William Henry Dietz Contested heritage What happened in his personal life? after former neighbors who settled on the Pacific Coast heard he was posing as an Indian. What happened after they get to know that? the Federal Bureau of Investigation looked into his heritage after he fraudulently registered for the draft as a "Non-Citizen Indian" with an allotment. The Was he punished or charged for this? The second trial resulted in a sentence of 30 days in the Spokane County Jail after he pleaded "no contest". What was his real heritage? I don't know. Are there any other interesting aspects about this article? Dietz's mother Leanna claimed he was the Indian son of her husband who had been switched a week or more after she had a stillbirth. Did the couples go along very well? Dietz divorced De Cora
Why did they divorce?
Why did Dietz and De Cora divorce?
Dietz's Indian heritage was first contested in 1916 after former neighbors who settled on the Pacific Coast heard he was posing as an Indian. In December 1918 the Federal Bureau of Investigation looked into his heritage after he fraudulently registered for the draft as a "Non-Citizen Indian" with an allotment. The Bureau found he had taken on the identity of James One Star, an Oglala man of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation 12 years his senior who had disappeared in Cuba in 1894. Dietz also claimed he was the head of an American film company that produced propaganda films for the war.  Dietz divorced De Cora in November 1918, charging her with abandonment. It is not clear how much she knew about his true identity. She died six days after his indictment.  Dietz was tried in Spokane, Washington in June 1919 for the first offense. One Star's sister, Sallie Eaglehorse, testified after seeing him for the first time at the trial that Dietz was definitely not her brother. Still, the judge instructed the jury to determine whether Dietz "believed" he was an Indian, not whether it was true. Despite that others had witnessed his birth in the summer of 1884 or had seen him the following day, Dietz's mother Leanna claimed he was the Indian son of her husband who had been switched a week or more after she had a stillbirth. Dietz's acting ability along with his mother's fallacious testimony (to protect him from prison) resulted in a hung jury, but Dietz was immediately re-indicted. The second trial resulted in a sentence of 30 days in the Spokane County Jail after he pleaded "no contest". CANNOTANSWER
charging her with abandonment. It
William Henry "Lone Star" Dietz (August 17, 1884 – July 20, 1964) was an American football player and coach. He served as the head football coach at Washington State University (1915–1917), Purdue University (1921), Louisiana Tech University (1922–1923), University of Wyoming (1924–1926), Haskell Institute—now known as Haskell Indian Nations University (1929–1932), and Albright College (1937–1942).  From 1933 to 1934, Dietz served as the head coach for the National Football League's Boston Redskins, where he tallied a mark of 11–11–2.  He was inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame as a coach in 2012.

Early life
According to census records and to his birth certificate, he was born William Henry Dietz, or "Willie," on August 17, 1884, in Rice Lake, Wisconsin, at 16 West Humbird Street.  His father William Wallace Dietz, settled in the area in 1871 and was elected county sheriff in 1877. His father married Leanna Ginder in November 1879.

"Willie" attended Oklahoma's Chilocco Indian Agricultural School, where he may have feigned some kind of Indian identity for the first time according to researcher Linda Waggoner. She wrote, "Naturally, visitors to the St. Louis World's Fair exhibit, including Dietz's future wife, Winnebago artist Angel De Cora (1871–1919), thought Dietz was a Chilocco student." Waggoner traced Dietz' heritage in several articles in Indian Country Today Media Network and at a 2013 symposium at the National Museum of the American Indian.

Contested heritage
Dietz's heritage was first contested in 1916 after former neighbors who settled on the Pacific Coast heard he was posing as a Native American. In December 1918 the Federal Bureau of Investigation looked into his heritage after he registered for the draft as a "Non-Citizen Indian" with an allotment. The Bureau found he had taken on the identity of James One Star, an Oglala man of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation 12 years his senior who had disappeared in Cuba in 1894. Dietz also claimed he was the head of an American film company that produced propaganda films for the war.

