Diary in America, Series Two

Now, a man so wholly engrossed in business cannot be a very good companion if he were at home; his thoughts would be elsewhere, and therefore perhaps it is better that things should remain as they are. But the great evil arising from this is, that the children are left wholly to the management of their mothers, and the want of paternal control I have already commented upon. The Americans have reason to be proud of their women, for they are really good wives—much too good for them; I have no hesitation in asserting this, and should there be any unfortunate difference between any married couple in America, all the lady has to say is, “The fact is, Sir, I’m much too good for you, and Captain Marryat says so.” (I flatter myself there’s a little mischief in that last sentence.)

It appears, then, that the American woman has little of her husband’s society, and that in education and refinement she is much his superior, notwithstanding which she is a domestic slave. For this the Americans are not to blame, as it is the effect of circumstances, over which they cannot be said to have any control. But the Americans are to blame in one point, which is, that they do not properly appreciate or value their wives, who have not half the influence which wives have in England, or one quarter that legitimate influence to which they are entitled. That they are proud of them, flatter them, and are kind to them after their own fashion, I grant, but female influence extends no farther. Some authors have said, that by the morals of the women you can judge of the morals of a country; generally speaking, this is true, but America is an exception, for the women are more moral, more educated, and more refined than the men, and yet have at present no influence whatever in society.

What is the cause of this? It can only be ascribed to the one great ruling passion which is so strong that it will admit of no check, or obstacles being thrown in its way, and will listen to no argument or entreaty; and because, in a country when every thing is decided by public opinion, the women are as great slaves to it as the men. Their position at present appears to be that the men will not raise themselves to the standard of the women, and the women will not lower themselves to the standard of the men; they apparently move in different spheres, although they repose on the same bed.

It is, therefore, as I have before observed, fortunate that the marriages in America are more decided by prudence than by affection; for nothing could be more mortifying to a woman of sense and feeling, than to awake from her dream of love, and discover that the object upon which she has bestowed her affection, is indifferent to the sacrifice which she has made.

If the American women had their due influence, it would be fortunate; they might save their country, by checking the tide of vice and immorality, and raising the men to their own standard. Whether they ever will effect this, or whether they will continue as at present, to keep up the line of demarcation, or gradually sink down to the level of the other sex, is a question which remains to be solved.

That the American women have their peculiarities, and in some respects they might be improved, is certain. Their principal fault in society is, that they do not sufficiently modulate their voices. Those faults arising from association, and to which both sexes are equally prone, are a total indifference to, or rather a love of change, “shifting right away,” without the least regret, from one portion of the Union to another; a remarkable apathy as to the sufferings of others, an indifference to loss of life, a fondness for politics, all of which are unfeminine; and lastly, a passion for dress carried to too great an extent; but this latter is easily accounted for, and is inseparable from a society where all would be equal. But, on the other hand, the American women have a virtue which the men have not, which is moral courage, and one also which is not common with the sex, physical courage. The independence and spirit of an American woman, if left a widow without resources, is immediately shewn; she does not sit and lament, but applies herself to some employment, so that she may maintain herself and her children, and seldom fails in so doing. Here are faults and virtues, both proceeding from the same origin.

I have already in my Diary referred to another great error in a portion of the American women. Lady Blessington, in one of her delightful works, very truly observes, “I turn with disgust from that affected prudery, arising, if not from a participation, at least from a knowledge of evil, which induces certain ladies to cast down their eyes, look grave, and shew the extent of their knowledge, or the pruriency of their imaginations, by discovering in a harmless jest nothing to alarm their experienced feelings. I respect that woman whose innate purity prevents those around her from uttering aught that can arouse it, much more than her whose sensitive prudery continually reminds one, that she is au fait of every possible interpretation which a word of doubtful meaning admits.”

The remarks of Miss Martineau upon the women of America are all very ungracious, and some of them very unjust. That she met with affectation and folly in America, is very probable—where do you not? There is no occasion to go to the United States to witness it. As for the charge of carrying in their hands seventy-dollar pocket-handkerchiefs, I am afraid it is but too true: but when there is little distinction, except by dress, ladies will be very expensive. I do not know why, but the American ladies have a custom of carrying their pocket-handkerchiefs in their hands, either in a room, or walking out, or travelling; and moreover, they have a custom of marking their names in the corner, at full length, and when in a steamboat or rail-car, I have, by a little watching, obtained the names of ladies sitting near me, in consequence of this custom, which of course will be ascribed by Miss Martineau to a wish to give information to strangers.

The remark upon the Washington belles,20 I am afraid is too true, as I have already pointed out that the indifference to human life in America extends to the softer sex; and I perfectly well remember, upon my coming into a room at New York with the first intelligence of the wreck of the ‘Home,’ and the dreadful loss of life attending it, that my news was received with a “dear me!” from two or three of the ladies, and there the matter dropped. There is, however, much truth in what Miss Martineau says, relative to the manner in which the women are treated by their lords and masters, in this new country. The following quotation from the work is highly deserving of attention:—

“If a test of civilisation be sought, none can be so sure as the condition of that half of society over which the other half has power,—from the exercise of the right of the strongest. Tried by this test, the American civilisation appears to be of a lower order than might have been expected from some other symptoms of its social state. The Americans have, in the treatment of women, fallen below, not only their own democratic principles, but the practice of some parts of the Old World.

