这是大三下学期花了相对较多时间做的一篇论文，特发布到博客留存。2018年5月7日完成于香港浸会大学。
Maiden names of women in 19th century America
17507952 LI Tianyu
Introduction
In some eastern countries, there is no custom of changing a wife’s surname to her husband’s. Some countries even define this as illegal. However, in America, many women changed their surnames after marriage, it is a custom. Nowadays, more and more women choose to retain their surnames after they got married. This is encouraged by feminism supporters. There is already some good research about women’s surnames in 20th century America. However, in 19th century America, this kind of action just started and were not well accepted by many people. This essay will analyze questions about this.
Body
Part 1: People’s opinion about keeping women’s surnames after they got married.
Different People holds different opinion about this topic.
In Latin American people’s eyes, maybe it is not a long-history custom. Latin American women kept their own surnames after they got married. When they have children, maybe one would use the father’s surname, and the other use the mother’s. Maybe Latin American immigrants still had their old custom. But they were not the majority of American society.
The old custom must come from Europe, since the local Indian people are not the majority of American society. But both patriarchy supporters and feminists dated this custom to a long period before. Their angles were totally different.
From some men’s perspective, taking husbands’ names is a long-history custom from axial age. They dated this custom back to Roman times. The Greeks people were a single-named people. Only some of them were double name, such as Athenian Thucydides, and the son of Clinius, Alcibiade. But Roman people were different. They said Roman custom were derived from Sabines. A Roman person had both prenomen (or Christian name) and a cognomen (surname). A man would have his given name prefixed to the general name of his genus or tribe, and when he married his wife frequently adopted the feminine form of the family name. For example, a man’s family name was Tullius, the wife would take the surname Tullia. This custom later influenced people in England. In England, people also have nicknames, such as Harold Bluetooth, but these did not descend from father to son. Hereditary surnames began to appear in the twelfth century, and by the fourteenth century became usual. This marked the epoch when it became customary for English wives to take the husband’s names.
But from feminists’ angle, things are totally different. They believe there should be a modification in the present custom. They regarded this custom as a relic of barbarism, and as a badge of servitude. Its origin can be clearly traced to the uncivilized ages of rapine, when a wife was captured, not courted; won after the fashion of Romulus (the creator of Rome), not wooed after the manner of Romeo. In barbarous times and among savage people, if a man wanted a wife he would go out and hunt one, just as he would hunt food or some other things essential to his comfort, and after he had bagged her, he would take her home and set her to cooking and making herself generally useful. She was his property by right of capture, and he called her by his name to prevent any mistakes in the matter of title. Possibly, originally, he may have branded her with his mark to keep thieves and unprovided bachelors from helping themselves to his stock. As time went by, women became more abundant, wives were much more easily captured, their disposition to run away from wife-hunters apparently decreasing in precise proportion to the increase in their number, and it became unnecessary to do more than brinz them into the household camp and give them the name of their owner.
Those feminists also said why this custom remained. The custom of forcing the wife to assume her husband’s name and of regarding her as a sort of matrimonial chattel finally became so firmly established that woman herself came to acquiesce in it as a matter of course and even to take a pride in it. Feminists pointed out that there is clearly neither logic nor justice in it, and the coming woman is likely to protest it as a survival of barbarism and as a mark of inequality. But in the author’s time, wives were not hunted and captured, so they asked why the husbands don’t change their surnames. The title “Mrs.” is also doubted by them, they thought the husband should change his title. Finally, they used Adam and Eve as an example, Eve is not called “Mrs. Adam”, so there is no reason for women to change their surnames.
Quoting scriptures in Bible is not only used by the feminists. In fact, men also used this to against feminist movements. When facing Lucy Stone and her supporters’ query, they said women’s voice was created soft and could not be heard clearly by God. Patriarchy and feminism opposing each other in the name of God.
Part 2: Why women wanted to keep their maiden names?
We just analyzed different opinions logically. But in fact, practice is not mainly role by the theory. Well, when it comes to keeping a maiden name, there are two different plans. The first one is to retain a woman’s maiden name as midname, then add her husband’s surname as last name. This seems to be a transigent plan, or more like a reform. The second one is to keep their own surnames and refuse to sign their husbands’ names. This plan is more like a revolution. Actions of the first plan can be seen more than the second plan.