Dietz was tried in Spokane, Washington in June 1919 for the first offense. One Star's sister, Sallie Eaglehorse, testified after seeing him for the first time at the trial that Dietz was definitely not her brother. Still, the judge instructed the jury to determine whether Dietz "believed" he was a Native American, not whether it was true. Despite that others had witnessed his birth in the summer of 1884 or had seen him the following day, Dietz's mother Leanna claimed he was the Native American son of her husband who had been switched a week or more after she had a stillbirth. Dietz's acting ability along with his mother's fallacious testimony (to protect him from prison) resulted in a hung jury, but Dietz was immediately re-indicted. The second trial resulted in a sentence of 30 days in the Spokane County Jail after he pleaded "no contest".

Dietz's true heritage remains controversial.  Although he is recognized as an "Indian athlete" by Dan Snyder, owner of the Washington Football Team (formerly known as the Washington Redskins), Indian Country Today Media Network ran a series of articles in 2004 exposing Dietz as a white man masquerading as a Native American. In 1988, the National Congress of American Indians attempted to meet and discuss the issue with the team's former owner, Jack Kent Cooke, but Cooke refused a meeting.

Playing career
Dietz played at the Carlisle Indian Industrial School of Carlisle, Pennsylvania, with teammate Jim Thorpe, under famed coach Pop Warner.

Coaching career
In 1921, Dietz took a coaching position with Purdue University in Indiana. After Angel De Cora died in 1919, he married Doris O. Pottlitzer, a middle-aged local journalist, on January 29, 1922. The week previous to their marriage, Purdue officials fired him for illegal recruiting. In spring 1933, George Preston Marshall, owner of the Boston Braves, hired Dietz to replace Coach Lud Wray. In 1937, the team moved to Washington, D.C.

For the rest of his life, Dietz continued to promote himself as Lone Star Dietz, the son of W. W. and Julia One Star of Pine Ridge. He took on his last coaching job in 1937 for Albright College in Pennsylvania; in 1964, still married to Doris, Dietz died in Reading, Pennsylvania. Later in life, Dietz was an active painter exhibiting his work at Lafayette College with in an exhibit curated by Francis Quirk. He and Doris were so poor that former teammates purchased his headstone. It reads: "William ‘Lone Star’ Dietz
born in South Dakota."

George Preston Marshall, owner and founder of the Boston Braves, sought to rename the franchise in 1933 after leaving the stadium the team had shared with the baseball team of the same name. Marshall was said to have named the Redskins in honor of Dietz, who claimed to be of the Sioux Nation, by analogy with the Red Sox who shared the team's new home, Fenway Park. A 1933 news article quotes Marshall as saying he named the team because of real Indians on the team. However, Marshall is only talking about why he specifically chose Redskins. Dietz was hired before the name change and is cited in many articles and by Marshall as being a reason he kept the Native American theme when changing the team name.

Recognition
Dietz was inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame in 2012.

Nickname

Dietz named himself "Lone Star" after James One Star, the alleged nephew of an Oglala Buffalo Bill Performer sometime after the 1904 St. Louis World's Fair. "Lone Star" and "One Star" are the same name in Oglala.

Personal life
Dietz divorced De Cora in November 1918, charging her with abandonment. It is not clear how much she knew about his identity.  She died six days after his indictment. Later in life, Dietz was an active painter exhibiting his work at Lehigh University with sculptors Joseph Brown and Jose deRivera in a 1955 exhibit curated by Francis Quirk.

