Divorce in the period you mention was rare, limited pretty much to the upper classes and generally granted only when one of the parties had engaged in really egregious behavior, in which case it is not surprising that the wife was awarded such settlements as an expression of society's disapproval of the husband's actions.
FWIW, Islamic law also generally requires a property settlement for a divorced wife, although the husband always retains custody of the children.
Perhaps the most appalling aspect of Islamic law for women is the ease and informality of divorce for the husband and its impossibility for the wife. American law has, I believe, always treated the genders the same in this regard, at least in theory.
I say "in theory" because a great many men will be glad to tell you at length about how the deck is stacked against them in divorce court. A good example of how "fair and equal" laws are not always applied fairly and equally in practice.
Actually, no. I was amazed, when reading the court records of nineteenth-century midwestern America, to find out just how often divorce took place. I always believed, as I think most people do, that people back then hardly ever got divorced. That was true in England, where women usually lost custody if there was a divorce. But the midwest of America was astonishingly open about such things, and the frequency of divorce was really pretty high. Grounds were similar to those seen today. There is nothing new under the sun.