Фредерик Марриет
Diary in America, Series Two
I am afraid that these remarks are but too true; and it is the more singular, as not only in the United States, but in every other Protestant community that I have ever heard of, divorce can be obtained upon what are considered just and legitimate grounds. It has been supposed, that should the marriage tie be loosened, that divorces without number would take place. It was considered so, and so argued, at the time that Zurich (the only Protestant canton in Switzerland that did not permit divorce, except for adultery alone,) passed laws similar to those of the other cantons; but so far from such being the case, only one divorce took place, within a year after the laws were amended. What is the reason of this? It can, in my opinion, only be ascribed to the chain being worn more lightly, when you know that if it oppresses you, it may be removed. Men are naturally tyrants, and they bear down upon the woman who cannot escape from their thraldom; but, with the knowledge that she can appeal against them, they soften their rigour. On the other hand, the woman, when unable to escape, frets with the feeling that she must submit, and that there is no help or hope in prospect; but once aware that she has her rights, and an appeal, she bears with more, and feels less than otherwise she would. You may bind, and from assuetude and time, (putting the better feelings out of the question,) the ties are worn without complaint; but if you bind too tight, you cut into the flesh, and after a time the pain becomes insupportable. In Switzerland, Germany, and I believe all the Protestant communities of the old world, the grounds upon which divorce is admissible are as follows:– adultery, condemnation of either party to punishment considered as infamous, madness, contagious chronic diseases, desertion, and incompatibility of temper.
The last will be considered by most people as no ground for divorce. Whether it is or not, I shall not pretend to decide, but this is certain, that it is the cause of the most unhappiness, and ultimately of the most crime.
All the great errors, all the various schisms in the Christian church, have arisen from not taking the holy writings as a great moral code, (as I should imagine they were intended to be,) which legislates upon broad principles, but selecting particular passages from them upon which to pin your faith. And it certainly appears to me to be reasonable to suppose that those laws by which the imperfection of our natures were fairly met, and which tended to diminish the aggregate of crime, must be more acceptable to our Divine Master than any which, however they might be in spirit more rigidly conformable to his precepts, were found in their working not to succeed. And here I cannot help observing, that the heads of the Church of England appear not to have duly weighed this matter, when an attempt was lately made to legislate upon it. Do the English bishops mean to assert, that they know better than the heads of all the other Protestant communities in the world—that they are more accurate expounders of the gospel, and have a more intimate knowledge of God’s will? Did it never occur to them, that when so many good and virtuous ecclesiastics of the same persuasion in other countries have decided upon the propriety of divorce, so as to leave them in a very small minority, that it might be possible that they might be wrong, or do they intend to set up and claim the infallibility of the Papistical hierarchy?
Any legislation to prevent crime, which produces more crime, must be bad and unsound, whatever may be its basis: witness the bastardy clause, in the New Poor Law Bill. That the former arrangements were defective is undeniable, for by them there was a premium for illegitimate children. This required amendment: but the remedy has proved infinitely worse than the disease. For what has been the result? That there have been many thousands fewer illegitimate children born, it is true; but, has the progress of immorality been checked? On the contrary, crime has increased, for to the former crime has been added one much greater, that of infanticide, or producing abortion. Such has been the effect of attempting to legislate for the affections; for in most cases a woman falls a sacrifice to her better feelings, not to her appetite.
In every point connected with marriage, has this injurious plan been persevered in; the marriage ceremony is a remarkable instance of this, for, beautiful as it is as a service, it is certainly liable to this objection, that of making people vow before God that which it is not in human nature to control. The woman vows to love, and to honour, and to cherish; the man to love and cherish, until death doth them part.
Is it right that this vow should be made? A man deserts his wife for another, treats her cruelly, separates her from her children. Can a woman love, or honour, or cherish such a man—nevertheless, she has vowed before God that she will. Take the reverse of the picture when the fault is on the woman’s side, and the evil is the same; can either party control their affections? surely not, and therefore it would be better that such vows should not be demanded.
There is another evil arising from one crime being the only allowable cause of divorce, which is that the possession of one negative virtue on the part of the woman, is occasionally made an excuse for the practice of vice, and a total disregard of her duties as a wife. I say negative virtue, for chastity very often proceeds from temperament, and as often from not being tempted.
A woman may neglect her duties of every kind—but she is chaste; she may make her husband miserable by indulgence of her ill-temper—but she is chaste; she may squander his money, ruin him by expense—but she is chaste; she may, in short, drive him to drunkenness and suicide—but still she is chaste; and chastity, like charity, covers the whole multitude of sins, and is the scape-goat for every other crime, and violation of the marriage vow.