“The unconsciousness of both parties as to the injuries suffered by women at the hands of those who hold the power, is a sufficient proof of the low degree of civilisation in this important particular at which they rest, while woman’s intellect is confined, her morals crushed, her health ruined, her weaknesses encouraged, and her strength punished, she is told that her lot is cast in the paradise of women: and there is no country in the world where there is so much boasting of the ‘chivalrous’ treatment she enjoys. That is to say,—she has the best place in stage-coaches: when there are not chairs enough for everybody, the gentlemen stand she hears oratorical flourishes on public occasions about wives and home, and apostrophes to woman: her husband’s hair stands on end at the idea of her working, and he toils to indulge her with money: she has liberty to get her brain turned by religious excitements, that her attention may be diverted from morals, politics, and philosophy; and, especially, her morals are guarded by the strictest observance of propriety in her presence. In short, indulgence is given her as a substitute for justice.”

If Miss Martineau had stopped here, she had done well; but she follows this up by claiming for her sex all the privileges of our own, and seems to be highly indignant, that they are not permitted to take their due share of the government of the country, and hold the most important situations. To follow up her ideas, we should have a “teeming” prime minister, and the Lord Chancellor obliged to leave the woolsack to nurse his baby; Miss M forgets that her prayer has been half granted already, for we never yet had a ministry without a certain proportion of old women in it; and we can, therefore dispense with her services.

There is, however, one remark of Miss Martineau’s which I cannot pass over without expressing indignation; I will quote the passage.

“It is no secret on the spot, that the habit of intemperance is not infrequent among women of station and education in the most enlightened parts of the country. I witnessed some instances, and heard of more. It does not seem to me to be regarded with all the dismay which such a symptom ought to excite. To the stranger, a novelty so horrible, a spectacle so fearful, suggests wide and deep subjects of investigation. If women, in a region professing religion more strenuously than any other, living in the deepest external peace, surrounded by prosperity, and outwardly honoured more conspicuously than in any other country, can ever so far cast off self-restraint, shame, domestic affection, and the deep prejudices of education, as to plunge into the living hell of intemperance, there must be something fearfully wrong in their position.”

Miss Martineau is a lady; and, therefore, it is difficult to use the language which I would, if a man had made such an assertion. I shall only state, that it is one of the greatest libels that ever was put into print: for Miss Martineau implies that it is a general habit, among the American women; so far from it, the American women are so abstemious that they do not drink sufficient for their health. They can take very little exercise, and did they take a little more wine, they would not suffer from dyspepsia, as they now do, as wine would assist their digestion. The origin of this slander I know well, and the only ground for it is, that there are two or three ladies of a certain city, who having been worked upon by some of the Evangelical Revival Ministers, have had their minds crushed by the continual excitement to which they have been subjected. The mind affects the body, and they have required, and have applied to, stimulus, and if you will inquire into the moral state of any woman among the higher classes, either in America or England, who has fallen into the vice alluded to, nine times out of ten you will find that it has been brought about by religious excitement. Fanaticism and gin are remarkable good friends all over the world. It is surprising to me that, when Miss Martineau claims for her sex the same privilege as ours, she should have overlooked one simple fact which ought to convince her that they are the weaker vessels. I refer to what she acknowledges to be true, which is, that the evangelical preachers invariably apply to women for proselytes, instead of men; not only in America but everywhere else; and that for one male, they may reckon at least twenty females among their flocks. According to Miss Martineau’s published opinions, there can be no greater weakness than the above.

In the United States, divorces are obtained without expense, and without it being necessary to commit crime, as in England. The party pleads in formâ pauperis, to the State Legislation, and a divorce is granted upon any grounds which may be considered as just and reasonable.

Miss Martineau mentions a divorce having been granted to a wife, upon the plea of her husband being a gambler; and I was myself told of an instance in which a divorce was granted upon the plea of the husband being such an “awful swearer;” and really, if any one heard the swearing in some parts of the Western country, he would not be surprised at a religious woman requesting to be separated. I was once on board of a steam-boat on the Mississippi, when a man let off such a volley of execrations, that it was quite painful to hear him. An American who stood by me, as soon as the man had finished, observed, “Well, I’m glad that fellow has nothing to do with the engines: I reckon he’d burst the biler.”

Miss Martineau observes, “In no country I believe are the marriage laws so iniquitous as in England, and the conjugal relation, in consequence, so impaired. Whatever may be thought of the principles which are to enter into laws of divorce, whether it be held that pleas for divorce should be one, (as narrow interpreters of the New Testament would have it;) or two, (as the law of England has it;) or several, (as the Continental and United States’ laws in many instances allow,) nobody, I believe, defends the arrangement by which, in England, divorce is obtainable only by the very rich. The barbarism of granting that as a privilege to the extremely wealthy, to which money bears no relation whatever, and in which all married persons whatever have an equal interest, needs no exposure beyond the mere statement of the fact. It will be seen at a glance how such an arrangement tends to vitiate marriage: how it offers impunity to adventurers, and encouragement to every kind of mercenary marriages; how absolute is its oppression of the injured party; and how, by vitiating marriage, it originates and aggravates licentiousness to an incalculable extent. To England alone belongs the disgrace of such a method of legislation. I believe that, while there is little to be said for the legislation of any part of the world on this head, it is nowhere so vicious as in England.”

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.”