In theory, an essay in 1879 analyzed the feasibility and necessity of remain a woman’s surname. This essay first pointed out most people didn’t think about the importance of women’s surnames before. The author thought that abandon a woman’s own name, she would give up her identity, and her person is totally merged in her husband’s. Then the author analyzed the possibility of adding her husband’s surname to her origin name and remain her surname as midname. This can both keep her own identity, and also show her relationship with her husband. If this name is too long to write, she may just drop her middle initial. Although this plan is not radical, it is still progressive. The author also pointed out that some men may not support it, since the equality has been utterly obliterated, and using husband’s name can show the rejoices in it. Then the author compared it with slaves’ names, because former Southern slaves often use their masters’ names. As for the usage, the author supported that this name should be used in letters, cards, and social circle. Giving up her own name was criticized as “humble spirit in the wife”.
Another essay later also analyzed the necessity of remaining a woman’s maiden name. For women worked as singers, actresses, losing their names would be so substantial a pecuniary one. Even for a normal woman, losing her own name would hurt the social circle. Her old friends might find it difficult to contact her.
All of the essays above showed close relationship between a woman’s maiden name and her identity. They all used women in special jobs as examples. And also, they didn’t just call for adding a name, but also called for women’s participation in society. Keeping a name is the way to keep the participation in social circle, but they also called for more participation of women. A ground discussion was taken about just adding husband’s name.
The radical plan was only supported by some feminists. They thought the women shouldn’t change their maiden names, nor should they add the husband’s surnames to their own names.
Part 3: When would a woman choose to remain her maiden name? And who did it?
Lucy Stone was the first women who retained her maiden name after marriage. She would be analyzed later. She is the representative of those who used their names as a symbol of feminism and she hoped to use name to arouse women’s independency. But for most women in 19th century, they didn’t think that far. There were some necessities for them to retain their maiden names.
1. Women who got glory in her working area would keep her maiden name.
Laura Catherine Redden Searing, whose added her husband’s surname to her own name, was a poet and journalist in 19th century and 20th century. But in fact, she was known as Howard Glyndon in public, which is her pseudonym. What’s more, she was deaf. In her essay on New York Times, she criticized some women who used pet-like nicknames. “Ladies, don’t you think you’d better drop the pet-name mania before you talk any more about your ‘rights’?” In her point of view, a woman who worked as lawyer or doctor can not use pet-like name, otherwise people would not trust her. From her story and essay, we can conclude at least three points: First, there were already some women who worked as lawyers or doctors at that time. These women’s identities were important. Second, some of them still didn’t realize the importance of one’s name to one’s identity.
There is another example, which might be more convincing. Miss H. R. Graser was a successful businesswoman in Cincinnati. She got married with a young attorney named Luebbert. But she was the only woman who carrying on a business of this kind, so her maiden name was pretty important for her business. At first, the Surveyor of Customs Henry D. Lemon came to the conclusion that it was illegal for her to write her own maiden name on new business papers. But finally, the United States District Attorney made another conclusion. Mrs. Luebbert could continue to do business under her own maiden name, because her maiden name was a firm name. Persons have right to be known in business by any name that they may choose as long as they are identified with it. She could also receive the power of attorney under her former name. At least, the Judge pointed out a woman’s legal name was her husband’s, she can have no other surname except for business.
The story above is another successful, independent woman’s story. Here the District Attorney used a tricky way to solve this problem. It regarded her former surname as a firm name. There were some similarities between this story and Laura Catherine Redden Searing’s story. Their names were the symbols of their identities in some areas. Laura was known by her pseudonym, and the name “Graser” was regarded as a firm name. Here, women first got their identity, then got their right of name, which is a symbol of their identity. Those unwell known women wouldn’t be that fortunate. And still, we should remember that this problem is not solved in law. Remaining a woman’s maiden name is still illegal.
2. Women who divorced would change their names back.
Another example can also strengthen the point above. Mrs. Blume was a musician. She divorced with her husband Mr. Henry L. Blume, because he left her with no information. Due to the disappearance of her husband, the custody of her son was granted to her. She changed her maiden name back to Sexton, and the Judge said the child was already known by her maiden name, so at last Miss. Sexton brought an application to the court to have her baby’s name legally changed to Sexton. Changing one’s name back was a symbol of divorce at that time. And in this case, when a woman lived independently and brought up her child, her son was known by her surname.
3. Feminists who used their names as a measure of campaign.
Lucy Stone was the most famous one. She got married with Henry B. Blackwell. Still, she was called “Mrs.” because at that time “Ms.” is not created. But she refused to take her husband’s name even as an annex to her own. Even when she had to sign a deed, she wrote, “Lucy Stone, wife of H. B. Blackwell”. Even others told her it is illegal, she didn’t change her signature. Her husband, Mr. Blackwell also supported her feminism movements. Although Lucy Stone’s struggle on anti-slavery movement and feminist movement got many achievements, it seems that nobody followed her in name area during her whole life. In early 20th century, Lucy Stone’s attitude on maiden names started to get more supporters. Women Freedom Congress and Lucy Stone League all directly showed the banner “all women retain their maiden names after marriage”. And these people also called for freedom in dressing, and more participation in society, rather than just calling for a maiden name.
