Anyone who dabbles in genealogy is no doubt surprised at how many children were born less than nine months after their parents' wedding. Clearly, some of those elderly relatives at your family reunion may not have practiced abstinence before marriage! Contrary to what Bill O'Reilly believes, I do not think many of the women were blasted out of their minds at the time.
Usually, there will not be much more than the simple conclusions to be drawn from the dates...life would go on, and no particular mention of the circumstances can be found. Sometimes, however, the situation of the women involved was not so happy ... and the paper trail is extensive. I've found two such stories that left brief but fascinating records in the court system ... one from 1664 (my 8g-grandparents), and another from 1860 (my gg-aunt). Follow me below the fleur-de-kos for details.
William Durkee and Martha Cross, Ipswich MA 1664
The information I had on this particular set of 8g-grandparents was sketchy, at first. I had the fact of their daughter Martha's marriage to Thomas Fuller, but not much else. Eventually, I found a fairly complicated paper trail. I'm still researching this line, but the gist of story is that William was an Irish Catholic indentured servant in the household of Thomas Bishop in the Puritan village of Ipswich, MA. Another servant in the household was a local girl named Martha Cross. Eventually, Martha became pregnant by William and life became very complicated for her from that point onward.
Essex Co. MA court records for 1664 document the case of "William Dirkee" against Martha's father, Robert Cross...the verdict was for the plaintiff, and defendant was to give his daughter in marriage or pay 5li. damages. The court records show the following testimony from various members of the Bishop household--with the original spellings intact:
Margrit Bishop testified that being asked by Martha whether she should go home to her father, deponent told her that it was best for her to do so, "at that William being discontented, she desired me in the presence of God to beare witnesse that she would have no other man but he furthermore she said why will not you trust me as well as I have trusted you hitherto. And hereupon she went away to her father."
Grace Searl testified that she heard Martha Crosse say, when her friends came for her, that she told William that if she went away she would come again and would not forsake him.
Thomas Bishop testified that Martha Crosse desired him several times to speak to her father that she and William Durgy might be married ... Mary Bishop testified that Martha said it was her greatest comfort that her father had given his consent to her marriage, which was to take place on the nineteenth of the present month.
Martha's father eventually relented, and two letters he wrote on the subject are also on file:
"Honered Sier you may Esilie understand how the Case stands conserne my daufter : & I give them leve to marie
Yor Seruant Rob. Crosse"
"Naybor Booshop: to you & yor wiffie this is to let you understand or __ mindes is so the Case standing as it dous : wee leue yor seruants to yor dis __ and for the __ you may poot it to ana period as soone as you please: we shall no ways hinder it: __ hartes are sore oprest : wee ar as full of sorro the ___ ous & goyd you in the thing : Yor : Robert : Cro
"the 12 of the 7th moth 64."
On the reverse of the foregoing paper: "For Her muche Respected Frende Mr Robert Crosse att Ipswich in newe Ingland These present with Care."
The situation was still fraught with emotion and difficulty, as William appeared to have changed his mind about marriage, for another suit was brought by "Robert Crose" against William Dirkey for "abusing his daughter." The following was testimony in that case:
Goodman Storie deposed that "Martha Crosse beeing at her Sister nellsonnes house neere too goodman Storie Martha beeing in sore destresse of mind in the Consideration as shee Conseued she had binn cast out of her fathers favor: & familie: was so horied & destresed in mind ; that her Sistor nellsonn : Came downe to mee much afected lamenten with teeares yt much afected my hart to heare her : woe sayd I thought my Sistor would haue died to night: but shee thought shee Could not live an other in that Condition: I beeing much afected with there Condition: sayd why doe you not goe to yor Father & macke youer Condition knowen vnto him: to which shee answered o I dayer not goe to speack a word in her behalfe then I sayd will you goe if I goe downe wth you then goodey nelson sayd I with all my hart: so wee went downe to goodman Croses & there wee found them in a sad & sorrofull Condition verie much horried in there sperite not knowing which way to turen or what to say: & as my aprehenson then lead mee: did treat with them about the soferen them to marey the which hee did & that was the way then yt wee thought to bee the best."
William Nelson deposed that Willam Dorkei said, at deponent's house, after Goodman Stories had been at his father's, that he wished he had never spoken as he had, owning the child to be his, but he had eighteen meals a week and would spare six of them to keep the child.
John Bishop deposed that he heard William Durgee say that he had rather keep the child than keep her, but he presently said if he kept one he would keep the other, and they agreed to be married the next day.
The town elders of Ipswich were becoming concerned. Essex county records have numerous cases where couples were charged with "committing folly before marriage" citing birth of a child soon after marriage as evidence of the "folly." I've noted that sometimes couples were fined, but this particular case must have been especially troublesome, as "William Dirkey, presented for fornication, was ordered to be whipped not exceeding twenty stripes, and to put in security of 20li. to save the town of Ipswich harmless from the charges of keeping the child, or else go to prison." His employer, Thomas Bishop, gave the surety. In addition, several months after the birth of the child, "Martha Dirky, for fornication, was ordered to be whipped unless she bring a note from the treasurer, of three pounds paid to him."
