Marriage.
Wooing in those days was done under much difficulties. In Boston a young man had to be very particular to get the consent of the young woman's parents or guardians before he entered upon his wooing, and even then he had to proceed cautiously or else fines, imprisonments, or the whipping-post would be applied to him. Yet it was not always demurely done in Old New England, as, in 1660 in New Haven, one day, "they sat down together; his arm being about her; and her arm upon his shoulder or about his neck; and hee kissed her and shee kissed him, or they kissed one another, continuing in this posture about half an hour, as Maria and Susan testified."[235] In New London in 1670 two lovers were accused and tried for sitting together on the Lord's Day under an apple tree in an orchard. On account of the difficulties of wooing, there came into use two most peculiar modes of courting, known as "bundling" and the "courting-stick."
The courting-stick was six feet or so long, about an inch in diameter, hollow, and with an enlargement at each end for speaking into and for hearing from. A picture in Harper's Weekly for November 29, 1900, no doubt historically correct, represents the father seated in the fireplace, the mother busy spinning, by the mother the daughter sitting on the bench knitting, while the young man is sitting across the room, with cider mug and pitcher beside him, and he is just in the act of raising the courting-stick to his mouth, the other end of which is lying in the lap of the young lady. To complete the picture, a younger sister is crouched behind the high back of the settee upon which her sister is sitting, ready to overhear what the young man would send over through the stick, so as to be prepared to tease her sister on the morrow.
According to the only one who has given us a general history of the subject "bundling was practiced in two forms; first between strangers, as a simple domestic make-shift arrangement, often arising from the necessities of a new country, and by no means peculiar to America; and, secondly between lovers, who shared the same couch, with the mutual understanding that innocent endearment should not be exceeded."[236] Webster's New International Dictionary gives the following: "To bundle—To sleep or lie in the same bed without undressing:—said of a man and woman, esp, lovers." The Century Dictionary defines it thus: "To bundle—In New England (in early times) and in Wales, to sleep in the same bed without undressing; applied to the custom of men and women, especially sweethearts, thus sleeping."
Writers upon the subject are at a loss to account for bundling having been permitted among a people so austere as were the early New Englanders; who highly esteemed virtue and severely punished unchastity. Yet bundling was openly practiced and perhaps "in its open recognition lay its redeeming feature. There was no secrecy, no thought of concealment; the bundling was done under the supervision of mother and sisters."[237] It is a question whether such a custom showed coarseness and viciousness in the people or if it really showed a hospitality in that the guest was thus found a place to rest for the night, nevertheless the smallness of the dwelling or the crowded condition of the rooms. Again, the severe New England climate would make it next to impossible for the lover otherwise to have been made comfortable through the night without a great outlay of fuel, and a corresponding waste of lights, which would be carefully considered by the frugal colonists. Yet this custom was not altogether confined to the lower and poorer classes. In all probabilities this did not originate with the colonists but was brought over from the mother country, as it existed in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, and in a form in Holland.
Bundling, it would seem, did not exist among the colonists outside of New England and Pennsylvania, while among the Dutch in New York the somewhat similar form of "questing" was known. It was not considered to any great extent wrong until the young colonial soldiers returning to their homes after the French and Indian wars took with them the vices of the camp and thus brought this practice into disrepute. Jonathan Edwards preached against it and other ministers joined in and the custom finally died out. It was at the greatest height among the colonists in the middle of the eighteenth century, and yet it reached down into the nineteenth century, being found in the region of Cape Cod as late as 1827, and in Pennsylvania even as late as 1845, such being shown by a court record, "and where it probably still lingers in out-of-the-way places among people both of English and of German extraction."[238]
Wooing was not always so difficult as to need the courting-stick or bundling to help it along, for some times it was done in a hurry and in most any place. There were cases in New England where a man would seek out a woman, call at her home, tell her his need of a wife, get her consent, and send in their desire for marriage to the town clerk to be published, and all this accomplished in one day or even a few hours. In the time of the Dutch in New York, one day a widower saw a young lady milking and falling in love with her told his love at once. Before she had finished milking, he jumped on his horse and rode in a great hurry to town, obtained his license, and hurriedly returned and took off his bride.
