Linnea Zindman Final Divorce Paper 1

A Cruel Divorce: The Significance of a Divorce Based on Cruelty Before No-Fault Divorce.
Many people would say that American marriage is based on love, romance, and a happy
couple. However, the institution of marriage has changed greatly from 100 years ago; in the past
decade alone same-sex marriage became nationally accepted. Along with the changes in
marriage itself, the way couples went about ending their marriages has also changed. Early in
American history, couples had to petition their state legislature to obtain a divorce, before
divorce laws were written into state statutes.1 Now, Americans can divorce their spouses for
pretty much any reason with little restrictions.
There was a long process to get from petitioning legislatures to no-fault divorce, and with
it came changes in laws and changes in societal expectations. Couples spent decades figuring
out and working within the law to end their marriage legally, even as divorces were restricted
across the country. One popular ground for divorce, cruelty, was especially useful during this in-
between period for couples in a variety of ways. It covered spouses who were being brutally
abused, all the way to those who suffered verbal threats or didn’t trust their spouses. It was an
expansive category that fit society needs in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s when society was
both anxious about and accepting a higher rate of divorce. The category was flexible and gave
couples some leeway to make the stories of their broken marriage fit the language of the law so a
divorce would be granted. My research on societal beliefs, reactions, and use of divorce from the
1880’s-1920’s, along with divorce cases from that same time shows that cruelty was a precursor
to no-fault divorce. In the years where divorce was both loathed and accepted, it allowed parties
1
Kristin Celello, Making Marriage Work: A History of Marriage and Divorce in the Twentieth-Century United
States, (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2009), 19.
1
to file for a much needed divorce, enabling them to get out of an unhappy marriage when neither
spouse was clearly at “fault” according to the older fault-based system.
United States Divorce History
American colonists did not intend to create a nation with one of the highest divorce rates in
the world. Divorce was available in some limited form from colonial times in America, but
spread following the American Revolution.2 However, before the American Revolution, the only
colonies that allowed any type of absolute divorces and that allowed divorced individuals the
right to remarry were the New England colonies.3 The practice of divorce did not spread into the
South until later, and it was rare in the colonies where it was permitted. In all the years before
the American Revolution, only four divorces were granted in New York.4 After the revolution
and the new nation was created, most states created divorce statutes that allowed for few limited
grounds for divorce.5 The people of the United States did not believe in divorce as an easy way
out of marriage, so from the very beginning they limited access to marriage dissolutions. It was
a complicated process, and divorce was only allowed for extreme circumstances. Public
acceptance did not spread quickly across the vast, young country. These limitations continued
for decades, and in 1815 and even as late as 1849, divorce was not a common part of the
marriage tradition in the United States.6 New York was one state that was extremely strict on its
divorce limitations. In 1787, they established a law providing for adultery to be the only ground
2
Celello, Making Marriage Work, 18.
3
Hendrick A. Hartog, Marital Exits and Marital Expectations in Nineteenth Century America, (Madison:
University of Wisconsin Law School, 1991), 114.
4
S.B. Kitchin, A History of Divorce, (London: Chapman & Hall, Ltd., 1912), 212.
5
Hartog, Marital Exits, 114.
6
Ibid.
2
for a divorce, and this law was reaffirmed in 1813. They also made attempts to limit state
recognition of legal divorces procured in neighboring states.7 Though New York is somewhat of
an outlier, the strong restrictions to access to divorce showed the desire to limit the general
availability to divorces. Divorce was a public process that was used not to end a problematic
marriage, but to punish someone who was guilty of breaking the marriage contract in a specific
way and free the innocent person.8 Marriage was not supposed to be abandoned easily for any
reason the petitioners sought. It was only an acceptable solution if a norm was so badly broken
that it was unconsciousable for someone to be tied to the norm breaker forever.
In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, however, Americans views of matrimony
began to change. Marriages were collapsing at an unprecedented rate.9 Marriage was no longer
just an economic contract between two people, and it was not just about procreating. Romantic
love became a more important basis for marriage.10 A union between two people was not just a
working relationship necessary to produce a family and creating an economic unit. Marriage
became a social institution that people looked to for happiness and fulfillment.11 Because of this
shift in viewing marriage as a romantic institution and not just a social contract in the early
twentieth century, couples increasingly went to divorce courts to try and end unhappy
marriages.12 Slowly, divorce became more acceptable in the American mind as the view of an
emotionally fulfilling marriage became more popular. There was less societal pressure to stay in
an unhappy marriage when happiness was supposed to be an important result of the marriage. By
7
Ibid., 116-117.
8
Ibid.,114.
9
Elaine Tyler May, Great Expectations: Marriage and Divorce in Post-Victorian America, (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1980), 2.
10
