robert bremner - children in the colonial family

7/29/2019 Robert Bremner - Children in the Colonial Family

1/17

I;

I I Children in the Colonial FamilyEnglish writers of the late sixteenth andearly seventeenth centuries, whether Puritan,orthodox Anglican, or secular in social outlook, agreed that the father's unquestioned rulewas the only assurance of a proper dischargeof the family's social obligations. In "the goodman or master of the familie," wrote William

Perkins (1558-1602), the leading Puritan divine of his time, "resteth the private and propergovernment of the whole household, and hecOJlles not unto i t by election, as i t falleth outin other states, but by the ordinance of God,setled even in the order of nature. The husbandindeed naturally beares rule over the wife, parents over their children, masters over theirservants." 1 A champion of the divine right ofmonarchy, Sir Robert Filmer (ca. 1588-1653),reinforced his theory of royal authortiy with aparallel between family and kingdom. "I seenot," he wrote, "how the children of Adam,or of any man else, can be free from subjectionto their parents. And this subordination ofchildren is the fountain of all regal authority." 2The duties of fathers and kings, he continued,were the same. "We find them to be all one,without any difference at all but only in thelatitude of extent of them. As the Father overone family, so the King as Father over manyfamilies, extends his care to preserve, feed,clothe, instruct and defend the whole Commonwealth." 3 Even Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), the great theorist of sovereignty, and afar more modern thinker than either Perkins or

1. William Perkins, Christiall Oecollomie (London,1609), p. 164.2. Peter Laslett, ed., Patriarclla alld Other PoliticalWorks of Sir Robert Filmer (Oxford, 1949), p. 57.Patriarcha was written in the 1630's but not publisheduntil 1680.

3. Ibid., p. 63.

Filmer, assumed that families were the originaland natural social unit existing prior to thecreation of states. It followed, he wrote inLeviathan, "that a great Family if it be notpart of some Common-wealth, is of it self, asto the Rights of Soveraignty, a little Monarchy. . . wherein the Father or Master is theSoveraign." 4 Although the creation of a national sovereign deprived fathers of their absolute rights over subordinates, they retained asubstantial residue of authority since "the Father and Master being before the Institution ofCommon-Wealth, absolute Soveraigns in theirown Families, they lose afterward no more oftheir Authority, than the Law of the Commonwealth taketh from them." 5 Father and monarch ruled their analogous realms unchallenged. and unchallengeable by those arranged in hierarchy beneath them. So at least the theoristsmaintained. .Another common social idea was that thefamily or household served as the principaleducator of children. Church and school,though valued for their contributions, weresubservient to the family in turning unruly,immature children into dutiful subjects. Thefamily introduced children to social customsand both cultivated and tested their ability toperform worthwhile services. "For the family,"

wrote William Gouge, a renowned Puritanpreacher, "is a seminary of the Church andCommon-wealth. It is a Bee-hive in which isthe Stocke, and out of which are sent many.swarms of Bees: for in families are all sorts ofpeople bred and brought up and out of families are they sent into the Church and Com-4. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathall (London, 1924),p. 107; first published in 1651.5. Ibid., p. 124.

27


2/17

mon-wealth . . . Whence it followeth, that aconscionable performance of domesticall andhousehold duties, tend to the good ordering ofChurch and Common-wealth." 6This neat social diagram drawn by preachers and philosophers did not encompass all ofthe realities of family life in either England orAmerica. Aspiration and fact were combinedin their portrait of the paterfamilias earnestlytransmitting to his heirs and other dependentshis own loyalties. Yet the ideals and needs offamily life were sufficiently strong to inspire adetermined effort in the colonies to duplicatethe English model and even improve upon it.The requirements, as viewed by the colonists

themselves, Were different in New England andthe southern colonies. The Puritans initiallysaw the New World as a means of liberatingthe family from Old World restraints. In leaving England, they escaped the evils of interference in their daily lives from improper eC-clesiastical and governmental authorities. InAmerica, they believed, the family,would surmount the hardships of a wilderness to flourishand grow as nature and God intended, unitingwith church and state to create a Christian commonwealth. In the South, however, where migration had been commercial in its characterand implemented by individuals rather thanfamilies, deliberate policies Were requiredmerely to make possible the formation of families. With a population disproportionately composed of men, the permanence of the coloniesand the transplantation of the rudiments ofcivilization required the provision of wives forthe planters. Brides were among the essentialprovisions sent to the colonists of Virginia.Even in New England, where it was expectedthe ideals of family life would have the bestopportunity for fulfillment, ministerial exhortation, advice, and eventually legislation werefound necessary to shore up the desired family style. The younger generation frequentlyseemed to be on the verge of a decline intoimpiety and insubordination. Their behavior6. William Gouge, Of Domesticall Duties (London,1622), pp. 17-18.

