In the late 19th century a typical man and women would get married and have children. They would raise their children with the father playing the role of disciplinarian, and the mother played the role of nurturer. “Most had a house for the rancher and his family, a bunkhouse for the hired hands, and about 30 to 40 acres per animal.”(Davidson, 511) The Rehberg family that resided in Helena, Montana in 1885 was not a perfect example of a typical family in the 19th centurey because there was the addition of the step mother. But they were close. Edward Rehberg was charged and found guilty with murder of his daughter Clara in the State of Montana vs. Rehberg (1885). The jury consisted of only white, male, and well off (better word) in the late 19th century. We believe he was an innocent man, because the testimony from his eldest daughter, the workman, and the deathbed statement from Clara point out that he was a)too busy that day to have been near Clara and b) that there was tension between the stepmother and the children. Would this verdict still be upheld in modern 21st century? No, we know for a fact the verdict would not be the same. He may have been found guilty still but the reasoning behind it would be different.
Families are structured units. Each piece of the structure plays a role in the family. In a stereotypical 19th century family the father would have been the bread winner and the mother would stay at home. The father would be the leader of the family and everyone else would follow his word. Being that the father is the man of the house it would be the manly duty to discipline the children. Women were seen as weak and frail therefore would not be fit to discipline. The jury’s only reasoning to finding Edward guilty would be just that. Clara was beaten to death by another human being, and who disciplined the children? The finger of the jury pointed directly at Edward. The jury simply saw the Rehbergs as a lower class family that had issues.
Without any concrete evidence, Edward was found guilty. In fact there were several testimonies that would prove his innocence. Several testimonies clearly stated that Edward never left their sight long enough to beat his child. He was working all day with Joe Tiebow (who testified that Edward was with him the whole day), hired help for the Rehbergs, on the hay stack leaves no time for him to commit the crime. Most importantly Clara’s last words even cleared her father’s name.
(a)
In the 21st century a jury would not have given the same verdict as in the 19th century in the Rehberg case. Modern technology such as DNA and prints would most likely give the best possible verdict. Also the jury would not just be upper class white males, the group would be a mixture of his peers. The fact that a woman is just as capable as a man of beating her child is well known today. A major fact the 19th century failed to consider was that the child was beaten with a weapon. A weapon is easy as for woman to inflict the same amount of damage as a man. On that note, we believe that Edward Rehberg was not guilty of the crime and that Louisa was. However that's just not the way things were done in the 19th century.
(a) http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/trial/webopera/images/fury.jpg
Comments