COLONIAL WOMAN AND MARRIAGE
I. New England Weddings
Of course, practically every American
novel dealing with the colonial period or
any other period, for that matter closes
with a marriage and a hint that they lived happily
ever afterwards. Did they indeed? To satisfy
our curiosity about this point let us examine those
early customs that dealt with courtship, marriage,
punishment for offenses against the marriage law,
and the general status of woman after marriage.
For many years a wedding among the
Puritans was a very quiet affair totally unlike the
ceremony in the South, where feasting, dancing, and
merry-making were almost always accompaniments.
For information about the occasion in Massachusetts
we may, of course, turn to the inevitable Judge Sewall.
As a guest he saw innumerable weddings; as a magistrate
he performed many; as one of the two principal participants
he took part in several. He has left us a record
of his own frequent courtships, of how he was rejected
or accepted, and of his life after the acceptances;
and from it all one may make a rather fair analysis
not only of the conventional methods and domestic
manners of New England but also of the character and
spirit of the other sex during such trying occasions.
The evidence shows that while a young woman was generally
given her choice of accepting or declining, the suitor,
before offering his attentions, first asked permission
to do so from her parents or guardians. Thus a
marriage seldom occurred in which the parents or other
interested parties were left in ignorance as to the
design, or ignored in the deciding of the choice.
Sewall offers us sufficient proof
on this point: “Dec, 1719. Mr.
Cooper asks my Consent for Judith’s Company;
which I freely grant him.” “Feria
Secunda, Octob, 1729. Judge Davenport comes
to me between 10 and 11 a-clock in the morning and
speaks to me on behalf of Mr. Addington Davenport,
his eldest Son, that he might have Liberty to Wait
upon Jane Hirst [his kinswoman] now at my House in
way of Courtship." And it should be noted that
the parents of the young man took a keen interest
in the matter, and showed genuine appreciation that
their son was permitted to court with the full sanction
of the lady’s parents. Thus Sewall records:
“Dec. I and my Wife visit Mr. Stoddard.
Madam Stoddard Thank’d me for the Liberty I granted
her Son [Mr. Cooper] to wait on my daughter Judith.
I returned the Compliment and Kindness."
It might well be conjectured that
to toy with a girl’s affections was a serious
matter. If the young man attempted without consent
of the young woman’s parents or guardian to
make love to her, the audacious youth could be hailed
into court, where it might indeed go hard with him.
Thus the records of Suffolk County Court for 1676
show that “John Lorin stood ’convict on
his own confession of making love to Mary Willis without
her parents consent and after being forwarned by them,
L5."
But the lover might have his revenge;
for if a stubborn father proved unreasonable and refused
to give a cause for not allowing a courtship, the
young man could bring the older one into court, and
there compel him to allow love to take its own way,
or state excellent reasons for objecting. Thus,
in 1646 “Richard Taylor complained to the general
Court of Plymouth that he was prevented from marrying
Ruth Wheildon by her father Gabriel; but when before
the court Gabriel yielded and promised no longer to
oppose the marriage."
And then, if the young gallant (may
we dare call a Puritan beau that?) after having captured
the girl’s heart, failed to abide by his engagement,
woe betide him; for into the court he and her father
might go, and the young gentleman might come forth
lacking several pounds in money, if not in flesh.
The Massachusetts colony records show, for instance,
that the court “orders that Joyce Bradwicke shall
give unto Alex. Becke the some of xxs, for promiseing
him marriage wthout her frends consent, & nowe refuseing
to pforme the same." Again, the Plymouth colony
records as quoted by Howard, state that “Richard
Siluester, in the behaife of his dautheter, and Dinah
Siluester in the behaife of herseife ’to recover
twenty pounds and costs from John Palmer, for acteing
fraudulently against the said Dinah, in not pforming
his engagement to her in point of marriage.’”
“In 1735, a woman was awarded two hundred pounds
and costs at the expense of her betrothed, who, after
jilting her, had married another, although he had first
beguiled her into deeding him a piece of land ‘worth
L100.’”
Serious as was the matter of the mere
courtship, the fact that the dowry or marriage portion
had to be considered made the act of marriage even
more serious. The devout elders, who taught devotion
to heavenly things and scorn of the things of this
world, nevertheless haggled and wrangled long and
stubbornly over a few pounds more or less. Judge
Sewall seems to have prided himself on the friendly
spirit and expediteness with which he settled such
a matter. “Oc, 1729. Judge Davenport
comes to me between 10 and 11 a-clock in the morning
and speaks to me on behalf of Mr. Addington Davenport,
his eldest Son, that he might have Liberty to Wait
upon Jane Hirst now at my House in way of Courtship.
He told me he would deal by him as his eldest Son,
and more than so. Inten’d to build a House
where his uncle Addington dwelt, for him; and that
he should have his Pue in the Old Meeting-house....
He said Madam Addington Would wait upon me."
Not only was provision thus made for
the future financial condition of the wedded, but
also the possibility of the death of either party after
the day of marriage was kept in mind, and a sum to
be paid in such an emergency agreed upon. For
example, Sewall records after the death of his daughter
Mary: “Tuesday, Feb, 1711-2....
Dine with Mr. Gerrish, son Gerrish [Mary’s Husband],
Mrs. Anne. Discourse with the Father about my
Daughter Mary’s Portion. I stood for making
L550 doe; because now twas in six parts, the Land
was not worth so much. He urg’d for L600,
at last would split the L50. Finally, Feb,
I agreed to charge the House-Rent, and Differences
of Money, and make it up L600."
II. Judge Sewall’s Courtships
The Judge’s own accounts of
his many courtships and three marriages give us rather
surprising glimpses of the spirit and independence
of colonial women, who, as pictured in the average
book on American history, are generally considered
weak, meek, and yielding. His wooing of Madam
Winthrop, for instance, was long and arduous and ended
in failure. She would not agree to his proffered
marriage settlement; she demanded that he keep a coach,
which he could not afford; she even declared that his
wearing of a wig was a prerequisite if he obtained
her for a wife. Mrs. Winthrop had been through
marriage before, and she evidently knew how to test
the man before accepting. Not at all a clinging
vine type of woman, she well knew how to take care
of herself, and her manner, therefore, of accepting
his attentions is indeed significant. Under date
of October 23 we find in his Diary this brief
note: “My dear wife is inter’d”;
and on February 26, he writes: “This morning
wondering in my mind whether to live a single or a
married life."
Then come his friends, interested
in his physical and spiritual welfare, and realizing
that it is not well for man to live alone, they begin
to urge upon him the benefits of wedlock. “March
14, 1717. Deacon Marion comes to me, visits with
me a great while in the evening; after a great deal
of discourse about his Courtship He told
[me] the Olivers said they wish’d I would Court
their Aunt. I said little, but said twas not
five Moneths since I buried my dear Wife. Had
said before ’twas hard to know whether best
to marry again or no; whom to marry...." “July
7, 1718.... At night, when all were gone to bed,
Cousin Moodey went with me into the new Hall, read
the History of Rebeckah’s Courtship, and pray’d
with me respecting my Widowed Condition."
Thus urged to it, the lonely Judge
pays court to Mrs. Denison but she will not have him.