28 ] Children in the Colonial Family

in home, church, and school was constantlyexamined and often found wanting. Some congregations set aside sections of the meetinghouse for them where they could be easily observed and praise, reproof, or correctionadministered as occasion demanded. Severepunishments for disobedience, including eventhe penalty of death, were decreed in Massachusetts and Connecticut, although there areno recorded instances of its imposition. Moreor less constant surveillance was the lot of theyoung in NewEngland.Repression was not the only device used bythe leaders of the New England colonies tosustain authority. More important was a seriesof laws designed to encourage parents to meetthe responsibilities that social theory and biblical injunction placed upon them. Beginningwith the Massachusetts law of 1642 that required parents to see that their children andother dependents were taught reading and atrade, the New England colonies tried to makethe family function as a broadly educationaland socializing institution. Town officials wereobligated to enforce the laws, but, after repeated failures, the General Court of Massachusetts created a new class of officers in 1675,the tithingmen, charged with the inspection offamilies. Although parents were brought beforethe authorities for neglecting the proper'rearingof children, some repeatedly, in many. towns itapparently was impossible to secure obedienceto the law. A comparable manifestation of thefamily ideal was the attempt to bring singlepersons whatever their age under family government. Relying upon Psalms 68:6, "Godsetteth the solitary in families," the authoritiesrequired single persons to attach themselvesto a household. But this measure too seems tohave been only partially effective.No colony's population of children consistedentirely of those in natural families. Therewere anomalies, such as bastards and orphanswho, through no fault or failure of their own,could not provide for themselves and werewithout families for protection and nurture. Ingeneral, the American colonists attempted to


3/17

continue the traditional English way of caringfor unfortunate children. Bastards, for example, were to be supported by the father if hecould be determined, if not, then by the parishor town. In case a father failed to acknowledgehis child, the word of the mother given duringthe crisis of childbirth was to be accepted,although a court could relieve a man of amanifestly false charge. The large number ofbound servants in the southern colonies createda special situation. At first Virginia penalizedwomen servants who bore illegitimate childrenby adding two years to their term of service,laying upon the father the obligation to providefor the child. This law had to be changed toprevent unscrupulous masters from adding tothe terms of their female servants by forcingthem to bear children. The solution was to deprive the master of the additional time, transferring it to the parish.Orphans were another familiar category ofdependency. Their care in England had beenprovided by binding them out to foster parentsand this method was readily employed inAmerica. Novel uncertainties, however, sometimes threw upon the traditional system aweight it could scarcely bear. Such, for instance, was the case when Indian massacres,natural disasters, or epidemics created homeless orphans in large numbers. The only response then Was to consider some form of in-stitutional care. 'Another anomaly in New World society was

29 ] .The Family in the Social Orderthe child of mixed parentage. The establishment of a slave system resting upon racialidentity added a third category of persons tothe traditional two of the free and the servant.Slaves, servants, and free persons of both sexesand races and of all ages mingled together inthe colonies. English experience obviously gavelittle guidance in establishing the legal statusand the rights of the children who resulted.Although authority frowned upon unions between white servant women and Negro slavemen as unnatural, unchristian, and sociallydisruptive, it is clear that they sometimes tookplace. Laws were passed to discourage informal matings, to outlaw marriage between thoseof different races, and to ensure that the children born out of wedlock to a slave motherwould inherit her status.In sum, America presented many new circumstances that required adjustments in traditional English institutions. The family thatthe colonists brought with them could not solveall of the problems it encountered. The beliefthat it could serve as the theater for the dramaof child-rearing began to give way before thepressures of the New World environment. Aschildren grew restive under the rule of parentsless in touch than they with the requirementsfor success and happiness in a land of greateropportunity, they prompted the initiation of asearch by the leaders of society for variationsand innovation in institutions that would supplement the family.


4/17

32] Children in the Colonial Family

Honor thy father and thy mother -and thy superiorsChildren and parents, especially those inNew England; were the targets of a steadystream ofmoral advice. The very younglearned of their obligations to parents, church,and society by memorizing the correct responses

to the questions in catechisms. Parents weretold what to do to secure obedience and goodmanners and how to raise their children asfaithful Christians and loyal subjects.

1. John Cotton, 1646John Cotton, Spiritual Milk for Boston Babesin either England. Drawn out of the Breasts ofboth Testaments for their Souls Nourishment(Cambridge, Mass., 1656), p. 4; first publishedin 1646.

Cotton (1584-1652), leading clergyman andauthor, came to Massachusetts in 1633, wherehe figured prominently in affairs of church andstate. His catechism was the standard workfor rearing New England children.Question.Answer.

Question.Answer.Question.Answer.

What is the fifth commandment?Honor thy father and thy mother,that thy days may be long in theland which the Lord thy God giveththee.Who are here meant by father andmother?All our superiors, whether in family,school, church, and commonwealth.What is the honor due to them?Reverence, obedience, and (whenI am able) recompence.


5/17

2. John Eliot, 1678.John Eliot, The Harmony of the Gospels(Boston, 1678), p. 29.

Eliot (1604-1690), famous apostle to theNew England Indians and translator of theBible, reached Boston in 1631. He took timefrom his missionary labors to prepare a workon Christian doctrine, containing some wordsof advice for parents.

I t is a very false and pernicious principlethat many people and parents are tainted with,viz., that youth must be suffered awhile to taketheir swing, and sow thei r wild oats, to travailinto the world, to follow the fashions, company,and manners of the times, hoping they will bewiser hereafter. Oh false principle; God speaksfully to the contrary. Provo 19: 18. Chastenthy son while there is hope, and let not thysoul spare for his crying. Provo 13:24. He thatspareth the rod, hateth his son} but he thatloveth him, chasteneth him betimes. The gentlerod of the mother is a very soft and gentlething; it will break neither bone nor skin; yetby the blessing of God with it, and upon thewise applicat ion of it, i t would break the bondthat bindeth up corrupt ion in the heart . Provo22: 15. Yea} yet greater is the power of thisgentle thing. Provo 23: 13-14. Withhold not cor-rection from the child} for if thou beatest himwith the rod he shall not die,' thou shalt beathim with the rod and shalt deliver his soul fromHell.