Ibid., 59, 62.
11
Ibid.
12
Ibid., 72.
3
1930, divorce was common. But the rising divorce rate led to social anxiety about what more
divorces would mean for the family, women, and the nation.13 In reality, only a small percentage
of Americans were getting divorced, but it was still becoming a more prevalent occurrence. 14
Even though the act of divorce was gaining support, the American people were not ready for too
much change in the family realm.
The rising divorce rate led to different reactions from society. Some Americans wanted to
limit access to divorce to stop this rise and the perceived breakdown of family life. They called
for divorce laws to be uniform across the country.15 Part of the blame for the rising divorce rate
was placed on the drastically different divorce laws from state to state, so many Americans
believed that if there was one uniform divorce law across the nation, and if it was a conservative
one, the rising divorce rates could be halted. Some jurisdictions, on the other hand, repeatedly
revised and enhanced divorce law to meet the desires of society to have greater access to
divorce.16 Just as some Americans saw the increase of divorce rates as a sign of an increasing
breakdown of marriage, others saw it as a way for people to leave marriages that were unhealthy,
unsafe, or unfulfilling. Places where divorce had been restricted to a limited number of causes
added new grounds, such as extreme cruelty, fraudulent marriage contract, gross neglect of duty,
and habitual drunkenness. Some States also shortened the period of desertion necessary before a
divorce could be obtained.17 These new forms of fault were accepted as breaking the marriage
contract so badly that the innocent deserved a dissolution. Some states began to add omnibus
13
14
Ibid., 21.
15
Rebecca L. Davis, More Perfect Unions: The American Search for Marital Bliss, (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 2010), 18.
16
17
Ibid.
4
clauses, which allowed divorces for any misconduct that permanently destroyed the happiness of
petitioners and defeated the purpose of marriage.18 Indiana was one of the early states to add
omnibus clauses, and then it became one of the first “divorce mills.” Citizens of other states
would go to Indiana, establish residency, file for a divorce, and later move back to their home
state.19 Divorce mills like Indiana showed how desperate some people were to get a legal
divorce, so much so that they would move for months to establish residency in a completely
different state in order to procure one. The more legal grounds for divorce there were, the more
people ended their marriage, as shown by the consistently increasing divorce rates since the
1860s.20 In 1890, there were 53 divorces per 100,000 people across the country. In 1906, that
number had risen to 84 per 100,000 people, and by 1916 the rate had gone up to 112 divorces per
100,000 people.21 The divorce rate more than doubled in just 26 years.
Divorce in the United States 100 years ago was a very different practice than it is today.
Today, the United States follows a no-fault system, but this did not become popular until the
second half of the twentieth century. Wisconsin adopted no-fault divorce, allowing couples to
end a marriage for an irretrievably broken marriage with Chapter 105 of the Wisconsin Laws of
1977 which went into effect in early 1978.22 In contrast, previous to the adoption of no-fault
divorce laws, in order to obtain a divorce, one spouse had to be at fault. Obtaining a divorce by
mutual consent was not allowed.23 Doing so would be considered collusion and could prevent a
judge from granting a couple the divorce they desired. In the fault-based system, one spouse had
18
Ibid.
19
Davis, More Perfect Unions, 17.
20
21
“Marriage and Divorce,” Wood County Reporter, March 27, 1919.
22
Blaise Di Pronio, “Abolition of Guild in Marriage Dissolution: Wisconsin’s Adoption of No-Fault Divorce,”
Marquette Law Review, Vol 61, Issue 4, (Summer, 1978): 672.
23
5
to prove that the other was guilty of something, that the other spouse had committed a wrong and
violated the marriage contract. Marriage was a sacred institution; it was a contract that the state
set the terms of that and the state had a heavy interest in.24 Divorce was not meant to break the
contract, it was supposed to be the remedy for an innocent party after the contract was already
broken. Allowing a divorce for any reason would make the action of divorce break an intact
contract.
The sanctity of the marriage contract at the end of the nineteenth and early twentieth
century is evident by refusals to grant divorces. Not every couple that believed their marriage
should be legally ended was granted a divorce. John Brune filed for divorce from Anna Brune
after he believed she cheated on him thanks to a witness reporting that she was “drinking wine
until midnight with strange men,” and she disappeared “behind a closed door of a notorious
hotel.”25 He also claimed she created a public disturbance in his restaurant. What started out as
a verbal altercation ended with her pulling a gun on John and threatening to shoot him. Anna,
however, denied John’s accusations and claimed to be subject to his will at all times as a dutiful
wife. She also claimed he gave expensive gifts to other women that he was intimate with. The
court denied the divorce, claiming both accusations were false, and that the two behaved in a
reasonably proper manner with each other.26 With allegations like these, it appears that a divorce
was desired by at least one of the two parties. However, because the spouses behaved properly
with each other, the judge did not believe a divorce was necessary, especially after finding that
the accusations were false. Augusta and Fred Hose were also denied a divorce. The judge in
their case said that the couple appeared “to be good people, should get together, forget the past
24
25
May, Great Expectations, 45.
