A CRITICAL REVIEW OF NANCY COTT’S

“PUBLIC VOWS”
By Matt Cromwell  November 18, 2010

I. Introduction

Nancy Cott’s Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation (Cott 2000) is an

extremely valuable contribution to current discussions on the purpose, place, and legal

aspects of marriage in America. It is well researched, well written, clear, concise, and its

aims and conclusions are strong and valid. It is a beneficial read for anyone interested in

marriage as a political construct or the legal history of marriage in America.

Every book arrives in a time full of controversy for some issue or another. Cott’s

arrives in the middle of a national debate on the nature of marriage in America; and yet,

this work has thus far steered clear from controversy. It is particularly surprising for me as

I went about searching for modern reactions to Cott’s book to discover that after 10 years

in the public domain this work has survived virtually untouched by significant criticism.

The actual criticism among the many reviews read for this critique (which can be found in

the Bibliography) can be summarized in a few sentences. Candice Bredbenner correctly

points out that courts have more often affected marriage rather than legislation and Cott

gives courts scant coverage (Bredbenner 2002). Bredbenner then defends that “[t]his

observation does not necessarily suggest a weakness in Cott's argument, however, because

courts' associations with politically controversial issues have provoked charges of

legislating by a politicized judiciary.”

Cromwell, Matt  Critical Review: Public Vows Page 1 of 14

 Only the review of Ruth Feldstein provided substantial criticism (while remaining

strongly positive of the overall work). Feldstein contends that (1) though Cott is a feminist

historian, women are largely absent from any agency; (2) Cott does not comment on how

various forms of marriage affected concepts of femininity; and (3) her discussion of current

transformations in marriage is completely absent of consideration for concurrent trends in

women’s sexuality (Feldstein 2002). Each of Feldstein’s criticisms stem from her desire – as

a fellow feminist historian – that Cott be more overtly feminist in this important work. If

Bredbenner and Feldstein provide the only criticism of this work, it is clear there is much

room for a more lively discussion of Cott’s perspective and method.

II. Why The Author Matters: Nancy Cott

Nancy Cott is a legal historian and a feminist; a powerful combination. Her emphasis

on legal history leads her to look at history through the lens of the powerful – the

authorities of the land – while her feminism pushes her to advocate for those without

power. This particular combination makes her uniquely skilled to wrestle with the topic of

the political history of marriage in the United States.

Another important aspect of Cott’s background that should be addressed is how this

book specifically brought her into the national limelight. In 2010, Nancy Cott was brought

to the California Supreme Court to testify in the case seeking to repeal Proposition 8 as a

historical expert on marriage specifically because of this work. Her testimony was used to

advocate against the argument that procreation is part of what defines marriage and would

therefore exclude homosexual relationships from enjoying the right of marriage. She

Cromwell, Matt  Critical Review: Public Vows Page 2 of 14

argued persuasively that procreation has never been part of the legal understanding of

marriage in the history of the United States and that marriage as an institution has

continually grown and developed rather than being a fixed idea (Dolan 2010). This echoes

the nature of Cott’s overall message in Public Vows and how it is seen as a bastion of reason

for those who advocate for same-sex marriage.

Within a year after publishing Public Vows Cott was interviewed by a popular

wedding site called IndieBride.com (Yamin). In the interview she explains that part of her

reason for writing this book was because “the history of marriage as a political institution

hadn’t been put together,” and to focus “on how marriage related to the question of the

nation and national identity.” This unique perspective on marriage as a political institution

and its impact on the nation is the book’s greatest strength. Later, in 2004, National Public

Radio (NPR) interviewed Cott about the book. When asked if she is a supporter of same-sex

marriage she answered that she thinks “it is the next phase of evolution of marriage in our

society” (Gross 2004). Her answer confirms a particular perspective that is obvious

throughout the book: marriage has continually evolved in the United States and will

continue to do so. This argument is well documented but it begs the question of how

forcefully her opinion shaped her research.