3. Eleazar Moody, 1715Eleazar Moody, The School of Good Manners.Composed for the Help of Parents in Teachingtheir Children How to carry it in their Placesduring theirMinority (Boston, 1772),pp.17-19 .

33 ] The Family in the Social Order

This work, first reprinted in the Americancolonies in 1715, derived from a line ofsixteenth- and seventeenth-century Englishguides to behavior of similar title.When at Home1. Make a bow always when you come home,

and be immediately uncovered.2. Be never covered at home, especially be

fore thy parents or strangers.3. Never sit in the presence of thy parentswithout bidding, tho' no stranger be pres

ent.4. I f thou passest by thy parents, and any

place where thou seest them, when eitherby themselves or with company, bowtowards them.

5. I f thou ar t going to speak to thy parents,and see them engaged in discourse withcompany, draw back and leave thy business until afterwards; but if thou mustspeak, be sure to whisper.

6. Never speak to thy parents without sometitle of respect, viz., Sir, Madam, &c.7. Approach near thy parents at no time with

out a bow.8. Dispute not, nor delay to obey thy parentscommands.9. Go not out of doors without thy parents

leave, and return within the time by themlimited.

10. Come not into the room where thy parentsare with strangers, unless thou art called,and then decently; and at bidding go out;or if strangers corne in while thou ar t withthem, it is manners, with a bow to withdraw.11. Use respectful and courteous but not insulting or domineering carriage or languagetoward the servants.

12. Quarrel not nor contend with thy brethrenor sisters, but live in love, peace, and unity.

13. Grumble not nor be discontented at anything thy parents appoint, speak, or do.14. Bear with meekness and patience, andwithout murmuring or sullenness, thy parents reproofs or corrections: Nay, tho' it


6/17

should so happen that they be causeless orundeserved.

In Their Discourse1. Among superiors speak not till thou artspoken to, and bid to speak.2. Hold not thine hand, nor any thing else,before thy mouth when thou speakest.3. Come not over-near to the person thouspeakest to.4. I f thy superior speak to thee while thousittest, stand up before thou givest anyanswer.5. Sit not down till thy superior bid thee.6. Speak neither very loud, nor too low.

7. Speak clear, not stammering, stumbling nordrawling.8. Answer not one that is speaking to theeuntil he hath done.9. Loll not when thou art speaking to asuperior or spoken to by him.10. Speak not without, Sir, or some other titleof respect.11. Strive not with superiors in argument ordiscourse; but easily submit thine opinionto their assertions.12. I f thy superior speak any thing whereinthou knowest he is mistaken, correct notnor contradict him, nor grin at the hearingof it; but pass over the error without noticeor interruption.13. Mention not frivolous or little things amonggrave persons or superiors.14. I f thy superior drawl or hesitate in hiswords, pretend not to help him out, or toprompt him.15. Come not too neat two that are whispering

or speaking in secret, much less may'stthou ask about what they confer.16. When thy parent or master speak to anyperson, speak not thou, nor hearken tothem.17. I f thy superior be relating a story, say not,"I have heard it before," but attend to itas though it were altogether new. Seem not


to question the truth of it. I f he tell it notright, snigger not, nor endeavor to help himout, or add to llis relation.18. I f any immodest or obscene thing bespoken in thy hearing, smile not, but settlethy countenance as though thou did'st nothear it.19. Boast not in discourse of thine own wit ordoings.20. Beware thou utter not any thing hard to bebelieved.21. Interrupt not anyone that speaks, thoughthou be his familiar.22. Coming into company, whilst any topic is

discoursed on, ask not what was the preceding talk but hearken to the remainder.23. Speaking of any distant person, it is rudeand unmannerly to point at him.24. Laugh not in, or at thy own story, wit orjest.25. Use not any contemptuous or reproachfullanguage to any person, though very meanor inferior.26. Be not over earnest in talking to justify andavouch thy own sayings.27. Let thy words be modest about those thingswhich only concern thee.28. Repeat not over again the words of asuperior that asketh thee a question ortalketh to thee.

4. Benjamin Wadsworth, 1719Benjamin Wadsworth, The Well-OrderedFamily . .. (Boston, 1719), pp. 44-58.A Boston clergyman, Wadsworth compiledthis work from a series ofhis sermons.They should love their children and care

fully provide for their outward supply and comfort while unable to provide for themselves . . .Parents should nourish in themselves a verytender lave and affection to their children, and


