1. George Blake and Theophilus Parsons represented James Martin’s case. George Blake drew on the definition that “a feme-covert was never holden to take an oath of allegiance” (p.146). Anna Martin acted upon her duties as a wife. “A feme covert has no political relation to the State any more than an alien” (p.146). Theophilus Parsons added that, “Infants, insane, femes-covert, all whom the law considers as having no will, cannot act freely” (p.149). He raised the question whether the statute include persons without wills of their own. James Sullivan asserted on Blake’s accusation “words of the act do not include them because the words are in the masculine gender. The same reasoning would go to prove that the Constitution of the Commonwealth does not extend to women” (p.147). He articulated too that women could make their political choice in the presence of revolution. “Cannot a feme-covert levy war and conspire to levy war? She certainly can commit treason” (p.148). Daniel Davis claimed that women were “inhabitants and members” of the State. “Anna Martin was an inhabitant, appears by the record to have been so. She is therefore within the statute” (p.147). Four judges favored for reversing the confiscation and only three addressed the issue of feme-covert. Justice Theodore Sedgwick respected women’s understanding on submitting their opinions to their husbands even to the extent of losing their properties. Justice Simeon Strong emphasized that married women were bounded to their duty of obedience as wives exempting them from punishments committed by their husbands. Justice Francis Dana expressed that “because femes-covert, having no will, could not incur the forfeiture. And that the statute never was intended to include them—and o...
... middle of paper ...
...o American colonies. Some colonies or loyalists remained faithful and became dependent on the British government. In the same way through the status of feme-covert, husbands had absorbed their wives’ legal identity. “She could exercise no choice in her political allegiance independently of her husband” (p.154). But few decades after the American Independence, “many states liberalized their divorce laws, making it easier for women to divorce husbands who abused or deserted them” (p.154). Married women were allowed to own and sell their properties independently. Due to economic crisis, husbands transferred their estate to their wives to shield them from creditors. Women had control over a family’s estate. “Despite the “new code of laws” drafted by her husband and peers, the principles and practices behind the feme-covert remained embedded in the legal system” (p.154).
In Anne Orthwood’s Bastard: Sex and Law in Early Virginia, John Pagan sets out to examine the complexities of the legal system on the Eastern Shore in the seventeenth- century. He brings to light the growing differences between the English and Virginia legal systems. Pagan, an early American legal historian at the University of Richmond School of Law, spins a tragic story on the legalities surrounding an instance of out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Indentured servant Anne Orthwood’s brief encounter with a man of higher social standing produced a series of four court cases. Pagan examines each case and persons involved, vividly connecting each case to larger themes of social class, gender, labor, and economic power.
Since the beginning of the 17th-century and earlier, there has always been different perspectives on women 's rights. Men and women all over the world have voiced their opinion and position in regard to the rights of women. This holds especially true in the United States during the 18th and 19th century. As women campaigned for equality, there were some who opposed this idea. There was, and always will be a series of arguments on behalf of women 's rights. Anti-women 's rights activists such as Dr. John Todd and Pro-women 's rights activist Gail Hamilton argued intelligently and tactfully on the topic. There were many key arguments made against women’s rights by Dr. John Todd, and Gail Hamilton 's rebuttal was graceful and on par with her male counterpart. Let 's examine some of Dr. John 's arguments against women 's equality.
More than three hundred citizens came to take part in one of the most important documents written in women’s history during the Women’s Right’s Convention in upstate Seneca, New York, led by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott on July 19-20, 1848 (Ryder). Stanton became persistent when she included a resolution supporting voting rights for women in the document, intimidated by this notion her loyal husband threatened to boycott the convention. “Even Lucretia Mott warned her, ‘Why Lizzie, thee will make us ridiculous!’ ‘Lizzie,’ however, refused to yield” (Rynder). As Mott dreaded, out of eleven resolutions the most argumentative was the ninth–women’s suffrage resolution. The other 10 resolutions passed consistently. “According to Cady Stanton’s account, most who opposed this resolution did so because they believed it would compromise the others. She, however, remained adamant” (Rynder). When the two-day convention was over, one hundred men and women signed the historical the Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments to...
Until this act was passed, when a woman married, any property she owned was legally transferred to her husband. Divorce laws heavily favored men, and a divorced wife could expect to lose any property she possessed before she married. The implications of these two Acts combined, was enough to start women questioning the reasons for them not being able to vote, it started the campaign of votes for women.
In the book Good Wives: Image and Reality in the Lives of Women in Northern New England 1650-1750, Laurel Thatcher Ulrich attempts to highlight the role of women that was typical during this particular time period. During this point in history in hierarchal New England, as stated both in Ulrich’s book and “Give Me Liberty! An American History” by Eric Foner, ordinary women were referred to as “goodwives” (Foner 70). “A married woman in early New England was simultaneously a housewife, a deputy husband, a consort, a mother, a mistress, a neighbor, and a Christian” and possibly even a heroine (Ulrich 9). While it is known that women were an integral part of economic and family life in the colonies during this time, Ulrich notes that it is unlikely
As the years dragged on in the new nation the roles of men and women became more distinct and further apart for one another. Women were not allowed to go anywhere in public without an escort, they could not hold a position in office let allow vote, and they could only learn the basics of education (reading, writing, and arithmetic). In law the children belonged to the husband and so did the wife’s property and money. The only job women could think about having was being a ‘governess’ which would give other women education.