Head coaching record

College football

NFL

College baseball

References

Further reading
Keep A-goin': the life of Lone Star Dietz (2006) , hardback; , softcover (2006) 
Doctors, Lawyers, Indian Chiefs (2008)  softcover devotes a chapter to Lone Star Dietz
At last, Lone Star in the Hall of Fame (May 22, 2012 by Cougfan.com)

External links
 
 

1884 births
1964 deaths
Albright Lions football coaches
Carlisle Indians football coaches
Carlisle Indians football players
Haskell Indian Nations Fighting Indians football coaches
Louisiana Tech Bulldogs baseball coaches
Louisiana Tech Bulldogs football coaches
Ole Miss Rebels football coaches
Purdue Boilermakers football coaches
Washington State Cougars football coaches
Wyoming Cowboys football coaches
Boston Redskins head coaches
College Football Hall of Fame inductees
People from Rice Lake, Wisconsin
Players of American football from Wisconsin
American football tackles
Colasterion (from the Greek word for "instrument of punishment" or "house of correction") was published by John Milton with his Tetrachordon on 4 March 1645. The tract is a response to an anonymous pamphlet attacking the first edition of The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce. Milton makes no new arguments, but harshly takes to task the "trivial author".

Background

Milton married in Spring 1642, and shortly after, his wife Marie Powell, left him and returned to live with her mother. The legal statutes of England did not allow for Milton to apply for a divorce and he resorted to promoting the lawfulness of divorce. Although the laws did not change, he wrote four tracts on the topic of divorce, with The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce as his first tract. The first tract was created during a time of humiliation, and Milton was motivated towards writing on the topic after reading the work of Martin Bucer on divorce. Although it is impossible to know why exactly Powell separated from Milton, it is possible that Powell's family, a strong royalist family, caused a political difference that was exacerbated by the English Civil War.

During the time of composing the tracts, Milton attempted to pursue another woman known only as Miss Davis, but this resulted in failure. He continued to pursue the topic until his wife returned to him and they were to reconcile. This reconciliation could have come in part from the failure of the royalists, including Powell's family, to prevail during the English Civil War and lacking justification to further distance themselves from Milton. According to George Thomason, an early collector of English Civil War tracts, Colasterion was published on 4 March 1645 along with Tetrachordon.

Tract
Colasterion is a personal response to the anonymous pamphlet An Answer to a Book, Intituled, The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, or, A Pleas for Ladies and Gentlewomen, and all other Married Women against Divorce (1644). The work contains many insults against the anonymous author, including "wind-egg", "Serving-man", and "conspicuous gull". In the tract, Milton promotes an idea of separation, and, in his situation, a separation from his previous wife.

Notes

References
 Miller, Leo. John Milton among the Polygamophiles. New York: Loewenthal Press, 1974.
 Milton, John. Complete Prose Works of John Milton Vol II ed. Don Wolfe. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959.
 Patterson, Annabel. "Milton, Marriage and Divorce" in A Companion to Milton. Ed. Thomas Corns. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2003.

Works by John Milton
1645 books The relationship between religion and divorce is complicated and varied. Different religions have different perceptions of divorce. Some religions accept divorce as a fact of life, while others only believe it is right under certain circumstances like adultery. Also, some religions allow remarriage after divorce, and others believe it is inherently wrong. This article attempts to summarize these viewpoints of major world religions and some important traditions regarding divorce in each faith.

Christianity

The great majority of Christian denominations affirm that marriage is intended as a lifelong covenant, but vary in their response to its dissolubility through divorce. The Catholic Church treats all consummated sacramental marriages as permanent during the life of the spouses, and therefore does not allow remarriage after a divorce if the other spouse still lives and the marriage has not been annulled. However, divorced Catholics are still welcome to participate fully in the life of the church so long as they have not remarried against church law, and the Catholic Church generally requires civil divorce or annulment procedures to have been completed before it will consider annulment cases. Annulment is not the same as divorce - it is a declaration that the marriage was never valid to begin with. Other Christian denominations, including the Eastern Orthodox Church and many Protestant churches, will allow both divorce and remarriage even with a surviving former spouse, at least under certain conditions. For example, the Allegheny Wesleyan Methodist Connection, in its 2014 Discipline, teaches:

In societies that practised Puritanism, divorce was allowed if one partner in the marriage was not completely satisfied with the other, and remarriage was also allowed. The Church of England also took an indissolublist line until 2002, when it agreed to allow a divorced person to remarry in church during a former spouse's lifetime under "exceptional circumstances."

