"For most of history, Anonymous was a woman." Virginia Woolf

Friday, June 22, 2007

Elizabeth Ann (Bess or Bessie) Carter Smith Carson (12/7/1897).

Here's what I know:

Name: Elizabeth Ann Carter, later Smith, later Carson
Born: 12/7/1897 (or 1898) [SSDI]
Died: 3/16/1967 in Michigan [SSDI]

Marriage One: James Elias Smith, approx 1918 [JES WWI draft card]

Marriage Two: Alfred Ray Carson, approx 1940 [Port Arthur News, June 1940]

1900 Census: Bess lived in Texarkana, Miller County, Arkansas. Lived with father W. Sherman Carter (b. July 1865), his mother Ann (b. Feb. 1832), siblings: Clara (Nov.? 1891), Matilda (Sept. 1892), Myrtle(?) (May 1895). Lists no mother, which makes me think that Bess' mother had died by then.

1910 Census: Bess lived in Texarkana, Miller County, Arkansas. Lived with father W. Sherman Carter, his wife Ada M., and her siblings: Clara (18?), Tillie (16), William (5), James (3), Richard (2), Kelley (sp?)(1). All of the children were born in Arkansas.
W. Sherman Carter, born approx. 1865, born in Tennessee. Father born in Virginia, Mother born in Kentucky. Contractor/brickworks. The 1880 Census puts him (or who I assume is him) puts him living in Martins Store, Weakley County, TN with his mother Ann, father William, and two sisters: Sophia/Sofia (19) and Delia (12). [Died after 1956. He is fairly light complexioned, similarly to my father (the young teenager on the left), so I assume my great-grandmother's complexion and Native American heritage come from her mother's side of the family. I could be wrong, of course.] Below are links to pictures of my great, great grandfather:








--Sometime between 1910-1920, she had lost her left arm and right leg due to blood poisoning.

1920 Census: Bess lived in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. Lived with James Elias Smith and their three children. According to the this census, her father was born in Kentucky and her mother born in Tennessee.

--Last child was born 1927. Husband James Elias Smith died/disappeared between 1927-1930.

1930 Census: Bess lived in El Paso, was a house servant for an Earl Barron. Shows that she is a widow. Her children stayed in the El Paso Protestant Children's Home. Her children are/were: James Everett Smith, Sr. (my grandfather), Clara Nell, Mabel Irene, Edward Charles, Annie Laurie, Wilma, and William Carter.

-1933-1940: Bess took children out of children's home and moved them to Port Arthur. Grandfather James Everett Smith joined CCC then the army.

1940-lived in Port Arthur, married Alfred Ray Carson, staff Sargent in US Army, born approximately 1912.

-lived in Port Arthur, TX for many years, then after death of A.R. Carson, moved to Michigan with son, Edward Charles.

-died 1967 in Michigan.

Notes: She was dark complexioned and my dad says that she was part Native American, but he doesn't know how much so or from what side of the family. Below are two links to pictures of my great-grandmother in 1942 with my aunt Patricia.




Questions: How did a double amputee marry a staff Sargent from a well known Port Arthur family who was 14 years younger than her? How did she meet him when she was living in Little Rock, then El Paso, neither of which are close to Port Arthur (east coast of Texas near Galveston)? Who was Bess' mother? Where was William Sherman Carter in 1870?

Posted to: Carter, Miller AR, Arkansas Genealogical Society, Arkansas Family History Association

Monday, June 4, 2007

Update as of June 4, 2007

Update!

It's almost June. Less than three months and counting until I move to
Mobile
.

I alternate between wanting to be in Mobile-yesterday and wanting to put it off indefinitely. It's pretty much been this way since March/April.

I've met some amazing people in the last nine months, but
Birmingham seems to be a place of transition for most of them as well. My hope is that I can keep in touch with them, so when we all end up moving again (as I know I will do within the next two years), we may cross paths while we do so.


