1. New York Times, 08 29, 1881Google Scholar (“volumes”), and February 5, 1877 (“wickedness”). Whereas bigamy cases rarely appeared in the popular media before the Civil War, by the 1870s they were a common feature in urban penny newspapers like the New York Times (hereafter Times).According to its index, the Times covered the following number of bigamy cases: 1865–69 (3), 1870–79 (160), 1880–89 (183), and 1890–99 (141). The years with the largest number of cases covered were 1879 (30), 1878 (29), and 1884 (29). Journalistic interest declined at the end of the century with five, three, and two cases in the years 1898, 1899, and 1900, respectively. For typical examples of bigamy described as a clandestine effort to acquire wealth and riches, see Times, 12 5 and 15, 1868Google Scholar (Cunningham case), and April 28, 1879 (Ohlsen-Palmer case); and Trumble, Alfred [Fox, Richard K.], The New York Tombs: Its History and Its Mysteries: Life and Death in New York's Famous Prison (New York: R. K. Fox, 1881), pp. 30–31.Google Scholar On the dangers of false and dishonest marriage, see Weaver, G. S., Hopes and Helps for the Young of Both Sexes (New York: Fowlers and Wells, 1854), pp. 240–42.Google Scholar On the literary origins and early development of the confidence man, see Reynolds, David S., Beneath the American Renaissance: The Subversive Imagination in the Age of Emerson and Melville (New York: Knopf, 1988), pp. 298–305.Google Scholar For more on the perceived dangers of confidence men, see Halttunen, Karen, Confidence Men and Painted Women: A Study in Middle-Class Culture in America, 1830–1870 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982)Google Scholar; Wadlington, Warwick, The Confidence Game in American Literature (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975)Google Scholar; and Lindberg, Gary H., The Confidence Man in American Literature (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982).Google Scholar None of these books, however, discuss bigamy and its link to the subculture of confidence men.

2. Lippard, George, The Midnight Queen; or, Leaves from New York Life (New York: Garrett 1853), esp. pp. 1–30.Google Scholar For more on the influence of Lippard, see Reynolds, , Beneath the American Renaissance, pp. 204–8, 314–16, 458–63.Google Scholar

3. Bradbury, Osgood, Ellen: The Pride of Broadway (New York: Garrett, 1865), pp. 60–100.Google Scholar

4. Ames, Eleanor Maria, Up Broadway, and Its Sequel (New York: Carleton, 1870).Google Scholar Ames concludes the novel with a critique of New York marriage laws and advocates more liberalized divorce statutes (see pp. 260–71).

5. Comstock, Anthony, Frauds Exposed; or, How the People are Deceived and Robbed, and Youth Corrupted (New York: J. H. Brown, 1880), pp. 475–85 (quote, p. 476).Google Scholar

6. The historiographic literature on divorce in Western society has grown significantly in the past decade. See Phillips, Roderick, Putting Asunder: A History of Divorce in Western Society (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988)Google Scholar; Stone, Lawrence, Road to Divorce: England, 1530–1987 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Riley, Glenda, Divorce: An American Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991)Google Scholar; Griswold, Robert L., Adultery and Divorce in Victorian America: 1800–1900 (Madison: Institute for Legal Studies, University of Wisconsin Law School, 1986)Google Scholar; and Family and Divorce in California, 1850–1890: Victorian Illusions and Everyday Realities (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1982)Google Scholar; Hewlett, Sylvia Ann, A Lesser Life: The Myth of Women's Liberation in America (New York: W. Morrow, 1986)Google Scholar, Part A; and Weitzman, Leonora J., The Divorce Revolution: The Unexpected Social and Economic Consequences for Women and Children in America (New York: Free Press, 1985).Google Scholar Earlier studies include O'Neill, William, Divorce in the Progressive Era (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967)Google Scholar; May, Elaine Tyler, Great Expectations: Marriage and Divorce in Post-Victorian America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980)Google Scholar; Degler, Carl, At Odds: Women and the Family in America from the Revolution to the Present (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), pp. 15–17, 165–76, 454–58Google Scholar; Ditzion, Sidney, Marriage, Morals, and Sex in America: A History of Ideas (New York: Octogan, 1969)Google Scholar; Stoehr, Taylor, ed., Free Love in America: A Documentary History (New York: AMS, 1979), pp. 77–392Google Scholar; Bane, Mary Jo, Here to Stay: American Families in the Twentieth Century (New York: Basic, 1976)Google Scholar, ch. 2; Blake, Nelson M., The Road to Reno: A History of Divorce (New York: Macmillan, 1962)Google Scholar; Ringrose, Hyacinthe, Marriage and Divorce Laws of the World (New York: Musson-Draper, 1911)Google Scholar; and Cott, Nancy F., “Divorce and the Changing Status of Women in Eighteenth-Century Massachusetts,” in The American Family in Social-Historical Perspective, ed. Gordon, Michael (New York: St. Martin's 1978), pp. 115–39.Google Scholar On 19th-century fears of divorce, see Leach, William, True Love and Perfect Union: The Feminist Reform of Sex and Society (New York: Basic, 1980), pp. 10–11, 123.Google Scholar