Bible commentary on divorce comes primarily from the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and the epistles of Paul. Jesus taught on the subject of divorce in three of the Gospels, and Paul gives a rather extensive treatment of the subject in his First Epistle to the Corinthians chapter 7: "Let not the wife depart from her husband...let not the husband put away his wife" (1 Corinthians 7:10-11), but he also includes the Pauline privilege. He again alludes to his position on divorce in his Epistle to the Romans, albeit an allegory, when he states "For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth. . . . So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress" (Romans 7:2-3).

In ,  and , Jesus came into conflict with the Pharisees over divorce concerning their well-known controversy between Hillel and Shammai about —as evidenced in Nashim Gittin 9:10 of the Mishnah. Do Jesus’ answers to the Pharisees also pertain to Christians? Are Christians who adopt these teachings Judaizers? The differences in opinions about these questions usually arise over whether Jesus opposed the Law of Moses or just some of the viewpoints of the Pharisees, and whether Jesus just addressed a Jewish audience or expanded his audience to include Christians, for example "all nations" as in the Great Commission.

Since Deuteronomy 24:1-4 did not give Jewish women the right to directly initiate a divorce (See Agunah), did Jesus' answers "in the house" to his disciples expand the rights of women or did they merely acknowledge that some Jewish women, such as Herodias who divorced Herod Boethus, were wrongfully taking rights because Jewish women were being assimilated by other cultures? (See , .) In other words, did Jesus confine his remarks to the Pharisaical questions, and did he appeal to his own authority by refuting the oral authority of the Pharisees with the formula "You have heard...But I say to you" in ? Expressions used by Jesus such as "you have heard", "it hath been said", "it is written", "have you never read", "keep the commandments", "why do you break the commandments with your traditions?" and "what did Moses Command you?" seem to indicate that Jesus generally respected the Hebrew Bible and sometimes opposed Pharisaical Opinions. He was critical of the Pharisees.

Buddhism
Buddhism has no religious concept of marriage (see Buddhist view of marriage). In Buddhism, marriage is a secular affair, subject to local customs.

Islam

According to the Quran, marriage is intended to be unbounded in time, but when marital harmony cannot be attained, the Quran allows the spouses to bring the marriage to an end (2:231). Divorce in Islam can take a variety of forms, some initiated by the husband and some initiated by the wife. The main traditional legal categories are talaq (repudiation), khulʿ (mutual divorce), judicial divorce and oaths. The theory and practice of divorce in the Islamic world have varied according to time and place. Historically, the rules of divorce were governed by sharia, as interpreted by traditional Islamic jurisprudence, and they differed depending on the legal school. Historical practice sometimes diverged from legal theory. In modern times, as personal status (family) laws were codified, they generally remained "within the orbit of Islamic law", but control over the norms of divorce shifted from traditional jurists to the state.

Judaism
Judaism has always accepted divorce as a fact of life, though an unfortunate one. Judaism generally maintains that it is better for a couple to divorce than to remain together in a state of bitterness and strife. It is said that shalom bayit (domestic harmony) is a desirable state.

Legal procedures
In general, it is accepted that for a Jewish divorce to be effective the husband must hand to the wife, and not vice versa, a bill of divorce called a get, while witnesses observe. Although the get is mainly used as proof of the divorce, sometimes the wife will tear the get to signal the end of the marriage and to ensure it is not reused. However, from ancient times, the get was considered to be very important to show all those who needed to have proof that the woman was in fact free from the previous marriage and free to remarry. In Jewish law, besides other things, the consequences of a woman remarrying and having a child while still legally married to another is profound: the child would be a mamzer, an "estranged person" to be avoided. Also, the woman would be committing adultery should she remarry while still legally married to another. An enactment called Herem de-Rabbenu Gershom (the proscription of Gershom ben Judah, accepted universally throughout European Jewish communities), prohibited a husband from divorcing his wife against her will.

