|
|
Why did 16 year old Nellie Kinsman secretly marry Frank Lang in St Joseph Co Michigan, get pregnant with his baby, and move to Hastings, Minnesota? Why did she seek a divorce so soon afterward? What do we learn about Nellie's life, and her girls' lives, from her divorce papers? What were the root causes of Frank's abusive behaviors? |
.jpg)
These are extraordinary documents,
and they tell a remarkable and tragic story. One of the most
surprising things about them is
that they exist at all. What are the odds that divorce papers
from 1871 Hastings MN would survive into the twenty-first century?
When Tom retrieved them from the bowels of the Minnesota Historical
Society in December 2005, it was probably the first time they had seen the light of day in more
than 130 years.
(Panoramic Map of Hastings, MN, south of
St Paul along the Mississippi River, 1867, University of Michigan Map
Library)
Beyond the
unlikely fact
of their existence
is the light they shed on the lives of Nellie and her young
daughters in the four years
after Nellie left Burr Oak, Michigan,
babe in arms, for Hastings, Minnesota. Recall that by the
early 1860s Nellie
Kinsman had become a marginal figure in her family - the eldest daughter of
Sheldon Kinsman and his first wife,
Eliza Tuthill, who died when Nellie was an infant. (Hastings train depot, ca 1860, google/images/minnesota
history)
Raised mainly by her
grandmother
Mary Eaton Kinsman, and perhaps her
Aunt Selma,
Nellie was around 8 years old when she was compelled to leave her
birthplace in Chemung County, NY, with her father Sheldon, his
second
wife Mary, their daughter Sarah. In 1855 or '56,
Sheldon and his family
migrated West through Ohio and Indiana to Michigan, along with
Sheldon's brother Asa E. and his wife and children. By 1860
Sheldon and Mary had carved a farm out of the Michigan wilds, and
Mary had borne three more children.
(Map of tri-county area of
NY-PA, from Tri-Counties
Genealogy and History by Joyce M. Tice,
http://www.rootsweb.com/~srgp/jmtindex.htm)
All the evidence suggests
that Nellie was the family workhorse – washing, cleaning,
preparing food, tending to her small step-brothers and her farm chores,
day after day, season after season, year after year. Since she never learned to
read or write, it is unlikely that she ever attended school, at
least regularly.
(Girl washing, www.medivia.sele.it)
The
evidence also suggests
that by this time Nellie was estranged from her
father and step-mother; that she was desperate to escape St. Joseph
County MI and start a
new life; and that she knew that marriage was her only viable way out.
What evidence? On top of her illiteracy, she was not listed with her father's family, or any other family, in the 1860 census; she secretly married Frank at age 16 and hid the fact for the next 13 months; she became pregnant, as best as we can tell, on the day her marriage license was filed; she left Michigan for good only weeks after her baby was born; she never returned to Michigan; and she did not attend her father's funeral in 1904, after his prolonged illness. (Man, woman, and two children blocking and thinning beets in Corunna, MI in 1917. Photo by L.W. Hine. Library of Congress)
All this and more suggests she harbored a burning desire to get the hell out of Burr Oak, that she was willing to do just about anything to make it happen, and that she never looked back.
Her ticket
out came in August 1861, when the
village became an enlistment center for the Seventh Michigan
Infantry. Several hundred men from throughout St. Joseph
County and beyond came streaming into town to enlist in the Union
Army. Frank Lang was among them. An 18 year-old farm
laborer in Lagrange County, IN, in 1860, Frank had nearly two weeks between his
enlistment date in Burr Oak and his muster-in date in Monroe, MI.
It was during this brief window of time that he must have met 13½
year old Nellie.
(Unsigned sketch by an Ohio
soldier of a Union infantryman after stealing a chicken from a
Confederate farm, and our symbol for Frank Lang. Library of
Congress.)
Frank and Nellie
married
in January 1865, while Frank was still in the army
and Nellie a few months shy of 17, but didn't file the paperwork
with the county and make it official till February 1866.
In
other words, they were secretly married for 13 months. Jennie
was probably conceived on the day the marriage was made public,
because she was born exactly nine months later. The next
month, December 1866, Frank, Nellie, and baby Jennie left Burr Oak for Minnesota.
