Sender: ROOTS-L Genealogy List
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 08:57:00
From: McIntire, Erin <EMcIntir@UNEX.UCLA.EDU>
Subj: marriages/births
Erin McIntire
emcintir@unex.ucla.edu
Sender: ROOTS-L Genealogy List
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 09:09:41
From: Barbara F Daly <bfdaly@BLUE.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU>
To: All
Subj: early marriages/pregnancies
On Mon, 5 Dec 1994, Roy Iutzi-Mitchell wrote:
> I am afraid I can't cite the source (something like Natural History,
> Smithsonian, or such) about five-to-eight years ago had an article
> that might be relevant to the discussion about age of marriage and
> first pregnancy. It included a summary of the diary of a midwife
> from the time of the American Revolution. If I remember
> correctly, about 40% of women's first-born children were born
> significantly before nine months of marital bliss. The gist of
> the article, I believe, was that Americans 200 years ago—
> although they may have talked against it—commonly practiced
> pre-marital sex. However, once the girl/woman became pregnant,
> it was assumed that they would wed. It is interesting to me, as
> an anthropologist, as an illustrative example of the distinction
> between what is called "ideal" and "real" culture, as well as for
> the amazingly revisionist history that likely takes place in all
> societies. If 40% of first-births were to women who were pregnant
> for some time at their marriage, then it is clear that far more than
> half of colonial era Americans engaged in premarital intercourse.
> Not that I am saying that I am shocked by this, or would castigate
> them, but that from two centuries beyond, we have Fabricated a
> false notion about sexuality, marriage and childbirth. Anyway,
> just to share this thought. Hope no one is offended. --roy--
> Roy Iutzi-Mitchell
> ffri@aurora.alaska.edu
Barbara Daly
bfdaly@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Sender: ROOTS-L Genealogy List
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 08:52:09 -0700
From: Chuck Bramlet <"ELL447::BRAMLET"@ECC7.ATENG.AZ.HONEYWELL.COM>
To: All
Subj: Early marriages/pregnancies
Roy Iutzi-Mitchell writes...
<Stuff deleted>
"first pregnancy. It included a summary of the diary of a
"midwife from the time of the American Revolution. If I remember
"correctly, about 40% of women's first-born children were born
"significantly before nine months of marital bliss. The gist of
"the article, I believe, was that Americans 200 years ago—
"although they may have talked against it—commonly practiced
"pre-marital sex. However, once the girl/woman became pregnant,
<more stuff deleted>
Chuck Bramlet
bramlet@eccx.ateng.az.honeywell.com
Sender: ROOTS-L Genealogy List
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 08:39:26 PST
From: A. Sharp <AXSC%GeAs%GS@BANGATE.PGE.COM>
To: All
Subj: Early Marriage/Pregnancy
Ann Sharp
axsc@pge.com
Sender: ROOTS-L Genealogy List
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 21:42:18 CST
From: Mary Swanson <swans060@GOLD.TC.UMN.EDU>
Subj: Early Marriages/Pregnancies
Mary at: swans060@gold.tc.umn.edu
Sender: ROOTS-L Genealogy List
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 12:55:22 -0500
From: Paul McBride <cybvax0!pbm@UUNET.UU.NET>
Subj: Re: Early Marriages/Pregnancies
Mary Swanson
> My question is how did this circumstance play itself out? How were these
--
Sender: ROOTS-L Genealogy List
> Mary Swanson <swans060@gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
And Paul McBride added (about "The Awakening Land," the mini-series:
> When the girl's mother found out who the boy was, the mother went
Kathy Schroeder kschroed@wiley.csusb.edu
Allen County Public Library Call No. 974.16 UL7MA
A midwife's tale: the life of Martha Ballard, based on her diary, 1785-1812
by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich. Published by Vintage Books, New York 1991
Allen County Public Library Call No. 974.401 ES7SA
Lost babes: fornication abstracts from court records, Essex County, Massachusetts,
1692-1745 by Melinde Lutz Sanborn
> children treated by their community and family? Did people treat them well
> because although everyone knew the rules, few people followed them, OR,
> were these first children treated rather badly because people did not want
> to condone this behaviour? Maybe everything was okay as long as the two
> people, especially the pregnant Mother got married. I'm sure she didn't
> always marry the father of her first child.
Paul B. McBride (uunet!cybvax0!pbm) or (pbm%cybvax0@uunet.uu.net)
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 13:03:47
From: Kathy Schroeder <kschroed@WILEY.CSUSB.EDU>
Subj: Re: Early Marriages/Pregnancies
>
> > My question is how did this circumstance play itself out? How were these
> > children treated by their community and family? Did people treat them well
> into a frantic rage forbidding her to see him again. The girl's mother
> wrote to the boy's father and asked him to forbid his son's seeing
> her daughter. The boy's father told his son that it was against the
> law and against the church for him to see her, but didn't seem to
> explain why <snip>.
> It turned out that she was his half sister.
Also on this topic see comments relating to the early birth of Andrew Loomis.
— FYI only, not an advertisement —
ISBN No. 0679733760
Book published in Derry, N.H. by the author, 1992.
ISBN No. 0961871148