Connecticut State Library Spotlight: Divorce in Eighteenth-Century Connecticut

The purpose of the Uncovering New Haven project is to preserve and enhance public access to New Haven County judicial records in the State Archives that date primarily from 1700 to 1855. These records originally came to the Connecticut State Library due to State Librarian George Seymour Godard's tremendous efforts in the early twentieth century to obtain various historic documents and artifacts for preservation. The project itself has been made possible by a grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC), as well as the ongoing support of the State Library.1A major component of Uncovering New Haven is the continuation of our earlier efforts in the Litchfield and New London Counties to identify court records relating to African-descended, African American, Black, and Indigenous persons and groups. We are also digitizing a selection of court cases involving groups and subjects of major research interest, including women, minors, disabled persons, public health, poverty, transience, and divorce.This article examines the divorce petitions we have discovered in the eighteenth-century New Haven County Superior Court records to date. It provides a preliminary analysis and a peek into these primary source materials to pique the interest of researchers.The history of the court system in Connecticut is a rather complicated tapestry, with several different types of courts being established, merged, and abolished as the legal climate and administrative needs of government evolved. When New Haven merged with Connecticut Colony in 1664,2 its court system was reorganized. The original Particular Court was replaced with two judicial bodies: the Court of Assistants in 1665 and the County Courts in 1666. The Court of Assistants lasted until 1711, when it was supplanted by the newly established Superior Court. The County Courts were abolished by the Connecticut General Assembly in 1855, with their jurisdiction being split between the Municipal and Superior Courts of Connecticut.3Connecticut Colony had some of the most liberal divorce laws in the western world during the eighteenth century. This was an interesting deviation from English law, which followed the doctrine, “What God has joined together no man can put asunder.”4 However, the Puritans who settled Connecticut were influenced by the writings of Martin Luther and John Calvin on marriage and divorce,5 and believed that absolute divorce with the right to remarry—divorce a vinculo matrimonii6—should be allowed for adultery, desertion, fraud, and seven years’ absence without word.7 Indeed, a Connecticut statute enacted in October 1667 codified these acceptable grounds for divorce: “adultery, or fraudulent contract, or wilful desertion for three years with total neglect of duty; or in case of seven years absence of one party not heard of.”8 This dissolution could be accomplished without damnation, for the Puritans viewed marriage as a civil contract rather than a sacrament.9Although cruelty and intoxication were sometimes invoked in divorce petitions during the eighteenth century, they were almost always included with the grounds of adultery, desertion, or absence without word. Divorces for cruelty alone were not permitted until the late 1780s,10 and the first such petition we found was dated 1791.11As Table 1 demonstrates, we discovered 20212 divorce petitions from the eighteenth century in the New Haven County Superior Court records from 171213 to 1799. While desertion and adultery were the most common grounds, several petitions cited more than one factor—some named up to four. These included various combinations of absence and presumption of death, adultery, bigamy, cruelty, desertion, elopement, fraud, imprisonment, intoxication, and non-consummation. As remains the case today,14 women filed for divorce more often than men.For reasons that are not entirely clear to modern archivists, the court clerks or librarians who previously arranged the New Haven County Superior Court records divided divorce petitions into four periods: 1712–1740, 1741–1773, 1774–1789, and 1790–1799.15In the first period, the number of divorce petitions was at the lowest point it would be during the eighteenth century, with only twenty-seven cases coming before the bar (see Table 2). All petitioners were of European ancestry, most of them were women, and desertion was by far the primary ground. While cruelty was cited in two cases, it was paired with desertion.16 Unfortunately, court clerks did not often record verdicts in case documents created during this period, so we only know of six outcomes: all granted.17Divorce petitions increased to forty-three cases during the second period (see Table 3). Although we do not know the outcome for 33 percent of petitions, approximately 63 percent were granted. Women still outpaced men in filing petitions, desertion