Family Structure - US Colonial to 1899
 
Estimated Number of Printed Pages: 16
 
TOPICS COVERED: This is an historical overview of U.S. families' interaction – from the inter-relationships between generations, to gender roles, and other outside forces that shaped families – during the Colonial Era up until the beginning of the Twentieth Century.
 
MEMOS ON RELATED INFORMATION: Family Structure - International, Family Structure - US 1900 to Pre-WWII, Family Structure - US Modern Era, Family Roles and Responsibilities, How Important is Family?, Family as a Social Institution, Multiple Generation / Extended Family Households
 
Links to Sources for this material are available below. Please also see The Factbook Sources page for further information regarding Factbook sources and their availability.
 
 
 
 

FAMILY STRUCTURE - U.S. COLONIAL ERA TO 1899

 
 
The father’s control over his family was first just unjustified beyond the fact that God had given a father “flesh of my flesh,” and you (as a father) had as much right to do with your issue as you had rights over your own person. And women, remember, weren’t considered individuals, so this only worked for men. (Even later U.S. cases cite to Adam and Eve, the Creator as having given us family, the family as the cornerstone, etc.). 1.
 
 
 
However, as early as 1600s, the father's right to control his children -- arrange guardianship, have the fruits of their labor -- became justified on the basis that he provided for the child’s needs. In the Colonies (and the UK), slowly the father became legally required to be responsible for the child: feeding, clothing, and housing, education, training for a trade, inculcation of religious beliefs, etc. ownership of the children. This only solidified his authority over the house/family: The mother wasn’t involved, because under the coverture system, she legally a) didn’t exist, because she and her husband were considered “one” and b) she couldn’t provide for the children anyway, since she didn’t have any legal ability to have property, ability to contract for anything, etc. 2.
 
 
 
Also, in colonial times, children were looked upon as essentially chattel. (Arguably, so too were women, for that matter.) If something is considered to be chattel, it's a form of property a person owns and controls. So children, as chattel, were thought of a source of labor, and not much else. Families would apprentice children at the age of 10, or send them to serve other families. Slave children, of course, could be bought and sold at any time. 3.
 
 
 
In 1620, London decreed that its “street children” could be sent by force to Virginia to be indentured servants. While most New Englanders came as families, more than half of those who emigrated to the Southern colonies were indentured servants – the average age of them being between 14 and 16 years old (and as young as six). 4.
 
 
 
Now, all along, there was the occasional crack in the system, granting that a woman could take care of children “in the tender years” – three or seven years old. Sometimes a mother just got her child until they were weaned, but even that wasn’t always determinative. But mostly this wasn’t followed, even if the father was abusive. 5.
 
 
 
In the mid-1800s, society began to change rapidly. Civil war, industrialization, and a huge immigrant influx of Irish, then later, Germans. As fathers left to fight wars and work in factories, there developed a belief that the father was the earner/in charge of the family’s societal and financial affairs, and that the women were in charge of domestic life/raising the family. This wasn’t the reality, since women and children were working in factories as well, but it was a middle class concept which took hold. 6.
 
 
 
Social reformers/Progressives started tackling social problems in all spheres. “Child savers” first took kids off the street, worried about children in factories, and then started going into the homes. But there was an ebb-and-flow to the movement to it. Women, now arguing for their rights in the world were also arguing for their rights in the family. Compare that to the South, where marriages between former slaves/blacks were next to impossible, so that the plantation could still own the lives of the children (or, worse, where white men raped the black women and then claimed ownership of the children and were loath to give that up). Following the civil war, the reformers came back in full force. 7.
 
 
 
 
By the mid to late 1800s, children (depending on where you lived) were no longer chattel -- because you can do what you want with chattel (throw it out, ignore it, enjoy the fruits of its labor, abuse it – even to death) but you had responsibilities to children you couldn’t just walk away from. 8.
 
 
 
From the late 1800 to the early 1900s, the social reformers were more and more concerned about the state of children, especially in the factories. Child psychology began to develop, and reported that children needed to play to develop/learn. States began to pass child labor laws and mandatory schooling laws. At the same time, women started getting property/legal rights, and societal control of the homestead, so they chipped away at the parental preference. 9.
 
 
 
Paralleling this movement, was the growth in the US of the belief in parens patriae. There was a growing belief that the child was not just property of the family, but belonged to the state; it was in the state’s interest that the child be brought up well, and become a productive, responsible citizen. The Progressives believed this. So did the anti-immigrant conservatives, who thought that immigrants weren’t capable of teaching their children to be good American. 10.
 
 
 
A national child labor law was attempted in the late 1800s, but was struck down by the Supreme Court at the time on the basis that the federal government couldn’t regulate the state in that way (that’s a gross over/understatement of a complicated legal issue). 11.
 
 
 
". . . the "new" family history has challenged social scientists to reconsider many traditional notions about the historical evolution of the family. It has shown that diversity, and not uniformity, has been the defining characteristic of American family life since the beginnings of colonization. It has challenged the older view that industrialization produced a shift from an extended family system to the modern nuclear family. 12.

