How were wife-beaters treated during the Civil War?

Harms88

Sergeant
Joined
Oct 13, 2019
Location
North of the Wall & South of the Canucks
I am currently writing a alternative Civil War history book and the main character's father is an abusive alcoholic.

Now, I have read that during Colonial times, that if there was a known wife beater in the community, the offender could be fined, whipped, jailed and called out publicly in church and even expelled from the congregation. I also want to say that I read in The Whiskey Rebellion by William Hogeland that some communities were known to drag the offender out of his house and basically throw him out of town with people drumming pots and pans and kicking him in the butt the entire trip.

I know that the law at that time (Civil War) was supposed to protect women from being "bodily chastised" by their husbands and most women who went before judges with accusations of spousal abuse were believed and resulted in some form of legal action against the man. The only punishment that seems to be generally shied away from was prison due to women not being allowed a great role in the workforce and they didn't want families to become destitute due to lack of an income.

So, what was the most common punishment for known wife-beaters during the Civil War era?
 
There wasn't always a punishment, is the thing. Caroline Norton was a woman who went through heck to be able to get away from a wildly abusive husband. Divorce wasn't common- he'd been beating her for years and she insisted on a divorce. I forget how long it took- years? The idea was she was married and that's it forever and ever amen.

I'm guessing it depended on where you lived, who you were and how concerned local enforcement was about it. One big factor behind the temperance movement was abuse suffered when men came home drunk. So odd, they had to come up with that approach rather than begin dealing with violent men.

It's still not very good, you know.Laws are there, courts tend to fail.
 
Heres an account of what happened to a man who killed his 1st wife 20 yrs postwar....great blog site on vigilantism too. Lynching of George Graham


It has tons of lynching stories in Midwest, primarily Mo, white and black, and for different crimes ect.
 
Last edited:
Back then, men who beat their wives and kids were very much looked down on. Even if the law didn't provide adequately for the victim, quite frequently other men would - as in the case mentioned above. They didn't think you were much of a man if you did this, or didn't step in when it was being done. So it was largely the responsibility of men to take care of this problem. If you were a woman without the protection of a man...no recourse except to leave, and sometimes leave the whole country. We probably should note that none of this 'code of honor' protection/punishment applied to minority women.
 
Allegedly, Mary Surratt’s husband abused her before he died. He allegedly did this while drunk. I read that her family and friends stayed out of it because they didn’t want to “embarrass” her. Mr. Surratt had died by the time that the Lincoln assassination happened.

I want to say I heard something about it before. Must have read about it while reading up on the Lincoln assassination.
 
The expression 'rule of thumb' refers to English common law. A husband is prohibited from beating his wife with a stick thicker than his thumb.
In slave states, 50 lashes with a whip was the standard punishment. Whippingosts were erected in front of slave dealer's establishments. A squeamish slaveholder could pay a professional to beat their slaves for them. I have a file of written examples of women beating their household slaves bloody by their own hand. Slaveholders were entitled to inflict bloody beatings on a whim.
It does not take a lot of time to troll through the Old Testiment for texts that advocate all manner of corporal punishment. Sermons of the period repeatedly dwelled on the God given obligation of parents to beat their children. Godly men were encouraged to chastise their wives.
If common law, custom & God encouraged a man to beat his wife, why not? It could be argued that it showed great strength of character & moral courage for a man not to beat his wife. Of course, even the rule of thumb was intended to restrain a husband's right to beat his wife. We are rightly revolted at the use of Old Testiment patriarch's right to beat his wife as a justification for spousal abuse. We also have to be honest & recognize that during the 19th Century, a man who beat his wife was doing nothing wrong. They did not play by our rules.
 
The last wife beater flogged was in Delaware 1952. He received 20 lashes. Flogging stayed on the books till 1972 there. It was on the books till the 1950s, for wife beating in Maryland but I think it had been awhile since it was used.
 
1572826490124.png

The North-Carolinian. (Fayetteville, NC), September 25, 1847, page 3.
 
Harms88: It sounds as if you can select the community reaction that is convenient to your plot, since punishment of wife-beaters existed but was very uneven. You can even make the unevenness a point of information in the plot. If the abusive drunk isn't punished much or at all, have someone remark that he'd never have gotten away with it in the next town over; if he's punished good and proper, the remark can be the reverse—that he would have gotten away with it in the next town over.
 
I'm glad you raised this important topic and there have been some interesting responses generated so far.

I'm particularly intrigued with the fact there did appear to be a reaction to 'wife beating' at that time.

It goes under numerous terms these days (such as 'domestic violence' or 'domestic abuse', 'family violence', 'intimate partner violence', etc)

I currently work in the area of what we term 'family violence'. What is interesting to me is that there was a response in those days to what continues to be a problem right up to the current time.

