Difference between revisions of "Week 8 Questions/Comments-327 09"
From McClurken Wiki
(→SC feme sole trader acts, 1712, 1744) |
|||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
== SC feme sole trader acts, 1712, 1744 == | == 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 | + | 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 |
| − | We discussed in class that all of the colonies/states eventually allowed for some level of divorce or separation, except for South Carolina. However, South Carolina did have some of the most liberal laws for married women. They could engage in business independent of their husbands, and they could sue and be sued, much like unmarried women as feme soles. Unlike in other colonies, none of this was dependent on the state of their marriage. Husbands didn’t have to be unsupportive or absent for wives to be involved in business. I wonder if the more open laws for married women in South Carolina played a part in its lack of divorce laws. -- Taylor Brann | + | We discussed in class that all of the colonies/states eventually allowed for some level of divorce or separation, except for South Carolina. However, South Carolina did have some of the most liberal laws for married women. They could engage in business independent of their husbands, and they could sue and be sued, much like unmarried women as feme soles. Unlike in other colonies, none of this was dependent on the state of their marriage. Husbands didn’t have to be unsupportive or absent for wives to be involved in business. '''I wonder if the more open laws for married women in South Carolina played a part in its lack of divorce laws.''' -- Taylor Brann |
| − | I found it interesting how South Carolina allowed women to stand alone within the trade community. While being responsible for "their business debts" may seem less than pleasurable for women, it was a definite breakthrough for women. (P. 77) The idea that women had an identity away from their husbands/males was a feat within itself. Women were recognized as individuals, ones who could be held responsible for their own actions in the trade community. It surprised me that South Carolina would be the one to pass this law about ''Femme Soles'' in trading, since their divorce laws were strict and almost non-existent. ----- Alex Mankarios | + | I found it interesting how South Carolina allowed women to stand alone within the trade community. '''While being responsible for "their business debts" may seem less than pleasurable for women, it was a definite breakthrough for women.''' (P. 77) The idea that women had an identity away from their husbands/males was a feat within itself. Women were recognized as individuals, ones who could be held responsible for their own actions in the trade community. It surprised me that South Carolina would be the one to pass this law about ''Femme Soles'' in trading, since their divorce laws were strict and almost non-existent. ----- Alex Mankarios |
The difference in the divorce laws as well as the laws for Feme Soles in the different states is very interesting. I thought that it really echos the idea that the colonies were not unified and existed as sole entities independent of the other colonies. These laws seemed to exemplify the fact that the the government in south carolina seemed to be more concerned with a womans marital status even if they were business women. I think if they were aligned somehow with a man they were less of a threat. --Emma Peck | The difference in the divorce laws as well as the laws for Feme Soles in the different states is very interesting. I thought that it really echos the idea that the colonies were not unified and existed as sole entities independent of the other colonies. These laws seemed to exemplify the fact that the the government in south carolina seemed to be more concerned with a womans marital status even if they were business women. I think if they were aligned somehow with a man they were less of a threat. --Emma Peck | ||