In halakha (Jewish law), divorce is an act of the parties to the marriage, which is different from the approach adopted by many other legal systems. That is, a Jewish divorce does not require a decree from a court. The function of the court, in the absence of agreement between the parties, is to decide whether the husband should be compelled to give the get or for the wife to accept the get. But, notwithstanding any such ruling, the parties remain married until such time as the husband actually delivers the get.

Jewish law, in effect, does not require proof or even an allegation of moral or other fault by either party. If both parties agree to a divorce and follow the prescribed procedure, then the court would not need to establish responsibility for the marriage break-down. In this sense it is a "no-fault" approach to divorce.

A woman who has been refused a get is typically referred to as an "agunah". Where pre-nuptial agreements are enforceable in civil courts, appropriate provisions may be made to compel the giving of the get by the husband in the event of a civil divorce being obtained. However, this approach has not been accepted universally, particularly by the Orthodox.

A wife can initiate a divorce process on several grounds (including lack of satisfaction in her sexual life). However, this right extends only so far as petitioning a court to force her husband to divorce her.

One part of the complex process of divorce in Judaism, is the creation of the get itself. The get is crafted with great care and responsibility in order to ensure that no mistakes create consequences in the future. For example, exactly twelve lines are written in permanent ink telling the names of both parties, place, and time of the divorce. Because of the danger of the birth of mamzerim if the process is not performed properly, and because divorce law is extraordinarily complex, the process is generally supervised by experts.

Philosophical approaches

From the philosophical and mystical point of view, divorce is a unique procedure of tremendous importance and complexity, because it nullifies the holiest of connections that can exist in the Universe (similar to a connection between a person and God).

In some Jewish mythologies, Adam had a wife before Eve named Lilith who left him. The earliest historically documentation of this legend appears in the 8th-10th centuries Alphabet of Ben Sira. Whether this particular tradition is older is not known.

Others

Wicca
The Wiccan equivalent of a divorce is described as a handparting. Wiccans traditionally see either a high priest or high priestess to discuss things out before a divorce. However a handfasting (marriage) that falls apart peacefully does not necessarily need a handparting.

Unitarian Universalism
In Unitarian Universalism, because they affirm the "right of conscience", divorce is allowed and should be a decision by the individual person and is seen as ending a rite of passage. Such divorces have sometimes taken the form of divorce rituals as far back as the 1960s. Divorces are largely seen as a life choice.

Hinduism
In Hinduism Divorce and Remarriage is allowed. Arthashastra which is one of the sastras in Hinduism says:

A woman, hating
her husband, can not dissolve her marriage with him against his
will. Nor can a man dissolve his marriage with his wife against her
will. But from mutual enmity, divorce may be obtained
(parasparam dveshánmokshah). If a man, apprehending danger
from his wife desires divorce (mokshamichhet), he shall return to
her whatever she was given (on the occasion of her marriage). If a
woman, under the apprehension of danger from her husband,
desires divorce, she shall forfeit her claim to her property

References 

http://www.bibleissues.org, https://web.archive.org/web/20091027092358/http://geocities.com/dcheddie/divorce1.html, http://students.eng.fiu.edu/~denver/divorce1.html

Further reading
 Amato, Paul R. and Alan Booth. A Generation at Risk: Growing Up in an Era of Family Upheaval. Harvard University Press, 1997.  and . Reviews and information at 
 Gallagher, Maggie. "The Abolition of Marriage." Regnery Publishing, 1996. .
 Lester, David. "Time-Series Versus Regional Correlates of Rates of Personal Violence." Death Studies 1993: 529–534.
 McLanahan, Sara and Gary Sandefur. Growing Up with a Single Parent; What Hurts, What Helps. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994: 82.
 Morowitz, Harold J. "Hiding in the Hammond Report." Hospital Practice August 1975; 39.
 Office for National Statistics (UK). Mortality Statistics: Childhood, Infant and Perinatal, Review of the Registrar General on Deaths in England and Wales, 2000, Series DH3 33, 2002.
 U.S. Bureau of the Census. Marriage and Divorce. General US survey information. 
 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Survey of Divorce  (link obsolete).

Divorce
Divorce
Divorce