(Dakota County Courthouse, Hastings, MN, ca 1870, the year Nellie
walked in and demanded a divorce, mnhs.org.)
For Nellie, marrying Frank and moving to Minnesota was an enormous gamble. She would be leaving the only world she knew, with a man she'd only recently married, with a baby to care for, without any social or family safety net (except perhaps one mysterious uncle, who we'll get to). If the marriage faltered she would have nothing to fall back on, no family to turn to, no friends to take her in. She would be completely on her own. She did it anyway, suggesting the depths of her desperation to leave.
As it turned out,
the
marriage did falter, and badly. Nellie essentially lost the gamble,
as
Frank turned out to be an absolute louse of a
husband. The portrait these
documents paint is of an utterly failed
marriage, a relationship dominated by
Frank's violently explosive temper, physical and verbal abuse,
abandonment, and neglect -- a
marriage that ended, for Nellie and her girls, in destitution and
desperation. (Images
of handwritten text excerpted
from Nellie's court testimony; full texts appear below.)
.jpg)
Frank not only threatened,
abused, and abandoned his young
and socially isolated wife. He also failed to assume any responsibility for
the material well-being of his daughters. He seems to have been
determined to destroy his marriage and leave Jennie (age 4 in 1870) and
Nellie Lang (age 2) fatherless. For the rest of his life he
refused to acknowledge his daughters as his own.
Frank Lang was
clearly a deeply troubled man,
a man
haunted by inner demons
that would take him years to exorcise, if he ever did
fully expel
them. Only a man under severe emotional distress
would come home from work, find his supper not ready, explode in
rage at his hard-working young wife, kick her out of the house, and
then, when she returns, threaten her with a butcher knife.
Only a man with a deeply troubled spirit would start building a
chicken-coop in the backyard with his wife and suddenly threaten to
knock her over with a hatchet unless she held a board just
right. Only a man bent on severing all
connections
to his family would leave his young wife and baby daughters for
eight months, not write, not make any contact, leave them with no
money and no resources, and then return, behave abusively, and leave
again.
When he was not gone
for months at a time,
Frank was most commonly described as "morose," "cross," "sour,"
"cruel," "inhuman," full of
"contempt" and "hate" toward his wife
–
not only by Nellie but by his neighbors, who witnessed the crumbling
marriage and Nellie's desperate
circumstances. He yelled at
her, called her "vile & improper names,"
threatened her, "frequently
striking and beating her with his fists and hands," while Nellie,
according to her neighbors, was "always
busy and apparently industrious and seemed to be doing the best she
could."
According to Nellie, one of the main reasons Frank abandoned her was that he wanted to "work out" in St. Louis, Missouri, and she refused. She does not explain exactly why she refused, though his chronically "morose" and "sour" disposition was probably reason enough. Had she relented to his demands and not stood her ground, her subsequent life would have been vastly different, Jennie would have never met Cornelius, and we would never have been born.
The underlying
causes of Frank's abusive and destructive behavior were no
doubt complex, and much deeper than his wife's refusal to move to
St. Louis. It seems clear that his experiences
in the Civil War contributed to his behavior in critically
important ways.
For four full years before becoming a father and family man, Frank had served in the Union Army in Company K of the Fifth Regiment of Michigan Volunteers (Aug 1861-July 1865, ages 19-23). For two-and-a-half of those years he was "employed continuously" as a nurse in field hospitals (10 Aug 1862 to 12 Jan 1865).
In other words, for some 28 months before his marriage, it was Frank's full-time job to patch up the mangled bodies of his comrades.
(Confederate Dead at Fredericksburg, VA, 1863. Photo by Matthew Brady. From the U.S. National Archives digital image collection, www.nara.gov)
The Michigan Seventh fought in some of the bloodiest battles of the Civil War: Fredericksburg, Cold Harbor, Antietam, The Wilderness, and Petersburg, to name only some of the biggest and bloodiest (see Don Harvey's brief narrative of the Michigan Seventh in Frank's Civil War Service Record). It would certainly be possible to identify all the episodes in which Frank and the other nurses of the Michigan Seventh saw their hospital beds overflowing with the bodies of the wounded and dying. The end result of such research would be a catalog of horrors.
