Breaking the Bonds: Marital Discord in Pennsylvania, 1730-1830 9780814788950

Citation preview

BREAKING TH E BOND S

The American Social Experience Series GENERAL EDITOR : JAME S KIRB Y MARTI N EDITORS: PAUL A S . FASS , STEVE N H . M I N T Z , CARL PRINCE , JAME S W . REE D & PETE R N . STEARN S

/. The March to the Sea and Beyond: Sherman's Troops in the Savannah and Carolinas Campaigns JOSEPH T . GLATTHAA R

2. Childbearing in American Society: 1650-1850 CATHERINE. SCHOLTE N

3. The Origins of Behaviorism: American Psychology, 1870-1920 J O H N M . O'DONNEL L

^. New York City Cartmen, 1667-1850 GRAHAM RUSSEL L HODGE S

5. From Equal Suffrage to Equal Rights: Alice Paul and the National Woman's Party, 1910-1928 CHRISTINE A . LUNARDIN I

6. Mr. Jefferson's Army: Political and Social Reform of the Military Establishment, 1801-1809 THEODORE J . CRACKE L

7. "A Peculiar People": Slave Religion and Community-Culture Among the Gullahs MARGARET WASHINGTO N CREE L

8. "A Mixed Multitude": The Struggle for Toleration in Colonial Pennsylvania SALLY SCHWART Z

9. Women, Work, and Fertility, 1900-1986 SUSAN HOUSEHOLDE R VA N HOR N

10. Liberty, Virtue, and Progress: Northerners and Their War for the Union EARL J . HES S

/ /. Lewis M. Terman: Pioneer in Psychological Testing HENRY L . MINTO N

12. Schools as Sorters: Lewis M. Terman, Applied Psychology and the Intelligence Testing Movement, 1890-1930 PAUL DAVI S CHAPMA N

13. Free Love: Marriage and Middle-Class Radicalism in America, 1825-1860 J O H N C . SPURLOC K

14. Jealousy: The Evolution of an Emotion in American History PETER N . STEARN S

13. The Nurturing Neighborhood: The Brownsville Boys Club and Jewish Community in Urban America, 1940-1990 GERALD SORI N

16. War in America to 1775: Before Yankee Doodle J O H N MORGA N DEDERE R

17. An American Vision: Far Western Landscape and National Culture, 1820-1920 A N N E FARRA R HYD E

18. Frederick Law Olmstead: The Passion of a Public Artist MELVIN KALFU S

19. Medical Malpractice in Nineteenth-Century America: Origins and Legacy K E N N E T H ALLE N D E VILL E

20. Dancing in Chains: The Youth of William Dean Howells RODNEY D . OLSE N

21. Breaking the Bonds: Marital Discord in Pennsylvania, 1730-1830 MERRIL D . SMIT H

BREAKING TH E BONDS SVLarital discord in ^Pennsylvania, 1730-1830

MERRIL D . SMIT H

NEW YOR K UNIVERSIT Y PRES S NEW YOR K AN D LONDO N

I99I

Copyright © IQQ I b y Ne w Yor k Universit y All right s reserve d Manufactured i n th e Unite d State s o f Americ a

Library o f Congres s Cataloging-in-Publicatio n Dat a Smith, Merri l D . Breaking th e bond s : marital discor d i n Pennsylvania , 1730-183 0 / Merril D . Smith . p. cm . — (Th e America n socia l experienc e serie s ; 21) Based o n th e author' s thesi s (doctoral—Templ e university) . Includes bibliographica l reference s (p . ) and index . ISBN 0-8147-7934- 4 1. Divorce—Pennsylvania—History—18t h century . 2 . Divorce- — Pennsylvania—History—19th century . 3 . Marriage—Pennsylvania — History—18th century . 4 . Marriage—Pennsylvania—History—19t h century. I . Title . II . Series . HQ835.P4S57 199 2 3o6.872'o9748'o9033—dc20 91-506 1 CIP

New Yor k Universit y book s ar e printe d o n acid-fre e paper , and thei r bindin g material s ar e chose n fo r strengt h an d durability . c1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 21

For Doug, Sberyl, and Megan

Gontents Illustrations an d Table s x

i

Acknowledgments xii

i

List o f Abbreviation s x

v

Introduction: Th e "Ope n Question " o f Marriag e i i. Dissolvin g Matrimonia l Bonds : Divorc e i n th e Ne w Republic 1

0

2. Weavin g th e Bonds : Husbands ' an d Wives ' Expectation s o f Marriage 4

4

3. "I f W e Forsoo k Prudence" : Sexualit y i n Trouble d Marriages 7

6

4. "Crue l an d Barbarou s Treatment" : Th e Form s an d Meaning o f Spous e Abus e 10

3

5. Runaways : "Wilfu l an d Maliciou s Desertion " 13

9

6. Fo r a Maintenance: Th e Economic s o f Marita l Discor d 15

6

Conclusion: Unravelin g th e Bond s 17

9

Notes 18

5

Select Bibliograph y 21

3

Index 22

1 IX

illustrations and Tables

Illustrations I.

The Seve n Stage s o f Matrimon y

13

2.

Petition o f Ruhama h Evan s

39

3-

The Wif e

49

4-

Letter b y Elle n Coil e Grave s t o Henr y Grave s

71

5-

Reconciliation

8?

6a. Lifting th e Mortgag e

108

6b. The Rum-Seller' s Victi m

109

7-

Deposition o f Hanna h Hickma n

I31

8.

The Wil l o f James McMulli n

136

9-

Almshouse i n Spruc e Stree t

J

73

Tables 1. Divorc e Case s File d b y Wome n befor e th e Suprem e Court, 1785-181 5 2

7

2. Divorc e Case s File d b y Me n befor e th e Suprem e Court , 1785-1815 2

9

xi

xii ILLUSTRATION

S A N D TABLE S

3. Occupation s o f Me n Groupe d b y Clas s 3

4

4. Divorce s File d b y Wome n befor e th e Cheste r Count y Court o f Commo n Pleas , 1804-184 0 3

6

5. Divorce s File d b y Me n befor e th e Cheste r Count y Cour t of C o m m o n Pleas , 1804-184 0 3

7

Acknowledgments

During th e writin g an d revisin g o f thi s book , I hav e incurre d innu merable debts . Th e first versio n o f thi s wor k wa s m y doctora l disser tation. Th e member s o f m y committe e a t Templ e University , Alle n F. Davis , P . M . G . Harris , an d Emm a Lapsansky , i n additio n t o giving editoria l advic e an d guidance , alway s showe d grea t interes t i n my topic , encouragin g m e t o finally finish th e project . Seminar s a t Temple Universit y an d a t the Philadelphi a Cente r fo r Earl y America n Studies wer e als o helpful. Participant s ther e provide d suggestion s an d comments o n som e o f th e earl y drafts . I n particular , I woul d lik e t o thank Jean R . Soderlund , Lis a Wilson , an d Luc y Simler . Ri c North rup, Susa n Mackiewicz , Judit h Hunter , an d Susa n Klep p graciousl y shared thei r ow n wor k an d supplie d m e wit h obscur e citations . Wayne Bodl e encouraged m e to publish my dissertation . James Kirb y Martin, serie s editor , Coli n Jones, Directo r o f th e Ne w Yor k Univer sity Press , an d tw o unknow n reader s bolstere d m y confidenc e i n thi s work. I n addition , Coli n Jones ha s alway s promptl y returne d m y call s and courteousl y explaine d th e intricacie s o f publishing . Despin a P . Gimbel supervise d th e final editin g o f thi s manuscrip t an d guide d m e through th e process . I receive d muc h neede d assistanc e fro m th e staff s o f th e Historica l Society o f Pennsylvania , th e Philadelphi a Cit y Archives , an d th e Li brary Compan y o f Philadelphia . Rosemar y Philip s o f th e Cheste r County Historica l Societ y an d Lauri e Rofin i o f th e Cheste r Count y xni

XIV

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Archives wen t beyon d th e cal l o f dut y i n providin g m e wit h refer ences, documents , an d friendship . "Real life" sometime s get s i n th e wa y o f writing . Baby-sitter s ex traordinaire, Stephani e an d Jennifer Stefanow , deserv e specia l thank s for entertainin g Mega n whil e I worked . Friends : Chris , Steve , Irene , Jim, an d Josie helpe d m e wor k an d play . Michae l J. Turzansk i cheer fully provide d long-distanc e compute r advice . I als o receive d encour agement an d suppor t fro m m y father , Le e L . Schreiber , m y mother , Sylvia L . Schreiber , an d m y in-laws , Walte r an d Sandr a Smith . Al l of the m wer e wonderfu l abou t no t asking , "whe n will yo u b e finished?" My daughter , Megan , ha s bee n a hel p b y jus t being . Sh e con stantly remind s m e o f wha t i s trul y important . Shery l wa s bor n a s this boo k wa s read y t o g o t o th e press . Sh e ha s adde d a ne w an d joyous dimension t o our lives . Finally , m y husband , Doug , proofread , worked o n statistics , an d printe d th e dissertatio n an d th e book . Mor e than that , h e ha s show n enormou s prid e i n m y work , an d eve n mor e love fo r me .

