Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T13:58:30.317Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reproducing a Fit Citizenry: Dependency, Eugenics, and the Law of Marriage in the United States, 1860–1920

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Matthew J. Lindsay
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Between the Gilded Age and the Progressive Era, American state legislatures enacted a series of new laws that delineated a class of citizens who were deemed ineligible to participate in the institution of marriage. Scholars have characterized this development as evidence that lawmakers had lost faith in a laissez-faire approach to nuptial governance, and thus transformed marriage into an object of public regulation. This essay argues that behind the ostensible nuptial privatism of the mid-nineteenth century lay a self-conscious policy of judicial governance. Judges invoked the language of nuptial privacy and the common law of contract strategically to advance their vision of moral and economic discipline. The new marital prohibitions thus represented, the essay argues, not the expansion of the state's police power into the previously private realm of domestic relations, but rather a critical transformation in how nuptial reformers and lawmakers understood the relationship between marriage and the well-being of the polity.

Fueled by growing concerns about pauperism, the racial character of the urban proletariat, and the collapse of the economically independent single-male-breadwinner household, the changing form of nuptial governance signaled a thoroughgoing intellectual and strategic reorientation from an understanding of marriage as forming economically and morally viable households—the fundamental units of society—to an understanding of marriage as a largely procreative institution, as the literal source of the citizenry. This reconceptualization of marriage underwrote a strategy of nuptial governance that mobilized marriage as a strategy in the state's regulation of social reproduction.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , Summer 1998 , pp. 541 - 585
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 1998 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Bardaglio, Peter W. 1995. Reconstructing the Household: Families, Sex, and the Law in the Nineteenth-Century South. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Basch, Norma. 1983. In the Eyes of the Law: Women, Marriage, and Property in Nineteenth-Century New York. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Batten, Samuel Z. 1908. The Redemption of the Unfit. The American Journal of Sociology 14:233–60.Google Scholar
Bederman, Gail. 1995. Manliness and Civilization: A Cultural History of Gender and Race in the United States, 1880–1917. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bishop, Joel Prentiss. 1864. Commentaries on the Law of Marriage and Divorce. Vol. 1. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Bishop, Joel Prentiss. 1891. New Commentaries on Marriage, Divorce, and Separation. Vol. 1. Chicago: T. H. Flood.Google Scholar
Blackmar, Elizabeth. 1989. Manhattan for Rent, 1785–1850. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Bloch, Ruth H. 1987. The Gendered Meanings of Virtue in Revolutionary America. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 13:37–58.Google Scholar
Boyer, Paul. 1978. Urban Musses and Moral Order in America, 1820–1920. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Boydston, Jeanne. 1990. Home and Work: Housework, Wages, and the Ideology of Labor in the Early Republic. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brandt, Alan M. 1985. No Magic Bullet: A Social History of Venereal Disease in the United States Since 1880. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burchell, Graham, Gordon, Colin, and Miller, Peter, eds. 1991. The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Calhoun, Arthur W. 1919. A Social History of the American Family from the Colonial 7imes to the Present. Vol. 3. Cleveland: Arthur H. Clark.Google Scholar
Chused, Richard. 1992. Married Women's Property Law: 1800–1850. In Cott 1992.Google Scholar
Chused, Richard. 1992. Late Nineteenth-Century Married Women's Property Law: Reception of the Early Married Women's Property Acts by Courts and Legislatures. In Cott 1992.Google Scholar
Clark, Elizabeth B. 1990. Matrimonial Bonds: Slavery and Divorce in Nineteenth-Century America. Law and History Review 8:25–54.Google Scholar
Cohen, Felix. 1935. Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach. Columbia Law Review 35:809–49.Google Scholar
Cook, Frank Gaylord. 1888a Reform in the Celebration of Marriage. Atlantic Monthly 61:680–90.Google Scholar
