"in the politer reign of Charles the second, this power of correction began to be doubted:61 and a wife may now have security of the peace against her husband;62 or, in return, a husband against his wife."
So there is NO SUPPORT in Blackstone for the proposition that the common law EVER permitted wifebeating.
Here is a link to the text of 1 Blackstone chap 15 ("Of Husband and Wife").
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-115fn.htm
jks
THE husband also (by the old law) might give his wife moderate correction.57 For, as he is to answer for her misbehavior, the law thought it reasonable to entrust him with this power of restraining her, by domestic chasisement, in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his servants or children; for whom the master or parent is also liable in some cases to answer. But this power of correction was confined within reasonable bounds;58 and the husband was prohibited to use any violence to his wife, aliter quam ad virum, ex causa regiminis et castigationis uxoris fuae, licite et rationabiliter pertinet [other than as licitly and reasonably pertains to the husband for the rule and correction of his wife].59 The civil law gave the husband the same, or a larger, authority over his wife; allowing him, for some misdemeanors, flagellis et sustibus acriter verberare uxorem [with flails and cudgels to beat the wife energetically], for others, only modicam castigationem adbibere [to apply limited punishment].60 But, with us, in the politer reign of Charles the second, this power of correction began to be doubted:61 and a wife may now have security of the peace against her husband;62 or, in return, a husband against his wife.63 Yet the lower rank of people, who were always fond of the old common law, still claim and exert their ancient privilege: and the courts of law will still permit a husband to restrain a wife of her liberty, in case of any gross misbehavior.64
--- Kelley <the-squeeze at pulpculture.org> wrote:
> At 11:25 AM 11/11/03 -0500, jeffrey fisher wrote:
> >this sounds like a job for snopes, but i couldn't
> find anything there . . .
> >
> >kelley?
>
> this comes up on WMST-L repeatedly. this archive of
> typical conversational
> dynamics is not conclusive, but there is a claim
> that there is a source
> from blackstone's. i've pasted one snippet, but read
> on for more:
>
<http://research.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/ruleofthumb.html>
>
> aahhhh, bitnet. :)
>
> From: "Wm. E. Painter, Jr." <wpainter @
> womenscol.stephens.edu>
> Subject: Lexis search - rule of thumb
> X-To: H-IDEAS @ uicvm.uic.edu
> To: Multiple recipients of list H-IDEAS
> <H-IDEAS @ UICVM.BITNET>
>
> From: SMTP%"ktonella%pac-man.arcade.uiowa.edu @
> uicvm.uic.edu" 28-APR-1994
>
> I did a quick Lexis search for legal references on
> "rule of thumb" in
> relation to wife beating. I didn't have time for a
> really refined search
> but below are short relevant excerpts.
>
>
>
> n86 The husband's right to discipline his wife has
> a long
> history at commonlaw, related to the concept of
> wives as
> chattel. For a review of the changing scope of the
> disciplinary prerogative at common law, see UNITED
> STATES
> COMM'N ON CIVIL RIGHTS, UNDER THE RULE OF THUMB:
> BATTERED
> WOMEN AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE 14, 21
> (1982), supra
> note 41, at 1-3; Eppler, supra note 13, at 791-93;
> Note,
> supra note 16, at 705.
>
> 34 Emory L.J. 855, *874
> Historically, wife beating has been an
> acceptable
> practice both socially and legally. The right of a
> husband
> to physically chastise his wife was inherited from
> the
> British Common Law tradition which considered
> married people
> to be one person, specifically the husband, n91 and,
> which
> gave the husband who beat his wife immunity from
> prosecution. In Bradley v. State, n92 a
> Mississippi court articulated and adopted this form
> of
> immunity, holding that a husband should be able to
> moderately chastise his wife without subjecting
> himself
> to vexatious prosecution for assault and battery.
> Moderate
> chastisement was measured by the " rule of thumb"
> which
> allowed a husband to beat his wife with a stick no
> thicker
> than his thumb. n93 The societal basis for this
> legal
> acceptance of wife beating may be seen in the
> results of a
> survey conducted for [*875] the National
> Commission on
> the Causes and Prevention ofViolence, which found
> that
> twenty-five percent of college educated men
> interviewed felt
> that physical chastisement of a spouse was
> acceptable in
> some situations. n94
>
>
> 106 Harv. L. Rev. 1501, *1502
> II. Historical Underpinnings of Wife Abuse
> When you see your wife commit an offense, don't
> rush at
> her with insults and violent blows . . . . Scold
> her
> sharply, bully and terrify her. And if this still
> doesn't
> work . . . take up a stick and beat her soundly, for
> it is
> better to punish the body and correct the soul than
> to
> damage the soul and spare the body . . . . Then
> readily
> beat her, not in rage but out of charity and concern
> for her
> soul, so that the beating will redound to your
> merit and
> her good. n4
>
>
> 106 Harv. L. Rev. 1501, *1501
> Domestic violence is not a new problem. History
> is
> replete with reports of domestic abuse, n11 and
> despite the
> community-wide repercussions of domestic violence,
> an
> adequate legal response has long been lacking. In
> fact,
> United States law condoned wife abuse and
> protected the
> right of men to beat their wives through the
> midnineteenth
> century. n12 In the late 1800s, shifting public
> attitudes
> prompted some states to eliminate explicit legal
> protection
> for batterers, and several instituted a range of
> punishments
> for abusive husbands. n13 Most early reform
> efforts,
> however, focused primarily on maintaining the family
> structure and failed to provide meaningful relief
> for the
> victims of domestic violence. n14 Indeed, until as
> recently
> as twenty-five years ago, battered women had few
> legal
> remedies available to them. n15
>
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - -
> - - -
>
> n11 See OKUN, supra note 1, at 2-6.
>
> n12 See ANGELA BROWNE, WHEN BATTERED WOMEN
> KILL 165-67
> (1987).
>
> 20 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 679, *681
> n7 Id. ("For as he [the husband] is to answer
> for her
> misbehavior, the law thought it reasonable to
> intrust him
> with this power of restraining her, by domestic
> chastisement, in the same moderation that a man is
> allowed
> to correct his apprentices or his children."
> (quoting 1
> William Blackstone, Commentaries *444)).
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Richard T. Campbell | Internet : DCAMP
> @ UIC.EDU
> Department of Sociology M/C 312 | Phone (W):
> 312/413-3759
> University of Illinois at Chicago | Phone (H):
> 708/386-2263
> 1007 W. Harrison St. | FAX :
> 312/996-5104
> Chicago, IL 60607-7140 | BITNET :
> u08239 @ UICVM
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree