About Connections: Love it or hate it, history is a map. Those who hate history think it irrelevant; many who love history think it escapism. In truth, history is the clearest road map to how we got here: America in the 21st century.
In January 1914, Harriette, widow of Joseph W. Burden, heir to the Burden Iron Works fortune, sold her Berkshire cottage to Olivia E. P. Stokes, sister of Anson Phelps Stokes (formerly of Shadowbrook).
That spring Harriette traveled to Baltimore to attend her brother’s wedding. With her were her two sons, Joseph Jr. and Chester, her grandson Chester Jr., her mother and father, U.S. Congressman and Mrs. John Griswold, Mrs. H. W. Webb (sister-in-law of Lila Vanderbilt Webb), and the wife of Maryland Governor William T. Hamilton.
The point is that it was a society wedding. The guests, just as the bride and groom, had social standing, money and influence. Nonetheless, the wedding of Alice Gerry and Frank Griswold was delayed until well into the night because the minister refused to appear; refused to conduct the ceremony. The bride was prostrate, the groom was furious, and the guests stood around for hours unsure what to do or how to look.
What caused such a sorry state of affairs? The bride was divorced.
In his work, “Women and the Law in the Nineteenth Century,” Timothy Crumrin writes: “Divorce was neither prevalent nor particularly acceptable. There were strong social and religious objections. The whole concept of divorce was anathema to many.”
That attitude was unchanged even when the husband was a drunk, a debaucher, an abuser or a spendthrift. However, by mid-century, a classified ad in the New York Herald (March 30, 1861), promised:
Founder and editor of the New York Tribune Horace Greeley lambasted such ads as offering relief to “free-lovers” who would lead the country to “a general profligacy and corruption such as this country has never known.”
Notwithstanding Greeley, slowly, grounds for an absolute divorce were established: bigamy, impotency, consanguinity and adultery. There was also the possibility of a legal separation in the case of extreme cruelty. Actually, that possibility existed on the books but was rarely granted, and there were other problems.
Even as the laws changed, attitudes did not. As late at the first years of the 20th century, social norms were unchanged. Miss Alice Gerry married her first husband in good faith and, when he died, married Baltimore attorney David Stewart. He proved to be a bounder and a fortune hunter. Nevertheless, Alice was not granted a divorce in this country. Her divorce from Stewart was granted in Paris.
Women without the means at Alice’s disposal were dependant on the laws in America. Sadly, those laws varied widely from state to state. Furthermore, a married woman had no right to own, buy and sell property separate from her husband. Therefore, if a husband became angry or aggrieved at her wish to separate or divorce, he could simply leave. A deserted wife had no way to support herself. Her survival depended on keeping the marriage together.
Slowly, states granted a wife the right to own property, including keeping any salary she earned, and granted her access to the courts. And yet, as late as 1914, Alice had to wait until the wee hours when a minister could be found who would marry a divorced woman. She stood among her guests until 10 p.m., when the couple was finally married.
It was a humiliating beginning to her marriage just as her divorce from Stewart was by necessity rather “hole-and-corner.” In that, however, Alice was vindicated.
When Alice died in 1921, her will was curious. Although she had a living daughter, Alice left her estate to Mrs. Mary M. Drischman, the wife of a butcher in Atlantic City. The estate was valued at $350,000 (approximately $4.3 million today).
The New York Times reported that, “The only child of Mrs. Alice Gerry Griswold, who died here in obscurity three weeks ago, has filed an appeal from the probate of the will of her mother.”
Two weeks later “County Judge Ingersoll today set aside the will of Mrs. Alice Gerry Griswold of Baltimore, known internationally, which cut off her daughter, the Countess St. Claire da Contubia of Milan.” Drischman was cited for undue influence.
How does that vindicate Alice’s judgment of Stewart? In the middle of the mess, he filed to join in contesting the will, claiming his former wife would have wanted him to have some money, too. The records show his claim was not entertained.
