Marriage

Most people consider marriage to be a sacred pack legally and morally. Since a popularity in partnership versus actual legal binding marriage is on an upward trend, the same principal can be applied as would to marriage because they act the same for the most part outside of the legal side. Taking this ideal into account, the actions of the Ryder in The Wife of His Youth can be see as reprehensible nowadays, but would the lack of acknowledge of his previous relationship have been back then? The groups in class informed us that slave marriages were not considered legal until after the Civil War and when the proper legal documents are filled out. So, legally it is fine for him to remarry but would society still be okay with it? In my opinion, not entirely because it can reflect what he might do in the future, especially since he admitted that he thought of his first wife as his legal wife in all ways but actually legal.

The Passing of Grandison reflects another take on marriage. Love is not in the equations and for the time period that would not be uncommon because marriage was more legal than emotionally. Should she marry the guy? Is pity enough? Isn't the slave's love for his family truer even though it is less legal because he gives up his own freedom for it? Would Grandison have even left if not pressured into it? What does marriage mean during this time?

Karma: Does it further advancement or lead to the character's demise?

In the story Goophered Grapevine by Chesnutt, a number of tricks are enacted by a variety of characters, all from very diverse backgrounds. The tricks occur inside and outside the frame of the original story. The overarching trick is committed by Uncle Julius, who is manipulating events to ensure his security and comfort in life. Within the trick by Uncle Julius is a series of smaller ones, mostly from Dugal but also from a northerner. When Dugal continued to trick his neighbors for personal monetary gain, he was opened to be tricked by a con artist, which caused hims to lose everything. During his trickery, other innocent bystanders were forced to suffer from his greed. Once Uncle Julius finishes his story, tries to convince Mr. John and Miss Annie not to buy the vineyard. His trick doesn't work though, the couple is honest and the vineyard becomes successful. So maybe karma plays a role in the success of the vineyard. Or maybe on a surface level, honesty and respect of the land and the people connected to it can determine the success or failure of a family/person.
Another conclusion could stem from the lack of responsibility for one's own property because of the need for more and the inability to share. Either way, the story promotes the idea that trickery causes the person to lose everything in the end.

Good Wife?

In the story The Revolt of Mother, the mother goes against her husband's wishes and moves into the barn. The whole town freaks out and the minister visits her in hopes of convincing her to move back to the house. This reaction by the town could reflect the role the community plays in a person's life, as well as how it dictates social norms. As with Dickson and Twain with the overall acceptance and criticism of their pieces is dictated by the social climate and accepted subjects of the time. As learned in class, women were allowed to own property but only under specific conditions. Either through a will or the widow's third, each limiting what and how much the woman would receive. Taking this into account, the control over certain areas of the home, namely where and what is the home is primarily up to the man and left to the woman to obey. This story, however, breaks the established societal norm and allows the woman freedom.
This allowance of power is still left up to the man. The freedom in having her will being obeyed is only dictated by the man allowing her to stay in the barn. In truth, their would be very little the husband could do to remove her, especially since divorce was very hard to come by and was only granted with special circumstances, but he still could have said no. So did the men actually still have the power? Society would have the women believe this, but was society coning women into thinking they had any control? So the question really is, who is dominant and who is submissive?