The 1849 Code of Virginia, detailed crimes of morality.

By definition, a moral law targets an individual not for typical criminal acts such as violence or theft, but for subverting the social norms, or so-called “morality,” of the era. For example, activities such as gambling, illicit drug use, and profanity have long been policed based on morality throughout history. However, the areas of life most referred to under the basis of morality laws are sex and sexuality. Chapter 196 of the 1849 Code of Virginia, entitled “Offences Against Morality and Decency,” outlined these moral crimes, which included a wide array of charges such as adultery, interracial marriage, pornography, and bestiality.^[1]

A Fairfax County case of resident Robert Petit being charged with bastardy, with victim Amanda Mero.

An article about a Massachusetts Reverend being charged with adultery was reported in a D.C. newspaper.

While not the most common charges in the archives, court cases from the latter half of the 19th century citing morality laws do exist and are frequently very detailed, especially during instances of adultery and bastardy. These laws outlawed sexual relations between an unmarried couple, especially in the case where a child resulted from said actions. For example, in the case of the Commonwealth of Virginia v. Robert Petitt, Petitt was found guilty of bastardy. Victim Amanda Mero testified that Petitt had promised to marry her “after they had sinned,” but rescinded that promise and fled the area. Petitt was eventually brought back to Fairfax County and forced to pay a $50 fine.^[2]

Cases of adultery were equally detailed as those of bastardy and were highly sensationalized in newspapers. In Washington D.C.’s Daily Evening Star, adultery from all around the country was being reported on. On January 18th, 1854, the specific case of interest was that of Rev. B.W. Wright from Massachusetts, who was arrested for having a sexual relationship with “the daughter of a deacon in his own church.”^[3] With the story being reported in newspapers in Washington, D.C., one can imagine the nationwide knowledge of the scandal, especially with ideas of religious morality being called into question.

A 1797 legal description of sodomy and buggery in The Times, and Alexandria Advertiser.

A Fairfax County court case with the charge of buggery, where resident John Henry Shanky was charged with having physical relations with a horse.

One morality law outlined in the 1849 Code of Virginia that is especially rare to find cited in court cases is buggery. Usually found either paired together or as one with sodomy, buggery is defined in a 1797 article in the Alexandria Advertiser as “infamous crimes against tenure, committed either with man or beast… horrible crimes not to be named among Christians.”^[4] Buggery in this context was used as a legal charge against both bestiality and male homosexuality. Not only does this article reflect the religious sentiments of early America, but it establishes early that homosexuality is to be detested and viewed with the same intensity as bestiality. From the time that this article was published into the late nineteenth century, homosexuality and bestiality were, in the eyes of the law, of the same moral disdain. Arguably, it is commendable that the Fairfax County Courthouse has no archived court cases with the charge of sodomy, or sodomy mislabeled as buggery. However, this does not change the fact that the legal code paired these two charges as one “crime against nature,” which warped the sentiment toward homosexual men for decades to come.

There are a mere two cases with the charge of buggery as legitimate bestiality in Fairfax County, with the victim in both “detestable and abominable [crimes] against nature” being a female horse.^[5]