7/17

should manifest it by suitably providing for theiroutward comforts. Here I might say, as soonas the mother perceives herself with child, sheshould be careful not to do any thing injuriousto herself or to the child God has formed in her.A conscientious regard to the Sixth Command-ment (which is, Thou shalt not kill) shouldmake her thus careful. I f any purposely en-deavor to destroy the fruit of their womb(whether they actually do it or not) they'reguilty of murder in God's account. Further,before the child is born, provision should bemade for its comfort when born. Some observeconcerning our Saviour's Mother (the VirginMary) that though she was very poor and lowand far from home when delivered of her Son,yet she had provided swaddling clothes to wrapher Son in. Mothers also, if able, should suckletheir children. . . . Those mothers who havemilk and are so healthy as to be able to suckletheir children, and yet through sloth or nice-ness neglect to suckle them, seem very criminaland blameworthy. They seem to dislike andreject that method of nourishing their childrenwhich God's wise bountiful Providence has

provided as most suitable. Having given thesehints about mothers, I may say of parents(comprehending both father and mother) theyshould provide for the outward supply andcomfort of their children. They should nourishand bring them up . . . They should endeavorthat their children may have food suitable forquality and quantity, suitable raiment and lodg-ing. In case of sickness, lameness, or otherdistress on children, parents should do all theycan for their health or relief. He that providesnot for his own, especially those of his ownhouse, hath denied the faith, and is worse thanan infidel I Tim. 8 . . . Therefore, if they canhelp it, they should not suffer their children towant any thing that's really good, comfortable,and suitable for them, even as to their outwardman. Yet by way of caution I might say, let:Visdom and prudence sway, more than fondmdulgent fancy, in feeding and clothing yourchildren. Too much niceness and delicatenessin these things is not good; it tends not to make


them healthy in their bodies, nor serviceableand useful in their generation, but rather thecontrary. Let not your children (especially whileyoung and unable to provide for themselves)want any thing needful for their outward com-fort.

Parents should govern their children well,restrain, reprove, correct them, as there is oc-casion. A Christian householder should rulewell his own house . . . Children should notbe left to themselves, to a loose end, to do asthey please; but should be under tutors andgovernors, not being fit to govern themselves. . . Children being bid to obey their parentsin all things . . . plainly implies that parentsshould give suitable precepts to, and maintaina wise government over their children; so carryit, as their children may both fear and lovethem. You should restrain your children fromsin as much as possible . . . You should re-prove them for their faults; yea, if need be,correct them too . . . Divine precepts plainlyshow that, as there is occasion, you shouldchasten and correct your children; you dishonorGod and hurt them if you neglect it. Yet, onthe other hand, a father should pity his children... You should by no means carry it ill tothem; you should not frown, be harsh, morose,faulting and blaming them when they don'tdeserve it, but do behave themselves well. Ifyou fault and blame your children, show your-self displeased and discontent when they dotheir best to please you, this is the way to pro-voke them to wrath and anger, and to discouragethem; therefore you should carefully avoidsuch il l carriage to them. Nor should you evercorrect them upon uncertainties, without suf-ficient evidence of their fault. Neither shouldyou correct them in a rage or passion, butshould deliberately endeavor to convince themof their fault, their sin; and that 'tis out of loveto God's honor and their good (if they'recapable of considering such things) that youcorrect them. Again, you should never be cruelnor barbarous in your corrections, and if milder


8/17

ones will reform them, more severe ones shouldnever be used. Under this head of governmentI might further say, you should refrain yourchildren from bad company as far as possiblyyou can . . . I f you would not have your sonsand daughters destroyed, then keep them fromill company as much as may be . . . Youshould not suffer your children needlessly tofrequent taverns, nor to be abroad unseasonably on nights, lest they're drawn into numberless hazards and mischiefs thereby. You can't betoo careful in these matters.

The trouble withthe younger generation

1. "The young brood doth muchafflict me," 1657Ezekiel Rogers to a minister of Charlestown,Mass., 1657, in CottonMather, MagnaliaChristi Americana (London, 1702),III, 103-104.. . . I find greatest trouble and grief aboutthe rising generation. Young people are littlestirred here; but they strengthen one another inevil, by example, by counsel. Much ado I havewith my own family; hard to get a servant thatis glad of catechising, or family-duties: I had arare blessing of servants in Yorkshire; and thosethat I brought over were a blessing: but theyoung brood doth much afflict me. Even thechildren of the godly here, and elsewhere, makea woful proof. So that, I tremble to think,what will become of this glorious work that wehave begun, when the ancient shall be gatheredunto their fathers. I fear grace and blessingwill die with them, if the Lord do not also showmore signs of displeasure, even in our days. Wegrow worldly every where; methinks I see little


godliness, but all in a hurry about the world;everyone for himself, little care of public orcommon good.

It hath been God's way, not to send sweeping judgments, when the chief magistrates aregodly and grow more so. I beseech all the Bayministers to call earnestly upon magistrates(that are often among them) tell them thattheir godliness will be our protection: if theyfail, I shall fear some sweeping judgmentshortly. The clouds seem to be gathering.