Naturally he has little to say about the rejection;
but evidently, with undiscouraged spirit, he soon turns
elsewhere and with success; for under date of October
29, 1719, we come across this entry: “Thanksgiving
Day: between 6 and 7 Brother Moody & I went to
Mrs. Tilley’s, and about 7 or 8 were married
by Mr. J. Sewall, in the best room below stairs.
Mr. Prince prayed the second time. Mr. Adams,
the minister at Newington was there, Mr. Oliver and
Mr. Timothy Clark.... Sung the 12, 13, 14, 15
and 16 verses of the 90th Psalm. Cousin S. Sewall
set Low-Dutch tune in a very good key.... Distributed
cake...."
But his happiness was short-lived;
for in May of the next year this wife died, and, without
wasting time in sentimental repining, he was soon on
the search for a new companion. In August he was
calling on Madam Winthrop and approached the subject
with considerable subtlety: “Spake to her,
saying, my loving wife died so soon and suddenly, ’twas
hardly convenient for me to think of marrying again;
however I came to this resolution, that I would not
make my court to any person without first consulting
with her." Two months later he said: “At
last I pray’d that Catherine [Mrs. Winthrop]
might be the person assign’d for me....
She ... took it up in the way of denial, saying she
could not do it before she was asked."
But, as stated above, Madam Winthrop
was rather capricious and, in popular parlance, she
“kept him guessing.” Thus, we read:
“Madam seem’d to harp
upon the same string.... Must take care of her
children; could not leave that house and neighborhood
where she had dwelt so long.... I gave her a
piece of Mr. Belcher’s cake and gingerbread
wrapped up in a clean sheet of paper...."
“In the evening I visited Madam
Winthrop, who treated me with a great deal of courtesy;
wine, marmalade. I gave her a News-Letter about
the Thanks-giving...."
Two days later: “Madam
Winthrop’s countenance was much changed from
what ’twas on Monday. Look’d dark
and lowering.... Had some converse, but very
cold and indifferent to what ’twas before....
She sent Juno home with me, with a good lantern...."
A week passed, and “in the evening
I visited Madam Winthrop, who treated me courteously,
but not in clean linen as sometimes.... Juno came
home with me...."
Again, several days later, he seeks
the charming widow, and finds her “out.”
He goes in search of her. Finding her, he remains
a few minutes, then suggests going home. “...She
found occasion to speak pretty earnestly about my
keeping a coach: ... She spake something
of my needing a wig...."
Two days later when calling:
“...I rose up at 11 o’clock to come away,
saying I would put on my coat, she offer’d not
to help me. I pray’d her that Juno might
light me home, she open’d the shutter, and said
’twas pretty light abroad: Juno was weary
and gone to bed. So I came home by star-light
as well as I could...."
The Judge was persistent, however,
and called again. “I asked Madam what fashioned
neck-lace I should present her with; she said none
at all" Evidently such coolness chilled the ardor
of his devotion, and he records but one more visit
of a courting nature. “Give her the remnant
of my almonds; she did not eat of them as before; but
laid them away.... The fire was come to one short
brand besides the block ... at last it fell to pieces,
and no recruit was made.” The judge took
the hint. “Took leave of her.... Treated
me courteously.... Told her she had enter’d
the 4th year of widowhood.... Her dress was not
so clean as sometime it had been. Jéhovah jireh."
A little later he turned his attention
toward a Mrs. Ruggles; but by this time the Judge
was known as a persistent suitor, and one hard to
discourage, and it would seem that Mrs. Ruggles gave
him no opportunity to push the matter. At length,
however, he found his heart’s desire in a Mrs.
Gibbs and, judging from his Diary, was exceedingly
pleased with his choice.
III. Liberty to Choose
It seems clear that the virgin, as
well as the widow, was given considerable liberty
in making up her own mind as to the choice of a life
mate, and any general conclusions that colonial women
were practically forced into uncongenial marriages
by the command of parents has no documentary evidence
whatever. For instance, Eliza Pinckney wrote
in reply to her father’s inquiry about her marriageable
possibilities:
“As you propose Mr. L. to me
I am sorry I can’t have Sentiments favourable
enough to him to take time to think on the Subject,
as your Indulgence to me will ever add weight
to the duty that obliges me to consult that best
pleases you, for so much Generosity on your part
claims all my Obedience. But as I know ’tis
my Happiness you consult, I must beg the favour of
you to pay my compliments to the old Gentleman
for his Generosity and favorable Sentiments of
me, and let him know my thoughts on the affair
in such civil terms as you know much better than I
can dictate; and beg leave to say to you that
the riches of Chili and Peru put together, if
he had them could not purchase a sufficient Esteem
for him to make him my husband.
“As to the other Gentleman you
mention, Mr. W., you know, sir, I have so slight
a knowledge of him I can form no judgment, and a case
of such consequence requires the nicest distinction
of humours and Sentiments.
“But give me leave to assure
you, my dear Sir, that a single life is my only
Choice; and if it were not as I am yet but
eighteen hope you will put aside the thoughts
of my marrying yet these two or three years at
least.
“You are so good as to say you
have too great an opinion of my prudence to think
I would entertain an indiscreet passion for any one,
and I hope Heaven will direct me that I may never disappoint
you...."
Even timid, shrinking Betty Sewall,
who as a child was so troubled over her spiritual
state, was not forced to accept an uncongenial mate;
although, of course, the old judge thought she must
not remain in the unnatural condition of a spinster.
When she was seventeen her first suitor appeared,
with her father’s permission, of course; for
the Judge had investigated the young man’s financial
standing, and had found him worth at least L600.
To prepare the girl for the ordeal, her father took
her into his study and read her the story of the mating
of Adam and Eve, “as a soothing and alluring
preparation for the thought of matrimony.”
But poor Betty, frightened out of her wits, fled as
the hour for the lover’s appearance neared,
and hid in a coach in the stable. The Judge duly
records the incident: “Jany Fourth-day,
at night Capt. Tuthill comes to speak with Betty,
who hid herself all alone in the coach for several
hours till he was gone, so that we sought at several
houses, then at last came in of her self, and look’d
very wild."
Necessarily, this suitor was dismissed,
and a Mr. Hirst next appeared, but Betty could not
consent to his courtship, and the father mournfully
notes the belief that this second young man had “taken
his final leave.” A few days later, however,
the Judge writes her as follows:
“Mr. Hirst waits upon you once
more to see if you can bid him welcome.
It ought to be seriously considered, that your drawing
back from him after all that has passed between
you, will be to your Prejudice; and will tend
to discourage persons of worth from making their
Court to you. And you had need to consider whether
you are able to bear his final Leaving of you,
howsoever it may seem gratefull to you at present.
When persons come toward us, we are apt to look
upon their Undesirable Circumstances mostly; and therefore
to shun them. But when persons retire from us
for good and all, we are in danger of looking
only on that which is desirable in them to our
woefull Disquiet.... I do not see but that
the Match is well liked by judicious persons, and such
as are your Cordial Friends, and mine also.
“Yet notwithstanding, if you
find in yourself an imovable incurable Aversion
from him, and cannot love, and honour, and obey
him, I shall say no more, nor give you any further
trouble in this matter. It had better be
off than on. So praying God to pardon us,
and pity our Undeserving, and to direct and strengthen
and settle you in making a right Judgment, and
giving a right Answer, I take leave, who, am,
dear child, your loving father...."
