men have done about coverture?is it fair to take them to task for not abolishing or at least amending the law in the way abigail adams asked? let's see what the founders had to save themselves. at first glance, they seem silent. you do a word search for coverture in the newspaper, he will not get much of a return. we found as historians in the past, they have let the founders off the hook around the issue of women's full citizenship. we used to say they didn't know any better and couldn't imagine other options. that's what we used to say about the issues of the founders with slavery. just as new research on race slavery has complicated the sweeping assumption that we just didn't know, we now understand that there were moments when the framers could allow women to vote, they could have allowed married women to retain property, could have modified divorce laws, could have set aside the rule of coverture all together and started from scratch. as with the issue of slavery, in terms of the silence around the status of w

that's coverture. so her descendants that wanted that property coming from their mothers argued that the wife desertion did not mean anything. states want to keep the confiscated property and they found themselves in the novel position of arguing that women could be citizens with a responsibility to the state, that they were in fact capable of treason. in martin versus massachusetts, council for the state argued that went and martin, the mother of the plaintiffs, chose to accompany her husband back to england, that she acted in a political capacity, that's abandoning her massachusetts property. pretty interesting. in the end, these cases were decided in a variety of ways. in the case of james martin, he got his mother's property. but he was able to do so because the justices decided his case proceeded from a very conservative point of view. they decided that married women were not autonomous actors. as i said, other cases went the other way. in moments like this, what's demonstrated is that the failure

that's the hard coverture. you see, heirs who wanted that property that would have come to them through their mothers was arguing the wife's desertion didn't mean anything. now states wanted to keep the confiscated property and found themselves in the novel position of arguing that women could be citizens with the esponsibility to the state that they were capable of treason. in martin versus massachusetts, counsel for the state argued when ann martin, mother of james martin chose to accompany her husband back to england, she contacted -- acted in a political capacity, thus abandoning her massachusetts property. pretty interesting. in the end these cases were decided in a variety of ways, in the case of james martin, he got his mother's property which is undoubtedly which she would have wanted but was able to do so because the justices decided his case preceded from a very conservative point of view and decided that married women were not autonomous actors apart from their husband but as i said, other cases went

that's coverture.ou're a woman and negotiating through the world and something will pop up and it is because coverture is in place and it might be employment discrimination, discriminations of all kinds. >> thank you, yeah. so, what would you say is the status of the e.r.a. today? >> yeah, so, once i discovered the e.r.a. like, you know, rediscovered it the way columbus discovered america i looked and there is still a movement to pass the e.r.a. and, you know, i read the websites and terrific stuff. there was always a limitation to constitutional merit, a temporal limitation. i think it stopped at three. and then they extended and then that deadline passed and now they're trying to resurrect. they basically want to revitalize the movement, extend the deadline and i think virginia, so, we're just down by two. so, there is definitely movement and it's still, you know, it's the patient is still alive. if there is anything else i wanted to say about it. oh, in a lot of ways most interested in was not all t

coverture is a legal term. >> coverture is a legal term giving sole authority over a woman to her father. catherine algor, president of the massachusetts historical society explains the history of this term, and how it impact could still be seen today. the nantucket historical association hosted and provided he video for this event. >> with us tonight is the president of the national historical society. pr

coverture there's a legal term giving sole authority over a woman to her father and then her husband.on american history tv,

. >>> coverture is a legal term giving sole authority over a woman to her father and then her husbandp next on american history tv, a conversation from the massachusetts historical society about the history of this term in colonel marriages and how its impact can still be seen today.

coverture is a legal term giving sole authority of a woman to her father. next coming up a conversation from the massachusetts historical society about colonial marriages, and how its impact can still be seen today. >> our guest tonight is catherine allgor previously previously she had b