2. Massachusetts General Court proclaimsa day of humiliation, 1661N. B. Shurtleff, ed., Records of the Governorand Company of the Massachusetts Bay in NewEngland (1628-1686), 5 vols. (Boston,1853-1854), IV, pt. 2 (1854), 34-35;hereafter cited as Mass. Records.Most ofMassachusetts Bay's problems in1661 were political in nature; the GeneralCourt, however, characteristically linked thesins of the rising generation to the colony'sother tribulations.I t being obvious to all pious and seriouspersons amongst us that we are called of Goddeeply to humble ourselves for the many andgreat sins and evils of the country, as our unprofitableness, neglect, and indisposedness toa full inquiry and practice of the order of thegospel; the great ignorance and inclination ofthe rising generation to vanity, profaneness, anddisobedience; the sinful indulgence in familygovernment; pride and excess in apparel; inordinate love of the world and the thingsthereof; insensibleness of evil occurences; andin special, God's suffering many enemies andunderminers to multiply complaints against usto our sovereign lord the king. . . . ThisCourt doth commend the serious consideration


9/17

of the aforesaid things, with others of likenature, together with the afflicted condition ofthe people of God elsewhere, unto all thechurches and inhabitants of this jurisdiction, anddo[th] appoint the second day of January nextto be kept a day of solemn humiliation andsupplication to the Lord for a thorough redressand return from the said iniquities, and also forthe diverting [of] such calamities as are comingupon us and the people of God the Christianworld throughout.

3. Disorder and rudeness in youth, 1675Mass. Records,V (1854),59,60-61.Whereas there is manifest pride openly ap-pearing amongst us in that long hair, likewomen's hair, is worn by some men, either their

own or others hair made into periwigs, and bysome women wearing borders of hair, and theircutting, curling, and immodest laying out theirhair, which practise doth prevail and increase,especially among the younger sort:This Court doth declare against this ill customas offensive to them, and divers sober Christiansamong us, and therefore do hereby exhort aridadvise all persons to use moderation in thisrespect; and further, do empower all grandjuries to present to the County Court suchpersons, whether male or female, whom theyshall judge to exceed in the premises; and theCounty Courts are hereby authorized to pro-ceed against such delinquents either by admoni-tion, fine, or correction, according to theirgood discretion.

Whereas there is much disorder and rude-ness in youth in many congregations in time ofthe worship of God, Whereby sin and pro-faneness is greatly increased, for reformationwhereof:

~ The Family in the Social Order

I t is ordered by this Court, that the select-men do appoint such place or places in themeeting house for children or youth to sit inwhere they may be most together and in publicview, and that the officers of the churches, orselectmen, do appoint some grave and soberperson or persons to take a particular care ofand inspection over them, who are hereby re-quired to present a list of the names of suchwho, by their own observance or the informa-tion of others, shall be found delinquent, to thenext magistrate or Court, who are empoweredfor the first offense to admonish them, for thesecond offense to impose a fine of five shillingson their parents or governors, or order the chil-dren to be whipped, and if incorrigible, to bewhipped with ten stripes or sent to the houseof correction for three days.

Punishment of rebellious children

1. Connecticut, 1642J. Hammond Trumbull, ed., Public Recordsof the Colony of Connecticut, I (Hartford,1850), 78; hereafter cited as Conn. Records.Forasmuch as incorrigeableness is alsoadjudged to be a sin of death, but no law yetamongst us [has been] established for the ex-ecution thereof: For the preventing [of] thatgreat evil i t is ordered, that whatsoevet childor servant within these liberties shall be con-victed of any stubborn or rebellious carriageagainst their parents or governors, which is aforerunner of the forementioned evil, the Gov-ernor or any two Magistrates have liberty andpower from this Court to commit such personor persons to the house of correction, and thereto remain undet hard labor and severe punish-ment so long as the Court or the major part ofthe Magistrates shall judge meet.


10/17

2. Massachusetts, 1646Mass. Records, III (1854), 101.

I f any child[ren] above sixteen years oldand of sufficient understanding shall curse orsmite their natural father or mother, they shallbe put to death, unless it can be sufficientlytestified that the parents have been very unchristianly negligent in the education of suchchildren, or so provoked them by extreme andcruel correction that they have been forcedthereunto to preserve themselves from death ormaiming. . . .I f a man have a stubborn or rebellious sonof sufficient years of understanding, viz. sixteen,which will not obey the voice of his father or thevoice of his mother, and that when they havechastened him will not harken unto them, thenshall his father and mother, being his naturalparents, lay hold on him and bting him to themagistrates assembled in Court, and testify tothem by sufficient evidence that this their sonis stubborn and rebellious and will not obeytheir voice and chastisement, but lives in sundrynotorious crimes. Such a son shall be put todeath.

3. Connecticut, 1651Franklin B. Dexter, ed., Ancient TownRecords, I (NewHaven, 1917), 88-89.

In 1650 Connecticut followed the exampleof Massachusetts in adopting the Mosaic lawwhich imposed the death penalty on rebelliouschildren. In practice, as the following casesuggests, less stringent punishments wereemployed.--- How, the daughter of Captain How,

38 J Chil


11/17


4. Massachusetts, 1654Mass. Records, III, 355.

Forasmuch as it appears by too much experience that divers children and servants dobehave themselves too disrespectively, disobediently, and disorderly towards their parents,masters, and governors, to the disturbance offamilies and discouragement of such parents andgovernors: For the ready prevention whereofit is ordered by this Court and the authoritythereof that it shall henceforth be in the powerof anyone magistrate, by warrant directed tothe constable of that town where such offenderdwells, upon complaint, to call before him anysuch offender, and upon conviction of suchmisdemeanors to sentence him or them toendure such corporal punishment by whippingor otherwise as in his judgment the merit ofthe fact shall deserve, not exceeding ten stripesfor one offence, or bind the offender to appearat the next Court of that county. And further,it is also ordered, that the commissioners forthe town of Boston, and the three commissioners for towns where no magistrate dwells,shall have the like power, provided the personor persons so sentenced shall have liberty tomake their legal appeal to the next CountyCourt, if they desire it in any of these cases.

