Although I do not have a copy of any divorce decree from the court order book, the following transcription, from Essex County Deed Book 33, 1786-1793, pp. 386-87, seems to indicate that Richard & Mary Howerton Jeffries were divorced in the eyes of the June 1792 Essex Co. court: To all to whom these presents shall come Know Ye that we Meriwether Smith and William Latane arbitrators mutually chosen by Richard Jeffries and Mary his wife to settle the unhappy differences subsisting between them and for the purposes appearing in a Bond date the fifth day of March 1792, entered unto by the said Richard Jeffries to John Howerton, William Howerton, Richard St. John and Gabriel Dix to the said Richard Jeffries of the same date, both with conditions for the said Richard Jeffries's and the said Mary's performance of the award -- that we should make, have met at the house of the said John Howerton and after having advised a reconciliation between the parties to no purpose, and they agreeing to a final separation and Divorce from Bed and Board, have made the following arbitraiment and award, to with that the said Richard Jeffries deliver up to the said Mary his wife all the Lands and slaves which he holds in right of, or which he has a Right to by virtue of her being his wife, in the condition they shall be at the time of delivery, and that the said Richard Jeffries also deliver up to the said Mary his wife, the goods & chattels allotted to the said Mary as her part of the personal estate of William Howerton dec'd, her former husband, in quantity, quality and kind as contained in the following list, according to the Judgment of three appraisers of any tow of them, being first sworn, or that he pay the full value thereof or any part thereof which he shall not restore in kind to be appraised as aforesaid, in money according to the appraisement contained in the said List, at the option of the said Richard Jeffries, an that the said Richard Jeffries do on or before the first day of May next ensuing the date thereof, execute proper deeds of conveyance of all the said Estate to Trustees or a trustee for her use so as to bar him from ever take the same to his own use [appraised list of ~50 personal items & livestock detailed here] And we do award that from this time the said Richard Jeffries shall give her no molestation under pretend [?pretense?] of her being his wife. And we do further award that for the consideration above mentioned the said Mary shall by proper deeds such as the said Richard Jeffries or his counsel shall devise, release, relinquish and disclaim any Interest she may have in any part of the said Richard Jeffries's Estate, except as before mentioned, either that he has now in pofsefsion or may have at the time of his death either real or personal, and that from this time the said Mary shall give no molestation to the said Richard Jeffries or claim further maintenance from him, In Testimony of the being our award we have hereunto set our hand & seals the 29th day of March 1792 M. Smith W. Latane At a Court held for Efsex County at Tappa. On the 18th day of June 1792--This award was ordered to be recorded. Teste ?W?T? Lee, Clk on 8/10/05 6:36 PM, Paul Drake at pauldrake@CHARTER.NET wrote: > I am aware of that, thanks, H.B. The question was could the circuit court or > any other court of general jurisdiction declare that from then forward till > reconciliation or final divorce there would exist a relationship of a couple > as "divorce a mensa et thoro". I was in error, and the correct answer to that > question is that the best sources seem to reveal that the Colonial VA courts > had no such jurisdiction. Thanks for the comments. Paul > ----- Original Message ----- > From: H. B. Gill > To: Paul Drake ; VA-ROOTS@LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 6:21 PM > Subject: Re: Fw: divorce in antebellum America > > > For what it's worth, Virginia county courts could grant a separate > maintenance for a spouse but could not dissolve a marriage. > HBG > > At 03:51 PM 8/10/2005 -0500, Paul Drake wrote: >> I know that definition well. I believe I have found the answer, and as I >> stated, I was in error; I sure thought the court had authority to >> establish a mensa et thoro. Thanks anyhow. Paul >> > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.5/67 - Release Date: 8/9/2005 > > > To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at > http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html >

Here's one way to get rid of a spouse I guess. It's from NC and after the Revolution, but quite curious. At least to me it is. http://www.mindspring.com/%7Ejsruss/carteret/wifesale.htm Joel