III. An Overview

Public Vows is especially comfortable reading because of the chronological nature in

which Cott organizes the book. The narrative begins shortly after the American Revolution

with the Founders setting out to create a new political reality. Though monogamy was

Cromwell, Matt  Critical Review: Public Vows Page 3 of 14

globally a minority approach to marriage, the Founders saw it as a tool for

institutionalizing stable households with automatic care-givers and child-rearers built into

it. According to Cott, British Protestant Christianity provides the monogamous model that

the Founders needed, one that made the wife economically and politically dependent on

her husband. As states formed and grew the details of marriage began to be fleshed out as

coverture. Derived from the French, but inherited from English common law, coverture

ensured that every woman was “covered” under the protection and safety of her husband.

Under coverture a woman had no property or wealth of her own. Anything she came into

the marriage with was surrendered to her husband as well as anything she may earn while

married.

Marriage was also seen as a privilege of citizenship and therefore reserved for

whites only. Slaves, regardless of their family structure before being “owned” did not have

the right to a legally recognized marriage. Several aspects of slavery had devastating effects

on the negro understanding of monogamy. Forced separation of families through sale often

led to forced procreation regardless of pre-existing relationships. Some males were

encouraged to impregnate multiple women on a slave-holders land in order for the master

to inherit a new generation of slaves. The irony of these forced sexual practices coming

from Christian slave owners was never lost on anti-slavery advocates nor on the slaves

themselves.

One aspect of the freedom that the Civil War brought was the ability for freed slaves

to have legally recognized marriages. But because of the damage done to the slaves concept

of sexuality and marriage the federal government went to great lengths to help educate the

Cromwell, Matt  Critical Review: Public Vows Page 4 of 14

freedmen and help them to understand the virtues of monogamy. This was done primarily

through a federal agency called The Freedmen’s Bureau.

Though the freedom to marry was a monumental step towards citizenry for

negroes, it was also limited to their own race. The racial aspect was also coupled with a

gendered double-standard. White men who married Native Americans or blacks were

looked down on but were not withheld their rights as married couples. Conversely, Native

American or black men who wooed white women could be prosecuted (if they were not

first killed by their white neighbors).

In some ways extending marriage rights across the color boundary opened up new

horizons for all citizens. Shortly after the Civil War Mormons fled to Utah to avoid religious

persecution based on their practice of polygamy. Concurrently, the Free Love movement

was spreading its belief that because the basis of marriage is consent, consent alone should

permit adults to be romantic with whomever and however many persons they chose. These

variations of marriage were seen as threatening to the foundations of American citizenry

and therefore opposed actively by the federal government.

At the turn of the twentieth century the justification for monogamy was forced to

change as women’s suffrage came to the fore. According to Cott, one significant way the

federal government transformed was in shifting its concerns away from marriage morality

to marriage economy. Families purchased more, husbands with households tended to avoid

unemployment more, and thus families were seen as a driving force behind the economy.

But such a stimulus could not be demanded by government, instead the federal

Cromwell, Matt  Critical Review: Public Vows Page 5 of 14

government “operated more through incentives than through ultimatums” (158). All of the

governments stratagem in response to the Great Depression had an inherently marital

structure to them. Funding provided to citizens was typically categorized by “earner” and

“dependent” language that solidified and encourage the household hierarchy.

The last chapter is spent covering the last 40 years which, though characterized by a

“seismic shift in marriage practices” (201), receive the shortest shrift. Each previous era of

history was given deep and intriguing research and details, but the last chapter feels much

more like a survey of our most recent history with a concluding Op. Ed. essay by Cott.