It seems impossible for me to stay still. My restlessness has only gotten worse in the last twelve months, as I'm sure I've mentioned more than once already. Because of this inclination, I think I have become a more unreliable (or less dependable) person. This may explain why I have met so many amazing people, but to some extent either I have held them or been held by them at a distance. Perhaps these people are just as restless as I am and in as much a period of transition as I am and so we are all holding the world at a distance. Maybe I only wish it is so because I hope there are other people craving and fearing emotional intimacy, as I am. I envy those who can fall back on consistency. I miss being around people who know me and who I know but we are all so scattered now.

As some of you may know, in the last month or so, I had to make an emergency family trip to
Dallas. My aunt went into a swift decline, after battling breast cancer on and off for 16 years, and passed on May 12, 2007. The sadness was tempered by a fight well fought; there is no one that could have fought harder and longer to stay with her family than my aunt did.

While I was in
Texas, I had the opportunity to visit my sister and niece. My sister, for the first time since she was 19, is now Melissa Anne Smith again. I am proud of her for reclaiming her family name, I hope it will be a source of strength and pride for her. Gods know, she needs the strength right now. My niece, Michaela, is going into the second grade this August and she is amazingly smart.


I have a few trips coming up before I move to Mobile. I just booked my flight a few minutes ago. I will be in Boston July 12-16 to visit my friends Clayton and Jamie. Jamie and I became fast friends in seventh grade P.E. because we were both too smart for our own good (or at least we thought so) and feminists to boot. Clayton and I met rather strangely in eighth grade, and maybe it's because we had such an unusual friendship in middle and high school that we have been able to keep up the way we do. It never seems to matter that we sometimes go two-six months without speaking, I still feel like he gets it and is one of the few that do. So I'm extremely excited about July and Boston. I love the new friends I've made in Birmingham, but there's just something about being around people who have known you for more or less half of your life and these are the only two non-family members in my life who can say that.

Then in August, or perhaps also in July, I will probably be making a trip to
Seattle to visit Chris. I need to sit down with him and talk about specific dates, but it will probably be right before my next move, after I've given notice at my job. Chris is one of those amazing people I've met in Birmingham in the last nine months, but unfortunately, he moved to Seattle a little over a month or so ago. Not that I will mind visiting him in Seattle
at all. It sounds like a wonderful city and I might even be able to see my friends Kat and KrisTina while I'm there. I was able to see KrisTina briefly when she visited Andrew and Jane last fall, but I haven't seen Kat since I visited Southlake in December 2001.

I am incredibly excited about my move to
Mobile
. Finishing my master's degree has only become more important in my mind in the last year. I feel used up as a secretary. Having the graduate assistantship sounds immeasurably better. I've spoken with the professor I'll be assisting and the other T.A.'s for next year. They're a bunch of neat guys, though I think I might be the only female. It should make for an interesting year.

And getting to see Adam and Toni and Brannon and Eric again will be so great. I haven't been back to
Mobile since I moved last August and I do miss them. James and I will be sharing a townhouse near my old apartment complex, which is right down the street from the YMCA, a Starbucks, the local Barnes & Noble, etc. My friend Natalie from Birmingham might/will probably be moving to Pensacola sometime this fall and she might not be the only member of the Birmingham
crew moving down to the coast.

The future is still pretty murky right now and I'm not sure when it will clear. The unknowns in this equation definitely outweigh the knowns. I am staying as optimistic as I can be, knowing that when it doubt, books and hermitage are still fairly appealing to me.

Monday, April 23, 2007

Is Nancy Pelosi a bitch? I want your opinions.

Is Nancy Pelosi a bitch?

I'm very interested in seeing women achieving high positions in politics.

I'm also surprised when I hear women, not defending female politicians, but attacking them for being "bitchy".