Cook, Frank Gaylord. 1888b. The Marriage Celebration in the United States. Atlantic Monthly 61:520–32.Google Scholar
Cook, Frank Gaylord. 1888c. The Marriage Celebration in Europe. Atlantic Monthly 61:245–61.Google Scholar
Cott, Nancy. 1977. The Bonds of Womanhood: “Woman's Sphere” in New England, 1780–1835. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Cott, Nancy. 1988. The Grounding of Modern Feminism. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Cott, Nancy. ed. 1992. History of Women in the United States: Historical Articles on Women's Lives and Activities. Vol. 3, Domestic Relations and Law. New York: K. G. Saur.Google Scholar
Cott, Nancy. 1995. Giving Character to Our Whole Civil Polity: Marriage and the Public Order in the Late Nineteenth Century. In U. S. History as Women's History, ed. Kerber, Linda, Kessler-Harris, Alice, and Kish Sklar, Kathryn Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Davenport, Charles B. 1912. Eugenics and Charity. Report of the National Conference of Social Work 39:280–82.Google Scholar
Davis, David Brion. 1975. The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, 1770–1823. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Degler, Carl N. 1991. In Search of Human Nature: The Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American Social Thought. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dike, Samuel W. 1890. Uniform Marriage and Divorce Laws. The Arena 2:399–408.Google Scholar
Donzelot, Jacques. 1997. The Policing of Families. Trans. Hurley, Robert. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
DuBois, Ellen Carol. 1987. Outgrowing the Compact of Our Fathers: Equal Rights, Woman Suffrage, and the United States Constitution, 1820–1878. Journal of American History 74:836–62.Google Scholar
Eugenics. 1904. The Nation 78:446.Google Scholar
Eugenic Marriage Laws. 1913. The Outlook 105:242–43.Google Scholar
Evolution Working Backward. 1906. The Independent 61:702–3.Google Scholar
Extinction of the Upper Classes. 1909. The Nineteenth Century 60:97–108.Google Scholar
Forbath, William E. 1991. Law and the Shaping of the American Labor Movement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1979. Omnes et Singulatim: Toward a Criticism of “Political Reason” In The Tanner Lectures on Human Values 11, ed. Sterling, M. McMurrin. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1991. Governmentality. In Burchell, Gordon, and Miller 1991.Google Scholar
Fredrickson, George. 1965. The Inner Civil War: Northern Intellectuals and the Crisis of the Union. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Ginzberg, Lori D. 1990. Women and the Work of Benevolence: Morality, Politics, and Class in the 19th-Century United States. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Goodsell, Willystine. 1915. A History of the Family as a Social and Educational Institution. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gordon, Linda. 1988. Heroes of Their Own Lives: The Politics and History of Family Violence, Boston, 1880–1960. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Gordon, Linda. ed. 1990. Women, the State, and Welfare. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Grossberg, Michael. 1985. Governing the Hearth: Law and Family in Nineteenth-Century America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Guyer, Michael. 1916. Being Well Born: An Introduction to Eugenics. Indianapolis, Ind.: Bobbs-Merill.Google Scholar
Hall, Fred S. 1925. Medical Certification For Marriage. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Haller, Mark H. 1963. Eugenics: Hereditarian Attitudes in American Thought. New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Hattarn, Victoria C. 1993. Labor Visions and State Power: The Origins of Business Unionism in the United States. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Heredity and Human Progress. 1900. The Nation, Nov. 1, 349–50.Google Scholar
Holt, Thomas C. 1992. The Problem of Freedom: Race, Labor, and Politics in Jamaica and Britain, 1832–1938. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Horwitz, Morton J. 1977. The Transformation of American Law, 1780–1860. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Howard, George Elliott. 1904. The History of Matrimonial Institutions. Vol. 3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Howard, George Elliott. 1909. Divorce and the Public Welfare. McClure's Magazine 84:232–42.Google Scholar
Humphrey, Seth K. 1913. Parenthood and Social Consciousness. The Forum 49:257–64.Google Scholar
J., M. 1888. The Common Law Marriage. Virginia Law Journal 12:1–13.Google Scholar
