Post # 8:The Trial of Clara's "murderer"

   In the trial of the State vs. Rehberg (1885), Edward Rehberg is accused of committing second-degree murder.  Edward is accused of fatally beating his young daughter, Clara Rehberg, to the point of inducing septicemia and piemia to produce gangrene.  Clearly on the basis of the information and evidence provided in the written transcript, a 20th century jury would find Edward innocent of committing murder.  Louisa Rehberg, stepmother to the Rehberg children, would instead be charged for the crime since all the evidence from the witness testimonies indicates her as the primary suspect.  Although the evidence points to Louisa, it is most likely that Edward would still be found guilty in a nineteenth century court room.  Individuals from the 19th century were heavily influenced by the Second Great Awakening and post Civil War attitudes.  There beliefs and ideology differed greatly to those of the 20th century thinkers.  When comparing a 19th century American jury to that of a 20th, the verdict for the State vs. Rehberg trial would be different between the two solely on the basis of family values and education within a societal ranking system.
   

The nineteenth century jury would have found Edward guilty due to the oblivious assumption that women were incapable of committing atrocious acts, such as murder. They viewed that women took part in a “socially defined role as guardians of morality” [1].  They were domesticated to provide care within their homes and construct an environment away from the competitive work place [2].  A mother was the source for emotional support where she would provide love, comfort, and teaching values to her children [3].  The nineteenth century conditioned society to believe that women were incapable of being violent and their firm beliefs would overshadow the natural state of the trial.  Edward would most likely be convicted and incarcerated for the jury’s one-sided reasoning. 
   

The twentieth century jury, however; would disregard such beliefs and take into consideration the testimonies and evidence to prove Edward’s innocence.  Every witness stated in their testimony that Edward had spent the whole day working on the haystack and the only time he left the haystack was to eat [6].  Even during his meals he was accompanied by his co-worker, Joe Tiebow.  His constant presence around people would’ve confirmed the jury’s belief that he must have lacked the capacity to attack Clara.  Over the course of time, society has accepted that in addition to men, women were also capable of committing evil crimes.  The twentieth century courts evolved to form an impartial justice system with discrete legislation.  This level of sophistication demonstrated in the twentieth century jury would inevitably serve justice by validating Edward’s innocence and convict the true criminal, Louisa. 
 

  During the course of the trial, Clara’s final words were mentioned as testimony for the jury.  Her “deathbed declaration” stated that it was her stepmother, Louisa Rehberg and not her father, who was the cause of her condition [5].  The nineteenth century jury would presumably invalidate her testimony based on her age, gender, and social status.  The Rehberg’s were part of the lower social class during this time in history.  Nineteenth century jurors viewed children, such as Clara, to be uneducated individuals who lack the qualifications necessary to distinguish what is right from wrong.  The jury would overlook Clara’s deathbed declaration and continue to prosecute Edward. 
   

The twentieth century, on the other hand, would be attentive to Clara’s final words and incorporate that into their overall decision for Edward’s verdict.  Moving from the twentieth century till now, it is mandatory for children in America to attend public schools, no matter where they may stand on society’s social ladder.  This requirement for children to receive an education increases a broader range of children becoming intelligent thus making their decisions more credible.  Clara’s testimony would no doubt leave the twentieth century jury exculpating Edward’s accusation and convict the most sensible suspect, Louisa.
   

Many differences can be acknowledged in how a nineteenth or twentieth century jury would perceive the case of the State vs. Rehberg (1885).  The various movements that swept through the nineteenth century left society classifying that an individual’s level of education was dependent on the state of his/her social class.  Society viewed children and women as frivolous beings.  These assumptions, however; would no longer be of importance for the twentieth century thinkers.  The sophisticated level of thinking shown in the twentieth century jurors would demonstrate the true nature of justice by surmounting the clouded and improbable judgments of the jurors in the nineteenth century.

[1] Davidson, et al., Nation of Nations, 320.
[2] ibid., 319.
[3] ibid.
[4] ibid., 320.
[5] State vs. Rehberg, Reader, 32.
[6] ibid., 17-32.

Group Report:
Our group first met on Tuesday, November 9, at 9:00 PM.  We met Online and entered a private chat on AOL.  We began planning out the structure of the blog post.  After discussing what would be in the paragraphs Brittany began to work on composing the first draft.  Vernon attempted to find relative pictures or material on the web but was unable to find anything that made sense.  Tri used some textbook ideas to add into the blog that James found.  Tri finished revising and posted his blog on Friday night after letting Brittany look over it one last time.  The blog was finished at about 9:30 PM on Friday night.  Mark wrote the group report.

Comments

[neal wobbe]

This is essentially a very stron post. The best part of the post is the depth of it. You went very deep into the issue and seemed to cover all points. Your thesis could be strong if it wasn't as long, if it was shorter to the point I think it would be more effective. Also if you combined the 3rd and 4th paragraph, since they are talking about some of the same points, it would be more effective. Lastly, your conclusion is decent but if you included parts of your thesis, it would wrap the pot up better. But overall, this was a very good post.

[Chelstan Char]

This is a very good group post. The thesis is very straight forward and tells the reader exactly how the group feels in regards to the outcome and why it happened that way. The textbook references are all very on point and add lots of depth to the background and historical context. My only critique would be to add textbook or link references to the second to last and last paragraph, because they seem lonely without them. Other than that, great post.

[jpomeran]

This paper was written well overall. The examples of the main differences in society’s view of women in the different centuries added a lot to the paper and helped to support the group’s viewpoint.
There was a lot of good evidence that would have led a jury to convict Lousia instead of Edward in a 20th century court system.
I particularly liked the paragraph about Clara’s deathbed declaration; in my opinion, it was the best example of the inaccuracy of the 19th century jury.
Watch your punctuation – the word “however” shouldn’t always be followed by a semi-colon.
In the second paragraph you could have included the reasons why you thought that Edward would have been found guilty in the 19th century, other than the fact that they would not convict his wife due to her gender.

[Morgan Hall]

The only thing that I would suggest about this post is in your conclusion, you need to tie everything up better. you need to refer to your first paragraph a little bit more. Other than that I thought this post was very well written.