^List of Abbreviations

CCA Cheste r Count y Archives , Wes t Chester , P A CCHS Cheste r Count y Historica l Society , Wes t Chester , P A HSP Historica l Societ y o f Pennsylvania , Philadelphia , P A PCA Philadelphi a Cit y Archive s PMHC Pennsylvani a Historica l an d Museu m Commission , Harris burg, P A PMHB Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography WMQ William and Mary Quarterly

xv

introduction: The "OpenQuestion"of SWarriage Is no t marriag e a n ope n question , whe n i t i s alleged, fro m th e beginnin g of the world, tha t suc h a s are in the institution wis h to get out; and suc h as are out wish to get in. RALPH WALD O EMERSON , "MONTAIGNE ; O R TH E SKEPTIC "

Nearly al l adults i n earl y Americ a expecte d t o marr y a t som e poin t i n their lives. 1 Husband s an d wive s fough t an d quarreled , love d an d hated , and i n man y way s behave d muc h a s they d o today . Wha t marriage — and th e role s o f husban d an d wife—mean t t o th e peopl e o f earl y America, however , wa s muc h differen t fro m today . I t wa s a tim e when American s glorifie d marriage , whic h joine d togethe r husban d and wif e a s a symbo l o f th e bond s tha t hel d togethe r th e disparat e aspects o f republica n society . Eighteenth - an d earl y nineteenth-cen tury American s considere d marriag e a microcos m o f a large r world . It wa s throug h marriag e tha t me n an d wome n coul d lear n t o b e vir tuous citizen s a s wel l a s t o instil l virtu e i n futur e generations. 2 But no t everyon e wa s happily married , an d thos e who wer e unhap pily marrie d cam e fro m al l walks o f life . I t i s impossible t o know ho w many peopl e wer e unhapp y i n thei r marriages . Mos t probabl y lef t n o traces i n lega l record s o r othe r standar d sources . Th e majorit y o f un happily marrie d peopl e i n earl y America , i n fact , di d no t divorce . i

2

INTRODUCTION

Instead, the y foun d solac e i n socializin g wit h famil y member s an d friends, i n alcohol , o r throug h involvemen t i n extramarita l affairs . Som e vented thei r ange r an d frustration s b y abusin g famil y member s o r deserting thei r spouse s an d families . Fo r thos e inten t upo n breakin g free fro m thei r spouses , however , desertio n probabl y remaine d th e easiest an d mos t frequen t method . This stud y wil l no t tr y t o discove r ho w man y peopl e wer e unhap pily married ; rathe r it s ai m i s t o determin e wha t kin d o f problem s those i n trouble d marriage s had , an d t o analyz e ho w me n an d wome n coped wit h marita l discor d durin g a tim e o f grea t socia l an d politica l transformation. Throughou t thi s tim e perio d i n Pennsylvania , ther e was a sometime s bitte r an d ongoin g clas h betwee n tw o opposin g set s of marita l ideals : th e olde r on e emphasize d patriarcha l authority , wifel y obedience, rigidl y define d gende r roles , an d i t permitte d a doubl e standard o f sexuality . Th e othe r se t stresse d love , companionship , a single standar d o f sexuality , an d complementar y gende r roles . I begi n with th e followin g questions : Wer e marrie d couple s affecte d b y thes e conflicting ideals? T o wha t exten t di d th e idealizatio n o f marriag e i n this perio d lea d t o unreasonabl e expectation s i n marriage ? Wha t sub sequent problem s arose ? Ho w di d husband s an d wive s cop e whe n tensions developed ? Di d th e ground s fo r divorc e chang e ove r thi s pe riod? I have limited th e geographical scop e of this stud y t o Pennsylvania , particularly th e southeaster n region , encompassin g Philadelphi a an d Chester County . Althoug h th e topi c o f marita l discor d ha s no t bee n explored i n grea t detai l b y anyon e fo r an y regio n o f earl y America , what i s know n o f Pennsylvani a i s probabl y mor e meage r still . A t th e same time , Pennsylvani a i s uniqu e i n som e interestin g ways . Th e di vorce la w o f 1785 , for example , wa s th e first divorc e la w i n the natio n to includ e cruelt y a s ground s fo r divorce , thoug h thi s "divorce " wa s more o f a legal separatio n tha n wha t w e kno w today . Pennsylvani a i s also a profitabl e are a o f stud y becaus e o f th e ric h variet y o f source s available. Th e diversit y o f the state, bot h i n it s socioeconomic makeu p and i n th e compositio n o f it s populatio n mak e insightfu l comparison s possible. I believ e tha t muc h o f wha t I hav e foun d abou t marita l dis cord i n general, i f not th e impac t o f specifi c divorc e law s an d th e like ,

INTRODUCTION

3

will hol d tru e fo r othe r colonie s an d states—an d will ad d a muc h needed dimensio n t o ou r knowledg e o f earl y Americ a an d th e family . In th e bul k o f literatur e o n wome n an d th e famil y i n earl y Amer ica, marita l strif e ha s no t bee n give n th e clos e scrutin y i t deserves . Concentrating mainl y o n Ne w England , studie s o f marita l discor d generally loo k onl y a t divorce . Unlik e Ne w England , however , Penn sylvania ha d n o clea r procedur e fo r divorc e unti l 1785 . Althoug h th e Assembly grante d a fe w divorces , Parliamen t forbad e thi s proces s i n 1772. Thus , Pennsylvani a grante d n o mor e divorce s unti l afte r th e Revolution. Th e Pennsylvani a divorc e ac t of 1785 , influenced b y Rev olutionary idea s o f persona l freedo m an d republica n ideal s concernin g virtuous citizenry , onc e agai n provide d Pennsylvanian s wit h a lega l way t o leav e thei r spouse—bu t th e peopl e wh o too k advantag e o f th e law wer e onl y a fractio n o f thos e involve d i n unhapp y marriages . Mos t did no t divorce . Instead , a s they di d befor e th e passag e o f th e divorc e law, the y trie d t o endur e thei r marriages , o r lef t withou t th e benefi t of litigation . Consequently , studyin g th e way s peopl e reacte d i n trou bled marriage s whe n the y di d no t divorce , a s wel l a s whe n the y did , gives u s a broader an d mor e complet e pictur e o f marita l discord . In examinin g marita l tension s an d th e way s i n whic h eighteenth and earl y nineteenth-centur y Pennsylvani a couple s cope d wit h them , I a m lookin g a t bot h wome n an d men . I t i s importan t t o understan d how eac h gende r fel t abou t marriag e an d abou t eac h other , thei r sim ilarities an d thei r difference s i n perception , thei r expectations , an d reactions. Thus , suc h gende r issue s for m a significant par t o f this work . In addition , studyin g marita l discor d illuminate s muc h abou t fam ilies an d communities . Throughou t th e period , th e suppor t o f famil y and neighbor s remaine d importan t t o thos e involve d i n contentiou s marriages. T o a man o r woma n betraye d o r abuse d b y a spouse, the y gave comfor t an d solace ; t o a ma n o r woma n deserte d b y a spouse , they gav e economi c support . Th e testimonie s o f famil y member s an d neighbors indicate , furthermore , th e way s i n whic h th e communit y felt th e coupl e uphel d o r violate d it s mora l standards . I n th e eye s o f the la w an d th e community , wha t constitute d a troubled marriage ? Records o f marita l disruptio n ca n b e foun d i n lega l documents , newspapers, an d almshous e dockets . Thes e piece s o f evidence expan d

4

INTRODUCTION

upon th e testimonie s foun d i n th e diarie s an d letter s o f th e middl e class. I hav e use d whateve r source s I coul d find . Man y o f th e ex amples I hav e compile d remai n jus t tantalizin g fragments . Fo r ex ample, i n Ma y 1732 , The Pennsylvania Gazette reported tha t "on e Wil liam Young, upo n som e Differenc e wit h hi s Wife, an d bein g disguise d in Liquor, wen t voluntaril y int o the Delaware , an d drowne d himself. " Nothing els e abou t hi s cas e survives , however . A t anothe r time , a n entry i n th e Philadelphi a Almshous e Dail y Occurrenc e Docke t re ported tha t Margare t McGrotto , a forme r inmat e o f th e Philadelphi a Almshouse, returne d t o tha t institutio n becaus e sh e coul d no t "agre e with he r Husband." 3 O n th e other hand , I have discovered a rich lod e of materia l abou t couple s suc h a s Rache l an d Jame s McMullin , dis cussed i n Chapte r 4 , becaus e the y appea r i n cour t record s severa l time s over man y years . I n stil l othe r cases , correspondenc e o r diarie s dis cussing marita l discor d hav e bee n preserved . B y examinin g a larg e number o f divers e sources , I hav e studie d peopl e fro m al l walk s o f life, an d no t jus t thos e unhapp y marriage s endin g i n divorce. M y goa l has bee n t o explor e th e expectation s o f norma l marriage , marriage s under strain , an d thos e spli t b y desertio n o r divorc e a s par t o f a con tinuum whos e tenuou s boundarie s ofte n remai n ambiguou s an d vague . This stud y analyze s th e year s before , during , an d afte r th e Revo lution t o searc h fo r change s ove r tim e i n th e expectation s an d experi ences o f marriage . Scholar s hav e examine d divorc e i n som e o f thes e decades, o r the y hav e looke d a t th e evolutio n o f law s o r change s i n the statu s o f women, bu t n o one has produce d a full pictur e o f marita l discord fo r th e perio d unde r stud y here. 4 Durin g thi s time , patriar chal form s an d method s o f "self-divorce " coexiste d wit h ne w expec tations abou t ho w marriag e shoul d wor k an d mor e frequen t lega l di vorce. Moreover , th e changin g America n cultur e aroun d the m helpe d men an d wome n t o for m gende r identitie s tha t ofte n oppose d eac h other. Families , neighbors , an d religiou s authorities , a s wel l a s pre scriptive literatur e an d laws , al l influence d me n an d wome n o n ho w to b e husband s an d wives , an d o n wha t a marriag e shoul d b e like . Thus, me n an d wome n brough t a wid e rang e o f expectation s t o mar riage, an d the y reacte d t o tensions i n their marriage s i n quite differen t ways. Yet , despit e suc h evolutio n i n marita l anticipations , couple s face d many o f th e sam e problem s i n th e 1830 s a s i n th e 1730s . Typically ,