Love was not the only motive for marriage in New England, for it was quite customary to make inquiries concerning the bride's portion, and before marriage to arrange what should go with her. Sometimes a father-in-law was sued by his son-in-law for this portion.
There were, too, other ways of getting wives beside wooing them, as is shown by the following advertisement, which appeared in the Boston Evening Post for February 23, 1759:
"To the Ladies. Any young Lady between the Age of Eighteen and twenty three of a Midling Stature; brown Hair, regular Features and a Lively Brisk Eye; Of Good Morals & not Tinctured with anything that may Sully so Distinguishable a Form possessed of 3 or 400£ entirely her own Disposal and where there will be no necessity of going Through the tiresome Talk of addressing Parents or Guardians for their Consent: Such a one by leaving a Line directed for A. W., at the British Coffee House in King Street appointing where an Interview may be had will meet with a Person who flatters himself he shall not be thought Disagreeable by any Lady answering the above description. N. B. Profound Secrecy will be observ'd. No Trifling Answers will be regarded."[239]
Among the New England colonists there was a formal ceremony of betrothal, called a pre-contract or contraction. There was made a solemn promise of marriage between the couple before two witnesses and often there was a sermon preached in the church upon it by the minister, wherein it was the custom to permit the bride to select the text. The wedding-bans in New England were published three times in the meeting-house. This might be at any of the meetings—Sunday service, lecture, or town meeting. The names of the parties and their intention to marry were read by the minister, the town clerk, or the deacon at any of the meetings and on the church door or on a "publishing post" was placed a notice containing this information. In New York, under the English, this custom was considered not genteel and was very little practiced, as there a marriage license was issued. In Virginia both customs were in practice, as a license was required and also the bans had to be published for three several Sundays in the parish church where the contracting parties dwelt.
In the early days of the colonists in New England, marriage was considered a civil contract and the minister was not permitted to perform the marriage ceremony, the law requiring that all marriages should be conducted by a civil magistrate. But even as it was, the marriage ceremony was really of a religious nature as psalms were sung by the guests and prayers offered. Gradually the prejudice against ecclesiastical rites passed away and by the close of the seventeenth century ministers were authorized by law to perform the marriage ceremony. In the early times the wedding occurred in the home and was quietly conducted, but after a time feasting was added to the singing of psalms and the offering of prayers. In Virginia the custom was just the opposite, for civil marriage was not permitted by law, the ceremony having to be of a religious character and according to the rites of the Church of England. There was never a civil marriage before a magistrate permitted by law till near the close of the eighteenth century and then only allowed in very exceptional cases.
Among the Puritan colonists in New England the rude and really brutal wedding customs of the old country were entirely suppressed or greatly modified. Sack-posset was drunk at weddings and although this might have occurred within the bridal chamber, yet a psalm was sung before partaking and the drinking was followed with a prayer, which made a rather solemn affair out of it. There must have been, though, some weddings that were not so solemn, as in 1651 a law was passed that there should not be dancing at taverns at the time of a wedding on account of abuses and disorders that had occurred at such times. Among the Germans in Pennsylvania at a wedding the guests strove to steal a shoe off the bride's foot and the groomsmen tried to prevent this and if they did not the shoe was redeemed with a bottle of wine. In some parts the guests tried to obtain a garter of the bride as it brought luck and a quick marriage to the one getting it. In the Connecticut Valley the custom prevailed of stealing the bride. This was done by a group of young men, usually made up of those not invited to the wedding, who would rush in at the close of the marriage ceremony and seize the bride and carry her off to the tavern, where she was redeemed by the groom and his friends with a supper to the abductors. In some places it was the custom to tie wild grape-vines across the path of a wedding-party or to fell trees across the road to delay them, while at other times they would be greeted by a sudden volley fired from ambush.