Today at work: "Nancy Pelosi might as well be a man. She's such a bitch. If I had known she was going to be such a bitch, I would've rather seen a man in the position. She's totally turned me off. Why does she have to be so confrontational? So argumentative? Why does she have to talk so much? God, I can't stand her tone of voice. I don't like George Bush but I didn't think I would dislike a woman that much. I dislike her almost as much as I dislike Hilary."

So is Nancy Pelosi a bitch? If she were a man, would she be called an asshole? What makes her a bitch? Her aggressive personality? How should she act? If acting aggressive is being a man, then she should be more passive? Is that what women want out of female politicians?

So what's the story morning glory? What do y'all think?

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Declaration of Rights for Women by NAWSA, July 4, 1876

While the nation is buoyant with patriotism, and all hearts are attuned to praise, it is with sorrow we come to strike the one discordant note, on this one-hundredth anniversary of our country's birth. When subjects of kings, emperors, and czars from the old world join in our national jubilee, shall the women of the republic refuse to lay their hands with benedictions on the nation's head? Surveying America's exposition, surpassing in magnificence those of London, Paris, and Vienna, shall we not rejoice at the success of the youngest rival among the nations of the earth? May not our hearts, in unison with all, swell with pride at or great achievements as a people; our free speech, free press, free schools, free church, and the rapid progress we have made in material wealth, trade, commerce and the inventive arts? And we do rejoice in the success, thus far, of our experiment of self-government. Our faith is firm and unwavering in the broad principles of human rights proclaimed in 1776, not only as abstract truths, but as the cornet stones of a republic. Yet we cannot forget, even in this glad hour, that while all men of every race, and clime, and condition, have been invested with the full rights of citizenship under our hospitable flag, all women still suffer the degradation of disfranchisement.

The history of our country the past one hundred years has been a series of assumptions and usurpations of power over woman, in direct opposition to the principles of just government, acknowledged by the United States as its foundations, which are:


First - the natural rights of each individual.
Second - the equality of these rights.
Third - that rights not delegated are retained by the individual
Fourth - that no person can exercise the rights of others without delegated authority
Fifth - that the non-use of rights does not destroy them
And for the violation of these fundamental principles of our government, we arraign our rulers on this Fourth day of July, 1876, - and these are our articles of impeachment:

Bills of attainder have been passed by the introduction of the word "male" into all the State constitutions, denying to women the right of suffrage, and thereby making sex a crime - an exercise of power clearly forbidden in article I, sections 9, 10, of the United States constitution.

The writ of habeas corpus, the only protection against lettres de cachet and all forms of unjust imprisonment, which the constitution declares "shall not be suspended, except in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety demands it," is held inoperative in every State of the Union, in case of a married woman against her husband - the marital rights of the husband being in all cases primary, and the rights of the wife secondary.

The right of trial by jury of one's peers was so jealously guarded that States refused to ratify the original constitution until it was guaranteed by the sixth amendment. And yet the women of this nation have never been allowed a jury of their peers - being tried in all cases by men, native and foreign, educated and ignorant, virtuous and vicious. Young girls have been arraigned in our courts for the crime of infanticide; tried, convicted, hanged - victims, perchance, of judge, jurors, advocated - while no woman's voice could be heard in their defense. And not only are women denied a jury of their peers, but in some cases, jury trial altogether. During the was, a woman was tried and hanged by military law, in defiance of the fifth amendment, which specifically declares: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital crime or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases . . . . of persons in actual service in time of war." During the last presidential campaign, a woman, arrested for voting, was denied the protection of a jury, tried, convicted, and sentenced to a fine and costs of prosecution, by the absolute power of a judge of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Taxation without representation, the immediate cause of the rebellion of the colonies against Great Britain, is one of the grievous wrongs the women of this country have suffered during the century. Deploring war, with all the demoralization that follows in its train, we have been taxed to support standing armies, with their waste of life and wealth. Believing in temperance, we have been taxed to support the vice, crime, and pauperism of the liquor traffic. While we suffer its wrongs and abuses infinitely more than man, we have no power to protect our sons against this giant evil. During the temperance crusade, mothers were arrested, fined, imprisoned, for even praying and singing in the streets, while men blockaded the sidewalks with impunity, even on Sunday, with their military parades and political processions. Believing in honesty, we are taxed to support a dangerous army of civilians, buying and selling the offices of government and sacrificing the best interests of the people. And, moreover, we are taxed to support the very legislators and judges who make laws, and render decisions adverse to women. And for refusing to pay unjust taxation, the houses, lands, bonds, and stock of women have been seized and sold within the present year, thus proving Lord Coke's assertion, that "The very act of taxing a man's property without his consent is, in effect, disfranchising him of every civil right."