INTRODUCTION

5

they quarrele d ove r money , sex , drinking , abusiv e behavior , an d in laws. People change d thei r idea s abou t marriag e i n th e eighteent h cen tury. Althoug h seventeenth-centur y American s expecte d husband s an d wives t o fee l affectio n fo r on e another , ofte n thi s cam e afte r th e mar riage. I n choosin g a mate , the y wer e suppose d t o b e guide d b y thei r parents. Late r i n th e eighteent h centur y couple s expecte d t o choos e their ow n spouse s an d marrie d primaril y fo r love . By th e tim e o f th e Revolution , thes e ne w idea s abou t marriag e ha d strengthened an d wer e expresse d i n popula r literatur e throughou t th e colonies. Republica n rhetori c stresse d partnershi p an d mutua l affec tion betwee n husban d an d wife . I n addition , a s Linda Kerbe r an d Ja n Lewis hav e shown , th e role s o f wif e an d mothe r assume d mor e im portance i n th e ideolog y o f th e ne w republic—concept s tha t contin ued t o b e stresse d int o th e nineteent h century . Bot h mal e an d femal e writers describe d th e idea l wif e a s a lovin g frien d t o he r husband . Guided b y th e concep t o f republica n virtu e i n th e eighteent h centur y and influence d b y th e evangelica l an d refor m movement s i n th e nine teenth, sh e would b e pure an d virtuous , an d abl e to reform a drunke n or unfaithfu l husban d b y he r goo d example. 5 Sh e woul d als o b e will ing t o submi t t o hi s authority , however . Thes e contradictor y idea s frequently le d t o frictio n betwee n husband s an d wive s Americans als o expecte d husband s t o behav e themselve s i n partic ular ways . They , too , wer e suppose d t o b e lovin g spouse s an d kin d fathers. Nevertheless , bot h traditiona l outlook s an d th e la w mad e the m the breadwinner s an d head s o f th e household . Ye t no t ever y husban d could achiev e thes e standard s o f respectability. 6 Although marriage , republica n style , stresse d partnershi p an d mu tual affection , i t continue d t o emphasiz e th e difference s betwee n me n and women . Th e rol e of eac h wa s suppose d t o complement th e other . The ide a wa s no t t o regar d on e anothe r a s equals . Thes e differences in role s contribute d t o separat e culture s fo r me n an d women , an d often le d t o discontentment betwee n husband s an d wives . I n addition , the economi c contro l whic h mos t husband s possesse d gav e the m con siderable powe r ove r thei r wives . My thesis , simpl y stated , i s tha t wome n an d me n wer e influence d both b y th e ne w ideal s abou t marriag e concernin g ho w wive s an d

6

INTRODUCTION

husbands shoul d behave , an d b y traditiona l patriarcha l notion s abou t men bein g th e hea d o f th e household , especiall y i n term s o f earnin g and controllin g th e money t o suppor t th e family. Conflict s aros e whe n couples coul d no t reconcil e expectation s abou t marriag e wit h th e real ity o f it , especiall y whe n on e partner , usuall y th e wife , anticipate d a marriage base d upo n th e ne w ideal s an d he r husban d expecte d a tra ditional patriarcha l one . Bot h husband s an d wives , moreover , ofte n found tha t the y coul d no t liv e up t o the imag e their societ y demande d of them . I n orde r t o receiv e hel p whe n a marriag e failed , however , i t was wive s wh o ha d t o prov e tha t the y wer e blameless , pure , an d vir tuous. Th e ne w ideolog y trappe d the m jus t a s muc h a s th e ol d pa triarchal norm s had . Yet wome n discovere d way s t o manipulat e th e lega l syste m i n or der t o gai n som e relie f fro m thei r marita l problems . B y portrayin g themselves a s virtuous wive s an d innocen t victims , wome n wer e ofte n successful i n obtainin g economi c support , i f no t a final brea k fro m their spouses . Change s i n th e divorc e law s als o benefite d women . Be tween 178 5 an d 1815 , ther e wer e 23 6 wome n ou t o f a tota l o f 36 7 applicants wh o appeale d fo r divorce s fro m th e Pennsylvani a Suprem e Court. Th e cour t grante d 11 4 (48%) of thei r petitions . Because Pennsylvani a ha d n o clea r polic y o n divorc e unti l 1785 , i t is impossibl e t o us e divorc e record s exclusivel y a s a gaug e o f marita l expectations i n thi s state . I n som e ways , th e la w itsel f ca n b e see n a s a watershed . Befor e th e law , divorce s wer e mostl y sough t b y men . After th e law , mor e wome n tha n me n petitione d fo r divorce . Th e emergence o f a divorc e law , however , shoul d no t b e see n a s th e sol e indicator o f risin g marita l discord . Ther e wer e me n an d wome n wh o found themselve s caugh t i n unhapp y marriage s earlie r i n th e century , and man y o f the m foun d way s t o leav e thei r marriage s withou t a di vorce law . A t th e sam e time , ther e wer e me n an d women , wh o fo r various reasons—lac k o f mone y o r inclination , inabilit y t o trave l t o the Suprem e Court , o r entanglemen t i n marita l trouble s unrecognize d by th e 178 5 divorc e law—continue d t o us e alternativ e method s o f leaving thei r marriage s eve n afte r th e divorc e la w wa s enacted . Conditions i n Americ a mad e desertio n a relatively eas y wa y t o qui t a marriage. Man y peopl e lef t a spouse across th e ocean, an d remarrie d in th e ne w world . Other s abandone d thei r husband s o r wive s i n

INTRODUCTION

7

America i n orde r t o retur n t o Irelan d o r France . I n a por t city , suc h as Philadelphia , i t wa s relativel y simpl e t o tak e a shi p t o anothe r col ony/state, o r farther—i f on e ha d th e mone y fo r passage . A s trave l became easier , i t wa s les s difficul t fo r th e unhappil y marrie d individ ual t o leav e hi s o r he r spous e t o g o t o th e frontier . Nevertheless, wome n ofte n fare d wors e tha n me n whe n thei r mar riages collapsed . Bein g deserte d b y a husban d frequentl y mean t a woman wa s lef t withou t mean s o f support . Man y time s sh e wa s preg nant and/o r ha d youn g children . Sh e migh t eve n hav e he r hom e an d belongings sol d t o pa y a n absen t husband' s debts . Th e physica l ac t o f leaving wa s probabl y easie r fo r men , wh o woul d no t b e a s conspicu ous travelin g alone , wh o woul d find i t easie r t o obtain work , an d wh o would no t hav e t o worr y abou t pregnanc y o r nursin g infants . Yet , despite th e risk s an d difficultie s involved , wome n di d leav e thei r hus bands. Chapter i examine s divorce . Beside s change s i n publi c perception s regarding marriage , law s an d th e publi c institution s bearin g o n i t i n Pennsylvania evolve d significantly . The y permitte d mor e option s fo r beleaguered couples . Prio r t o th e 178 5 divorc e statute , divorc e wa s possible i n Pennsylvani a onl y throug h submissio n o f a privat e bil l t o the Assembly . Change s i n th e la w wer e mos t profoun d fo r women — the ne w legislatio n permitte d divorc e o n ground s o f bot h desertio n and cruelty , whic h wa s no t possibl e prio r t o the law . Moreover , wome n could receiv e alimon y i n case s o f cruelty . Thus , th e ac t appear s t o have bee n influence d b y ne w belief s abou t wha t marriag e shoul d be . Nevertheless, i t retaine d olde r patriarcha l characteristics . Thes e wome n seeking divorce s wer e stil l see n a s wives—par t o f th e conjuga l unit , rather tha n a s distinct adul t wome n wh o coul d functio n o n thei r own . Only late r di d legislatio n i n th e 1830 s an d 1840 s give marrie d wome n more contro l ove r thei r ow n mone y an d property . Changing marita l belief s ar e explore d i n Chapte r 2 , whic h focuse s on th e marita l expectation s o f eighteenth - an d earl y nineteenth-cen tury couple s i n Pennsylvania . Thi s chapte r examine s ho w th e ne w ideals affecte d men' s an d women' s idea s abou t marriage , an d th e im pact thes e expectation s ha d o n th e marriage s themselves . Subsequen t chapters analyz e particula r problem s tha t Pennsylvani a couple s expe -

