Editing Rule of thumb (section)

=== 19th-century United States ===
An 1824 court ruling in [[Mississippi]] stated that a man was entitled to enforce "domestic discipline" by striking his wife with a whip or stick no wider than the judge's thumb. In a later case in [[North Carolina]] (''State v. Rhodes'', 1868), the defendant was found to have struck his wife "with a switch about the size of this fingers"; the judge found the man not guilty due to the switch being smaller than a thumb.{{r|Wilton|p=41}} The judgment was upheld by the state supreme court, although the later judge stated:

{{quote|Nor is it true that a husband has a right to whip his wife. And if he had, it is not easily seen how {{em|the thumb}} is the standard of size for the instrument which he may use, as some of the old authorities have said [...] The standard is the {{em|effect produced}}, and not the manner of producing it, or the instrument used.{{r|Kelly}}{{r|Wilton|pp=41–42}}}}

In 1873, also in North Carolina, the judge in ''State v. Oliver'' ruled, "We assume that the old doctrine that a husband had the right to whip his wife, provided that he used a switch no larger than his thumb, is not the law in North Carolina".{{r|Wallace & Roberson}}{{r|Wilton|p=42}} These latter two cases were cited by the legal scholar [[Beirne Stedman]] when he wrote in a 1917 law review article that an "old common law rule" had permitted a husband to use "moderate personal chastisement on his wife" so long as he used "a switch no larger than his thumb".{{r|Kelly|Wallace & Roberson}}

By the late 19th century, most American states had outlawed wife-beating; some had severe penalties such as [[Flagellation|forty lashes]] or imprisonment for offenders.{{r|Wilton|p=40}} Although it was commonly believed in parts of the United States that a man was legally permitted to beat his wife with a stick no wider than his thumb, that belief did not have any connection with the phrase ''rule of thumb'' until a misunderstanding arose in the 1970s.{{r|Wilton|pp=43–44}}