Numbers provide one way
to
try to understand what Frank
experienced in the Civil War. At the
beginning of the war the Seventh Michigan Infantry counted in its
ranks 1,375 men. At war's end 330 were dead and 344 discharged
because of their wounds – a casualty rate of 50.2 percent. For
well over two years, Frank Lang was literally up to his elbows in
the blood and guts of his comrades, of the Michigan Seventh Infantry
and of dozens of other regiments from many other states.
(Union Army hospital. Photo by Matthew Brady.
US National Archives digital image collection, www.nara.gov).
How many amputations did he help perform on his buddies? How often, in subsequent years, did memories of their contorted faces and anguished screams come back to haunt his sleeping and waking hours?
It was not until the times of the
Vietnam War that mental health professionals gave a name
to the long-term health-destroying psychological effects of this
kind of intense and intimate violence: post-traumatic stress
disorder, or PTSD (a syndrome often called "shell shock" in World Wars I and II).
(Wounded in Spotsylvania.
Photo by Matthew Brady. U.S. National Archives digital image collection, www.nara.gov)
A recent study of PTSD among thousands of Civil War veterans makes it clear that Frank fits all the profiles for high-impact PTSD: he was young when he enrolled (age 19), and as a field nurse he saw and experienced an extremely high degree of intimate violence. Reading these divorce papers, and knowing what we know about Frank's war service, it seems plain that Frank was in the grip of some kind of PTSD. This is not to excuse his behavior, but only to try to understand its causes. (See J. Pizarro, et al., The Physical and Mental Health Costs of Traumatic War Experiences Among Civil War Veterans)
Nellie's divorce complaint
and her neighbors' corroborations reveal a deeply disturbed man who
placed no value in his marriage or family, and a desperate wife
trying to maintain some semblance of a decent life. There is no
suggestion that Frank beat his girls, though it seems very likely
that Jennie (ages 0-4) saw and remembered her father's explosive
temper and the verbal and physical abuse he inflicted on her
mother.
The divorce was finalized just after Jennie turned four. Thus, in her earliest and most impressionable years, Jennie witnessed and experienced a violent, abusive and neglectful father, after which she never saw him again.
In other words – and these are our suppositions, based upon these facts – Frank was traumatized by the war, prompting him to destroy his own family life and nearly destroy the lives of his wife and daughters. In the process he also traumatized his daughter Jennie, by his explosive temper, violent outbursts, and prolonged absences – to a degree, and as inflected by Jennie's own psychological makeup and predispositions.
Such a dynamic
sets one to thinking about how the traumas inflicted by war
can ripple across the generations: a father, traumatized
by war, in turn traumatizes his young daughter. What effect
will her traumatic experiences have on her identity and personality?
On her choice of mate? On her parenting skills? On her
children's capacity to act responsibly? How and to what extent
do such traumas ripple through the generations.
It is not unlikely, for example, that the traumas Frank experienced in the early 1860s echoed through the lives of his grandchildren, the Sullivan's, in the 1910s, 1920s, and after. Why was Uncle Tim incarcerated for most of his adult life? Why did Uncle Ed never marry, fail to hold down a steady job, and become a lifelong alcoholic? Why were Aunt Grace and Aunt Maime such lunatics? It would not be surprising to learn that the violence and abandonment their mother experienced as a small girl was one of the principal causes of the dysfunctional, irresponsible behavior of her children.
If this were the case,
then the horrors Frank experienced in the 1860s reverberated through
the decades, influencing the lives of his grandchildren well into
the 1940s and after – a powerful illustration of
how the destructive effects of war can endure generation past
generation.
Skeptics might counter that Frank was simply mean-spirited and abusive by nature, and that his destructive behaviors as described in these divorce papers were rooted not in his Civil War experiences but in his basic psychological makeup. Maybe Frank Lang was always a mean-spirited son-of-a-bitch. That is certainly possible, but other evidence suggests otherwise – most notably, the evidence on his third marriage (to Clara Morris Lang) and fourth marriage (to Henriette Eichendorf).
There is no credible evidence that in any of his subsequent marriages Frank engaged in abusive, neglectful, or destructive behaviors, despite relatively abundant documentation describing these relationships. By the 1880s, it seems, he had largely overcome the demons that had haunted him in the immediate postwar years. It was he, after all, who initiated the divorce proceedings against his third wife Clara. And it was he, not Clara, to whom the courts granted custody of seven year-old Frank Jr.