8

INTRODUCTION

rienced, an d th e way s i n which the y endure d o r resolve d thei r marita l difficulties. Chapter 3 explore s th e sexua l expectation s an d problem s couple s had i n thei r marriages . A s today , sometime s sexua l tension s cause d marital problems , an d sometime s the y wer e th e resul t o f problem s already existin g i n a trouble d marriage . Thi s chapte r finds tha t fa r from bein g "passionless, " som e wome n sough t sexua l encounter s a s a way o f finding th e lov e thei r societ y taugh t the m the y shoul d find. A double standar d remained , however . Althoug h societ y suppose d tha t both husband s an d wive s woul d remai n faithfu l t o one another , wive s most o f al l wer e expecte d t o practic e th e norm s o f sexua l self-control , and t o forgiv e an d refor m thei r husband s whe n the y lapsed . Violence betwee n husban d an d wif e i s th e subjec t o f Chapte r 4 . This i s not jus t a modern problem . Earl y Pennsylvanians , too , ha d t o determine how , an d ho w far , the y woul d interfer e betwee n husban d and wif e whe n violenc e arose . Famil y member s an d neighbor s wer e crucial i n offerin g bot h physica l interventio n t o cur b conflic t an d tes timony i n cour t depositions , despit e claim s b y man y historian s tha t the privac y o f the famil y wa s beginnin g t o be held sacred . Als o withi n the perio d studied , law s bega n t o chang e t o hel p wome n wh o wer e abused b y thei r husbands . Chapter 5 is about wive s an d husband s wh o deserte d thei r spouses . The reason s fo r an d th e result s o f desertio n differe d accordin g t o gen der. Th e ter m "desertion " actuall y ha d a different meanin g a s applie d to me n an d t o women . Wome n wh o lef t thei r husband s o r refuse d t o cohabit wit h the m wer e ofte n labele d disobedien t o r immoral . Hus bands wh o abandone d thei r wive s wer e considere d laz y o r irrespon sible, an d the y coul d b e force d t o provid e suppor t fo r thei r wives . Chapter 6 explore s ho w me n an d wome n cope d afte r thei r mar riages brok e down . Th e dissolutio n o f a marriage—whethe r throug h divorce, separation , o r desertion—require d economi c readjustments . In thes e situations , bot h wome n an d me n ha d t o adap t t o livin g with out a spouse . However , wives ' economi c statu s an d condition s wer e more likel y tha n husbands ' t o chang e fo r th e worse , du e t o th e re straints o f coverture , th e lega l concep t tha t place d marrie d wome n under th e protectio n an d authorit y o f thei r mates . Fo r thi s reason ,

INTRODUCTION

9

however, divorc e law s and law s against desertio n ofte n benefite d wome n over men . The conclusio n summarize s th e dynamic s o f marriages , 1730-1830 , a perio d i n whic h couple s attempte d t o fus e ol d an d ne w belief s int o a workable system . Ful l fusio n wa s no t alway s possible , however , an d tensions resultin g fro m th e clas h o f expectatio n an d realit y occurred . Changes i n th e nineteenth-centur y law s migh t permi t mor e wome n t o leave thei r marriages , bu t the y di d nothin g t o rectif y th e cause s o f marital discord . Marriage i n earl y Pennsylvani a reall y wa s a n "ope n question, " wit h people wantin g bot h t o ge t int o i t an d t o ge t ou t o f it . B y examinin g unhappy marriages , w e can lear n mor e abou t marita l expectation s an d how marriag e worke d durin g thi s time . Fo r some , th e bond s o f ma trimony linke d tw o heart s i n a n affectionat e union . Fo r others , th e same bond s becam e a s weight y an d confinin g a s iro n chains—fro m which the y sough t escape . W e star t wit h thos e wh o attempte d di vorce.

CHAPTER I

^Dissolving (patrimonial Bonds: "Divorce in the 5 \ / ^ ^Republic But for what end was unhappy matrimony instituted or compelled to be born, when there is an easy remedy alway s at hand, an d no t denied t o the meanest slave, that of changing his or her master?

"AN ESSA Y ON MARRIAGE O R THE LAWFULNES S OF DIVORCE," ANON. , 178 8

In a divorc e petitio n date d Septembe r 8 , 1794 , Elizabet h Sutte r o f Philadelphia charge d he r husband , James , wit h cruelty . Sh e an d Jame s had bee n marrie d fo r abou t twent y years , and , a s Elizabet h relate d i n her petition , h e ha d treate d he r i n a n "affectionat e manner " fo r mos t of tha t time . Durin g th e thre e year s precedin g he r applicatio n fo r divorce, however , James ha d give n himsel f u p t o "th e intemperat e us e of spiritou s Liquors, " abandoning he r an d thei r tw o children , neglect ing t o provid e fo r them , an d treatin g he r badly . In 1794 , Elizabet h reache d a leve l o f desperatio n du e t o th e "abu sive an d insolen t Behaviour " James inflicte d upo n he r elderl y mother , with who m Elizabet h an d he r childre n lived . Elizabet h state d tha t James frequentl y cam e t o he r mother' s hous e "unde r pretext " o f vis iting hi s family . Durin g hi s visits , hi s abusiv e languag e an d threaten ing act s ha d ofte n force d he r mothe r t o cal l fo r a justice o f th e peace . Although Jame s wa s unde r a cour t orde r t o preserv e th e peac e wit h his wife , h e continued hi s visit s t o his mother-in-law' s house . A s Eliz 10

DISSOLVING MATRIMONIA L BOND S

II

abeth's mothe r becam e unwillin g t o tolerat e James' s behavior , Eliza beth feare d tha t sh e an d th e childre n woul d b e lef t withou t a home i f James continue d t o mak e hi s disruptive calls . I t wa s thi s situatio n tha t provoked he r int o askin g fo r a divorc e fro m be d an d boar d wit h ali mony. 1 Three day s afte r Elizabet h filed he r petition , Jame s receive d a no tice fro m he r attorney . Th e counselo r observe d tha t a deposition woul d be take n fro m Elizabeth' s mother , Elizabet h Whitton , th e followin g Saturday afternoon , an d aske d Jame s t o atten d wit h "an y Attorne y you se e fit t o employ " i n orde r t o cross-examin e th e witness . Never theless, h e mad e clea r tha t i f James di d no t attend , Elizabet h Whitto n would stil l b e questioned . A s n o deposition s ar e extan t i n th e cour t records o f this case, i t is not know n whethe r James di d attend , o r eve n if Elizabet h Whitto n wa s examined . Th e followin g April , however , James receive d a court orde r t o file an answe r withi n fou r day s o r th e court woul d procee d t o hea r hi s wife's allegation s ex parte.2 Unlike mos t defendants , Jame s chos e t o answe r th e charges . I n hi s defense, h e denie d abusin g Elizabet h o r he r mothe r excep t whe n hi s mother-in-law barre d th e door s o f th e house , thu s preventin g hi m from "visitin g hi s Wif e an d Childre n t o who m h e wa s attache d b y th e Ties o f Nature, " an d causin g i n hi m " a natura l warmt h o f temper. " Responding t o Elizabeth' s othe r charges , Jame s argue d tha t h e ha d provided fo r them , an d tha t h e ha d voucher s provin g tha t h e ha d bought furnitur e an d ha d ha d hous e repair s made . Afte r Elizabet h filed th e origina l charges , h e wen t t o sea , wher e h e "ha d th e Misfor tune t o b e cas t away , an d los e al l hi s Property , excep t th e Cloathin g [sic] upo n him. " Eve r sinc e his retur n h e felt tha t the y ha d treate d hi m "with uncommo n Indifferenc e an d Contemp. " I n addition , h e be lieved tha t the y wer e provide d fo r sufficientl y becaus e Elizabeth' s fa ther ha d lef t hi s estat e t o Elizabeth' s mothe r an d Elizabet h fo r th e terms o f thei r natura l lives . Declarin g tha t hi s ow n losse s wer e a n ac t of God , an d tha t h e ha d committe d n o crim e o r impropriety , Jame s asked fo r th e libe l t o b e dismissed . A yea r later , i n Apri l 1796 , th e case wa s abate d b y James' s deat h withou t a decisio n havin g bee n reached.3 The Sutters ' case illustrate s th e proces s o f divorce i n Pennsylvania . Marked b y stage s o f marita l dissatisfaction , economi c worries , an d

12

DISSOLVING MATRIMONIA L BOND S

family concern s an d interference , i t i s typica l i n man y way s o f th e divorce case s tha t cam e befor e th e Suprem e Cour t betwee n 178 5 an d 1815. Th e majorit y o f suit s wer e filed b y wome n o n ground s o f cru elty; and , a s i n th e Sutter' s situation , economi c concern s wer e ofte n of primar y importance . Yet , couple s ofte n dispute d th e fact s o f th e situation. I n James' view , hi s wif e ha d n o monetar y wants , whil e h e was the innocent victim of circumstances beyon d hi s control and plague d by a mother-in-la w wh o kep t hi m fro m visitin g hi s family . Althoug h not ever y cas e state d i t a s clearl y a s th e Sutters' , i t i s typica l tha t husband an d wif e fough t a battl e i n th e court s t o b e believed . Bol stered b y detaile d petitions , an d sometime s b y eve n mor e elaborat e accounts fro m witnesses , the y parade d th e outrage s committe d b y thei r spouses befor e th e judges . There ar e severa l reason s wh y me n an d wome n inten t upo n endin g their marriage s wen t throug h th e lon g an d involve d proces s o f obtain ing a divorce . A divorc e fro m th e bond s o f matrimon y ende d a mar riage an d allowe d bot h me n an d wome n t o remarr y legally . I t als o provided a wa y o f settlin g economi c problems . I n additio n t o bein g able t o remarry , a husban d wh o divorce d hi s wif e n o longe r ha d t o provide fo r her , althoug h thi s change d wit h late r alimon y laws . Fo r a woman, th e availabilit y o f divorc e wa s eve n mor e important . I f grante d an absolut e divorce , sh e becam e a fem e sol e abl e t o transac t busines s as a singl e woman , o r sh e coul d remarry . I f grante d a divorc e fro m bed an d boar d (essentiall y a lega l separation) , sh e coul d no t remarry , but, unde r th e Pennsylvani a divorc e la w o f 1785 , sh e wa s permitte d to appl y fo r alimony . Fo r som e wome n th e knowledg e tha t the y wer e to receiv e a regula r incom e fro m thei r husband s wa s mor e importan t than bein g legall y clea r o f the m an d withou t assistance . Moreover , because a divorc e fro m be d an d boar d di d no t dissolv e th e bond s o f matrimony, sh e coul d stil l inheri t a s he r husband' s wido w i f sh e out lived him . Fo r bot h me n an d women , a divorc e fro m th e bond s o f matrimony permitte d a clean brea k fro m a n unpleasan t situation . No t only wa s thi s importan t fo r economi c purposes , bu t i t wa s als o signif icant fo r emotiona l reasons , a s well . Man y me n an d wome n probabl y felt a sens e o f relie f a t bein g fre e an d clea r o f a n unhapp y marriage . Pennsylvania law s permitte d a wider rang e o f options fo r divorc e tha n

The Seve n Stage s of Matrimony. Opposin g the tenets of domesticity, thi s 1830 s prin t is aime d a t men. Althoug h it appears fro m this depiction that al l marriage s ende d i n divorce, i t does illustrat e the proces s leadin g to divorce. Mos t unhapp y couple s fel l i n love , the n quarrele d afte r th e realities o f marriage—a cryin g baby , no t enough money—clashe d wit h thei r expectations . American Antiquarian Society.