Women obviously did not have the same recourse to support then as they do now. Even then, a woman has to reach out for support and there are many reasons why this doesn't always happen.

I would imagine then, as now, fear and shame often kept these things behind closed doors, plus societal expectations. A woman would have been much less likely to be able to support herself and a family in years gone by. So I can see family intervention being a major factor in her gaining support.

Alcohol abuse can also be a factor, where a loss of control is implied, and that will fit in with your storyline. Though it can never be used as an 'excuse' it may be a contributing factor.

I was very interested to read that the temperance movement had a part to play in this and that this was one of the goals of the movement.

I was also glad to read communities took it upon themselves at times to deal with offenders, or at least frown upon them. At least the woman had some form of 'protection' in the circumstances.

I wish you luck with your story.
 
Last edited:
Harms88: It sounds as if you can select the community reaction that is convenient to your plot, since punishment of wife-beaters existed but was very uneven. You can even make the unevenness a point of information in the plot. If the abusive drunk isn't punished much or at all, have someone remark that he'd never have gotten away with it in the next town over; if he's punished good and proper, the remark can be the reverse—that he would have gotten away with it in the next town over.

So, as I currently have it in the rough draft, (which I'm only in chapter 1) our main character is a product of a rape. His mother, due to the stain on her honor, had few prospects except for her current husband. So now, 15 years after their marriage, (the character is 19 years old and born the same day as First Bull Run) she has only once had the strength to go searching for help. The abusive husband arrested the man, but the judge didn't want to jail him as main character is only ten and she has no other providers.

But the punishment that was given to him was one lash per bruise on her. The husband retaliated afterwards, locking her in a shed for a week and only feeding her once. Our main character has a scar he received for trying to help his mom out.

So, the abused wife loses all her willpower to resist him (he's also verbally abusive as well) and our 19 year old has been cowed by his step-father. This is planned to be a trilogy and our protagonist's character arc will include him becoming strong enough to one day face his and his mother's abuser.

But the abuse also deeply affects how he interacts with the girl that he'll be getting married to. So, yeah, I'm trying to depict it as realistically as I can without it being in bad taste.

I'm glad you raised this important topic and there have been some interesting responses generated so far.

I'm particularly intrigued with the fact there did appear to be a reaction to 'wife beating' at that time.

It goes under numerous terms these days (such as 'domestic violence' or 'domestic abuse', 'family violence', 'intimate partner violence', etc)

I currently work in the area of what we term 'family violence'. What is interesting to me is that there was a response in those days to what continues to be a problem right up to the current time.

Women obviously did not have the same recourse to support then as they do now. Even then, a woman has to reach out for support and there are many reasons why this doesn't always happen.

I would imagine then, as now, fear and shame often kept these things behind closed doors, plus societal expectations. A woman would have been much less likely to be able to support herself and a family in years gone by. So I can see family intervention being a major factor in her gaining support.

Alcohol abuse can also be a factor, where a loss of control is implied, and that will fit in with your storyline. Though it can never be used as an 'excuse' it may be a contributing factor.

I was also very interested to read that the temperance movement had a part to play in this and that this was one of the goals of the movement.

I was also glad to read communities took it upon themselves at times to deal with offenders, or at least frown upon them. At least the woman had some form of 'protection' in the circumstances.

I wish you luck with your story.

I read a five-book series a few years back called Faith of our Fathers. In it, especially the last book has a female character who is being abused by her husband. The last chapter of her has her being taken by a female friend and her husband and rushing off to a local judge that will divorce this couple, saving her from the abuse.

The author makes a statement that "It was very rare for women to have a recourse to turn to in those days". But as I mentioned before, I read in Whiskey Rebellion that communities regularly would pounce on these brutes, as early as the 18th century, and we see that there were attempts to curtail this behavior even as early as earliest days of colonization of the New World.

It's perhaps an unintended side-effect of Women's Rights that people believe that only in the late 19th century that women had the ability to turn for aide in such situations.
 
I'm glad you raised this important topic and there have been some interesting responses generated so far.

I'm particularly intrigued with the fact there did appear to be a reaction to 'wife beating' at that time.

It goes under numerous terms these days (such as 'domestic violence' or 'domestic abuse', 'family violence', 'intimate partner violence', etc)

I currently work in the area of what we term 'family violence'. What is interesting to me is that there was a response in those days to what continues to be a problem right up to the current time.

Women obviously did not have the same recourse to support then as they do now. Even then, a woman has to reach out for support and there are many reasons why this doesn't always happen.

I would imagine then, as now, fear and shame often kept these things behind closed doors, plus societal expectations. A woman would have been much less likely to be able to support herself and a family in years gone by. So I can see family intervention being a major factor in her gaining support.

Alcohol abuse can also be a factor, where a loss of control is implied, and that will fit in with your storyline. Though it can never be used as an 'excuse' it may be a contributing factor.

