Difference between revisions of "Week 8 Questions/Comments-327 11"
From McClurken Wiki
(New page: When reading the divorce laws of Connecticut, I expected the reasons for granting of divorces to be things such as adultery or desertion. What I did not expect was the long periods of time...) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | == Overarching Questions == | |
| − | In many of the readings, I was surprised to read that women tended to leave possessions in unequal amounts to their heirs whereas men tended to split up what was theirs equally. I would have assumed that men would favor their sons over their daughters, but they tended to leave their offspring relatively equal shares (although in the form of land for sons and movable things for daughters). It is interesting that women favored their daughters in wills. Perhaps this is because women did not have many rights of ownership so the women wanted to aid their female relatives in any way possible. --Clare O. | + | '''In many of the readings, I was surprised to read that women tended to leave possessions in unequal amounts to their heirs whereas men tended to split up what was theirs equally'''. I would have assumed that men would favor their sons over their daughters, but they tended to leave their offspring relatively equal shares (although in the form of land for sons and movable things for daughters). It is interesting that women favored their daughters in wills. Perhaps this is because women did not have many rights of ownership so the women wanted to aid their female relatives in any way possible. --Clare O. |
| + | |||
| + | I really found it interesting that even though women had very little power during the time periods of the readings, they seemed to enjoy the power they had with the wills. I think it says something that women left their posessions to their daughters (mostly). Did sons even have a fighting chance? --Catherine K. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Antenuptial contract, Mass, 1653 == | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | == New England Divorce, CT, 1655-1678; MD, 1680 == | ||
| + | |||
| + | When reading the divorce laws of Connecticut, '''I expected the reasons for granting of divorces to be things such as adultery or desertion. What I did not expect was the long periods of time a spouse has to be away before the law considers the absence desertion.''' Three years with a total neglect of duty or seven years of providential absence seems like an extremely long amount of time, particularly for the wife being deserted. Especially since the woman cannot get married to another before the period is up and the divorce is granted, likely leaving the woman in very poor economical standing. In the case of Bridget Baxter, after the divorce was granted, the court allowed her to sell her husbands estate to pay off debts but I can imagine this would not be enough in the case of many women, especially if they were becoming indebted for the years their husbands were gone. --Clare O. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''In the divorce laws, I was surprised at how much they made marriage sound like slavery. The laws included words like "sett her free from her said husband," or "be free from her conjugall bonds." Even in the case of Robert Wade, the law said that he was "free from Joanne Wade." At first I thought that it was a negative portrayal of marriage, but I have reconsidered the possibility that they mean "bonds" in the best way, as marriage was a bond between people.''' --Mary Beth M. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | 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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I thought the most interesting part of this section was the case of Elizabeth Griswould. It was ten years between the initial trial and the trial for child support. The court seemed to be especially sympathetic towards Elizabeth. Their sympathy appears to be based upon the fact that her ex-husband, John Rogers, spoke against religion during the first trial. The court is so sympathetic that they make sure that Rogers can pay his child support and require that he give Elizabeth his piece of land if he cannot pay the twenty pound sum. -- Hannah W. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Why were these men deserting these women?''' I see some men just couldn’t live with their wives and some were out at sea (vessel or company?). I guess some men could have also gone hunting and went missing during their trips, but how come there were so many women without husbands who disappeared without a trace? “In the eighteenth century, deserted wives continued to predominate among the colony’s divorce petitioners, but the number of husbands complaining of desertion increased as did the numbers of wives who cited adultery in their petitions.”(Woloch, 72) Most women who went for these divorces did not know where their husbands could have gone or their said husbands admitted to committing adultery.-- Pam Petzold | ||
| + | |||
| + | I wondered how common divorce cases were, there are quite a few in the readings but how many more were there? Did women wait to file for divorce until they found another man willing to marry them I wonder? -- Emma C. | ||
| + | |||
| + | After reading The Tennison Decision I was rather pleased with what the courts decision was. Here was a man who admitted that yes he'd take his wife back home but could not love her. How embarrassing would that have been to a woman (from any time period)?? '''If this was just a separation,did Elizabeth have to wait for John to die before moving on with her life?''' --Remy B. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == SC feme sole trader acts, 1712, 1744 == | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''I was really surprised by the Feme Sole Trader Acts in South Carolina.''' Obviously these women still had to have permission from their hubsands to be labeled as Feme Sole, but once they got that label they were free to do as they wished as far as their business went. It seems far outside of "progressive" for the time period. --Sara S. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | == Mass, 1675-1680 – Women in county courts (Malefactors and Complainants) == | ||
| + | |||