7. Stone, , Road to Divorce, pp. 142–43Google Scholar (“quite large”), and The Family, Sex, and Marriage in England, 1500–1800 (New York: Harper and Row, 1977), p. 40Google Scholar (“easy”); Outhwaite, R. B., “Introduction: Problems and Perspectives in the History of Marriage” in Marriage and Society: Studies in the SocialHistory of Marriage, ed. Outhwaite, (New York: St. Martin's 1981), pp. 8–9Google Scholar; and Phillips, , Putting Asunder, pp. 296–302.Google Scholar In this essay, I define bigamy as the act of entering into a ceremonial marriage with one person while still married to another. The literature on bigamy in 18th- and 19th-century America is scarce and usually related to either divorce or the Mormons. See Cohen, Sheldon S., “‘To Parts of the World Unknown’: The Circumstances of Divorce in Connecticut, 1750–1797,” Canadian Review of American Studies 11 (1980): 275–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Croft, David James, “The Private Business Activities of Brigham Young,” Journal of the West 16 (1977): 36–51Google Scholar; and Slovenko, Ralph, “The De Facto Decriminalization of Bigamy,” Journal of Family Law 17 (1978–1979): 297–308.Google Scholar In England, bigamy was not even a civil offense until 1603. English civil and ecclesiastical law permitted divorce, but no remarriage. See Stone, , Road to Divorce, pp. 142–43, 182, 191Google Scholar, and Family, Sex, and Marriage, pp. 40, 519, 604Google Scholar; and Phillips, , Putting Asunder, p. 296.Google Scholar In colonial Massachusetts, bigamy accounted for less than 10 percent of all divorces. See Cott, , “Divorce,” p. 121.Google Scholar

8. Especially see May, , Great ExpectationsGoogle Scholar; and Griswold, , Family and Divorce.Google Scholar

9. Stone's data show bigamy declining in London during the two centuries after 1670. The breakdown of cases in the London Consistory Court was:

See Stone, , Road to Divorce, p. 428.Google Scholar New York City police arrests for bigamy were higher than cases prosecuted by the district attorney in the Court of General Sessions. Complaints were initially brought before police court magistrates who, if unable to resolve the charge, sent the case to the higher court. For descriptions of the New York court system, see Munro, John J., The New York Tombs: Inside and Out! (Brooklyn: The Author, 1909), pp. 202–12.Google Scholar Police reporting, unfortunately, tended to be inconsistent. The annual number of arrests for available years was:

Sources for the above include New York (City) Board of Alderman, Semi-Annual Report of the Chief from Jan. 1 to June 30, 1853, Doc. #50 (New York, 1853), p. 1136Google Scholar; New York (State) Assembly, Report of the Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police of the City of New York (Albany, 1858), p. 16Google Scholar; ibid., Report of the Superintendent of the Metropolitan Police (New York, 1860), p. 51Google Scholar; and New York (State) Legislature, Annual Report of the Board of Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police (Albany, 1864), p. 104Google Scholar; ibid., (Albany, 1865), p. 20; ibid., (Albany, 1866), p. 26; ibid., (New York, 1867), p. 81; ibid., (Albany, 1868), pp. 99–100; ibid., (New York, 1869), pp. 89–90; and ibid., (New York, 1870), See also New York (City), Second Annual Report of the Police Department (New York, 1873), and pp. 6, 22Google Scholar; Report of the Police Department for 1885 (New York, 1886), p. 19Google Scholar; ibid., (New York, 1887), p. 26; ibid., (New York, 1888), p. 30; ibid., (New York, 1889), p. 28; ibid., (New York, 1890), p. 28; ibid., (New York, 1892), p. 26; ibid., (New York, 1893), p. 32; ibid., (New York, 1894), p. 31; ibid., (New York, 1895), p. 28; and ibid., (New York, 1897), p. 44.