"Isolated communities retained for many years marriage customs derived or copied from similar customs in the 'old country.' Thus the settlers of Londonderry, New Hampshire—Scotch-Irish Presbyterians—celebrated a marriage with much noisy firing of guns, just as their ancestors in Ireland, when the Catholics had been forbidden the use of firearms, had ostentatiously paraded their privileged Protestant condition by firing off their guns and muskets at every celebration. A Londonderry wedding made a big noise in the world. After the formal publishing of the bans, guests were invited with much punctiliousness. The wedding day was suitably welcomed at daybreak by a discharge of musketry at both the bride's and the groom's house. At a given hour the bridegroom, accompanied by his male friends, started for the bride's home. Salutes were fired at every house passed on the road, and from each house pistols and guns gave an answering 'God speed.' Half way on the journey the noisy bridal party was met by the male friends of the bride, and another discharge of firearms rent the air. Each group of men then named a champion to 'run for the bottle!'—a direct survival of the ancient wedding sport known among the Scotch as 'running for the bride-door,' or 'riding for the kail' or 'for the broose'—a pot of spiced broth. The two New Hampshire champions ran at full speed or rode a dare-devil race over dangerous roads to the bride's house, the winner seized the beribboned bottle of rum provided for the contest, returned to the advancing bridal group, drank the bride's health, and passed the bottle. On reaching the bride's house an extra salute was fired, and the bridegroom with his party entered a room set aside for them. It was a matter of strict etiquette that none of the bride's friends should enter this room until the bride, led by the best man, advanced and stationed herself with her bridesmaid before the minister, while the best man stood behind the groom. When the time arrived for the marrying pair to join hands, each put the right hand behind the back, and the bridesmaid and the best man pulled off the wedding-gloves, taking care to finish their duty at precisely the same moment. At the end of the ceremony everyone kissed the bride, and more noisy firing of guns and drinking of New England rum ended the day."[240]
One peculiar custom was that of the "coming out" of the bride. On the Sunday after the wedding, the bride and groom and, sometimes, also the other members of the bridal party, would attend church in their wedding clothes. It was a common and an expected thing for the bridal couple to occupy some conspicuous place and in the midst of the sermon stand and slowly turn about to show their clothing. The peeking of the congregation can well be imagined when the groom was dressed in a velvet coat, lace-frilled shirt, and white broadcloth knee-breeches and the bride in a gorgeous peach-colored silk gown and a bonnet with sixteen yards of white ribbon on it. One groom was not content with showing off on one Sunday when he came out in white broadcloth for the next Sunday he was attired in brilliant blue and gold and the third Sunday in peach-bloom with pearl buttons.
An engagement of marriage was a very important matter and when once properly entered into it could not be lightly broken. There are records of a good number of breach of promise suits in New England and New York. Sometimes the suit was brought by the woman or her father against the man; sometimes, too, it was the man that brought the suit against the woman. Although the father had great control over his daughter in reference to her choice of a husband, yet if he permitted a contract to be entered into with his daughter he could not break off the engagement without good reason, such as a court would accept. There are a number of cases on record where the young man brought suit against the girl's father for breach of contract, sometimes for loss of time in paying court to the daughter. In some cases the young man in his suit included both the father and the mother and also the girl, claiming that all joined in against him.
Since there was civil marriage in New England it would seem naturally to follow that there would be civil divorce, which was the case. Not only were church courts not established in New England but also there were none in any of the colonies. As in Virginia marriage was by the church and as there were no church courts, there were no statutes on divorce enacted in that colony. There were separations, though, and the courts acted upon them when brought before them. The causes allowed for divorce in New England were such as desertion, cruelty, and breach of the marriage vow. Usually the husband and wife were dealt with as equals before the law. "Female adultery was never doubted to have been sufficient cause; but male adultery, after some debate and consultation with the elders, was judged not sufficient."[241] This has reference to Massachusetts, being from Governor Hutchinson.
The bearing of husband and wife was rather carefully regulated by law in New England. A husband could not keep his wife on frontiers where there was much danger, nor could he leave her for any long while, nor could he whip her, and he was not even allowed to use harsh words with her. A wife must not scold her husband too much nor strike him, lest she be put in the public stocks or pillory. Nor could they be too publicly demonstrative. "Captain Kemble of Boston sat two hours in the public stocks (1656) for his 'lewd and unseemly behavior' in kissing his wife 'publicquely' on the Sabbath upon his doorstep when he had just returned from a voyage of three years."[242] In old New York it was the custom to strive to reconcile all difficulties and even in some cases it seems that force was almost, if not quite used to have the husband and wife live together. In no case was the father of the wife to permit his daughter to have refuge in his home against the wishes of her husband.