| + | So, pre-marital sex was a big no-no. ''' I'd imagine that the only way the courts found out would be if a) you had a "bastard child" (Mary Chelson) or b) actually told the courts (William and Mary Backway)? So they were both whipped and fined. However, when Rebecca Auborne admits to having a child with Samuel Kemble, she is whipped and he is just ordered to pay child support - why wouldn't he have been whipped like William Backway?''' - Matt | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''I kind of enjoyed reading this section, in the same way you enjoy reading the police blotter.''' It was like a tabloid with odd spelling- but '''the punishments kind of appalled me. I realize that lashings were a very common punishment in this time, but some of the sentences seemed extreme for the crime committed.''' The sentence given to the Backways, for example- by the time of this writing, they were already married. Why was the court still punishing them for something they had done a while back? There was no mention made of a child, so I wonder how they ended up confessing in court to pre-marital sex. I was also startled by the sentence given to Margaret Brewster, which says she is to "strip to the waist" before being whipped. That they would ask a woman to take off clothing seems like it would be very unusual, and none of the other cases mention the woman being told to take off her clothing before being whipped, so this seems like a departure from the norm. - Rebecca W. | ||
| + | |||
| + | When Woloch mentions women serving as an extension of their husbands in the courts, does she mean as a "deputy husband?" Also, '''I found the case of Margaret Brewster extremely interesting. As a woman who disguised herself in wearing black face and teaching the Word of God, she is definitely an exception.''' What was even more surprising than her actions was her extremely severe punishment for such a crime. "to bee stripped unto the waste and to bee tied to a cart's tayle and whip't out of the Town with twenty stripes, beginning at the said meeting house." Harsh. --Mary Beth M. | ||
| + | |||
| + | After reading these complaints, '''I was struck by the fact that all of these read “after she confessed”. Did all of these women really stand up in court and say yes it was me. I did this horrible thing that you are accusing me of. Were these women force to say these things, simply to get a more bearable punishment?''' –Kayle P | ||
| + | |||
| + | I found it interesting that '''in many of these complaints, women were being charged with "fornication" and some with "fornication and having a bastard child." Why is it that only women are being convicted and punished for having sex out of wedlock?''' Is it all the womans fault? I'm pretty sure it definitely takes two and I highly doubt that these women were just so overpowering and forceful that they made these men have sex with them. It's absolutely outrageous. In the case of Rebecca Auborne and Samuel Kemble, the courts at least charged both of them for fornication and producing a bastard child; however, only Rebecca receives a physical punishment ("whip't with Fifteen Stripes", along with a monetary payment of 5 pounds and court fees) whereas Samuel Kemble (who actively participated in their fornication as well) was only sentenced to pay court fees and child support. Also, I agree with Kayle in her point she made about all of these women confessing. William Backway and his wife Mary were convicted "by theire own confession in court of committing fornication" (79). How exactly did the court find out about this fornication before their marriage? The text mentions no child involved as other passages do. '''In another example, Elizabeth Langberry was committed to prison and forced to pay court fees for becoming too drunk and allowing Thomas Ockerby to pull her into his lap. Why would she be punished for something that was not her fault?''' -- Lindsey S. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I too wondered about the women being charged with having sex before marriage and having a child. Unless you have a child, how would one find out and charge you with fornication before marriage? I wonder if they were ashamed and told on themselves, or if someone who knew about the act told someone else to get her in trouble. Also, does the man get in trouble for this? I was most shocked by the "Backway Sentence." A husband and wife confessed to having sex before marriage and they were both punished with being whipped or his wife could pay fifty shillings instead of receiving her whippings. I seriously blows my mind that they were punished even though they ended up getting married! This section also shows how little respect the court had for women. They often whipped the women as a punishment. This may sound sexist, but being whipped seems more like a punishment for a man, not a woman. --Ashley V. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''I was not surprised by the fact that women were more commonly in court as the defendant being charged with fornication, bastardy, theft, or selling a liquor without a license. I was interested by the fact that whipping was a common sentence, I associate whipping with slavery...''' --Emma C | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Virginia, 1642, NY 1721-1759 – Widows, Wills and Dower Rights == | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''I found it really interesting that there was a different standard based on where you live.''' Each of these women receive something from there husband but the Virginia will did not care whether or not she remarried. She was still the woman that had been his wife while he was alive. Was this because of the location or simply because of the customs? –Kayle P. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Women’s Estates, Mass, 1664, NY 1747-1759 == | ||
| + | |||
| + | This will stuck out to me more then the others. After reading a few, I am sitting here thinking about how their wills were written, compared to how wills are written today. ''' They were literally leaving everything they owned to someone.''' A dozen napkins? Nowadays if that was left to you, I feel it would be more of an insult and/or a cruel joke. It really just shows you how much stock they put into what they owned. - Matt | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | For these women in mid-eighteenth century Massachusetts, they would rely on their wills to exercise some remote sense of legal power. I think that could by why they were so detailed when leaving literally all they owned. --Ellen | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Suzanne Lebsock, The Free Women of Petersburg == | ||