It must, however, be admitted, that although the faults may occasionally be found on the side of the woman, in nine times out of ten it is the reverse; and that the defects of our marriage laws have rendered English women liable to treatment which ought not to be shewn towards the veriest slaves in existence.
I must now enter into a question, which I should have had more pleasure in passing over lightly, had it not been for the constant attacks of the Americans upon this subject, during the time that I was in the country, and the remarks of Mr Carey in his work, in which he claims for the Americans pre-eminence in this point, as well as upon all others.
Miss Martineau says, “The ultimate, and very strong impression on the mind of a stranger, pondering on the morals of society in America, is that human nature is much the same every where.” Surely Miss Martineau need not have crossed the Atlantic to make this discovery; however I quote it, as it will serve as a text to what is to follow.
The Americans claim excessive purity for their women, and taunt us with the exposées occasionally made in our newspapers. In the first place—which shews the highest regard for morality, a country where any deviation from virtue is immediately made known, and held up to public indignation? or one which, from national vanity, and a wish that all should appear to be correct, instead of publishing, conceals the facts, and permits the guilty parties to escape without censure, for what they consider the honour of the nation?
To suppose that there is no conjugal infidelity in the United States, is to suppose that human nature is not the same every where. That it never, to my knowledge, was made public, but invariably hushed up when discovered, I believe; so is suicide. But one instance came to my knowledge, during the time that I was in the States, which will give a very fair idea of American feeling on this subject. It was supposed that an intrigue had been discovered, or, it had actually been discovered, I cannot say which, between a foreigner and the wife of an English gentleman. It was immediately seized upon with ecstasy, circulated in all the papers with every American embellishment, and was really the subject of congratulation among them, as if they had gained some victory over this country. It so happened that an American called upon the lady, and among other questions put to her, inquired in what part of England she was born. She replied, “that she was not an English-woman, but was born in the States, and brought up in an American city.”
It is impossible to imagine how this mere trifling fact, affected the Americans. She was then an American—they were aghast—and I am convinced that they would have made any sacrifice, to have been able to have recalled all that they had done, and have hushed up the matter.
The fact is that human nature is the same every where, and I cannot help observing, that if their community is so much more moral, as they pretend that it is, why is it, that they have considered it necessary to form societies on such an extensive scale, for the prevention of a crime, from which they declare themselves (comparatively with us, and other nations,) to be exempt? I once had an argument on this subject with an elderly American gentleman, and as I took down the minutes of it after we parted, I think it will be as well to give it to my readers, as it will shew the American feeling upon it—
“Why, Captain M, you must bear in mind that we are not so vicious and contaminated here, as you are in the old country. You don’t see our newspapers filled, as your’s are, with crim. cons, in high life. No, sir, our institutions are favourable to virtue and morality, and our women are as virtuous as our men are brave.”
“I have no reason to deny either one assertion or the other, as far as I am acquainted with your men and women; but still I do not judge from the surface, as many have done who have visited you. Because there are no crim. cons. in your papers, it does not prove that conjugal infidelity does not exist. There are no suicides of people of any station in society ever published in your newspapers, and yet there is no country where suicide is more common.
“I grant that, occasionally, the coroner does bring in a verdict so as to save the feelings of the family.”
“That is more than a coroner would venture to do in England, let the rank of the party be of the highest. But, if you hush up suicides, may you not also hush up other offences, to save the feelings of families? I have already made up my mind upon one point, which is that you are content to substitute the appearance for the reality in your moral code—the fact is, you fear one another—you fear society, but, you do not fear God.”
“I should imagine, captain, that when you have conversed, and mixed up with us a little more, you will be inclined to retract, and acknowledge what I have said to be correct. I have lived all my life in the States, and I have no hesitation in saying, that we are a very moral people. Recollect that you have principally confined yourself to our cities, during your stay with us; yet even there we may proudly challenge comparison.”
“My opinion is, that unless you can shew just cause why you should be more moral than other nations, you are, whether in cities or in the country, much the same as we are. I do not require to examine on this point, as I consider it to be a rule-of-three calculation. Give me the extent of the population, and I can estimate the degree of purity. Mankind demoralise each other by collision; and the larger the numbers crowded together, the greater will be the demoralisation, and this rule will hold good, whether in England or the United States, the Old World or the New.”
“That argument would hold good if it were not for our institutions, which are favourable to morality and virtue.”
“I consider them quite the contrary. Your institutions are beautiful in theory, but in practice do not work well. I suspect that your society has a very similar defect.”
“Am I then to understand, captain, that you consider the American ladies as not virtuous?”
