sign in sign up
<<
Home , Broken heart

WHAT’S GOT TO DO WITH IT:

COURTSHIP IN ANTEBELLUM AMERICA

BY TAYLOR M. GARRISON

Honors Thesis Muhlenberg History Department Dr. Lynda Yankaskas 6 May 2020

Garrison 2

In June of 1826, Edward Dickinson proposed to Emily Norcross via letter. A month later,

Norcross had yet to accept, Dickinson poured out his for her across even more pages.

He wrote: “I am perfectly satisfied in relation to your character & your virtues—and were you as well satisfied that our union would promote our mutual happiness, I would most cheerfully offer you my & hand—will you accept them?”1 No parents had been consulted for input nor had there been any discussion of economic exchange. Instead, Dickinson proposed marital happiness by means of his hand, economic and legal attachment, and his heart, companionship and emotional connection.

In offering Norcross his hand and heart, Dickinson forsook the traditions of the past and embraced the spirit of the American Revolution. Young adults in post-Revolutionary

America exercised semi-independence from their parents.2 There was greater acceptance of young adult’s independent decisions through society-at-large’s push for democratic equality.

Thus, society afforded them the power to make many of their own social choices. The rise of the

Industrial Revolution further supported semi-independence by pushing many young adults to work outside the family home. Despite the growing societal support for young adults’ freedom, many courting Americans depended upon their family for essentials, such as economic support and physical housing. While young adults primarily constructed their own beliefs about courtship and marriage, they were cognizant of their continuing dependence on their families and adjusted their behavior accordingly.

1 Edward Dickson “Letter 13.” July 13, 1826 in A Poet’s Parents: The Courtship Letters of Emily Norcross and Edward Dickinson. Edited by Vivian R. Pollack. (Chapel Hill; University of North Carolina Press, 1988,) 32. 2 Ellen K. Rothman, Hands and : History of Courtship in America (New York: Basic Books Inc, 1984,) 27. Garrison 3

In antebellum America, the pervading social ideology dictated that marriages should be based on romantic love.3 Rooted in the Victorian emphasis on emotion, romantic love suggested that couples enter companionable marriages, or unions based on mutual . The ideology of romantic love contradicts the myth that antebellum marriages were economic arrangements between families. A national romantic consciousness grew out of the shared belief in romantic love. Letters served as the primary vehicle for expressions of romantic love as many couples lived too far away for frequent in-person meetings. Many courting Americans viewed letters as a vital part of their lives; some going as far as to claim writing love letters was “a part of [their] being.”4 Famed novelist Nathaniel Hawthorne described love letters as his “heart’s food.”5

Through their courtship letters and diary entries, couples contended with the socially established norms of love and courtship that imposed ideologies regarding gender, race, class, and sexuality.

The existing scholarship on courtship over-emphasizes middle- to upper-class, white, heterosexual couples. Some historians reference this gap but make little effort to engage with marginalized couples. Historian Steven Seidman remarks, “Same-sex love—men loving men and women loving women—is all too frequently neglected or relegated to a marginal scholarly place.”6 The same critique could be made for Black love. This research aims to engage with a wider range of couples than previous scholarship to examine the effects of the national romantic consciousness.7 Due to the wider scope, this paper defines courtship as an informal contract

3 Ellen K. Rothman, Hands and Hearts: History of Courtship in America, 7; Steven Seidman, Romantic Longings: Love in America, 1830-1980 (New York: Routledge, 1991,) 7; Karen Lystra, Searching the Heart: Women, Men, and Romantic Love in Nineteenth Century America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992,) 28; John D’Emilio and Estelle B. Freedman, Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988,) 42. 4 Karen Lystra, Searching the Heart: Women, Men, and Romantic Love in Nineteenth-Century America, 12. 5 Leland S. Person, "Hawthorne's Love Letters: Writing and Relationship," American Literature 59, no. 2 (1987): 216. 6 Steven Seidman, Romantic Longings: Love in America, 4. 7 Unfortunately, due to a lack of resources and time as an undergraduate student, lower class couples will not be examined in this paper. I believe it is the next important step in the scholarship on courtship. Garrison 4 between two individuals with the goal of long-term partnership.8 Marriage does not factor into this definition simply because it was not an option for many of the couples discussed. White lawmakers deemed marriages between enslaved individuals illegitimate.9 Free Black couples faced aggressive racism which limited their ability to legally marry. This led to the prevalence of

“informal marriage, sacramental marriage, and civil marriage” among free Black couples, especially in the American South.10 Though romantic relationships between two women were colloquially referred to as “Boston marriages,” the United States did not nationally legalize same-sex marriage until 2015.11 Additionally, much of the existing scholarship emphasizes the role of sexual intimacy, especially of same-sex couples, as a means of proving their romantic attraction. My research strives to take historical actors at their word, especially when heterosexual couples are not often placed in such rigorous scrutiny of their romantic pursuits.

The romantic consciousness arose around the time of the American Revolution and

Industrial Revolution. While the semi-independence of young adults allowed them to pursue their romantic interests, it was not the only cause of the proliferation of romantic love. Women’s domestic work during the American Revolution bolstered their social standing, as did increasing educational opportunities. The rise of moral egalitarianism and women’s rights advocacy situated women as agents of choice, rather than objects of economic trades between father and husband.

The Second Great Awakening infused Christianity with the language of emotion and devotion as

8 American society permitted partnerships between two women, even after one or both women married men, under the assumption that she was first and foremost going to remain a wife and mother. Additionally, my research largely focuses on same-sex relationships between two women. For more information on the unique challenges facing male- male relationships, see: Benemann, William. Male-Male Intimacy in Early America: Beyond Romantic . New York: Harrington Park Press, 2006. 9 Tera K. Hunter, Bound in Wedlock: Slave and Free Black Marriage in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2017), 67. 10 Ibid, 119. For information on mixed-race couples and mixed-status Black couples, see Hunter’s full text. 11 Leila J. Rupp, A Desired Past: A Short History of Same-Sex Love in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 1999), 45. Garrison 5 more and more women filled the pews; these women began “[relegating] Christian devotion to the service of earthly love.”12 A combination of these social and political factors provided women with the basis to seek out romantic and companionable marriages that regarded men’s and women’s emotions equally. Edward Dickinson frequently wrote to Emily

Norcross that marriage secured their mutual happiness: “We are, at once, laid under the strongest of earthly obligations to promote the comfort & happiness of each other.”13 Thus, the development of a national romantic consciousness likely furthered women’s social standing even more.14

Romantic love was the key feature of American romantic consciousness. It pervaded the thoughts of all Americans. Violet, an enslaved woman, refused to marry any enslaved man presented to her by her enslaver. Violet informed her enslaver: “I can’t take one ob dem, ‘cause I don’t lub ‘em.”15 While Violet likely had many reasons to refuse a marriage set up by the man who enslaved her, it is striking she described it in the terms of love. Such a comment suggests that the ideology of romantic love was widespread enough for the lack of romantic affections to be used as a valid excuse not to marry, even for enslaved women who were regularly forced to marry for the purpose of increasing profits for the enslaver. Courtship etiquette manuals and newspaper articles of the era aimed to define the term ‘love’ for their readers.16 The definition was two-fold. On one hand, love was a strong emotion between two people. An 1852 etiquette

12 Catherine E. Kelly, “‘Old People Never Believe in Love,’” in In the New England Fashion, Reshaping Women’s Lives in the Nineteenth Century (Cornell University Press, 1999), 143-144. 13 Edward Dickson “Letter 38” April 21, 1827 in A Poet’s Parents: The Courtship Letters of Emily Norcross and Edward Dickinson, 102. 14 Karen Lystra, Searching the Heart: Women, Men, and Romantic Love in Nineteenth-Century America, 228. 15 We Are Your Sisters: Black Women in the Nineteenth Century, Edited by Dorothy Sterling (W.H. Norton & Company, 1997), 34. 16 Bookseller listings of the era frequently contained courtship etiquette manuals. Additionally, Americans frequently read books published in Great Britain. The etiquette books utilized in this research thus serve as examples of what Americans could have read. Garrison 6 manual described love as “the sweetest, gentlest we are capable of…”17 The possibility of love arrived spontaneously, as a “baffling and uncontrollable force.”18 Love was also a process dictated by individual choices. Couples sought to build an distinct from sexual relations. Though was, without a doubt, an important part of courtship and marriage, this research sets that conversation aside as the ideology of romantic love strove to define love as entirely distinct from physical intimacy. An 1853 etiquette manual describes romantic love’s intimacy as deriving from “a bond of attachment between individuals of the different sexes...”19 Antebellum Americans typically described this bond of attachment as the growing connection between souls. In a courtship letter to Sophia Peabody, Nathaniel

Hawthorne wrote, “I used to think I could imagine all passions, all feelings, all states of the heart and mind; but how little did I know what it is to be mingled with another’s being!”20

Hawthorne’s to speak of himself and Peabody in the singular I rather than we in subsequent letters suggest the intense connection arising from romantic love.21 Courtship was the process in which courting couples forged their intimacy and led to the merging of their souls.

