A Union Woman in Civil War Kentucky: The Diary of Frances Peter ed. by John David Smith, William J. Cooper, Jr. (review)

Reviews A 1] nicm W kept by . 1 yshe was lic,ubly bound w her f: imily luime hy middlecla , s gender sensibility . ind recurrent 1,( iuts of cpilcp.>· until a seizure ended her life at the age t)1' twentycnic . She wrcite aIN)ut what . he s. iw diiring ir, ire ciillings tci ccimmunity event, . inil whal she observed 1,· m a window of her I,imily ht, me tiverlciliking a busy central square. Mcist cil hci· iii, iry entries were h,) sed 011 inic,1111, iticmn she glcancit irlim the " g( issip and 51(iries-sh. ired within . in int£, rm. i] rictwi,ik Kit lemale t. initly !11cmber,and visiting neighbcirs, the accY, unts ul her father in U.S. army sur, Ke·( mi:ind Ifical newsparers. The cclit,) 1·s add thal in Kpile „ f her physical ind cultural seclusiin France.l' cter' s family members were cut·ic,uly... relatively mintr pl:iyers in her diary." Inste;id, she fc, cused and ctimmented upc)17 verv public issues - the scicial, political ; ind military events . cd „ ii her 1, serv . it [cins <) 1 the d,iiA ccimings and 64,i ngs < 11 her " Secesh"neighhcirs, her perceplitins ( it the Unicin : ind Rebel vildiers encamped in the hqucire Visil)| C Ir<) lil het' Wilill[) W, : itd liCWS]1. lper I'Cp{) 1'th l)f the battle.thal unic,Ided in Lexinguin and surrt,unding areas. The editi, rs have pinpointed Kentucky's Itiyalty to the Union ; is Peter'K " abiding pashion."11'hey mite that while h.ziices Itter never wnvered iii hei· suppcirt fc), the Union, she gradually mcived frcm]En antiabc ,litionist Ktance to accept: ince 01 em: incipaticin as a practical inevit, ibility. Taking pizins tc) employ gender as a cite, K( 11'Y i, f analysis, theeditors have als<, mined Peter' sdiary fc, revidence cif shifting gender n,les in Lexington during the Civil War. They maintain th,it Itter' s experiences " fit pocirly" with j Civil War women's history th: 11 uses " w( imen's retaticinships with their menic, lk . is 11 . 1111cs (, f iderence" because [' cier " apparently had mi significant relationship with a male b. ides her father." They also examine her di,iry in light ( 11 recent hisic,ries ot w<11, en Lluring the Civil W., 1 in which hist<) 1·ians sltggest th. il W.Irlime exigencieS pressed bc,th s<, Lithern kind n(] lthern \ vhite wi,men t(, assilme mt) 1· e public roles and u) challenge gender rcstrictions . While the eclit(irs value lieter' s diary for her ptirtrayal of individual women and for her unveiling of Lexington's inic,1111, 11 female netwcirks, they c{) nclude th. it Peter's n. irrative te]| h US little aht)ut cli. inging gender rciles because ill ness pieveiited her fi-< im " engaging in activities th,11 tested hei assumltims ** mt the place ti wmen in RTicty." Smith and Cix, per, however, hiive been ], crhalis to<) resrrictive in their cvmsider, iticm <, f gender. While [' cter'S iourn, 11 ctintains no evidence that she explicitly challenged gendered limits, her n: tri· ative prcivides an interesting persrective ( in a devel{) ping middleclass Culture, its nciticms ( 11 gender and how the:, c values sh,iped Unioii patiic,tisin in a horder city during the Civil Wair. Peter was the daughter (, f a prciminent, middle-class Lexington family. 1) espile her abhcirrence <) f nt)rthern illic,liticinists, Peter's ] 1assitmate allegi: ince l{) the Unicin was fashic)ned (} ul <) 1 northern,middle class ideals. She described Lexinglk) n Unic) nists as tirderly, ( irganized, clean, cd,[ cated and refined, and she depicted the " Sccesh ' iii mirr<, 1 (,!, pi,sitc terms. Flic Sccesh" were a backward, illiterate ; ind ill-mannered pcx)plc . FE,r I'cter, respect.ihility was alsi) genilered territciry. She admired Unicin 1[ liers for their unihirm dress andgentlematily behavic), as [ hey marched in furmation. She viewed the " Sccesh" ti<)<) ps ns dirty, irregularly dreSSed men wh<, " sting, glcd"when they 1178!ched. Respectable Unicm w,imen attended lt) their dolnestic duties preparing Ie: iSIS f< ir the wounded in " beautifully clean kitchens." When her female " Secesh" neightic,rb bellaved in exactly the s:ime m: inner, she criticized their dilinestic km, wledge. l' eter recorded j snippet cif local rumur th: it had ( ine rebel wildier " nearly well ; it cine time, bul the rebel ladies sent him si) 111,117y things Ic) C,11 th,21 he , 44% sick again." This evaluaticin ,) 1 her female " Secesh" neight,( 31· 4 is cinly a glimpse into the worldview ( 11 1 bright und (, pinicinated vi,ung wt,man whtise dinry is fascinating reading and pre)vides rich ground ftir hist( irical interpret: ition. But readers will:tls(, lind this primary source effectively framed by the cdikirs' intormiitive Inirc,clucticin. Kathleen Leonard Bayes iniver, Kity 0/Cim·mnati Winter 2001 Revicwh 45 1 ...