“I have already said that I have had no proofs to the contrary; all I wish is to defend my own country, and I say that I consider the English women at all events quite as moral as the Americans.”
“I reckon that’s no compliment, captain. Now, then, do you mean to say that you think there is as much conjugal infidelity in New York, in proportion to the population, as there is in London? Now, captain, if you please, we will stick to that point.”
“I answer you at once. No, I do not believe that there is; but—”
“That’s all I want, captain—never mind the buts.”
“But you must have the buts. Recollect, I did not say that your society was more moral, although I said that there was in my opinion less infidelity.”
“Well, how can that be?”
“Because, in the first place, conjugal infidelity is not the only crime which exists in society; and, secondly, because there are causes which prevent its being common. That this vice should be common, two things are requisite—time and opportunity; neither of which is to be found in a society like yours. You have no men of leisure, every man is occupied the whole day with his business. Now, suppose one man was to stay away from his business for merely one day, would he not be missed, and inquiries made after him; and if it were proved that he stayed away to pass his time with his neighbour’s wife, would not the scandal be circulated all over the city before night? I recollect a very plain woman accusing a very pretty one of indiscretion; the reply of the latter, when the former vaunted her own purity, was, ‘Were you ever asked?’ Thus it is in America; there is neither time nor opportunity, and your women are in consequence seldom or ever tempted. I do not mean to say that if they were tempted they would fall; all I say is, that no parallel can in this instance be drawn between the women of the two countries, as their situations are so very different. I am ready to do every justice to your women; but I will not suffer you to remain in the error, that you are more moral than we are.”
“Why, you have admitted that we are from circumstances, if not from principle.”
“In one point only, and in that you appear to be, and I have given you a reason why you really should be so; but we can draw no inference of any value from what we know relative to your better classes of society. If we would examine and calculate the standard of morality in a country, we must look elsewhere.”
“Where?”
“To the lower class of society, and not to the highest. I presume you are aware that there is a greater proportion of unfortunate females in New York, taking the extent of the populations, than in London or Paris? I have it from American authority, and I have every reason to believe that it is true.”
“I am surprised that any American should have made such an admission, captain; but for the sake of argument let it be so. But first recollect that we have a constant influx of people from the Old Country, from all the other States in America, and that we are a sea-port town, with our wharfs crowded with shipping.”
“I admit it all, and that is the reason why you have so many. The supply in all countries is usually commensurate with the demand; but the numbers have nothing to do with the argument.”
“Then I cannot see what you are driving at; for allow me to say that, admitting the class to be as numerous as you state from American authority, still they are very orderly and well behaved. You never see them drunk in the streets; you never hear swearing or abusive language; and you do in London and your seaports. There is a decorum and sense of propriety about them which, you must admit, speaks well, even for those unfortunate persons, and shews some sense of morality and decency even in our most abandoned.”
“You have brought forward the very facts which I was about to state, and it is from these facts that I draw quite contrary conclusions. If your argument is good, it must follow that the women of Paris are much more virtuous than the women of London. Now, I consider that these facts prove that the standard of morality is lower in America and France than it is in England. A French woman who has fallen never drinks, or uses bad language; she follows her profession, and seldom sinks, but rises in it. The grisette eventually keeps her carriage, and retires with sufficient to support her in her old age, if she does not marry. The American women of this class appear to me to be precisely the same description of people; whereas, in England, a woman who falls, falls never to rise again—sinking down by degrees from bad to worse, until she ends her days in rags and misery. But why so? because, as you say, they become reckless and intemperate—they do feel their degradation, and cannot bear up against it—they attempt to drown conscience, and die from the vain attempts. Now, the French and the American women of this class apparently do not feel this, and, therefore, they behave and do better. This is one reason why I argue that the standard of morality is not so high in your country as with us, although, from circumstances, conjugal infidelity may be less frequent.”
“Then, captain, you mean to say that cursing, swearing, and drinking, is a proof of morality in your country?”
“It is a proof, not of the morality of the party, but of the high estimation in which virtue is held, shewn by the indifference and disregard to everything else after virtue is once lost.”
This is a specimen of many arguments held with the Americans upon that question, and when examining into it, it should be borne in mind that there is much less excuse for vice in America than in the Old Countries. Poverty is but too often the mother of crime, and in America it may be said that there is no poverty to offer up in extenuation.