Perhaps the “Engagement and Marriage” section of the 1834 edition of Dunbar’s Complete

Handbook of Etiquette best displays the two-part definition of love. The section begins with the declaration that “courtship is one of those crises in the course of life when to act by rule is impossible, and where feeling and good sense will prove one’s best and often only counsellors.”22 Following such a bold declaration is pages upon pages of advice regarding one’s

17 The Etiquette of Courtship and Matrimony: With a Complete Guide to the Forms of a Wedding. George Routledge and Son, 1852, 17. 18 Karen Lystra, Searching the Heart: Women, Men, and Romantic Love in Nineteenth-Century America, 29. 19 A Manual of the Etiquette of Love, Courtship and Marriage. By a Lady, 1853, 4. 20 Leland S. Person, "Hawthorne's Love Letters: Writing and Relationship," 212. 21 Ibid, 214. 22 Dunbar, M. C. Dunbar’s Complete Handbook of Etiquette: Clear and Concise Directions for Correct Manners. (Excelsior Publishing House, 1834,) 175. Garrison 7 actions during courtship and engagement. This juxtaposition proves that while Victorians wanted love to be a natural passion, it was also a process built largely around actions dictated by societal norms.

Etiquette manuals frequently defined love as the natural attraction between men and women. According to A Manual of the Etiquette of Love, Courtship, and Marriage, male and female souls complemented each other through their inherent gender differences. Prominent phrenologist O.S. Fowler described true love as “spiritual affinity of the mental masculine and feminine for each other.”23 Men and women, according to Fowler, were naturally attracted:

“these magnetic natures of the sexes have a strong adaptation, attraction, or affinity for that of the opposite, like the opposite poles of the magnet for each other.”24 Abolitionist and future husband to famous feminist Angelica Grimké, Theodore Dwight Weld agreed, “human nature of both sexes feels in itself a profound want to which, either the love of its own sex or for its own sex does not minister.”25 Weld furthered his point by suggesting the profound want was God- ordained through the sacrament of legal marriage. Despite the existence of same-sex couples, love was defined as a heterosexual emotion and process. Courting same-sex couples recognized this and sometimes adopted heterosexual language in describing their attraction. Sarah Butler

Wister took on a male pseudonym in her love letters to Jeannie Field Musgrove.26 Addie Brown wrote to Rebecca Primus, “What a pleasure it would be to me to address you as My Husband.”27

Just as love was limited by sexuality, it was also drawn upon class lines. In describing the

23 Fowler, O. S. Love and Parentage: Applied to the Improvement of Offspring, Including Important Directions and Suggestions to Lovers and the Married Concerning the Strongest Ties and the Most Momentous Relations of Life, 40th ed. (New York, 1855,) 68. 24 Ibid. 25 Robert K. Nelson, "The Forgetfulness of Sex": Devotion and Desire in the Courtship Letters of Angelina Grimke and Theodore Dwight Weld,” Journal of Social History 37, no. 3 (2004): 669. 26 Leila J. Rupp, A Desired Past: A Short History of Same-Sex Love in America, 43. 27 Ibid, 52. Garrison 8 process in which a young male suitor must observe his partner’s friends, The Etiquette of

Courtship and Matrimony clarified, “we are speaking, of course, of parties belonging to the middle classes of life, as they must always form the majority.”28 This clarification suggests that normative love was distinctly middle class. While sexuality and class lines were distinctly drawn in etiquette books, racial ones were not.

Despite the lack of explicit discussion on the topic in etiquette manuals, race factored prominently into courtship norms. Prominent phrenologists of antebellum America presented lectures on the proper means of courting, including O.S. Fowler. These lectures frequently concluded with body examinations, including those of the skull.29 Fowler, along with his brother

L.N. Fowler, published a personal character reader which allowed individuals to conduct phrenological exams on themselves and possible partners. Phrenologists and other adopters of racial science linked positive traits, such as intelligence in men, directly to whiteness. The

Fowlers’ character reader explains, “coarseness of skin and hair indicate a coarse-grained brain, and coarseness of mind… hence, dark-skinned nations are behind light-haired in all the improvements of age, and the higher finer manifestations of humanity.”30 Phrenologists utilized racial stereotypes to determine who was capable of true love. The explicit and implicit distinctions regarding sexuality, class, and race in courtship norms indicate that love was regulated on more than just behavioral lines. Courtship scholars have largely ignored these aspects to love. This research positions them as vital lenses to the analysis of antebellum

28 The Etiquette of Courtship and Matrimony: With a Complete Guide to the Forms of a Wedding, 27. 29 “Last and the Great Lecture on Courtship and Marriage.” Advertisement. [Boston, MA] J.E. Farwell & Co's Lightning Press, [1854]. American Broadsides and Ephemera, Series 1, no. 23863; "Lecture on Matrimony & Phrenology." Broadside. [Exeter, NH]: C.E. Clark's Press, [1849]. American Broadsides and Ephemera, Series 1, no. 7368. 30 Fowler, Orson Squire and Lorenzo Niles Fowler. The Illustrated Self-Instructor in Phrenology and Physiology: With One Hundred Engravings, and a Chart of the Character. Fowlers and Wells, 1855, 30. Garrison 9 courtship norms. Not only is it important to interpret marginalized couples through the language and social structures of their time, but the sexuality, class, and race based definitions of love exhibit that normative love was an act of asserting one’s status as middle-class, heterosexual, and white.

Etiquette manuals mapped out the societally acceptable process of courtship, from the first glance across a room to standing at the altar. Book sellers across the United States sold etiquette manuals. Though it is likely many Americans read these manuals, this research does not assume everyone had the same access to etiquette texts. The American public also gained knowledge of courtship norms through other forms of media, such as novels and word of mouth.

Verbal transmission of norms was especially likely for enslaved individuals in the American

South.31 Instead, etiquette books function in this research as written accounts of the collective norms in the American antebellum period; they convey the ideals of Victorian life. As described by one manual, “[etiquette practices] all have a significance, and some of them a deep purpose.”32 Etiquette manuals, along with phrenological lectures and breach of marriage promise court cases, detail the supposed proper steps to courtship and warn against possible errors in judgment. A common refrain among etiquette texts was that courtship was a serious practice. An

1859 Nebraska Advertiser article reminds readers that “however delightful it may be, courtship is, nevertheless, a serious business.”33 The article goes on to say that, “kindled hope requires watching.”34 An etiquette manual warns that “When love is thus regarded, when its potent

31 Both American and African courtship ideals influenced enslaved couples. While the African norms do not fit the scope of this paper, it is important to note their existence. For more information, see: West, Emily. “Courtship and Marriage.” In Chains of Love: Slave Couples in Antebellum South Carolina. University of Illinois Press, 2004, 20- 26. 32 The Etiquette of Courtship and Matrimony: With a Complete Guide to the Forms of a Wedding, 5. 33 “Courtship.” The Nebraska Advertiser (Brownville, Nebraska Territory). May 26, 1859. Chronicling America: American Historical Newspapers. 34 Ibid. Garrison 10 influence is admitted, when we think of the weighty responsibilities to which it gives rise, the subject demands our earnest and serious attention.”35 These cautionary warnings, along with the belief that courtship practices possess cultural significance, suggests that diversions from the prescribed courtship path could result in an unsatisfactory courtship or its quick demise.

