m--_--_-_-_-_-_-w- - .- CHARLES COUNTY, MARYLAND, 1658-1705: ASTUDY 0F CHESAPEAKE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL STRUCTURE Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D. " MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LORENA SEEBACH WALSH 1977 IIIIII II III III III III III L. 312 293 006479 iichigm. Law University This is to certify that the thesis entitled ”Charles County Maryland, 1658-1705: A Social and Political Study.” presented by Lorena S. Walsh has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PhD . degree in _tI_I_s.LQr_y_ 4') < L ‘6 ~”‘ (“"17 £1 [L152 “(I Major professor Date May 6: 1977 0-7 639 Ir 1' I" ABSTRACT CHARLES COUNTY, MARYLAND, 1658-1705: A STUDY OF CHESAPEAKE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL STRUCTURE By Lorena Seebach Walsh This dissertation describes the development of local society in a seventeenth century Chesapeake county from the first years of settlement through the transition to a predominantly native popula- tion. Inquiry focuses on the character of the population, the local environment , and the regional econonv and the ways in which these in turn helped to shape the life style of the settlers and the structure of the emerging social order. The main sources used are county court, land, and probate records. These are analyzed in a number of ways including mass prosopography, family reconstitution, and probate record analysis. Chapter one surveys settlnent patterns and provides an overview of the experience of various groups of county residents, while chapter two examines the growth of local population and attempts to define the parameters of the settler’s demographic experience. The unusual nature of that experience and its effect on relatiOnships between men and women and on childrearing practices are investigated in chapter three. Extreme danographic disruption prevailed in the county throughout the seventeenth century; continued heavy immigration and outmigration, Lorena Seebach Walsh extranely high mortality, and an unbalanced sex ratio resulted in a net natural decrease among, immigrant settlers , the appearance of families broken up by death occurring as the norm rather than the exception, a measurable relaxation of sexual mores , a marked decline in parental and especially in paternal influence, and the near absence of effective kin networks. Chapter four examines the county's labor system, tracing the career histories of servants imported into the county, investigating the shift fran predominantly servant to predominantly slave labor , and assessing the impact of this change on laborers and laborowners. Chapter five takes up the experience of the free pOpulation, a group whose vocational choices, chances for advancement , and patterns of social and economic interchange were all dominated by production of the regional staple, tobacco. This chapter utilizes extensive data frcn probate inventories, individual farm accounts, and an analysis of social and economic networks to explore the effects of economic prosperity and depression and the maturation of local settlement on individual colonists and on the society as a whole. It also describes the material culture of the period, concluding that the colonists' lifestyles were definitely those of a premodern society. Chapter six investigates the county power structure, one which was based on extensive but by no means universal adult male participa- tion. It describes the character of major and minor local officeholders, the nature of elite recruitment , and the ways in which power was trans- ferred. It also considers the structure of local government and the ways in which county institutions and community attitudes contributed to local stability . 11 Lorena Seebach Walsh The final chapter examines the evolution of the county's social structm’e. Among immigrants many of the traditional ingredients of status were absent, and consequently a social order which rested largely on personal ability and acquired wealth emerged. Opportunity to achieve substantial local status was initially broad, but subsequently economic change and the growth of population limited the chances for unpropertied residents to advance far up the social scale. As the native born came to form the majority of the adult population near the turn of the cen- tury, family background, kin connections, and inherited wealth became important ingredients of status. The emerging provincial society was such more ordered and much more predictable than that of earlier years. Ordinary men and wunen experienced greater security, but to the modern eye paid a high cost in personal freedom and individual opportunity. CHARLES coum,_MARYLAND, 