remained the most common ground, and cruelty was not cited at all. We also started to see persons of African and mixed-heritage descent seeking divorces.Divorce petitions continued to rise during the third period, totaling fifty-seven cases (see Table 4). Women still comprised the largest number of petitioners. Claims of cruelty reappeared and intoxication was cited for the first time, although both factors were paired with more common grounds—most likely to bolster the petitioners’ cases. A remarkable 90 percent of divorces were granted, with only two unrecorded verdicts. As ever, desertion remained the most popular ground, but adultery was on the increase.Divorce petitions in the eighteenth century peaked during the fourth period with seventy-five cases, and women continued to surpass men in filing for divorce (see Table 5). Desertion and adultery reigned supreme in grounds cited, but one woman succeeded in divorcing for cruelty alone: Mary Hudson (née Hull) sought a divorce from her husband David in 1791, stating that his “repeated & long continued abuses, threats, cruelties & severities . . . rendered it impossible for her to continue with him any longer.”18 Indeed, 92 percent of divorces were granted.The majority of divorce petitions in the New Haven County Superior Court were filed by European-descended women, primarily for desertion, adultery, or a combination of the two. Interestingly, 77 percent of these petitions were granted—and these numbers could possibly be higher, given that we cannot easily discern the outcome in 21 percent of cases (see Table 1).While more research is required to determine why divorce rates increased over the eighteenth century, it is perhaps not surprising that, given the inherent power imbalance in colonial Anglo marriage as prescribed by both law and custom, it was more often women who sought freedom from confinement. Puritan society was strictly hierarchal, with the expectation that children were to submit to their parents, women to their husbands, and men to their church elders and to God. As such, the overarching principle of women's legal status was coverture, a philosophy stemming from English common law that women were under the “wing, protection, and cover” of their husbands.19 Single women (femes sole)20 over eighteen and widows were allowed to conduct lawsuits on their own behalf, but given that around 95 percent of colonial women married at least once in their lifetimes,21 the majority of them fell under coverture.This legal ideal was also known as “unity of person,” and it expressed the Puritans’ most deeply held values as to what the perfect marriage looked like.22 “According to Puritan ideas about the family, a single interest was essential. . . . Proper Puritan matrons sought neither independence nor control in their marriages. They submitted lovingly to their husbands’ authority and decisions about property, and gave up their persons and estates to whatever fate God had in store for the family as a whole.”23 However, even though English-descended women were both legally and economically dependent on men for survival, the New Haven County Superior Court records demonstrate that divorce was not an unfathomable course of action “when husbands proved abusive or wasteful.”24The earliest divorce petition we discovered in the records was from 1712. Ruth Bunnell (née Plume) sought a divorce from her husband Hezekiah on the grounds that he had “for ye Space of five years or thereabouts willfully deserted her and totally neglected ye Duties of an Husband”25 (see Fig. 1). Unfortunately, we do not know the outcome of her petition, as it was not recorded in the case documents.26While men petitioned for divorce to a lesser extent, they also sought to leave intolerable marriages, especially in cases of desertion or adultery. Their rate of success in obtaining a favorable verdict was only slightly lower at 72 percent (see Table 1). One man sought divorce on the more unusual grounds of “Fraud & Iniquity” in 1778 (see Fig. 2): The Petition of Obadiah Munson of New [H]aven in New [H]aven County humbly sheweth that . . . one Rachel Page of Branford in New [H]aven County came into the Family where the Petitioner was a boarder in Wallingford & fraudulently & falsly pretended to have fled from Long [I]sland for fear of the British Troops & that She was now reduced to great Distress from the most Affluent Circumstances that She was the Widow of a Son of Colonel Wells who lived near Flat Bush on the s[ai]d Island & had been by him amply endowed & had been always maintained in Affluence & had always sustained a most reputable Character but was now reduced to the greatest Distress & become obliged to subsist herself by her own Labour tho She had hereto fore been supported in Elegance & lived delicately—Pity from the Family towards one in Distress induced them to take her under their Roof where a considerable Space of time