Courtship etiquette manuals dedicate numerous pages detailing the deviants from courtship norms. Etiquette manuals believed both men and women could be deviants if they unduly flirted. Gallants, a term reserved for men, engaged “the affections of the opposite sex,” to achieve “his glory to be considered a lady killer…”36 According to the ideology of romantic love, gallants deceived “the loving heart of woman.”37 Another common term for gallants was

‘seducers.’ Breach of marriage promise cases, which littered antebellum newspapers, often attributed gallant behavior as the primary cause of a failed courtship. The Hampden Patriot, a

Massachusetts newspaper, republished a breach of marriage promise case from New York in which a jury found Harry Newell “guilty of the baseness of... the crime of seduction” and fined three-thousand dollars.38 After a brief summary of the case, the newspaper lamented, “Money is a poor substitute for a contented mind—a miserable balsam to pour into a broken heart.”39 Men’s deviant actions caused irreparable harm to those they courted. The term coquette described women who “studiously excite the feeling of love without meaning to gratify it.”40 Coquettes were also referred to as ‘jilts.’ The Philadelphia Inquirer details a series of breach of marriage promise suits all levied by the same woman, Tabitha Turnsole. According to the newspaper,

35 A Manual of the Etiquette of Love, Courtship and Marriage. By a Lady, 7. 36 A Manual of the Etiquette of Love, Courtship and Marriage. By a Lady, 48. 37 Ibid. 38 Hampden Patriot (Springfield, Massachusetts) III, no. 33, August 15, 1821: [2]. Readex: America's Historical Newspapers. 39 Ibid. 40A Manual of the Etiquette of Love, Courtship and Marriage. By a Lady, 43. Garrison 11

Turnsole “acts the coquette to perfection—she puts in requisition all her ogles and smiles,” and purposefully abandoned the men she courted to extract money from them in false breach of marriage promise suits. Despite the existence of the gendered terms gallant and coquette,

American society regarded them as equally distasteful; both are described by an 1853 etiquette manual as banes to society.41 Of the discussed norms in this paper, derision of gallants and coquettes remains unchallenged. People described in such terms appear in courtship letters as examples of what can go wrong in courtships. In a letter sent to Emily Norcross as she embarked on a trip to New York, Edward Dickinson warned her, “beware of the seducing arts of base men—let us watch again the intrigues of those whose flatteries serve only as a cloak to complete their direst purposes.”42 The threat of gallants and coquettes merged with fears surrounding black sexuality. Prevailing racist ideology suggested that Black men and women were “incapable of experiencing and expressing emotions such as love for one another in the context of an intimate relationship.”43 Instead of love, the ideology continues, Black individuals acted solely on sexual impulses; black women were thus inherent coquettes referred to as jezebels, a term used exclusively for Black women.44 Thus, any discussion of courtship deviance must consider the implicit racial ideologies imbedded within.

Etiquette manuals frequently mapped out the entire desired path of a courtship. Couples in antebellum America met in various ways, from everyday social outings such as attending church and shopping to mutual friends. Etiquette manuals stressed the importance of a proper first meeting. Ideally, the introduction would be conducted by mutual friends or the family of the

41 Ibid, 43-57. 42 Edward Dickinson, “Letter 41,” May 27, 1827 in A Poet’s Parents: The Courtship Letters of Emily Norcross and Edward Dickinson, 111. 43 Rebecca J Fraser, Courtship and Love among the Enslaved in North Carolina, (University Press of Mississippi, 2007), 30. 44 Ibid, 24. Garrison 12 courting woman, though a man could independently seek a woman’s attention if he paid careful attention not to compromise her.45 The next step of courtship involved presenting one’s worth to the family of the possible partner.46 While many of the courting couples included in this research met through mutual acquaintances, rarely did they begin their relationships so formally.

Antebellum couples also rebuked the idea of demonstrating worth to anyone but the person they were courting. Though etiquette manuals warned against the folly of ‘’ which was a mere “fleeting passion,” couples described their emotions through the language of love at first sight.47 In a letter to Susan Huntington, Emily Dickinson reflected on their first meeting, writing, “I love you as dearly, Susie, as when love first began, on the step at the front door...”48

John Miller described his love of Sally McDowell similarly. He believed he never had a choice in loving her, but upon meeting her, he was “under the force of my passions.”49 The moment

Lydia Richards grabbed Bryant’s hand, Bryant knew she was in love. In fact, the moment remained important to Bryant for the rest of her life as evidenced by her diary writings.50 Despite the acceptance of love at first sight and thus a belief in love as an overwhelming passion, these couples till engaged in courtships that tested and challenged the existence of that initial feeling of love.

The prevailing Victorian gender ideology shaped most aspects of normative courtship.

Antebellum America was split into two gendered spheres. According to separate spheres

45 The Etiquette of Courtship and Matrimony: With a Complete Guide to the Forms of a Wedding, 23. 46 Ibid, 24. 47 A Manual of the Etiquette of Love, Courtship and Marriage. By a Lady, 14. 48 Emily Dickinson. “Letter 20,” in Open Me Carefully, Edited by Ellen Louise Hard and Martha Nell Smith. (Ashfield, Massachusetts: Paris Press, 1998), 54. 49 John Miller and Sally McDowell. If You Love That Lady, Don’t Marry Her: The Courtship Letters of Sally McDowell and John Miller, 1854-1856, Edited by Thomas E. Buckley. (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2000), 33. 50 Rachel Hope Cleves, Charity and Sylvia: A Same-Sex Marriage in Early America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 77. Garrison 13 ideology, men occupy the public sphere as they labor outside the home and women control the private sphere through domestic labor. While most Americans accepted separate spheres as a natural division created by inherent gender difference, it was a construction of the dominating social groups. For white, middle-class heterosexual couples, courtship was the bridge between those distinct spheres. Edward Dickinson reminded Emily Norcross that they were “under the weight of great responsibilities” which included “to be active & untiring in all the duties of our respective spheres.”51 The ideology of separate spheres pervaded the gender expectations of courtship. Though etiquette manual authors marketed their texts as suitable reading for men and women, they delineated advice on strict gender lines. These gendered sections posited heterosexual couples as a norm. ‘What should be sought in a lover by the lady’ provides advice solely on traits women should seek in men; the same heterosexual organizing exists in the ‘what should be sought in a lover by the gentleman.’ Important traits to be sought in men were intelligence, fixed principles, courtesy, good nature, industry, and strict morality.52 Women were to be assessed on intelligence, their gentle spirit, and love of home.53 As previously established, phrenologist texts, such as the Fowler Brother’s character reader, linked positive courtship traits to whiteness. Certainly, few Americans derived their understandings of these traits solely through phrenological means; however, the overlap is worth acknowledging. In fact, many

Americans in the antebellum period sought to create their own definitions of these terms based on the actions of their romantic partners.

Courtship letters, as the primary means of communication between courting individuals, were rife with discussions of one’s positive traits as well as affirmations of such characteristics

51 Edward Dickinson, “Letter 33,” February 21, 1827 in A Poet’s Parents: The Courtship Letters of Emily Norcross and Edward Dickinson, 92. 52 A Manual of the Etiquette of Love, Courtship and Marriage. By a Lady, 16-24. 53 Ibid, 25-29. Garrison 14 by their partner. Edward Dickinson and Emily Norcross regularly exchanged commentary on the positive traits they believed the other to possess. Dickinson repeatedly commented on Norcross’s virtues. Early in their courtship, he wrote, “our last interview... led me to a satisfactory conclusion respecting your qualifications, & convinced me that you possessed virtues calculated to render yourself & your friends happy.”54 Later, Dickinson describes such virtues as “all which adorn & dignify & elevate the female character."55 Norcross commended Dickinson’s positive attributes as a patient man.56 While Dickinson and Norcross largely followed the etiquette manuals’ advice on assessing the positive traits of courting men and women, other couples deviated. Etiquette manuals warned against comments on beauty or . As one manual wrote, “As to personal beauty, this is not essential for true love.”57 Manuals reminded courting Americans not to be ensnared by someone who possessed beauty but no other positive characteristics. Another manual republished the witticism: “You do not catch us by mere beauteous look, ‘Tis but the bait, floating without the hook.”58 Furthermore, obsession with receiving compliments on one’s physical attractiveness was the mark of a deviant, especially of coquettes.59 Despite etiquette manuals’ distaste for courtships based in physical attractiveness, discussions of beauty, or the lack thereof, occurred in many courtship letters. John Miller wrote a brief letter listing every reason he loved Sally McDowell. Miller writes of McDowell’s