26
Ibid.
6
on account of their children and be happy.27 Even though the couple wanted the divorce, the
judge in the Hose case got the final say in whether or not they deserved one, and in their case the
judge decided preserving their family was more important the desires of the couple to end their
marriage. If ending marriages were up to the spouses’ discretion, these marriages would have
probably ended. But because the state had an interest in preserving the family and maintaining
the marriage contract, divorces that were desired were not always granted.
Obtaining Divorce in the Era of Fault
Restricting divorce only to marriages where a contract has already been broken by a spouse
committing a fault in a specific way was a way to limit the number of divorces and preserve the
traditional family. However, even with strict and limited divorce laws, divorces still happened
fairly frequently before no-fault divorces became standard. The fault-based divorce system led
husbands and wives to manipulate their situations to “fit the letter, if not the intent of the law.”28
If a married couple wanted to end their marriage but no one was obviously at fault, they could
manipulate the truth so it fit what the law required in order to obtain a divorce. This way,
couples were able to exit unhappy marriages.
Since marriage and divorce laws were different from state to state, and states, for the most
part, honored divorces and marriages that occurred in other states, unhappy couples could find
ways to use the divorce laws of another state to obtain a divorce. In general, western states had
more lenient divorce laws, and with that came a higher rate of divorce.29 However, as divorce
rates rose across the country, they rose everywhere, not just in states with lenient divorce laws.
27
Watertown leader, December 22, 1911
28
29
May, Great Expectations, 6, 9.
7
Some people also blamed the strict divorce laws for creating fraudulent divorces.30 The strict
laws led to manipulation of stories and collusion within married couples.
Cruelty was one of the most popular grounds for divorce in the early twentieth century. In
1919, when one in every nine marriages ended in divorce, 28.3 percent of divorces were granted
due to cruelty. Desertion was the only ground that accounted for more divorces at 36.8 percent of
divorces.31 When the grounds of cruelty was first established, it was understood as physical
abuse or extreme neglect.32 Not every negative act towards a spouse counted as cruelty for the
purpose of obtaining a divorce. As there was more societal pressure for judges to grant divorces
for more causes, cruelty transformed into “a catchall category for spiritual, emotional, and sexual
antagonisms.”33 Judges began accepting more and more accusations of cruelty as grounds for a
legal divorce. The definition of what was considered cruel in a marriage was changing as
marriages were recognized more frequently as an institution based on love and happiness.
End of Nineteenth-Century Cruelty
The use of cruelty as an easier access to divorce can be seen in the cases of couples who
requested a divorce. In the late nineteenth century, divorce rates were rising across the country
as citizens tried to figure out how to address this perceived threat to family stability. One state,
South Carolina, responded to this threat by banning divorce altogether.34 As laws were changing
along with societal opinions, divorces continued to occur, and cruelty was a favored ground to
claim to exit from a marriage. Shawano County, Wisconsin, was a rural county, just west of
30
Committee hearing, 73.
31
“Marriage and Divorce.”
32
Davis, More Perfect Unions, 18.
33
Ibid.
34
8
Brown County, home to one of Wisconsin’s oldest and largest cities, Green Bay, was home to
Mary Corbett, Adelaide Davids, and Ellen Sears, all of whom filed for divorce from their
husbands during the last decade of the nineteenth century using the grounds of cruelty.
Mary Corbett sued for divorce from her husband on the grounds of cruel and inhumane
treatment. She claimed her husband, Lawrence Corbett, was a habitual drunkard for over a year,
who treated her in a cruel and inhumane manner. She claimed he repeatedly committed acts of
cruelty and violence towards her, including an occasion on April 13, 1890 where he knocked her
down after hitting her on the head. After that incident, she experienced pain and dizziness for a
long time. On March 8, 1892 again, Lawrence struck Mary on the head. Through their marriage,
she testified, Lawrence used profane language towards Mary, and his cruelty impaired her health.
She claimed he also neglected to provide for her, and when she filed for divorce, he did not
answer the summons and complaint and she was granted a divorce.35 Lawrence was physically
violent towards Mary, as well as being verbally abusive, drunk, and failed to provide for her in a
way that husbands were expected to. He fit many different definitions of cruelty, and because of
that her divorce was granted.
Adelaide Davids sued for a divorce From Jonas Davids after he left her on April 13,
1891. On that day, he was very cruel to Adelaide, slapping and striking her while using harsh
and cruel language towards her. This negatively impacted her health, and she had not seen him
since that day. She was granted a divorce for the cruelty that took place on that day.36 He was
both physically violent, and verbally cruel, again meeting multiple traditional definitions of
35
Divorce Case File, 1892, Box 62, Folder 9, Shawano Series 54 Shawano County Circuit Court Case Files, State
Historical Society of WI, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay Archives and Area Research Center, Green Bay,
Wisconsin, United States of America.
36
9
cruelty. There was no stipulation to determine how much cruelty a spouse had to endure before
they could file for divorce, but at this time, some may have said one day of rough behavior does