Mr Carey appears to have lost sight of this fact when he so triumphantly points at the difference between the working classes of both nations, and quotes the Report of our Poor Law Commissioners to prove the wretchedness and misery of ours. I cannot, however, allow his assertions to pass without observation, especially as English and French travellers have been equally content to admit without due examination the claims of the Americans; I refer more particularly to the large manufactory at Lowell, in Massachusetts, which from its asserted purity has been one of the boasts of America. Mr Carey says:—
“The following passage from a statement, furnished by the manager of one of the principal establishments in Lowell, shows a very gratifying state of things:– ‘There have only occurred three instances in which any apparently improper connection or intimacy had taken place, and in all those cases the parties were married on the discovery, and several months prior to the birth of their children; so that, in a legal point of view, no illegitimate birth has taken place among the females employed in the mills under my direction. Nor have I known of but one case among all the females employed in Lowell. I have said known—I should say heard of one case. I am just informed, that that was a case where the female had been employed but a few days in any mill, and was forthwith rejected from the corporation, and sent to her friends. In point of female chastity, I believe that Lowell is as free from reproach as any place of an equal population in the United States or the world.’”
And he winds up his chapter with the following remark:—
“The effect upon morals of this state of things, is of the most gratifying character. The number of illegitimate children born in the United States is small; so small, that we should suppose one in fifty to be a high estimate. In the great factories of the Eastern States there prevails a high degree of morality, presenting a most extraordinary contrast to the immorality represented to exist in a large portion of those of England.”
Next follows Miss Martineau, who says—“The morals of the female factory population may be expected to be good when it is considered of what class it is composed. Many of the girls are in the factories because they have too much pride for domestic service. Girls who are too proud for domestic service as it is in America, can hardly be low enough for any gross immorality, or to need watching, or not to be trusted to avoid the contagion of evil example. To a stranger, their pride seems to have taken a mistaken direction, and they appear to deprive themselves of a respectable home and station, and many benefits, by their dislike of service; but this is altogether their own affair, they must choose for themselves their way of life. But the reasons of their choice indicate a state of mind superior to the grossest dangers of their position.”
And the Reverend Mr Reid also echoes the praise of the factory girls given by others, although he admits that their dress was above their state and condition, and that he was surprised to see them appear “in silks, with scarfs, veils, and parasols.”
Here is a mass of evidence opposed to me, but the American evidence must be received with all due caution; and as for the English, I consider it rather favourable to my side of the question than otherwise. Miss Martineau says that “the girls have too much pride for domestic service,” and, therefore, argues that they will not be immoral; now, the two great causes of women falling off from virtue, are poverty and false pride. What difference there is between receiving money for watching a spinning-jenny, and doing household work, I do not see; in either case it is servitude, although the former may be preferred, as being less under control, and leaving more time at your own disposal. I consider the pride, therefore, which Miss Martineau upholds, to be false pride, which will actuate them in other points; and when we find the factory girls vying with each other in silks and laces, it becomes a query whether the passion for dress, so universal in America, may not have its effect there as well as elsewhere. I must confess that I went to Lowell doubting all I had heard—it was so contrary to human nature that five hundred girls should live among a population of fifteen hundred, or more, all pure and virtuous, and all dressed in silks and satin.
When I went to Lowell I travelled with an American gentleman, who will, I have no doubt, corroborate my statement, and I must say that, however pure Lowell may have been at the time when the encomiums were passed upon it, I have every reason to believe, from American authority as well as my own observation, that a great alteration has taken place, and that the manufactories have retrograded with the whole mass of American society. In the first place, I never heard a more accomplished swearer, east of the Alleghanies, than one young lady who addressed me and my American friend, and as it was the only instance of swearing on the part of a female that I ever met with in the United States, it was the more remarkable. I shall only observe, that two days at Lowell convinced me that “human nature was the same every where,” and thus I dismiss the subject.
Mr Carey compels me to make a remark which I would gladly have avoided, but as he brings forward his comparative statements of the number of illegitimate children born in the two countries as a proof of the superior morality of America, I must point out to him what I suspect he is not aware of. Public opinion acts as law in America; appearances are there substituted for the reality, and provided appearances are kept up, whether it be in religion or morality, it is sufficient; but should an exposure take place, there is no mercy for the offender. As those who have really the least virtue in themselves are always the loudest to cry out at any lapse which may be discovered in others, so does society in America pour out its anathemas in the inverse ratio of its real purity. Now, although the authority I speak from is undoubted, at the same time I wish to say as little as possible. That there are fewer illegitimate children born in the United States is very true. But why so? because public opinion there acts as the bastardy clause in the new poor law bill has done in this country; and if Mr Carey will only inquire in his own city, he will find that I should be justified if I said twice as much, as I have been compelled in defence of my own country to say, upon so unpleasant a subject.