IV. The Banns and the Ceremony
After the formal engagement, when
the dowry and contract had been agreed upon and signed,
the publishing of the banns occurred. Probably
this custom was general throughout the colonies; indeed,
the Church of England required it in Virginia and
South Carolina; the Catholics demanded it in Maryland;
the Dutch in New York and the Quakers in Pennsylvania
sanctioned it. Sewall mentions the ceremony several
times, and evidently looked upon it as a proper, if
not a required, procedure.
And who performed the marriage ceremony
in those old days? To-day most Americans look
upon it as an office of the clergyman, although a few
turn to a civil officer in this hour of need; but in
the early years of the Plymouth and Massachusetts
Bay Colonies it is highly probable that only a magistrate
was allowed to marry the contracting parties.
Those first American Puritans had a fear of church
ceremony, and for some years conducted both weddings
and funerals without the formal services of a preacher.
By Judge Sewall’s time, either clergyman or magistrate
might perform the office; but all symptoms of formality
or worldly pomp were frowned upon, and the union was
made generally with the utmost simplicity and quietness.
We may turn again to the Judge’s Diary for brief
pictures of the equally brief ceremony:
“Tuesday, 1688.
Mr. Nath. Newgate Marries Mr. Lynds Daughter before Mr. Ratcliff, with Church of
England Ceremonies."
“Thorsday, Octh, 1688. About 5 P.M. Mr. Willard (the
pastor)
married Mr. Samuel Danforth and Mrs. Hannah Alien."
“Fe, 1717-8.
In the evening I married Joseph Marsh.... I
gave them a glass of
Canary.”
“Ap, 1718....
In the evening I married Chasling Warrick and Esther Bates...."
It seems that the Judge himself inclined
toward the view that a wedding was essentially a civil,
and not an ecclesiastical affair, and he even went
so far as to introduce a rule having certain magistrates
chosen for the duty, but, unluckily, the preachers
won the contest and almost took this particular power
away from the civil officers. The Judge refers
thus to the matter: “No, 1692.
Law passes for Justices and Ministers Marrying Persons.
By order of the Committee, I had drawn up a Bill for
Justices and such others as the Assembly should appoint
to marry; but came new-drawn and thus alter’d
from the Deputies. It seems they count the respect
of it too much to be left any longer with the Magistrate.
And Salaries are not spoken of; as if one sort of Men
might live on the Aer...." Apparently up
to this date the magistrates had possessed rather
a monopoly on the marriage market, and Sewall was justly
worried over this new turn in affairs. Betty,
however, who had finally accepted Mr. Hirst, was married
by a clergyman, as the following entry testifies:
“Oc, 1700.... In the following Evening
Mr. Grove Hirst and Elizabeth Sewall are married by
Mr. Cotton Mather."
The nearest that the Puritans of the
day seem to have approached earthly hilarity on such
occasions was in the serving of simple refreshments.
Strange to say, the pious Judge almost smacks his lips
as he records the delicacies served at one of the
weddings: “Many of the Council went and
wish’d Col. Fitch joy of his daughter Martha’s
marriage with Mr. James Allen. Had good Bride-Cake,
good Wine, Burgundy and Canary, good Beer, Oranges,
Pears." Again, in recording the marriage of his
daughter Judith, he notes that “we had our Cake
and sack-posset.” Still again: “May
8th, 1712. At night, Dr. Increase Mather married
Mr. Sam Gerrish, and Mrs. Sarah Coney; Dr. Cotton Mather
pray’d last.... Had Gloves, Sack-Posset,
and Cake...."
Of course, as time went on, the good
people of Massachusetts became more worldly and three
quarters of a century after Sewall noted the above,
some weddings had become so noisy that the godly of
the old days might well have considered such affairs
as riotous. For example, Judge Pynchon records
on January 2, 1781: “Tuesday, ... A
smart firing is heard today. (Mr. Brooks is married
to Miss Hathorne, a daughter of Mr. Estey), and was
as loud, and the rejoicing near as great as on the
marriage of Robt. Peas, celebrated last year;
the fiddling, dancing, etc., about equal in each."
V. Matrimonial Restrictions
Necessarily, the laws dealing with
wedlock were exceedingly strict in all the colonies;
for there were many reckless immigrants to America,
many of whom had left a bad reputation in the old country
and were not building a better one in the new.
It was no uncommon thing for men and women who were
married in England to pose as unmarried in the colonies,
and the charge of bigamy frequently appears in the
court records of the period. Sometimes the magistrates
“punished” the man by sending him back
to his wife in England, but there seems to be no record
of a similar form of punishment for a woman who had
forgotten her distant spouse. Strange to say,
there are instances of the fining, month by month,
of unmarried couples living together as man and wife a
device still imitated by some of our city courts in
dealing with inmates of disorderly houses. All
in all, the saintly of those old days had good cause
for believing that the devil was continuously seeking
entrance into their domain.
Some of the laws seem unduly severe.
Marriage with cousins or other near relatives was
frowned upon, and even the union of persons who were
not considered respectable according to the community
standard was unlawful. Sewall notes his sentiments
concerning the marriage of close relatives:
“De, 1691.... The marriage
of Hana Owen with her Husband’s Brother
is declar’d null by the Court of Assistants.
She commanded not to entertain him; enjoin’d
to make a Confession at Braintrey before the
Congregation on Lecture day, or Sabbath, pay Fees
of Court, and prison, & to be dismiss’d...."
“May 7, 1696. Col.
Shrimpton marries his Son to his Wive’s Sisters
daughter, Elisabeth Richardson. All of the Council
in Town were invited to the Wedding, and many
others. Only I was not spoken to. As
I was glad not to be there because the lawfullness
of the intermarrying of Cousin-Germans is doubted...."
VI. Spinsters
It is a source of astonishment to
a modern reader to find at what a youthful age girls
of colonial days became brides. Large numbers
of women were wedded at sixteen, and if a girl remained
home until her eighteenth birthday the Puritan parents
began to lose hope. There were comparatively
few unmarried people, and it would seem that bachelors
and spinsters were viewed with some suspicion.
The fate of an old maid was indeed a sad one; for
she must spend her days in the home of her parents
or of her brothers, or eke out her board by keeping
a dame’s school, and if she did not present
a mournful countenance the greater part of the populace
was rather astonished. Note, for instance, the
tone of surprise in this comment on an eighteenth
century spinster of Boston:
“It is true, an old (or
superannuated) maid in Boston is thought such
a curse, as nothing can exceed it (and looked on as
a dismal spectacle); yet she, by her good
nature, gravity, and strict virtue, convinces
all (so much as the fleering Beaus) that it is
not her necessity, but her choice, that keeps her a
Virgin. She is now about thirty years (the
age which they call a Thornback), yet
she never disguises herself, and talks as little
as she thinks of Love. She never reads any Plays
or Romances, goes to no Balls, or Dancing-match,
as they do who go (to such Fairs) in order to
meet with Chapmen. Her looks, her speech,
her whole behaviour, are so very chaste, that but one
at Governor’s Island, where we went to
be merry at roasting a hog, going to kiss her,
I thought she would have blushed to death.