H

DISSOLVING MATRIMONIA L BOND S

did othe r states , man y o f whic h authorize d onl y on e typ e o f divorc e or non e a t all . Just a s Americans wer e tryin g t o come t o terms wit h tw o opposin g sets o f marita l ideals : on e se t representin g a n older , patriarcha l tradi tion, an d a late r an d evolvin g se t stressin g lov e an d companionat e marriage, th e la w wa s affecte d b y an d reacte d t o these tw o competin g norms. Pennsylvania' s divorc e la w of 178 5 incorporated ne w idea s abou t the meanin g an d purpos e o f marriage , whil e retainin g it s traditiona l aspects. Althoug h mor e generou s tha n th e law s o f othe r states , th e law limite d th e ground s fo r absolut e divorc e t o adultery , bigamy , de sertion, impotence , an d th e fals e rumo r o f deat h o f one' s spouse , an d for be d an d boar d divorce s t o crue l an d barbarou s treatment . Becaus e of this , th e husban d o r wif e wantin g th e divorc e ha d t o prov e tha t h e or sh e wa s th e innocen t victi m o f a spous e wh o wa s guilt y o f on e o f these outrages . Th e absenc e o f lov e betwee n husban d an d wif e wa s not enoug h t o legall y en d a marriag e anywher e i n th e Unite d States , but i n Pennsylvani a th e timin g an d wordin g o f th e divorc e la w an d the testimon y o f petitioner s an d witnesse s indicate s tha t th e flauntin g of ne w societa l belief s abou t marriag e b y on e spous e coul d ai d th e other i n lawfull y quittin g th e relationship . In thi s transitiona l period , th e ne w la w gave some women an d me n who wer e influence d b y mor e moder n idea s abou t marriag e a wa y t o leave thei r marriages . Women , i n particular , benefite d fro m th e pas sage o f th e law , an d women' s petition s fo r divorc e fa r outnumbere d those b y men . Ye t fo r mos t couple s divorc e remaine d a las t resort , attempted onl y afte r condition s becam e intolerabl e an d reconciliatio n impossible. Althoug h i t becam e easie r ove r tim e t o divorce , th e pro cess involved expense s an d complication s tha t prevente d man y unhap pily marrie d individual s fro m tryin g t o obtain one . A t th e sam e time , many mor e unhappil y marrie d peopl e use d th e olde r an d traditiona l means o f quittin g marriage s throug h desertio n o r quasi-lega l separa tions, o r attempte d t o seek help throug h families , friends , o r th e crim inal courts . Although Pennsylvani a ha d n o clea r polic y o n divorc e unti l th e pas sage o f it s 178 5 Divorc e Act , divorce s wer e grante d befor e tha t time .

DISSOLVING MATRIMONIA L BOND S

15

Prior t o th e act , Pennsylvani a followe d som e Englis h law s an d prac tices, suc h a s i n th e ground s fo r divorce s an d i n th e grantin g o f di vorces throug h petitio n t o th e legislature . I n othe r ways , however , Pennsylvania departe d fro m Englis h precedents . Fo r instance , ther e were n o ecclesiastica l courts , an d Pennsylvani a grante d mor e divorce s to it s citizen s tha n di d England . Divorce , whil e possibl e i n England , was neithe r ver y eas y no r ver y common . England grante d fe w divorce s i n th e seventeent h an d eighteent h centuries, an d thos e onl y throug h th e ecclesiastica l court s o r b y a n ac t of Parliament. A total divorc e from th e bond s o f matrimony (divortium a vinculo matrimonii) coul d b e grante d onl y i f th e marriag e wa s de clared nul l t o begi n wit h becaus e o f sexua l incapacity , bigamy , o r consanguinity. A partia l be d an d boar d divorc e (divortium a mensa et thoro), which di d no t allo w remarriage , coul d b e granted fo r adultery , cruelty, o r desertion . Parliamentar y divorce s allowin g remarriag e di d not becam e availabl e unti l th e lat e seventeent h century , an d the n onl y for men . Accordin g t o Parliament , a husband' s adulter y wa s no t suf ficient ground s fo r divorce , althoug h a wife's unfaithfulnes s was . Th e law was designed t o protect th e propert y right s of the Englis h nobilit y by preventin g unfaithfu l wive s fro m passin g of f th e offsprin g o f an other ma n a s their husbands ' heirs. Thus , onl y th e upper classe s coul d afford thi s expensiv e procedure , whic h involve d th e petitione r first receiving a divorc e a mensa thoro from th e ecclesiastica l courts . Al though civi l court s woul d accep t th e testimon y o f on e witness , i f n o more coul d b e obtained , th e ecclesiastica l court s alway s demande d two witnesses . Divorce s wer e no t grante d t o wome n unti l 1801 . Thes e factors limite d th e numbe r o f divorce s grante d i n England. 4 Puritan thought , however , develope d a stron g defens e fo r divorc e for bot h me n an d wome n tha t neve r appeare d i n Englis h statutes . I n seeking t o cleans e th e church , Puritan s oppose d th e abuse s o f th e ec clesiastical court s an d th e cano n laws . Th e proces s o f cleansin g th e church o f thes e abuse s include d th e refor m o f divorc e procedures . A t the sam e time , divorc e wa s als o defende d fo r it s ow n sake , an d a s a means o f maintainin g orderl y home s an d communities . Joh n Milton , for instance , calle d divorc e a "la w o f mora l equity. " H e believe d tha t in th e restrain t o f divorc e on e "ma y se e ho w hurtfu l an d distractiv e i t

i6

DISSOLVING MATRIMONIA L BOND S

is t o th e house , th e church , an d th e commonwealth. " I n additio n t o adultery, Milto n though t tha t cruelty , idolatry , "headstron g behav ior," an d desertio n wer e vali d reason s fo r divorce. 5 In th e America n colonies , th e settler s o f Ne w Englan d develope d a ne w syste m o f divorce , whic h wa s outsid e th e jurisdictio n o f th e church. Her e divorc e wa s a civil procedure , as , too , wa s marriage . I n Massachusetts, th e governo r an d hi s Counci l reviewe d divorc e pro ceedings betwee n 169 2 an d 1786 . I n 1786 , jurisdictio n move d t o th e Supreme Judicia l Cour t hel d i n eac h county . Prio r t o th e change s made i n 1786 , ground s fo r annulmen t include d consanguinit y an d bi gamy; ground s fo r dissolvemen t include d long-ter m desertio n an d adultery wit h o r withou t desertion , neglec t o r cruelty. 6 In Connecticut , ground s fo r divorc e wer e eve n mor e liberal , a s defined i n a 166 7 statute . Beside s adulter y an d fraudulen t contract , pe titioners ha d onl y t o prov e desertio n o f thre e year s time . Divorce s were als o easier t o obtain ther e becaus e the y wen t befor e th e Superio r Court, whic h wa s hel d twic e yearl y i n eac h county . I n contrast , southern state s di d no t allo w absolut e divorces . Virgini a court s wer e not authorize d t o gran t be d an d boar d divorce s unti l 1827 , an d wer e not authorize d t o gran t complet e divorce s unti l 1848 . I n Sout h Caro lina, n o divorce s o f an y kin d wer e grante d unti l 1868. 7 The regulatio n o f marriag e an d divorc e occurre d earl y i n Pennsyl vania laws . Here , a s in Ne w England , marriag e wa s considered a civil contract, althoug h th e la w permitte d th e traditio n o f marryin g befor e a clergyma n t o continue . Withi n Willia m Penn' s Grea t La w o f 168 2 was a statute permittin g divorc e fo r th e injure d husban d o r wif e upo n his o r he r spouse' s convictio n o f adultery . A subsequen t ac t passe d i n 1700 permitte d divorce s i n case s o f sodomy , bestiality , an d bigamy . Under th e term s o f thi s statute , a marrie d ma n wh o committe d so domy o r bestialit y wa s t o b e castrated ; th e punishmen t fo r bigam y was lif e imprisonmen t a t har d labor . Thes e statutes , however , wer e overturned b y th e Quee n an d Parliamen t becaus e o f thei r cruelt y an d divergence fro m Englis h law . Ne w statutes , passe d i n 1705 , permitte d divorce fro m th e bond s o f matrimon y onl y i n case s o f consanguinity , but the y di d allo w divorc e fro m be d an d boar d fo r th e injure d spous e in case s o f adultery , sodom y o r buggery , an d bigamy . Punishmen t o f the convicte d spous e entaile d whippin g an d eithe r fines o r imprison -