1658-1705: A STUDY OF CHESAPEAKE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL STRUCTURE By LORENA SEEBACH WALSH A DISSERTATION submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of History 1977 p.107031 PREFACE I began this study with the aim of describing the development of local society in a Chesapeake County from the first years of settlement through the transition to a stabilized provincial society. The research design was a relatively uncomplicated one, that of breaking down surviving local records and reorganizing them as a series of biographies of all the men and wanen who could be identified as county residents during the period selected for the study. The choice of design was predicated by the nature of the local records. These consisted of a series of varied materials (including wills, estate inventories and accounts, lists of landowners in 1659 and 1705, deeds, a birth register, and records of county. court proceedings) which could be combined and quantified to produce some rough measurements as well as a general description of various aspects of the colonists‘ demographic , economic, cultural, and political experiences. While initial collection of the data posed few difficulties, the tasks of processing and analyzing the resulting material proved more arduous. It soon became apparent that in order to impose order on a bewildeng mass of data and to realize the full potential of the col- lected material, I must acquire at least a rudimentary knowledge of com- puter programing and data processing, techniques of demographic analysis, elementary statistics, social science methodology, and historical geo- mPhUo Consequently, canpleting this study has involved at least as much ii -- mi learning at new techniques as applying them, and, where established methodology proved inappropriate. to. Maryland materials, devising neces- sary modifications. This dissertation represents a first step in the investigation of social process in one part of the seventeenth-century Chesapeake. Hope- fully its emphasis on questions of measurement and technique-«necessary preliminaries in coming to an understanding of the basic parameters of men's and women‘s lives in past times--does not entirely obscure the larger goal of explaining the consequences which these measures had for local society. Tentative hypotheses about the wider applicability of the Charles County findings and about the relationship of county society to that of neighboring lower western shore areas will doubtless be strength- ened or disproved as my own research and the research program of the St. Mary's City Omission progresses. I have acctmmlated many debts in the process of preparing this dissertation. The first is to the Maryland Hall of Records where the hill: of the research was done. Here all the public records of Maryland created before 1789 have been collected and organized, and guides and indexes to maJor record groups provided. The archival staff were most helpful in locating documents and in providing working space. They have, in addition, created a cordial and supportive atmosphere which makes Annapolis a stimilating place to do research. Appreciation is extended as well to the officers of the Charles County Court House in La Plata where I conducted early research, to the Family and Community History Institute or the lewberry Library for supporting a month' s study there , and to the. staffs of the Maryland Historical Society and the University of Dhryland Graduate Library. iii Special thanks is due to present and former colleagues of the St. Ibry'sCity Omission—Cary Carson, Gary Stone, David Bohmer‘, and Bill Mth for conversation, criticism, and encouragement, and to the Omission itself for support over the past four years. I have benefited also fran frequent conversations with Other scholars working in Maryland history—Carville Earle, Allan Kulikoff, Edward Papenfuse, Barbara Carson, Gloria Main, Paul Clemens, James Horn, and Ronald Hoffman. Daniel S. anith and James Somerville read portions of the manuscript, while P. M. G. Harris shared data and supplied both in-depth questioning and probing general criticisms of several chapters. In various stages of my struggles with the computer Whitman Ridgeway, Susan Jackson, and James Doyle provided invaluable assistance. John and Roberta Wearmouth extended counpanionship and encouragement dur- ing the process of initial research. Robert Wall has exhibited considerable patience in the direction of this dissertation and has been willing to extend the extra effort needed to keep a long-distance association work- ing. Throughout a long period as research and writing my husband has made the kinds of sacrifices which can be