not constitute enough cruelty to be granted a divorce. However, the judge in Adelaide’s case
understood Jonah’s actions as cruel enough to free Adelaide from the bonds of matrimony.
Adelaide and Mary both experienced physical violence from their husbands at the time.
Physical violence fit the traditional idea of cruelty in a marriage. Husbands had some form of
ownership over their wives, but some treatment was still thought to be extreme and worthy of an
end to the marriage, at least in most jurisdictions. However, after the Civil War when divorce
rates started rising, so did the idea of what counts as a reasonable cause for ending a marriage.
Even as these reasons became more inclusive, American motivations for divorce were not
frivolous, and divorce was still only allowed for extreme circumstances.37 What counted as
cruelty started to expand with the expansion of acceptance of divorce.
Ellen and Jasper Sears had three children together, but almost immediately after their
marriage Jasper began disregarding his marriage vows. He drank frequently for more than seven
years, including bringing his young son with him to drink, and treated Ellen in a cruel and
inhumane manner. In the winter of 1891, he left Ellen and the kids alone with strangers for a
long period of time, and on July 4th of that year, he broke their dishes because Ellen would not go
to a dance with him. In 1892 he took all of their household goods that Ellen bought with her own
money, since while she was married to Jasper she was forced to work outside of the home and
took the ten dollars he made from the sale to buy himself some whiskey. Throughout their
marriage, Jasper called Ellen names and accused her of cheating.38 The main complaint of Ellen
37
38
10
was cruel and inhumane treatment. Many of his actions might not have fit in with the traditional
definition of cruelty, as he was never physically violent towards Ellen. However, he broke
dishes, sold home goods for money for alcohol, drank consistently and with his young son, and
was verbally abusive towards Ellen. He also did not provide enough for his family
economically, and made Ellen work out of the home to support herself and their children.39 It
was still very much the man’s job to financially support his family, and failure to do so was
accepted by some as a form of cruelty. All of these actions combined, thought each may not
have been considered cruelty on their own, was enough for the judge to grant Ellen a divorce on
the grounds of cruel and inhumane treatment.40
Late 1910’s Cruelty: The Definition Expands?
Three decades later, divorce was more popular, and the ground of cruelty had continued
to expand with the societal needs for divorce. The lack of physical violence in one case in the
1890’s would show up numerous times in the 1910’s in Los Angeles, Brown County, Wisconsin,
and Shawano County, Wisconsin.
In Los Angeles, Sarah Gude sued her husband for divorce on the grounds of cruelty. The
basis of the cruelty was his unnatural and inhumane demand for sexual intercourse. Sarah
claimed that he demanded sex almost every night, sometimes twice a night and during the day if
he was at home, even if she was unwell. That much of a demand for sex caused Sarah great
physical suffering, and the judge granted her a divorce.41 Extreme demands for sex did not fit in
with the ideal of a romantic based marriage, and it was not covered under any other ground.
39
Ibid.
40
Ibid.
41
11
Erich Von Stroheim was married to May Bon Stroheim, who sued for a divorce from
Erich. She claimed extreme cruelty because Erich loafed around the house and refused to find a
job, but when he did find employment he spent his money on other women and neglected his
wife. Erich claimed that she did not need his support because she made her own money. The
court awarded May the divorce.42 There was no verbal abuse, nor any physical violence towards
May, but she was still granted a divorce from Erich on the grounds of cruelty.
Contrasting with the Von Stroheims was Bert and Lisa James of Los Angeles. Bert filed
for divorce on the grounds of cruelty because he supported her financially, but she still insisted
on working outside of the home. Leaving the home for work, according to Bert, resulted in
neglect of the household duties and moral and sexual laxity. He claims she began drinking and
going out at night, against his wishes. Lisa denied the cruelty charges and claimed that Bert did
not properly support her, and they agreed prior to their marriage that she would continue to work
outside of the home. Her cross complaint accused Bert of inflicting cruelty against her. She said
Bert claimed he was superior to her in mental and intellectual powers. Bert called her a child,
foolish, and ridiculous. He was verbally abusive towards Lisa. He threw her on the ground
once, claiming that he was boss, and she was cheap and no good. In the end, the judge granted
Lisa the divorce.43 Economic issues fit under this ground of cruelty. There was a societal ideal
of the man belonging in the economy, making money for the family while the woman is at home
taking care of the house. Even though marriages were becoming based more on romance than an
economic partnership, that economic piece did not quickly fade from the needs of marriage.
In 1919 Myra Burns filed for divorce against her husband Clifford Burns due to his cruel
and inhumane treatment towards her. They were only married for two years, but Myra accused
42
Ibid., 154.
43
Ibid., 131-132.
12
Clifford of striking her with his fist. In March 1918, Clifford scratched Myra’s right eye,
causing a deep wound and a doctor’s visit. He had a violent temper, acted erratically, and swore
and raved at Myra. Myra claimed it was impossible for her to continue to live with Clifford.
She felt humiliated in her spirit and was suffering in her mind and body. Clifford did not appear
to defend himself during the court hearings, and Myra was granted a divorce from him on
