Kissing cousins
There is a
lesson to be learned here, because we find it repeated
throughout the colonial period in the Hudson Valley:
keep the money in the family.* ... Thus we see that throughout the colonial period the
landowners and the wielders of political power married
within the group, so that their children’s birthright and
inheritence was a ready access to a network of kinfolk
who could help them advance their careers, and who
expected favors in return.....But what of the people who were not at the top rung
of the ladder? Actually, the same rules applied. They
tried not to marry beneath their station but rather tried to
contract a marriage with someone who could raise them
up through business or political connections. There
appears to be a conundrum here: how could advancement
depend upon an advantageous marriage if nobody were
willing to marry below his station? If a fellow with good
prospects but an undistinguished name were to come
courting, a girl with a good name and no money would
be interested. Or an impoverished gentleman might well
marry a girl from a family of rich nobodies. When people
married out of their group, it was almost always a matching
of someone with good connections to someone with
either money at hand, or ability and good prospects. A
careful study of marriages can indicate ro us where a
family was at any particular moment in Ielation to the
rest of society, even though we have no account books
or social calendars to back up our assessment.... But what of the people who were not at the top rung
of the ladder? Actually, the same rules applied. They
tried not to marry beneath their station but rather tried to
contract a marriage with someone who could raise them
up through business or political connections. There
appearst o be a conundrum here: how could advancement
depend upon an advantageous marriage if nobody were
willing to marry below his station? If a fellow with good
prospects but an undistinguished name were to come
courting, a girl with a good name and no money would
be interested. Or an impoverished gentleman might well
marry a girl from a family of rich nobodies. When people
married out of their group, it was almost always a matching
of someone with good connections to someone with
either money at hand, or ability and good prospects. A
careful study of marriages can indicate ro us where a
family was at any particular moment in Ielation to the
rest of society, even though we have no account books
or social calendars to back up our assessment...... We must conclude that in the colonial Hudson Valley
the family served many of the purposes later assumed by
labor unions, chambers of commerce, political parties,
and lobbyists. The family provided jobs lo its members,
exerted political pressure, and caused the writing of laws
favorable to the interests of the family. Bonds of kinship
encouraged people to work together for their mutual
benefit, even when there was considerable personal
animosity, as, for instance, between Maria van
Rensselaer and Robert Livingston. They might have
fought within the family, but against outside pressures
they were united. Politics and religion were secondary
factors which might help to strengthen the bonds within
the family in the struggle to rise above other families, but
they seem not to have been nearly as important as
economic considerations. The Colonial Family: Kinship nd Power
Peter R. Christop
New York State Library
But by the mid-18th-c, however, premarital sex was much more common. Over 40% of married women were giving birth less than 8 1/2 months after marriage (Domestic Revolutions 19).
A major issue that Puritan leaders struggled against was the commonly-accepted view that legitimate sexual relations could begin at the time of engagement, rather than waiting for the wedding. "Puritan orthodoxy had to contend with alternate beliefs and standards even among those who considered themselves respectable, God-fearing men and women: the covenanted community itself proved to be a hybrid culture" (Godbeer 22; see also, 7, 9). Many New Englanders followed a view common in England that "the boundary between illicit and licit sex was crossed once a couple became committed to each other," even though church leaders argued strongly against this (Godbeer 3).
- Cohabitation: cohabitation was also prevalent in the 17th century. John Miller, a minister who traveled through New York in 1695, �was appalled to observe that �many couples live[d] together without ever being married in any manner of way.� It was not uncommon, he reported, for such couples to separate after several years of living together, whereupon both would �take unto themselves, either in New York or some other province, new companions.� Those who did �intend to be married together� often engaged in �ante-nuptial fornication,� which was �not looked upon as any scandal or sin�� (Godbeer 8).
Godbeer adds that �it was not unusual for early Americans to pass from one cohabitational relationship to the next with scant regard for the formalities of divorce and remarriage� (41).
- One of the most intriguing customs in the New England setting was a practice called bundling [or tarrying, a term used in America--so Scott 44], apparently imported from Europe, but known from many cultures around the world, far back into the ancient world. See George Ryley Scott, Curious Customs of Sex and Marriage (NY: Key, 1960), 39-48; Henry Reed Stiles, Bundling: Its Origin, Progress and Decline in America (NY: Book Collectors Assoc, 1934).
from http://www.campbell.edu/faculty/vandergriffk/FamColonial.html
consanguineous (cousin) marriage.
There is also the comment that this was a dominant tradition in Europe until St. Augustine campaigned against it in the 4th century, because the resultant family loyalty was seen as a threat to church authority. (The Encyclopedia Britannica 2005 article on History of Family-medieval, supports this argument.)
from http://ftp.rootsweb.ancestry.com/pub/review/2005/0601.txt
The same families keep marrying each other again and again across many generations. Often family married first and second cousins. Some historians attribute this as an attempt to keep money, property and power within the family circle.
"tried not to marry beneath their station but rather tried to
contract a marriage with someone who could raise them
up through business or political connections"
"When people
married out of their group, it was almost always a matching
of someone with good connections to someone with
either money at hand, or ability and good prospects. A
careful study of marriages can indicate to us where a
family was at any particular moment in relation to the
rest of society, ......
the family served many of the purposes later assumed by
labor unions, chambers of commerce, political parties,
and lobbyists. The family provided jobs for its members,
exerted political pressure, and caused the writing of laws
favorable to the interests of the family. Bonds of kinship
encouraged people to work together for their mutual
benefit, even when there was considerable personal
animosity, ... They might have
fought within the family, but against outside pressures
they were united. Politics and religion were secondary
factors which might help to strengthen the bonds within
the family in the struggle to rise above other families, but
they seem not to have been nearly as important as
economic considerations". The Colonial Family: Kinship and Power
Peter R. Christop
New York State Library
There is also the comment that this was a dominant tradition in Europe until St. Augustine campaigned against it in the 4th century, because the resultant family loyalty was seen as a threat to church authority. (The Encyclopedia Britannica 2005 article on History of Family-medieval, supports this argument.) |
Sheldon Northrop b: ABT. 1766 in Newtown, Fairfield Co., Connecticut
David Northrop b: ABT. 1771 in Newtown, Fairfield Co., Connecticut