At the same time,
one would be hard-pressed to describe him, at any point in his life,
as a deeply loving or caring man. He may have gotten past the
worst after-effects of his wartime traumas, but the wounds
and scars
inflicted by those traumas apparently endured. Still, in the end we
really don't know the root cause of the behaviors described in these
documents, and probably never will.
These divorce papers pose a number of other puzzles as well. For one, who was this mysterious "uncle" mentioned by Nellie, whose shelter and succor she sought when Frank abandoned her? He was not a Kinsman, or a Burr, or a Tuthill. Perhaps he was the brother of Lucinda Powers, the blacksmith's wife in Burr Oak, MI, with whom "Ellen Jenkins" lived and worked in 1860 (see Seeking Ella in Burr Oak). Perhaps he was some other fictive kin. We don't know.
.jpg)
Nor do we know
what illness Nellie battled during the "year of [her] confinement,"
or how sick she became, or just how desperate things were before and
after her divorce. We know that Frank's abandonment left her
and her girls desperately poor, often hungry and cold, with
insufficient clothes to shield themselves from the biting chill of
Minnesota winters, and not enough blankets to keep them warm at night. Were these the darkest
days of Nellie's life? Or did still darker days lay
ahead? We don't know that either.
(Detail of panoramic map, downtown Hastings, 1867. Census
data from 1870 show that Nellie, her girls, and Frank [when he was
home] lived near downtown,
around the corner from one of the town's main hotels, probably in
the small row-houses near the river and railroad tracks.)
From these papers we can construct a rough timeline of the 50 months between Jennie's birth in November 1866 to the court's granting of Nellie's divorce in January 1871.
|
Timeline of Nellie's Life, Nov 1866 - Jan 1871 Dec 1866. The family of three leaves Burr Oak MI for Hastings MN and finds housing in a working-class district of Hastings near downtown. Jennie is one month old. Jan 1867-early 1869. Frank working as a cooper, Nellie at home raising the two girls (baby Nellie b. 1868). Early 1869-late 1869. Frank abandons his family for about eight months. Nellie and the girls suffering extreme material distress. Probably the year of Nellie's prolonged illness and "confinement." Probably surprised the doctors by not dying. Late 1869-early 1870. Frank returns. Early 1870. Frank leaves again. Nov 25, 1870 (around Thanksgiving). Frank returns again. Nellie announces that she is going to get a divorce. Nov 26-Dec 2, 1870. Nellie finds finds a lawyer, who draws up the divorce papers. Dec 3, 1870. Frank issued a summons. Dec 4, 1870 - Jan 25, 1871. Frank does not respond to the complaint, the case proceeds without him, and the divorce is granted on Jan 25, 1871.
|
Documents transcribed as written. Illegible and partly legible words and phrases in brackets. Click on thumbnails to view scans of copies of the originals. Originals housed in the Minnesota State Archives, Minnesota Historical Society, 124/J/15/4/F. Many thanks to MHS and its staff for all their help.
