Appalachian History

From the 1927 divorce case filed by James R. Seawall against Dorothy Elizabeth Seawall in Knox County Fourth Circuit Court, Knoxville, TN:

"After their marriage, and in the year 1923, the defendant began to neglect him, and to absent herself from his home, and to spend the greater part of her time with her parents; that from December 1923 she has wholly separated herself from him and has lived with her parents.

"He respectfully avers that he has done all that he knows how to do to make her a loyal husband, and to properly provide for her and their children, but avers that she has not reciprocated, and that she has wholly separated herself from him, willfully and maliciously and without any just or reasonable cause, for two whole years and more, to wit four years next preceding the filing of this bill. And so complete has been the separation that this Complainant has not so much as seen the defendant since January 1924.

"Complainant would further show that he is a traveling salesman covering all the Southeastern part of the United States, and that as such he was sent to Knoxville more than two whole years ago next preceding the filing of this bill, and that he took up his bona fide residence at Knoxville on or about April 1, 1925. That he has since continually resided here, as his home, and that he is a bona fide citizen and resident of Knox County, TN.

"He would show that the separation herein complained of took place in the State of New York on or about December 30, 1923, and was wholly uncalled for, and inexcusable, and that it was without any just or reasonable cause. That the only cause which could have been assigned was a difference in religious affiliations, but this Complainant respectfully avers that the defendant knew his affiliations before their marriage, and that she, a Catholic, could not convert him to her belief, and therefore, and for no other cause, deserted him and his home."

INTERROGATORY PROPOUNDED to Mrs. Lela Guerard by the Complainant in the above styled cause, and answered by the said witness under oath.

Q. Please state your name, age and residence?
A. Lela Seawall Guerard, 32, San Antonio, TX.

Q. Do you know whether, during the marriage relation, or during the time when Mr. Seawall and his wife were living together, the Complainant supported his wife as a husband should?
A. I saw a good bit of them for about two months after the marriage; at that time his wife and her family seemed very much attached to Mr. Seawall. She wrote me several times between that time and the time I heard of the separation; there was nothing in the letters to suggest that she was not happy with him; certainly no complaint of his conduct towards her.

Q. State fully, if you know, how Mrs. Seawell conducted herself with reference to properly keeping her home, remaining with her husband, preparing his meals, doing his mending and housework, and general work that is ordinarily done by a housewife for her husband?
A. So far as I knew up to the time I left there was no complaint; from the time that I came to Texas I only know of what happened by complaints he made about the way things were going. He complained in his letters about her frequent and repeated absences from the home and neglect of household duties.

Q. Did you know Mrs. Seawall's parents?
A. Yes.

Q. What was their attitude toward the homelife of James R. Seawall and his wife? That is to say, did they at any time so interfere with the affairs of his home as to cause his wife to be less affectionate toward him? And did they, or either of them intermeddle in the affairs of his home so as to estrange his wife from him?
A. The attitude of Mrs. Seawell's parents up to the time I came to Texas was very friendly; their attitude later I only know from his letters to me, and what he told me when I visited him about two years ago during the time he was separated from her; in those conversations he attributed his entire trouble to differences in religion and interference in their affairs by his wife’s mother and father.

Q. Was Seawall kind and good to his wife?
A. Judging from what I saw during the time I was with them, from his and her letters, and his talk of her with me, I would say that he was.

Q. Was there anything in his conduct toward her that would justify her in leaving him and going to her parents and remaining out of his home for days at a time, or weeks, and finally deserting him?
A. Nothing in the world that could be imagined from what I know of their affairs, or know of the parties.

Q. Have you been in frequent and continued correspondence with Mr. Seawall since he and his wife’s marriage and separation?
A. Yes; I am his sister.

Q. Do you know of any reason why these parties cannot get along and live happily together except what you have already stated?
A. None in the world; I verily believe that though she is an ardent Catholic and he a Protestant, that this obstacle could be overcome, but for the interference of her family. With those two situations I see no chance of happiness for them. She has evidently chosen her parents and their wishes in preference to those of her husband, and between him and her parents there is a gulf that can not be bridged.


Full document here, from collection of Tennessee Electronic Library/Volunteer Voices



religion+in+Appalachia divorce+cases appalachia +history+of+appalachia appalachian+history

From the divorce case between Walter E. McDaniels and Anna C. McDaniels, Knox County [TN] Fourth Circuit Court, filed July 1926


HIM: “Plaintiff met defendant in Philadelphia while stationed there and defendant became seemingly, and very sincerely in love or infatuated with plaintiff. Shortly after meeting defendant at Philadelphia, he was transferred to Norfolk, VA, his home station, and defendant, without the knowledge of plaintiff, followed him to Norfolk.