 
 
"In structure, role, and conception, seventeenth-century families differed profoundly from their twentieth-century counterparts. Then, the household's functions were broad and diffuse, and its boundaries elastic. Not only were seventeenth-century families the economic center of production, they were also responsible for religious instruction, transferring occupational skills to the next generation, and caring for the elderly and infirm. They were flexible units which took in orphans, the destitute, and the elderly, and housed servants and apprentices. In New England, as many as a third of all households contained servants or other distant kin or non-kin at any one time." 13.

 
 
Puritan couples might have a childbearing period of as much as 20 years, so that a “household of a man forty-five years old might well contain a full-grown son about to marry and begin his own farm, an infant still at the breast, not to mention all of the children in-between.” (Note that this argument for Puritan longevity is cited by others, but challenged as well.) 14.

 
 
"More than any other colonists, New Englanders emphasized nuclear-family ties. Adult sons and their aging parents often inhabited neighboring households, a pattern that has been described as a "modified extended family structure." Compared with other settlers, New Englanders were more likely to name eldest children for the parents, less likely to take in servants, and much less likely to bequeath property to cousins or other extended kin." 15.

 
 
 
“In contract, immigrants to the Chesapeake experienced an immediate and profound disruption in the patterns of family life, first in the selection of their mates, then in family politics, and finally in relationships with their children. As a result, traditional family arrangements were much less successfully transplanted there in the seventeenth century.” 16.

 
 
“Immigrants to the Puritan settlements included larger numbers of women and children, and they more often arrived in family groups. In addition, a much smaller proportion of the immigrants were bound laborers. Since New En-glanders not only had a greater opportunity to marry but also outlived their fellows in Maryland, they raised more children.” 17.

 
 
“The situation in Maryland was different. A majority of the immi-grants who ventured their lives in the tobacco colony were young and single, and they married late. Nearly three-quarters of them arrived as indentured servants, and neither men nor women servants were free to marry until their terms were completed. Additional years were often required to accumulate the capital necessary to establish a household. Immigrant women in Maryland usually married in their mid-twenties, and men seldom wed before their late twenties. . . . the lack of women. Because male immigrants outnumbered female by as much as three to one, many men remained single; over one-quarter of the men who left estates in southern Maryland in the second half of the 17th century died unmarried." 18.

 
 
“Not only did immigrants marry late, they also died very young. A man who came to Maryland in this early twenties could expect to live only about twenty more years. By age forty-five this man and many of his companions would be dead. Native-born sons fared only slightly better than their fathers. A boy reaching majority in southern Maryland before 1720 had only about twenty-five more years to live. In contract, men reaching age twenty in the Plymouth Colony in the same period could expect to live an additional forty-eight years.” 19.

 
 
“One-half of the unions contracted in one Maryland county in the second half of the century were broken within seven years by the death of at least one of the partners. As a result, families were small; most couples had only two or three children.” 20.

 
 
“. . . im-migrants constituted a majority of the population until the end of the century. . . . Since women who raised large families usually had two or more husbands, the number of children per couple remained small. Wives were twice as likely to survive their husbands in Charles County, Maryland, between 1658 and 1705 than were husbands to survive their wives. In addition, three widows married again for every widower who remarried.” 21.

 
 
“Unlike the New England Puritans, whose religious philosophy called for retention of a traditional patriarchal family structure but with a reinterpretation of the character of marriage and divorce, settlers in Maryland demonstrated no desire to reform either the laws or the attitudes about marriage then prevalent in England. . . . they followed the five steps indicated by Edmund Morgan as necessary . . . espousals, publication of banns, execution of the espousal contract at church, celebration, and sexual consummation.” 22.

 
 
Most Colonial couples married themselves during the the 17th century, without any sort of religious or civic recognition; there wasn't a wedding or a record of the marriage. Instead, cohabitation and community acceptance were the evidence of a legitimate marriages (if it ever became an issue, usually in the case of something like pensions or allegations of illegitimate birth). 23.

 
 
“Maryland colonists of marriageable age were peculiarly lacking family ties. Most had come as indentured servants, and even among the free immigrants there were few family groups. When the immi-grants left Europe, their break with their families was usually com-plete. Few of them expected ever to return to the Old World, and probably there was little communication with relatives left behind.” 24.

 
 
“Because most parents died before their children reached marriageable age, native-born men and women in Maryland also frequently married without parental consent." 25.

 
 
“. . . one-quarter of men leaving inventories in southern Mary-land between 1658 and 1705 died without ever marrying and that, of those who married, at least two-thirds left families in which all the children were under 18.” 26.

