New Haven County Court Records: Blog

Divorce in Eighteenth-Century Connecticut

In May 2022 and 2023, we examined marriage controversies in the New Haven County Court, in keeping with the adage, “Marry in the month of May, and you’ll surely rue the day.” Now that we have begun processing the Superior Court records, we examine divorce cases from 1700-1799.

When quoting from documents, we will use the actual spelling, including transcriptions of individual words as necessary. (For more information about colonial spelling practices, see The Standardization of American English at teachinghistory.org.) In certain circumstances, we will add missing letters to abbreviated words or substitute modern spelling in brackets to enhance reader comprehension.

Colonial Attitudes and Laws Surrounding Divorce

Discordant Matrimony, after John Collet, print made by John Goldar, published by John Boydell, 1765. Public domain image courtesy of British Museum, via Wikimedia Commons. Description (abridged): The husband looks toward a maidservant bringing in two children and she gazes alluringly at him in return. The wife looks at her husband with an expression of distress and a Black servant watches the maidservant with a scowl.

As discussed in our previous post about women in colonial Connecticut, the colony had some of the most liberal divorce laws in the English-speaking world at the time. (Cornelia Hughes Dayton, Women Before the Bar: Gender, Law, and Society in Connecticut, 1639-1789, p. 112)

The Puritans of Connecticut believed that absolute divorce—divorce a vinculo matrimonii—with the right to remarry should be allowed for “adultery, desertion, fraudulent contract, and seven years’ absence without word.” This dissolution could be accomplished without risk of damnation, for the Puritans viewed marriage as a civil contract rather than a sacrament. (Marylynn Salmon, Women and the Law of Property in Early America, p. 61)

A Connecticut statute enacted in 1667 stated that the acceptable grounds for divorce were “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.” However, to slow the influx of couples coming to Connecticut to obtain a quick divorce, a law was passed in 1797 that required people to reside in the state for three years before filing a petition. (Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut, 1808, pp. 236-237)

Still, divorce remained a relatively rare phenomenon in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, as “autonomy frightened most women in the colonial and early national periods. In many instances, it was only when husbands proved abusive or wasteful that women sought to control their own financial affairs” (Salmon, Women and the Law of Property, p. 13). In addition, no-fault divorce did not exist anywhere in America until California legalized it in 1969.

Although cruelty and intoxication were sometimes invoked in divorce petitions during the eighteenth century, they were almost always included with the more legally sanctioned grounds of adultery, desertion, or absence without word. “Only in the late 1780s did the Connecticut legislature, the body that presided over out-of-the-ordinary divorce cases, begin to approve petitions based solely on cruelty.” In addition, it was “not until 1843 [that] Connecticut lawmakers amend[ed] the divorce statute to authorize the Superior Court to grant divorces on the grounds of ‘habitual intemperance, or intolerable cruelty’” (Dayton, Women Before the Bar, pp. 107, 144).

Why did colonial Connecticut accept some grounds for divorce and not others? As Dayton explained, “By discouraging petitions on cruelty grounds, lawyers and judges signaled their discomfort with intervening in marital disputes resting on a husband’s exercise of authority. Such cases differed significantly from women’s pleas based on desertion and adultery—scenarios in which husbands had in essence opted out of the marriage, abdicating their prime marital responsibilities of economic support and fidelity. By walking out, these men unilaterally transferred their patriarchal authority over their household dependents to the state” (Women Before the Bar, p. 136).

Divorce in the 1700s

Ruth Bunnell (née Plume) vs. Hezekiah Bunnell, 1712—the earliest divorce case we discovered in the New Haven County Superior Court records. Per Ruth’s petition, Hezekiah “ha[d] for ye Space of five years or thereabouts willfully deserted her and totally neglected ye Duties of an Husband.”

As this table demonstrates, we discovered only 202 divorce petitions covering the eighteenth century. While this may seem like a high number, especially for the colonial period, it is a small drop in the bucket in comparison to modern figures: Connecticut’s divorced population in 2021 totaled 308,940. And as remains the case today, women filed for divorce more often than men.