Direct struggle between old custom and feminists also happened in early 20th century. In May 1924, Dr. Marjorie Jarvis, a woman employee of a hospital refused to accept checks made out in her married name. On August 13, 1924, a decision was rendered by the Controller General to the Secretary of the Interior that a woman employee of the Federal Government must adopt her husband’s surname and cannot enroll her maiden name, otherwise she wouldn’t be paid. Feminists soon got together to support Dr. Jarvis, saying that the decision is illegal. The leader of this movement, Mrs. Rose Fall Bres said: “We have two kinds of law, the written and the unwritten. In my opinion, the Controller General based his decision on the unwritten. I know of no written law that uploads him.” Here she pointed a reality, that the custom of changing a wife’s name is strongly rooted that it became an unwritten law.
Part 4 Man’s against
Sometimes, opponents can also support the strength of yourself, because if you are too weak, even your enemy would be ashamed of oppose you. Although I didn’t find Lucy Stone’s supporters in name area in late 19th century, I found their opponents. There were some men who tried to oppose this movement logically. They said those feminists’ logic can not explain why a woman should care to retain her maiden name after marriage. They thought retaining a maiden name would made a maiden name meaningless. They criticized feminists’ logic, saying that they should use their mothers’ maiden names or grandmothers’ or great-grandmothers’, because they got their own maiden names from their fathers, and their mothers got maiden names from their grandfathers, this is an endless loop. Finally, they said that this movement would damage the family itself. Of course, this kind of sophistry is not logical. But it showed that the movement of retaining a woman’s maiden name already had some power and got public attention.
Conclusion
Now it’s time to draw a conclusion. Comparing with the feminism waves, the movement of retaining maiden names seems to be less influential. However, it has a close relationship to female rights movements. To put it in perspective, it is not only a result of female right movements, but also a motivating factor of it. Thanks to the improvement of women’s rights, more and more women participated in the society in 19th century America. They began to get their own identity, and this caused the necessity of them to keep their own names. But fighters such as Lucy Stone were more radical, and their radical methods finally lead to more progress. At last, this became a virtuous circle. To put it in subjective, the supporters of this movement always tried to gain more rights for women, and the right of maiden names was never signed out separately.
But there were still some obstructive factors. It is easy to understand some male chauvinists’ against towards female’s surnames. But, due to the long custom of changing wives’ names, even some women supported to change their names, and even change pet-like nicknames after marriage to gain others’ favor at the price of independency. So, the struggle between progressives and conservatives continued in the 20th century. On 20th century, this movement was much more extended and influenced more people. After cruelty wars and revolutions, some former feudal countries changed this custom. But America’s improvement is not enough. Today, most women in America still choose to change their surnames. In order to solute the inconvenience, even some websites are developed to help others find their former names. So, this struggle will still continue for another long period.
Works cited page
1. “History of Latin America”, Britannica Academic, last modified May 4, 2018, https://academic-eb-com.lib-ezproxy.hkbu.edu.hk/levels/collegiate/article/history-of-Latin-America/108632
2. “Took Their Husband’s Names Roman Wives Were the Authora of the Present Customs”,
Topeka Weekly Capital, July 17, 1896, Page 6
3. “The Coming Woman and Her Maiden Name”, Sun, June 13, 1894, Page 4
4. “Woman’s rights convention—Second and Last Day’s Proceeding”, New York Times, September 27th, 1856.
5. “The Wife’s Proper Name”, Cincinnati Daily Gazette March 22, 1879, Page 4
6. “Married Women’s Names. Keeping Their Maiden Name in Addition to the Husband’s Surname”, Macon Telegraph, July 15, 1886.
7. “Women’s names”, New York Times, January 10th, 1869.
8. “The Woman’s Corner. H. R. Maiden Name. a Cincinnati Court Decides That a Woman May Use Bern in Business”, Boston Journal, December 17, 1897, Page 5
9. “Musicians Divorced. Both Women, One Deserted and the other Cruelly Treated”, New Haven Register, November 20, 1897, Page 3
10. “The Wife’s Proper Name”, Cincinnati Daily Gazette March 22, 1879, Page 4
11. “Bobbed Hair and Maiden Names for wives”, New York Times, March 3, 1919.
12. “Wives debate right to maiden names”, New York Times, May 18, 1921.
13. “Woman must take the name of husband in federal office”, New York Times, August 14, 1924.
14. “The Maiden Name after Marriage”, Philadelphia Inquirer, August 21, 1893, Page 4