“Our Damsel knowing this,
her conversation is generally amongst the Women
... so that I found it no easy matter to enjoy her
company, for some of her time (save what was taken
up in Needle-work and learning French, etc.)
was spent in Religious Worship. She knew
Time was a dressing-room for Eternity, and therefore
reserves most of her hours for better uses than those
of the Comb, the Toilet, and the Glass."
VII. Separation and Divorce
It may be a matter of surprise to
the ultra-modern that there were not, in those days,
more old maids or women who hesitated long before
entering into matrimony, for marriage was almost invariably
for life. There were of course, some separations,
and now and then a divorce, but since unfaithfulness
was practically the only reason that a court would
consider, there was but little opportunity for the
exercise of this modern legal form of freedom.
Moreover, the magistrates ruled that the guilty person
might not remarry; but although they strove zealously
in some sections to enforce this rule, the rougher
members of society easily evaded it by moving into
another colony. Sewall makes mention of applications
for divorce; but when such a catastrophe seemed imminent
in his own family he opposed it strongly.
Let us examine this case, not for
the purpose of impudently staring at the family skeleton
in the good old Judge’s closet, but that we may
see that wedlock was not always “one glad, sweet
song,” even in Puritan days. His eldest
son Samuel had such serious difficulties with the woman
whom he married that at length the couple separated
and lived apart for several years. The pious
judge worried and fretted over the scandal for a long
while; but, of course, such affairs will happen in
even the best of families. The record of the
marriage runs as follows: “September 15,
1702. Mr. Nehemiah Walter marries Mr. Sam.
Sewall and Mrs. Rebekah Dudley.” Evidently
Mrs. Rebekah Dudley Sewall was not so meek as the
average Puritan wife is generally pictured; for on
February 13, 1712, the judge noted: “When
my daughter alone, I ask’d her what might be
the cause of my Son’s Indisposition, are you
so kindly affectioned one towards one another as you
should be? She answer’d I do my Duty.
I said no more...."
Six days later the troubled father
wrote: “Lecture-day, son S. Goes to Meeting,
speaks to Mr. Walter. I also speak to him to dine.
He could not; but said he would call before he went
home. When he came he discours’d largly
with my son.... Friends talk to them both, and
so come together again."
Two days later: “Daughter
Sewall calls and gives us a visit; I went out to carry
my Letters to Savil’s.... While I was absent,
My Wife and Daughter Sewall had very sharp discourse;
She wholly justified herself, and said, if it were
not for her, no Maid could be able to dwell at their
house. At last Daughter Sewall burst out with
Tears, and call’d for the Calash. My wife
relented also, and said she did not design to grieve
her."
Evidently affairs went from bad to
worse, even to the point where Sam ate his meals alone
and probably prepared them too; for the Judge at length
notes in his Diary: “I goe to Brooklin,
meet my daughter Sewall going to Roxbury with Hanah....
Sam and I dined alone. Daughter return’d
before I came away. I propounded to her that Mr.
Walter (the pastor) might be desired to come to them
and pray with them. She seemed not to like the
notion, said she knew not wherefore she should be call’d
before a Minister.... I urg’d him as the
fittest Moderator; the Govr. or I might be thought
partial. She pleaded her performance of Duty,
and how much she had born...."
It is apparent that the spirit of
independence, if not of stubbornness, was strong in
Mrs. Samuel, Jr. At length, what seems to have
been the true motive, jealousy on the part of the
husband, appears in the record by the father, and
from all the evidence Samuel might well be jealous,
as future events will show. To return to the Diary:
“Sam and his Wife dine here, go home together
in the Calash. William Ilsly rode and pass’d
by them. My son warn’d him not to lodge
at his house; Daughter said she had as much to doe
with the house as he. Ilsly lodg’d there.
Sam grew so ill on Satterday, that instead of going
to Roxbury he was fain between Meetings to take his
Horse, and come hither; to the surprise of his Mother
who was at home...." A few days later: “Sam
is something better; yet full of pain; He told me
with Tears that these sorrows would bring him to his
Grave...."
It appears that the daughter-in-law
was, for the most part, silent but vigilant; for about
five weeks after the above entry Judge Sewall records:
“My Son Joseph and I visited my Son at Brooklin,
sat with my Daughter in the chamber some considerable
time, Drank Cider, eat Apples. Daughter said
nothing to us of her Grievances, nor we to her...."
The lady, however, while she might control her tongue,
could not control her pen, and just when harmony was
on the point of being restored, a letter from her
gave the affair a most serious backset. “Son
Sewall intended to go home on the Horse Tom brought,
sent some of his Linen by him; but when I came to
read his wive’s letter to me, his Mother was
vehemently against his going: and I was for considering....
Visited Mr. Walter, staid long with him, read my daughters
Letters to her Husband and me; yet he still advis’d
to his going home.... My wife can’t yet
agree to my Son’s going home...."
Sam seems to have remained at his
father’s home. The matter was taken up
by the parents, apparently in the hope that they with
their greater wisdom might be able to bring about
an understanding. “Went a foot to Roxbury.
Govr. Dudley was gon to his Mill. Staid till
he came home. I acquainted him what my Business
was; He and Madam Dudley both reckon’d up the
Offenses of my Son; and He the Virtues of his Daughter.
And alone, mention’d to me the hainous faults
of my wife, who the very first word ask’d my
daughter why she married my Son except she lov’d
him? I saw no possibility of my Son’s return;
and therefore asked that he would make some Proposals,
and so left it...."
Thus the months lengthened into years,
and still the couple were apart. Meanwhile the
scandal was increased by the birth of a child to the
wife. Samuel had left her on January 22, 1714,
and did not return to her until March 3, 1718; apparently
the child was born during the summer of 1717.
The Judge, in sore straits, records on August 29, 1717;
“Went, according, after a little waiting on
some Probat business to Govr. Dudley. I
said my Son had all along insisted that Caution should
be given, that the infant lately born should not be
chargeable to his Estate. Govr. Dudley no
ways came into it; but said ’twas best as ’twas
no body knew whose ’twas [word illegible,] to
bring it up."
Whether or not the disgrace shortened
the life of Mother Sewall we shall never know; but
the fact is recorded that she died on October 23, 1717.
There follows a rather lengthy silence concerning Sam’s
affairs, and at length on February 24, 1718, we note
the following good news: “My Son Sam Sewall
and his Wife Sign and Seal the Writings in order to
my Son’s going home. Govr. Dudley
and I Witnesses, Mr. Sam Lynde took, the Acknowledgment.
I drank to my Daughter in a Glass of Canary. Govr.
Dudley took me into the Old Hall and gave me L100 in
Three-pound Bills of Credit, new ones, for my Son,
told me on Monday, he would perform all that he had
promised to Mr. Walter. Sam agreed to go home
next Monday, his wife sending the Horse for him.
Joseph pray’d with his Bror and me. Note.
This was my Wedding Day. The Lord succeed and
turn to good what we have been doing...."
Is it not evident that at least in
some instances women in colonial days were not the
meek and sweetly humble creatures so often described
in history, fiction, and verse?
VIII. Marriage in Pennsylvania
If there was any approach toward laxness
in the marriage laws of the colonies, it may have
been in Pennsylvania. Ben Franklin confesses very
frankly that his wife’s former husband had deserted
her, and that no divorce had been obtained. There
was a decidedly indefinite rumor that the former spouse
had died, and Ben considered this sufficient.