William and Martha went on to have several more children, but the couple was never in good financial circumstances...even after William's indentured status came to an end. He apparently refused to convert from Catholicism and was thus prevented by law from owning land.
GG-Aunt Mary in 1860
(I am not going to give last names in this story--it would be too hard to keep myself from trying to explain all the relationships, so I'll force myself to keep it simple. The first names are real, however.)
Census records can be frustrating -- even when you have the right family in the right place, often people "go missing," or maybe there is a mystery person in the household. Such was the case on the 1870 and 1880 census for the household of my gg-aunt Mary and her husband John, who are shown with their three children, and another boy named Charles listed as "stepson" to the head of household. Charles had a last name that was new to me, and I puzzled over it for a long time.
As my g-grandmother's sister, I of course knew Mary's maiden name; I also knew that she had been married once before in 1860. Mary's husband was killed in 1864 during the Civil War, and her father (my gg-grandfather) helped her file a claim for a widow's pension; as far as I knew there had not been any children from the marriage, and Charles' last name did not match. Mary married her second husband John in 1866. Now, the 1870 census indicated Charles had been born in 1860, and I worked from the assumption that perhaps John had been married previously, and that his supposed first wife had had a child from a previous marriage of her own. That was the only way I could account for a stepson with a name that did not match either family. Hoo boy, was I wrong!
I eventually ran across reference to a lawsuit Mary's father had filed in 1860 -- the index said it was a "property dispute." I ordered a copy, thinking I would find a story about a stolen cow or some such; imagine my amazement when it turned out to be a paternity suit! Mary, it seems, was raped by a scoundrel named David...who fled the state when it became apparent Mary was pregnant and that she wanted nothing to do with him ever again. Part of the evidence in the files was an absolutely unbelievable letter to Mary, which I quote in its entirety:
Dear Miss Mary,
As I believe you are a friend without deseption……I have a word of consolation to sa to you in rexation to your note I rec’d last evening. In your note you said you was a going to banish your self from this world to save the disgrase. Now Mary, for my sake do not think of sutch a thing for that wold one disgrase to a nother. I cood nt ever forgit it. & you said your father was a going to make you swair it to me. Now Mary I do not want you to do this it will only make more disgrace. As I have never denied the charge & I will do what is write if you do not expose me I will admit I was to blame to a further extent. & did I think it wood ever come to this. Mary tha is not a day goes by but what I think of you & your kindness to me. & I can never do enough to repay you & wood give this world if it was mine if I cood restore you & our credit to you no I offerd to marry you & you wood not & I also made other requests of you & you wood have your own way. Now Mary will you pleas take my advise as I no I am your best friend yo have in this world & will bee till death. Now Mary, for my [cut off] you to bee a good girl & [cut off] a vartious life for future & bare with your present trubbles & you will regane your reputation by doing so & I ask you to bee my friend & I will bee your trew friend in deede & in time of neede. Mary will you bee so kind as to grant me my requests & you shal not suffer as long as the blood runs in my vains or as long as I [illeg] but you shal have shair….Mary you must not worry a bout any thing tha sa to you for I will make you independent of them & will in close five dollars of them in this note for you & will send you more when you want it you can have tha things I lef at Mrs. Hoffmans if you will take them. Mary I ask you wanst more to do my request wright with out delay [illeg] as before. I send you my simpathising effections yours truly good buy.
You can tell your father I think he is standing in his own lite when he commences to drive me for I am a friend to he friendly & if he will bee a kind father to you I will be his friend & reward him for it with out compulsion Mr [XXX] & akd you friendly to take care of your doughter & I will reward you.
Talk about blaming the victim. This jackass was the father of Charles ... who bore David's last name. The rest of the lawsuit documents testimony by neighbors, all men by the way, who attested as to their knowledge of the circumstances, the character of David, etc. No one comes off this case looking very noble, I must say. Nonetheless, with the evidence of David's letter, even though he never appeared in court, judgment was entered against him on Dec. 19th 1861 in the sum of $90.00 and $3.90-1/2 for cost of suit. I don't think he ever paid; in fact, David appealed the judgment, and then the record trails off and he is listed as "deceased." It is my belief, though, that he actually ran off and joined the army. I found a tombstone with David's name, the right birth year, but a date of death in the 1880s and a Civil War regiment noted...the grave was in the same community that the young, and recently married, Charles was living with his new family (and just over the county line from where Mary and John were living).
Families are complicated, and stories are often hidden behind brick walls. Walls eventually come down, though, if you keep chipping away at them.