Women were confronted by many social obligation in the late nineteenth century. Women were living lives that reflected their social rank. They were expected to be economically dependent and legally inferior. No matter what class women were in, men were seen as the ones who go to work and make the money. That way, the women would have to be dependent since they were not able to go to work and make a good salary. No matter what class a woman was in, she could own property in her own name. When a woman became married she " lost control of any property she owned, inherited, or earned" ( Kagan et al. 569). A woman's legal identity was given to her husband.
Woman and family roles are considerably different today than they were back in Puritan times. Puritans thought that the public’s foundation rested on the “little commonwealth”, and not merely on the individual. The “little commonwealth” meant that a father’s rule over his family mirrored God’s rule over creation or a king over his subjects. John Winthrop believed that a “true wife” thought of herself “in [weakness] to her husband’s authority.” As ludicrous as this idea may appeal to women and others in today’s society, this idea was truly necessary for colonies to be able to thrive and maintain social order.
As early as 1765 women have been trying to prove themselves and make a mark. The daughters of liberty played an important role by participating in boycotts of British goods following the passage of the Townshend acts. The vast majority of women were house wives taking care of the children and putting food on the table. Married women had a more restrictions than single women. Married women couldn’t own property, get divorced, and had little to no legal protection; whereas single women could sue, be sued, write wills, serve as guardians own property and act as executors of estates. The power between men and women changed after the American revolution.
C. Dallett Hemphill’s book Siblings: Brothers and sisters in American History, examines familial patriarchal relationships by exploring the interaction of siblings and the give and take in the balance of family power. Hemphill found that, sibling relations were “egalitarian spaces where men and women could practice current ideas of gender performance – or take a break from them.” Hemphill determines the creation of this safe space was the result of newly found republican values within colonial American society. These egalitarian spaces within the family and the resultant deeper appreciation for female siblings would have profound ripple effects for the rest of American society after the revolutionary war, where “democracy needed to find a way to accommodate continued patriarchy at a time when outright gender inequality was no longer ideological palatable.” This theory could be interpreted as a bottom up version of Mark Kann’s work in, The Gendering of American politics from 1999. However, Hemphill does pose a counterpoint to Kann’s rigid and unchanging view on the nature of family patriarchal
This American Revolutionary experience had a great impact on the eventual movement for women's rights. Previous to their rights movement, women, by law, were declared inferior to men, had no separate existence from their husbands and every one of their possessions, acquired or inherited, would be passed on to the ownership of her husband. The children in a marriage belonged to the father alone and the custody of the children if one was to get divorced, was usually given to him. If a woman's husband died, she would receive only the use of one third of his real estate. They could be beaten as long as the stick was no bigger than a man's thumb and single women were excluded from earning a living, with the exception in a few poorly paid trades.
In the 1800s divorces were frowned upon and everything was given to the males. In the Declaration of Sentiments, Stanton enumerated specific complaints concerning the oppressed status of women in American society: their inability to vote; exclusion from higher education and professional careers; subordination to male authority in both church and state; and legal victimization in terms of wages, property rights, and divorce (Driscoll 1).... ... middle of paper ... ...
The property rights of women during most of the nineteenth century were dependent upon their marital status. Once women married, their property rights were governed by English common law, which required that the property women took into a marriage, or acquired subsequently, be legally absorbed by their husbands. Furthermore, married women could not make wills or dispose of any property without their husbands' consent. Marital separation, whether initiated by the husband or wife, usually left the women economically destitute, as the law offered them no rights to marital property. Once married, the only legal avenue through which women could reclaim property was widowhood. Women who never married maintained control over all their property, including their inheritance. These women could own freehold land and had complete control of property disposal. The notoriety of the 1836 Caroline Norton Case highlighted the injustice of women's property rights and influenced parliamentary debates to reform property laws. The women's movement generated the support which eventually resulted in the passage of the Married Women's Property Law in 1882. England's mid-nineteenth century focus on married women's property rights culminated in the transformation of the subordinate legal status of married women.
In regard to the basic obligations and duties of citizenship, little distinction was made between men and women; all heads of households were required to pay taxes… and obey all laws. Beyond that, however, there were clear legal restrictions on what the female half of the population could do. Women differed from men in their ability to be witnesses, make wills, act as guardians for their own children… These limitations appear in the earliest extant law codes and were sharpened and broadened as the law codes themselves were expanded. (4)
Throughout the early 1800s, British women most often were relegated to a subordinate role in society by their institutionalized obligations, laws, and the more powerfully entrenched males. In that time, a young woman’s role was close to a life of servitude and slavery. Women were often controlled by the men in their lives, whether it was a father, brother or the eventual husband. Marriage during this time was often a gamble; one could either be in it for the right reasons, such as love, or for the wrong reasons, such as advancing social status. In 19th century Britain, laws were enacted to further suppress women and reflected the societal belief that women were supposed to do two things: marry and have children.