Unequal codes for men and women. Held by law a perpetual minor incapable of self-protection, even in the industries of the world, woman is denied equality of rights. The fact of sex, not the quantity or quality of work, in most cases, decides the pay and position; and because of this injustice thousands of fatherless girls are compelled to choose between a life of shame and starvation. Laws catering to man's vices have created two codes of morals in which penalties are graded according to the political status of the offender. Under such laws, women are fined and imprisoned if found alone in the streets, or in public places of resort, at certain hours. Under the pretense of regulating public morals, police officers seizing the occupants of disreputable houses, march the women in platoons to prison, while the men, partners in their guilt, go free. While making a show of virtue in forbidding the importation of Chinese women on the Pacific coast for immoral purposes, our rulers, in many States, and even under the shadow of the national capitol, are now proposing to legalize the sale of American womanhood for the same vile purposes.

Special legislation for woman has placed us in a most anomalous position. Women invested with the rights of citizens in one section - voters, jurors, office-holders - crossing an imaginary line, are subjects in the next. In some States, a married woman may hold property and transact business in her own name; in others, her earnings belong to her husband. In some Stated, a woman may testify against her husband, sue and be sued in courts; in others, she has no redress in case of damage to her person, property, or character. In case of divorce on account of adultery in the husband, the innocent wife is held to possess no right to children or property, unless by special decree of the court. But in no State of the Union has the wife the right to her own person, or to any part of the joint earnings of the co-partnership during the life of her husband. In some States women may enter law schools and practice in the courts; in others they are forbidden. In some universities girls enjoy equal educational advantages with boys, while many of the proudest institutions in the land deny them admittance, though the sons of China, Japan, and Africa re welcomed there. But the privileges already granted in the several States are by no means secure. The right of suffrage once exercised by women in certain States and territories has been denied by subsequent legislation. A bill is now pending in congress to disfranchise the women of Utah, thus interfering to deprive United States citizens of the same rights which the Supreme Court has declared the national government powerless to protect anywhere. Laws passed after years of untiring effort, guaranteeing married women certain rights of property, and mothers the custody of their children, have been repealed in States where we supposed all was safe. Thus have our most sacred rights been made the football of legislative caprice, proving that a power which grants as a privilege what by nature is a right, may withhold the same as a penalty when deeming it necessary for its own perpetuation.

Representation of woman has had no place in the nation's thought. Since the incorporation of the thirteen original States, twenty-four have been admitted to the Union, not one of which has recognized woman's right of self-government. On this birthday of our national liberties, July Fourth 1876, Colorado, like all her elder sisters, comes into the Union with the invidious word "male" in her constitution.

The judiciary above the nation has proved itself but the echo of the party in power, by upholding and enforcing laws that are opposed to the spirit and letter of the constitution. When the slave power was dominant, the Supreme Court decided that a black man was not a citizen, because he had not the right to vote; and when the constitution was so amended as to make all persons citizens, the same high tribunal decided that a woman, though a citizen, had not the right to vote. Such vacillating interpretations of constitutional law unsettle our faith in judicial authority, and undermine the liberties of the whole people.

