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

My grandparents were married in 1902 middle TN. Their marriage was written in their family bible giving place of marriage as bride's home and the preacher's name. There was no license to the state. Many people considered the state's involvement in marriage as unethical. They were also charging a fee to get married. Divorces were also allowed by the state, even though there was no "legal" marriage. Bob Jordan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Drake" <pauldrake@charter.net> To: <VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 2:59 PM Subject: Re: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] divorce in antebellum America > 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 > > ______________________________