While desertion and adultery were the most common grounds for divorce, several petitions cited more than one—some cited up to four. These included various combinations of absence and presumption of death, adultery, bigamy, cruelty, desertion, elopement, fraud, imprisonment, intoxication, and non-consummation.

Divorces Involving Black, Indigenous, and Persons of Color (BIPOC)

Sophia “Sophy” Saunderson (née Jackson) vs. James “Quarm” Saunderson, August 1785

Of the 202 divorce cases in the Superior Court records, 15 were filed by or involved Black, Indigenous, and People of Color. We discussed these cases in detail in our February 2024 blog entry, Superior Court Finds, Part II: Cases Involving Black, African American, and Indigenous Persons and Groups, and profiled the divorce case pictured above on Instagram.

Why did European-descended persons comprise the majority of petitioners? There are several possible reasons for this demographic imbalance.

Those of African descent did not adhere as closely to the Judeo-Christian concept of marriage as the English colonists did for several reasons: plural marriage had roots in several African cultures, and stable monogamous marriage was rendered difficult to impossible under the inhumane institution of chattel slavery. 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.” In addition, “[B]lack women in the New World often thought Christian marriage a mark of subordination: after marriage they would be forbidden to leave their husbands if treated badly, while the males, for their part, could claim total economic control of the family’s assets.” (Black Yankees: The Development of an Afro-American Subculture in Eighteenth-Century New England, pp. 88, 90, 92)

Indigenous nations in New England also retained a degree of cultural sovereignty when it came to marriage among their own peoples, as well as intermarriage with other groups. Both polygyny and monogamy were practiced, with “the custom of polygyny last[ing] into the eighteenth century in some communities, especially among the elite.” Even though “under the scrutiny of the English, the practice of withdrawing from an unhappy marriage became more difficult for Indian women... other evidence suggests that Native women were still able to avoid onerous marital connections” (Kathleen J. Bragdon, Native People of Southern New England, 1650-1775, pp. 83-84). As Daniel R. Mandell noted, “Exogamous marriages and state laws allowed Indian women to hold far more political and economic power than their white and [B]lack contemporaries” (Tribe, Race, History: Native Americans in Southern New England, 1780-1880, p. 40). Lucianne Lavin made the strongest statement of all: “Native American women could divorce their husbands, and frequently did so. Anglo-American women could not, and if they tried they would find themselves socially dead and economically impoverished (which would likely lead to physical death, because they had never learned how to be self-supporting outside of wifely duties)” (Connecticut’s Indigenous Peoples, p. 360).

Divorces Filed by Women

Hannah Hall vs. Samuel Hall, 1731. Hannah claimed that Samuel ““hath willfully & whol[l]y deserted [her]” and “hath not contributed a pen[n]y towards [her] support nor the support and maintenance of [her] family and whol[l]y neglected all conjugal duties towards [her].” Given that Hannah appeared as a feme sole in a 1733 debt case, the divorce was presumably granted.

The overwhelming majority of divorce petitions in colonial Connecticut were filed by women, primarily for adultery, desertion, or a combination of the two. Interestingly, a good 77% of petitions were granted—and these numbers could possibly be higher, given that we do not know the outcome in 21% of the cases.

While Lavin’s assertion was not without truth—English-descended women were indeed legally and economically dependent on their husbands for survival, and divorce was discouraged by the community—these cases show that it was not entirely impossible. And it is sadly 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.

Divorces Filed by Men

Enos Atwater Jr. vs. Rebecca Atwater (née Hotchkiss), 1786. Enos alleged that Rebecca “was delivered of a living Child which was not the Child of [Enos] but of another Man & She s[ai]d Rebecca frequently since her s[ai]d Marriage hath Cohabited with another man beside [Enos].” The divorce was granted.