Don't know about cows, but my ancestor bought a steer at an estate sale in Tennessee in 1809 for $3.75. Myron E. Williams Crossville, TN DAVID KAREN DALE wrote: >That is wonderful! "Dully satisfied," huh? Anything to get rid of her! I've got a deed in which a man used the terms of indenture and sale to give his three daughters away--but at least he didn't charge the "adopting" couple anything! Could you buy a cow for $2 in 1804? > >Karen > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Joel S. Russell<mailto:jsruss@mindspring.com> > To: VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com<mailto:VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 6:07 PM > Subject: Re: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] divorce in Colonial VA > > > Here's one way to get rid of a spouse I guess. It's from NC and after the > Revolution, but quite curious. At least to me it is. > > http://www.mindspring.com/%7Ejsruss/carteret/wifesale.htm<http://www.mindspring.com/~jsruss/carteret/wifesale.htm> > > Joel > > > > >

As to your second question; I do not want to start an argument, yet my studies reveal that 2.00 in 1800 would have an approximate value today of about $90 to $100.00. So, yes, you could buy a cow for that sum. ----- Original Message ----- From: DAVID KAREN DALE To: VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 7:31 PM Subject: Re: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] divorce in Colonial VA That is wonderful! "Dully satisfied," huh? Anything to get rid of her! I've got a deed in which a man used the terms of indenture and sale to give his three daughters away--but at least he didn't charge the "adopting" couple anything! Could you buy a cow for $2 in 1804? Karen ----- Original Message ----- From: Joel S. Russell<mailto:jsruss@mindspring.com> To: VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com<mailto:VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 6:07 PM Subject: Re: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] divorce in Colonial VA Here's one way to get rid of a spouse I guess. It's from NC and after the Revolution, but quite curious. At least to me it is. http://www.mindspring.com/%7Ejsruss/carteret/wifesale.htm<http://www.mindspring.com/~jsruss/carteret/wifesale.htm> Joel ==== VA-SOUTHSIDE Mailing List ==== Do not post Advertisements, Chain Letters, Virus Warnings etc. to this list. If in doubt, Contact: G. Lee Hearl, Adm. at: glh@naxs.com<mailto:glh@naxs.com> Hosted by Rootsweb http://www.rootsweb.com<http://www.rootsweb.com/> ============================== Search Family and Local Histories for stories about your family and the areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the last 12 months. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx<http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx> ==== VA-SOUTHSIDE Mailing List ==== USGenWeb Archives http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb Do Not Flame other Members on List. If you have problems or concerns with list posts, contact the List Administrator. glh@naxs.com ============================== Search Family and Local Histories for stories about your family and the areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the last 12 months. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.5/67 - Release Date: 8/9/2005

That is wonderful! "Dully satisfied," huh? Anything to get rid of her! I've got a deed in which a man used the terms of indenture and sale to give his three daughters away--but at least he didn't charge the "adopting" couple anything! Could you buy a cow for $2 in 1804? Karen ----- Original Message ----- From: Joel S. Russell<mailto:jsruss@mindspring.com> To: VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com<mailto:VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 6:07 PM Subject: Re: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] divorce in Colonial VA Here's one way to get rid of a spouse I guess. It's from NC and after the Revolution, but quite curious. At least to me it is. http://www.mindspring.com/%7Ejsruss/carteret/wifesale.htm<http://www.mindspring.com/~jsruss/carteret/wifesale.htm> Joel ==== VA-SOUTHSIDE Mailing List ==== Do not post Advertisements, Chain Letters, Virus Warnings etc. to this list. If in doubt, Contact: G. Lee Hearl, Adm. at: glh@naxs.com<mailto:glh@naxs.com> Hosted by Rootsweb http://www.rootsweb.com<http://www.rootsweb.com/> ============================== Search Family and Local Histories for stories about your family and the areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the last 12 months. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx<http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx>