The case was even more complicated, but perhaps Franklin
thought that one ill cured another. As he states
in his Autobiography:
“Our mutual affection was revived,
but there were no great objections to our union.
The match was indeed looked upon as invalid, a preceding
wife being said to be living in England; but this
could not easily be prov’d, because of the distance,
and tho’ there was a report of his death, it
was not certain. Then, tho’ it should be
true, he had left many debts, which his successor
might be call’d upon to pay. We ventured,
however, over all these difficulties, and I took her
to wife Sepst, 1730."
Among the Quakers the marriage ceremony
consisted simply of the statement of a mutual pledge
by the contracting parties in the presence of the
congregation, and, this being done, all went quietly
about their business without ado or merry-making.
The pledge recited by the first husband of Dolly Madison
was doubtless a typical one among the Friends of Pennsylvania:
“’I, John Todd, do take thee, Dorothea
Payne, to be my wedded wife, and promise, through
divine assistance, to be unto thee a loving husband,
until separated by death.’ The bride in
fainter tones echoed the vow, and then the certificate
of marriage was read, and the register signed by a
number of witnesses...."
Doubtless the courtship among these
early Quakers was brief and calm, but among the Moravians
of the same colony it was so brief as to amount to
none at all. Hear Franklin’s description
of the manner of choosing a wife in this curious sect:
“I inquir’d concerning the Moravian marriages,
whether the report was true that they were by lot.
I was told that lots were us’d only in particular
cases; that generally, when a young man found himself
dispos’d to marry, he inform’d the elders
of his class, who consulted the elder ladies that
govern’d the young women. As these elders
of the different sexes were well acquainted with the
temper and dipositions of the respective pupils, they
could best judge what matches were suitable, and their
judgments were generally acquiesc’d in; but,
if, for example, it should happen that two or three
young women were found to be equally proper for the
young man, the lot was then recurred to. I objected,
if the matches are not made by the mutual choice of
the parties, some of them may chance to be very unhappy.
’And so they may,’ answer’d my informer,
’if you let the parties chuse for themselves.’"
We have seen that the Dutch of New
York did let them “chuse for themselves,”
even while they were yet children. The forming
of the children into companies, and the custom of
marrying within a particular company seemingly was
an excellent plan; for it appears that as the years
passed the children grew toward each other; they learned
each other’s likes and dislikes; they had become
true helpmates long before the wedding. As Mrs.
Grant observes: “Love, undiminished by any
rival passion, and cherished by innocence and candor,
was here fixed by the power of early habit, and strengthened
by similarity of education, tastes, and attachments.
Inconstancy, or even indifference among married couples,
was unheard of, even where there happened to be a considerable
disparity in point of intellect. The extreme affection
they bore to their mutual offspring was a bond that
forever endeared them to each other. Marriage
in this colony was always early, very often happy.
When a man had a son, there was nothing to be expected
with a daughter, but a well brought-up female slave,
and the furniture of the best bedchamber...."
IX. Marriage in the South
In colonial Virginia and South Carolina
weddings were seldom, if ever, performed by a magistrate;
the public sentiment created by the Church of England
demanded the offices of a clergyman. Far more
was made of a wedding in these Southern colonies than
in New England, and after the return from the church,
the guests often made the great mansion shake with
their merry-making. No aristocratic marriage would
have been complete without dancing and hearty refreshments,
and many a new match was made in celebrating a present
one.
The old story of how the earlier settlers
purchased their wives with from one hundred twenty
to one hundred fifty pounds of tobacco per woman a
pound of sotweed for a pound of flesh, is
too well known to need repetition here; suffice to
say it did not become a custom. Nor is there
any reason to believe that marriages thus brought about
were any less happy than those resulting from prolonged
courtships. These girls were strong, healthy,
moral women from crowded England, and they came prepared
to do their share toward making domestic life a success.
American books of history have said much about the
so-called indented women who promised for their ship
fare from England to serve a certain number of months
or years on the Virginia plantations; but the early
records of the colonies really offer rather scant information.
This was but natural; for such women had but little
in common with the ladies of the aristocratic circle,
and there was no apparent reason for writing extensively
about them. But it should not be thought that
they were always rough, uncouth, enslaved creatures.
The great majority were decent women of the English
rural class, able and willing to do hard work, but
unable to find it in England. Many of them, after
serving their time, married into respectable families,
and in some instances reared children who became men
and women of considerable note. There can be
little doubt that while paying for their ship-fare
they labored hard, and sometimes were forced to mingle
with the negroes and the lowest class of white men
in heavy toil. John Hammond, a Marylander, who
had great admiration for his adopted land, tried to
ignore this point, but the evidence is rather against
him. Says he in his Leah and Rachel of
1656:
“The Women are not (as reported)
put into the ground to worke, but occupie such domestique
imployments and housewifery as in England, that is
dressing victuals, righting up the house, milking,
imployed about dayries, washing, sowing, etc.,
and both men and women have times of recreations,
as much or more than in any part of the world besides,
yet some wenches that are nasty, beastly and not fit
to be so imployed are put into the ground, for reason
tells us, they must not at charge be transported,
and then maintained for nothing.”
Of course among the lower rural classes
not only of the South, but of the Middle Colonies,
a wedding was an occasion for much coarse joking,
horse-play, and rough hilarity, such as bride-stealing,
carousing, and hideous serenades with pans, kettles,
and skillet lids. Especially was this the case
among the farming class of Connecticut, where the marriage
festivities frequently closed with damages both to
person and to property.
X. Romance in Marriage
Perhaps to the modern woman the colonial
marriage, with its fixed rules of courtship, the permission
to court, the signed contract and the dowry, seems
decidedly commonplace and unromantic; but, after all,
this is not a true conclusion. The colonists
loved as ardently as ever men and women have, and
they found as much joy, and doubtless of as lasting
a kind, in the union, as we moderns find. Many
bits of proof might be cited. Hear, for instance,
how Benedict Arnold proposed to his beloved Peggy:
“Dear Madam: Twenty times
have I taken up my pen to write to you, and as
often has my trembling hand refused to obey the dictates
of my heart a heart which, though calm
and serene amidst the clashing of arms and all
the din and horrors of war, trembles with diffidence
and the fear of giving offence when it attempts to
address you on a subject so important to his happiness.
Dear Madam, your charms have lighted up a flame
in my bosom which can never be extinguished;
your heavenly image is too deeply impressed ever
to be effaced....
“On you alone my happiness depends,
and will you doom me to languish in despair?
Shall I expect no return to the most sincere,
ardent, and disinterested passion? Do you feel
no pity in your gentle bosom for the man who
would die to make you happy?...
“Consider before you doom me
to misery, which I have not deserved but by loving
you too extravgantly. Consult your own happiness,
and if incompatible, forget there is so unhappy
a wretch; for may I perish if I would give you
one moment’s inquietude to purchase the
greatest possible felicity to myself. Whatever
my fate is, my most ardent wish is for your happiness,
and my latest breath will be to implore the blessing
of heaven on the idol and only wish of my soul....”
And Alexander Hamilton wrote this
of his “Betty”: “I suspect ...
that if others knew the charm of my sweetheart as
I do, I would have a great number of competitors.
I wish I could give you an idea of her. You have
no conception of how sweet a girl she is. It is
only in my heart that her image is truly drawn.