5. Laws of the Duke of York, 1676George Staughton et al., eds., Charter toWilliam Penn and Laws of the Province ofPennsylvania Passed between 1682 and 1700,Preceded by the Duke of York's Book of Laws(1676-1682) (Harrisburg, Pa., 1879),pp.19-20.

. . . I f any children of servants becomerude, stubborn, or unruly, refusing to harken to

the voice of their parents or masters, theconstable and overseers (where no justice ofpeace shall happen to dwell within ten miles ofthe said town or parish), have power upon thecomplaint of their parents or masters [to] callbefore them such an offender, and to inflict suchcorporal punishment as the merit of the fact intheir judgment shall deserve, not [exceeding]ten stripes, provided that such children andservants be of sixteen years of age.

Legislation strengthening familygovernment, Massachusetts,1642-1682

Among the Puritans there was a settledconviction that most of what was amiss insociety stemmed from defects in familygovernment. Beginning in 1642 MassachusettsBaypassed a series of acts intended to compelparents to "train up" their children properlyand authorizing magistrates to take childrenfrom parents who neglected their duties.


12/17

B. SINGLE PERSONS, BASTARDS, AND ORPHANS

49 ] Single Persons, Bastards, Orphans

Whereas great inconvenience hath arisenby single persons in the Colony being forthemselves and not betaking themselves to livein well governed families, it is enacted by theCourt that henceforth no single person besuffered to live of himself or in any familybut such as the selectmen of the town shallapprove of. And if any person or persons shallrefuse or neglect to attend such order as shallbe given them by the selectmen, that such per-son or persons shall be summoned to the Courtto be proceeded with as the matter shall require.

3. Plymouth, 1669William Brigham, ed., The Compact with theCharter and Laws of the Colony of NewPlymouth (Boston, 1836), p. 156.

4. Watertown, Massachusetts, 1672Watertown Records, I, 113.James Hollon appearing before the select-men to answer for his living from under familygovernment and misspending his time by idle-ness, the selectmen gave him a fortnight's timeto provide himself a master, and in case he didit not in that time, that then they would pro-vide one for him.

2. Connecticut, 1637Conn. Records, I, 8.

I t is ordered that all towns shall take careto order and dispose of all single persons andinmates within their town to service, or other-wise; and if any be grieved at the order of atown, the parties to have liberty to appeal tothe Governor and Council, or the Court.

New England laws requiringsingle persons to livein fmnilies, 1636-1676

1. Massachusetts, 1636Mass. Records, I (1853), 186.

It is ordered that no young man that isneither married nor hath any servant, and beno public officer, shall keep house by himself,without consent of the town where he lives. . . under pain of 20s. per week.

It is ordered that no master of a familyshall give habitation or entertainment to anyyoung man to sojourn in, his family, but bythe allowance of the inhabitants of the saidtown where he dwells under the like penaltyof 20s. per week.


13/17

5. Suffolk County, Massachusetts, 1675Morison, "SuffolkCo. Court Records," inCSM Publications, XXX, 647.

Captain James Johnson being complainedof for disorderly carriages in his family, givingentertainment to persons at unseasonable hoursof the night, and other misdemeanors, the courtorders the said Captain Johnson to break uphousekeeping and to dispose of himself intosome good orderly family within one fortnightnext following, or that then the Selectmen ofBoston take care to dispose of him as abovesaid.

6. Connecticut, 1676Conn. Records, II (1852),281-282.

Whereas it is observed that young personsgetting from under the government of parentsor masters before they are able to govern them-selves, which early liberty hath or may be anoccasion of many evils and inconveniences,and hath moved this Court seriously and heart-ily to recommend it to the selectmen of theseveral plantations to be careful to prohibitand not to grant liberty to unmeet persons toentertain boarders or sojourners; and it is alsoordered by this Court that all such boarders orsojourners as do live in families as such shallcarefully attend the worship of God in thosefamilies where they so board or sojourn, andbe subject to the domestic government of thesaid family, and shall be ready to give anaccount of their actions upon all demands, uponthe penalty of forfeiting of five shillings forevery breach of this order; and that no chil-dren shall be at liberty to dispose of themselvesupon pretence of lawful age without the parents'


consent and approbation of the authority ofthe place.

Coloniallaws on bastards

1. Massachusetts, 1660Colonial Laws of Massachusetts, Reprintedfrom the Edition of 1660 (Boston, 1889), p.257.

Whereas there is a law provided by this Courtfor punishing of fornicators, but nothing as yetfor the easing of towns where bastards areborn, in regard of the poverty of the parent orparents of such children sometimes appearing,nor any rule held forth touching the reputedfather of a bastard for legal conviction;I t is therefore ordered and by this Courtdeclared that where any man is legally con-victed to be the father of a bastard child, he

shall be at the care and charge to maintain andbring up the same, by such assistance of themother as nature requireth and as the Court,from time to time (according to circumstances),shall see meet to order. And in case the fatherof a bastard, by confession or other manifestproof upon trial of the case, does not appearto the Court's satisfaction, then the mancharged by the woman to be the father, sheholding constant in it (especially being putupon the real discovery of the truth of it in thetime of her travail), shall be the reputedfather, and accordingly be liable to the chargeof maintenance as aforesaid (though not toother punishment) notwithstanding his denial,unless the circumstances of the case and pleasbe such, on the behalf of the man charged, .asthat the Court that have the cognizance thereonshall see reason to acquit him, and otherwisedispose of the child and education thereof . . .