 
 
“. . . seventeenth-century marriages were unusually in other ways. Frequent disparity in the age and status of the partners characterized many unions. Often, a man marrying for the first time was ten years older than his bride. When widowed, a woman might choose a second husband no older and perhaps younger than herself. Since many unions were broken by the early death of one of the partners, second marriages were frequent. Single men often married widows with a charge of children, and some single girls chose husbands with families by earlier wives. If both husband and wife had previously married, there were each likely to have custody of underaged off-spring by their first spouses." 27.

 
 
In a study of records in seventeenth-century Somerset County, “more than a third of the immigrant women whose marriages were recorded were pregnant by the time of the ceremony. Such a high rate of bridal pregnancy – two to three times that of many contemporary English parishes – is testimony to the extend of social disruption. There is little evidence that the community objected to this kind of sexual freedom; no presentments for bridal pregnancy appear in any of the Maryland courts." 28.

 
 
“. . . one out of five Maryland-born brides was pregnant when she married. Lack of parental control was a contributing element. Orphaned girls were apparently particularly vulnerable to premarital conceptions; initial study indicates an even greater frequency of bridal pregnancy among women whose fathers had died during their minority." 29.

 
 
“Both the lax marriage laws and the freedom of movement to another colony or back to England provided the unscrupulous with the opportunity for bigamy.” 30.

 
 
“Because the woman was usually younger and her parents thus more likely to be alive when she married, the wife’s parents more often gave advice or intervened in a marriage than the husband’s.” 31.

 
 
In colonial Maryland, divorce via legal proceedings wasn’t available; instead, unhappy marriages were endured or couples ran away, returning to family and neighbors. 32.


 
“The most frightening aspect of childhood in the seventeenth century must have been the genuine uncertainty of the future. Most children could expect that at least one, or perhaps both, of their parents would die before they were old enough to care for themselves. In southern Maryland between 1658 and 1705, 67 percent of married or widowed male decedents left all minor children, while only 6 percent left all adult children. Hence . . . minor orphans would have to adjust to a new stepparent and subsequently live with stepbrothers and sisters. The potential for conflict was great where children of more than one marriage lived together in a family. Each parent naturally tended to favor his own children and to discriminate against those from a partner’s previous marriage parental favoritism only heightened conflicts between stepchildren. . . .” 33.

 
 
“. . . seventeenth-century marriages were unusually in other ways. Frequent disparity in the age and status of the partners characterized many unions. Often, a man marrying for the first time was ten years older than his bride. When widowed, a woman might choose a second husband no older and perhaps younger than herself. Since many unions were broken by the early death of one of the partners, second marriages were frequent. Single men often married widows with a charge of children, and some single girls chose husbands with families by earlier wives. If both husband and wife had previously married, there were each likely to have custody of underaged off-spring by their first spouses." 34.
 
 
 
“Complaints of ill treatment by stepparents were legion.” 35.

 
 
“Although the county court acted to remove children from the custody of patently abusive stepparents, it firmly maintained the stepparent’s right to compensation for raising another’s offspring. Almost every orphan was expected to work to some degree for his maintenance, since by law only the income from his inheritance – not the principal – could be used for the child’s upbringing. In this period few estates were large enough to so support an orphan.” 36.
 
 
 
“Mothers who were unable to remarry quickly or otherwise support their orphans had no choice by to put the children out. For example, Mary Empson, age four, was given to another family to raise, in return for four cows, because her mother was too poor to keep her after her father died. Often, a remarried woman sought to buy back the children she had been forced to bind out after the death of her first husband. . . . Their only advantages over other servants were that the could not be sold to other masters and that the mother was sometimes able to mitigate treatment and conditions of labor and to stipulate that they receive some education.” 37.

 
 
“The fate of children who lost both parents might be even worse. Seldom were there surviving relatives to take them in. Unless they had a large estate, the county court bound them out to labor for someone else until they reached majority.” 38.

 
 
“Apprenticeship was a common method of educating children in many places, but as practiced in southern Maryland in the seventeenth century, it was mainly a means for teaching trades, including planting, to orphans. Until the late 1690s very few fathers bound out their children; when families were not broke up by the early death of the father, both sons and daughters were kept at home. Rather, it was the widows who insured that their orphaned sons were cared for and taught how to earn a living through apprenticeship and that their orphaned daughters were provided for by binding them out to learn house-keeping.” 39.

 
 
For those born after 1700, life expectancy increased, “As a consequence . . . many more parents lived to raise their children to maturity and to see them married. In addition, when one or both parents did die before their children were of age, in a society in which the majority were native born, kin were much more present. Eighteenth-century orphaned minor children usually had uncles, step-uncles, aunts, cousins, older siblings or step-siblings, or other relations under whose oversight they might fall.” 40.

 
 
“in late seventeenth-century Virginia. Indeed, few of the children of this time and place reached their majority without losing at lest one parent, while over a third lost both. Parental death was a part of the fabric of life.” 41.

 
 
Four sisters in 17th Cent. Virginia: “Agatha, who married first Ralph Wormeley, then Sir Henry Chicheley; Alice, who married, in order, Rowland Burnham, Henry Corbin, and Henry Creek; Eleanor, wife of Middlesex’s William Brocase, then Lancaster's Jon Carter . . and Martha, who married Edwin Conaway . . . Marriage and remarriage was a way of life, and in its complexities one first senses the magnitude of parental loss.” 42.