Men cited the same primary reasons for divorce as women—desertion and adultery—and their rate of success in obtaining a favorable verdict was only slightly lower at 72%. Interestingly, there were also four no appearances and one withdrawal—outcomes that were not present (at least, not that we know of) in divorce petitions filed by women.

Divorces by Town

Given that New Haven had a population of approximately 3,500 people by the American Revolution and that Wallingford had a population of 4,915 in the 1774 census, it is not surprising that the highest number of divorces were concentrated in these cities. We would also like to note that, contrary to the overall statistics presented in previous sections, the number of men and women who filed for divorce in Guilford and Durham were even, and more men than women petitioned for divorce in Woodbridge, North Haven, Colchester, and Hamden.

Divorces 1712-1740

Ann Guy vs. John Guy, 1715

In this early period, the number of divorce petitions was at the lowest point it would be during the eighteenth century. All petitioners were of European ancestry and the vast amount of them were women, reflecting the various cultural and societal factors discussed in previous sections. Desertion was by far the primary grounds, followed distantly by the handful of other acceptable grounds at this time. While cruelty was cited in two cases, it was paired with desertion.

Unfortunately, the court clerks did not often record verdicts in the case documents created during this epoch, so we only know of six outcomes—all of them successful. It bears noting that just because we do not know a verdict does not mean the Court did not grant a divorce—we were able to independently verify a divorce occurred in at least one case.

Here are selected cases of interest from this era (verdicts only noted where available or corroborated by other sources):

In March 1715, Ann Guy of Branford (who served as her husband’s attorney in prior debt cases) petitioned for divorce from John Guy for the “Crime of Adultery.” John denied this claim and pleaded that she “may not have the Opportunity of pursueing her vicious Ends.”

In August 1738, Hannah Rood (née Butler) of Wallingford petitioned for a divorce from James Rood for fraud and non-consummation, claiming that James “has not afforded those kindnesses & Benevolences common to ye Conjugal State nor rendered the Duties of a Husband to his Wife & and is Incapacitated in body by Nature or by some Accident... whereby the Contract was fraudulent.” The divorce was presumably not granted, given that in August 1739, James petitioned for divorce from Hannah on the grounds that she had “Eloped from him with one John Norris a Transient person then resident in said Wallingford.” We do not know if James’ petition succeeded.

In February 1739, Mehitabel Atwater (née Mix) of Wallingford petitioned for divorce from Caleb Atwater due to absence and presumption of death. Caleb “Embarked in the Sloop Pho[e]nix... bound for the Island of Barbados in ye West Indies... ye s[ai]d Vessell or Sloop and Company have never been heard of save only... when a Violent Tempest arose... Husband was Lost & perished in the Seas.”

In February 1740 Jemima Fuller (née Hoadley) of Branford petitioned for divorce from Joshua Fuller for desertion. Joshua “becoming Disordered in his Understanding was by order of civil Authority & Select Men of ye s[ai]d Town of Branford – carryed and committed to ye care & Custody of ye Master of the Work House at Hartford” and went “into Some remote part of ye provence of ye Massachuset[t]s Bay” once he was released. The divorce was granted.

Divorces 1741-1773

Hannah Collins (née Merwin) vs. John Collins, 1744

While divorce petitions did not quite double during this period, they significantly increased. Although we do not know the outcome for 33% of cases, approximately 63% of divorces sought were granted. Women still outpaced men in filing petitions and desertion remained the most common grounds, but cruelty was not cited at all. We did start to see persons of African descent and mixed heritage appear as petitioners.

Selected cases of interest from this time period (verdicts only noted where available or corroborated by other sources):

In August 1744, Hannah Collins (née Merwin) of Milford petitioned for divorce from John Collins for absence and presumption of death. John “then being on board of A Sloop—bound on a voyage to ye Island of Antigua in ye West Indies... was soon after by violence and Stress of Weather driv[e]n off to Sea... Since which ye Said vessel or any of her Crew have never been Seen or heard of.”