I1

-ImIm!I I!! !! :.!B.I! lill":'-!li: k&z& 8 I liilaBll-kiGEaa8ra !!mssml __ ""lID.. .J6..... . . . . ." '_....""'''""'''''.. .~ - - - - - __J


14/17

2. Virginia, 1661-1662W. W. Hening, ed., Statutes at Large ofVirginia, II (New York, 1823), 115;hereafter cited as Va. Statutes at Large.

. . . And if it happen a bastard child to begotten in such fornication, then the woman, ifa servant, in regard of the loss and trouble hermaster doth sustain by her having a bastard,shall serve two years after her time by indenture is expired, or pay two thousand pounds oftobacco to her master, besides the fine orpunishment for committing the offence; and thereputed father to put in security to keep thechild and save the parish harmless.Va. Statutes at Large, II, 167.

Whereas by act of Assembly every womanservant having a bastard is to serve two years,and late experience show[s] that some dissolutemasters have gotten their maids with child andyet claim the benefit of their service, and onthe contrary, if a woman got with child by hermaster should be freed from that service itmight probably induce such loose persons tolay all their bastards to their masters. I t istherefore thought fit and accordingly enacted,and be it enacted henceforward, that eqch wo:.man servant got with child by her master shall,after her time by indenture or custom is expired, be by the churchwardens of the parishwhere she lived when she was brought to bedof such a bastard, sold for two years, and thetobacco to be employed by the vestry for theuse of the parish.Va. Statutes at Large, 11,168.

Whereas by the present law of this countrythe punishment of a reputed father of a bastardchild is the keeping the child and saving theparish harmless, and if it should happen the


reputed father to be a servant who can no wayaccomplish the penalty of that act; be it enacted by the authority aforesaid that where a.nybastard child is gotten by a servant, the panshshall take care to keep the child during thetime of the reputed father's service by indenture or custom, and that after he is free, the saidreputed father shall make satisfaction to theparish.

Support of illegitimate children

1. Maryland, ca. 1658"Charles County Court Proceedings, 1658-1672," in G. Hall Pleasants, ed., Md. Archives,LIII (1936), 78.

Anne Williams, plaintiff, Richard Smith, defendant: The plaintiff desires maintenance fora child the defendant hath got by her and desires by her petition that he may be swornto several interrogatories she hath in equitypropounded. But he being unwilling to bedeposed to them . .. present[ed] his declaration as followeth:To the Honorable Governor and worshipful Commissioner of Charles County.The humble declaration of Richard Smithmost humbly showeth that whereas this impudent woman hath most scandalously cast aspersions upon me, and I having taken it into myconsideration for the injury, I do think it mostmeet for me to let her run on in her own perdition as she hath begun. If so [it] be that youwill be pleased to permit her to take her deposition concerning the allegation she hath allegedagainst me, I am contented thereupon to takethe child and to maintain it, trusting in thesevere judgment of God against perjured persons.


15/17

It is therefore ordered that the said RichardSmith maintain the child. And that the womanfor her fact committed be whipped and havethirty lashes well laid on.

2. Massachusetts, ca. 1673Morison, "Suffolk Co. Court Records," inCSMPublications, XXIX (1933),254-255.

Mary Hunter bound over to this Court forcommitting of fornication and having an illegitimate child which she owned in Court andcharged Joseph Cowell with being the father ofher child and took her oath thereof as followeth.You do here swear by the great and dreadfulname of the Everliving God that the childlately born of your body, being a son, wasbegotten by Joseph Cowell and that he and noman else is the father thereof, so help you God.Sworn inCourt, May 1, 1673 . . .The Court having considered of [MaryHunter's] offence, do sentence her to be severlywhipped with thirty stripes and to pay fees ofcourt, standing committed till the sentence beperformed.Joseph Cowell, being bound over to thisCourt to answer upon suspicion of his committing fornication with Mary Hunter, he beingcalled to answer to it, did not appear, his sureties being called to bring him in made no answer. The Court ordered a default to beentered, but afterwards, appearing and beingconvict[ed] of too much familiarity with thesaid Hunter, and she swearing that he and onlyhe was the father of her illegitimate child. TheCourt sentenceth the said Cowell to be whippedseverely with thirty stripes and to pay fourshillings a week, one third in money, one thirdin goods, and one thirds in provisions towardsthe maintenance of the child lately born of the


body of the said Mary Hunter, until he eithermarry with her or this Court take further order;and to pay fees of Court standing committed.The said Cowell next day sent in a petition tothe Court wherein he did confess that he wasthe father of the child lately born of said MaryHunter.Morison, "Suffolk Co. Court Records."in CSM Publications, XXIX, 433-434.

