Changing Role of Women

When married, husbands and wives entered into a legal partnership, albeit one with an unbalanced power dynamic, giving men far-reaching decision-making power over their wives' personal property, her money, stocks, and any enslaved individuals, going as far as her clothing and jewelry. He had managerial control over all her lands. When dealing with matters of his property only he needed to be named, but his wife could not be named by herself in matters of her property, they had to be listed jointly. However, the right that the law did preserve for a woman was that her husband could not sell or mortgage her property without her consent. For many years, the law relied on men to act fairly in these instances, but time proved that this was ill-advised, as men intentionally or unintentionally coerced their wives into signing away their property. Wives were supposed to be interviewed separately from their husbands but this was only common practice, not common law, and thus not required, nor recorded, in all circumstances.

The change from a Dutch Colony to an English one brought many changes to New York.

In 1723, Captain Dircke Schepmoes signed his will, leaving “all [his] lands to [his] children: William, Jacobus, Sarah, Diritie, Rachel, Lea, Rebecca, Anna, and Ariantie.” He then appoints his son William and his daughter's husbands as executors. In a deed from 1727, the seven sisters are selling the land left to them to their brother William. There is no record on the deed that they were interviewed separately from their husbands by a judge. It was not yet required by law, so we cannot know if the practice was followed.

In 1771 an “Act to confirm certain ancient Conveyances and directing the Manner of proving Deeds to be recorded” was passed by the Colonial Legislature. The act not only required that women (femes coverts) sign such deeds as the one listed above and be interviewed separately from their husbands, but that the judge was required to make a record of the interview on the deed itself. The lack of this record could result in the transaction being declared void. This formalization of the practice would have tilted the power imbalance slightly for women- had it been actively and strictly enforced.

This selection from a 1791 deed below was written twenty years after the law was enacted, and yet there is no record of Maria Vernoy being interviewed separately from her husband, as was required. In the seven deeds from this collection written between 1771 and 1800 uploaded to NY Heritage as part of this project, only two recorded consent. While this does not mean that women like Maria Vernooy were not interviewed, it shows a lackadaisical approach and lack of concern by the officials involved, given that their neglect could have resulted in not only a void contract but a woman being forced into an agreement she did not consent to.

In this deed from 1813, Judge Abraham Bevier certifies not only that the deed has been signed by the parties involved, but also that Magdalena Eltinge and Catheryntje Eltinge were examined separately from their husbands and executed the document, without "threat or [compulsion] from their husband. It may have been loosely enforced in the first 20-30 years following its enactment, but deeds from the 1800s show it being used with increasing consistency. Court cases from the period show the consequences of not following the act with women winning back land sold. While imperfect, the 1771 act was an attempt to stymie a husband’s attempts to sell his wife’s property, which provided her and any potential children protection in the case of her husband dying or making damaging financial decisions.

Image for item

...I have also determined the said Magdalana [sic]
and Chathrinethe [sic], separate and apart from their said husbands
and they acknowledged that they had Executed this same with
=out any Treats [sic] or compultion [sic] of their husband...

Changing Role of Women