“intellect... beauty... & graceful goodness.”60 Later in their courtship, Miller asks quite bluntly,

54 Edward Dickinson, “Letter 8,” June 4, 1826 in A Poet’s Parents: The Courtship Letters of Emily Norcross and Edward Dickinson, 18. 55 Edward Dickinson, “Letter 28,” December 18, 1826 in A Poet’s Parents: The Courtship Letters of Emily Norcross and Edward Dickinson, 63. 56 Emily Norcross, “Letter 59, “October 22, 1827 in A Poet’s Parents: The Courtship Letters of Emily Norcross and Edward Dickinson, 145. 57 A Manual of the Etiquette of Love, Courtship and Marriage. By a Lady, 23. 58 The Etiquette of Courtship and Matrimony: With a Complete Guide to the Forms of a Wedding, 21. 59 A Manual of the Etiquette of Love, Courtship and Marriage. By a Lady, 64. 60 John Miller, If You Love That Lady, Don’t Marry Her: The Courtship Letters of Sally McDowell and John Miller, 1854-1856, 112. Garrison 15

“Are you fat? You know you told me at Halifax you were thinner than you had been for a long time. Be particular to tell me how you look.”61 Interestingly, same-sex couples discussed beauty even more regularly. Emily Dickinson employed the metaphors of jewels and flowers to describe

Susan Huntington’s beauty. Charity Bryant spent considerable page space describing Lydia

Richards’ looks. Reflecting on her meeting with Richards, Bryant wrote of her “healthful form,” the blush of her cheeks like “the rose and lilly met,” and her kind eyes that showed the “softest affections.”62 Perhaps such conversations of beauty frequented the letters of same-sex female couples because they, both being women, could more easily discern the normative admirable traits in women. Typically, they did not need to devote page space to matters which filled heterosexual courtship letters, like financial arrangements and shared home planning. Courting couples utilized letters to negotiate the meanings of positive traits upheld by etiquette manuals as well as discussed, traits like beauty, which they found personally important.

Etiquette manuals warned women against testing their partner’s love. An 1853 manual contended a lady must “never test [her partner’s] affections by any such means; it may exhibit your power over him.”63 According to the norms of courtship, women should believe their suitor’s affections to be honest; after all, he was the one pursuing her! In response to actions

Edward Dickinson deemed to be courtship testing, he wrote to Emily Norcross, “I hope that you will soon be less disposed to try experiments upon my faithfulness.”64 Despite warnings, women frequently engaged in courtship testing. In fact, historian Karen Lystra argues that courtship testing “sharpened individual self-definition and intensified the intimate sharing known as

61 Ibid, 665. 62 Rachel Hope Cleves, Charity and Sylvia: A Same-Sex Marriage in Early America, 77. 63 A Manual of the Etiquette of Love, Courtship and Marriage. By a Lady, 41. 64 Edward Dickinson, “Letter 89,” March 27, 1828 in A Poet’s Parents: The Courtship Letters of Emily Norcross and Edward Dickinson, 200. Garrison 16 romantic love.”65 Thus, the act of testing one’s love was a means of forming it. In a letter to John

Miller, Sally McDowell wrote, “You ask me all sorts of questions: now I shall ask you one. What is it that you see in me to love?”66 McDowell’s provoking worked; Miller’s response included two declarations of his love as well as his rationale for loving her.67 Requesting explanations of one’s love appeared fairly regularly amongst heterosexual couples, and often coincided with self- criticism. In a courtship letter to Albert Janin, Violet Blair wrote, “...I advise you to let me off, I hate to see any one I am so fond of trying to make himself unhappy for life...”68 Though courtship testing was a regular practice, Janin dramatically replied that he would commit suicide if their courtship ended. Women could only accept courtship proposals while men could, in theory, pursue anyone he wished. Additionally, antebellum women possessed little to no options for recourse against bad husbands. Thus, courting women had to be confident in their courtships before accepting a marriage proposal. Though differing in intensity, courting women frequently tested the love of their partners to ensure the success of their future marriages.

Same-sex couples courtship tested as well. Years into their courtship, Jeannie Field

Musgrove requested Sarah Butler Wister, “...tell me in your next letter, to assure me, that I am your dearest... So just fill a quarter page with caresses & expressions of endearment.”69 Perhaps such a request was provoked by the women marrying men and thus spending more time physically apart. Many of Emily Dickinson’s requests for Susan Huntington to affirm her affections coincides with Dickinson’s anger that her brother, Huntington’s future husband, could

65 Karen Lystra, Searching the Heart: Women, Men, and Romantic Love in Nineteenth-Century America, 159. 66 Sally McDowell, If You Love That Lady, Don’t Marry Her: The Courtship Letters of Sally McDowell and John Miller, 1854-1856, 107. 67 John Miller, If You Love That Lady, Don’t Marry Her: The Courtship Letters of Sally McDowell and John Miller, 1854-1856, 112. 68 Karen Lystra, Searching the Heart: Women, Men, and Romantic Love in Nineteenth-Century America, 169. 69 Leila J. Rupp, A Desired Past: A Short History of Same-Sex Love in America, 44. Garrison 17 see Huntington whenever he pleased, as well as Huntington’s infrequent return correspondences.

Dickinson wrote, “Why dont you write me, Darling? Did I in that quick letter say anything which grieved you, or made it hard for you to take your usual pen and trace affection for you bad, sad

Emilie?”70 Unlike their white, heterosexual contemporaries, women engaged in same-sex courtships could not legally affirm their affections through marriage. Thus, their continued courtship testing reflects a desire to maintain a vibrant, affectionate courtship despite legal marriage restrictions and social pressures to marry men.

In heterosexual relationships, men chose whomever they wanted to court while women could only accept courtships from the men who chose her. Thus, men’s affections were often the impetus to courtships while women’s love evolved over time. Though historian Karen Lystra contends that courting men tested “less intensely and less resolutely than women,” men frequently tested their partner’s love. Early in their courtship, John Miller wrote an entire letter to Sally McDowell requesting affirmations of her love. Miller asked, “Could you love me so much that if the world turned against us, & we were obliged to live alone, given up by the society you could live entirely in me?”71 He expands upon this question, asking if McDowell could love him more than anything or anyone else, including her children. Miller, regarding his own affections, wrote, “You & my books & my mother & my little children would make me satisfied as a king... & if all the four were stripped away from me—except you I could live in you a way of absorbed devotion & affection I can hardly describe.”72 Edward Dickinson tested

Emily Norcross’s love throughout their courtship, first regarding their engagement and later the date of their marriage. Norcross’s hesitancy regarding both topics urged Dickinson to request

70 Emily Dickinson, “Letter 14,” in Open Me Carefully, 42. 71 John Miller, If You Love That Lady, Don’t Marry Her: The Courtship Letters of Sally McDowell and John Miller, 1854-1856, 87. 72 Ibid. Garrison 18

Norcross express her romantic affections clearly in her letters. After Dickinson openly expressed his love with no returned passion from Norcross, he wrote to her, “As it has been some weeks since our last interview, & I have not recd. any communication from you, I shall not longer lose the pleasure of writing... but send my third epistle... & proceed in the full assurance of meeting a reciprocation of my sentiments...”73 As their courtship progressed, Dickinson’s testing became more concerned with Norcross’s inability to agree with Dickinson on their marriage date. At the end of a letter filled with anger over Norcross’s refusal to visit, Dickinson concluded, “Don’t

‘give me the slip.’”74 Dickinson, utilizing what editor Vivian R. Pollack described as a “idle threat,” questioned Norcross’s devotion, whether he would have acted on such a threat or not.

Men’s courtship testing required the women they courted to confirm their all-encompassing love as any diversion from the man’s desired path of courtship could be viewed as a lack of the women’s affection.

