Does this prove women were not as oppressed as feminists claim?
At the same time, John Potter, one of the most influential men in Portsmouth, Rhode Island, had left his wife Margaret in dire straits. Margaret petitioned the State Assembly for support because her husband was "destitute of all congugall love towards her and . . . gone from her." John was arrested and granted a divorce from Margaret on 27 June 1665 after making provision for her for the rest of her life, whereupon he promptly married the redoubtable Herodias Hicks. They evidently lived happily together until her death in 1712. These early cases are notable as they seem to favor women.
***
In 1643 the Boston Quarter Court allowed Anne Clarke to divorce her husband. Denis Clarke signed an affidavit in which he admitted abandoning his wife for another woman, and having two children with each woman. He refused to return to his wife leaving the Court no choice but to punish him and grant his wife a divorce. The Quarter Court's final decision read: "Anne Clarke, beeing deserted by Denis Clarke hir husband, and hee refusing to accompany with hir, she is graunted to bee divorced."
Link: http://www.archives.com/experts/malesky-betty/divorce-in-family-history-research.html
Let's all play a game of Musical Question.
When I posted this I put directly in this category.
What the hell does this have to do with Law and Ethics? Not a thing.
Hmmm, feminists are always going around saying women in the early days when feminism was unheard of were not allowed to divorce; they were, in other words coerced into staying in bad situations; that may have been true for England but for the new land not so much so. However; from the information I've gathered the south wasn't as open as the north. The south did not allow divorces per se; at least not as the north did. My cases are cases of granted divorces whereas you feminist say women were ..
not allowed to divorce. I'm not arguing with you; arguing with you is like arguing with Kelp it makes no sense.