S
Sung Wan C
Guest
Can u plz have a look over my response?THX I need feedback
Question:
Compare the legal systems in New England and the Chesapeake as tools for the preservation of marriage. To what extent did they acknowledge the reality of potential marital discord? What solution and/or legal remedies existed to deal with these problems? Why were they necessary and how were they justified?
My response: The legal system in New England definitely tries to preserve marriage. The capital law of the Body of Liberties of 1641 says that “If any person commits Adultery with a married or espoused wife, the adulterer and adulteress shall surely be put to death.” This would prevent married man or woman from cheating on her spouse, thus precluding marital discord. “A Puritan Prescription for Marital Concord” states that it is both the duty of husbands and wives to love each other with affection. The prescription also says that husband and wife should be patient and avoid dispute. This is because quarrelling would be Devil’s work, and it would prevent family prayer. If a husband was discontent of her wife for being not young, beautiful, healthy, or qualified, he should still love her and gently care for her since she is his wife. It was Almighty who commanded the husband to love her spouse. The same went for women. If a married woman wasn’t pleased with her husband for not being young, beautiful, talented, or qualified, she should still lover her husband. It was especially effective to relate to God when mentioning the mutual obligations of men and women. Puritanism was dominant in New England, so the people would obey whatever Almighty commanded them to do. These reciprocal obligations were undoubtedly effective in preserving marriage. However, the Capital Laws or Puritan Prescription for Marital Concord little acknowledges the potential marital discord. Especially, the Puritan Prescription for Marital Concord states that husband and wife should always love and honor his/her spouse. It is God’s command to do so. Quarrelling and disagreeing is Devil’s work, so it must be stopped immediately. It prevents family prayers. The prescription doesn’t address anything about possible disputes of any kind. However, remedies did exist to deal with problems. The Body of Liberties of 1641 says “If there be any just cause of correction complaint shall be made to authority assembled in some court, from which only she shall receive it.”
This strict system of New England, where Puritanism was the main culture force, was necessary and justified since the system was largely influenced by and based on the Bible. The puritans believed that the government’s purpose was to carry out God’s will. Since the authorship of the Bible is holy God, the Bible is also holy and right. Therefore, the legal system of New England, which is largely based on the Bible, is justified. The people were convinced to follow the law, since it was largely influenced by the Scripture.
On the other hand, the legal system of the Chesapeake didn’t do as much as New England to preserve marriage. In Chesapeake, families were fragile, since a lot of men died at young ages. Divorce was viable if the petitioner, who pleaded the governor for divorce, exhibited logical reasons. For example, a man named Robert Leshley petitioned the governor for divorce, displaying logical reasons that convinced the governor and council. There was a lack of community control of marriage in Chesapeake. Therefore, we could say that the potential of marital discord was acknowledged. If any problem existed between husband and wife, they went to the governor, like Robert Leshley did when he wanted to divorce.
Being lenient and not strict in Chesapeake was natural. The societies weren’t as closely knit as in New England, where there is a church and meeting house in every parish. Many men died when they were young, and women were granted property rights. Most importantly, Puritanism, which compelled individuals to live a simple and refraining life, wasn’t prevalent in Chesapeake. The people of Chesapeake didn’t have a uniting, formidable force like God who urged mankind to love their spouses.
Question:
Compare the legal systems in New England and the Chesapeake as tools for the preservation of marriage. To what extent did they acknowledge the reality of potential marital discord? What solution and/or legal remedies existed to deal with these problems? Why were they necessary and how were they justified?
My response: The legal system in New England definitely tries to preserve marriage. The capital law of the Body of Liberties of 1641 says that “If any person commits Adultery with a married or espoused wife, the adulterer and adulteress shall surely be put to death.” This would prevent married man or woman from cheating on her spouse, thus precluding marital discord. “A Puritan Prescription for Marital Concord” states that it is both the duty of husbands and wives to love each other with affection. The prescription also says that husband and wife should be patient and avoid dispute. This is because quarrelling would be Devil’s work, and it would prevent family prayer. If a husband was discontent of her wife for being not young, beautiful, healthy, or qualified, he should still love her and gently care for her since she is his wife. It was Almighty who commanded the husband to love her spouse. The same went for women. If a married woman wasn’t pleased with her husband for not being young, beautiful, talented, or qualified, she should still lover her husband. It was especially effective to relate to God when mentioning the mutual obligations of men and women. Puritanism was dominant in New England, so the people would obey whatever Almighty commanded them to do. These reciprocal obligations were undoubtedly effective in preserving marriage. However, the Capital Laws or Puritan Prescription for Marital Concord little acknowledges the potential marital discord. Especially, the Puritan Prescription for Marital Concord states that husband and wife should always love and honor his/her spouse. It is God’s command to do so. Quarrelling and disagreeing is Devil’s work, so it must be stopped immediately. It prevents family prayers. The prescription doesn’t address anything about possible disputes of any kind. However, remedies did exist to deal with problems. The Body of Liberties of 1641 says “If there be any just cause of correction complaint shall be made to authority assembled in some court, from which only she shall receive it.”
This strict system of New England, where Puritanism was the main culture force, was necessary and justified since the system was largely influenced by and based on the Bible. The puritans believed that the government’s purpose was to carry out God’s will. Since the authorship of the Bible is holy God, the Bible is also holy and right. Therefore, the legal system of New England, which is largely based on the Bible, is justified. The people were convinced to follow the law, since it was largely influenced by the Scripture.
On the other hand, the legal system of the Chesapeake didn’t do as much as New England to preserve marriage. In Chesapeake, families were fragile, since a lot of men died at young ages. Divorce was viable if the petitioner, who pleaded the governor for divorce, exhibited logical reasons. For example, a man named Robert Leshley petitioned the governor for divorce, displaying logical reasons that convinced the governor and council. There was a lack of community control of marriage in Chesapeake. Therefore, we could say that the potential of marital discord was acknowledged. If any problem existed between husband and wife, they went to the governor, like Robert Leshley did when he wanted to divorce.
Being lenient and not strict in Chesapeake was natural. The societies weren’t as closely knit as in New England, where there is a church and meeting house in every parish. Many men died when they were young, and women were granted property rights. Most importantly, Puritanism, which compelled individuals to live a simple and refraining life, wasn’t prevalent in Chesapeake. The people of Chesapeake didn’t have a uniting, formidable force like God who urged mankind to love their spouses.