A different courtship norm pushed against the open declaration of romantic love and affections so frequently requested by courtship testing. Etiquette manuals of the era widely expressed caution against speaking too freely in courtship letters; the reasons against doing so were highly gendered. Manuals warned men against openly expressing their emotions; etiquette manuals explained that women assume the “pleasure of tyrannizing” him through controlling his known emotions.75 Other manuals emphasized discretion in correspondence as to not risk his declarations of devotion being used against him in breach of marriage promise court cases.76

73 Edward Dickinson. “Letter 3.” April 3, 1826 in A Poet’s Parents: The Courtship Letters of Emily Norcross and Edward Dickinson, 7. 74 Edward Dickinson. “Letter 78.” February 5, 1828 in A Poet’s Parents: The Courtship Letters of Emily Norcross and Edward Dickinson, 184. 75 Philip Dormer Stanhope Earl of Chesterfield. Encyclopedia of Manners and Etiquette, Comprising Chesterfield’s Advice to His Son ... And, The Young Man’s Own Book, Etc., 1850, 235. 76 A Manual of the Etiquette of Love, Courtship and Marriage. By a Lady, 43. Garrison 19

Despite these warnings, courting men frequently detailed love and affections in their correspondences. In one of his first letters to Sally McDowell, John Miller openly expressed his emotions: “I cannot help loving you. I acted from a sense of honor in telling you at once.”77 At the time of Miller’s confession, McDowell had given no sign of interest, thus putting him at risk for great embarrassment or, as the manuals warn, tyranny by McDowell over Miller’s affections.

Edward Dickinson confessed his emotions to Emily Norcross equally as early as Miller. In his first letter to Norcross, Dickinson wrote, “when I say, that from our short interviews, I imbibed an attachment for you, which I shall continue to cherish.”78 Dickinson would continue throughout their courtship to express his deep love of Norcross. The willingness of courting men to express their affection so openly for the women they courted suggests that they did not possess a strong fear of breach of marriage promise suits. This is in strong contrast to the prevalence of cases appearing in etiquette manuals and newspaper articles of the era. Historian Karen Lystra notes these intense expressions of emotion challenge the notion that nineteenth century men were

“less emotional or less forthcoming.”79 Lystra draws the conclusion that historians have misunderstand Victorian gender norms; she writes “the evidence indicates the middle to upper- middle class masculine role performance did not require men to be emotionally controlled...”.80

Lystra is correct; of the examined love letters, men regularly spoke freely about their emotions.

However, an examination of courtship etiquette manuals suggests that the norm did exist, primarily as a means of protecting them from the consequences of a failed courtship. Courting women in heterosexual relationships expressed love more hesitantly. Emily Norcross confesses

77 John Miller and Sally McDowell. If You Love That Lady, Don’t Marry Her: The Courtship Letters of Sally McDowell and John Miller, 1854-1856, 3. 78 Edward Dickinson. “Letter 1.” February 8, 1826 in A Poet’s Parents: The Courtship Letters of Emily Norcross and Edward Dickinson, 3. 79 Karen Lystra, Searching the Heart: Women, Men, and Romantic Love in Nineteenth-Century America, 20. 80 Ibid. Garrison 20 her love to Edward Dickinson approximately six months after Dickson’s first mention of his affections. Sally McDowell frequently reminded John Miller that she “cannot recede from her sentiments and determination expressed in [her former] letter.” She believed she could not reciprocate affections, or as McDowell put it “I would treat in kindness and due deference your feelings and opinions, however widely they may differ from, or however strongly they may come athwart my own.”81 Miller frustrated by McDowell’s refusal to express her affections months into their courtship, wrote “I don’t know how you feel, for you are very shy yet in telling me of your love.”82 Unlike the hesitancy shared by women engaged in courtships with men, women courting women quickly and frequently shared their affections. While some used explicit means, simply saying they possessed strong affections for each other, many same-sex couples instead turned to copying down the words of others or sending along some of their own creative writing.

When courting couples’ own prose fell short in expressing their love, courting couples turned to sharing the words of others. Many engaged in romantic readership, or the exchange of

“books, poetry, newspapers, and… personal journals.”83 Romantic readership sought to bring the couple closer together through a mutual language, one that may be able to express something that was impossible to capture in a single letter. This does not mean, however, that such readership was only of emotional texts. Courting couples shared a wide range of written texts ranging from newspaper clippings of political speeches to various novels they enjoyed. Women who desired a literary and intellectually equal courtship sought out partners who shared their love of learning.

81 Sally McDowell, If You Love That Lady, Don’t Marry Her: The Courtship Letters of Sally McDowell and John Miller, 1854-1856, 5. 82 John Miller, If You Love That Lady, Don’t Marry Her: The Courtship Letters of Sally McDowell and John Miller, 1854-1856, 199. 83 Lucia McMahon, “‘We Would Share Equally’: Gender, Education, and in the Journal of Rachel Van Dyke,” In To Read My Heart: The Journal of Rachel Van Dyke, 1810-1811, 310. Garrison 21

Rachel Van Dyke entered into a courtship with her Latin teacher, Ebenezer Grosvenor.84 Given his role, Grosvenor had personal experience with Van Dyke’s dedication to education. Regarding

Grosvenor, Van Dyke liked that he had a “certain respect which is to me very pleasing… he is different from the generality of young men.”85 What set Grosvenor apart was his ability to have intellectual conversations with Van Dyke “as if we are conversable beings, blessed with abilities to reflect and acquire knowledge as well [as men].”86 Van Dyke and Grosvenor engaged in an active romantic readership, including reading each other’s private journals. Grosvenor brought books that she discussed wanting to read in her journal, such as the treatise The Education of

Daughters.87

Courtships between two women prominently involved the practice of romantic readership, especially of original poetry. Addie Brown utilized Grace Aguilar’s Women’s

Friendships to conceptualize her affections for Rebecca Primus. Juxtaposed against the presented in Aguilar’s book, Brown informed Primus, “you have been more to me than a friend or sister.”88 Perhaps unsurprisingly, lauded nineteenth century poet Emily

Dickinson engaged in an active romantic readership with Susan Huntington.89 Dickinson’s letters to Huntington teemed with references to literary works, including mutually enjoyed texts and others that Dickinson believed Huntington should read next. Dickinson referenced great romantic works, such as The Golden Legend by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow and Reveries of a Bachelor

84 Van Dyke and Grosvenor never marry, yet their close, intimate relationship can certainly be read a courtship. I follow the scholarship of McMahon and Schriver in my reading of their relationship as romantic. 85 Rachel Van Dyke, “Book Five: July 17, 1810” in To Read My Heart: The Journal of Rachel Van Dyke, 1810- 1811. Edited by Lucia McMahon and Deborah Schriver. (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000), 81. 86 Ibid. 87 Ibid, 86. 88 Leila J. Rupp, A Desired Past: A Short History of Same-Sex Love in America, 51. 89 I refer to Susan by her maiden name mostly for ease of reading. Additionally, she did not marry Austin Dickinson, Emily’s brother, until 1856. Garrison 22 by Donald G. Mitchell.90 Allusions were also made to works by Charles Dickens, Dinah Maria

Clark, and many other great authors of the era.91 Unlike any of the heterosexual couples analyzed in this research, Dickinson and Huntington engaged in a poetic back and forth. In March of 1853,

Dickinson sent her first ever poem-letter to Huntington.92 Though Huntington’s letters are unavailable, it is believed that following that initial letter-poem, the courting couple began regularly writing poems to each other.93 These letter-poems ranged from lyric descriptions of

Dickinson’s daily life to rough drafts of now-famous poems. English scholars note that the words

“Sue” or “Susie” were frequently erased from the text of Dickinson’s letter-poems, though they do not attribute the action to any particular hand.94 The content of Dickinson’s letter-poems to

Huntington ranged from playfully romantic to erotic. Early in their courtship, Dickinson wrote:

Her breast is fit for pearls. But I was not a ‘Diver’ – Her brow is fit for thrones But I have no a crest, Her heart is fit for home – I – a Sparrow – build there Sweet of twigs and twine My perennial nest.95 The combination of romantic and erotic language in Dickinson’s poem is unmistakable. In fact, letter-poems between same-sex female couples often featured mentions of breasts. Historian

Rachel Hopes Cleves notes that courting couples employed discussion of breasts as a more