Interesting; very near a declaration by the court that she is a femme free trader. ----- Original Message ----- From: DAVID KAREN DALE To: VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:34 PM Subject: Re: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] divorce in Colonial VA Not divorce--but an interesting role in marriage problems from Stafford Co: p.358 (original book) p103 Sparacio 19 May 1693 "Ordered that the sheriff of this County shall Summons RICHARD MASON to the next Court to answer the complaint of his wife and in the meantime she hath Liberty to worke for her living where she can within this County and that then she faile not to appear to make her complaint out against her husband aforesaid. Karen Dale ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Drake<mailto:pauldrake@charter.net> To: VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com<mailto:VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 12:49 PM Subject: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] divorce in Colonial VA It appears that I was in error in suggesting that colonial VA courts had the authority to grant divorces from bed and board (a mensa et thoro). Sorry 'bout that. The following would appear to adequately summarize the true state of the matter in early VA. So, unless we hear differently from Mr. Gill or another of you who has familiarity with the matter, we should presume that the courts did NOT have the power to recognize such divorces "from bed and board." Paul "England, the source of legal tradition in the colonies, was essentially a divorce-free society which didn't have a judicial process for divorce until 1857. The colonies, especially in the south, adhered to that tradition. Prior to the Revolution and for many years thereafter, the southern colonies had no process for granting a divorce. The only means of obtaining one was to induce the legislature to pass a private bill granting a divorce, something that rarely occurred. A few petitions were submitted to legislatures, but colonial assemblies limited their consideration to "divorces from bed and board" (a mensa et thoro) which did not permit remarriage. The only other practical options available to an unhappy couple were adultery or desertion. ==== VA-SOUTHSIDE Mailing List ==== USGenWeb Archives Digital Maps Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/maps/<http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/maps/> ============================== Search Family and Local Histories for stories about your family and the areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the last 12 months. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx<http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx> ==== VA-SOUTHSIDE Mailing List ==== USGenWeb Archives Digital Maps Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/maps/ ============================== Search Family and Local Histories for stories about your family and the areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the last 12 months. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.5/67 - Release Date: 8/9/2005

Not divorce--but an interesting role in marriage problems from Stafford Co: p.358 (original book) p103 Sparacio 19 May 1693 "Ordered that the sheriff of this County shall Summons RICHARD MASON to the next Court to answer the complaint of his wife and in the meantime she hath Liberty to worke for her living where she can within this County and that then she faile not to appear to make her complaint out against her husband aforesaid. Karen Dale ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Drake<mailto:pauldrake@charter.net> To: VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com<mailto:VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 12:49 PM Subject: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] divorce in Colonial VA It appears that I was in error in suggesting that colonial VA courts had the authority to grant divorces from bed and board (a mensa et thoro). Sorry 'bout that. The following would appear to adequately summarize the true state of the matter in early VA. So, unless we hear differently from Mr. Gill or another of you who has familiarity with the matter, we should presume that the courts did NOT have the power to recognize such divorces "from bed and board." Paul "England, the source of legal tradition in the colonies, was essentially a divorce-free society which didn't have a judicial process for divorce until 1857. The colonies, especially in the south, adhered to that tradition. Prior to the Revolution and for many years thereafter, the southern colonies had no process for granting a divorce. The only means of obtaining one was to induce the legislature to pass a private bill granting a divorce, something that rarely occurred. A few petitions were submitted to legislatures, but colonial assemblies limited their consideration to "divorces from bed and board" (a mensa et thoro) which did not permit remarriage. The only other practical options available to an unhappy couple were adultery or desertion. ==== VA-SOUTHSIDE Mailing List ==== USGenWeb Archives Digital Maps Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/maps/<http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/maps/> ============================== Search Family and Local Histories for stories about your family and the areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the last 12 months. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx<http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx>

