Difference between revisions of "Week 8 Questions/Comments-327 11"
From McClurken Wiki
(→New England Divorce, CT, 1655-1678; MD, 1680) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
== Overarching Questions == | == Overarching Questions == | ||
| Line 18: | Line 16: | ||
I read the New England Divorce notices and was really surprised and appalled by the 1662 "whereas the estate that her husband Baxter left with her is sold to pay debts, all excepting a bed and her wearing aparell" meaning they took EVERYTHING BUT THE SHIRT OFF HER BACK. I thought this was just an expression, but apparently it was not. So strange that they would be so harsh to a woman when the debt was her husbands and not her owns. --Sara S. | I read the New England Divorce notices and was really surprised and appalled by the 1662 "whereas the estate that her husband Baxter left with her is sold to pay debts, all excepting a bed and her wearing aparell" meaning they took EVERYTHING BUT THE SHIRT OFF HER BACK. I thought this was just an expression, but apparently it was not. So strange that they would be so harsh to a woman when the debt was her husbands and not her owns. --Sara S. | ||
| + | I found it ironic that women in New England were the only ones permitted a full divorce as compared to the rest of the colonies. Even though the women were granted divorces on very valid reasons it seems contradictory to the other laws would allow for severe punishments for premarital sex or coming to church dirty. How is it a woman could exercise enough power to end a marriage but could be reprimanded for offenses that seem trivial to divorce? For a relationship that was based in the church it seems that it should be much harder to break it and especially by the woman who was viewed as morally and spiritually weaker than her husband. --Rachel T. | ||
== SC feme sole trader acts, 1712, 1744 == | == SC feme sole trader acts, 1712, 1744 == | ||