“polite means… to describe their other sexual longings, and it was understood that embracing a lover to one’s breast led to further demonstrations of ardor.”96 Lydia Richards’ acrostic poem for

90 Ellen Louise Hart and Martha Nell Smith, Open Me Carefully, 10. 91 Ibid, 23. 92 Emily Dickinson. “Letter 15,” in Open Me Carefully, 44. 93 Ellen Louise Hart and Martha Nell Smith, Open Me Carefully, 70. 94 Ellen Louise Hart and Martha Nell Smith, Open Me Carefully, 77 and 91. 95 Emily Dickinson. “Letter 50,” in Open Me Carefully, 91. 96 Rachel Hope Cleves, Charity and Sylvia: A Same-Sex Marriage in Early America, 80. Garrison 23

Charity Bryant contained the line, “Each tumult of the breast is hush’d to peace.”97 Near the end of their romantic relationship, Richards copied the following line from the seduction novel

Charlotte Temple onto a letter for Bryant: “weary breast / can never peace nor comfort find / Or friend where on to rest.”98 It appears poetry provided female same-sex couples with more freedom of expression regarding romantic emotions than traditional letter writing; metaphor and symbol shielded them from social scrutiny. In her final prose letter to Bryant, Richards “chose her words carefully” and reminded Bryant “burn this if you please as soon as read.”99 Therefore, romantic readership, particularly between two women, allowed for more freedom of emotional expression.

Intelligence was a highly gendered trait emphasized by courtship etiquette, as well as the racialized components previously discussed. Etiquette manuals reminded readers that intelligence was required for men to love: “Want of intelligence can never command respect; where there is no respect there can be no esteem, and without esteem love cannot exist.”100 In fact, courtship manuals cited intelligence as the most important trait in a potential male partner; men were given no limits to their intelligence as long as they do not become a ‘genius,’ or eccentric person. Women’s intelligence was also highly desired. Intelligence, an 1853 manual reasons, was the only means through which a woman could acquire “estimable love.”101 An 1852 manual relays the story of a man “who was cured of an indiscreet attachment, what would otherwise have ended in a ruinous and ill-assorted marriage.” The antidote for this man’s ill- informed courtship? His partner’s “uncouth and barbarous spelling!”102 In marginalia of a love

97 Ibid, 84. 98 Ibid, 88. 99 Ibid, 89. 100 A Manual of the Etiquette of Love, Courtship and Marriage. By a Lady, 17. 101 Ibid, 26. 102 The Etiquette of Courtship and Matrimony: With a Complete Guide to the Forms of a Wedding, 40-41. Garrison 24 letter to Sally McDowell, John Miller noted the spelling errors in her previous letter: “You say

‘schold’ for scold & that certainly looks righter than the other. You say cretanism for cretinism.”103 While Miller gently corrected McDowell, it is clear such mistakes displeased him.

He concluded the letter, “Don’t you write your letters this way. I don’t like scrappy letters.”104

While American society increasingly accepted women’s education through the larger democratic influence of the era, the same influence that asserted their right to pick a marriage partner, gender norms prevailed. As one etiquette manual put it, courting men “want love, not vast intellectual views.”105 Thus, as historian Lucia McMahon argues, women had to maintain a delicate balance between being so uneducated that she may by labeled a coquette or so overeducated that she could be referred to as a pedant.106 It is particularly interesting that the courtship-based term coquette is employed to describe undereducated women. This suggests that the risk of being under or overeducated was most severe when engaging in a courtship; education, or the lack thereof, could result in a failed relationship.

The courtship letters between Emily Norcross and Edward Dickinson display the tensions between wanting an educated wife and one who sought broad intelligence endeavors.

Throughout their courtship, Dickinson frequently discussed the role of women’s education. He explained to Norcross, “we ought to be careful to direct [women] to the pursuit of proper studies—those which will fit them in the Stations in which they have been placed.”107 Dickinson

103 John Miller, If You Love That Lady, Don’t Marry Her: The Courtship Letters of Sally McDowell and John Miller, 1854-1856, 665. 104 Ibid, 666. 105 A Manual of the Etiquette of Love, Courtship and Marriage. By a Lady, 26. 106 Lucia McMahon, “‘We Would Share Equally’: Gender, Education, and Romance in the Journal of Rachel Van Dyke.” In To Read My Heart: The Journal of Rachel Van Dyke, 1810-1811, 312. 107 Edward Dickinson, “Letter 22,” October 22, 1826 in A Poet’s Parents: The Courtship Letters of Emily Norcross and Edward Dickinson, 48. Garrison 25 openly criticized Norcross’s intellectual pursuits on multiple occasions. Just months before their marriage, Dickinson wrote:

Let us examine a little—Singing School—Chemical Lectures—Historical Lectures— Bible Class—Concerts—Missionary, Charitable & Female Bible Associations—Cent & Tract Society…while I think that all these combined will not produce so much solid good as a much less number…108 A month prior to this complaint, Dickinson had openly expressed his distaste for the number of societies Norcross partook in.109 Despite these criticisms, Dickinson assented to Norcross and allowed her to continue whatever studies she pleased; he preferred her happiness over upholding a norm. In fact, Dickinson often sent reading materials along with his emotion-filled courtship letters that he intended Norcross to read and discuss with him upon their next in-person meeting.

Such reading materials range from his own political writings on education, orations on American politics, and novels written by female authors, such as The Rebels by Lydia Maria Child.

Despite highly gendered norms, romantic love ideology insisted courtships produced companionable marriages. Thus, antebellum Americans perceived romantic love as a more democratic, egalitarian basis for marriage than older methods which emphasized economic exchange between families. Courtship, the ideology follows, was the time in which couples actively built “mutuality, commonality, and sympathy.”110 Given the emphasis on equality of the emotions and affections of both parties in heterosexual relationships, one might assume that romantic love courtships were less patriarchal than those of previous centuries. Courtship letters reveal couple’s, though particularly courting men’s, to enter marriages with traditional gender roles. Courting men’s marriage fantasies emphasized the woman’s choice in marrying

108 Edward Dickinson, “Letter 74,” January 27, 1828 in A Poet’s Parents: The Courtship Letters of Emily Norcross and Edward Dickinson, 177. 109 Edward Dickinson, “Letter 67,” December 19, 1827 in A Poet’s Parents: The Courtship Letters of Emily Norcross and Edward Dickinson, 162. 110 Ellen K. Rothman, Hands and Hearts: History of Courtship in America, 107. Garrison 26 him, and thus, consenting to coverture.111 Edward Dickinson frequently informed Emily

Norcross that he looked forward to becoming her “Guardian & protector.”112 Marriage based on their mutual romantic love ensured Emily consented to coverture. Dickinson wrote, “Are you satisfied, after a more particular acquaintance with me, & an opportunity to learn my character, at home & abroad, to place yourself under my guardianship for life?”113 Dickinson emphasized his role as Norcross’ guardian. Norcross’s marriage fantasy involved her pledge to follow

Dickinson’s wishes. After angering Dickinson by delaying their marriage date, Norcross assured him, “dear Edward I think your sentiments are correct, and I would hope not to deviate from them should I become subject to your authority.” 114 While Dickinson desired to place Norcross under his guardianship, John Miller’s marriage fantasy involved Sally McDowell’s full compliance, all while emphasizing McDowell’s benefits from submitting to coverture. Miller penned, “I have the most murderous ideas about your free will. I would like to kill it...”.115 He clarified, “And recollect, a woman... is a good deal like an ivy never quite herself till she has some old dumb wall to lean upon & beautify.”116 Through submitting to Miller’s control, he promised McDowell’s problems would be eliminated “the moment she throws her around the poor wall.”117 Miller’s desire to control McDowell was part of his larger effort to ensure her

111 Upon marriage, legal authority and property ownership shifted from a woman to her husband. Coverture was supported by United States’ law throughout the entire antebellum period. 112 Edward Dickinson, “Letter 36,” March 7, 1827 in A Poet’s Parents: The Courtship Letters of Emily Norcross and Edward Dickinson, 97. 113 Edward Dickinson, “Letter 83,” March 2, 1828 in A Poet’s Parents: The Courtship Letters of Emily Norcross and Edward Dickinson, 190. 114 Emily Norcross, “Letter 77,” February 5, 1828 in A Poet’s Parents: The Courtship Letters of Emily Norcross and Edward Dickinson, 182. 115 John Miller, If You Love That Lady, Don’t Marry Her: The Courtship Letters of Sally McDowell and John Miller, 1854-1856, 215. 116 Ibid. 117 Ibid. Garrison 27 romantic love; the ivy metaphor appeared in a letter urging McDowell to move up their wedding date.

