Dissertation
Duties and obligations: gender and divorce in four Ohio counties before 1850
University of Iowa
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), University of Iowa
Autumn 2019
DOI: 10.17077/etd.005264
Abstract
In the wake of the American Revolution, white migrants eager for land and opportunity flocked to Ohio from the south, east, and abroad. As Ohio rapidly grew into the third largest state by the antebellum years, the harsh process of settlement and the ease of desertion created numerous troubled marriages, some that were never resolved within the legal system. Much of the groundbreaking scholarship on the history of divorce involves the study of it at a multi state or national level. Such studies have allowed scholars to stress the emergences of new relationship ideals like companionate marriage, new societal roles for women, the effects of social rights movements such as women’s rights and abolitionism, and the idea that divorce was potentially a publicly shaming process that made it rare compared to the current day. My microhistory of divorce in four central and southern Ohio counties before 1850 allows me to pinpoint nuances within a smaller geographic area while reinforcing broader conversations about the history of divorce that other historians started. I conclude that, despite the rise of new ideologies about relationships and gender roles and the presence of Ohio’s progressive divorce codes, Ohio judges as well as Ohioans who petitioned for divorce were pragmatic in their motivations. They were not concerned with human rights or romantic love, and instead focused on violation of gendered duties and obligations within marriage. Furthermore, divorcing women in these Ohio counties treated divorce as a private property act.
Ohio legislators and judges were indeed influenced by a post Revolutionary ideal of seeking redress from tyranny, particularly providing for the relief of endangered women. Compared to neighboring states to the south and east, Ohio had some of the most progressive divorce codes in the early national and antebellum years. Ohio codes allowed full divorce for extreme cruelty in addition to other causes, such as habitual drunkenness, that would be added as time passed. Additionally, by the 1830s, Ohio codes only required a year of residency before one was permitted to petition for divorce. However, the reason for facilitating the divorce process was strictly pragmatic, and in response to a national concern that divorce in Ohio was too easy to obtain, Ohio legislators began requiring petitioners to publicize notice of their divorce hearings in county newspapers by the 1830s. Finally, Ohio judges wanted to ensure that women were free from danger yet would not become public charges. Still, the divorce rate climbed in Ohio before 1850 despite requirements that made the process of filing for divorce more public. This shows that, while divorce was not as common of an occurrence as the present day, it was not a stigmatizing enough experience to prevent men and women in bad marriages from petitioning for it.
Ohio men and women who petitioned for divorce at the county level also did not appear to be influenced by the ideal of companionate marriage or social rights movements that were gaining fervor in the United States. Instead, they focused on the duties and obligations within marriage that their spouses violated. For men, wives’ duties and obligations that they shirked were most often related to adultery and their sexual behavior, and men were most bothered by the fact that they could not control that behavior. Women, on the other hand, typically endured years or even decades of varied egregious behaviors and aggravating factors before petitioning for divorce, and were most commonly motivated by financial reasons for finally divorcing. Desertion was the most frequent catalyst for women to petition for divorce, for desertion rendered many women without support; support was, in fact, considered the man’s duty. Thus, Ohio judges granted divorce to give women the chance for alimony and/or the chance to remarry, ultimately securing them financial support without relying on public charity in a fledgling new state that developed in the midst of two major national economic depressions. Divorce could be granted to anyone regardless of race or class. However, wealthier women typically had the means to continue complicated cases and to secure larger financial settlements. Nevertheless, women’s post divorce lives were often difficult mainly due to the fact that no woman, regardless of class or color, was guaranteed that their estranged husband would provide property or alimony even with a judge’s decree. To compound difficulty, many of the women were supporting multiple children and/or were far from kin who could offer assistance.
Divorce trends in the four counties studied showed unique characteristics. While historians discuss the concept of mental cruelty gaining ground in the Victorian period, men and women who petitioned for divorce in central and southeastern Ohio counties were, even before the 1820s, describing extreme cruelty as not just physical. As they described it, a spouse’s failure to fulfill his or her marital duties caused emotional distress. While no divorces were granted on emotional cruelty alone, both male and female petitioners devoted ample descriptions to this concept, each with their own unique language. By the 1840s, petitioners were equating affection with how well spouses complied with marital duties and obligations. Living in a new state during two major national economic recessions, central and southeastern Ohio women who petitioned for divorce were primarily concerned with their husbands’ failures to provide for their families. Most of these women acknowledged their role in contributing to the family economy during marriage and upon divorce, though none of the husbands ever mentioned women’s financial contributions or work in sustaining farms or businesses. Therefore, Ohio women who petitioned for divorce created, out of necessity, their own post nuptial property acts in every decade before 1850. Historians only discuss property acts in the context of married women in the 1830s and beyond. Yet divorcing Ohio women were well aware of their property rights and included strict stipulations protecting their property and other financially-related assets from their estranged and/or former husbands. These nuances of the divorce process at the county level of Ohio are distinguishable despite some of the common experiences they shared with divorce petitioners in other states.
Details
- Title: Subtitle
- Duties and obligations: gender and divorce in four Ohio counties before 1850
- Creators
- Karen L. Mounsey Ursic
- Contributors
- Leslie A Schwalm (Advisor)Malcolm J Rohrbough (Committee Member)Landon Storrs (Committee Member)Nicholas Yablon (Committee Member)Tracy Osborn (Committee Member)
- Resource Type
- Dissertation
- Degree Awarded
- Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), University of Iowa
- Degree in
- History
- Date degree season
- Autumn 2019
- DOI
- 10.17077/etd.005264
- Publisher
- University of Iowa
- Number of pages
- xii, 202 pages
- Copyright
- Copyright 2019 Karen L. Mounsey Ursic
- Language
- English
- Description bibliographic
- Includes bibliographical references (pages 193-202)
- Public Abstract (ETD)
Many Americans like to imagine an idealized and romanticized history of family, marriage, and divorce, in the United States in the nineteenth century and before. They envision large and happy nuclear families, quaint and quiet communities, and solid marriages that endured any hardship. Yet families, marriages, and communities were not always solid, nor were they infallible institutions, and the experiences of being in a family, of marrying, and even divorcing, did not exist uniformly.
Looking at 350 divorce petitions and related genealogical material in four central and southern Ohio counties from 1795 to 1850, I conclude that divorce, while not as common as today, was not enough of a stigma to prevent Ohioans from petitioning for it even as Ohio made the process of divorcing more public over time. Eager for land and opportunity, white migrants poured into Ohio from the south and east after the American Revolution, but the experience of settlement was often harsh and isolating, causing many troubled marriages. Desertion, mainly by husbands, was rife. Ohio legislators enacted some of the most progressive divorce codes in the new nation, yet their intentions were to protect endangered women while preventing them from becoming public charity cases. Many women’s post divorce lives were complicated by financial difficulty. My study shows that Ohioans divorced when they felt that their spouses shirked marital duties that were rooted in gender standards, meaning Ohio judges and the men and women who petitioned for divorce were not concerned with human rights or romantic love.
- Academic Unit
- History
- Record Identifier
- 9983779798902771
Metrics
174 File views/ downloads
171 Record Views