Dakota County Courthouse, May 2006
|
State of Minnesota, County of Dakota, District Court, First Judicial District SUMMONSNellie Lang, Plaintiff against Frank Lang, Defendant City of Hastings, County of Dakota, Minn . . . thirty days after the service of this summons on you . . . and if you fail to answer the said complaint within the time aforesaid the plaintiff will apply to the Court for the relief demanded in the said complaint. Gore & Parliman, Plaintiff's Attorney Dated Dec 2d 1870, Hastings, Minn. [ Summons personally served on 3rd of December 1870 by Stephen Newell Strong of Dakota Co Minn ]
thumbnail:
|
|
State of Minnesota, County of Dakota, District Court, First Judicial District Nettie Lang, Plaintiff against Frank Lang, Defendant Divorce The complaint of the Plaintiff in the above entitled action respectfully states and shows to this Court: That the name of the Plaintiff [here is] Nettie Lang and she is of the age of 21 years, that the Defendant's name is Frank Lang and he is of the age of 29 years. That heretofore [first] on the 13th day of January A.D. 1866 this plaintiff was married to this defendant at the town of White Pigeon in the County of St. Jo in the State of Michigan. That from ever since the said 13th day of January A.D. 1866 this plaintiff and this defendant have lived and cohabited together as husband and wife except such times as this said defendant has willfully absented himself from said plaintiff until on or about the 25th day of November 1870. That ever since sometime in the month of December A.D. 1866, this plaintiff and defendant have been and now are residents and inhabitants of this state and county aforesaid. That during all the time these said [ p. 2 ] parties have lived together as husband and wife as aforesaid and at all times since the said 13th day of January A.D. 1866 this said plaintiff has treated this said defendant kindly and affectionately and has at all times performed all the marriage vows by her to be performed. That she has at all times kept said defendant's house in a neat cleanly and tidy manner and acted towards him as an economical prudent kind [and] virtuous and affectionate wife. That some time after their intermarriage as aforesaid in the year 1866, this defendant cruelly and inhumanly left and deserted this said plaintiff for the period of eight months, during which time this said plaintiff was not aware of, or did she have any knowledge of the whereabouts of this said defendant, neither did this said defendant write to or did this said plaintiff receive any letter from said defendant whatever. This plaintiff further complains and says that during the absence and desertion by this said defendant as aforesaid this said defendant cruelly and inhumanly neglected and refused [ p. 3 ] to provide this plaintiff with any food or clothing whatever or any house to live in and on account of said neglect and refusal as last aforesaid this said plaintiff was obliged to and did support and clothe herself, and was in great distress in mind and body on account of said desertion as foresaid which said trouble and distress as last aforesaid did greatly injure the health of this said Plaintiff. That ever since the said intermarriage of the parties to this action as aforesaid this said defendant has most of the time cruelly and with contempt and hatred and has acted towards her in a sour and morose manner. That he has cruelly and inhumanly neglected and refused to furnish this plaintiff with maintenance and clothing suitable to her condition in life and in accordance with his means and ability to support her. That she has frequently been compelled to work and labor since the said 13th day of January A.D. 1866 and since the intermarriage of these said [ p. 4 ] parties as aforesaid, by [all] her strength and ability of endurance for the purpose of obtaining suitable clothing for herself and for her family which clothing was absolutely necessary for herself and for her family which said clothing this said defendant has often cruelly and inhumanly refused to furnish although he was able to do so.
That frequently this said defendant has treated this said plaintiff
cruelly and inhumanly by striking and beating her That there is no collusion between the parties plaintiff and defendant in this action nor any [accord] between them as to the processing of the Bill of Divorce prayed for in this complaint. That [since] the said marriage of these parties as aforesaid there has been borne unto the said parties as aforesaid two children [to wit] Jennie Lang aged four years and Nellie Lang aged two years now residents of this county of Dakota in the State of Minnesota. [ p. 5 ]
Whereupon this plaintiff [demands] Judgment that the bonds of
matrimony between herself and this defendant be dissolved and that
the said children be awarded to the plaintiff Gore & Perlimann, Plffs Atty, Hastings, Minn
thumbnailS: 1.