In February 1746, Joshua Ray of New Haven petitioned for divorce from Anna Ray (née Winston) for fraud and non-consummation. Joshua “to his great Surprize & Disquiet he found said Anna to be by reason of her natural Contraction and inability, Utterly unfit & incapable for the Conjugal Duties and Enjoyments” and alleged that “Anna knowing her incapacity and inability as aforesaid fraudulently Entered into the marriage Covenant.” The case was dismissed due to non-appearance.

In September 1757, Lidiah/Lydia Waters (née Deplank) of Derby petitioned for divorce from John Waters for bigamy, given that she discovered he “had a wife Liveing in s[ai]d New York” when he married her. The divorce was granted.

In July 1758, Mary Waterous (née Ward) of Guilford petitioned for divorce from Abijah Waterous for desertion. Abijah “Refused to Live with her,” perhaps due to allegations she had a venereal disease, but witnesses testified “the c[h]aracter and Behavior of s[ai]d Mary was of Good Report.” The divorce was granted.

In February 1770, Ann Teal of Guilford petitioned for divorce from Samuel Teal for adultery. Samuel was apparently quite the piece of work—he was alleged to have assaulted a woman named Ruth Bishop while she was pregnant with Charles Wings’ child: a witness testified he “threw her on to the Bed, and Forced her.” But another witness testified that Samuel and Ruth were having an affair and he was possibly the father of her child, as Samuel would “Send his Wife & Children from home, and then take [Ruth] on to the Bed, and Said his Wife was grown old, and he never Desir’d to Touch her again, and that he took a Fancy to [Ruth] and Intended to have her.” Fortunately for Ann, the divorce was granted.

Divorces 1774-1789

Lowly Dexter vs. Oliver Dexter, 1789

Divorce petitions continued to rise during this period and were now over double those filed from 1712-1740. Women still comprised the largest number of petitioners and fewer BIPOC persons filed for divorce, but the grounds were starting to broaden. Cruelty reappeared and intoxication was cited for the first time, although both factors appeared with more common grounds—most likely to bolster the petitioners’ cases. A remarkable 90% of divorces were granted, with only two unknown verdicts. As ever, desertion remained the most popular grounds, but adultery was on the increase.

Selected cases of interest from this era (the language describing fault was more descriptive and even downright lurid in some cases):

In August 1778, Mary Macfarnel (née Berry) of Wallingford petitioned for divorce from William Macfarnel for cruelty and desertion, saying that he “treated her with great Barbarity, and once indeed attempted to destroy her by putting her into the Fire.” He also left her “and published an advertisement in the Newhaven Gazette forbidding any Person from trading with her.” Given that wives were under coverture, Mary was legally and financially dependent on William. In keeping with Lavin’s statement about the perilous status of Anglo-American wives, such an impasse would have made Mary’s survival difficult to impossible. Fortunately, the divorce was granted.

In August 1778, Obadiah Munson of New Haven petitioned for divorce from Rachel Munson (née Page) for fraud. He had discovered his wife was “no other than the Infamous Rachel Page of Branford[,] a Person who had been lately convicted of & punished for Theft [and] the mother of a Bastard Child.” You can find out more about this case on Instagram.

In August 1788, Ruth Perkins (née Hotchkiss) of Cheshire petitioned for divorce from William Perkins on several grounds: adultery, bigamy, cruelty, and desertion, alleging that he “grew very indefferent towards [Ruth] often treating her with austerity and Insolence and abuse wholly neglecting to make any provision for the Comfort & even necessity of [her] & five Small Children which she had by said William” and “in said Vermont betaken himself to and Joined himself in Marriage with another woman by whom he hath had one Child & still continues to live in adultery with her.” The divorce was granted.

In July 1789, the (unfortunately named) Lowly Dexter of Wallingford petitioned for divorce from Oliver Dexter for cruelty and desertion, claiming that he “treated [her] with great Austerity and abuse... wholly & willfully deserted [her]... & hath ever since been absent from her and Still doth reside in parts to her unknown.” The divorce was granted.