It appears McDowell was convinced by Miller’s presentation of romantic coverture.

During their courtship, McDowell experienced financial hardships, and thus a promise of her problems disappearing under her husband’s authority enticed her. Specially, Miller’s offer to manage the estate left by her late husband pleased McDowell.118 McDowell believed Miller’s desire to control her finances was “genuine romance” compared to the “airy nothings” of other means of declaring one’s love. McDowell clarified, “Whether it be the real romantic, or just the practical real, it is all the same to me...”.119 While Miller and McDowell serve as an example of the transformation of coverture into a consensual act under romantic love, the courtship letters of

Angelica Grimké and Theodore Dwight Weld display the possible de-sexing in romantic love.

Grimké, along with her equally as influential feminist sister Sarah, critiqued the gender roles that permeated romantic love. Sarah Grimké argued that only after a man disregarded the “idea of

[his partner] being a female” could they be spiritual partners, or intertwined souls.120 Weld proposed Angelica Grimké with a companionable marriage forged in egalitarianism. Throughout their courtship, they discussed how such a marriage would function.121 Grimké emphasized the importance of mental and spiritual love: “Yes, true love does not, cannot originate in the difference of sex, and this idea is a disturbing force which the mind instinctively repels... the union of heart and mind and soul. This is marriage.122 Weld agreed. He believed in equality of

118 Ibid, 545. 119 Ibid, 666. 120 Robert K. Nelson, "The Forgetfulness of Sex": Devotion and Desire in the Courtship Letters of Angelina Grimke and Theodore Dwight Weld,” 664. 121 Ibid, 665. 122 Angelica Grimké, Letters of Theodore Dwight Weld, Angelica Grimké Weld, and Sarah Grimké 1822-1844, Edited by Gilbert H. Barnes and Dwight L. Dumond (Gloucester, MA.: American Historical Association, 1965), 588. Garrison 28 their souls. Regarding his attraction to Grimké, he wrote, “I forgot utterly that you were not of my own sex. The Spirit, the Spirit, not a brother nor a Sister spirit but unimbodied spirit with none of the associations or incidents of the physical nature...”.123 Not only does Weld constructed his love as primarily mental, or more exactly spiritual, he also alluded to the intense nature of his relationship with another man, Charles Stuart. Weld and Grimké maintained passionate relationships with members of their own sex in which they modeled their own heterosexual courtship and conveyed their sexless love for each other.124 According to Weld, their egalitarian courtship was the ultimate manifestation of human love. Grimké and Weld’s courtship proves antebellum relationships, if both parties shared the same egalitarian ideologies, could engage in more equitable courtships and marriages than their predecessors.

According to the ideology of romantic love, parents possessed little to no influence over their child’s choice of partner. Historian Karen Lystra agues, “Parents bowed out, not just because the family became less of an economically productive unit in an industrializing economy, but because acceptance of ideas and values of love and the self gave them no basis to act upon—except as advisors and manipulators of the pool of eligibles.”125 While some historians, like Lystra, deemphasize the role of the family, parents still featured as key figures during courtship. In courtships resulting in marriage, etiquette dictated that the couple should ask the woman’s parents for their blessing; the man’s family was rarely involved though.126

Courtship manuals recommended seeking the family’s blessing to ensure “confidence… between

123 Theodore Dwight Weld, Letters of Theodore Dwight Weld, Angelica Grimké Weld, and Sarah Grimké 1822- 1844, 534. 124 Robert K. Nelson, "The Forgetfulness of Sex": Devotion and Desire in the Courtship Letters of Angelina Grimke and Theodore Dwight Weld,” 667. 125 Karen Lystra, Searching the Heart: Women, Men, and Romantic Love in Nineteenth-Century America, 158. 126 Ellen K. Rothman, Hands and Hearts: History of Courtship in America, 27-29. Garrison 29 wards and guardians, parents and children.”127 While seeking permission could be deemed a lingering formality from the previous era of courtship, parental approval weighed heavily on some antebellum courtships. Edward Dickinson favored the new approach: “We ought first to

128 make up our own minds —then consult them —or if you please, consult them first.” Despite

Dickinson’s philosophy, lack of parental support weighed heavily on Emily Norcross. She delayed accepting Dickinson’s proposal for months for this very reason. Norcross’ parents influenced the date of her marriage, despite her insistence that “[my parents] do not wish to intrude upon our arrangements at all.”129 While Norcross certainly believed in companionable marriage based in romantic love, she still highly regarded her parent’s opinions on her future husband.

The lack of diversity in courtship scholarship perpetuates the belief that parents rarely intervened or ended courtships.130 However, same-sex couples could be forced to separate by parents who wanted their children to enter a heterosexual marriage and birth children. Etiquette manuals warned against “clandestine courtships” or secret relationships.131 It was the belief that such secretive relationships were “neither honourable nor praiseworthy” if it was “necessary to hide it from the world.”132 Parents dissolved the courtship of Charity Bryant and Mercy Ford;

Bryant’s parents forbid Ford from visiting after discovering their romantic relationship. The women were aware of their parents’ suspicions; in a letter to Bryant, Ford warned, “[Speak of

127 A Manual of the Etiquette of Love, Courtship and Marriage. By a Lady, 18. 128 Edward Dickinson, “Letter 13,” July 13, 1826 in A Poet’s Parents: The Courtship Letters of Emily Norcross and Edward Dickinson, 32. 129 Emily Norcross, “Letter 39,” April 30, 1827 in A Poet’s Parents: The Courtship Letters of Emily Norcross and Edward Dickinson, 107. 130 Such an argument can be found in: Karen Lystra, Searching the Heart: Women, Men, and Romantic Love in Nineteenth-Century America, 28; Ellen K. Rothman, Hands and Hearts: History of Courtship in America, 27. 131 A Manual of the Etiquette of Love, Courtship and Marriage. By a Lady, 15. 132 Ibid. Garrison 30 love] soft we are acourting by letters she believes.”133 After their forced separation, Ford confessed, “I want to see you so much if it was not for the .”134 By banning Ford from visiting, Bryant’s parents affectively ended their courtship. Unfortunately for Bryant, her next courtship ended similarly. Charity Richards was “torn from” Bryant by her parents who discovered the women’s romantic relationship, likely through a personal item left by Bryant at

Richards’ home.135 Given Richards’ assurance that “your letter has never been expos’d,’ Bryant, remembering his forced separation from Ford, likely questioned if Richards’ parents saw their romantic exchanges.136 This inclusion of same-sex relationships complicates the scholarship on parental influence in antebellum courtship.

Even within the normative white, heterosexual middle-class couples, there was secrecy and hesitancy to inform family members of their courtship. Courting individuals frequently marked their letters as ‘private’ or a more subtle signifier. In the letter in which Thomas Dwight

Weld confessed his love for Angelica Grimké, he penned “Private” across the top of the paper.137

Emily Norcross did not want her family to know she was courting Edward Dickinson. In a letter to Dickinson, Norcross confessed, “As I have resorted to my chamber without any one persons knowing how I am occupied I fear I shall soon be enquired to. You must therefore excuse me.