10. Nineteenth-Century marriage statistics in New York City are inconsistent, but based on the census, the ratio of bigamy cases prosecuted by the district attorney to marriages was 1:951 in 1855 (2,852 total marriages) and 1:306 in 1865 (1,532 total marriages). See New York Secretary of State, Census of the State of New York for 1855 (Albany: C. Van Benthuysen, 1857), p. 202Google Scholar; and Census for the State of New York for 1865 (Albany: C. Van Benthuysen, 1867), p. 224.Google Scholar

11. The cases are in New York District Attorney Indictment Papers, Court of General Sessions, in the New York City Department of Records and Information Services, Municipal Archives and Records Center (hereafter DAP). The 222 men were broken down as follows: High professional, 6 total: physician, 3; shipbuilder, 1; manufacturer, 1; and ship captain, 1. Low professional, 22 total: saloonkeeper, 5; engineer, 3; reporter, 2; salesman, 2; actor, 1; agent, 1; bookkeeper, 1; chemist, 1; cigarmaker, 1; circus performer, 1; farmer, 1; furrier, 1; grocer, 1; and jeweler, 1. Skilled, 70 total: painter, 11; carpenter, 10; shoemaker, 8; smith, 7; tailor, 5; bricklayer, 3; baker, 3; mason, 3; sailmaker, 3; butcher, 2; glassmaker, 2; wood turner, 2; boilermaker, 1; bookbinder, 1; casemaker, 1; confectioner, 1; fireman, 1; harnessmaker, 1; locksmith, 1; machinist, 1; molder, 1; steward, 1; and varnisher, 1. Semiskilled, 49 total: sailor, 13; coachman, 9; waiter, 8; teamster, 5; peddler, 4; barber, 3; porter, 2; soldier, 2; weaver, 2; and fisherman, 1. Unskilled, 28 total: laborer, 27; and servant, 1. Unknown, 47.

The 38 women were broken down as follows: Professional, 1 total: teacher, 1. Semiskilled, 3 total: seamstress, 2; and tailoress, 1. Unskilled, 6 total: housekeeper, 4; and servant, 2. Other, 1 total: madame, 1. Unknown, 27. The occupational classification system that I used is found in Katz, Michael B., The People of Hamilton, Canada West: Family and Class in a Mid-Nineteenth-Century City (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975), pp. 343–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. The breakdown by religious or marital ceremony was as follows:

13. Times, 08 27, 1873.Google Scholar On the difficulty of legal divorce before 1800, see Norton, Mary Beth, Liberty's Daughter's: The Revolutionary Experience of American Women, 1750–1800 (Boston: Little, Brown, 1980), pp. 46–51, 234.Google Scholar On early divorce in New York, see Kerber, Linda, Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980), pp. 159, 162Google Scholar; and Riley, , Divorce, pp. 46, 118, 157.Google Scholar