October 2, 1919.44 Clifford was both physically violent and verbally abusive, combined
undoubtedly considered cruel and inhumane treatment. The wording that Myra used in her
complaint, “humiliated in spirit… suffered in mind and body,” were phrases that probably would
not have shown up decades earlier. It did not matter as much if the wife was humiliated by her
husband, all that would have mattered was how violent he was. Being humiliated by a husband
was not extreme enough to grant a divorce. However, in 1919, the feelings of women were taken
into consideration. Yes, Clifford was violent towards Myra and she probably would have been
granted the divorce based on that, yet she made claims about how it hurt her emotionally.
Four years into her marriage with Fred Doxtater, Maud Doxtater fell pregnant but lost her
child. After this, Fred became very cruel towards her. He cruelly and falsely accused Maud of
preventing herself from having children and started staying away from the home. He physically
assaulted Maud, slapping her in the mouth and told her he would lay her cold. For two years
Maud had been asking him for a divorce. On August 6, 1919, Fred went on a motorcycle ride
with another woman, and when he returned the next day, he told Maud to go get a divorce.
Maud claimed that it was unsafe to continue to live with Fred. Fred denied charges of cruel and
44
Divorce Case File, 1919, Box 547, Folder 1, Brown Series 65, Circuit Court Case Files, State Historical Society of
WI, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay Archives and Area Research Center, Green Bay, Wisconsin, United States
of America.
13
inhumane treatment, and appeared at the trial with a lawyer.45 According to Maud’s story of
events, which the Judge sided with when he granted the couple a divorce, both parties in the
marriage wanted to end their marriage.46 Fred contested the charges, so he might not have
wanted a marriage, but either way Maud had to give details about their life that painted Fred in a
negative picture in order to be granted the divorce she desired. According to her story, he struck
her once, and most of the rest of the cruelty was verbal. This one physical act, along with verbal
cruelty, was enough for the judge to grant Maud an absolute divorce from her husband.
George Dunlap was an able-bodied man who was unemployed and failing to provide for
his wife, Elva Dunlap, and their two children. Elva filed for divorce from George claiming cruel
and inhumane treatment. She claims he committed acts of physical violence against her,
including striking her multiple times. On one occasion on August 18, 1919, he brutally assaulted
Elva, striking her face and arms, kicking, disfiguring and discoloring Elva. According to Elva,
George had a violent temper and had even threatened to kill her. She also claimed that he used
vile, obscene, and profane language, including in front of the children. Elva claimed she had to
work out of the home for four or five years to support her family because George refused to.
George, on the other hand, denied being unemployed and denied the cruel and inhumane
treatment. He argued that he never struck Elva, and only kicked her in retaliation to her kicking
him. He claimed that he would come home after a long day of work to a tirade of abuse against
him at the hands of Elva, and that was when she kicked him, and he kicked her back. He
admitted to the court that he used vile language, but contested that Elva used the same language.
45
of America.
46
Ibid.
14
George also claimed that Elva was always nagging him and was consistently ornery and mean,
preventing him from sleeping, and had threatened to take the kids.47
The marriage between Elva and George appeared to be broken, no matter whose story
was to be believed. However, because of the fault-based divorce system, they had to place
blame on the other, and accuse the other publicly of horrible things. The category of cruelty
caught all the different accusations Elva made against George, from failure to provide, to profane
language, and to physical violence. In the end, the court sided with Elva and granted a divorce at
the end of October 1919. The judge awarded Elva full custody of the children with George only
receiving visitation, even though George claimed that the kids wanted to live with him. The
divorce separated the family into two households, but it is hard to imagine that this marriage was
not already ended before the official degree. This is an example why it was so important to have
access to divorces.
Rose Groll claimed that her husband, Elmer Groll, treated her in a cruel and inhumane
manner. She claimed the couple never got along well, but in the past four months especially the
treatment became intolerable. He called Rose vile and abusive names and epithets and struck her
two or three times. Rose also said that Elmer had not properly supported the family. According
to Rose, Elmer ordered her out two months before the divorce trial before selling all of the
family furniture. Rose claimed it was dangerous to her health and life to continue to live with
Elmer, and on October 21, 1919, after Elmer failed to appear, the judge granted Rose a divorce
47
of America.
15
from Elmer.48 Any of Elmer’s acts could have been considered cruelty and combined made for a
seemingly easy divorce.
Abbie Gunkel married William Gunkel in 1912 and filed for divorce in 1919. She
claimed that for more than two years, William willfully refused and neglected to provide for her,
and that he treated her in a cruel and inhumane manner. Abbie accused William of beating and
striking her, making her sick and lame, especially after an incident in October 1914 where
William assaulted and mistreated her, resulting in his arrest and conviction for battery. In 1915,
Abbie left William and has not lived with him since, so she was granted divorce in September
