letter? How do scholars use other sources to fill in gaps?
5. The scholars question whether Sedgwick was an abolitionist. What evidence do they present? Is it worthwhile to consider the possibility even if the answer is not confirmed? How would our perception of her and her work change?
6. What questions do you have about the letter? What surprised you? What does it make you wonder?

Link to Episode 52

Questions by Annabelle Spencer, George Mason University PhD Student, 2025