 
 
A 17th Century Virginia family: “Mary, the wife of George Keeble, for example: . . . from her gravestone we know that she was born about 1637 and presumably had seven children by Keeble prior to finding herself widowed at about twenty-nine years of age. At least for of these children , , were alive when she married Robert Beverley in 1666, shortly after Keeble’s death. By Beverley she had five more children . . . . She died in 1678 at the age of forty-one, and Robert Beverley almost immediately remarried. His new wife, Katherine, was herself recently widowed by the death of Major Theophilus Hone. So quick was the remarriage that Major Hone’s personal property was already in the Beverley house by the time the inventory of it was taken . Dropping into the Beverley household in 1680, just after this most recent marriage, we conceivably would have found Keeble children (those of Mary and George), at least one Hone child (Theophilus, Jr.), Beverley children by Robert and Mary, and the first of four Beverley children by Robert and Katherine – William Beverley born in 1680. . . . Thomas, Katherine, and Christopher Beverley would follow prior to Robert Beverley’s death in 1687. His widow, Katherine, immediately married christopher Robinson.; in the vernacular of genealogist she was now Katherine (Armistead) Hone-Beverley-Robinson. Robinson himself was a widower, having lost his wife Agatha Hobert in 686 (for of their children survived . . . ); Katherine would bear four more children before her death in 1692 . . . The chain of marriage and remarriages finally broke the next year with the death of Christopher Robinson. In sum, the progeny of six marriages among seven people amounted to twenty-five known children. Not one these children could have grown to maturity without losing at last one parent and passing through a period under a stepparent.” 43.

 
 
In Peter Laslett’s study, he reported that in May 1688, 35.5% of call the children alive in Clayworth Eng. were orphans. 44.

 
 
17th century Middlesex Virginia’s hypothetical median couple: “Presuming that, for both husband and wife, the marriage was a first marriage, he would be just turned 24, she just 20. In the course of their marriage they would have between four and six children, perhaps one of which would die in infancy . . . Four or five would survive, however . . . The wife of this median marriage could be expected to die at 39, leaving in her husband’s care children who were 18, 15, 9, 5, and 1. The husband, 43 at the death of his first wife, would probably remarry almost immediately and have still other children. but he could be expected to die at in turn at 48. the children of his first marriage, now orphaned, would be 23, 20. 14, 10 and 6 respectively; any children of his second marriage, losing their father, would be even younger.” 45.

 
 
A sample of records indicates that “. . . almost a quarter of [17th Cent.] Middlesex’s children suffered the loss of one or both parents by the time of their fifth birthday, and over half by the tie of their thirteenth birthday. And 73.2 percent had lost one or both parents by the time they reached twenty-one or married, whichever came first. To put the results another way: The 239 children of the sample were the products of sixty-eight mar-riages; at the end of sixty-two (91 percent) of these marriages, minor children were left in the care of the surviving spouse; the sub-sequent death of the survivor left orphaned minors in forth-one (60 percent) of the cases.” 46.

 
 
“. . . apprenticeship absorbed only a few of the children. The children of the affluent, of the ‘middling sort,’ even of most of the poor, were expected to stay with these surviving parent, who more often than not remarried, endowing the children with a stepparent. In the case of the remarriage of the surviving wife, the stepfather normally became the guardian but for good and sufficient reasons . . . the county court could intervene . . . .” 47.

 
 
“Orphanhood, an event for almost 20 percent of the children before their thirteenth birthday and for over 30 percent before their eighteenth, required still other arrangements. The county court had general oversight. . . . Frequently wills designated that orphaned children be put in to the charge of an elder brother or step brother, sometimes even an elder sister or stepsister.” 48.

 
 
“Parental loss was a constant over time. . . This prevalence of loss, and its pervasiveness, had great implication in the society, and for our study of it. Households tended to be mixed and complex affairs . . . Had we dropped into just about any other household in Middlesex, we would have found much the same thing – orphans, half-brothers, stepbrothers and stepsisters, and wards running a gamut of ages. The father figure in the house might well be an uncle or a brother, the mother figured an aunt, elder sister, or simply the father’s ‘now-wife’– to use the wording frequently found in conveyances and wills. Neither the romantic depictions . . nor the connotations of social science terminology – the image of the nuclear family with its slowly greying [sic] parents and maturing children – applies.” 49.

 
 
“the case of Agatha Vause: By the time she was ten she had lost a father, two stepfathers, a mother, and her guardian uncle.” 50.

 
 
Our fatherless Father of our Country -
“In this context, George Washington’s eighteenth-century career does not seem particularly unusual: Born in 1732, losing his father at eleven, raised by various relatives (including his halfbrother Lawerence), inheriting Mount Vernon at age twenty, Washington was a militia lieutenant colonel commanding at Fort Necessity at age twenty-two and a burgess at twenty-six; at twenty-seven he married a widow with two small children, and at forth-three commanded the Revolutionary army.” 51.