14. The literature on working-class transiency is quite large. See Thernstrom, Stephan, Poverty and Progress: Social Mobility in a Nineteenth Century City (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964), esp. pp. 85–90Google Scholar, and The Other Bostonians: Poverty and Progress in the American Metropolis, 1880–1970 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), esp. pp. 222, 226Google Scholar; Katz, , The People of HamiltonGoogle Scholar; Kessner, Thomas, The Golden Door: Italian and Jewish Mobility in New York City, 1880–1915 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977)Google Scholar; Clyde, and Griffen, Sally, Natives and Newcomers: The Ordering of Opportunity in Mid-Nineteenth-Century Poughkeepsie (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978)Google Scholar; Dawley, Alan, Class and Community: The Industrial Revolution in Lynn (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976), p. 106Google Scholar; and Montgomery, David, The Fall of the House of Labor: The Workplace, the State, and American Labor Activism, 1865–1925 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 133–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Not surprisingly, as divorces rose, arrests for bigamy in New York City steadily declined during the 20th Century. A sampling of annual arrests for bigamy showed the following: 1901–54; 1910–21; 1930–95; 1940–44; and 1955–5. After 1957, the police department did not even bother to list bigamy arrests in its annual report. See New York City, Report of the Police Department for 1901 (New York, 1902), pp. 34–35Google Scholar, and Annual Report of the Police Commissioner for 1910 (New York, 1911), pp. 10–14Google Scholar; and New York City Police Department, Annual Report for 1930 (New York, 1931), p. 178Google Scholar, Annual Report for 1940 (New York, 1941), p. 120Google Scholar; and Annual Report for 1955 (New York, 1956), p. 58.Google Scholar For a good example of the high cost of divorce and its deterrence, see Rosen, Ruth and Davidson, Sue, eds., The Maimie Papers (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1977), pp. 242, 304, 378.Google Scholar On the difficulty of prosecuting bigamists, see People, v. Devilen, , 02 23, 1869Google Scholar; People, v. Bowmann, , 09 2, 1869Google Scholar; and People, v. Geisler, , 05 29, 1872Google Scholar, all in DAP. Some feminists like Elizabeth Cady Stanton opposed excessive government interference in regulating marriage, arguing that the state had no business enforcing or coercing marital agreements freely entered into by men and women. Government, she argued, could not turn love into a legal relationship (see Leach, , True Love, pp. 144–45).Google Scholar In 1983, the Roman Catholic Church removed bigamy from its list of offenses subject to ecclesiastical penalty (see Law Reform Commission of Canada, Bigamy [Ottawa: The Commission, 1985], p. 10).Google Scholar

15. On Mormon polygamy, see Kern, Louis J., An Ordered Love: Sex Roles and Sexuality in Victorian Utopias: The Shakers, the Mormons, and the Oneida Community (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1981), pp. 137–204Google Scholar; and Foster, Lawrence, Religion and Sexuality: The Shakers, the Mormons, and the Oneida Community (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1981), pp. 123–225.Google Scholar

16. People, v. Farrell, , 08 8, 1842Google Scholar; People, v. Hoffman, , 09 24, 1879Google ScholarPeople, v. McGrath, , 09 4, 1856Google Scholar; and People, v. Jennett, , 01 18, 1869Google Scholar, all in DAP; and Times, 12 15, 1868Google Scholar (Jennett). For similar cases, see People, v. Rutter, , 04 19, 1828Google Scholar; People, v. Turner, , 02 15, 1839Google Scholar; People, v. Sawyer, , 06 10, 1842Google Scholar; People, v. Bowers, , 02 23, 1843Google Scholar; People, v. Taylor, , 11 8, 1862Google Scholar; People, v. Thompson, , 01 5, 1865Google Scholar; People, v. Horter, , 09 20, 1867Google Scholar; People, v. Evans, , 12 6, 1872Google Scholar; and People, v. Fuhrman, , 06 16, 1873, all in DAP.Google Scholar

17. People, v. Crilley, , 11 12, 1847Google Scholar; People, v. Philips, , 05 15, 1857Google Scholar; People, v. Gould, , 09 22, 1857Google Scholar; and People, v. Costello, , 10 21, 1869, all in DAP.Google Scholar

18. Phillips, , Putting Asunder, pp. 297–98.Google Scholar

19. People, v. Stent, , 09 15, 1842Google Scholar; People, v. Mayo, , 04 14, 1879Google Scholar; People, v. Barclay, , 03 26, 1878Google Scholar; and People, v. Clifton, , 07 5, 1867Google Scholar, all in DAP; and Times, 04 6, 1879 (Mayo).Google Scholar

20. People, v. Crowder, , 07 10, 1815Google Scholar; People, v. Conkey, , 10 16, 1849Google Scholar; People, v. Jamor, , 08 11, 1829Google Scholar; People, v. Moyses, , 10 24, 1844Google Scholar; and People, v. Waesserle, , 08 29, 1871Google Scholar, all in DAP; and Times, 08 19, 1871Google Scholar (Waesserle). Robert Griswold found that women in California from 1850 to 1890 were more likely to resort to desertion than were men (see Family and Divorce, pp. 79–80).Google Scholar On desertion as a common method of dissolving marriage, see Riley, , Divorce, pp. 54, 89.Google Scholar