Thanks Marilyn, and for those who are interested in that book, it is available at the NC Bookshop at this URL, and the price is but 10.00 in paperback with 3.00 shipping http://www.bookshopinc.com/cgi-bin/bsp455/search.html?id=RbacwTz2 ----- Original Message ----- From: Symonds To: Paul Drake Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 2:29 PM Subject: Re: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] divorce in Colonial VA Those with an interest in the above subject might be interested in _The Great Catastrophe of My Life, Divorce in the Old Dominion_ by Thomas E. Buckley, S. J. Chapel Hill, N. C.:University of North Carolina Press, 2002. The author is a professor of American religious history at the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley who examined the almost 500 divorce files at the Library of Virginia. He states (page 28): "She [Susannah Wersley, wife of John Wersley] petitioned [1786] the legislature to pass a private bill dissolving their marriage. No other venue existed where she might seek relief. The state had no divorce code, and the courts lacked jurisdiction." The Virginia legislature rejected her petition and for the next 65 years they rejected two-thirds of the petitions. From 1786 to 1851, 242 women, 218 men, and 5 couples submitted 583 divorce petitions to the Virginia assembly. In 1849, the assembly authorized courts to grant absolute divorces in cases of adultery or confinement to the penitentiary for seven or more years. Legislative divorce ended with the constitutional convention of 1850-1851. However, the constitution did not expand grounds for divorce or change statutes by which courts would evaluate cases. Marilyn Symonds Paul Drake wrote: > It appears that I was in error in suggesting that colonial VA courts had the > authority to grant divorces from bed and board (a mensa et thoro). Sorry > 'bout that. > > The following would appear to adequately summarize the true state of the > matter in early VA. So, unless we hear differently from Mr. Gill or another > of you who has familiarity with the matter, we should presume that the > courts did NOT have the power to recognize such divorces "from bed and > board." Paul > > "England, the source of legal tradition in the colonies, was essentially a > divorce-free society which didn't have a judicial process for divorce until > 1857. The colonies, especially in the south, adhered to that tradition. > Prior to the Revolution and for many years thereafter, the southern colonies > had no process for granting a divorce. The only means of obtaining one was > to induce the legislature to pass a private bill granting a divorce, > something that rarely occurred. A few petitions were submitted to > legislatures, but colonial assemblies limited their consideration to > "divorces from bed and board" (a mensa et thoro) which did not permit > remarriage. The only other practical options available to an unhappy couple > were adultery or desertion. > > > ==== VA-SOUTHSIDE Mailing List ==== > USGenWeb Archives Digital Maps Project > http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/maps/ > > ============================== > Search Family and Local Histories for stories about your family and the > areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the last 12 months. > Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx > > -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.5/67 - Release Date: 8/9/2005

I neglected to cite the source for the info I sent re divorce in Colonial VA. It is at http://www.genfiles.com/legal/womensrights.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Drake To: va-roots@listlva.lib.va.us ; VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com ; NCBERTIE-L@rootsweb.com ; DRAKE-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 1:49 PM Subject: divorce in Colonial VA It appears that I was in error in suggesting that colonial VA courts had the authority to grant divorces from bed and board (a mensa et thoro). Sorry 'bout that. The following would appear to adequately summarize the true state of the matter in early VA. So, unless we hear differently from Mr. Gill or another of you who has familiarity with the matter, we should presume that the courts did NOT have the power to recognize such divorces "from bed and board." Paul "England, the source of legal tradition in the colonies, was essentially a divorce-free society which didn't have a judicial process for divorce until 1857. The colonies, especially in the south, adhered to that tradition. Prior to the Revolution and for many years thereafter, the southern colonies had no process for granting a divorce. The only means of obtaining one was to induce the legislature to pass a private bill granting a divorce, something that rarely occurred. A few petitions were submitted to legislatures, but colonial assemblies limited their consideration to "divorces from bed and board" (a mensa et thoro) which did not permit remarriage. The only other practical options available to an unhappy couple were adultery or desertion.

It appears that I was in error in suggesting that colonial VA courts had the authority to grant divorces from bed and board (a mensa et thoro). Sorry 'bout that. The following would appear to adequately summarize the true state of the matter in early VA. So, unless we hear differently from Mr. Gill or another of you who has familiarity with the matter, we should presume that the courts did NOT have the power to recognize such divorces "from bed and board." Paul "England, the source of legal tradition in the colonies, was essentially a divorce-free society which didn't have a judicial process for divorce until 1857. The colonies, especially in the south, adhered to that tradition. Prior to the Revolution and for many years thereafter, the southern colonies had no process for granting a divorce. The only means of obtaining one was to induce the legislature to pass a private bill granting a divorce, something that rarely occurred. A few petitions were submitted to legislatures, but colonial assemblies limited their consideration to "divorces from bed and board" (a mensa et thoro) which did not permit remarriage. The only other practical options available to an unhappy couple were adultery or desertion.