DISSOLVING MATRIMONIA L BOND S

J

7

ment. I n orde r t o b e eligible fo r a divorce, applicatio n t o the governo r and Assembl y ha d t o b e mad e withi n on e yea r o f th e husband' s o r wife's conviction. 8 These divorc e option s ma y hav e bee n intende d a s economi c mea sures t o protec t wives , o r the y ma y hav e bee n intende d t o protec t communities fro m havin g to suppor t deserte d o r betraye d wives , sinc e remarriage wa s no t allowe d excep t i n case s o f consanguinity. 9 Appar ently Pennsylvani a lawmaker s believe d tha t th e injure d husband s coul d fend fo r themselves , bu t uphel d th e patriarcha l vie w o f them a s head s of th e househol d wh o wer e responsibl e fo r maintainin g thei r wive s and families . I n a be d an d boar d divorce , th e wif e coul d receiv e ali mony, an d upo n th e deat h o f he r husban d inheri t a s his widow . Sup port payment s woul d com e fro m th e sal e o f propert y an d good s b y authorities fo r th e wife' s maintenance , a s a n imprisone d husban d woul d not b e earnin g mone y b y hi s labor . Wit h a divorce fro m th e bond s o f matrimony, ther e wa s neithe r alimon y fo r th e wif e no r inheritanc e a s the wido w becaus e th e divorc e nullifie d th e marriage , a s i f i t ha d neve r existed.10 Although thes e statute s empowere d th e governo r t o grant divorces , they neglecte d t o prescrib e th e necessar y procedures . Th e earlies t ex ample o f a n attempte d divorc e i s Ann a Mari a Boeh m Miller' s unsuc cessful ple a t o Lieutenan t Governo r Patric k Gordo n an d th e Cour t o f Chancery i n 1728 . Sh e di d no t us e th e wor d divorce , bu t sh e di d as k to "b e relieve d fro m he r unhapp y Marriage." 11 There d o no t appea r t o hav e bee n an y divorc e attempt s betwee n the Boeh m cas e i n 172 8 an d 1766 . Betwee n 176 6 an d 1773 , five husbands filed privat e bill s fo r divorc e i n th e Assembly . Th e friend s an d relatives o f th e widow , Rebecc a Vanakin , who m the y calle d insane , also mad e a n unsuccessfu l attemp t t o hav e wha t the y considere d a fraudulent marriag e dissolved . Rebecca' s supporter s accuse d tw o rel atives o f John Martin , "almos t a n Idiot, " o f arrangin g th e marriag e i n order t o obtai n contro l ove r he r money . O f th e othe r five bills , onl y two wer e granted. 12 One o f thes e unsuccessfu l divorc e attempt s reveal s th e pligh t o f husbands wh o coul d onl y obtai n be d an d boar d divorce s unde r th e colony's laws . John Goggi n submitte d a petitio n t o th e Hous e askin g for a divorce i n 1766 . H e state d tha t hi s wife , Catherin e O'Brien , ha d

i8

DISSOLVING MATRIMONIA L BOND S

an "extravagen t Fondnes s fo r stron g Liquors, " led a dissolute life , an d had ru n hi m int o debt—making lif e wit h he r intolerabl e to him. Afte r he mad e som e sor t o f writte n agreemen t wit h he r i n whic h sh e prom ised no t t o mak e an y furthe r claim s o n hi m an d h e gav e he r a su m o f money, h e wen t t o sea . O n hi s return , abou t fourtee n month s later , he foun d sh e ha d give n birt h t o a bastar d child . Makin g hi m respon sible fo r th e suppor t o f hi s wif e an d th e child , th e Overseer s o f th e Poor pu t a n attachmen t o n him . "T o avoi d Contention, " h e paid , an d then agai n wen t of f t o sea . Followin g thi s episode , Catherin e "becam e a Prostitut e t o Negroes " an d gav e birt h t o a mulatt o child . Whe n Goggin returned , h e wa s mad e t o pa y th e cost s o f th e birth . Goggi n stated tha t unde r th e curren t laws , h e coul d onl y receiv e a be d an d board divorc e fro m th e governo r fo r hi s wife' s adultery , bu t tha t hi s wife woul d the n remai n "a t Libert y t o su e fo r Alimon y o r Support. " Under th e circumstances , h e aske d tha t th e Hous e pas s a la w i n hi s favor grantin g hi m a divorc e fro m th e bond s o f matrimony , an d no t just a divorce fro m be d an d board. 13 Only on e sid e o f th e stor y i s represente d becaus e th e record s d o not contai n deposition s o f eithe r Catherin e o r o f witnesses . I n addi tion, ther e ar e n o comment s b y legislator s o n wh y th e divorc e wa s not granted . However , thre e year s later , anothe r petitioner , Curti s Grubb, di d secur e a divorce. Grub b wa s a n iro n maste r fro m Lancas ter, wh o aske d fo r a divorc e fro m hi s wife , An n Few , afte r sh e ha d "been delivere d o f a Bastard child " an d marrie d Archibal d McNea l i n 1763. Grub b ha d no t cohabite d wit h hi s wif e sinc e 1756 . Th e Assem bly grante d Grub b th e divorc e wit h permissio n t o remarry , an d th e bill wa s the n signe d int o la w b y Joh n Penn . Perhap s th e fac t tha t Goggin lef t hi s wife—n o matte r ho w justifie d h e ma y hav e been — then returne d an d pai d hi s wife's lying-i n expense s wa s a factor i n hi s not receivin g a divorce . I n addition , i f Goggi n ha d receive d hi s tota l divorce, hi s the n ex-wif e woul d hav e becom e a public charge . O n th e other hand , Grubb' s wif e deserte d him . Althoug h sh e ha d als o ha d a child b y anothe r man , tha t ma n wa s willin g t o suppor t her , an d so , in th e thinkin g o f th e Assembly , sh e wa s no t likel y t o becom e a bur den t o th e community. 14 Again , thi s reasonin g i s in lin e wit h th e eco nomic an d patriarcha l concept s o f marriag e tha t remaine d i n Pennsyl vania law s eve n afte r th e ne w divorc e la w wa s passed .

DISSOLVING MATRIMONIA L BOND S

l

9

In th e secon d successfu l plea , th e Assembl y grante d Georg e Keeml e a divorce i n 1772 . Keeml e wa s a barber fro m th e Cit y o f Philadelphi a whose wife , Elizabeth , ha d bee n convicte d o f adultery. 15 Thi s convic tion probabl y mad e i t easie r fo r th e Assembl y t o approv e th e divorce . This time , however , afte r th e Assembl y sen t th e bil l t o th e Boar d o f Trade an d Plantations , a s wa s required , i t wa s sen t o n t o th e Priv y Council. Althoug h th e Boar d o f Trade ha d questione d th e Grub b bil l at the time , i t ha d bee n approved . Thi s time , ther e wa s more fea r tha t such a n exercis e o f authorit y b y a colonial assembl y durin g thos e un settled time s coul d lea d t o othe r display s o f power . Englan d disal lowed Keemle' s divorce , an d forbad e governor s o f colonie s t o gran t divorces. N o divorce s wer e grante d i n Pennsylvani a the n unti l afte r the Revolution. 16 Prevented fro m divorcing , unhappil y marrie d individual s foun d othe r means t o escap e discordan t marriages . I n case s wher e a woma n ha d been deserte d o r turne d ou t o f th e house , sh e coul d appl y t o th e court s to hav e he r husband' s good s seize d o r hav e hi m ordere d t o pa y he r alimony.17 I n othe r instances , couple s mad e mutua l agreement s t o separate an d ha d lega l paper s draw n up , sometime s late r seekin g di vorces. These lega l separation s occurre d bot h befor e an d afte r th e passage o f th e divorc e law . Meanwhile , othe r couple s relie d upo n les s formal method s o f separatio n b y takin g lon g visits t o family members , by movin g i n wit h parents , o r deserting . Stil l other s drank , attacke d their spouses , o r mad e th e bes t o f a bad situation. 18 Between 177 7 an d 1785 , Pennsylvani a grante d onl y eleve n di vorces, althoug h th e Hous e hear d thirty-fiv e appeals . Twenty-thre e men applie d fo r divorces , an d nin e wer e granted . Onl y tw o o f twelv e women succeede d i n obtainin g a divorce. I n th e twenty-fou r instance s where ground s fo r th e divorc e wer e stated , al l bu t tw o liste d adulter y as th e primar y complaint , an d al l wer e grante d fro m th e bond s o f matrimony. Th e tw o case s tha t di d no t cit e adulter y wer e wive s com plaining tha t thei r husband s ha d deserte d them . Neithe r wome n wa s granted a divorce , bu t a s ther e wa s n o la w grantin g divorce s i n case s of desertion , i t i s difficul t t o se e thi s a s a n exampl e o f sexua l bia s i n the Assembly . Most o f th e petition s ar e poorl y detailed , statin g onl y tha t th e spous e had committe d th e "heinou s sin " o f adultery . A fe w wer e mor e spe -