Cott opens by explaining how only this generation could forgive its President of his

marital indiscretions as freely as was done with President William Jefferson Clinton. From

the sexual revolution of the 60’s to the implementation of the “no-fault” divorce, the ideals

and forms of marriage were being uprooted and tested at every level. Yet, men and women

still marry. It seems an unanswerable dilemma. Part of Cott’s answer is that the modern

freedoms coincide with an increasing privatization of marriage and home life. The last

chapter is a fitting capstone for Cott’s overall argument. Federal government’s role in

regulating and enforcing marriage laws started with strict and total enforcement, and

gradually evolved through loosening of racial codes, to economic and gender freedoms, and

finally to today which deems marriage as a purely private decision with only taxable

recognition. If that is the case then same-sex marriage is an obvious and necessary next

step in the evolution of marriage just as Cott claims.

Cromwell, Matt  Critical Review: Public Vows Page 6 of 14

 I’ve attempted to illustrate the significance of Cott’s unique skills and perspective as

well as provide a guided overview of the work as the backdrop for the following strengths

and critique.

IV. Strengths: Narrative and Analysis

There are several aspects of Nancy Cott’s work that makes this stand out as an

excellent reference and a work that could help spur other related studies.

The first is her ability to delineate the history of America itself through the legal lens

of marriage in a comfortable, chronological writing style. Several reviewers recognized her

ability to summarize American history so well while remaining focused on marriage

(Eustace and Nugent specifically). One can see the pre- and post-Civil War eras,

reconstruction, the turn of the 20th Century, women’s suffrage, the sexual revolution, and

the impeachment trials of then-President Clinton like signs along the road on a journey

through the various progressions of marriage. It is an impressive narrative.

Secondly, the narrative is encouraged and supported by her thorough detail, notes,

and legal analysis. Whereas a casual student of history might see the “free-love” movement

and Mormon polygamy dilemma as oddities in an otherwise spotless monogamous

American history, Cott illustrates how the political and communal emphasis on consent

provides the justification both for monogamy as well as these opponents. If consent is the

heart of partnership, as common law encourages, then why could not men and women

freely consent to love multiple partners? One could easily assume that Mormon wives who

advocated for their polygamous husbands were simply naïve or too easily persuaded. In

Cromwell, Matt  Critical Review: Public Vows Page 7 of 14

contrast, Cott is able to show them as standing on a logical conclusion based on consent

that baffled their contemporary women’s rights advocates.

These strengths help her draw the logical conclusion that marriage is both innately

public and private and has undergone much transformation in our nations’ short history.

This conclusion is easier to arrive at because the religious aspects of the narrative are not

given voice in this work.

V. Critique: Scapegoating and A Serious Omission

One commonality in all the book reviews of Public Vows is the reference to the

source of the current model of marriage: British Protestantism as voiced through English

Common Law. Cott is very articulate about how unique monogamy was at the time of the

American Revolution. Globally, polygamy was much more common; that much is true. What

is odd is what Cott concludes based on that fact. She makes a logical leap that because

monogamy was unique it needed “to be justified and advocated” (10). Though Cott states

that political thinkers understood monogamy with a “kind of utilitarian reasoning” she

nevertheless goes to great lengths to tie this particular form of marriage directly to

Christianity and Christian doctrine. After having tied the new government’s domestic

strategy of marriage with Christian doctrine, she further associates the specific form of

marriage with coverture, making the Christian ideal of marriage the same as the

subjugation of women in their own households. Altogether, though the political authorities

shaping the New Republic had plenty of purely political and societal reasons to emphasize

Cromwell, Matt  Critical Review: Public Vows Page 8 of 14

and encourage monogamy, Cott nevertheless scapegoat’s Christianity as the source of the

model and labels it as patriarchal to a fault.

There are two fundamental problems with this logic: (1) Though it is the truth, it is

not the whole truth; and (2) she does not recognize that just as marriage evolved over time

so did Christian doctrine. Let me expand on each briefly.

The whole truth entails two additional aspects, the first being that Christianity did

not have a monopoly on monogamy, nor was it a new idea in need of advocacy. Christian

monogamy had already been firmly in place for centuries before the American Revolution

and was in no threat of ending. Judaism also had a long-standing tradition of monogamy.

