This restless precisianism has somewhat disguised the generally broad and liberal tendency of marriage law in America, and has encouraged foreign criticism of American social institutions.  As a matter of fact the prevalence of divorce in America is enormously exaggerated.  The proportion of divorced persons in the population appears to be less than one per cent., and, contrary to a frequent assertion, it is by no means the rule for divorced persons to remarry immediately.  Taking into account the special conditions of life in the United States the prevalence of divorce is small and its character by no means reveals a low grade morality.  An impartial and competent critic of the American people, Professor Muensterberg, remarks that the real ground which mainly leads to divorce in the United States—­not the mere legal pretexts made compulsory by the precisianism of the law—­is the highly ethical objection to continuing externally in a marriage which has ceased to be spiritually congenial.  “It is the women especially,” he says, “and generally the very best women, who prefer to take the step, with all the hardships which it involves, to prolonging a marriage which is spiritually hypocritical and immoral."[347]

The people of the United States, above all others, cherish ideals of individualism; they are also the people among whom, above all others, there is the greatest amount of what Reibmayr calls “blood-chaos.”  Under such circumstances the difficulties of conjugal life are necessarily at a maximum, and marriage union is liable to subtle impediments which must forever elude the statute-book.[348] There can be little doubt that the practical sagacity of the American people will enable them sooner or later to recognize this fact, and that finally fulfilling the Puritanic drift of their divorce legislation—­as foreshadowed in its outcome by Milton—­they will agree to trust their own citizens with the responsibility of deciding so private a matter as their conjugal relationships, with, of course, authority in the courts to see that no injustice is committed.  It is, indeed, surprising that the American people, usually intolerant of State interference, should in this matter so long have tolerated such interference in so private a matter.

The movement of divorce is not confined to Christendom; it is a mark of modern civilization.  In Japan the proportion of divorces is higher than in any other country, not excluding the United States.[349] The most vigorous and progressive countries are those that insist most firmly on the purity of sexual unions.  In the United States it was pointed out many years ago that divorce is most prevalent where the standard of education and morality is highest.  It was the New England States, with strong Puritanic traditions of moral freedom, which took the lead in granting facility to divorce.  The divorce movement is not, as some have foolishly supposed, a movement making for immorality.[350] Immorality is the inevitable accompaniment of indissoluble