She has a lovely form, and still more lovely mind.
She is all Goodness, the gentlest, the dearest, the
tenderest of her sex Ah, Betsey, How I
love her...."
And let those who doubt that there
was romance in the wooing of the old days read the
story of Agnes Surrage, the humble kitchen maid, who,
while scrubbing the tavern floor, attracted the attention
of handsome Harry Frankland, custom officer of Boston,
scion of a noble English family. With a suspiciously
sudden interest in her, he obtained permission from
her parents to have her educated, and for a number
of years she was given the best training and culture
that money could purchase. Then, when she was
twenty-four, Frankland wished to marry her; but his
proud family would not consent, and even threatened
to disinherit him. The couple, in despair, defied
all conventionalities, and Frankland took her to live
with him at his Boston residence. Conservative
Boston was properly scandalized so much
so that the lovers retired to a beautiful country
home near the city, where for some time they lived
in what the New Englanders considered ungodly happiness.
Then the couple visited England, hoping that the elder
Franklands would forgive, but the family snubbed the
beautiful American, and made life so unpleasant for
her that young Frankland took her to Madrid. Finally
at Lisbon the crisis came; for in the terrors of the
famous earthquake he was injured and separated from
her, and in his misery he vowed that when he found
her, he would marry her in spite of all. This
he did, and upon their return to Boston they were
received as kindly as before they had been scornfully
rejected.
Mrs. Frankland became a prominent
member of society, was even presented at Court, and
for some years was looked upon as one of the most lovable
women residing in London. When in 1768 her husband
died, she returned to America, and made her home at
Boston, where in Revolutionary days she suffered so
greatly through her Tory inclinations that she fled
once more to England. What more pleasing romance
could one want? It has all the essentials of
the old-fashioned novel of love and adventure.
XI. Feminine Independence
Certainly in the above instance we
have once more an independence on the part of colonial
woman certainly not emphasized in the books on early
American history. As Humphreys says in Catherine
Schuyler: “The independence of the
modern girl seems pale and ineffectual beside that
of the daughters of the Revolution.” There
is, for instance, the saucy woman told of in Garden’s
Anecdotes of the Revolutionary War: “Mrs.
Daniel Hall, having obtained permission to pay a visit
to her mother on John’s Island, was on the point
of embarking, when an officer, stepping forward, in
the most authoritative manner, demanded the key of
her trunk. ‘What do you expect to find
there?’ said the lady. ’I seek for
treason,’ was the reply. ’You may
save yourself the trouble of searching, then,’
said Mrs. Hall; ’for you can find a plenty of
it at my tongue’s end.’”
The daughters of General Schuyler
certainly showed independence; for of the four, only
one, Elisabeth, wife of Hamilton, was married with
the father’s consent, and in his home.
Shortly after the battle of Saratoga the old warrior
announced the marriage of his eldest daughter away
from home, and showed his chagrin in the following
expression: “Carter and my eldest daughter
ran off and were married on the 23rd of July.
Unacquainted with his family connections and situation
in life, the matter was exceedingly disagreeable,
and I signified it to them.” Six years
later, the charming Peggy eloped, when there was no
reason for it, with Steven Rensselaer, a man who afterwards
became a powerful leader in New York commercial and
political movements. The third escapade, that
of Cornelia, was still more romantic; for, having
attended the wedding of Eliza Morton in New Jersey,
she met the bride’s brother and promptly fell
in love with him. Her father as promptly refused
to sanction the match, and demanded that the girl
have nothing to do with the young man. One evening
not long afterwards, as Humphreys describes it, two
muffled figures appeared under Miss Cornelia’s
window. At a low whistle, the window softly opened,
and a rope was thrown up. Attached to the rope
was a rope ladder, which, making fast, like a veritable
heroine of romance the bride descended. They
were driven to the river, where a boat was waiting
to take them across. On the other side was the
coach-and-pair. They were then driven thirty
miles across country to Stockbridge, where an old
friend of the Morton family lived. The affair
had gone too far. The Judge sent for a neighboring
minister, and the runaways were duly married.
So flagrant a breach of the paternal authority was
not to be hastily forgiven.... As in the case
of the other runaways, the youthful Mortons disappointed
expectation, by becoming important householders and
taking a prominent place in the social life of New
York, where Washington Morton achieved some distinction
at the bar.
It is evident that in affairs of love,
if not in numerous other phases of life, colonial
women had much liberty and if the liberty were denied
them, took affairs into their own hands, and generally
attained their heart’s desire.
XII. Matrimonial Advice
Through the letters of the day many
hints have come down to us of what colonial men and
women deemed important in matters of love and marriage.
Thus, we find Washington writing Nelly Custis, warning
her to beware of how she played with the human heart especially
her own. Women wrote many similar warnings for
the benefit of their friends or even for the benefit
of themselves. Jane Turrell early in the eighteenth
century went so far as to write down a set of rules
governing her own conduct in such affairs, and some
of these have come down to us through her husband’s
Memoir of her:
“I would admit
the addresses of no person who is not descended of
pious and credible parents.”
“Who has not the
character of a strict moralist, sober,
temperate, just and
honest.”
“Diligent in his business, and
prudent in matters. Of a sweet and agreeable
temper; for if he be owner of all the former good
qualifications, and fails here, my life will be
still uncomfortable.”
Whether the first of these rules would
have amounted to anything if she had suddenly been
attracted by a man of whose ancestry she knew nothing,
is doubtful; but the catalog of regulations shows at
least that the girls of colonial days did some thinking
for themselves on the subject of matrimony, and did
not leave the matter to their elders to settle.
XIII. Matrimonial Irregularities
There is one rather unpleasant phase
of the marriage question of colonial days that we
may not in justice omit, and that is the irregular
marriage or union and the punishment for it and for
the violation of the marriage vow. No small amount
of testimony from diaries and records has come down
to us to prove that such irregularities existed throughout
all the colonies. Indeed, the evidence indicates
that this form of crime was a constant source of irritation
to both magistrates and clergy.
The penalty for adultery in early
Massachusetts was whipping at the cart’s tail,
branding, banishment, or even death. It is a common
impression that the larger number of colonists were
God-fearing people who led upright, blameless lives,
and this impression is correct; few nations have ever
had so high a percentage of men of lofty ideals.
It is natural, therefore, that such people should
be most severe in dealing with those who dared to
lower the high morality of the new commonwealths dedicated
to righteousness. But even the Puritans and Cavaliers
were merely human, and crime would enter in
spite of all efforts to the contrary. Bold adventurers,
disreputable spirits, men and women with little respect
for the laws of man or of God, crept into their midst;
many of the immigrants to the Middle and Southern Colonies
were refugees from the streets and prisons of London;
some of the indented servants had but crude notions
of morality; sometimes, indeed, the Old Adam, suppressed
for generations, broke out in even the most respectable
of godly families.
Both Sewall and Winthrop have left
records of grave offences and transgressions against
social decency. About 1632 a law was passed in
Massachusetts punishing adultery with death, and Winthrop
notes that at the “court of assistants such
an act was adopted though it could not at first be
enforced." In 1643 he records:
“At this court of assistants
one James Britton ... and Mary Latham, a proper young
woman about 18 years of age ... were condemned to die
for adultery, upon a law formerly made and published
in print...."