Though Judaism tolerated polygamy, it had a strong preference for monogamy since

biblical times. Michael Gold asserts that “all rabbis of the Talmud had but one wife,” and

that polygamy was totally rejected in Judaism by the Middle Ages (Gold 1998). Christianity

also has a strong tradition of life-long celibacy, but that did not gain any reference in the

formation of the New Republic. All of these nuances of monogamy existed and had

influence in society, and yet Cott focuses exclusively on the British Protestant model as

politically relevant.

The second problem is that as Cott describes how politics and marriage itself evolve

over time in America, she does not track how Christian doctrine – the source of the model –

also adapts and evolves. Obviously she is not writing a history of Christian marriage – that

is not her responsibility – but the omission, in this case, allows the uninformed reader to

believe that Christian marriage is equal with coverture even to this day. Her narrative also

Cromwell, Matt  Critical Review: Public Vows Page 9 of 14

leaves the impression that individual freedom within marriage coincides with a departure

from the traditional Christian model of marriage.

One can never expect a historian or the work of a historian to be all things to all

people. But it is justified to expect that when a historian endeavors to cover a certain field

that they would acknowledge aspects of the field that are primary even if their focus is on a

secondary aspect of the subject. In this way, Cott would have been much more effective in

discussing the history of marriage in America by recognizing the huge role that religion had

over time in shaping and enforcing a particular understanding of marriage. This is a classic

topic of interest for anyone studying the historical relationship between church and state.

Unfortunately, Cott has covered this issue only from the perspective of the state. Janay

Nugent correctly says that “[m]arriage is a multi-faceted topic, with extensive implications

for the political, economic, religious, and social realities of… society” (Nugent 2002).

Despite that reality, Cott seems to be walking along the edge of religious history and

purposely never crossing over. Unfortunately, this topic is imperatively religious. The only

function religion serves in Public Vows is as the scapegoat of the coverture model, and as an

oddity in promoting polygamy in Mormonism. There is rich documentation of how

churches and pastors preached and taught their congregants about monogamous marriage

and abstinence until marriage1. There is ample and detailed documentation of Christians

1 Several important resources are Eric Fuch’s “Sexual Desire & Love: Origins & History of the Christian Ethic
of Sexuality and Marriage” (1979); John Witte Jr.’s “From Sacrament to Contract: Marriage, Religion, and Law
in the Western Tradition” (1997); and Helena Wall’s “Fierce Communion: Family and Community in Early
America” (1995). There are many more excellent recent works, but these would have been available to Cott
during her research of Public Vows.

Cromwell, Matt  Critical Review: Public Vows Page 10 of 14

who held political office and used it to further a Christian agenda in the U.S. 2 Each of these

aspects have a direct effect and correlation on Cott’s subject but it is as if they do not exist

at all.

This is clearly not a critique of something Cott has done erroneously, but of a

massive omission. If there was a political decision being made about marriage, Christians

were most definitely part of the discussion and most likely driving forces towards

monogamy and abstinence before marriage. If there was a shift away from ideas of

“traditional marriage”, they were most likely related to attitudes towards Christianity in

general.

Overall, Cott’s main weaknesses stem from either making a flawed decision to keep

religion out of this discussion, or from purposefully limiting the discussion of Christianity

in order to make a mostly polemical point about the future of marriage in America. Either

way, the omission reveals Cott’s bias and predetermines her conclusion.

VI. Conclusion

My goal here has been to draw attention to the fact that thus far the discussion

around this book has been largely one-sided there should be more discussion and research

around this subject. Ours is a politically divisive time, and marriage is at the core of the

division. I do not believe that this politically charged atmosphere is productive, and I would

never suggest that there should be controversy for the sake of controversy. But this work

needs balance. There is a tendency to pit the struggle for marriage equality between

2One excellent example is George M. Thomas’ “Revivalism and Cultural Change: Christianity, Nation Building,
and the Market in the Nineteenth-Century United States” (1998).