21. People, v. Thompson, , 02 7, 1877Google Scholar, in DAP. For a moving letter begging for understanding, see Eastwood's letter to his second wife in People, v. Eastwood, , 10 16, 1876Google Scholar, DAP. For similar cases of splitting up and remarrying without bothering to divorce, see People, v. Blauvelt, , 04 7, 1809Google Scholar; and People, v. Corcoran, , 10 15, 1839, both in DAP.Google Scholar

22. Times, 10 17, 1878 (Condon); and April 6, 1875 (Gonsoles).Google Scholar

23. People, v. White, , 08 10, 1871Google Scholar; People, v. Kalischkey, , 09 16, 1868Google Scholar; and People, v. Dungan, , 05 15, 1848Google Scholar, all in DAP. For similar cases of husbands abandoning wives, remarrying, and then being prosecuted later by their first wives, see People, v. Bennett, , 07 14, 1828Google Scholar; People, v. Agnew, , 07 7, 1838Google Scholar; People, v. Carpenter, , 10 16, 1845Google Scholar; People, v. Brennan, , 04 17, 1846Google Scholar; People, v. Davis, , 07 7, 1848Google Scholar; People, v. Callaghan, , 10 16, 1868Google Scholar; People, v. Anthon, , 04 13, 1869Google Scholar; People, v. Gottschalk, , 04 14, 1869Google Scholar; People, v. Goethe, , 04 29, 1874Google Scholar; and People, v. Fairchild, , 12 18, 1872Google Scholar, all in DAP. For examples of a second wife complaining that she was “cruelly deceived,” see People, v. Dougherty, , 04 6, 1839Google Scholar; People, v. Lockwood, , 07 16, 1847Google Scholar; People, v. Collins, , 11 22, 1850Google Scholar; People, v. Jennett, , 01 18, 1869Google Scholar; People, v. Eastwood, , 10 16, 1876, all in DAP.Google Scholar

24. People, v. McGrath, , 02 5, 1845Google Scholar; and People, v. McKinney, , 08 6, 1811, both in DAP.Google Scholar

25. People, v. Dusold, , 05 13, 1872Google Scholar; People, v. Garniss, , 08 4, 1808Google Scholar; People, v. Francis, , 06 4, 1811Google Scholar; and Maimee Papers, p. 51.Google Scholar

26. People, v. Niles, , 11 9, 1835Google Scholar; People, v. Secor, , 10 7, 1808Google Scholar; and People, v. Montague, , 08 6, 1812, all in DAP.Google Scholar

27. People, v. Donohue, , 10 10 and December 3, 1878Google Scholar; People, v. Koch, , 02 5, 1875Google Scholar; and People, v. Corcoran, , 04 11, 1870Google Scholar, all in DAP; and Times, 05 23, 1873Google Scholar (Dougherty), and January 30, 1875 (Koch). Dalton's first wife Josephine Kegel (or Kogle) claimed at the trial that she did not desert her husband, that he drove her out, and that she did not mother Ten Brook's children, but worked only as his servant and never had “improper relations.” However, a birth certificate dated February 3, 1879, listed her as Ten Brook's wife and mother of his child. See People, v. Dalton, , 02 5, 1879, DAP.Google Scholar

28. Griswold, , Family and DivorceGoogle Scholar, and Adultery and Divorce; and Degler, , At Odds, pp. 171–72.Google Scholar

29. People, v. Kessler, , 03 26, 1879Google Scholar; and People, v. Jackson, , 09 14, 1875Google Scholar, both in DAP. A similar series of events were repeated in Schmallenberger's second marriage (see People, v. Schmallenberger, , 12 6, 1872, DAP).Google Scholar For other examples of abused spouses justifying bigamy, see People, v. Hogan, , 03 6, 1830Google Scholar; People, v. Wilkinson, , 06 7, 1839Google Scholar; and People, v. Warden, , 03 15, 1836Google Scholar, all in DAP; and Times, 04 16, 1879Google Scholar (Mayo case). For other examples of women leaving their husbands because they were alcoholics who verbally and physically abused them and refused to support them, see People, v. Gordon, , 10 8 and 9, 1811, DAP.Google Scholar

