The Show Me State and divorce
Yeah, actually, The Legal Genealogist really was poking around in old statute books again last night.
Today is the official kickoff of the 2015 Annual Conference of the Missouri State Genealogical Association (MoSGA) — a two-day conference entitled “Liars, Laws and Brick Walls.”
So, of course, I had to look and see what Missouri law used to say about liars — and particularly those who promised lifelong love and fidelity… and lied.
Those whose marriages ended — or who wanted them to end — in divorce.
And all I have to say is … I’m awfully glad I was born in the second half of the 20th century.
It would have been a whole lot harder to deal with an erring spouse — or even a plain old ordinary unwanted spouse — under early statutes.
Here’s what Missouri law said were the grounds for divorce in 1845:
When a marriage hath been or shall be solemnized between two persons, and either party at the time of the contract was, and still is, impotent, or had a wife or husband living at the time of the marriage, or has committed adultery subsequently to the marriage, or wilfully deserts and absents himself or herself, without a reasonable cause, for the space of two years, or shall be convicted of felony or infamous crime, or addicted to habitual drunkenness for the space of two years, or shall be guilty of such cruel and barbarous treatment as to endanger the life of the other, or shall offer such indignities to the person of the other as shall render his or her condition intolerable, or when the husband shall be guilty of such conduct as to constitute him a vagrant, … the innocent and injured party may obtain a divorce from the bonds of matrimony…1
Not exactly the no-fault provisions we have today, are they?
And it was risky to lie to get a divorce. The person asking for the divorce had to swear that “the complaint is not made out of levity or by collusion, fear or restraint, between the complainant and defendant, for the mere purpose of being separated from each other, but in sincerity and truth…”2
And, the statute went on: “If it shall appear to the court that the adultery, or other injury or offence, complained of, shall have been occasioned by the collusion of the parties, or done with an intention to procure a divorce, or that the complainant was consenting thereto, or that both parties have been guilty of adultery, then no divorce shall be decreed.”3
Read the last phrase of that paragraph again.
If the husband was fooling around, the wife could get a divorce.
If the wife was fooling around, the husband could get a divorce.
But if both the husband and the wife were fooling around, they were stuck. No divorce for them!
And oh… if just one of them was fooling around? Just one of them lying about the “faithful until death do us part” bit?
That guilty party, the statute provided, “shall forfeit all rights and claims, under and by virtue of the marriage ; nor shall the guilty party be allowed to marry again (within) five years after such divorce… ”4
The things you learn when researching “Liars, Laws and Brick Walls.”
SOURCES
Were there coordinating agreements regarding such elements as the 5-year provision, between States? Could the ‘guilty’ party go to Iowa and marry a week after the decree issued? If the ‘guilty party,’ having remarried in Iowa, return to Missouri and not suffer any repercussions for having married within 5 years?
You know my answer — it depends! This would be entirely a matter of state law, and some states were much more restrictive than others.
If you think Missouri was tough, spend a few minutes delving into the South Carolina divorce laws, colonial through modern times. I suspect you might think Missouri positively enlightened afterwards.
I have looked at South Carolina, Jim — I do a presentation on divorce laws — and know that until the South Carolina Constitution of 1949 was adopted, South Carolina had never granted a legal divorce. (There was a brief period after the Civil War when the State Constitution technically allowed divorce, but no divorce was granted under that law.)
I lived in Wisconsin in 1978 and my husband was “fooling around” for at least a year, probably the two that Missouri stipulated. Neither of them would tell. She worked for me. They moved to Virginia. In 1979, the only grounds for divorce in Virginia was adultery. He couldn’t file for it, since he was the one committing it. Wisconsin had no-fault divorce, thank goodness. But I needed to move, within Wisconsin, to make enough money to support myself. According to the law, you had to live in the county for six months before you could file. So it took almost Missouri’s two years to get my divorce. But at least I could get it. They got married as soon as he was “free.”
Canada required a literal Act of Parliament, “endorsed” by the Queen, to the chagrin and embarrassment of my family members, until 1968.
I actually ran across a story about a man who violated the anti-remarriage order in Buffalo NY in 1920. The newspapers story ran: “STALWART SOLDIER, SUED
FOR DIVORCE BY WIFE WHO LOVES HIM, SOBS ON STAND Defendant Says He Married After Being Divorced By Former Wife—Thought He Had Right — Judge Overlooks Contempt of Court.” The story concluded: “Mr. Neil said that the litigants love each other dearly, as evidenced by their tears, and are getting divorced only as their marriage is invalid ln this state. They plan to get married in a nearby state as soon as they are permitted under the law, he said.” Although I never found any evidence that they did so.
I love that! What a great story!