1919 after William failed to respond to the summons and complaint.49
Another case similar to Abbie’s was that of Della Hartman. She was married to Lee
Hartman but sued for divorce due to his cruel and inhumane treatment towards her. Della
accused Lee of striking her several times, cursing and swearing at her, and failing to support her.
Della felt compelled to leave Lee, and did so for the first time in February 1913, only three
months after marrying him. She returned to him, but then felt compelled to leave again before
going back to him once again. Lee also left Della twice, both times without giving her a means
of support. Finally, in July of 1919, Lee left Della for good, but on his way out he opened 78
quarts of preserves that Della had made, which caused them to spoil. Della feared that it would
be dangerous for her life and health to continue to live with Lee. Lee did not appear, so Della
was granted a divorce and custody of their child.50 Della claimed danger to her health and life to
48
of America.
49
of America.
50
of America.
16
continue living with Lee, but the language in that phrase appears to be more extreme than the
accusations made against Lee.
Abbie, Della, and Rose’s cases show how when the other party doesn’t answer a
summons or complaint and does not appear for a hearing, it leaves many unanswered questions
for a future investigation. These cases were also full of many different types of cruelty, making
it quite obvious that a divorce was warranted. Only one side of the story is shown in these cases
because of the lack of response from their husbands, so it is not known for certain if these actions
are completely true, or if they were fabricated or exaggerated to legally end an unhappy
marriage.
When Josephine Laes filed for a divorce from Peter Laes on the grounds of cruelty,
cruelty covered many aspects of their tumultuous relationship. According to Josephine, Peter
had started acting cruel and violent towards Josephine at the beginning of 1919, their ninth year
of marriage. She said he slapped her numerous times, leaving marks on her body. He went
through long periods of long periods of uniformly brutal and abusive behavior. She claimed he
also used vile names and epithets towards her, threatening to kick her out of the house, saying
that he no longer cared for her and he wanted to marry a woman of his choice. Josephine
claimed that Peter once told her he wished she would drown herself so he could be rid of her at a
minimum expense to him. Peter would remain away from home until the early morning.
Josephine believed it would be unsafe to continue living with Peter, as she feared that Peter
would be able to execute the threats he made against her. Peter, on the other hand, denied cruel
and inhumane treatment allegations, and that Josephine had been cruel towards him for the last
two or three years. He claimed she called him abusive and obscene names, repeatedly falsely
accused him of having a venereal disease and improper relations with other women. He claimed
17
that Josephine was so jealous it was impossible to live with her, and when she would get jealous
and mad she would strike him. Josephine denied Peter’s counterclaim allegations, and the judge
ended up siding with Josephine when granting the divorce.51 Both parties had a reason to wish
for a divorce, and perhaps both stories met the necessities for the grounds of cruelty. With the
fault-based divorce system, however, it was a battle of who was truly at fault, and whose cruel
actions were worse than the other parties.
Jennie and Henry Jacobs were married in 1906 and had five kids together. When they
were married, Jennie was 16 and Henry was 48. Jeannie claimed that for at least the previous
five years Henry treated her in a cruel and inhumane manner, calling her vile names, swearing,
accusing her of infidelity, and threatening to strike her. He struck her a couple times with his fist
as well. Henry did not properly support her, according to Jennie. She claimed that he taught their
children to call her vile names and to dislike her. Jennie was obliged to leave their home on
several occasions but would go back to try and live peacefully with her husband. Eventually, she
believed it was improper and unsafe for her to live and cohabit with Henry. He had accused
Jennie of running away with another man. After their third child was born, Henry refused to get
someone to help Jennie, he refused to do anything Jennie asked and would swear and scold her,
and two days after the baby was born he told Jennie to get up and go work herself. The divorce
counsel assigned to their case told the judge that Jennie did not deserve a divorce from Henry,
but no good would come from forcing the two parties to come together. Henry did not answer or
appear, and the judge granted Jennie a divorce in March 1919.52 As divorces were becoming
51
Divorce Case File, 1919, Box 547, Folder 12, Brown Series 65, Circuit Court Case Files, State Historical Society
of WI, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay Archives and Area Research Center, Green Bay, Wisconsin, United
States of America.
52
Divorce Case File, 1919, Box 213, Folder 5, Shawano Series 54, Shawano County Circuit Court Case Files, State
18
more accepted, even if the legal sanctions did not necessarily call for a divorce, people in the
judicial system began understanding the need for divorces. In Jennie’s case, cruelty covered vile
names, failure to support, and other acts that occurred within the home, and even then, the
judicial advocates for her case did not believe her case warranted a divorce. Those same
advocates knew that the marriage was over, though, and there was no reason to force a broken
family to stay legally together.
Minnie McKeefry filed for a divorce from William McKeefry on the basis of cruelty.
She claimed that he had been cruel and violent in his entire course of conduct towards her for 18
