Linda Kerber argued in the mid-1980's that after the American Revolution (1775-1783), an ideology of "republican motherhood" resulted in a surge of educational opportunities for women in the United States. Kerber maintained that the leaders of the new nation wanted women to be educated in order to raise politically virtuous sons. A virtuous citizenry was considered essential to the success of the country's republican form of government; virtue was to be instilled not only by churches and schools, but by families, where the mother's role was crucial. Thus, according to Kerber, motherhood became pivotal to the fate of the republic, providing justification for an unprecedented attention to female education.

    Introduction of the republican motherhood thesis dramatically changed historiography. Prior to Kerber's work, educational historians barely mentioned women and girls; Thomas Woody's 1929 work is the notable exception. Examining newspaper advertisements for academies. Woody found that educational opportunities increased for both girls and boys around 1750. pointing to "An Essay on Woman" (1753) as reflecting a shirt in view. Woody also claimed that practical education for females had many advocates before the Revolution, Woody's evidence challenges the notion that the Revgolution changed attiludes regarding female education, although it may have accelerated earlier trends. Historians' reliance on Kerber's "republican mother hood" thesis may have obscured the presence of these trends, making it difficult to determine to what extent the Revolution really changed women's lives.

Line	Arboria is floundering in the global marketplace,
	incurring devastating losses in market position and
	profits. The problem is not Arboria's products, but
	Arboria's trade policy. Arboria faces the prospect
(5)	of continuing economic loss until Arborian business
	and political leaders recognize the fundamental
	differences between Arborian and foreign economic
	systems. Today the key trade issue is not free trade
	versus protectionism but diminishing trade versus
(10)	expanding trade.
	Arboria is operating with an obsolete trade policy,
	an artifact of the mid-1940s when Arboria and
	Whorfland dominated the global economy, tariffs
	were the principal obstacle to trade, and Arborian
(15)	supremacy was uncontested in virtually all industries.
	In the intervening decades, economic circumstances
	have shifted radically. Arborian trade policy has not.
	Today, Arboria's trade policy seems paralyzed
	by the relentless conflict between proponents of
(20)	“free” and “fair” trade. The free traders argue that
	Arborian markets should be open, and the movement
	of goods and services across national borders
	unrestrained. The fair traders assert that access to
	Arborian markets should be restricted until Arborian
(25)	businesses are granted equal access to foreign
	markets. They contend that free trade is impossible
	while other nations erect barriers to Arborian exports.
	Both are correct: fair trade requires equal access
	and equal access leads to free trade. But both sides
(30)	base their positions on the same two outdated
	premises:
	1. Global commerce is conducted under the terms of
	the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)
	and dominated by Arboria and similar economic
(35)	systems abroad.
	2. Multilateral negotiations are the most effective way
	to resolve pressing trade issues.
	Both assumptions are wrong. The 40-year-old GATT
	now covers less than 7 percent of global commerce.
(40)	World trade is no longer dominated by the free-
	trade economies; nearly 75 percent is conducted
	by economic systems operating with principles at
	odds with those of Arboria. Forging a multilateral
	trade policy consensus among so many diverse
(45)	economic systems has become virtually impossible.
	And while multilateral talks drag on, Arboria misses
	opportunities for trade expansion.