Will you have the kindness to direct your letters to William should you write again.”138

Courtship scholarship focusing solely on the family obfuscates discussion of separations caused by other people, especially enslavers. Enslavers frequently utilized forced separations, through

133 Rachel Hope Cleves, Charity and Sylvia: A Same-Sex Marriage in Early America, 74. 134 Ibid. 135 Ibid, 85. Cleves suggests it was a sexual object that alerted Richards’ parents. 136 Ibid. 137 Theodore Dwight Weld, Letters of Theodore Dwight Weld, Angelica Grimké Weld, and Sarah Grimké 1822- 1844, 532. 138 Emily Norcross. “Letter 6.” May 10, 1826 in A Poet’s Parents: The Courtship Letters of Emily Norcross and Edward Dickinson,13. Garrison 31 the sale of one or both courting individuals, as a means of controlling enslaved people’s social lives.139 Historian Rebecca J. Fraser argues that enslaver’s desired to control the courtships of enslaved individuals to enhance their notion of paternalism.140 Just as courtship etiquette manuals wanted courting couples to consult the woman’s parents, enslavers required courting enslaved couples to seek permission of their union; romantic relationships between enslaved peoples with different enslavers required the permission of both.141 Allen Parker, a formerly enslaved man, recounted the courtship approval process. Parker wrote:

...the "man" would look the "property" over as carefully as a farmer would a horse or a cow he intended to purchase, knowing as he did so, that, if the marriage was a desirable one, it would be for his interest to give his consent, for would not all the children that might be born to the couple be his own property, and could he not thus increase the value of his personal estate?142 Just as parents desired to control the courtships of their children when they acted outside of societal norms like heterosexuality, enslavers, motivated by profit, supported courtship control through the paternalist narrative permeating Southern culture.

An examination of antebellum American’s courtship letters reveals that love was a socially constructed emotion. Despite courting couples desire to describe love as an uncontrollable force, their letters depict individuals deeply invested in the lengthy process of love’s creation and maintenance. From courtship testing to discussions of positive traits, normative courtship activities engaged in implicit and explicit discussions of race, gender, and sexuality. By displaying the achievement of positive, normative traits, for example being an intelligent man, courting couples could reaffirm societal power afforded to those who were

139 Rebecca J. Fraser, Courtship and Love among the Enslaved in North Carolina, 32-34. 140 Ibid, 34. 141 Ibid, 36. 142 Allen Parker, Recollections of Slavery Times (Worchester, MA: Chas. W. Burbank & Co., 1895), 25.

Garrison 32 heterosexual, white, and/or middle to upper class. An examination of a wider range of courting couples shows that all couples contended with the same societally established courtship norms.

Thus, the study of antebellum courtship allows for the analysis of a wide spectrum of American couples’ interpretations of dominating social ideologies regarding race, gender, and sexuality.

The influence of widely read novels of the era and the blending of foreign courtship influence on communities of color still requires further study. The inclusion of Black, same sex attracted, and the intersection thereof couples challenges the established norms of courtship scholarship. A deeper analysis of an even wider range of couples is needed to describe the lingering and reinvented ways in which family was invested in courtship. Furthermore, an emphasis on the wide range of antebellum women’s voices depicts the possibilities of courtship based in romantic love, including the reinvention of coverture into a consensual act of love and de-sexed courtship and marriage planning. Further study should be conducted on the ways in which antebellum couples reimagined patriarchy, including men who often strove to still enact their influence over their future wives. In order to accurately analyze the institution of marriage in the United States, historians must investigate courtship, the precarious period where couples negotiated the shape and style of their lifelong partnership.

Garrison 33

Bibliography

Primary Chesterfield, Philip Dormer Stanhope Earl of. Encyclopedia of Manners and Etiquette, Comprising Chesterfield’s Advice to His Son ... And, The Young Man’s Own Book, Etc., 1850. “Courtship.” The Nebraska Advertiser (Brownville, Nebraska Territory). May 26, 1859. Chronicling America: American Historical Newspapers. Dickinson, Edward and Emily Norcross. A Poet’s Parents: The Courtship Letters of Emily Norcross and Edward Dickinson. Edited by Vivian R. Pollack. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988. Dickinson, Emily. Open Me Carefully. Edited by Ellen Louise Hard and Martha Nell Smith. Ashfield, Massachusetts: Paris Press, 1998. Dunbar, M. C. Dunbar’s Complete Handbook of Etiquette: Clear and Concise Directions for Correct Manners. Excelsior Publishing House, 1834. The Etiquette of Courtship and Matrimony: With a Complete Guide to the Forms of a Wedding. George Routledge and Son, 1852. Fowler, Orson Squire. Love and Parentage: Applied to the Improvement of Offspring, Including Important Directions and Suggestions to Lovers and the Married Concerning the Strongest Ties and the Most Momentous Relations of Life, 40th ed. New York, 1855. Fowler, Orson Squire and Lorenzo Niles Fowler. The Illustrated Self-Instructor in Phrenology and Physiology: With One Hundred Engravings, and a Chart of the Character. Fowlers and Wells, 1855. “Free Lecture on Phrenology and Physiology.” Broadside. [Portsmouth, NH] Morning Chronicle Newspaper [1854]. American Broadsides and Ephemera, Series 1, no. 8863. Grimké, Angelica and Theodore Dwight Weld. Letters of Theodore Dwight Weld, Angelica Grimké Weld, and Sarah Grimké 1822-1844. Edited by Gilbert H. Barnes and Dwight L. Dumond. Gloucester, MA.: American Historical Association, 1965. Hampden Patriot (Springfield, Massachusetts) III, no. 33, August 15, 1821: [2]. Readex: America's Historical Newspapers. “Last and the Great Lecture on Courtship and Marriage.” Ephemera. [Boston, MA] J.E. Farwell & Co's Lightning Press, [1854]. American Broadsides and Ephemera, Series 1, no. 23863. "Lecture on Matrimony & Phrenology." Broadside. [Exeter, NH]: C.E. Clark's Press, [1849]. American Broadsides and Ephemera, Series 1, no. 7368. A Manual of the Etiquette of Love, Courtship and Marriage. By a Lady, 1853. Garrison 34

Miller, John and Sally McDowell. If You Love That Lady, Don’t Marry Her: The Courtship Letters of Sally McDowell and John Miller, 1854-1856. Edited by Thomas E. Buckley. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2000. Parker, Allen. Recollections of Slavery Times. Worchester, MA, Chas. W. Burbank & Co., 1895. "Suing For Breaches." Philadelphia Inquirer (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), November 26, 1830: 1. Readex: America's Historical Newspapers. Van Dyke, Rachel. To Read My Heart: The Journal of Rachel Van Dyke, 1810-1811. Edited by Lucia McMahon and Deborah Schriver. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000. Vaught, L.A. Vaught’s Practical Character Reader. Chicago, 1902. We Are Your Sisters: Black Women in the Nineteenth Century. Edited by Dorothy Sterling. W.H. Norton & Company, 1997.

Secondary Cleves, Rachel Hope. Charity and Sylvia: A Same-Sex Marriage in Early America. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. D’Emilio, John and Estelle B Freedman. Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988. Fraser, Rebecca J. Courtship and Love among the Enslaved in North Carolina. University Press of Mississippi, 2007. Hansen, Karen V. “‘No Kisses Is Like Youres’: An Erotic Friendship between Two African- American Women during the Mid-Nineteenth Century.” Gender & History 7, no. 2 (1995): 153–82. Hunter, Tera K. Bound in Wedlock: Slave and Free Black Marriage in the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2017. Kelly, Catherine E. “‘Old People Never Believe in Love.’” In the New England Fashion, Reshaping Women’s Lives in the Nineteenth Century. Cornell University Press, 1999, 127-161. Lystra, Karen. Searching the Heart: Women, Men, and Romantic Love in Nineteenth-Century America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. McMahon, Lucia. “‘We Would Share Equally’: Gender, Education, and Romance in the Journal of Rachel Van Dyke.” In To Read My Heart: The Journal of Rachel Van Dyke, 1810- 1811, edited by Lucia McMahon and Deborah Schriver. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000, 309–338. Garrison 35

Nelson, Robert K. "The Forgetfulness of Sex": Devotion and Desire in the Courtship Letters of Angelina Grimke and Theodore Dwight Weld.” Journal of Social History 37, no. 3 (2004): 663-79. Person, Leland S. "Hawthorne's Love Letters: Writing and Relationship." American Literature 59, no. 2 (1987): 211-27. Rothman, Ellen K. Hands and Hearts: History of Courtship in America. New York: Basic Books Inc, 1984. Rupp, Leila J. A Desired Past: A Short History of Same-Sex Love in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999. Seidman, Steven. Romantic Longings: Love in America, 1830-1980. New York: Routledge, 1991. West, Emily. “Courtship and Marriage.” In Chains of Love: Slave Couples in Antebellum South Carolina. University of Illinois Press, 2004.