Joseph Cowell bound over to this Court toanswer what should be alleged against him byHanna Tower of Hingham for committing fornication with her, by whom she hath had abastard child, of which she made oath in Courtand he did not deny it. The Court declares thesaid Cowell to be the reputed father of the childaccording to law, and order[s] him to pay threeshillings per week in money to the said HannaTower towards the maintenance of the saidchild until the Court take further order, and togive in bond with sureties of fifty pounds for hisgood behavior till the next Court of this county,and then to appear standing committed until hegive in such bond.Morison, "SuffolkCo. Court Records,"inCSM Publications, XXIX, 1012.

Thomas Curtice, charged by Sarah Towerfor committing fornication with her, by whomshe saith she hath had a. child, and made oathin Court that he and no man else is the fatherof the child late born of her body begotten byhim in fornication. The Court sentenced saidCurtice to give bond of twenty pounds withtwo sufficient sureties for the payment of twoshillings six pence per week in money to bepaid weekly to said Sarah Tower or her ordertowards the maintenance of her child, from thetime of its birth until this Court take furtherorder, and to pay fees of Court standing committed.


16/17

3. Rhode Island, 1688John Russell Bartlett, ed., Records of theColony of Rhode Island, III(Providence, 1858),244.

At a General Quarter Sessions holden atRochester, for Rhode Island . . . in September 1688

Mary Cory, of Portsmouth, single woman,being called in Court, to answer to an indictment by the Grand Jury found against her forhaving a child born of her body, in June lastpast, appeared, and being demanded who wasthe father of the said child, she answered JohnWickham.The Court sentence the said Mary Cory forher offence to pay a fine of twenty shillings inmoney; and also that she bear the town ofPortsmouth, free from all charges concerning,maintaining and bringing up the said child.

Status of children withone slave or servile parent

1. Inheritance of status through the mother,Virginia, 1662Va. Statutes at Large, II, 170.

Was a child with one slave and one freeparent slave or free? English common lawderived the status of children from the father.To follow that course in Virginia, however,would result in freedom for the children ofwhite men and Negro slave women. TheVirginia law, which established inheritance~ slave status through the mother, was copiedI II the later southern colonies.


Negro women's children to serve accordingto the condition of the mother.Whereas some doubts have arisen whether

children got by any Englishman upon a Negrowoman should be slave or free, Be it thereforeenacted . . . that all children born in thiscountry shall be held bond or free only according to the condition of the mothet. And thatif any Christian shall commit fornication witha Negro man or woman, he or she so offendingshall pay double the fines imposed by theformer act.

2. Inheritance through the father,Maryland,1664Md. Archives, I (1883), 533-534.Maryland seems to have taken for grantedthat children born to slave womenwereunfree; a special problem, however, waspresented by the marriage of white women

servants to Negro slaves.All Negroes or other slaves already withinthe Province and all Negroes and other slavesto be hereafter imported into the Province shallserve durante vita. And all children born of anyNegro 01' other slave shall be slaves as theirfathers were for the term of their lives. Andforasmuch as divers freeborn English women,forgetful of their free condition and to the disgrace of our nation, do intermarry with Negto

slaves, by which also divers suits may arisetouching the issue of such women and a greatdamage doth befall the masters of such Negroes, for prevention whereof, for deterringsuch freeborn women from such shamefulmatches, Be it further enacted . . . that whatsoever freeborn woman shall intermarry withany slave from and after the last day of thispresent Assembly shall serve the master of such


17/17

slave during the life of her husband. And thatall the issue of such freeborn women so married shall be slaves as their fathers were. AndBe it further enacted that all the issues of English or other freeborn women that have already married Negroes shall serve the mastersof their patents till they be thirty years of ageand no longer.1

3. Virginia law prescribes penalties for awhite woman having a bastard child by aNegro and sets thirty-one years as a termof service for the child, 1705Va. Statutes at Large, III(Philadelphia, 1823),453.

I f any woman servant shall have a bastardchild by a negro, at mulatto, over and abovethe years service due to her master or owner,she shall immediately, upon the expiration ofher time to her then present master or owner,pay down to the church-wardens of the parishwherein such child shall be botn, for the useof the said parish, fifteen pounds current moneyof Virginia, or be by them sold for five years,to the use aforesaid: And if a free Christianwhite woman shall have such bastard child, bya negro, or mulatto, for every such offence, sheshall, within one month after her delivery ofsuch bastard child, pay to the church-wardensfor the time being, of the parish wherein suchchild shall be born, for the use of the saidparish fifteen pounds current money of Virginia, or be by them sold for five years to theuse aforesaid: And in both the said cases, thechutch-wardens shall bind the said child to be1. In 1681 Maryland attempted to discourage marriages between slaves and white women servants byimposing a heavy fine on masters who permitted suchunions and manumitting children born of the marriage. Md. Archives, VII (1889), 203-205.


a servant, until it shall be of thirty-one years ofage.

4. Bastard child of a female mulatto servantcompelled to serve until thirty-one regardlessof father's color, 1723Va. Statutes at Large, IV(Richmond, 1820),433.

Where any female mullatto, or indian, bylaw obliged to serve 'till the age of thirty orthirty-one years, shall during the time of herservitude, have any child born of her body,every such child shall serve the master or mistress of such mullatto 01' indian, until it shallattain the same age the mother of such childwas obliged by law to serve unto.1

robert bremner - children in the colonial family

Documents