Strong passions A scandalous divorce in old New York

In 1862, a single confession upturned one of New York's elite families. Mary Strong, a mother and wife of irreproachable character, admitted to having an affair with her brother-in-law. This eventually sparked a yearslong divorce trial with her husband, Peter Strong, that tested the limits of the legal system regarding matters of the heart. By recounting a sprawling, monied history and the battle of the trial, Weisberg examines the social upheavals that reshaped nineteenth-century America. Against the backdrop of the Civil War and the women's suffrage movement, the Strong v. Strong case illuminates the household anxieties that rocked a much younger country and still echo today. Weisberg (Talking to the Dead, 2005) is restrained. She provides just enough background information to situate the case within its particular social and political context, limiting her own speculations. Every character feels alive; many involved believed the case could decide not just the fate of one family but the fate of marriage itself. This sense of moral conviction makes the betrayals and redemptions within the Strong household all the more riveting.

Historian Weisberg (Talking to the Dead) digs through newspaper archives and legal libraries to deliver this captivating chronicle of a high-society scandal that riveted the nation during the final years of the Civil War. In a highly emotional state after the death of their third child in 1862, New York City socialite Mary Strong confessed to her husband, Peter, that she'd been having an affair with his brother. The couple soon separated, and Peter sued for divorce and custody of their two daughters. Mary countersued, alleging Peter had also committed adultery; she claimed he had forced her to have an abortion, then had an affair with the abortionist. By the time of the trial in 1865, Mary had disappeared with one of her daughters, in response to Peter having refused to return the other daughter after a visit. The jury was deadlocked and the divorce was not granted (based on two jurors' opinions that Peter, the original claimant, was as guilty as Mary), though later negotiations allowed the couple to divorce. Weisberg presents her narrative as a suspenseful courtroom drama--related through witness testimony from servants, family members, and a "ladies' physician," among others--with informative contextual asides on new developments in women's rights and the ongoing war. It's a page-turning glimpse into the lives of 19th-century New York's upper crust. (Feb)

Narratives about rich people behaving badly captivate readers, and this account of a lurid Civil War--era divorce should satisfy all parties. Former TV producer Weisberg, author of Talking to the Dead: Kate and Maggie Fox and the Rise of Spiritualism, has no shortage of material because the events in this story involve members of New York society whose sexual misadventures enraptured the media. After setting the scene, the author introduces her subjects: Peter Strong and Mary Stevens, who married in 1853. An apparently normal family life followed until their 14-month-old daughter died of influenza in 1862. Shortly after the funeral, Mary tearfully confessed that she had been having an affair with Peter's brother. With divorce "unthinkable" in respectable circles, Peter decided to break off all relations but continue to live under the same roof. To complicate matters, within weeks Mary revealed that she was pregnant. The question of which brother was responsible became irrelevant when Mary lost the baby, either to miscarriage or to an abortion instigated by her husband. (Weisberg believes the latter.) Relations grew increasingly strained, but two years passed before Peter filed for divorce. The author delivers a day-by-day account of the trial, making skillful use of court transcripts, contemporary journalism, letters, and the classic diary of George Templeton Strong (Peter's cousin). Readers will enjoy the legal repartee and fume at the disgraceful legal subservience of women. The ending is somewhat anticlimactic: The jury was "deadlocked," with central questions remaining unanswered, and no official divorce was granted. Three years later, Peter's lawyers quietly requested that the court reopen the divorce action; this time, the parties waived their right to a trial and would accept a referee's decision, provided Mary received custody of the daughter. The referee found no difficulties; the couple divorced and proceeded to live out conventional lives. Entertaining Victorian courtroom fireworks. Copyright (c) Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.