 
 
"During the seventeenth century, the proportion of women who were pregnant at the time of their wedding was below 10 percent. By the middle of the eighteenth century, it had shot up to over 40 percent. Another indicator of a decline in paternal authority was an increase in children's discretion in deciding whom and when to marry. children began to marry earlier than in the seventeenth century, and an increasing number of daughters married out of birth order." 52.

 
 
"Although slave marriages and family ties lacked legal sanction, and owners were free to sell husbands away from wives and parents away from children, most African Americans married and lived in two-parent households both before and after emancipation. Fathers played a larger familial role than previously thought. The nuclear family received support from an involved network of kin. Indeed, the kinship system forged under slavery would continue to function in twentieth-century rural and urban communities as a source of mutual assistance and cultural continuity." 53.

 
 
". . . and has rebutted the notion that the high incidence of single-parent, female-headed households among African Americans today is a legacy of slavery." 54.

 
 
"During the seventeenth century, slaves had little opportunity to establish family units. Newly imported African slaves were often kept in sex-segregated quarters. In the Chesapeake colonies and the Carolinas, most slaves lived on plantations with fewer than ten slaves. These units were so small and so widely dispersed, and the sex ratio was so skewed (two women for three men) that it was difficult for slave men and women to find a spouse of roughly the same age. A high death rate compounded the difficulties slaves faced in forming families, since many slaves did not live long enough to marry or, if they did, their not live long enough to marry or, if they did, their marriages were brief." 55.

 
 
"At the end of the seventeenth century, the number of imported Africans and the slave fertility rate increased sharply. These demographic developments gradually eased the imbalance of the sex ratio and permitted a growing proportion of slaves to marry. During the 1720s, the African American population became the first slave population in the New World to reproduce itself by natural increase." 56.

 
 
"By the 1770s, slaves had succeeded in creating a distinctive African American system of family and kinship. To sustain a sense of family identity, slave children were often named for a parent or other blood kin or given a traditional African name. The strength of the slave family is nowhere more evident than in the advertisements eighteenth-century slave owners posted for runaway slaves. The advertisements reveal that one of the major reasons why slaves fled their masters' plantations was to visit spouses, children, siblings, aunts, uncles, and grandparents. In Virginia, advertisements indicate that over one-third of all fugitives were attempting to visit relatives; in Maryland, the advertisements show that nearly half were seeking to visit family members." 57.
 
 
 
"Until 1800, marriage was followed by a repeated cycle of pregnancy and childbirth. A woman might bear her first child at the age of twenty-three and continue to bear children at two-year intervals until she was in her early forties. This twenty-year span of childbearing typically consumed more than half of a woman's married life, since her husband usually died when the wife was in her mid-forties." 58.

 
 
"Between 1800 and 1860, a dramatically different pattern of family life emerged as women lengthened the interval between births. Instead of bearing seven or eight children, most women had five or six. By the end of the nineteenth century, women had further reduced the number of children to three or four, spaced them closer together, and ceased childbearing at an earlier age." 59.

 
In 1850, due in part to a willingness to care for others' children, 13 percent of Mexican-American households in the urban Southwest were extended-family households – more than twice the rate for White households (5.7 percent). 60.
 
"By the middle of the nineteenth century, the realities of middle-class childhood differed drastically from those prevalent a century before. Instead of shifting back and forth between their parents' home and work experiences as members of other households, a growing proportion of older children continued to live with their parents into their late teens or twenties. One justification for this new practice of keeping children at home longer was the growing belief that adolescence was a particularly unsettled phase of life during which children were greatly in need of parental protection and supervision." 61.

 
 
In 1886, a minister wrote that “ . . . in many households children, instead of a blessing, are a nuisance. It is card case versus child’s primer, carriage versus cradle, social popularity versus domestic felicity. Hence infanticide and ante-natal murder so common that all the physicians, allopathic, hydropathic, homeopathic and eclectic are crying out in horror. . . .” 62.

 
 
"During the nineteenth century, most Americans lived in families or family-like settings. Only about 3 percent of the population lived alone. The proportion of women forgoing marriage increased markedly during the nineteenth century and was particularly large among college educated women. These unmarried women sometimes lived in a partnership called 'Boston marriage.'" 63.
 
 
"During the nineteenth century, in contrast, 20 to 30 percent of urban households took in lodgers or boarders, usually unmarried men or women between the ages of twenty and thirty-five who were of the same ethnic background as the household's head. Working-class households were particularly likely to take in boarders or lodgers after their children had left home." Compare that to the 1990s when "fewer than one family in twenty shared its home with a boarder." 64.

