Domestic Violence in the 19th Century

My current work-in-progress deals in part with domestic violence. The 19th century was a time of transition in society’s attitudes toward spousal abuse. It is a challenge to know how to write about the problem because their attitudes were so different than ours today.

Prior to the mid-19th century, a husband could beat his wife without much fear of legal repercussions. As far back as the Roman Empire, as long as the husband used a rod with a circumference less than that of his thumb, his behavior was legal. (From whence came the phrase “rule of thumb”.)

This Roman rule became part of English common law, which permitted wife-beating for “correctional purposes.” The early American colonies, with few exceptions (for example, the Massachusetts Bay Colony), adopted the rule of thumb as well.

Even though husbands had the right to chastise their wives, societal attitudes varied. Some people condemned wife-beating, but others viewed it as a valid exercise of a husband’s authority to correct his wife’s behavior. Where it was condemned, the most a husband could expect was public shaming. He was unlikely to be prosecuted for his behavior, unless his wife died or was severely injured.

Women, of course, complained about domestic violence. Occasionally, even in the early 19th century their claims were recognized. In 1824, the Mississippi Supreme Court allowed a husband to administer only “moderate chastisement” in cases of emergency.

But many courts continued to uphold the husband’s authority. In 1867, a North Carolina jury acquitted a husband for hitting his wife with a switch smaller than his thumb. An appellate court later agreed, holding that courts should “not interfere with family government in trifling cases.”

In the middle of the 19th century, laws began to change. Tennessee outlawed wife beating in 1850. Alabama rescinded men’s right to beat their wives in 1871. In that same year, Massachusetts declared wife beating illegal. Reversing its old laws, the Supreme Court of North Carolina ruled that “the husband has no right to chastise his wife under any circumstances” in 1874. (Yet, the court also said, “If no permanent injury has been inflicted, nor malice, cruelty nor dangerous violence shown by the husband, it is better to draw the curtain, shut out the public gaze and leave the parties to forget and forgive.” Thus, the common practice of the law averting its eyes to domestic disputes continued.) And in 1882, Maryland passed a law that made wife-beating a crime, punishable by 40 lashes or a year in jail.

Laws continued to evolve, so that North Carolina ruled in 1890 that husbands could not commit any assault on their wives. In 1894, Mississippi denied husbands any right to administer even “moderate chastisement.”

As the laws changed, women began to file for divorce based on their husband’s abusive conduct. But such trials were often lurid spectacles, opening women and their marriages to a scrutiny many did not wish to experience. No wonder both society and the courts would rather avert their eyes.

My work-in-progress takes place in 1867, when the spousal abuse laws were in transition. Both the law and the societal attitudes that were then prevalent play into how I write about domestic violence. One temptation I have as I write is to revile the husband’s conduct as we would today. In fact, most of my characters are repelled by how my character suffers at the hands of her husband.

And yet, there is a certain acceptance by the beaten wife and by her family in my novel that men sometimes behave this way, they are unlikely to change or to be prosecuted, and there is not much a wife can do . And so, it is difficult for the woman in my novel to extricate herself from her unhappy marriage. Plus, she has few skills and is pregnant, givign her even fewer options in a society where a woman is expected to find her livelihood through marriage.

Another difficulty I have as I write is how to show the wife’s reaction to her husband’s abuse. Is she totally isolated and cowed by his violence, as many abused women are today? But in the mid-19th century, when abuse was accepted more easily, a strong woman might find herself in an abusive relationship and see no way out. Would she remain passive, or would she fight as much as she could within the constraints of her marriage?

I struggle with how my abused character should react. I know I will have to rework these scenes many times until I feel that my character is both true to her times and believable by modern audiences.

How do you think an abused woman in the 19th century would react?