These articles of impeachment against our rulers we now submit to the impartial judgment of the people. To all these wrongs and oppressions woman has not submitted in silence and resignation. From the beginning of the century, when Abigail Adams, the wife of one president and the mother of another, said, "We will not hold ourselves bound to obey laws in which we have no voice or representation," until now, woman's discontent has been steadily increasing, culminating nearly thirty years ago in a simultaneous movement among the women of the nation, demanding the right of suffrage. In making our just demands, a higher motive than the pride of sex inspires us; we feel that national safety and stability depend on the complete recognition of the broad principles of our government. Woman's degraded, helpless position is the weak point in our institutions to-day; a disturbing force everywhere, severing family ties, filling our asylums with the deaf, the dumb, the blind; our prisons with criminals, our cities with drunkenness and prostitution; our homes with disease and death. it was the boast of the founders of the republic, that the rights for which they contended were the rights of human nature. If these rights are ignored in the case of one-half the people, the nation is surely preparing for its downfall. Governments try themselves. The recognition of a governing and a governed class in incompatible with the first principles of freedom. Woman has not been a heedless spectator of the events of this century, not a dull listener to the grand arguments for the equal rights of humanity. From the earliest history of our country woman has shown equal devotion with man to the cause of freedom, and has stood firmly by his side in its defense. Together, they have made this country what it is. Woman's wealth, thought and labor have cemented the stones of every monument man has reared to liberty.

And now, at the close of a hundred years, as the hour hand of the great clock that marks the centuries points to 1876, we declare our faith in the principles of self-government; our full equality with man in natural rights; that woman was made first for her own happiness, with the absolute right to herself - to all the opportunities and advantages life affords for her complete development; and we deny that dogma of the centuries, incorporated in the codes of nations - that woman was made for man - her best interests, in all cases, to be sacrificed to his will. We ask of our rulers, at this hour, no special favors, no special privileges, no special legislation. We ask justice, we ask equality, we ask that all the civil and political rights that belong to citizens of the United States, be guaranteed to us and our daughters forever.

Friday, March 30, 2007

Springtime means kittens

So, yeah spring is in the air. And it's really starting to become obvious:
a) Baby animals are starting to peek out
b) Plants, flowers, trees are blooming
c) My allergies are going freakin' nuts
d) Everybody seems to be hooking up, or at least, expressing a desire to do so

Enter Single Girl.

So I've been single for.. almost a year now (give or take a week). I haven't really expressed any sort of desire to be in a relationship since I've moved to Birmingham. The freedom is actually pretty refreshing. I'm not responsible for anyone's emotional well being. I never feel obligated to go out or stay in based on someone else's preferences. I can spend time with whomever I want, whenever I want, and don't feel awkward or wonder if someone else is comfortable with it. All in all, not a bad time.

And ok, I love Spring. Really: the moderate climate, the longer days, the breezy Sunday afternoons, crisp evenings.

But! For gods' sakes! It's (temporarily) making me reconsider my relationship status. Companionship, security, holding hands, knowing glances, cuddling on couches, meaningful sex. Starting to sound pretty good. Argh! But these are terrible reasons to get into a relationship, just for the purpose of fulfilling some subconscious biological desire. It'd be great for a month, but then what? It's like living at the beach. Oh man, being so close to the water and the sand and the sun.. oh, and then a frickin' hurricane comes and it doesn't sound so good to be near the water, the sand, and impending disaster. Ok, maybe that's a bit of a hyperbole, but still...

It's so peaceful being single. So uncomplicated. Why would I want to mess that up? Why indeed.

If only I was so easily convinced.

Warning: Feminist ranting ensues

Okay, feminist ranting may ensue.

It's Been Said: "You don't look like a feminist"?

It has been my experience that most men (no woman has ever questioned it) feel I do not look like a feminist. Or I don't talk like "one of those women." And I like men, right? Oh, then I'm definitely not like those lesbian feminazis.