A year or two before this he records:
“Another case fell out about Mr. Maverick of
Nottles Island, who had been formerly fined L100 for
giving entertainment to Mr. Owen and one Hale’s
wife who had escaped out of prison, where they had
been put for notorious suspicion of adultery.”
The editor adds, “Sarah Hales, the wife of William
Hales, was censured for her miscarriage to be carried
to the gallows with a rope about her neck, and to
sit an hour upon the ladder; the rope’s end flung
over the gallows, and after to be banished."
Some women in Massachusetts actually
paid the penalty of death. Then, too, as late
as Sewall’s day we find mention of severe laws
dealing with inter-marriage of relatives: “June
14, 1695: The Bill against Incest was passed
with the Deputies, four and twenty Nos, and seven
and twenty Yeas. The Ministers gave in their
Arguments yesterday, else it had hardly gon, because
several have married their wives sisters, and the
Deputies thought it hard to part them. ’Twas
concluded on the other hand, that not to part them,
were to make the Law abortive, by begetting in people
a conceipt that such Marriages were not against the
Law of God."
The use of the death penalty for adultery
seems, however, to have ceased before the days of
Sewall’s Diary: for, though he often
mentions the crime, he makes no mention of such a
punishment. The custom of execution for far less
heinous offences was prevalent in the seventeenth century,
as any reader of Defoe and other writers of his day
is well aware, and certainly the American colonists
cannot be blamed for exercising the severest laws
against offenders of so serious a nature against society.
The execution of a woman was no unusual act anywhere
in the world during the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries, and the Americans did not hesitate to give
the extreme penalty to female criminals. Sewall
rather cold-bloodedly records a number of such executions
and reveals absolutely no spirit of protest.
“Thorsday, June
8, 1693. Elisabeth Emerson of Haverhill and a
Negro Woman were executed
after Lecture, for murdering their
Infant children."
“Monday, 7r, 11th....
The Mother of a Bastard Child condemn’d for
murthering it...."
“Septh, 1691.
Elisabeth Clements of Haverhill is tried for
murdering her two female
bastard children...."
“Friday, July
10th, 1685.... Mr. Stoughton also told me of George
Car’s wife being
with child by another Man, tells the Father,
Major Pike sends her
down to Prison. Is the Governour’s
Grandchild by his daughter
Cotton...."
From the court records in Howard’s
History of Matrimonial Institutions we learn:
“’In 1648 the Corte acquit Elisa Pennion
of the capitall offence charged upon her by 2 sevrall
inditements for adultery,’ but sentence her
to be ‘whiped’ in Boston, and again at
’Linn wthin one month.’” “On
a special verdict by the jury the assistants sentenced
Elizabeth Hudson and Bethia Bulloine (Bullen) ’married
women and sisters,’ to ’be by the Marshall
Generall ... on ye next lecture day presently after
the lecture carried to the Gallowes & there by ye
Executioner set on the ladder & with a Roape about
her neck to stand on the Gallowes an half houre &
then brought ... to the market place & be seriously
whipt wth tenn stripes or pay the Sume of tenn pounds’
standing committed till the sentence be performed.’"
When punishment by death came to be
considered too severe and when the crime seemed to
deserve more than whipping, the guilty one was frequently
given a mark of disgrace by means of branding, so that
for all time any one might see and think upon the
penalty for such a sin. All modern readers are
familiar with the Salem form the scarlet
letter made so famous by Hawthorne, a mark
sometimes sewed upon the bosom or the sleeve of the
dress, sometimes burnt into the flesh of the breast.
Howard, who has made such fruitful search in the history
of marriage, presents several specimens of this strange
kind of punishment:
“In 1639 in Plymouth a woman
was sentenced to ’be whipt at a cart tayle’
through the streets, and to ’weare a badge upon
her left sleeue during her aboad’ within
the government. If found at any time abroad
without the badge, she was to be ’burned in the
face with a hott iron.’ Two years
later a man and a woman for the same offence
(adultery) were severely whipped ‘at the publik
post’ and condemned while in the colony
to wear the letters AD ’upon the outside
of their vppermost garment, in the most emenent place
thereof.’"
“The culprit is to be ’publickly
set on the Gallows in the Day Time, with a Rope
about his or her Neck, for the Space of One Hour:
and on his or her Return from the Gallows to the Gaol,
shall be publickly whipped on his or her naked
Back, not exceeding Thirty Stripes, and shall
stand committed to the Gaol of the County wherein
convicted, until he or she shall pay all Costs
of Prosecution."
“Mary Shaw the wife of Benjamin
Shaw, ... being presented for having a child
in September last, about five Months after Marriage,
appeared and owned the same.... Ordered that (she)
... pay a fine of Forty Shillings.... Costs
... standing committed."
“Under the ‘seven months
rule,’ the culpable parents were forced to
humble themselves before the whole congregation, or
else expose their innocent child to the danger
of eternal perdition."
Many other examples of severe punishment
to both husband and wife because of the birth of a
child before a sufficient term of wedlock had passed
might be presented, and, judging from the frequency
of the notices and comments on the subject, such social
irregularities must have been altogether too common.
Probably one of the reasons for this was the curious
and certainly outrageous custom known as “bundling.”
Irving mentions it in his Knickerbocker History
of New York, but the custom was by no means limited
to the small Dutch colony. It was practiced in
Pennsylvania and Connecticut and about Cape Cod.
Of all the immoral acts sanctioned by conventional
opinion of any time this was the worst.
The night following the drawing of
the formal contract in which the dowry and other financial
requirements were adjusted, the couple were allowed
to retire to the same bed without, however, removing
their clothes. There have been efforts to excuse
or explain this act on the grounds that it was at
first simply an innocent custom allowed by a simple-minded
people living under very primitive conditions.
Houses were small, there was but one living room,
sometimes but one general bedroom, poverty restricted
the use of candles to genuine necessity, and the lovers
had but little opportunity to meet alone. All
this may have been true, but the custom led to deplorable
results. Where it originated is uncertain.
The people of Connecticut insisted that it was brought
to them from Cape Cod and from the Dutch of New York
City, and, in return, the Dutch declared it began
near Cape Cod. The idea seems monstrous to us
of to-day; but in colonial times it was looked upon
with much leniency, and adultery between espoused
persons was punished much more lightly than the same
crime between persons not engaged.
A peculiar phase of immorality among
colonial women of the South cannot well be ignored.
As mentioned in earlier pages, there was naturally
a rough element among the indented women imported
into Virginia and South Carolina, and, strange to
say, not a few of these women were attracted into
sexual relations with the negro slaves of the plantation.
If these slaves had been mulattoes instead of genuinely
black, half-savage beings not long removed from Africa,
or if the relation had been between an indented white
man of low rank and a negro woman, there would not
have been so great cause for wonder; but we cannot
altogether agree with Bruce, who in his study, The
Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century,
says:
“It is no ground for surprise
that in the seventeenth century there were instances
of criminal intimacy between white women and negroes.
Many of the former had only recently arrived from
England, and were, therefore, comparatively free from
the race prejudice that was so likely to develop upon
close association with the African for a great length
of time. The class of white women who were required
to work in the fields belonged to the lowest rank
in point of character. Not having been born in
Virginia and not having thus acquired from birth a
repugnance to association with the Africans upon a
footing of social equality, they yielded to the temptations
of the situations in which they were placed. The
offence, whether committed by a native or an imported
white woman, was an act of personal degradation that
was condemned by public sentiment with as much severity
in the seventeenth century as at all subsequent periods...."