20

DISSOLVING MATRIMONIA L BOND S

cific. Fo r example , no t onl y di d Catharin e Summers ' husband , Peter , commit adultery , bu t h e als o "boasted " o f hi s crime . I n anothe r case , Giles Hicks , a captai n i n th e Tent h Pennsylvani a Regiment , state d that a t th e ag e o f fifteen h e wa s "seduce d b y th e artifice s o f a certai n Hester McDanie l . . . a t th e tim e a commo n prostitute. " Sh e the n separated fro m hi m an d live d "i n ope n adulter y wit h diver s othe r men , by mean s wher e sh e becam e s o disease d . . . a s t o b e declare d incur able afte r seve n month s i n th e Pennsylvani a Hospital." 19 The procedur e fo r legislativ e divorc e wa s length y an d involved . Although a few applicant s manage d t o obtain divorce s i n three o r fou r months, mos t proceeding s too k betwee n on e an d tw o years . First , th e aggravated husban d o r wif e ha d t o b e grante d permissio n t o brin g i n a bil l o f divorce . The n th e Assembl y rea d th e bill , referre d i t t o a committee, rea d i t severa l time s more , revise d it , an d debate d it , be fore possibl y enactin g i t a s law . Sometime s th e Assembl y require d the petitione r t o advertis e th e propose d divorc e i n th e newspapers . Not onl y di d thi s requir e a n expenditur e o f tim e an d effor t o n th e part o f th e claimant , i t als o occupie d valuabl e Assembl y opportuni ties. Feelin g tha t to o muc h attentio n wa s bein g spen t o n divorc e leg islation, th e Assembl y passe d th e Divorc e Ac t i n 1785. 20 The passag e o f thi s ac t cam e a t a period whe n writer s wer e declar ing the importanc e o f marriage an d th e fac t tha t the y shoul d b e happ y and affectionat e unions . Th e onl y tw o magazine s publishe d i n th e American colonie s i n 177 4 an d 1775 , The Pennsylvania Magazine an d The Royal American, "extolle d th e joy s o f a goo d marriag e eve n mor e than the y magnifie d th e horror s o f a ba d one." 21 Bot h magazine s ra n regular article s an d essay s o n trouble d marriage s i n whic h me n an d women wer e locke d i n unhappines s o r suffere d unde r "domesti c tyr anny." Marriage s instea d wer e suppose d t o b e happ y an d affectionat e unions. Fo r a s "Th e Ol d Bachelor " o f Thoma s Paine' s The Pennsylvania Magazine noted, " I ha d rathe r b e a solitar y bachelo r tha n a miser able marrie d man." 22 Many o f th e eighteenth-centur y essayist s writin g i n thes e maga zines, a s wel l a s i n newspaper s an d pamphlets , believe d tha t a n indi vidual ha d a righ t t o freedo m an d happines s i n an d o f itself . Thi s included right s withi n marriage . Historian s hav e note d th e tie s eigh teenth-century essayist s dre w betwee n Revolutionar y freedom s an d

DISSOLVING MATRIMONIA L BOND S

21

domestic ones . I n som e cases , th e deman d fo r freedo m fro m unhapp y marriages too k o n a decidedl y Revolutionar y cast . Th e individual' s right t o freedo m fro m domesti c tyrann y mirrore d th e colonies ' righ t to freedo m fro m th e tyrann y o f England . A s th e anonymou s autho r of "A n Essa y o n Marriag e o r th e Lawfulnes s o f Divorce " declared : America ha s bee n famou s fo r he r lov e o f liberty , an d hatre d o f tyrann y o f every kind ; Sh e ha s no t onl y b y arm s expelle d he r foreig n foes , bu t gener ously extended her liberality, i n a great measure, even unto the African slave . Therefore, i t i s hoped, th e same spirit o f indulgenc e wil l extend stil l furthe r —to thos e unhapp y individuals , mixe d amon g every clas s of mankind, wh o are frequently unite d togethe r i n the worst of bondage to each other. 23 Throughout thi s tim e period , belief s abou t marita l an d famil y re lations wer e evolving . Man y historian s believ e tha t change s i n famil y life intensifie d i n th e secon d hal f o f th e eighteent h century . Som e scholars vie w thes e transformation s a s par t o f a n overal l revolutio n against patriarchy , affectin g bot h th e American famil y an d th e cultur e of th e eighteent h century. 24 Other s not e tha t a ne w tren d towar d "companionate" marriag e beginnin g i n th e eighteent h centur y le d t o rising expectation s an d accompanyin g disappointment s whe n thos e expectations wer e no t met . Thi s le d t o a ne w emphasi s o n marriag e being no t jus t a civil contract, bu t als o a private compac t base d o n th e consent o f both parties. 25 I n Pennsylvania , th e desire me n an d wome n felt fo r marita l happines s an d freedo m fro m "tyrannical " marriage s resulted fro m a combination o f thes e tendencies . Variation s i n marita l expectations bega n befor e th e tim e o f th e Revolution , bu t escalate d around mid-centur y a s me n an d wome n espouse d th e ide a tha t mar riage shoul d b e th e joinin g o f tw o lovin g partners . A t th e sam e time , the passag e o f law s i n Pennsylvani a mad e leavin g unhapp y union s somewhat easier. 26 In Pennsylvania , divorc e la w becam e a par t o f th e ne w state' s re publican reforms . Ye t th e ne w divorc e la w continue d t o displa y pa triarchal characteristics . Fo r instance , i t require d a woma n t o hav e a "next friend " (usuall y a mal e relative ) ac t o n he r behal f i n submittin g the divorc e petitio n becaus e sh e wa s a fem e covert . O n th e othe r hand , men stil l ha d t o suppor t wive s grante d divorce s fro m be d an d board , if the y applie d fo r alimony . Thi s provision , however , ofte n benefite d women wh o woul d hav e found i t difficult otherwis e t o maintain them -

22

DISSOLVING MATRIMONIA L BOND S

selves an d thei r familie s i n a society wher e wome n an d me n wer e no t equal, despit e th e ne w emphasi s o n th e mutua l interest s o f wive s an d husbands. Revolutionar y rhetori c combine d wit h ne w marita l expec tations le d t o changes , whil e patriarchy , i n th e for m o f alimon y an d certain lega l convention s continued . Only i n Pennsylvani a wa s divorc e par t o f republica n change s i n government. Othe r states , suc h a s Sout h Carolina , hear d impassione d pleas fo r divorce , bu t t o no avail . Th e passag e of the divorc e la w ma y have bee n easie r i n Pennsylvani a because , unlik e Sout h Carolin a an d the res t o f th e South , ther e wa s a histor y o f divorc e i n th e state . Apparently Pennsylvani a legislator s agree d o n th e nee d fo r suc h a law, whic h clearl y outline d th e ground s fo r divorce , allowin g th e la w to pas s wit h littl e debate. 27 Those wh o sough t divorce s i n Pennsylvani a foun d the m easie r t o ob tain afte r th e passag e o f th e 178 5 act . Thi s la w authorize d th e Su preme Cour t o f Pennsylvani a t o gran t divorce s (althoug h i t wa s stil l possible t o receiv e on e b y legislativ e act) , and , mor e important , spelle d out th e ground s necessar y fo r divorc e an d th e procedure s t o b e fol lowed i n obtainin g one . Followin g it s passage , divorce s i n Pennsyl vania increase d significantly , wit h women' s petition s fa r outnumber ing men's. 28 Although muc h o f the languag e i n th e ne w la w cam e directl y fro m Boyd's Judicial Proceedings in Scotland, publishe d i n 1779 , th e la w wa s a produc t o f republica n reform s introduce d i n th e stat e afte r th e Rev olution. It s languag e reflects th e reformers ' no d t o republican ideolog y and wha t the y fel t wer e th e function s o f a "wel l regulate d society. " In thi s well-regulate d society , virtuou s citizen s wer e entitle d t o relief , if the y wer e harme d o r unabl e t o car e fo r themselves . Couple s coul d not divorc e merel y becaus e the y wante d t o marry anothe r person ; on e person ha d t o b e th e injure d part y an d th e othe r ha d t o hav e violate d his o r he r vows . I n th e wordin g o f th e law , divorc e wa s no t t o b e "made ou t o f levit y o r collusion." 29 The 178 5 ac t di d no t promot e equalit y betwee n th e sexes . Hus bands an d wive s ha d specifi c duties , an d th e lawmakers ' view s o n thi s can b e see n i n th e law . Fo r example , the y believe d tha t i t wa s th e husband's dut y t o provid e financial suppor t fo r hi s wif e i f h e aban -

DISSOLVING MATRIMONIA L BOND S

23

doned he r o r s o mistreated he r tha t sh e wa s force d t o leav e him . Thus , they permitte d wome n t o appl y fo r alimon y i n thes e situations . Men , however, coul d no t appl y fo r alimon y unde r an y circumstance s be cause i t wa s no t a wife's obligatio n t o suppor t he r husband . In addition , th e la w wa s stricte r fo r wome n i n case s o f adultery . A woman wh o wa s divorce d fo r adulter y an d the n live d wit h th e ma n with who m sh e ha d committe d th e adulter y coul d no t mak e deeds , wills, appointments , o r conveyances ; he r land s o r tenement s woul d descend a s i f sh e ha d die d intestate . Ho w ofte n thi s provisio n wa s enforced i s questionable, bu t ther e wa s n o suc h stipulatio n i n th e la w for husband s wh o committe d adultery . Unde r th e divorc e law , adul terers o f eithe r gender , however , wer e no t t o marr y thei r lover s afte r the divorce. 30 Nevertheless, th e passag e an d wordin g o f th e 178 5 ac t indicate s that member s o f th e Pennsylvani a Assembl y espouse d th e curren t be liefs abou t marriage , a s wel l a s the role s o f wive s an d husbands . Mar riage was suppose d t o b e a lifelong unio n base d upo n mutua l affectio n between husband s an d wives . I t wa s a compac t mad e betwee n tw o individuals, bu t i t wa s mor e tha n that . I t wa s als o a contrac t ove r which th e la w an d publi c official s maintaine d contro l i n orde r t o reg ulate society. 31 Husband s provide d economi c suppor t an d wive s mora l stability. Couple s wer e suppose d t o discuss thei r difference s an d wor k them out . Los s of love , therefore , wa s no t enoug h t o obtain a divorce, presumably, th e partner s coul d alway s tr y harder . However , i f on e spouse injure d th e othe r b y neglectin g hi s o r he r dutie s o r sufficientl y violated th e marriag e vow s s o tha t the y coul d no t liv e together , the n lawmakers believe d th e innocen t partne r shoul d b e granted a divorce. Despite th e gende r difference s i n th e law , th e inten t o f th e legisla tors seem s clear—the y wer e grantin g me n an d wome n freedo m fro m marriages tha t cause d the m mora l o r physica l har m o r i n whic h the y were unabl e t o cohabi t a s a married coupl e du e t o desertio n o r sexua l incapability. The y wer e not , however , condonin g mora l laxit y o r li centious behavior. 32 Marriag e betwee n virtuou s citizen s wa s a key as pect o f th e well-regulate d society . Citizens o f Pennsylvani a als o understoo d th e importanc e o f th e well regulated an d virtuou s society . On e petitioner , Ev e Page, state d thes e views in he r 180 1 divorce plea. Sh e claimed tha t he r husband , Robert ,