30. People, v. Williams, , 12 9, 1811Google Scholar; People, v. Fairchild, , 10 13, 1834Google Scholar; People, v. Newell, , 12 19, 1849Google Scholar; People, v. Hassler, , 09 15, 1868Google Scholar; People, v. Cochran, , 03 31, 1876Google Scholar; and People, v. Sagrino, , 02 27, 1874Google Scholar, all in DAP; and Times, 04 4, 1876Google Scholar (Cochran). Judging from the places McMannen was married and that both his wives were illiterate and living near the East River docks, he was probably a sailor. See People, v. McMannen, , 12 16, 1829Google Scholar, DAP. Also see Times, 04 29, 1879 (Kraus-Schepford-Yeager case).Google Scholar

31. Davis, Emma to Davis, Albert, 08 18, 1848Google Scholar, in People, v. Davis, , 07 7, 1848, DAP.Google Scholar

32. People, v. Duffy, , 07 14, 1842Google Scholar; People, v. Clancy, , 01 12, 1865Google Scholar; People, v. Murrell, , 11 9, 1865Google Scholar; and People, v. Bettnor, , 11 21, 1866Google Scholar, all in DAP. For a similar and more complicated case, see People, v. Jennett, , 01 18, 1869, DAP.Google Scholar

33. Riley, , Divorce, p. 54.Google Scholar In England from 1740 to 1860, private separation agreements were similarly unclear about permitting remarriage or cohabitation. See Stone, , Road to Divorce, pp. 153, 182, 307.Google Scholar

34. People, v. Hogan, , 03 6, 1830Google Scholar; People, v. Lehman, , 08 14, 1877Google Scholar; and People, v. Bauer, , 06 20, 1851Google Scholar, all in DAP. For another example, see People, v. Graham, , 06 7, 1838Google Scholar, DAP. For examples of confusion over divorce laws justifying bigamy, see Times, 06 1, 4, and 21, 1871Google Scholar (Bowen, Christopher case); 05 6, 1871Google Scholar (Waldron, Walter case); 06 4, 1871Google Scholar (Shuph, Aloise case); and 04 20, 1877 (Joseph Fisher case).Google Scholar

35. People, v. Johnson, , 07 11 and September 7, 1837Google Scholar; People, v. Jackson, , 09 14, 1875Google Scholar; People, v. Parmes, , 12 15, 1834Google Scholar; and People, v. Wilkinson, , 01 7, 1835Google Scholar, all in DAP. For a similar case of a black with more than one legal spouse, see People, v. Johnson, , 09 4, 1834Google Scholar, DAP. Aaron Mayo argued that undue interference from his mother-in-law broke up his marriage and gave him the right to remarry. See Times, 04 16, 1879.Google Scholar

36. On Puritan divorce, see Cott, , “Divorce,” p. 116.Google Scholar For criticism of individual sovereignty by Stanton and other feminists, see Leach, , True Love, pp. 151–52.Google Scholar

37. People, v. Birdsell, , 04 14, 1871Google Scholar; People, v. Johnston, , 06 13, 1825Google Scholar; and People, v. Mumpton, , 11 18, 1856Google Scholar, all in DAP. For more on the history of courtship, see Rothman, Ellen, Hands and Heart: A History of Courtship in America (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984)Google Scholar; and Bailey, Beth L., From Front Porch to Back Seat: Courtship in Twentieth-Century America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988).Google Scholar

38. People, v. Rattray, , 05 8 and July 11, 1843Google Scholar; People, v. Geisler, , 05 29, 1872Google Scholar; People, v. O'Falen, (alias Phelan), 09 6, 1821Google Scholar; People, v. McCafferty, , 02 8, 1843Google Scholar; and People, v. Cowen, , 02 6, 1834Google Scholar, all in DAP. The circumstantial evidence in the Bird case gives the impression that Connor was a prostitute (see People, v. Bird, , 09 13, 1825, DAP).Google Scholar For similar examples of cohabitation, see People, v. Moses, , 02 5, 1807Google Scholar; and People, v. Ray, , 10 14, 1836, both in DAP.Google Scholar

39. Ulrich, Laurel Thatcher, A Midwife's Tale: The Life of Martha Ballard, Based on Her Diary, 1785–1812 (New York: Knopf, 1990), pp. 75–91, 220–23Google Scholar; and Ryan, Mary P., Cradle of the Middle Class: The Family in Oneida County, New York, 1790–1865 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981), pp. 18–59.Google Scholar