fully appreciated only by the families of others who have written dissertations. I would like to thank the editors of the Mland Historical We, the Johns Hopkins Press, the Institute of Early American History and Culture, and the William .a_.n_<_i_ .MEH. W for permission to use material that has been or will be published by them and for their per- ceptive editorial camnents. My greatest debt is to Lois Green Carr and Russell R. Menard who have extended” encouragement, criticism, and friendship since my first days iv in Maryland. In the process of almost daily discussions over the past four years we have shared ideas and discoveries, thrashed out common problems, and learned new approaches and techniques. Both Carr and Menard have consistently employed a high level of scholarship in their own work and have served as fine examples of historians who manage to integrate comprehensive investigation of past societies with meticulous attention to accuracy of detail. By demanding equal effort of me (which I might never have demanded of myself), they are in part responsible for the length of time that it has taken to write this dissertation. At the same time, a large measure of credit is due to them for whatever successes it has achieved. fl!— xx TABLE OF LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES LIST OP.AEBREVIATIONS . . . . Chapter I. II. III. BEGINNINGS . . . . . . Settlers on the Land . The Immigrant Experience . . . Toward a Provincial Society THE DEMOGRAPHIC HISTORY . . . Aggregate Population Growth Immigration Death . . . . . . . Marriage and.Family Consequences . . . . MARRIAGE.AND EAMILY IR'MARXLAND MY. 0 C C 0'. O O O O O O O 0 CONTENTS IN THE SEVENTEENTH Bringing Up Children . . . . . . . Marrying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Disposal of Body, Mind, and Estate SERVITUDE, SLAVERY, AND OPPORTUNITY . . The Character of the White Immigrants Their Colonial Experience The Structure of Opportunity for Whites mater-amt Relations 0 e e a e s e Slavery: The Structure of Non-opportunity Blacks PLANTERS GREAT AND SMALL Tobacco Country The Occupational Structure: The Occupational Structure: Farm“ Neighborhood, and community vi Men's Work Wamen's Work for O O O O O O O O O I O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O C I O C O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 viii xiii 15 18 18 23 28 59 72 75 106 1h1 153 15h 162 169 182 191 211 211 215 23h Zhh Chapter VI. THE RULERS.AND THE RULED: PARTICIPATION AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWER IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT . . . . . . . . 306 Background and Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307 The Polity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312 Non-participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318 Those Who Served . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . 325 The Rulers: Division of Power ............. 339 The Rulers: Transfer of Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355 VII. SOCIAL STRUCTUREAND PROCESS . . . . ...... . . . . 365 Sources of Disorder . . . ............... 365 The Beginning of Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383 Distribution of Land . . . . .............. 388 Distribution of'Personalty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . h21 LAssLmilation and Expulsion . . . . . . . . . ...... ' Ah? Stability.Achieved . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . ASS APPENDHA. THEDBIOGRAPHICSOURCES..............I469 mun: B. THE SERVANT POPULATION: SIZE, CHARACTER AND SEASONINGRATESW ......... I479 LAPPENDIX C. NOTE ON SOURCES AND METHOD ............ h83 APPENDIX D. NOTES ON VOTERS AND MAJOR OFFICEHOLDERS . . . . . . 500 Bmumc may 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O s o 9 vii 13. III. 15. 16. LIST OF TABLES Taxables, Charles County, 1659-1705 .......... 21 Charles County Population, 170k . . . . ........ 22 Expected Years to Live for Males Born in Charles County, Maryland, 1652-1699 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29 Impact of Several Seasoning Rates on the Preferred Estimate of Expectation of Life at Age 22 . . . . . . 33 Mean Age at Death by Birth Cohort . . . . . ...... 35 MeanAgeatFirstMarriage..............61I Population Growth by Categories, Censuses Of 1701‘, 1710’ 1712 e e e e e a e e e e e e e 66 Length of Marriage, 1658-1705 . . . . ........ 68 Months Between Death of First Partner and Remarriage for Charles County Men and Women,l658-1705................ 69 Family Size in-Charles County, 1658-1705 . . . . . . . 