2

4

DISSOLVING MATRIMONIA L BOND S

had committe d adulter y wit h numerou s women . Hi s conduct , sh e declared, wa s "s o flagitious th e object o f the marriag e contract i s entirely defeated," bringin g sham e an d scanda l upo n "tha t sacre d ordinance " and upo n her . Sh e aske d fo r a divorc e "tha t th e innicen t [sic] victim s of th e basenes s o f th e sai d Rober t ma y find comfor t an d tha t a n ex ample ma y b e mad e t o dete r other s fro m offendin g i n a manne r s o fatal t o th e orde r o f societ y & the happines s o f individuals." 33 Besides adultery , th e ground s fo r a total divorc e wer e bigamy , de sertion fo r mor e tha n fou r years , an d impotenc e o r inabilit y t o pro create a t th e tim e o f th e marriage . I t wa s als o possibl e t o receiv e a divorce fro m be d an d boar d fo r thes e causes . A n additiona l claus e added th e ground s tha t i f a ma n o r woma n remarrie d afte r a "wel l founded" rumo r o f th e forme r spouse' s death , h e o r sh e woul d no t b e liable fo r a n adulter y convictio n i f th e rumo r the n prove d t o b e false . In thi s instance , th e forme r spous e coul d choos e t o hav e hi s o r he r husband o r wif e restored , o r coul d see k a divorce . I n additio n t o th e above ground s fo r a complet e divorce , a wif e coul d receiv e a divorc e from be d an d boar d wit h alimony , i f he r husban d abandone d her , turned he r ou t o f th e house , endangere d he r lif e "b y crue l an d bar barous treatment, " o r offere d "suc h indignitie s a s t o rende r he r con dition intolerable , o r lif e burdensome, " an d thereb y forcin g he r t o leave him. 34 Besides statin g th e ground s fo r divorce , th e la w outline d th e pro cedure t o b e followed . Firs t th e plaintiff , eithe r th e husban d "i n hi s own prope r person, " o r th e wif e b y he r nex t friend , exhibite d hi s o r her petitio n t o th e justice s o f th e Suprem e Court , a t th e sam e tim e attaching a n affidavi t swearin g tha t th e libe l wa s no t "mad e ou t o f levity o r b y collusion " o r b y th e desir e merel y t o b e fre e o f th e mar riage. Afte r that , th e cour t issue d a subpoen a directin g th e defendan t to appear befor e th e cour t t o answer th e libel . A cop y o f the subpoen a was lef t a t th e defendant' s las t residenc e a t leas t fifteen day s befor e the nex t cour t term . I f th e defendan t di d no t appear , th e cour t issue d an alia s subpoena . I f h e o r sh e stil l coul d no t b e found , th e sherif f o f the count y mad e a publi c proclamatio n o n thre e marke t day s a t th e court house . I n addition , newspaper s printe d notice s fo r fou r succes sive weeks. Eithe r sid e could deman d a trial b y jury , an d coul d appea l

DISSOLVING MATRIMONIA L BOND S

25

the decisio n t o th e Hig h Cour t o f Error s an d Appeal s (upo n submit ting a recognizanc e i n a su m doubl e th e amoun t o f th e cos t o f th e Supreme Cour t decision) . Finally , th e petitione r ha d t o b e a residen t of the state , an d t o hav e reside d i n th e stat e fo r a t leas t on e yea r prio r to filin g th e libel. 35 Yet on e lette r suggests tha t applyin g fo r a divorc e involve d poli ticking, a s wel l a s followin g th e outline d procedure . I n 1789 , Rober t Whitehall, a n assemblyma n i n wester n Pennsylvani a wrot e a lette r t o George Bryan , a Pennsylvani a Suprem e Cour t Justice. Afte r discuss ing other matters , h e wrote tha t th e beare r o f this letter , Patric k Dick son, wa s ma n o f "uprigh t character " fro m hi s neighborhood , wh o wa s seeking a divorce . Whitehil l conclude d "ho w fo r yo u wit h th e othe r honorable Justices o f the Suprem e Cour t ma y giv e relief, yo u ca n bes t judge. I hav e writte n t o [Chie f Justice] Mr . McKea n an d give n a general characte r o f Dickson. " Despit e hi s introductio n t o th e judges , however, Patric k Dickson' s nam e doe s not appea r i n the Suprem e Cour t divorce records. 36 Only tw o peopl e submitte d libel s i n th e remainin g thre e month s o f 1785. Th e nex t year , nin e person s filed fo r divorce . Afte r tha t th e rate remained fairl y stead y unti l 1795 , when th e numbe r o f libels sub mitted jumpe d t o nineteen. Th e frequenc y o f petitions peake d i n 180 1 at thirty-one , droppin g t o fourtee n i n 1804 , twelv e i n 1805 , an d on e in 1806 . I n 1804 , a revision i n th e la w permitte d petitioner s t o submi t their petition s t o thei r loca l commo n plea s court . Thi s help s accoun t for th e decreas e i n Suprem e Cour t divorce s afte r tha t year , becaus e people coul d trave l mor e easil y t o th e commo n plea s cour t hel d i n th e county o f thei r residenc e instea d o f havin g t o trave l t o Philadelphi a i n order t o g o t o th e Suprem e Court . The 178 5 Divorc e Ac t an d subsequen t earl y nineteenth-centur y re visions di d no t includ e provision s fo r th e custod y o f children involve d in th e cases . Th e onl y mentio n o f childre n i n th e la w i s th e declara tion tha t thos e bor n durin g th e tim e of the marriag e wer e no t declare d illegitimate b y th e divorce . Whe n childre n wer e mentione d i n divorc e cases, i t wa s usuall y b y wive s tryin g t o prov e tha t thei r husband s di d not suppor t thei r families . Wive s als o indicate d th e difficultie s in volved i n tryin g t o sustai n themselve s whil e attemptin g t o feed , clothe ,

26

DISSOLVING MATRIMONIA L BOND S

and educat e thei r youn g children . Youn g childre n neve r testifie d i n the divorc e cases, althoug h occasionally , olde r teenager s an d adul t off spring did . Laws o n chil d custod y i n Pennsylvani a wer e no t passe d unti l th e late nineteent h century . Prio r t o tha t time , th e court s rule d o n a caseby-case basis . Unde r th e commo n law , father s ha d th e righ t t o cus tody o f thei r children , bu t thi s righ t wa s no t alway s guarantee d i n Pennsylvania. Sometime s custod y wa s determine d b y default—me n who deserte d thei r wive s rarel y too k thei r childre n wit h them , al though wome n wh o lef t thei r husband s du e t o il l treatmen t ofte n di d take thei r children , especiall y infant s an d youn g girl s an d boys . The earlies t reporte d case i n Pennsylvani a regardin g th e subjec t i s Commonwealth v. Addicks (1813). I n thi s case , th e wif e gaine d custod y of th e tw o children , daughter s age d te n an d seven , o n th e ground s that youn g childre n neede d t o b e wit h thei r mother . Th e cour t ren dered thi s opinio n eve n thoug h th e fathe r ha d divorce d th e mothe r due t o he r adultery . Althoug h th e mothe r the n marrie d th e ma n wit h whom sh e ha d bee n unfaithful , i t doe s no t see m t o hav e influence d the court—a t thi s point . Thre e year s later , however , th e fathe r wa s given custod y o f th e children . I t wa s fel t that , b y thi s time , th e olde r could b e harme d b y exposur e t o ba d morals . Rathe r tha n separat e th e two children , custod y o f bot h wa s give n t o th e father. 37 Pennsylvania wa s th e first stat e t o includ e a provisio n fo r grantin g divorces fro m be d an d boar d o n ground s o f cruelty . I n 1817 , th e la w was change d t o allo w wome n t o choos e betwee n a be d an d boar d divorce o r a n absolut e divorc e whe n suin g abusiv e husbands. 38 Mas sachusetts di d no t includ e spous e abus e a s a reason fo r a court divorc e until th e passag e o f it s ne w divorc e la w i n 1786 , whe n i t permitte d women t o obtain be d an d boar d divorce s o n th e basi s of cruelty. Con necticut di d no t allo w divorce s fo r cruelt y unti l 1843 . Betwee n 178 5 and 1815 , Pennsylvani a wive s wh o pleade d fo r divorce s befor e th e Supreme Cour t cite d cruelt y mor e tha n an y othe r reason. 39 Women applie d fo r 23 6 (64% ) ou t o f th e 36 7 case s filed betwee n 1785 and 1815 ; the cour t grante d 11 4 (48%) of their petitions . Wome n most ofte n sue d fo r divorc e citin g crue l an d barbarou s treatmen t fro m their husband s (se e Tabl e 1) . Yet , o f th e seventy-fiv e case s filed b y women unde r thi s plea , onl y twenty-thre e (31% ) wer e granted . Th e

2

7

DISSOLVING MATRIMONIA L BOND S

TABLE I

Divorce Cases Filed by Women before the Supreme Court, iy8$-i8i