Becky, "Of course I don't like this, because I lose my Shiles line"--Say it isn't so, Joe !!!!! Was Ann Rencher married to William Waller or Nelson Waller? before Benjamin Huggins? Too all, In comparing the way the Puritans and early Somerset dealt with illegitimacy, there is a lesson to be learned from history. We should be more concerned that the children are cared for (IE old Somerset), than punishing the parents. (IE New England)

The concern of the Somerset court was really a little less beatific: they were making sure that the county (and the taxpayers) wouldn't be stuck with a kid on the welfare rolls. They wanted someone else as designated stuckees for these little accidents. The annual county levies included all the regular costs of doing business (road building and maintenance, ditto for the courthouse and jail, etc., salaries or other specific compensations for officials, from the Justices and Clerk down to constables and ferrymen, and so forth), and episodic costs associated with whatever else came up. Among these were "objects of charity" needing county support due to.(e.g.) catastrophic illness or accident. Someone was found to take care of these parties and compensated by the court for their requirements. Some citizens, by reasons of age or infirmity, also petitioned the court to be removed from the tithables list (tax liability), and there were other petitions by slave owners that a slave was no longer useful for the same reasons and therefore did not represent a useful tithable for whom they should be charged. Annually, the total budget B was determined and a count of all remaining tithables T made. B/T established the tax liability for taxpaying citizens, each of whom was assessed for his N tithables (remaining males over 16 in household and slaves). The Court did what it had to do to keep the taxes down. Their procedures for dealing with illegitimate children was just part of this process. No deficit spending allowed. John -----Original Message----- From: Glenn Major DVM <[email protected]> In comparing the way the Puritans and early Somerset dealt with illegitimacy, there is a lesson to be learned from history. We should be more concerned that the children are cared for (IE old Somerset), than punishing the parents. (IE New England)

I just had to comment on the thought in this e-mail, "No deficit spending allowed." Wouldn't that be a refreshing idea for our federal and state governments today? George ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 5:20 AM Subject: Re: [LDR] Ann the fornicator > The concern of the Somerset court was really a little less beatific: > they were making sure that the county (and the taxpayers) wouldn't be > stuck with a kid on the welfare rolls. They wanted someone else as > designated stuckees for these little accidents. > > The annual county levies included all the regular costs of doing > business (road building and maintenance, ditto for the courthouse and > jail, etc., salaries or other specific compensations for officials, > from the Justices and Clerk down to constables and ferrymen, and so > forth), and episodic costs associated with whatever else came up. > Among these were "objects of charity" needing county support due > to.(e.g.) catastrophic illness or accident. Someone was found to take > care of these parties and compensated by the court for their > requirements. Some citizens, by reasons of age or infirmity, also > petitioned the court to be removed from the tithables list (tax > liability), and there were other petitions by slave owners that a slave > was no longer useful for the same reasons and therefore did not > represent a useful tithable for whom they should be charged. Annually, > the total budget B was determined and a count of all remaining > tithables T made. B/T established the tax liability for taxpaying > citizens, each of whom was assessed for his N tithables (remaining > males over 16 in household and slaves). > > The Court did what it had to do to keep the taxes down. Their > procedures for dealing with illegitimate children was just part of this > process. No deficit spending allowed. > > John > > -----Original Message----- > From: Glenn Major DVM <[email protected]> > In comparing the way the Puritans and early Somerset dealt with > illegitimacy, > there is a lesson to be learned from history. We should be more > concerned that > the children are cared for (IE old Somerset), than punishing the > parents. (IE > New England) > > *************************************** > QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? > Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: > http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

> Too all, > > In comparing the way the Puritans and early Somerset dealt with > illegitimacy, there is a lesson to be learned from history. We should be > more concerned that the children are cared for (IE old Somerset), than > punishing the parents. (IE New England) __________________ Thanks, Glenn. Comparisons among the colonies of the time do seem like they can be helpful in a number of ways. Of possible interest to some, David Hackett Fischer discusses how "sexual offenses" were treated in colonial Maryland and Virginia, with comparisons with New England, in his "Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America." See pages 298-306. He states, "Sexual relations between men and women tended to be less strictly regulated in the Chesapeake than in Puritan New England. They were also regulated in a different way." Fischer indicates that, "[i]n Somerset County, Maryland, more than a third of all immigrant brides were pregnant before they married." Page 298. He offers evidence that "illegitimate births" in Somerset County in the 1600s were "very common," with an annual rate of 118 such births per 1000 total births in the County for the period 1688-94. Page 299. Fischer cites Sheri Keller, "Adultery and Fornication in Massachusetts and Maryland, the 1600s" (paper, Brandeis, 1987) as a source he drew on for Maryland fornication cases. Page 299. Dave K