View source for Week 8 Questions/Comments-327 09

== Antenuptial contract, Mass, 1653 ==

I was surprised when reading about the antenuptial contracts. I have never heard of these contracts existing during this time period. I thought that these contracts were a more "modern" idea. The antenuptial contracts during this time made a lot more sense to me after I read some of the stipulations that they entailed. For instance, Woloch says that a well-off father could seek an antenuptial contract for his daughter. Although this contract would protect the women and her property, it still was initiated by a man. In the case of Ann Allen, her children (from a previous husband) could retain their inheritances upon her new husband's death. What if her children had reached adulthood prior to Mr. Jewett's death? -Katelyn Lease



== New England Divorce, CT, 1655-1678; MD, 1680 ==
What caught my attention the most in this piece was the case of Robert Wade (1657). First, I love how they write, "in refrence to his wives unworthy, sinfull, yea, unnatural cariage towards him..." As if the woman is a complete monster. And, in the other cases (which were all of women divorcing their husbands), they do not say anything about the husbands were so horrible just that they did something wrong or have been gone, etc. and that is it. Obviously, the courts must have thought that if a woman deserted her husband then that is much more horrible than if the man deserted his wife. 
The other thing that caught my eye was the fact that this is a man asking for a divorce, and all the others are women asking for the divorce. I would bet that the men may have thought it beneath them to ask for a divorce, even if they wanted it, and that is why man asking for a divorce is much less common. -Kristina.S.



== SC feme sole trader acts, 1712, 1744 ==
It was interesting to read about the feme sole laws in Pennsylvania and South Carolina. Pennsylvania allowed women whose husbands would not support them to become feme soles. That was definitely a positive gain for women whose husbands deserted them or were bankrupt. It makes sense that the women may have had to use their earnings to pay off their deadbeat husband's debts because that is basically like marriage today. If one spouse goes into debt then they are both in debt. I also found in interesting that South Carolina did not specify who could or could not be a feme sole. Of course, a married woman who wanted to become a feme sole would have needed to have written permission from their husband. Still, the idea of allowing a married woman to participate in business shows that South Carolina was pretty liberal at this time. I find it funny that South Carolina was liberal back then, but isn't exactly known for being liberal today. -Katelyn Lease
 


== Mass, 1675-1680 – Women in county courts ==
In the Malefactors and Complaints there seems to be a general way of punishment.  You were either whipped, sent away, and or had to pay a fine.  The women seemed to be treated much more harshly then men and they tended to be made an example of, in particular Margaret Brewster.  It seems harsh for a women to be stripped from waste down, tide to a cart and to have received 20 stripes for coming to church not looking appropriate for the occasion.  The way she was described she almost sounds as if she's homeless.  John Man was sentenced with bond of 200 lbs for his good behavior for beating of his servant but received no stripes (which would have seemed fitting for what he had done to her.)  Then again she was a woman and a servant though it does state she was set free from her indenture. - Marsha Himes

== Virginia, 1642, NY 1721-1759 – Widows, Wills and Dower Rights ==
I thought it was interesting reading the wills of men. The order of recipients in the wills caught my eye. The majority of the men left their belongings first to their sons, his daughters next, followed by the wife. In very few cases was the wife mentioned first and in them if the wife married someone else the law would decide what she would receive and she would receive very little of the estate. - Amy Van Ness

== Women’s Estates, Mass, 1664, NY 1747-1759 ==
Comparing these women's wills to the men's in the previous articles, it is obvious that there is a clear distinction. The women commonly left their property to their daughters first and then their sons. I think the women tended to be biased towards the females of their family because they wanted them to receive as much as possible for they would not get to own very much of their own throughout their life. The boys on the other hand would have many rights and own real property of their own. I liked the fact that the women were trying to give the daughters as much as they could after their death.- Amy Van Ness


I found the wills of women to be rather interesting. After reading the previous articles I questioned whether women wrote them or not, seeing as their property was that of their husbands. Women did give to their daughers first and then their sons, but what I found different about women's wills was they were more personal. Women wanted to make sure their children and in some cases grandchildren were taken care of down to the slightest detail of giving a daughter "a set of gold buttons "to the value of a Pistole.""(p. 89). They took care of the smallest details and thought about the family more than themselves. -Megan W.

== Suzanne Lebsock, The Free Women of Petersburg ==

It was interesting to learn that women's deed of gifts and wills were quite different than men in Petersburg.  Not only was it out of the ordinary for women to have wills but very interesting to read about what they willed and who they willed it to.  Mary Bolling is interesting because she included some of her heirs but excluded others such as her grandson Thomas Shore.  The idea that women played favorites and designated who got what instead of most men's wills dividing everything equally among their heirs.  I can't help but think about my grandmother when I read this chapter in the book.  As we went through her things after she passed, we found little notes with specific names on it willed to that person.  These items were not actually in her will but they meant enough in her mind to give it to a specific person.  Though the women in Petersburg were in a different time than my grandmother, it gives us a sense of women's thought process.  The thought of who would most benefit from receiving that gift, who was grandma's favorite, or who asked first?  Women showed their nurturing abilities by denoting some security for their children. Men's wills did not show these specific details. -Marsha Himes


On my other post I had remarked that I found it interesting that women wrote wills during the nineteenth century but through this article I found more interesting how light-hearted women were about wills. "It may have been that women, who looked at death with every pregnancy...had less trouble making preparations for their dying."(p. 134). This statement proved that although women seemed to have more trouble with finances in Petersburg they were willing to be prepared and to protect their assets for their heirs. Women are typically seen as being more caring and watchful over families and through the wills in this article I find it to be true over men. Men just wrote out property (moveable or not) and to whom, women gave thought to the process; was it due to the fact that they were more nurturing or prepared? Did women face death more often than men of the nineteenth century?  -Megan W.


Women Alone: Property and Personalism
I thought this article was fascinating. The author described a period of time when single women had more control over property. I was curious about how men reacted to this new development. Thomas Jefferson was an adolescent when his father died. He received property and slaves from his father, but due to his young age, his mother had some control over her husband’s estate. Young Jefferson was not too happy about this situation and I do not think it was a coincidence that the rest his life was void of a strong attachment to his mother and any assertion of legal rights for women.  -Allison Luthern

 
Divorce in New England
The fact that Connecticut permitted divorces does extend some legal protection for abandoned married women. However, it is obvious that the Connecticut legislature was more sympathetic to men seeking this divorce-by-neglect rather than women. When Goody Beckwith and Hanna Huit requested a divorce, the legislature required others to testify that the women’s story of their husbands’ desertion was true. However, when Robert Wade=2 0requested a divorce from his runaway wife, the legislature was horrified, obviously sympathetic, and did not bother to double-check his story. A modern observer should not declare the new legal action of divorce a total triumph for the rights of women. -Allison Luthern