 
 
"Young unmarried men and women often resided as boarders or lodgers. Most lodgers took a room in a private house; usually this was a room that had been vacated after an older couple's children had left home. Other lodgers resided in boardinghouses; but even these institutions resembled family households, both in architectural design and in the fact that lodgers dined together." 65.

 
 
"During the nineteenth century, household structure and size varied sharply according to ethnicity and social class. Most families, regardless of class or ethnic background, were nuclear in structure; between 1 and 3 percent of households contained a solitary resident, and between 9 and 12 percent of households contained extended families. But these aggregate statistics should not obscure important socioeconomic differences. Families from higher occupational strata were more likely to take in extended relatives (today, in contrast, the poor are more likely to reside in extended families); immigrant and working-class families were more likely to take in non-kin as boarders and lodgers." 66.

 
 
Note that some have countered the idea that the extended family was a less significant form in earlier pre-industrial history, not because they didn't want to live in extended households, but simply because people didn't live long enough to have three + generations in a house, which is why this would have then subsequently increased around the Industrial Revolution as life expectancy increased. And then it became a class issue: the poor had them because the couldn't afford anything else, the rich had them because they could afford to take care of others. And I guess that would mean it was less the case of it occurring in the Middle Class – but then upon further thought, I doubt there really was much of a Middle Class. 67.
 
 

"Each ethnic group adapted to the circumstances of American life in its own distinct way. Jewish families tended to rent larger apartments and share their residence with lodgers. Italian families, in contrast, resided in smaller and cheaper single-family apartments, while urban blacks often rented space in another family's household. Ethnic families also varied greatly in their attitudes toward female and child labor. Some immigrant groups, such as the Irish and Slavs, were willing to forgo their children's education rather than send married women into the work force. Other groups, particularly Jews and blacks, tended to keep their children in school despite the lost earnings. Italian families, more than almost any other ethnic group, discouraged women from earnings. Italian families, more than almost any other ethnic group, discouraged women from working outside the home. Italian girls were rarely permitted to work unsupervised by relatives or friends, and Italian mothers tended to work outside the home only intermittently, when required by family illness or emergency. When Italian mothers did work for wages, they preferred homework to factory work." 68.
 
 
 
"The kinship system that slaves developed was not an imitation of patterns typical of southern white families. The distinctiveness of slave family practices is apparent in the slaves' perpetuation of West African taboos against marrying cousins or other near relatives. The taboo against first-cousin marriages was one indication of the importance that slaves, even in the eighteenth century, attached to the extended kinship group. The extended kinship network played a particularly important role in helping slaves adapt to family breakup. Whenever children were sold to neighboring plantations, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins often took on the functions of parents. When blood relatives were not present, strangers cared for and protected children. Slave parents taught their children to call all adult slaves "aunt" or "uncle," and to refer to younger slaves as "sister" or "brother." In this way slave culture taught young people that they were members of a broader community in which all slaves, whether related or not, had mutual obligations." 69.

 
 
“Some of the cultural distinctiveness of black families may extend back to slavery and across the Atlantic to Africa. The extent to which elements of African culture survive . . . has been hotly debated, but the similarities are striking. African society traditionally has been organized into lineages, larger kinship groups that trace their descent through either male or female line. . . . what mattered most was not the happiness of the married couple but rather then birth of children who could be retained by the lineage.” 70.

 
 
“When these cultural patterns were brought to the United States by African slaves, the lineages . . . were reduced to extended families. The distinction is that in African lineage elders had substantial authority over individuals because lineages controlled the allocation of crucial resources, most notably land. . . . The extended kin groups in the United States retained the important supportive role of lineages– kin helped each other and shared whatever resources they had. But the authority of the wide kinship group withered. . . . thus, the extended kinship groups among many African Americans were limited to being social support networks; ex-tended families were important to the lives of individuals but had less control over their actions.” 71.

 
 
"During the decades before the Civil War, most slaves lived in nuclear households consisting of two parents and their children. In 1850, approximately 64 percent of all slaves lived in two parent families and 25 percent in single-parent families. Another 10 percent lived outside of a family unit, either alone or with others of the same sex. Family breakup, however, was apparently very common. Although many lasted twenty years or more, slave marriages were very vulnerable to breakup by sale. Interviews with former slaves indicate that one-third of all single-parent households were the result of the sale of a husband or wife. Even when marriages were not broken by sale, slave husbands and wives often resided on separate farms or plantations and were owned by different individuals. On large plantations one man in three had a different owner than his wife and could visit his family only at his master's discretion. On smaller holdings, divided ownership was even more common." 72.

 
 
"Other obstacles stood in the way of an independent family life. Many slaves had to share their single-room cabins with relatives and others who were not related to them. On larger plantations food was cooked in a common kitchen, and young children were cared for in a communal nursery while their parents worked in the fields. On larger plantations, children were taken from their parents between the ages of seven and ten and sent to live in sex-segregated barracks." 73.

