Law and the Structure of Power in Colonial Virginia

S, supra note 93, at 42, 45 (allowing the wife to live separate from her abusive husband and ordering the husband to pay the wife’s accomodations); see also In re. Wardens of Hungers Parish (Northampton Cnty. Ct., Feb. 18, 1712/1713 & Mar. 17, 1712/1713), in 15 NORTHAMPTON COUNTY VIRGINIA RECORD BOOK COURT CASES & C, 1710–1717, at 86, 90–91 (Howard Mackey & Marlene Groves eds., 2003) [hereinafter 15 NORTHAMPTON 1710–1717] (releasing the husband from the sheriff’s custody for fulfilling a prior bond to indemnify the church for any charges incurred for maintaining his wife); Wharton v. Wharton (Westmoreland Cnty. Ct., Nov. 1, 1705), in VIRGINIA COUNTY COURT RECORDS ORDER BOOK WESTMORELAND COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1705–1707, at 4 (Ruth Sparacio & Sam Sparacio eds., 1988) [hereinafter WESTMORELAND 1705– 1707] (ordering equal division of the husband’s estate upon willingness to separate from his wife). However, a wife who left her husband could not take any of her property without an order from the court. See, e.g., Turner v. Thompson (Stafford Cnty. Ct., June 12, 1690), in STAFFORD 1664–1668, 1689–1690, supra note 127, at 98 (requiring a wife who left her husband without a court order return all property taken from the house). 226 King v. Grant (King George Cnty. Ct., Aug. 6, 1725), in VIRGINIA COUNTY COURT RECORDS KING GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA ORDER BOOK ABSTRACT 1723–1725, at 87–88 (Ruth Sparacio & Sam Sparacio eds., 1992) [hereinafter KING GEORGE 1723–1725]. A defendant accused of breaching a peace bond was entitled to a jury trial to determine whether a breach had, in fact, occurred. E.g., King v. Monteith (King George Cnty. Ct., Sept. 4, 1725), in KING GEORGE 1723– 1725, supra, at 96–97. 227 See In re. Hanks (Rappahannock Cnty. Ct., Oct. 1, 1690), in RAPPAHANNOCK 1689−1692, supra note 56, at 38 (granting a mother’s request for custody of her natural son); see also Kirtley v. Hartley (Westmoreland Cnty. Ct., Feb. 28, 1705/1706), in WESTMORELAND 1705–1707, supra note 225, at 12–13 (recognizing a father's right to custody of his legitimate children following his wife's death). 228 King v. Lee (King George Cnty. Ct., May 6, 1726), in KING GEORGE 1725–1728, supra note 126, at 19–20. 229 Summons of Hubbard (Spotsylvania Cnty. Ct., Oct. 7, 1735), in SPOTSYLVANIA 1735–1738, supra note 142, at 6. 230 Summons of Hubbard (Spotsylvania Cnty. Ct., Dec. 1735), in SPOTSYLVANIA 1735–1738, supra note 142, at 9. 231 See, e.g., In re. Jackson (Botetourt Cnty. Ct., Mar. 14, 1771), microformed on 00307225162119 (Genealogical Soc’y of Utah) (reporting a complaint made against a father for “not educating his children in a Christian like manner”); In re. Rose (Northumberland Cnty. Ct., Nov. 18, 1675), Valparaiso University Law Review, Vol. 48, No. 3 [2015], Art. 9 http://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol48/iss3/9 2014] Law and the Structure of Power 797 mother’s second husband control of the children's estates following her death upon his promise to care for them until adulthood.232 Both the power of county courts over families, and the limits on that power, emerged most clearly in a proceeding brought by a widow, Hanna Grey Jacob.233 When several of her slaves became infected with smallpox, she petitioned the county court to have her family inoculated against the disease.234 The court granted her petition but refused to allow inoculation of the county at large—something it deemed too dangerous.235 Accordingly, the court exercised its power to prohibit other inoculations, although it did declare that other families that wanted inoculations could seek permission to receive them.236 In sum, the mid-eighteenth-century legal order of Virginia was substantially stronger than the legal system that Bacon’s Rebellion had challenged. The mid-eighteenth-century labor force of African and African-American slaves was under far more repressive control than the older force of white indentured servants had been. Meanwhile, the white underclass was no longer composed mainly of rowdy, single young men but of families. Those families, in turn, had developed ties of dependency and deference to elites and, whether by coercion or conviction, had become part of well-regulated Christian communities adhering to high standards of morality. The communities of mideighteenth-century Virginia had been compelled to accept traditional norms and thus were far easier to govern than their seventeenth-century predecessors had been.