SELFISH INTENTIONS - K-REx - Kansas State University

none of these situations was the possibility of remarriage sanctioned; the “divorce in bed and
board” lasted until one of the partners was deceased. In each action, the chancery courts issued
“separate maintenance orders,” less out of concern for women than to insure that the husband
continued to support his wife and thus spare the community of the expense of her support. 23
Once again, the records indicate a gender differential. Virtually all of petitions for
separate maintenance suits in the Southern colonies were initiated by women. Women usually
had good cause for requesting maintenance. Men could try to separate from their wives without
paying anything so they did not have anything to gain by filing a suit; however, women could
and did sue their husbands in order to regain control of their dowries or a portion of their
husband’s estate. The ability to sue for separate maintenance in a court of chancery helped
women disadvantaged by coverture to regain desperately needed financial relief when their lives
were jeopardized by absent, cruel, or adulterous husbands. Riley found that most separate
maintenance cases in Virginia were filed for on the grounds of cruel behavior by the husband. In
1700, for example, Elizabeth Wildy, the wife of a landholder and local county official, filed for
separate maintenance contending that her husband “had beaten her, held her in the fire, and
threatened to shoot her.” 24 The court ruled that her husband had to pay her an annual case
payment for his actions. In short, Virginia women separated from their husbands used the court
of chancery to gain some sense of financial security, even though they were denied that
possibility of absolute divorce.
The strictness of colonial divorce law does not, however, reflect actual practice. As
VanBurkleo has noted, in reality the colonists, particularly men, could practice a “fluid
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid., 52-53.
6