|
|
State of Minnesota, County of Dakota, District Court, First Judicial District Nellie Lang, Plff, vs Frank Lang, Deft Aff of no answer E. U. Gore being duly sworn on oath deposes and says that he is one of the attorneys for plaintiff in the above entitled action. That on the 3d day of December A.D. 1870 the summons and complaint in said action were served personally on said defendant by delivering to him a copy thereof. That more than thirty days have elapsed since said service and that no answer, demurrer thereto or notice of [returnian] have been served on plaintiff's attorneys or either of them up to this date. Subscribed & sworn on this 10th day of January A. D. 1871, E. A. Gore G. S. W. Putnam, Dist Ct
thumbnail:
|
|
State of Minnesota, County of Dakota, District Court, First Judicial District Nellie Lang, Plff, vs Frank Lang, Deft Aff of no answer District Court, Dakota County, Lang vs. Lang, aff of no answer, Filed Jany 24, 1871, G. S. W. Putnam, Clerk Gore & Parlemann, Plff Attys State of Minnesota, County of Dakota, District Court, First Judicial District Nellie Lang, Plff v Frank Lang, Deft At a general term of the District Court held at the Court House in the City of Hastings on and for said county this 10th day of January A.D. 1871 The Hon Chas McClure, Judge Presiding The above entitled action having been called into regular order on the calendar of the open court on motion of Gore & Parliman attys for the Plaintiff this case is reffered to W. N. DeKay to [letter] and report the testimony to this court. Dated Jany 10th 1871 Charles McClure, District Judge
COURT REFEREE REPORT 11 JANUARY 1871
District Court, Dakota County, Nellie Lang vs Frank Lang Order of Reference State of Minnesota, County of Dakota, District Court, First Judicial District Nellie Lang vs Frank Lang, Dakota County ss I Wm. H. DeKay having been appointed by the Judge of this Court referee to take and report the testimony in said action do solemnly swear that I will faithfully and fairly hear and take the testimony in the above entitled action wherein Nellie Lang is Plaintiff and Frank Lang is Defendant and make a just and true report thereof according to the best of my understanding and ability so Help me God. /s/ W. H. DeKay Subscribed & sworn this 11th day of January 1871 before me /s/ G. S. Whitman, Clerk, Dist Ct
REFEREE REPORT OF TESTIMONY 11 JANUARY 1871
District Court, Dakota County Nettie Lang vs Frank Lang Oath of Referee Gore & Perlmann, Deffs Atty State of Minnesota, County of Dakota, In District Court, First Judicial District Nettie Lang against Frank Lang Referee's Report of Testimony In the Honorable District Court of the County of Dakota Pursuant to an order of this Court dated January 10th 1871 in which said order the said case was referred to me to take and report the testimony thence I would respectfully report the following testimony: Nellie Lang being first duly sworn says that her name is Nellie Lang – That her age is 22 – that her husband's name is Frank Lang – That his age is 29 – We were married on the 13th day of January 1866 at White Pigeon – County of St. Joseph, State of Michigan – says that she is the plaintiff in this action. We have since the 13th day of January 1866 lived and cohabited together as man & wife – Excepting such times as my husband absented himself [p. 4] up to the 25th day of November 1870. We moved to this state in the year 1866 – and have ever since that time been residents of this state.
I have during all this time [ we ]
have lived together as husband & wife and since our marriage treated
my husband kindly and affectionately and have at all times performed
faithfully all the marriage vows by me to be performed and have
endeavored in a clean & tidy manner to place & keep my husband's
house
I was not supplied by him during this time with any money nor did he make any arrangement for my support I was compelled to support myself by my own labor although my health was in a very feeble condition being upon the year of my confinement and of my confinement was with my uncle for whom I worked and paid my board – nor did he provide any means for me to pay my medical bills incurred & my uncle paid them & he remains unsatisfied to this day. The only reason I know for my husband's leaving was that he wanted me to go to St Louis with him & work out. I did not want to do it and he got offended and left. He was in good health & able to support me and had plenty of means. My husband was continually cross & morose and violent in his disposition – that in the month of January 1870 on a certain instance I went to one of my neighbors & upon my return he said if I ever went out again and staid [p. 6] so long he would fasten the doors & windows and I should not come in he then struck me violently with his fist two or three times when I went into an adjoining room to get clear of him & he followed me & struck me again two or three times and attempted to put me out of the house but the door being locked prevented – and he then ordered me to leave the house & said I should not remain there any longer. Upon this being afraid of him I went to Mr. Dirkins & stayed there two nights & days. That at one other time while helping him build a pig pen while holding a board for him to nail he said if I did not hold it still he would knock me over with the hatchet, he was very angry at this time I dropped the board & ran being in fear of him. He also at the same time threatened to strike me with the board & swore at me calling me vile & improper names. [p. 7] That on another occasion returning from his work in the evening and not finding supper ready inquired of me with anger why supper was not ready. I told him I had been washing hard all day which was the fact and I told him I would get it as soon as I could, whereupon he swore at me and ordered me to leave the house & took hold of me and attempted to [hit / hurt] me out whereupon I went out & immediately returned as I came in he was standing by the table which was set for tea, and taking from it a butcher knife swore I should not come drawing the butcher knife. That he has frequently during our marriage threatened to strike me drawing his hand. He has not supplied me with clothing suitable to my condition in life nor with clothing sufficient to make me comfortable. He was able he always earned big wages had money in the bank – was a cooper by trade & always had work the year around – and made from $16.00 to $20 dollars per week. [p. 8] That I have frequently been compelled to work & labor since our marriage and beyond my strength to provide suitable clothing for myself & family which clothing was absolutely necessary for our comfort and which he refused to supply – and that there is no collusion or agreement between myself & the defendant as to the procuring the decree of divorce in this action by me begun. That he has at all times & continually been of a cross, morose, and violent disposition during our marriage, never entered the house in good nature or pleasantly – that he has said that when spring comes he would sell the house & lot and everything we had & leave me and the children and not leave me a chair to sit in. That I was always compelled to resort to deception to procure any necessary clothing with his consent.