She lived & behaved herself not only so as to be free from being disliked by the Family but so as to obtain the highest Praises & Commendations as a Person of Superior good Sense & Goodness & one who deserved to be imitated by her Sex as being a Great Example & Pattern—Your Honors Petitioner being single & unmarried & observing Her good Behavior & relying upon Her Pretences was induced to make advances to her to marry him . . . but to his great Surprize soon after s[ai]d Marriage . . . he found this distressed Widow Wells of reputable Character . . . to be no other than the Infamous Rachel Page of Branford a Person who had been lately convicted of & punished for Theft. the mother of a Bastard Child. the Catalogue of whose Crimes would disgrace the Records of a Court & illy become the Petitioner to relate & instead of then having fled from Long [I]sland had beat & wounded her own Mother in such a horrid manner as obliged her to fly for fear of the Resentment of the People.”Per the case documents, Obadiah's petition was granted.27Of the 202 divorce petitions discovered in the eighteenth-century New Haven County Superior Court records, only twelve were filed by or involved African-descended persons. Four cases involved people of color who were seeking to separate, and eight cases involved white couples where a person of color was mentioned as part of the grounds for separation.28 The most common ground for divorce was adultery (seven cases), followed by desertion (three cases), bigamy (one case), and adultery/desertion (one case). Ten divorces were granted, one was dismissed for nonappearance, and one decision was not recorded in the case documents.As with European-descended couples, African-descended women sought divorce more often than men—in the four cases involving people of color seeking separation, three of the petitions were filed by women. One particularly intriguing petition was that of Sophia “Sophy” Saunderson, who sought a divorce from her husband James “Quarm” Saunderson for bigamy in 1785 (see Fig. 3). Case documents included certification of Quarm's marriages to “a Negro Woman called Caroline” in December 1783 and “a Negro woman who called herself Sophia Jackson” in October 1784. Given this evidence, the Court granted Sophy a divorce.29 The one petition filed by an African-descended man was that of Newport Freeman, who sought a divorce from his wife Violet in 1798 on the ground that she “willfully deserted him” (see Fig. 4). His divorce was likewise granted.30Why did European-descended persons comprise the majority of petitioners? There are several possible reasons for this demographic imbalance that could be explored further by interested researchers. Those of African descent did not adhere as closely to the Judeo-Christian concept of marriage as the English colonists did. Plural marriage had roots in several African cultures,31 and stable monogamous marriage was rendered difficult to impossible under the inhumane institution of chattel slavery.32 As William Dillon Piersen observed, “Despite enforcement of laws against fornication and adultery, there remained three states of sexual relationship among Afro-Americans in New England: Christian marriage, ‘negro marriage’ (i.e., common-law marriage), and less formal attachments.”33Interestingly, there do not appear to be any petitions for divorce filed by or involving persons with Indigenous ancestry in the eighteenth-century New Haven County Superior Court records. This is likely because Indigenous nations in New England retained a greater degree of cultural sovereignty when it came to marriage among their own peoples during the eighteenth century. As Kathleen J. Bragdon observed, Indigenous peoples practiced both polygyny and monogamy, and “the custom of polygyny lasted into the eighteenth century in some communities, especially among the elite. . . . Monogamous relations were also common. . . . Under the scrutiny of the English, the practice of withdrawing from an unhappy marriage became more difficult for Indian women. . . . but other evidence suggests that Native women were still able to avoid onerous marital connections.”34 Daniel R. Mandell likewise noted, “Exogamous marriages and state laws allowed Indian women to hold far more political and economic power than their white and [B]lack contemporaries.”35 And as Lucianne Lavin summed up: “Native American women could divorce their husbands, and frequently did so.”36As the New Haven County Superior Court records demonstrate, divorce was not so unobtainable in colonial Connecticut as modern generations might assume.37 Currently processing the nineteenth-century records, we are finding that the number of divorce petitions continued to rise, intoxication was increasingly cited as a factor,38 and a new ground, “the destruction of happiness,” appeared. We look forward to delving further into the implications of these cases as they come to light.