40. Gay, Peter, The Bourgeois Experience – Victoria to Freud: The Tender Passion (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), p. 410.Google Scholar Also see Aries, Philippe and Duby, George, eds., From the Fires of the Revolution to the Great War, vol. 4 of A History of Private Life (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990), pp. 574–77, 581–86, 598.Google Scholar

41. People, v. Johnston, , 04 10, 1851Google Scholar; People, v. Inverness, , 11 12, 1847Google Scholar; People, v. Schmitt, , 10 25, 1877Google Scholar; People, v. Newell, , 12 19, 1849Google Scholar; People, v. Proctor, 07 22, 1846Google Scholar; and People, v. Ryno, , 02 9, 1847Google Scholar, all in DAP. Also see People, v. Jennett, , 01 18, 1869, DAP.Google Scholar

42. People, v. Sagrino, , 02 27, 1874Google Scholar; People, v. Fischer, , 09 5, 1856Google Scholar; and People, v. Cowen, , 02 6, 1834Google Scholar, all in DAP. Iron manufacturer William F. Batchellor married nineteen-yeear-old Rachel Dockstadter after only one month of meeting her (see People, v. Batchellor, , 04 13, 1853Google Scholar, DAP). For similar spontaneous marital behavior by European peasants, see Shorter, Edward, The Making of the Modern Family (New York: Basic, 1975), pp. 138–67.Google Scholar

43. Sanger, William W., The History of Prostitution: Its Extent, Causes, and Effects Throughout the World (New York: Harper and Brothers 1859), pp. 473–75Google Scholar; and Gompers, Samuel, Seventy Years of Life and Labor: An Autobiography of Samuel Gompers, ed. Salvatore, Nick (1925; rept. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1984), pp. 14–15.Google Scholar For other warnings about hasty marriages, see Weaver, , Hopes and Helps, 213–23.Google Scholar

44. People, v. Shephard, , 01 24, 1863, DAP.Google Scholar

45. People, v. Wittmer, , 01 13, 1876Google Scholar; People, v. Smith, , 03 23, 1865Google Scholar; People, v. O'Connell, , 11 12, 1869Google Scholar; People, v. Kannaven, , 10 9, 1845Google Scholar; and People, v. Stickney, , 11 17, 1852Google Scholar, all in DAP; Rev. Henry Chase Diary and Marriage Records, entries for July 7, 1851 (Stickney, –Fallon, ), 11 3, 1852Google Scholar (Stickney-Dobson, ), 07 29, 1841Google Scholar (Kannaven-Gallon, ), 09 13, 1844Google Scholar (Kannaven-Shiels), New-York Historical Society.

46. See Chase Diary and Marriage Records, 15 vols. I made a rough tabulation of the marriages listed in the index and counted 8, 473 marriages from 1823 to 1853, or 282 per year. Between 1823 and 1834, Chase performed only 1,667 marriages, an average of 139 annually. In 1836, he married 341 couples. See his own tabulations before the relevant years in volumes 4–7. Chase was Methodist and ministered at Mariner's Church from 1823 to 1853. For biographical information, see Sprague, William B., Annals of the American Pulpit (New York: R. Carter, 1859), vol. 7, pp. 475–78.Google Scholar

47. People, v. Burns, , 01 22, 1878Google Scholar; People, v. Adshead, , 02 17, 1869Google Scholar; People, v. Proctor, , 06 12, 1846Google Scholar; People, v. Ewing, , 10 3, 1821Google Scholar; People, v. Nowland, , 03 6, 1830Google Scholar; and People, v. Hadley, , 10 13, 1862Google Scholar, all in DAP. For similar excuses of intoxication, see People, v. Coleman, , 03 8, 1821Google Scholar; People, v. Niles, , 11 9, 1835Google Scholar; People, v. Thompson, , 12 24, 1840Google Scholar; People, v. Foster, , 01 26, 1841Google Scholar; People, v. Koch, , 10 9 and November 5, 1845Google Scholar; People, v. Walsh, , 01 11, 1847Google Scholar; People, v. Crilley, , 11 12, 1847Google Scholar; People, v. Williams, , 06 12, 1849Google Scholar; People, v. Davis, , 02 11, 1852Google Scholar; and People, v. Farley, , 04 12, 1872Google Scholar; all in DAP. For an example of a women claiming the same, see People, v. Scott, , 11 4, 1875, DAP.Google Scholar

48. People, v. Morris, , 11 8, 1833Google Scholar; People, v. Niles, , 11 9, 1835Google Scholar; People, v. Boylan, , 10 9, 1879Google Scholar; People, v. Hadden, , 04 27, 1875Google Scholar; and People, v. Williams, , 04 25, 1862Google Scholar, all in DAP.