[p. 9] Peter Harny being sworn says I know
the Plaintiff & defendant I know that the
John Durkin being sworn says I know Plaintiff & Defendant have known them intimately for 1 year. I know Mrs Lange has been a kind and affectionate wife & always kept the Defendant's house in a neat and clean condition. I have frequently heard the Defendant speak cross & unkind to her, & he was of a cross and morose disposition. I saw him on one occasion last fall one year ago raise a hatchet for the purpose of striking his wife I was not near enough to hear what was said but heard loud & angry talk from him. They were building something in the yard. I don't exactly know what it was. He had constant work ever since I knew him he was a cooper by trade, Mrs. Lang kept the house neat I was frequently there she Mrs Lang was always [p. 11] busy and apparently industrious and seemed to be doing the best she could
Mrs. Lang being recalled says – Mr. Lang left about the middle of [November] I do not know where he now is. I have been informed that he is at Northfield. I am now compelled to rely upon my own resources to support myself & my children.
Maria Dorkin being sworn says [she]
knows Nettie & Frank Lang have known them for 15 months [They live]
in the City of Hastings while I knew them. I have lived in
Hastings for 4 years. I am the wife of John Durkin. I
know [Frank] threaten[ed] to kick her out of doors on one occasion.
I have very frequently seen him ugly and contrary in the house.
He was a surly man cross & morose in his disposition. On a
certain occasion Mrs. Lang came to my house with her children [ ---
] crying from the blows inflicted by her husband. She stayed 2
nights and part of 2 days. I know that this [was] one year
ago. Mrs. Lang lacked the clothing necessary for her comfort.
Mrs. Lang was sick a year ago and
thumbnails: p.
1
p. 7
|
|
District Court, Dakota County Nellie Lang vs Frank Lang Evidence [p. 1] State of Minnesota, County of Dakota, In District Court, First Judicial District Nellie Lang against Frank Lang The above entitled action having been reached upon its order on the calendar and having been called in open court and satisfactory proof having been offered to the court by an affidavit duly filed with the court that no answer or [declamation] was interposed to the complaint of the Plaintiff or sent upon the Plaintiff's attorneys and upon Motion of [Mssrs Gore & Parkman] Plaintiff's attorneys William H. Deccay having been appointed referee to take and report the testimony in this action & the Referee having reported the testimony so taken the Court finds. That the name of the Plaintiff is Nellie Lang. That she is of the age of 21 years. That the name of the Defendant is Frank Lang. That he is 29 years old. That the said Plaintiff and Defendant intermarried on the 13th day of January 1866 at White Pigeon in the County of [p. 2] Saint Jo and State of Michigan. That from and since the said 13th day of January 1866 these said parties Plaintiff and Defendant have lived & cohabited together as husband and wife until the 25th day of November 1870 except at such times as the Defendant [willfully] absented himself from said Plaintiff. That this Plaintiff and Defendant have been ever since sometime in the month of December 1866 and up to the time of the beginning of this action residents of the County and State aforesaid. That during the times this Plaintiff and Defendant have lived and cohabited together as husband and wife this Plaintiff has been a kind and affectionate wife and kept and performed all her marriage vows by her to be kept and performed. That sometime after the intermarriage of these Parties aforesaid in the year 1866 this defendant cruelly and inhumanely left and deserted this said Plaintiff for the period of eight months. That during this time Plaintiff had no knowledge of the whereabouts of this Defendant. That during the said time the said Defendant cruelly and inhumanely neglected and refused to provide this [p. 3] Plaintiff with food or clothing or a home in which to live and that on account of this neglect and refusal the Plaintiff was obliged to and did support and clothe herself and was in great distress in mind and body on account of said desertion as aforesaid and which trouble and distress did greatly injure the health of this Plaintiff. That ever since the said intermarriage of these Parties as aforesaid this Defendant has continually cruelly and inhumanly treated this Plaintiff with contempt and hatred and has acted towards her in a sour and