Near the populous centers such relationships
were sure to meet with swift punishment; but in the
more remote districts such a custom might exist for
years and meant nothing less than profit to the master
of the plantation; for the child of negro blood might
easily be claimed as the slave son of a slave father.
Bruce explains clearly the attitude of the better
classes in Virginia toward this mixture of races:
“A certain degree of liberty
in the sexual relations of the female servants
with the male, and even with their master, might have
been expected, but there are numerous indications that
the general sentiment of the Colony condemned
it, and sought by appropriate legislation to
restrain and prevent it.”
“...If a woman gave birth to
a bastard, the sheriff as soon as he learned
of the fact was required to arrest her, and whip her
on the bare back until the blood came. Being
turned over to her master, she was compelled
to pay two thousand pounds of tobacco, or to
remain in his employment two years after the termination
of her indentures.”
“If the bastard child to which
the female servant gave birth was the offspring
of a negro father, she was whipped unless the usual
fine was paid, and immediately upon the expiration
of her term was sold by the wardens of the nearest
church for a period of five years.... The
child was bound out until his or her thirtieth year
had been reached."
The determined effort to prevent any
such unions between blacks and whites may be seen
in the Virginia law of 1691 which declared that any
white woman marrying a negro or mulatto, bond or free,
should suffer perpetual banishment. But at no
time in the South was adultery of any sort punished
with such almost fiendish cruelty as in New England,
except in one known instance when a Virginia woman
was punished by being dragged through the water behind
a swiftly moving boat.
The social evil is apparently as old
as civilization, and no country seems able to escape
its blighting influence. Even the Puritan colonies
had to contend with it. In 1638 Josselyn, writing
of New England said: “There are many strange
women too (in Solomon’s sense,"). Phoebe
Kelly, the mother of Madam Jumel, second wife
of Aaron Burr, made her living as a prostitute, and
was at least twice (1772 and 1785) driven from disorderly
resorts at Providence, and for the second offense was
imprisoned. Ben Franklin frequently speaks of
such women and of such haunts in Philadelphia, and,
with characteristic indifference, makes no serious
objection to them. All in all, in spite of strong
hostile influence, such as Puritanism in New England,
Quakerism in the Middle Colonies, and the desire for
untainted aristocratic blood in the South, the evil
progressed nevertheless, and was found in practically
every city throughout the colonies.
Among men there may not have been
any more immorality than at present, but certainly
there was much more freedom of action along this line
and apparently much less shame over the revelations
of lax living. Men prominent in public life were
not infrequently accused of intrigues with women,
or even known to be the fathers of illegitimate children;
their wives, families and friends were aware of it,
and yet, as we look at the comments made at that day,
such affairs seem to have been taken too much as a
matter of course. Benjamin Franklin was the father
of an illegitimate son, whom he brought into his home
and whom his wife consented to rear. It was a
matter of common talk throughout Virginia that Jefferson
had had at least one son by a negro slave. Alexander
Hamilton at a time when his children were almost grown
up was connected with a woman in a most wretched scandal,
which, while provoking some rather violent talk, did
not create the storm that a similar irregularity on
the part of a great public man would now cause.
Undoubtedly the women of colonial days were too lenient
in their views concerning man’s weakness, and
naturally men took full advantage of such easy forgiveness.
XIV. Violent Speech and Action
In general, however, offenses of any
other kind, even of the most trivial nature, were
given much more notice than at present; indeed, wrong
doers were dragged into the lime-light for petty matters
that we of to-day would consider too insignificant
or too private to deserve public attention. The
English laws of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries
were exceedingly severe; but where these failed to
provide for irregular conduct, the American colonists
readily created additional statutes. We have
seen the legal attitude of early America toward witchcraft;
gossip, slander, tale-bearing, and rebellious speeches
were coped with just as confidently. The last
mentioned “crime,” rebellious speech,
seems to have been rather common in later New England
where women frequently spoke against the authority
of the church. Their speech may not have been
genuinely rebellious but the watchful Puritans took
no chance in matters of possible heresy. Thus,
Winthrop tells us: “The lady Moodye, a
wise and anciently religious woman, being taken with
the error of denying baptism to infants, was dealt
withal by many of the elders, and others, and admonished
by the church of Salem, ... but persisting still,
and to avoid further trouble, etc., she removed
to the Dutch against the advice of all her friends....
She was after excommunicated."
Sometimes, too, the supposedly meek
character of the colonial woman took a rather Amazonian
turn, and the court records, diaries, and chronicles
present case after case in which wives made life for
their husbands more of a battle cry than one gladsome
song. Surely the following citations prove that
some colonial dames had opinions of their own
and strong fists with which to back up their opinions:
“Joan, wife of Obadiah Miller
of Taunton, was presented for ’beating
and reviling her husband, and egging her children to
healp her, bidding them knock him in the head,
and wishing his victuals might choake him.’"
“In 1637 in Salem, ’Whereas
Dorothy the wyfe of John Talbie hath not only
broak that peace & loue, wch ought to hauve beene
both betwixt them, but also hath violentlie broke
the king’s peace, by frequent laying hands
upon hir husband to the danger of his Life....
It is therefore ordered that for hir misdemeanor passed
& for prvention of future evill.... that she shall
be bound & chained to some post where shee shall
be restrained of her libertye to goe abroad or
comminge to hir husband, till shee manefest some
change of hir course.... Only it is permitted
that shee shall come to the place of gods worshipp,
to enjoy his ordenances.’"
Women also could appeal to the strong
arm of the law against the wrath of their loving husbands:
“In 1638 John Emerson of Scituate was tried
before the general court for abusing his wife; the
same year for beating his wife, Henry Seawall was
sent for examination before the court at Ipswich;
and in 1663, Ensigne John Williams, of Barnstable,
was fined by the Plymouth court for slandering his
wife."
Josselyn records that in New England
in 1638, “Scolds they gag and set them at their
doors for certain hours, for all comers and goers by
to gaze at....”
In Virginia: “A wife convicted
of slander was to be carried to the ducking stool
to be ducked unless her husband would consent to pay
the fine imposed by law for the offense.... Some
years after (1646) a woman residing in Northampton
was punished for defamation by being condemned to
stand at the door of her parish church, during the
singing of the psalm, with a gag in her mouth....
Deborah Heighram ... was, in 1654, not only required
to ask pardon of the person she had slandered, but
was mulcted to the extent of two thousand pounds of
tobacco. Alice Spencer, for the same offence,
was ordered to go to Mrs. Frances Yeardley’s
house and beg forgiveness of her; whilst Edward Hall,
who had also slandered Mrs. Yeardley, was compelled
to pay five thousand pounds of tobacco for the county’s
use, and to acknowledge in court that he had spoken
falsely."
The mere fact that a woman was a woman
seems in no wise to have caused merciful discrimination
among early colonists as to the manner of punishment.
Apparently she was treated certainly not better and
perhaps sometimes worse than the man if she committed
an offense. In the matter of adultery she indeed
frequently received the penalty which her partner
in sin totally escaped. In short, chivalry was
not allowed to interfere in the least with old-time
justice.