 
 
"In a variety of urban settings (including Atlanta, Mobile, Natchez, Philadelphia, Richmond, and several cities along the Ohio River), between 1850 and 1880, between 26 and 31 percent of African American families were headed by women--generally two to three times the rate among immigrant or native-born whites. This differential appears to be due not to higher rates of divorce, desertion, or illegitimacy, but rather to sharply skewed black sex ratios in urban areas and to very high levels of adult black male mortality." 74.

________________________________________________________________

1. tk
2. See Mary Ann Mason, excerpt from From Father's Property to Children's Rights: A History of Child Custody, Columbia University Press, New York, New York (1994). Available through: http://www.grad.berkeley.edu/deans/mason/booksfathersfirsten.shtml and Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, "Who Owns The Child? Meyer and Pierce and the Child as Property," 33 William & Mary Law Review 995 (Summer 1992).
3. See Mary Ann Mason, excerpt from From Father's Property to Children's Rights: A History of Child Custody, Columbia University Press, New York, New York (1994). Available through: http://www.grad.berkeley.edu/deans/mason/booksfathersfirsten.shtml; Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, "Who Owns The Child? Meyer and Pierce and the Child as Property," 33 William & Mary Law Review 995 (Summer 1992); and Margaret Martin Barry, "The District of Columbia's Joint Custody Presumption: Misplaced Blame and Simplistic Solutions," 46 Cath. U. L. Rev. 767 (Spring 1997).
4. See Mary Ann Mason, excerpt from From Father's Property to Children's Rights: A History of Child Custody, Columbia University Press, New York, New York (1994). Available through: http://www.grad.berkeley.edu/deans/mason/booksfathersfirsten.shtml and PDF files Who Owns The Child? and Margaret Martin Barry, "The District of Columbia's Joint Custody Presumption: Misplaced Blame and Simplistic Solutions," 46 Cath. U. L. Rev. 767 (Spring 1997).
5. tk
6. tk
7. See Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, "Who Owns The Child? Meyer and Pierce and the Child as Property," 33 William & Mary Law Review 995 (Summer 1992).
8. See quote from Chapsky in In re C.D.W. (24 Kan.App.2d 456) (1997).
9. See Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, "Who Owns The Child? Meyer and Pierce and the Child as Property," 33 William & Mary Law Review 995 (Summer 1992).
10. See Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, "Who Owns The Child? Meyer and Pierce and the Child as Property," 33 William & Mary Law Review 995 (Summer 1992).
11. tk
12. ________, "Family Structures," Encyclopedia of American Social History. 3 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, Reproduced in the History Resource Center, Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. Archived at: http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC Document No. BT2313027032 (1993).
13. ________, "Family Structures," Encyclopedia of American Social History. 3 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, Reproduced in the History Resource Center, Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. Archived at: http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC Document No. BT2313027032 (1993).
14. John Demos, A Little Commonwealth: Family Life in Plymouth Colony, Oxford Univ. Press p. 69 (1970) Note that Demos' arguments for Puritan longevity are cited by others, but questioned by Darrett B. and Anita H. Rutman in "'Now-Wives and Sons-In-Law': Parental Death in a Seventeenth-Century Virginia County," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds. Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), pp. 155-156 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
15. ________, "Family Structures," Encyclopedia of American Social History. 3 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, Reproduced in the History Resource Center, Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. Archived at: http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC Document No. BT2313027032 (1993).
16. Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 127 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
17. Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 127. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
18. Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 127 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
19. Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 128 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
20. Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 128. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
21. Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 128 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
22. Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 129 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
23. Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 130. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
24. Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 131. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
25. Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 131. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
26. Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 131, note 12. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
27. Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 132 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
28. Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 132 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
29. Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), pp. 132-33 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
30. Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 133 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
31. Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 134. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
32. Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), pp. 137-139. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
33. Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), pp. 143-144 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
34. Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 132 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
35. Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 144 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
36. Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 144 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
37. Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 144 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
38. Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 145 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
39. Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 148 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
40. Darrett B. and Anita H. Rutman, "'Now-Wives and Sons-In-Law': Parental Death in a Seventeenth-Century Virginia County," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds. Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 153. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
41. Darrett B. and Anita H. Rutman, "'Now-Wives and Sons-In-Law': Parental Death in a Seventeenth-Century Virginia County," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds. Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 155 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
42. Darrett B. and Anita H. Rutman, "'Now-Wives and Sons-In-Law': Parental Death in a Seventeenth-Century Virginia County," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds. Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), pp. 155-156 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
43. Darrett B. and Anita H. Rutman, "'Now-Wives and Sons-In-Law': Parental Death in a Seventeenth-Century Virginia County," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds. Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), pp. 155-156 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
44. Darrett B. and Anita H. Rutman, "'Now-Wives and Sons-In-Law': Parental Death in a Seventeenth-Century Virginia County," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds. Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), pp. 155-156, note 6 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
45. Darrett B. and Anita H. Rutman, "'Now-Wives and Sons-In-Law': Parental Death in a Seventeenth-Century Virginia County," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds. Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 158. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