I was also very interested to read that the temperance movement had a part to play in this and that this was one of the goals of the movement.

I was also gladham above. to read communities took it upon themselves at times to deal with offenders, or at least frown upon them. At least the woman had some form of 'protection' in the circumstances.

I wish you luck with your story.
Vigilantism is in effect community policing. Andrew Jackson I believe once refered to it as democracy in its simplest form, may be paraphrasing, its been awhile since I read it.

Which it would be, a majority in a area deem something wrong, they rectify it. Problem solved. And there seems little doubt it was the majority...as its almost always ruled death by persons unknown...….even though usually most the town witnessed it, heard about it, or knew about it, as in the case of George Graham above. I would imagine they shared JPK's view that courts tend to fail.
 
Last edited:
Like others have said, it would depend greatly on the town you're in. Also who the husband is, no doubt. You'd be surprised what even the most conscientious objectors will overlook if the husband signs their paychecks, for instance... or the minister's, judge's, or police chief's son might be allowed to get away with simply because of who his daddy is.
 
Like others have said, it would depend greatly on the town you're in. Also who the husband is, no doubt. You'd be surprised what even the most conscientious objectors will overlook if the husband signs their paychecks, for instance... or the minister's, judge's, or police chief's son might be allowed to get away with simply because of who his daddy is.
Thats one of the things that makes my state a fascinating study into vigilantism. We were the frontier where pioneers had to be self reliant and take things into their own hands.....followed by bleeding Kansas.....followed by a brutal civil war where each side would only selectively enforce justice, leaving the only recourse to justice to the other side retribution......

As one author describes by the time post CW arrives "By that time, Missouri was home to three generations of citizens schooled in violence, galvanized in the belief that governments couldn't be trusted and open to the idea it was their right and obligation to take the law into their own hands. People who had spent years watching their belongings being stolen, their relatives butchered, and their homes burned, couldn't help but be hardened."
 
The author makes a statement that "It was very rare for women to have a recourse to turn to in those days". But as I mentioned before, I read in Whiskey Rebellion that communities regularly would pounce on these brutes, as early as the 18th century, and we see that there were attempts to curtail this behavior even as early as earliest days of colonization of the New World.

It's perhaps an unintended side-effect of Women's Rights that people believe that only in the late 19th century that women had the ability to turn for aide in such situations.
I think you make a very good point. And am glad to know that the defense of women was an important factor during these earlier eras. Which is why I was initially surprised to learn this. But I think it tells us something important about society at the time.

If that is the case, I'm not sure why/when we have taken on board the idea (at some point in time) that such situations are private family matters, and it is the woman herself who often has to reach out for support/intervention. Not that the issue isn't frowned upon, but perhaps the overall sense of community is lacking now and people have become more disconnected.

Women's rights movements certainly highlighted some of the difficulties for women, and no doubt this was one of them. It's possible the responsibility for support was removed from the 'community' as specialist organizations became the norm in terms of offering support. Either way, it's important for women to get support in this situation.

And I also don't think we can overlook the difficulties for women in abusive situations. A woman runs the highest risk of death from a violent partner at the time of separation.

Just to finish, your story sounds quite intense and very interesting from the point of view that there is now recognition (finally) of the effects of domestic violence on children. This has been largely overlooked in the past, and it seems your protagonist intends to right some wrongs. But we also see how deeply affected he has been by the situation (which is quite brutal) in terms of how he now comes into relationship. I think you've chosen a difficult topic, but you've got the great outline of a story there. I wish you luck again.
 
Another wrinkle to the 'rule of thumb' nature of what we would now call abusive behavior was white women who equated their legal status with that of their slaves. Mrs Chestnut & a host of Southern ladies bemoaned their dependence on dominant males.
There is no more vivid description of the realities of Plantation sexual mores than Mrs C's '.. they live like patriarchs of old, surrounded by 1/2 cast...' descendants of grandfathers, fathers & uncles. It was not at all uncommon for the house servants to be blood relations of the master. I have a chilling letter written by a patriarch explaining to his son the ins & outs of selling his acknowledged 1/2 siblings.
If we are going to discuss spousal discipline & abuse, management of the harem should be included. Does the legally sanctioned flogging of a slave/relation/sex partner fit the definition of wife beating for inclusion in this thread?
The market in "Fancy Girls" raises its ugly head, as well. Young, very light skinned women sold for extraordinary prices at the New Orleans market. This was literally a market for sex slaves. Descriptions of the auctions are lewd & lurid. Fancy Girl could also mean a well trained lady's maid. A light skinned, skilled maid could make $2,500 at the Louisville market.
I suggest that viewing the rule of thumb through the lens of our very different moral lens can be problematical.
 
Back
Top