| + | |||
| + | I find it interesting that '''being an administrator/executor of a will would jump-start a business career for women. Lebsock describes that "as the executors of administrators of their deceased husbands' estates. . .the administrator was obliged to dissolve partnerships, to collect and pay debts, to pursue litigation, to distribute the estate to the proper heirs, and to manage it in the meantime." It seems that women more or less got a crash-course in conducting business and would find some prosperity in their loss'''. --Heather T. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''It seems women's roles in the church and charity pushed them to make decisions to give their wealth to people in need.''' Women usually gave to other women, which makes sense because many poor people were widows and orphans. However, women did choose favorites when sharing their good fortune. Women had favorite slaves, daughters, or other women. For women dividing wills was rarely equal. --Michelle M. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Women used their wealth and good fortune based on their own value systems that differed from men's values. Lebsock calls this "persistent personalism."And, this "persistent personalism" drove women to give to charity and the church. Also, to use their money for themselves or to certain individuals. --Michelle M. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I liked the difference the author established between the dominant narrative of women's passivity and their caution in investing. '''Women had every reason to be cautious - they often had less experience, and less resources at their disposal. But that didn't mean that the decisions they were making with their estates and their families estates weren't just as active and thoughtful'''. -- Katie C. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''This essay was certainly not without its own biases. I was with Lebsock up until her explanation of women using their wills to free their slaves. According to Lebsock, the vast majority of southern women were really opposed to slavery deep down, and showed it in their wills, and slavery was really perpetuated by all those evil men. I buy her explanations (personalization) for wills, administration, etc, but this is a little too romanticized for me.''' --Stef L. | ||
| + | |||
| + | As Lebsock notes, "Women, more than men, noticed and responded to the needs and merits of particular persons." (142) Throughout this reading, Lebsock emphasized this point.''' What I find most interesting about the reading, though, is the manner in which it seemed (to me, anyway) that Lebsock almost danced around a fairly obvious point while describing attitudes about slavery and slaves, without coming out and saying it. For me, after reading Mary Cumming's description of her specific slaves ("...Mary is a pretty good worker at her needle, she is now sitting beside me making a slip for herself" (139)) it seemed so patently obvious to me that women's more individualistic approach to slaves was due to their far greater and more meaningful interactions with slaves. While Lebsock goes part of the way--discussing, as Stef mentions, women's increasing likelihood to personalize their wills relative to their actual relationships, not custom or law--she fails to explore why that was the case. While men would interact with slaves more fleetingly, while in transit, overseeing work, or giving orders, it was not--as far as I know--uncommon for white women and their slaves to be performing household tasks at the same time, and in the same location.''' That is the exact set of circumstances that can lead to regular discussion, to feelings of intimacy, and to a meaningful individual relationship. That seemed even clearer to me when compared with men like Edmund Ruffin, the proslavery apologist who--almost intentionally, it seems--omitted any mention of his slaves from his otherwise intensely personal writings. For Ruffin, his interactions with slaves ("...yanking off his boots, one imagines, stirring up his woodstove, serving his suppers"(140)) tended to be shorter, single-action based interactions, unlike the prolongued interactions between white women and their slaves (as with Cummings, sitting beside her slave while one wrote a letter and the other sewed). -- Nicole | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''In this article I found it interesting that Mary Bolling was able to pick and choose who she wanted her estate to go to.''' I thought that the first male would get everything, boy was I wrong. I also thought that she was a smart lady by investing in many different things to grow her estate for her children and her grandchildren. Not only was she making money she also knew the law and tried to have a stipulation in her will saying that if the Shore’s bring suit against her, her daughter Ann would receive nothing. I also was amused to know that even in the early 1800’s (around 1819) people were still getting swindled out of their money. Then it was tradesmen and slaves on women, and now its telemarketers and mail order items on elderly people. I also felt for Mary Read Anderson. She was never taught the ins and outs of business, so she always relied on a man and she “was to emphasize womanly weakness in order to justify her dependence on a male protector.”(Women Alone, 119)--Pam Petzold | ||
| + | |||
| + | In Lebsock's article I was particularly interested in Mary Bolling's approach to her will. Yes most of us would assume that women would follow the direction that their husbands might take in making their wills. It's refreshing to know that there were a few women who made their own choices. The quote "Whether we regard behavior like that of Mary Bolling as a positive assertion of the primacy of human feeling or as an ugly exercise in pettiness, the point remains that women made economic decisions according to their own standards" appeals to me because Mary didn't care about how it looked, it's what she wanted. This really made sense to me, women may not have control of any property/other items but still have opinions about it when it will become their's upon their husbands death. --Remy B. | ||