morose manner. That this Defendant has cruelly and inhumanly neglected and refused to furnish this Plaintiff with maintenance and clothing suitable to her condition in life and in accordance with his means and ability. That this Plaintiff has frequently been compelled to work and labor since the said 13th day of January 1866 and since the intermarriage of these parties beyond her strength and ability of endurance for the purpose of obtaining suitable clothing for herself and family which clothing was [p. 4] absolutely necessary for herself and her family and which clothing this defendant has often cruelly and inhumanly refused to furnish although he was able to do so. That frequently this said defendant has treated this Plaintiff cruelly and inhumanly by striking and beating her with his fists and hands and that this Plaintiff has been compelled to seek refuge and shelter at her neighbors frequently to avoid such cruel and inhuman treatment. That there is no collusion between the Parties Plaintiff and Defendant in this action nor any agreement between them as to the procurement of a Decree of divorce. That since the said Marriage of these Parties as aforesaid thus has been borne unto those said Parties as aforesaid two children to wit Jennie Lang age four years and Nellie Lang age two years which said children are now residents of the county of Dakota in the State of Minnesota. That the Plaintiff Nellie is a person of suitable disposition and morality [p. 5] with the means and inclination to have the custody and control of the aforesaid children "to wit" Jennie Lang and Nellie Lang. The court finds as conclusions of Law. That a divorce should be decreed in favor of the Plaintiff Nellie Lang dissolving said marriage for the acts so committed by the Defendant Frank Lang. And that the Plaintiff Nellie Lang have the care and custody of the children issue of the said marriage to wit Jennie Lang and Nellie Lang. Dated January 25th 1871. /s/ Charles McGhee, District Judge
thumbnails: p.
1
|
|
State of Minnesota, County of Dakota, In District Court Nellie Lang against Frank Lang Findings of Court [ p. 1 ] State of Minnesota, County of Dakota, In District Court, First Judicial District Nettie Lang against Frank Lang Decree The above entitled action having been reached in its order on the Calendar at the General Term of the aforesaid Court begun and held on the 10th day of January 1871 and having been called in open court and an affidavit of no answer having been duly filed and a Referee duly appointed to take testimony having reported the testimony in the said action and the findings of the Court in the process being filed with the Case it is ordered and adjudged: That the Marriage between the said Plaintiff Nellie Lang and the Defendant Frank Lang be dissolved, and the same is truly dissolved. Accordingly, and the said parties are, and each of them is freed, from the obligations thereof. And it is further adjudged that Jennie Lang and Nellie Lang children and issue of said marriage shall be truly are given into the Custody and placed under the control of the Plaintiff Nellie Lang and to her awarded. By the Court [Decreed] this 25th January 1871 /s/ Charles McGhee, District Judge 1765 State of Minnesota, County of Dakota, In District Court Nellie Lang against Frank Lang Decree of Divorce Filed January 6th 1871 G S Whitman, Clerk
thumbnail:
|
What a horrific story these hand-scribbled papers tell.
So now it's is late January 1871, a few weeks before Nellie's 23rd birthday. She marches out of the courthouse, papers in hand, to begin a new life, and she's met by a freezing cold blast of a bleak Hastings winter. Finally she's booted Frank out of her life for good. Now what? How is she going to survive? She has nothing. She is illiterate. Domestic labor is her only marketable skill -- cooking, cleaning, housework. And if she dies, what about her girls?
She knows that what she needs most are social networks -- a set of social relationships into which she can integrate herself. She doesn't just need a job, though she does need that. More than anything else she needs a family and a set of close friends. Hastings is too small, its opportunities too limited.
So, desperately needing to get back on her feet again, Nellie heads down to the depot and buys three one-way tickets on the twice-daily train that will take her and her girls straight into the heart of the burgeoning grain and and transport city of Minneapolis.
|
Next Chapter: Nellie & her Kids & Grandkinds in Minnesota, 1866-1930s
|