Well guess what. Yeah, yeah, I kind'a am. And to my knowledge, the majority of feminists are hetereosexual women, though I cannot put my hands on the statistics to prove it. Either way, you'd be hard pressed to prove that I am (as a 5'3" fair complexioned, blonde, blue-eyed middle class graduate student) in anyway dissimilar from the demographics of feminists in the United States. In fact, first and second wave feminism had been criticized (by some third wave feminists) as being too white, too middle class, etc.

And then, because (though it's fairly representative of Third Wave Feminism) I wear bras, skirts, and sometimes make up, I don't refuse it when men open doors for men, and I am not afraid to speak frankly about sexuality, it is apparently hard for men to take me seriously as a feminist.

I'm not usually a ball-buster. I'm usually not, what I would even call for fun, a feminazi. I don't hate men. But I will bust your balls, I will strip you of your chauvinism and shove it down your throat, and I will educate you on your misconception if you laugh at my feminism and think the size of my breasts or the shape of my hips give you any right to disrespect me or disregard me. And I will look damn pretty doing it.

Note: The above only refers to chauvinist pigs who try to patronize and dictate scenarios without paying attention to whom they are disrespecting.

It's Been Said: "The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." This is apparently misquoted from being in a speech given at the 1992 GOP convention. It is actually from a letter Pat Robertson wrote that was published in the Washington Post, opposing the Iowa Equal Rights Amendment. (See Post 23 August 1992).

Ok! I have no problem with women leaving their husbands (their monkey, not mine), practicing witcraft (ok, I'm Heathen, do you really think I would?), or becoming lesbians (I like men, but I'm cool with chicks that don't).

Destroying capitalism? I do not believe feminism as a philosophy or a movement seeks to do that. Amend capitalism, reform capitalism, etc., perhaps, but it's nothing social reformers haven't been doing for over a hundred years now.

Kill their children? I believe this is a ploy by Pat Robertson to connect abortion with murdering live human beings. I am completely opposed to murder, rape, the abuse/neglect of children, etc. Susan Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Smith), Andrea Yates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates), and Darlie Routier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darlie_Routier) are mentally ill, co-dependant, etc. and hardly feminists. Abortion, however, is not murder. I can discuss, and given about 15 minutes of research, present accurate data about the types of abortive procedures usually performed and the misconceptions usually held by anti-choice activists (I refuse to use the term pro-life, as many of them use the term "pro-abortion", both of which are misleading terms, and this will probably appear in a later blog).

It's Been Said: Some chicks have a problem with being called feminists, because of the "connotations" it has.

Connotations? Well, when it all comes down to it, I'm sick of some of the connotations the word "woman" has. Or "liberal." Or… "democracy" even these days.

Though there are several feminist sub-cultures running around these days, there does seem to be a basic philosophy of, at least: truly equal protection under the law (hello 14th amendment), social, economic, and legal equality, fighting discrimination and double standards. You don't like the connotation of equality? Of being seen as something more than a vagina with legs? Go fuck yourself, you insult your species.

Go ahead, argue with me about this. I take no responsibility for your brain bleeding.

Coming Soon: My stances on corn subsidies, illegal immigration, American corporations, and fuel efficiency.

Friday, March 2, 2007

Were Vietnam vets really spit on as much as is commonly believed?

This came up in a recent conversation. I've tried to include articles from both sides of the argument.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0318-12.htm
Myth Making and Spitting Images from Vietnam

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54165
Vietnam déjà vu (Revisionists deny spitting on troops)

http://www.rlg.org/en/page.php?Page_ID=95
The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam

http://urbangrounds.com/2007/01/29/spitting-on-soldiers/
Spitting on Soldiers

http://www.thevoicenews.com/news/2003/0228/In_Response/R03_Bernard-re_Barlow.html
The Myth of the Spat-Upon Veteran By Gabrielle Bernard, Winsted

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:Wwf1AUED4FUJ:newsbusters.org/node/10594+vietnam+spitting+troops&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=30&gl=us
(Article is no longer available, but google has it cached.)
Resolving The Spitting Debate