49. People, v. Riker, , 04 16, 1868Google Scholar; People, v. Swaine, , 11 18, 1837Google Scholar; People, v. Dougherty, , 06 4, 1873Google Scholar; and People, v. Taylor, , 11 8, 1862, all in DAP.Google Scholar

50. See People, v. Rosenthal, , 12 12, 1870Google Scholar, DAP. For other examples of the first wife asking for leniency, see People, v. Heldesheim, , 03 20, 1871Google Scholar, DAP; on the second wife asking for leniency, see People, v. Kern, , 03 21, 1871Google Scholar, DAP; and on both wives asking for leniency, see People, v. Kennedy, , 05 24, 1871, DAP.Google Scholar

51. People, v. Higgins, , 04 26, 1861Google Scholar; and People, v. Smith, , 03 23, 1865Google Scholar, all in DAP. For other examples of judges waiving criminal charges in return for enlistment in the Union army, see Sutton, Charles, The New York Tombs: Its Secrets and Its Mysteries (New York: United States Publishing, 1874), p. 237.Google Scholar On criminals in the postwar army, see Rickey, Don Jr., Forty Miles a Day on Beans and Hay: The Enlisted Soldier Fighting the Indian Wars (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1963), p. 20Google Scholar; and Utley, Robert M., Frontier Regulars: The U.S. Army and the Indians, 1866–1891 (New York: Macmillan, 1973), p. 22.Google Scholar

52. For more on this and the rise of “coercive Victorianism,” see Gilfoyle, Timothy J., City of Eros: New York City, Prostitution, and the Commercialization of Sex, 1790–1920 (New York: Norton, 1992), pp. 181–95, 298–305Google Scholar; Gilfoyle, , “The Moral Origins of Political Surveillance: The Preventive Society in New York City, 1867–1918,” American Quarterly 38 (1986): 637–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Freedman, Estelle and D'Emilio, John, Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America (New York: Harper and Row, 1988), pp. 156–201.Google Scholar On the courts' efforts to change husbands' behavior without divorce in the early 20th Century, see Claghorn, Kate Halladay, The Immigrant's Day in Court (1923; rept. New York: Arno, 1969), pp. 73–95.Google Scholar

53. For discussions of the “marriage crisis,” see Times, 01 26, 1868Google Scholar (“pleas”); 08 26, 1866Google Scholar; June 9, 1867; September 8, 1867; August 2, 1868; October 26, 1868; January 5, 1868; October 3 and 10, 1869; December 9 and 10, 1869 and November 13, 1870. For more on judicial patriarchy, see Grossberg, Michael, Governing the Hearth: Law and the Family in Nineteenth-Century America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985), pp. 289–307.Google Scholar On changing conceptions of divorce and control of male sexuality within marriage, see Griswold, Robert L., “Law, Sex, Cruelty and Divorce in Victorian America, 1840–1900,” American Quarterly 38 (1986): 721–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed For an analysis of late-20th Century male avoidance of marriage, see Ehrenreich, Barbara, The Hearts of Men: American Dreams and the Flight from Commitment (Garden City, N. Y.: Anchor/Doubleday, 1983).Google Scholar

54. On bourgeois male fears of marriage, see Gay, Peter, The Bourgeois Experience – Victoria to Freud: Education of the Senses (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), pp. 290–92.Google Scholar On courtship, see Rothman, , Hands and Heart.Google Scholar On dowries, see Gay, , Tender Passion, pp. 102–3.Google Scholar On the rise of new middle-class marriage customs, see Ryan, , Cradle of the Middle Class, pp. 178–85.Google Scholar

55. For a later example of the loose definition and construction of workingclass marriage, see Boxcar Bertha: An Autobiography, as told by Reitman, Ben (orig. Sister of the Road [1937]) (New York: Amok, 1988), pp. 12–13.Google Scholar

The author wishes to thank Mary Rose Alexander, Robert O. Bucholz, and Nancy Cott for their helpful and constructive criticism of earlier drafts of this article.