"In spite of the hardness and narrowness of their daily life, and the cold calculation, the lack of sentiment displayed in wooing, I think Puritan husbands and wives were happy in their marriages, though their love was shy, almost somber, and 'flowered out of sight like the fern.' A few love-letters still remain to prove their affection: letters of sweethearts and letters of married lovers, such as Governor Winthrop and his wife Margaret:
"'My own dear Husband: How dearly welcome thy kind letter was to me, I am not able to express. The sweetness of it did much refresh me. What can be more pleasing to a wife than to hear of the welfare of her best beloved and how he is pleased with her poor endeavors! I blush to hear myself commended, knowing my own wants. But it is your love that conceives the best and makes all things seem better than they are. I wish that I may always be pleasing to thee, and that these comforts we may have in each other may be daily increased so far as they be pleasing to God. I will use that speech to thee that Abigail did to David, I will be a servant to wash the feet of my lord; I will do any service wherein I may please my good husband. I confess I cannot do enough for thee; but thou art pleased to accept the will for the deed and rest contented. I have many reasons to make me love thee, whereof I shall name two: First, because thou lovest God, and secondly, because thou lovest me. If these two were wanting all the rest would be eclipsed. But I must leave this discourse and go about my household affairs. I am a bad housewife to be so long from them; but I must needs borrow a little time to talk with thee, my sweetheart. It will be but two or three weeks before I see thee, though they be long ones. God will bring us together in good time, for which time I shall pray. And thus with my mother's and my own best love to yourself I shall leave scribbling. Farewell my good husband, the Lord keep thee.
'Your obedient wife,
'Margaret Winthrop.'"[243]
In the good old colonial days of New England it was not only a man's duty to marry but also a necessity, so a widower did not remain single as a usual thing nor was it usual to remain in that condition very long, as for instance, "the father and mother of Governor Winslow had been widow and widower seven and twelve weeks respectively, when they joined their families and themselves in mutual benefit, if not in mutual love. At a later day, the impatient Governor of New Hampshire married a lady but ten days a widow."[244] "Peter Sargent, a rich Boston merchant, had three wives. His second had had two previous husbands. His third wife had lost one husband, and she survived Peter, and also her third husband, who had three wives. His father had four, the last three of whom were widows."[245]
One poor widower had quite a time after his wife's death as depicted in his diary, and to the cares and troubles of this poor old man, Judge Sewall of Boston, Mrs. Earle devotes thirteen pages of her Customs and Fashions in Old New England, and they are truly most unlucky pages. The Judge lost his wife on October 19, 1717, with whom he had lived forty-three years and they had seven sons and seven daughters, and on February 6th, of the following year (he was 66 at the time) is found in his Diary: "'Wandering in my mind whether to live a Married or a Single life.' Ere that date he had begun to take notice. He had called more than once on Widow Ruggles, and had had Widow Gill to dine with him; and looked critically at Widow Emery, and noted that Widow Tilley was absent from meeting; and he had gazed admiringly at Widow Winthrop in 'her sley.'"[246] Nor were the good old Dutch of New York far behind their Yankee neighbors in this matter, although they didn't want to allow their wives the same privileges without encumbrances, as, "John Burroughs, of Newtown, Long Island, in his will dated 1678 expressed the general feeling of husbands towards their prospective widows when he said: 'If my wife marry again, then her husband must provide for her as I have.'"[247] In 1673 a husband in making a joint-will with his wife enjoined loss of property if his wife married again. "Perhaps he thought there had been enough marrying and giving in marriage already in that family, for Brieta had had three husbands—a Dane, a Frieslander, and a German—and his first wife had had four, and he—well, several, I guess; and you couldn't expect any poor Dutchman to find it easy to make a will in all that confusion."[248]
"The precocity of colonial marriage allowed time for repetitions of the act. Many of the Virginia girls that married in childhood and assumed the burdens of family at so immature an age became broken in health and after bearing a dozen children died, leaving their husbands to marry again and beget new broods perhaps as large as the first. On the eastern shore of Virginia in the seventeenth century it was not remarkable for a man to have three or four successive wives. There were instances of Virginians married six times. It is not unusual to find a colonial dame that was married four times. Few conspicuous colonial men in Virginia, at least, lived beyond middle life; most died short of it. The malarial climate, exposure, and reckless habits cut them off. The young and attractive widows need not remain long forlorn in a country with a preponderance of males, at least if the feminine charms were supplemented by a fine plantation. Sometimes the relay was so close that the second husband was granted the probate of the will of the first. In one case funeral baked meats furnished the marriage table. One husband left all the estate to his wife's children by her next marriage. Quickness of remarriage does not indicate callousness but rather the woman's need of protection on the plantation and of an overseer for the work.