46. Darrett B. and Anita H. Rutman, "'Now-Wives and Sons-In-Law': Parental Death in a Seventeenth-Century Virginia County," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds. Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), pp. 158-159 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
47. Darrett B. and Anita H. Rutman, "'Now-Wives and Sons-In-Law': Parental Death in a Seventeenth-Century Virginia County," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds. Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), pp. 161-162 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
48. Darrett B. and Anita H. Rutman, "'Now-Wives and Sons-In-Law': Parental Death in a Seventeenth-Century Virginia County," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds. Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 162. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
49. Darrett B. and Anita H. Rutman, "'Now-Wives and Sons-In-Law': Parental Death in a Seventeenth-Century Virginia County," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds. Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 167. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
50. Darrett B. and Anita H. Rutman, "'Now-Wives and Sons-In-Law': Parental Death in a Seventeenth-Century Virginia County," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds. Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 168. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
51. Darrett B. and Anita H. Rutman, "'Now-Wives and Sons-In-Law': Parental Death in a Seventeenth-Century Virginia County," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds. Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), pp. 170-171. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
52. ________, "Family Structures," Encyclopedia of American Social History. 3 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, Reproduced in the History Resource Center, Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. Archived at: http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC Document No. BT2313027032 (1993).
53. ________, "Family Structures," Encyclopedia of American Social History. 3 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, Reproduced in the History Resource Center, Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. Archived at: http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC Document No. BT2313027032 (1993).
54. ________, "Family Structures," Encyclopedia of American Social History. 3 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, Reproduced in the History Resource Center, Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. Archived at: http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC Document No. BT2313027032 (1993).
55. ________, "Family Structures," Encyclopedia of American Social History. 3 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, Reproduced in the History Resource Center, Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. Archived at: http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC Document No. BT2313027032 (1993).
56. ________, "Family Structures," Encyclopedia of American Social History. 3 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, Reproduced in the History Resource Center, Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. Archived at: http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC Document No. BT2313027032 (1993).
57. ________, "Family Structures," Encyclopedia of American Social History. 3 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, Reproduced in the History Resource Center, Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. Archived at: http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC Document No. BT2313027032 (1993).
58. ________, "Family Structures," Encyclopedia of American Social History. 3 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, Reproduced in the History Resource Center, Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. Archived at: http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC Document No. BT2313027032 (1993).
59. ________, "Family Structures," Encyclopedia of American Social History. 3 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, Reproduced in the History Resource Center, Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. Archived at: http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC Document No. BT2313027032 (1993).
60. ________, "Family Structures," Encyclopedia of American Social History. 3 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, Reproduced in the History Resource Center, Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. Archived at: http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC Document No. BT2313027032 (1993).
61. ________, "Family Structures," Encyclopedia of American Social History. 3 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, Reproduced in the History Resource Center, Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. Archived at: http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC Document No. BT2313027032 (1993).
62. Rev. T. DeWitt Talmage, The Marriage Ring: A Series of Sermons in the Duties of the Husband and Wife, and On the Domestic Circle p. 113 (1886)
63. ________, "Family Structures," Encyclopedia of American Social History. 3 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, Reproduced in the History Resource Center, Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. Archived at: http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC Document No. BT2313027032 (1993).
64. ________, "Family Structures," Encyclopedia of American Social History. 3 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, Reproduced in the History Resource Center, Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. Archived at: http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC Document No. BT2313027032 (1993).
65. ________, "Family Structures," Encyclopedia of American Social History. 3 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, Reproduced in the History Resource Center, Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. Archived at: http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC Document No. BT2313027032 (1993).
66. ________, "Family Structures," Encyclopedia of American Social History. 3 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, Reproduced in the History Resource Center, Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. Archived at: http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC Document No. BT2313027032 (1993).
67. See August B. Hollingshead, "Class Differences in Family Stability," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 39-46 (November 1950).
68. ________, "Family Structures," Encyclopedia of American Social History. 3 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, Reproduced in the History Resource Center, Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. Archived at: http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC Document No. BT2313027032 (1993).
69. ________, "Family Structures," Encyclopedia of American Social History. 3 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, Reproduced in the History Resource Center, Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. Archived at: http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC Document No. BT2313027032 (1993).
70. Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 110. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067455082X/ref=sib_rdr_dp/104-0887680-4192712?%5Fencoding=UTF8&no=283155&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&st=books
71. Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 111. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067455082X/ref=sib_rdr_dp/104-0887680-4192712?%5Fencoding=UTF8&no=283155&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&st=books
72. ________, "Family Structures," Encyclopedia of American Social History. 3 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, Reproduced in the History Resource Center, Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. Archived at: http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC Document No. BT2313027032 (1993).
73. ________, "Family Structures," Encyclopedia of American Social History. 3 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, Reproduced in the History Resource Center, Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. Archived at: http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC Document No. BT2313027032 (1993).
74. ________, "Family Structures," Encyclopedia of American Social History. 3 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, Reproduced in the History Resource Center, Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. Archived at: http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC Document No. BT2313027032 (1993).