“Plaintiff was not in love with defendant, to the extent of considering a marriage with defendant, as defendant was of a foreign nativity to wit; an Italian, but she was so persistent in her intercessions to induce plaintiff to marry her, that plaintiff in a moment of weakness, he consummated the contract and married her, though sincerely and truthfully plaintiff was not in love with defendant, but after he had married her he determined to treat her right and perhaps would learn to love her, and brought her home to Knoxville, TN and after plaintiff brought her home to his mother’s home where he had always lived with his mother, sisters and bros.

“Soon after he brought her home, she began to exhibit that defiant spirit, as dictatorial as old man Musselino himself; she became a demon and devil incarnate, and without any just excuse or case, she made the life of not only the plaintiff, but all the family a hell on earth and kept the entire family in a constant uproar all the time, and never spoke a kind word all the time, and she became so violent, that she assaulted plaintiff every time he came into the home.

“Defendant believed in ruling by brute force, and demonstrated her belief by often assaulting plaintiff, without any just excuse or case. Plaintiff has had to leave home on various occasions in order to prevent defendant from doing him great bodily harm, threatening to kill him and has chased him on the streets when she would fly into a fit of anger, and he believes that she would have killed him if he had not gotten away from her.

“On more occasions than one, she threatened to poison him, and on one occasion she threw a knife at him, and stuck the knife in his leg. And said she intended to kill him, and said that if she did not get to poison him she would stab him through the heart, when he was asleep.

“Plaintiff knew that she meant to kill him or do him some great bodily harm, and was forced to leave home, her conduct was so cruel and inhuman toward him, that it is not safe to long cohabit with her and be under her dominion and control. Plaintiff was forced to again enlist in the US Navy to protect himself.

“She shows plainly that she is an Italian, is possessed of a wicked and malignant heart and that she is fatally bent on mischief, and is unforgiving like most of foreigners.”

HER: “It is true that she and the plaintiff were married in North Carolina in December 1924, and that they came to Knoxville to live in February 1925, at which time the defendant came to the home of the plaintiff’s parents where she lived until conditions became intolerable there.

“At the time she came to the home of her Mother-in-law she had been in Norfolk, VA and at that time the plaintiff transferred from land duty to sea duty as a sailor in the Navy and went to sea, leaving the defendant in destitute circumstances and taking the last money from here that she had, and left this defendant absolutely penniless.

“This defendant’s Mother-in-law, who is Mrs. Estella McDaniel of Knoxville, sent this defendant the sum of twenty dollars to come to her home in Knoxville and out of this sum, the defendant paid her room rent and board bill in Norfolk and came to Knoxville on the balance. It is true that the plaintiff and this defendant met in Philadelphia, the plaintiff then being a sailor in the US Navy.

“This defendant is amused at the plaintiff’s charges that he was not in love with her and that she was in love or infatuated with him and made violent love to him and inveigled or induced him in a moment of weakness to marry her. These charges are absolutely false and untrue.

“As a matter of fact, this defendant at that time was but an eighteen year old girl, and the plaintiff was a man six years older than herself and as he says in his bill, a man schooled in the ways of the world, having sailed the seven seas and well able to take care of himself, being a man of average intelligence.

“These charges in his bill are a reflection upon himself rather than upon this defendant, but the defendant deems it proper to state the facts because said charges as well as all other charges in his bill are wicked and untrue. Walter E. McDaniels took the initiative in this courtship, and was a most persistent and effective lover, and proposed marriage and urged the same for a long time before this defendant consented thereto.

“She did go to Norfolk VA after he had transferred to that point from Philadelphia, but went at his insistence and request and at his expense, he coming from Norfolk to Philadelphia to get her, and took her back to Norfolk with him.

“Plaintiff says he was never in love with this defendant; if that is true he married her under the grossest misrepresentation because she was in love with him at that time, her affections having been won by his persistent favors and attentions and promises, and the only consideration of this marriage was that of what she deemed an honorable love.”


Source: Volunteer Voices/Digital Library Center/University of Tennessee/Knox County Archives/ Knox County Fourth Circuit Court/http://idserver.utk.edu/?id=200700000001595/



divorce+cases Knoxville+TN Knox+County+Court appalachian+history appalachian+mountains+history