months prior to her filing for a divorce. On one occasion on January 19, 1918, he picked up a
chair to strike her, but she was able to escape before he could physically harm her. On other
occasions when his temper got up, about two-three times a month, he would strike her hard.
Minnie, claimed to never strike him or even quarrel with him. Minnie also claimed that William
had been a habitual drunk for at least three years, and for at least one year he refused and
neglected to provide for her. He spent all the money he earned on alcohol. She claimed he used
vile and abusive epithets and threatened her with violence. Because of this cruelty, Minnie
claimed to have lost love and affection for William. She tried to get along, but she could not do
it anymore. She claimed that William was willing to pay for the divorce because they both
wanted it. The judge believes Minnie’s story and granted her a divorce in March 1919.53
In the summons and complaint for Harriet Bonibal Waite’s divorce against Lanson G.
Waite, Harriet’s ground for divorce against Lanson was his cruelty, but throughout her testimony
and her complaint the cruelty she claimed appeared most in the form of neglect. The couple
53
19
married in 1896 and had three kids together. Harriet claimed that Lanson only supported her
when it was convenient for him, and he lived partially off of her earnings. She said he left her
and her children for weeks or months and failed to provide them with the necessities of life.
Harriet also said she had heard many rumors of Lanson with other women. One of the women
she heard Lanson was with was Mrs. Matthews. Harriet claimed that Lanson admitted that he
would be happy with Mrs. Matthews and would be willing to get a divorce if he could live with
her, although he denied doing anything improper with Mrs. Matthews while married to Harriet.
There were rumors, though, that Mrs. Matthews was getting a divorce for Lanson. Mrs.
Matthews and he had been friendly for about a year before divorce proceedings were started, but
Harriet did not understand completely what was happening until shortly before divorce
proceedings started. Before then, she did not investigate rumors. She also believed than Lanson
committed adultery with Carrie Mathias a few years ago, but never forgave, condoned, or
voluntarily cohabitated with him since she found out about the adultery. The situation between
Harriet and Lanson had affected Harriet’s health, according to her, making her so nervous she
had been stuck in bed. She also lost interest in life, lost her faith in him, and felt hopeless. She
believed Lanson to be selfish, while she would move anywhere he wanted her to. Harriet also
claimed that Lanson drank very hard for the last seven to eight years, spending a lot of money on
alcohol. Even though Harriet’s divorce suit was on the ground of cruelty, she claimed that
Lanson never struck her, swore, or used bad language towards her, or accused her of having
anything to do with another man. She said he was good natured but heartless. Harriet left
Lanson earlier in in 1919 and claimed that Lanson was fine with the divorce until his last visit
with Mrs. Matthews. During Harriet’s testimony, the judge asked her, “Just what is your
grievance against him, outside of his intimacy with this woman?” Harriet responded, “I feel that
20
I could get along and take care of myself comfortably, and I feel that it is simply intolerable
when one cannot depend on a word he might say.” The judge followed that up with, “your
whole trouble is over this woman.” Harriet responded, “no, it has been for the last 20 years.”
Lanson never answered the summons and complaint, nor appeared at the trial, and Harriet was
granted the divorce and custody of their children.54
Harriet’s story did not fit in with many other cases of cruelty. It also did not fit in with
adultery because there was no proof that Lanson did anything inappropriate with the women he
was friendly with. The judge even questioned why Harriet really wanted a divorce and
insinuated there was not much there to grant a divorce. However, the judge must have realized
that the marriage was not working and was able to expand the ground of cruelty to cover
Harriet’s situation.
Mary Steckbauer and Louis Steckbauer married in June 1886 and had two children who
had been married and left the house before Mary was finally fed up with Louis enough to file for
a divorce. Mary claimed that Louis treated her in a cruel manner by using vile and abusive
names and epithets towards her, being gone half of the night, and treating her with neglect and
indifference. Louis, according to Mary, has no affection for her, and had made her life
continually miserable. Mary has waited a long time to file for a divorce, because she was
waiting for her children to grow up, as she did not want to have a broken home for their sake.
Louis didn’t care if they got a divorce, Mary claimed, and she could not stand to live with the
man who destroyed her peace of mind and made her life miserable anymore. The testimony of
their friend claimed their marriage had experienced difficulties and the two were not getting
54
21
along as a married couple ought to, and it had been affecting Mary’s health. Louis and Mary
agreed on a division of property before the divorce was granted, and Louis appeared at the trial
but did not contest the charges against him. Their divorce was filed on March 11, 1919.55 There
was no physical violence, Louis appeared to have wanted or at least was okay with a divorce.
Again, the judge could have expanded the recognized ground for cruelty in their case to allow an
unhappy couple out of a legal marriage, even though neither did anything to violate the marriage
contract so that it would be immoral for the other to continue to live with the partner at fault.
Nora Bohren filed for divorce against Rude Bohren because of his cruel and inhumane
treatment towards her which consisted of his vile and abusive names and epithets, continually