Cromwell, Matt  Critical Review: Public Vows Page 11 of 14

homosexuals and fundamentalist Christians only. The truth is more complex. Within

Christianity there are churches that have ordained homosexuals, or are considered “gay

friendly churches.” Within the LGBT community there are those who would advocate for

full acceptance of all forms of sexual practice, while others legitimately desire a life-long

monogamous relationship and the benefits that society gives to such a relationship. Justice

is not done to this subject without at least acknowledging the wide spectrum of positions

currently held. Cott does an excellent job of representing all the challenges to the

traditional model of marriage in America, but that is only half of the story.

Marriage is not a political institution; it is a religio-political institution, fully political,

fully religious. The two sides cannot be separated. Therefore, in an ideal world there would

be “A Companion to Nancy Cott’s Public Vows” which would endeavor to extrapolate how

Christianity and Christians contributed to the political environment around each of the

landmark transitions that Cott explores. A work of that nature alone would then suffer from

the opposite omission of Cott’s. But together, they would provide a much more

representative picture of the breadth of marriage as a religio-political institution.

Cromwell, Matt  Critical Review: Public Vows Page 12 of 14

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bredbenner, Candice. 2002. Book Reviews. American Studies 43, no. 1 (November): 172-173.
https://journals.ku.edu/index.php/amerstud/article/view/3064/3023.

Cott, Nancy. 2000. Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Dolan, Maura. 2010. Marriage historian testifies in Prop. 8 trial in San Francisco | L.A. NOW |
Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/marriage-historian-testifies-in-prop-8-trial-
in-san-francisco.html.

Feldstein, Ruth. 2002. The Personal is (Still) Political: Marriage, Citizenship, and Women’s and
Gender History. Reviews in American History 30, no. 1: 106-113.
doi:10.1353/rah.2002.0009.
http://muse.jhu.edu/content/crossref/journals/reviews_in_american_history/v030/30.1feldste
in.html.

Gold, Michael. 1998. Adultery: Revisiting the Seventh Commandment. Moment 23, no. 1: 34.
http://proquest.umi.com.libproxy.sdsu.edu/pqdweb?did=494296351&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD
&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&.

Gross, Terry (Interviewer). 2004. Professor Nancy Cott on Gay Marriage : NPR [Audio
Interview Transcript]. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1838413.

Nugent, Janay. 2002. Public Vows (Book Review). Labour/La Travail 50: 346-348.

Yamin, Pricilla (Interviewer). Indiebride | Interviews | Nancy Cott. www.indiebride.com.

http://www.indiebride.com/interviews/cott/index.html.

OTHER SOURCES CONSULTED

Adams, Carole Elizabeth. 2002. Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation - Book
Review. Florida Historical Quarterly 81, no. 1: 199-121.

Batlan, Felice. 2010. Review of Cott, Nancy F., Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the
Nation. H-Law, H-Review, August. http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=6649.

Cichy, Rose. 2001. Public Vows (Book Review). Library Journal 126, no. 1: 129.

Cromwell, Matt  Critical Review: Public Vows Page 13 of 14

Ditz, Toby L. 2002. Public Vows : A History of Marriage and the Nation. Journal of the History
of Sexuality 11, no. 3: 498-501. doi:10.1353/sex.2003.0012.

Eustace, Nicole. 2002. Public Vows : A History of Marriage and the Nation - Reviews. Journal
of Social History Fall.

Fullbrook, Kate. 2002. Reviews. Journal of American Studies 36, no. 02 (September): 338-340.
doi:10.1017/S0021875802396877.
http://www.journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0021875802216874.

May, Elaine Tyler. 2001. Review : [ untitled ]. The Journal of American History 88, no. 3: 1046-
1047. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2700408.

Mccurry, Stephanie. 2000. Book Reviews. History: 1659-1670.

Cromwell, Matt  Critical Review: Public Vows Page 14 of 14