Katz, Michael. 1086. In the Shadow of the Poorhouse: A Social History of Welfare in America. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Keller, Morton. 1977. Affairs of State: Public Life in Late Nineteenth Century America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kerber, Linda. 1980. Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Kerber, Linda. 1988. Separate Spheres, Female Worlds, Woman's Place: The Rhetoric of Women's History. Journal of American History 75:9–39.Google Scholar
Kessler-Harris, Alice 1982. Out to Work: A History of Wage-earning Women in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kevles, Daniel. 1985. In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity. New York: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lebsock, Suzanne D. 1992. Radical Reconstruction of Southern Women. In Cott 1992.Google Scholar
Manson, Edward. 1914. Eugenics and Legislation. Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation 19:123–29.Google Scholar
McCurry, Stephanie. 1995. Masters of Small Worlds: Yeoman Households, Gender Relations, and the Political Culture of the Antebellum South Carolina Low Country New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, Adolf. 1916. The Right to Marry: What Can a Democratic Civilization Do About Heredity and Child Welfare. The Survey 36:243–46.Google Scholar
Meyerwitz, Joanne. 1988. Women Adrift: Independent Wage Earners in Chicago, 1880–1930. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mink, Gwendolyn. 1990. The Lady and the Tramp: Gender, Race, and the Origins of the American Welfare State. In Gordon 1990.Google Scholar
Mink, Gwendolyn. 1995. The Wages of Motherhood: Inequality in the Welfare State, 1917–1942. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Mintz, Steven. 1989. Regulating the American Family. Journal of Family History 14:387–408.Google Scholar
Mintz, Steven, and Kellogg, Susan. 1988. Domestic Revolutions: A Social History of American Family Life. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Montgomery, David. 1981. Beyond Equality: Labor and the Radical Republicans, 1862–1872. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Morrow, Prince A. 1904. Social Diseases and Marriage: Social Prophylaxis. New York: Lea Brothers.Google Scholar
Mr. Roosevelt's Views on Race Suicide. 1906. Ladies Home Journal 23:21.Google Scholar
National Divorce Reform League. 1887. Annual Report of 1886. Montpelier: Vermont Watchman and State Journal Press.Google Scholar
National Divorce Reform League. 1889. Annual Report of 1888. Montpelier: Vermont Watchman and State Journal Press.Google Scholar
Novak, William J. 1996. The People's Welfare: Law and Regulation in Nineteenth Century America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Parenthood. 1908. The Independent 64:644–45.Google Scholar
Parenthood and Race Culture. 1910. The Survey 23:731–33.Google Scholar
Parsons, Elsie Clews. 1906. The Family. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.Google Scholar
Peabody, J. B. 1912. Putting It Up to Philanthropy. The Survey 29:98–99.Google Scholar
Pearson, Karl. 1907. The Scope and Importance to the State of the Science of National Eugenics. Popular Science Monthly 71:385–412.Google Scholar
Peiss, Kathy. 1986. Cheap Amusements: Working Women and Leisure in Turn-of-the-Century New York. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Phelps, Elizabeth Stuart. 1890. Women's Views of Divorce. The North American Review 150:130–31.Google Scholar
Polsky, Andrew J. 1991. The Rise of the Therapeutic State. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Present Disintegration of the American Home. 1911. Current Literature 51:296–98.Google Scholar
Procacci, Giovanna. 1991. Social Economy and the Government of Poverty. In Burchell, Gordon, and Miller 1991.Google Scholar
Roosevelt, Theodore. 1907. A Letter from President Roosevelt on Race Suicide. The American Monthly Review of Reviews 35:550–51.Google Scholar
Roosevelt, Theodore. 1914. Twisted Eugenics. The Outlook 105:30–34.Google Scholar
Ryan, Mary P. 1981. Cradle of the Middle Class: The Family in Oneida County, New York, 17901865. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sapiro, Virginia. 1990. The Gender Basis of American Social Policy. In Gordon 1990.Google Scholar
Schouler, James. 1882. A Treatise on the Law of Husband and Wife. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Siegel, Reva. 1994a. Home as Work: The First Woman's Rights Claims Concerning Wives' Household Labor. Yale Law Review 103:1073–1217.Google Scholar
Siegel, Reva. 1994b. The Modernization of Marital Status Law: Adjudicating Wives' Rights to Earnings, 18601930. Georgetown Law Journal 82:2127–2225.Google Scholar