Sometimes you can find the "inmates" of these institutions in the Census records. Julia In a message dated 8/10/2005 9:56:11 A.M. Central Daylight Time, EllieSS@aol.com writes: The state institution won't even check on the name even though in 1870-1880.

In a message dated 8/10/2005 4:00:49 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, VA-SOUTHSIDE-D-request@rootsweb.com writes: I have received a lot of question lately concerning divorce in the pre-Civil War South. Here is a simplified, copy and paste article with helpful end-notes that might help a lot of folks. Paul _http://www.arches.uga.edu/~mgagnon/students/Marino.htm_ (http://www.arches.uga.edu/~mgagnon/students/Marino.htm) Very interesting article Paul.. thanks for sharing! Ellie

In a message dated 8/10/2005 4:00:49 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, VA-SOUTHSIDE-D-request@rootsweb.com writes: I have received a lot of question lately concerning divorce in the pre-Civil War South. Here is a simplified, copy and paste article with helpful end-notes that might help a lot of folks. Paul http://www.arches.uga.edu/~mgagnon/students/Marino.htm Speaking of divorce in the 1800s... My great grandmother had a brother whose wife lost her "marbles"... from a neighbor she tried to get strynine (sp?) to poison the family, livestock... etc. In the county divorce records it shows that HE got the children.. surely a FIRST in history. A direct descendant (also researching) is trying to see if she went to a state mental institution. The state institution won't even check on the name even though in 1870-1880. Ellie S. Ellie S.

Your Morris Evans may have been a Jacobite. The following is a bit taken from the Marjoribands website about another fellow who came to York county about the same time as your fellow.. I think the compliment of Jacobites on that ship, the Elizabeth and Anne, is online someplace. Does anyone know how many total were shipped out of England to the colonies? The American Dimension George Marjoribanks was the first Marjoribanks known to have emigrated to what were then known as "The American Colonies" -- and he did not go willingly. George the Jacobite, as he is now familiarly known in the family, fought with the Scottish forces against the English at the Battle of Preston in 1715, in a vain attempt to restore the exiled King James III (the "Old Pretender") to the throne of England and Scotland. He was captured along with more than a thousand Scottish troops. The English, recognizing strong Scottish sympathy with the Jacobites, were inclined to be merciful. Only the Earl of Derwentwater and Viscount Kenmure were executed. George Marjoribanks was taken to Liverpool and put aboard the ship Elizabeth and Anne11 on 29 June, 1716, and transported to York in Virginia. I need help trying to find the ancestors of Morris Evans b abt 1675 and died in York Co, VA in 1739. The first record that I have of him there is May 1738. His will was proved in March 1740. This Evans line is Welsh and later generations were in Brunswick, Lunenburg, Mecklenburg Co., VA and then in Wake County, NC where 4 Evans brothers lived and owned property; Morris, Gilbert, William and John Evans. Morris b 1675 executor of will was Rebecca Hulet and Morris Evans. Morris b 1675 had 2 sons, Charles Evans b 1696 d bef June 1760 Brunswick Co., VA and Morris Evans b 1710 and d bef Dec. 1754 in Lunenburg Co., VA. I don't know if Morris Evans b 1675 had ancestors in the Jamestown area or if he was the one who came from Wales. I really don't know how to find Evanses that were living in this area at this time because records are so scarce. I don't know how to check to see if Morris entered the USA without a date or a port of entry or port of departure. If anyone out there can help me, I would really appreciate it very much. Thanks, Martha Evans ______________________________

if you join the GA Genealogy Society for $30 a year, you can get HQ for another $5 per year!!! http://www.gagensociety.org/ -- Nancy Spader Wilson http://www.kudzufamilies.org/ (Dixon Genealogy website)