"A noticeable feature of colonial Virginia was the belleship of widows. Maidens seem not to have been 'in it.' As we come toward the Revolution the widows still reign supreme. It may be that the larger social experience of the widows magnified their charms or made them more adept at handling bashful lovers. Washington belonged in this class if we may trust the sentimental poems that he wrote to the unknown maiden that he loved when he was fifteen. After several unsuccessful affairs he probably was sufficiently experienced not to dally in his wooing of Mrs. Custis. Patrick Henry's father married a widow; so did Jefferson and James Madison."[249]
In New Netherlands there prevailed a custom, borrowed from Holland, that when a man died and left a number of debts the widow could be relieved from all demands or claims of his creditors by giving up her rights of inheritance. In one form this giving up of rights was shown by the widow's laying a key and a purse on the coffin of the deceased husband. There was another peculiar custom in both New England and New York for the purpose of getting out of paying debts. In this the widow was married in her shift, often at cross-roads, and sometimes at midnight. Later the custom was for the widow to be in a closet with no clothing on and put out her hand through a hole in the door for the marriage ceremony. Under such a marriage it was held that the new husband was exempt from paying the debts of the former husband and even of those of the wife contracted before her marriage to the new husband. After her marriage, whether on road or in closet, the new bride would deck herself out in clothing furnished by the new husband, usually these were with her in the closet, and then she would come forth resplendent and unencumbered to her new man.
As in all new countries, in the early times of the United States, women were fewer than men and very few women remained unmarried. Too, it was quite necessary for a woman to marry as she needed some one to care for her and protect her more than would be the case in an old and well-settled country. Yet there were some few women who preferred maidenhood to marriage, but for the most part such women had a hard time, for they were not well considered by the colonists as they believed it to be the duty for every man and woman to marry. At least one such woman persevered in this state for quite a time as there is a record of her death in her 91st year.
"The state of old maidism was reached at a very early age in those early days; Higginson wrote of an 'antient maid' of twenty-five years. John Dunton in his 'Life and Errors' wrote eulogistically of one such ideal 'Virgin' who attracted his special attention.
"'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), to meet with Chapmen. Her looks, her speech, her whole behavior are so very chaste, that but once (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 (as there is least danger from that sex), so that I found it no easy matter to enjoy her company, for most of her time (save what was taken up in needle work and learning French, &c.) 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.
"'And as I am sure this is most agreeable to the Virgin modesty, which should make Marriage an act rather of their obedience than their choice. And they that think their Friends too slowpaced in the matter give certain proof that lust is their sole motive. But as the Damsel I have been describing would neither anticipate nor contradict the will of her Parents, so do I assure you she is against Forcing her own, by marrying where she cannot love; and that is the reason she is still a Virgin.'"[250]
Even if the Puritan did tolerate the unmarried woman he scarcely did the unmarried man, for it was considered almost a crime for a man to remain single. They went so far that to encourage bachelors to marry they were given home lots upon which to build if they married. Whatever the cause, there were very few bachelors among them. Bachelors were treated almost as criminals as they were spied upon by the constable, the watchman, and the tithing-man. In some places they had to pay a stipulated sum per week, or other time, for the privilege of remaining single, while in other places they were not permitted to live alone. An order issued in 1695 in Eastham, Mass., reads: "Every unmarried man in the township shall kill six blackbirds or three crows while he remains single; as a penalty for not doing it, shall not be married until he obey this order."[251] "Bachelors were not in good standing among the Dutch, at least in Albany. The colony had no laws, as in New England, to regulate these misfits and they shared in the benefit of Dutch tolerance toward misguided folk. But where marriage was so spontaneous, bachelors were almost pariahs. They did manage to find shelter but not home. Mrs. Grant describes them as passing in and out like silent ghosts and seeming to feel themselves superior to the world. Their association was almost exclusively with one another though sometimes one took part in the affairs of the family with which he lived."[252]