Siegel, Reva. 1996. “The Rule of Love”: Wife Beating as Prerogative and Privacy. Yale Law Journal 105:2117–2207.Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. 1992. Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Jessie Spaulding. 1914. Marriage, Sterilization, and Commitment Laws Aimed at Decreasing Mental Deficiency. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1914:364–70.Google Scholar
Spencer, Edward W. 1915. Some Phases of Marriage Law and Legislation from a Sanitary and Eugenic Standpoint. Yale Law Review 25:58–73.Google Scholar
Stanley, Amy Dru. 1988. Conjugal Bonds and Wage Labor: Rights of Contract in the Age of Emancipation. Journal of American History 75:471–500.Google Scholar
Stanley, Amy Dru. 1992. Beggars Can't Be Choosers: Compulsion and Contract in Postbellum America. Journal of American History 78:1265–93.Google Scholar
Stanley, Amy Dru. 1996. Home Life and the Morality of the Market. In The Market Revolution in America: Social, Political, and Religious Expressions, 18001880, ed. Stokes, Melvyn and Conway, Stephen Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.Google Scholar
Stanley, Hiram M. 1890. Our Own Civilization and the Marriage Problem. The Arena 2:94–100.Google Scholar
Stansell, Christine. 1986. City of Women: Sex and Class in New York, 1789–1860. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Stewart, David. 1887. The Law of Marriage and Divorce. San Francisco: Bancroft-Whitney.Google Scholar
Strahan, S. A. K. 1892. Marriage and Disease: A Study of Heredity and the More Important Family Degenerations. London: K. Paul, Trench, and Trubner.Google Scholar
Swindlehurst, Albert. 1916. Some Phases of the Law of Marriage. Harvard Law Review 30:124–40.Google Scholar
Trachtenberg, Alan. 1982. The Incorporation of America: Culture and Society in the Gilded Age. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
Vernier, Chester. 1931. American Family Laws. Palo Alto, Calif: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Walters, Ronald G. 1978. The Anti-Slavery Appeal: American Abolitionism After 1830. Baltimore: Norton.Google Scholar
Weightman, Hugh. 1883. Marriage and Its Prohibitions. American Law Review 17:166–85.Google Scholar
Wetham, W. C. D. and Wetham, C. D. 1909. The Extinction of the Upper Classes. The Nineteenth Century 60:95–108.Google Scholar
Willrich, Michael. 1998. The Two Percent Solution: Eugenic Jurisprudence and the Socialization of American Law, 1900–1930. Law and History Review 16:63–111.Google Scholar
Wood, Gordon. 1991. The Radicalism of the American Revolution. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar

Cases

Allan v. Allan, 95 A. 363 (N. J. 1915).Google Scholar
Askew v. Dupree, 30 Ga. 173 (1860).Google Scholar
Beshman v. Beshman, 174 N.W. 611 (Minn. 1919).Google Scholar
Beverlin v. Beverlin, 29 W. Va. 732 (1887).Google Scholar
Campbell's Admin. and Heirs o. Gullatt, 43 Ala. 57 (1869).Google Scholar
Cartwright et al. v McGown, 121 Ill. 388 (1887).Google Scholar
Catterall v. Sweetman, 1 Robert 304 (1845)(cited in J. 1888, 11).Google Scholar
Cole v. Langley, 14 La. Ann. 770 (1859).Google Scholar
Crawford v. State, 73 Miss. 172 (1895).Google Scholar
De Amarelli's Estate, 2 Brew. (Pa.) 239 (1868).Google Scholar
Deane v. Aveling, 1 Robertson 279, 299 (1845)(quoted in Bishop 1864, 276).Google Scholar
Devanbaugh v. Devanbaugh, 5 Paige Ch. 554 (N.Y. 1836).Google Scholar
Francois v. State, 9 Tex. Civ. Cas. 144 (1880).Google Scholar
Gould v. Gould, 78 Conn. 242, 244 (1905).Google Scholar
Henderson v. Cargill et al., 31 Miss. 367 (1856).Google Scholar
Hull w. Rawls, 27 Miss. 471 (1854).Google Scholar
Hutchins v. Kimmell, 31 Mich. 126 (1875).Google Scholar
In re McLaughlin's Estate, 4 Wash. 570 (1892).Google Scholar
J. G. v. H. G., 33 Md. 401 (1870).Google Scholar
Jones v. Jones, 28 Ark. 19 (1872).Google Scholar
Macguire v. Mucguzre, 7 Dana 181 (1838)(quoted in Bishop 1864, 7).Google Scholar
Meekins v. Kinsella et al., 136 N.Y.S. 806 (1912).Google Scholar
Meister v. Moore, 96 U.S. 76 (1877).Google Scholar
Meyer v. Meyer, How. Pr. 331 (N.Y. 1875).Google Scholar
Peck v. Peck, 12 R.I. 485 (1880).Google Scholar
Peterson v. Widule, 157 Wis. 641, 648 (1915).Google Scholar
Philadelphia v. Williamson, 10 Phila. Rep. 176 (Pa. 1873).Google Scholar
Port v. Port, 70 Ill. 484 (1873).Google Scholar
Richard v. Brehm, 73 Pa. 140 (1873).Google Scholar
Roether v. Roether et al., 191 N.W. 576 (1923).Google Scholar
Schoolcraft w. O'niel, 123 A. 828 (N. H. 1923).Google Scholar
State v. Bittick, 103 Mo. 183 (1890).Google Scholar
State v. Gibson, 36 Ind. 389 (1871).Google Scholar
State . Kennedy, 76 N.C. 251 (1877).Google Scholar
State v. Ross, 76 N.C. 242 (1877).Google Scholar
State v. Walker, 36 Kan. 297 (1887).Google Scholar
Teter v. Teter, 101 Ind. 129 (1884).Google Scholar
Wendel v. Wendel, 52 N.Y.S. 72 (1898).Google Scholar
Wilkie v. Collins, 48 Miss. 496 (1873).Google Scholar