In a message dated 8/9/2005 2:59:54 PM Central Daylight Time, pauldrake@charter.net writes: If two slaves considered themselves "married", what are the odds that they would have legitimized it after the war? Would they have considered themselves to be married under "common-law"? While researching marriages in Davidson County, Tennessee, I noticed that suddenly there were many pages of "colored" marriages in the time period that I was researching, the years just after the Civil War. It took me only a minute to realize that this was probably the result of pent-up demand, so to speak, for the right to marry. Although I don't know what Tennessee law was in the nineteenth century, current Tennessee law does not recognize common law marriage. Sara Binkley Tarpley

I need help trying to find the ancestors of Morris Evans b abt 1675 and died in York Co, VA in 1739. The first record that I have of him there is May 1738. His will was proved in March 1740. This Evans line is Welsh and later generations were in Brunswick, Lunenburg, Mecklenburg Co., VA and then in Wake County, NC where 4 Evans brothers lived and owned property; Morris, Gilbert, William and John Evans. Morris b 1675 executor of will was Rebecca Hulet and Morris Evans. Morris b 1675 had 2 sons, Charles Evans b 1696 d bef June 1760 Brunswick Co., VA and Morris Evans b 1710 and d bef Dec. 1754 in Lunenburg Co., VA. I don't know if Morris Evans b 1675 had ancestors in the Jamestown area or if he was the one who came from Wales. I really don't know how to find Evanses that were living in this area at this time because records are so scarce. I don't know how to check to see if Morris entered the USA without a date or a port of entry or port of departure. If anyone out there can help me, I would really appreciate it very much. Thanks, Martha Evans

You are correct, and religion played no small part in that upsurge in marriages after the war. ----- Original Message ----- From: K.... To: VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 3:04 PM Subject: Re: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] divorce in antebellum America In a message dated 8/9/2005 2:59:54 PM Central Daylight Time, pauldrake@charter.net writes: If two slaves considered themselves "married", what are the odds that they would have legitimized it after the war? Would they have considered themselves to be married under "common-law"? While researching marriages in Davidson County, Tennessee, I noticed that suddenly there were many pages of "colored" marriages in the time period that I was researching, the years just after the Civil War. It took me only a minute to realize that this was probably the result of pent-up demand, so to speak, for the right to marry. Although I don't know what Tennessee law was in the nineteenth century, current Tennessee law does not recognize common law marriage. Sara Binkley Tarpley ==== VA-SOUTHSIDE Mailing List ==== Always Keep Your Anti Virus Program Updated Regularly. USGW Archives Pension Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/pensions/ ============================== Jumpstart your genealogy with OneWorldTree. Search not only for ancestors, but entire generations. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13972/rd.ashx -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.4/66 - Release Date: 8/9/2005

First, April, I know nothing of "odds" that you seek, and then too your question is not a simple one. I think it can be said that, whether White or Black or in-between, the law of the latter half of the 19th Century paid no great time and attention to who had married by license and ceremony and who had not. Still, it was during those years between the Civil War and World War I that the terms of common law marriage became rather well established and widely known. Take up together, hold yourselves out to the World as married, and have kids, and the law will view you as married in every sense, whether you later want to be so considered or not. If there were no kids born to the marriage (alive OR stillborn) it was not so clear. In those cases, generally it was held that the more joint interests and assets the couple had accumulated, the more likely the law would view them as having permanently married in the legal sense. It is a pity to so state, but it must be added that whether or not Blacks or the very poor - the "Poor White Trash" as in "Gone with the Wind" - had married by license and ceremony was of considerably less concern to the powers-that-be than if those couples were White. The reasons for that view were many, though chief among was the widespread discrimination, especially in the North. Perhaps even more, very few of those "marriages" accumulated enough assets to be of interest, even to the taxing authorities of government. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: M.... To: pauldrake@charter.net Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 12:44 PM Subject: Re: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] divorce in antebellum America Hello Here is another question since you are talking about divorce. What is your take on marriage between slaves after the civil war? If two slaves considered themselves "married", what are the odds that they would have legitimized it after the war? Would they have considered themselves to be married under "common-law"? April ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.4/66 - Release Date: 8/9/2005

I have received a lot of question lately concerning divorce in the pre-Civil War South. Here is a simplified, copy and paste article with helpful end-notes that might help a lot of folks. Paul http://www.arches.uga.edu/~mgagnon/students/Marino.htm