Divorces 1790-1799

Lydia Foot (née Tyler) vs. Isaac Foot, January – December 1793 and Isaac Foot vs. Lydia Foot (née Tyler), December 1793 – June 1794

Divorce petitions in the eighteenth century peaked during this period, and women continued to surpass men in filing for divorce. Desertion and adultery reigned supreme in grounds cited, but one woman succeeded in divorcing for cruelty alone—Mary Hudson (née Hull) of Cheshire sought a divorce from her husband David in July 1791, stating that his “repeated & long continued abuses, threats, cruelties & severities... rendered it impossible for her to continue with him any longer.” Indeed, a substantial 92% of divorces were granted.

Selected cases of interest from this era (the language continued to be evocative):

In January 1790, John Corey of Branford petitioned for divorce from Rebecca/Rebekah Corery (née Thomas) for adultery. John “went on a [voyage] to Sea and returned... found his said Wife in a State of Pregnancy... the child of which his s[ai]d Wife was pregnant when born could not be his.” The divorce was granted.

In November 1790, Martha Little of New Haven petitioned for divorce from Samuel Little for cruelty and adultery, claiming that he mistreated her “by beating and bruising her in a most barbarous manner by threat[e]ning her with instant death in various instances and continuing said threat[e]ning with the most horrid oaths,” and “hath frequented the most notorious bawdy houses in the City of New York... [and] committed the crime of adultery in one of said houses with a girl whose name is unknown.” The divorce was granted.

In January 1792, Rebecca Hotchkiss (née Gilbert) of New Haven petitioned for divorce from Amos Hotchkiss for multiple grounds: adultery, cruelty, desertion, and intoxication. She claimed he made her life unpleasant “by his frequent intoxications... [and] committed the crime of adultery with one Ann Barnes of said New [H]aven a notorious bawd &... contracted the venereal disease under which he hath labored ever since... and swore that he would give [Rebecca] the pox.” The divorce was granted.

In July 1792, Abner Tibbals of Guilford petitioned for divorce from Elizabeth Tibbals (née Knowles) for deserting him “without Cause or provocation,” but a witness testified that when “he complained She had not done her duty to him[,] She answered him if She had don[e] her duty to him She Should have knocked out his brains[,] She further Said I do not know for what you want me to go with you Sence you have taken away from me my Children.” The divorce was granted.

Sometimes spouses had to petition the court more than once to attain a divorce—for one unhappy couple, it took four attempts to achieve. In January 1793, Lydia Foot (née Tyler) of Branford petitioned for divorce from Isaac Foot for “committ[ing] the crime of adultery with a married woman belonging to Branford.” While the verdict was not given, the divorce clearly was not granted, given that in December 1793, both Lydia and Isaac submitted petitions for divorce. Lydia claimed that Isaac “a very sour, morose, Man; and... began to commit open Acts of Outrage and Violence on her Person” and that he also “hath committed various Acts of Adultery.” Isaac claimed that Lydia “has absconded from [Isaac]” and “has been repeatedly guilty of the crime of adultery.” Inexplicably, both of these petitions were negatived. However, when Isaac filed yet another petition in January 1794, claiming that Lydia “has totally deserted [Isaac]” and “committed the crime of adultery,” their divorce was finally granted.

Closing Thoughts

As the New Haven County Superior Court records demonstrate, divorce—while not easy, uncomplicated, or without difficult social and economic consequences—was not as impossible to achieve in colonial Connecticut as modern generations might assume.

In the 1800s, divorce petitions continued to rise, intoxication was increasingly cited as a factor (which helped fuel the temperance movement of the nineteenth century), and a new grounds, “the destruction of happiness,” appeared. We look forward to delving into these cases in more detail in a future post.

As noted in a previous post, the records for several of these cases, as well as cases previously profiled in this blog, are currently in the process of being digitized. They will eventually be available for public viewing at the Connecticut Digital Archive (CTDA).

This project is made possible through funding from the Historic Documents Preservation fund of the Office of the Public Records Administrator. We also recognize the past support of the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC).