SELFISH INTENTIONS - K-REx - Kansas State University

conception of marriage.” 25 It was relatively easy for a man simply to walk away from a
marriage. Others might have left behind a family in England and established new ones in the
colonies. One such scenario might occur when a man moved to another colony and started a new
family. In doing so, he would leave his family behind in the care of the local community. As
VanBurkleo contends, “The risk of bigamy charges were small, and the social and economic cost
of bad marriages were steep. Alternatively, couples might undertake customary divorce (for
instance, by returning rings in the presence of witnesses) and notify officials of the deed, but the
practice weakened state control over families and was discouraged.” 26 Certainly, lawmakers
fought against this notion of fluid marriage. In the Massachusetts Bay Colony, officials went so
far as to deport men if they feared they were being unfaithful to their wives back in England or
were taking an additional spouse. Additionally, lawmakers singled out men who performed lewd
acts, attempted marriage, or lived under suspicion of uncleanness and ordered them to return to
their wives or pay a hefty fine. Therefore non-Anglican lawmakers allowed divorce in order to
assist sensible remarriages as well as to strengthen political control over marriage and to
discourage flight from their colony.
The provision for divorce was particularly important to women who, if abandoned, faced
an uncertain future. Under coverture, the couple’s property did not belong to her, her children
were not legally in her custody, and the possibility of destitution was all too real. Both the
separate maintenance agreements allowed in the South, and the absolute divorce allowed in New
England, offered a way out of an impossible situation. As VanBurkleo notes, “In the main,
judges aimed less to ensure individual happiness than to bolster the family’s ability to maintain
25 VanBurkleo, 14.
26 Ibid.
7