speaking to her in an angry manner, and making her miserable life unendurable and impossible
to continue to live with him. Nora claimed that he continually scolded her and found fault with
her without cause or provocation, and he completely became enraged at her. They received their
divorce in May 1920.56 This is another case where there appears to be little cause for divorce,
yet one was granted anyway. Society had accepted that cruel words violated the basis of a
romantic, fulfilling marriage.
Johanna Olson filed for divorce from Conrad Olson on the grounds of cruelty, but in their
situation, there were no allegations of physical violence. Johanna accused Conrad of neglecting
to provide for her, calling her names, saying he will lay her cold, and being consistently
intoxicated. While intoxicated, Johanna claimed that Conrad would disappear and his
55
56
22
whereabouts would be unknown. She told the court it would be wrong and improper for her to
continue to live with him and that she had been a true and affectionate wife. When their case
went to trial, Conrad did not appear, and Johanna was given a divorce.57 Objectively, one might
not believe Conrad’s actions towards Johanna were what many would consider to be cruel.
However, the verbal abuse, intoxication, and failure to provide was enough for this judge to grant
a divorce to Johanna.
Anna and Ray Tinsman had five kids, and Anna claimed Ray treated her in a cruel and
inhumane manner for the past three years. According to Anna, Ray would come home drunk,
and would spend whatever money he made on alcohol, and neglected to provide for Anna. Ray
would use vile names, threats, and would order Anna out. He swore in front of the children.
Anna claimed he threatened to, but never struck her, but he was brutal and abusive towards her.
When Anna and the kids were sick for Christmas, Ray refused to get a doctor. Anna said that
Ray wanted her to get a divorce so he could be free. Anna believed it was unsafe to continue to
live with Ray. Anna’s mom, Mary, gave a testimony to the court and claimed that Ray supported
her very poorly, resulting in Anna coming home crying because she had nothing to eat. Mary
also said that Ray was a hard drinker, and when he drank he did not care about the children. The
judge granted Anna a divorce in March 1919.58 Anna admitted that Ray would threaten to strike
her, but never actually was physically violent towards her. He neglected his fatherly and husband
duties and was verbally cruel towards Anna. Physical cruelty was not necessary to be granted a
divorce under the ground of cruelty.
57
Divorce Case File, 1919, Box 547, Folder 16, Brown Series 65, Circuit Court Case Files, State Historical Society
of WI, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay Archives and Area Research Center, Green Bay, Wisconsin, United
States of America.
58
Divorce Case File, 1919, Box 213 , Folder 4, Shawano Series 54, Shawano County Circuit Court Case Files, State
23
Maybe a closing paragraph about the overall shift you are seeing? Reiterate what cruelty meant
in the earlier period, and sum up how it change in the archival sources you have discussed.
In 2019, married couples have the privilege of having the option of a divorce when the
marriage simply does not work out without needing to put blame on one spouse and risk their
reputation and cause a complicated legal battle. One hundred years ago, however, leaving a
marriage based on mutual consent was not that easy, even as the desire do so increased and the
societal acceptance of divorce and entering a marriage based on happiness and fulfillment was
rising. To combat this disconnect, fault based divorce systems adapted, whether on purpose or in
the subconscious of society, and became more malleable. Couples could claim a divorce on the
ground of cruelty, especially, and receive the divorce they desired for a multitude of reasons. It
remained a ground used by battered spouses, but it also was used by those who didn’t like the
way their spouses spoke to them or the language they used. As society’s definition of what it
meant to be married changed, their definition of what behavior was tolerable from the other
spouse changed, and negative actions that some Americans at that time or in the past may not
have ever thought of as cruel were cited in divorce cases as the cruelty that warranted a divorce.
Cruelty also allowed a spouse to be blamed for conduct that did not irreparably harm their
reputation, while providing enough of a reason for a divorce to be granted. Claiming cruelty
became a way to receive a divorce with some ease in a tricky fault based divorce system.
24

Linnea Zindman Final Divorce Paper 1

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Linnea Zindman Final Divorce Paper 1

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

A Cruel Divorce: The Significance of a Divorce Based on Cruelty Before No-Fault Divorce.

pretty much any reason with little restrictions.

spouse was clearly at “fault” according to the older fault-based system.

United States Divorce History

much change in the family realm.

Obtaining Divorce in the Era of Fault

couples were able to exit unhappy marriages.

laws led to manipulation of stories and collusion within married couples.

End of Nineteenth-Century Cruelty

that her divorce was granted.

cruelty started to expand with the expansion of acceptance of divorce.

the grounds of cruel and inhumane treatment.40

Late 1910’s Cruelty: The Definition Expands?

and Shawano County, Wisconsin.

seemingly easy divorce.

1919 after William failed to respond to the summons and complaint.49

accusations made against Lee.

actions were worse than the other parties.

family to stay legally together.

granted the divorce and custody of their children.54

romantic, fulfilling marriage.

divorce under the ground of cruelty.

Você também pode gostar