69 Family Size by Decade, Charles County, 1658-1705 70 Number of Children Born by Immigrant and Native Charles County Women Ending Childbearing Years or M“ W 1705 O 0 O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 71 Status of Marriage Partners, Charles County, 1658‘17050000000eeeeeseeeeeee 8"} Clothing Provided for Five Children, 1662-1672 . . . . 11% Children Recorded as Bound Out , Charles County, 165&1705 e e e e e e e e o e e e e e e e e e e e s e 133 Distribution of Ages at Which Children Were Ema . O O O O O O O O O O O l O O O O O O O O O O O 135 viii Table 17. Bequests of Husbands to Wives with Children, St. Mary's and Charles Counties, Maryland, 16hO-1710 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1&6 18. Distribution of Land Among Children According to Family Size, St. Mary's County, 161:0-1710 . . . . 1A8 19. Impact of Several Seasoning Rates on Survival and Migration of 1,OIIO Male Charles County semta O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 165 20. PrOportions of Laborers and Labor-owners by Total EstateValue, 1662-1705 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 21. Economic Status and Political Participation of Former Charles County Servants . . . . ....... 18+ 22. Economic Status and Political Participation of Former Servants Migrating to Charles County . . . . 186 23. Slave Population of Charles County by First Appearance in County Records . . . . ........ 193 2h. Laborers per Household in Charles County, 1658.1705 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e a a o ..... 199 25. Distribution of Black Adults and Children by Quarter, Charles County, 1658-1711 . . . . . . . . . 201T 26. Contents of Charles County Quarters, 1658-1705 . . . . 205 27. Highest Economic Position Achieved by 1705 by MenEngagedOnlyinAgriculture . . . . . . . . . . . 217 28. Occupational Profile of Free Adult Males in Charla. comty’ 1658.1705 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 222 29. Proportions of Free Adult Males Engaged in Agri- cultural and Other Occupations, Charles County, 1658’1705 e e e e s e e e e e a e e a e e e a a a e e 225 30. Incidence of Craft Tools in Charles County Inventories, 1658-1705 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 31. Highest Economic Position Achieved by Men Engaged Wholly or Partly in Non-skilled or Skilled Manual Non-agricultural Occupations . . . . . . . . . 229 32. Highest Economic Position Achieved by Men Engaged Wholly or Partly in Capitalized Manual Trades or in Lesser Service Occupations . . . . . . . . . . 233 ix Table 33. Highest Economic Status Achieved by Men Engaged Wholly or Partly in Professional and Other MaJor Service Occupations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 3A. Incidence of Selected Consumer Items in Charles County Inventories, 1658-1705 . . . . . . . . ..... 257 35. Incidence of Cattle and Swine in Charles County Inventories, 1658-1705 . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 268 36. Sources of Income and.Kinds of Expenditures on Rdbert Cole's Plantation, 1662-1673 . . . . . . . . . . 270 37. Destination of’Expenditures and Kinds of Local Expenses, Cole Plantation, 1662-1673 . . . . . . . . . 273 38. Incidence of Sheep and Wool-Processing Implements in Charles County Inventories, 1658-1705 . . . . . . . 282 39. Incidence of Corn, Grain, and Grain-Growing Implements in Charles County Inventories, 1658-1705 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28A AO. Participation in Government as a Percentage of the Free.Adu1t Male Population . . .......... 320 A1. Characteristics of 676 Non-Participating Free Charles County Males . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322 A2. Charles County Jurors by Householding Status . . . . . . 328 A3. Economic Characteristics of Charles County Pflit erfl ’ 1658-1705 0 C O C I O O O O O O O O O O O 330 AA. Economic Characteristics of Charles County Grand Jumr" 1658‘1705 e e e e e a a a e a e a a e e e o o e 331 A5. Economic Characteristics of Petit and Grand Jury Foreman, 1658-1705 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33A A6. Economic Characteristics of Constables and Overseers of’the Highways, 1658-1705 . . . ..... . 336 A7. Characteristics of Charles County Justices of the Peace, 1658-1705 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3A3 A8. Pluralism in Major Positions, Charles County, 1658.1705 O a e e e a e e e a e e e e a o a eeeeee 35h WH__ Table A9. P1uralism.in all Levels of County Office . . . . . . . . . 357 50. Distribution of Land among County Residents Whose Status at Immigration and Length of Time in the Colony is Known, Charles County, 1659 . . . 392 51. Distribution of Land'by Deciles, Charles County, 1659 I O O I O O O O O O O 000000 O I O 0 0 O O 0 39h 52. Distribution of Land by Deciles, Charles County, 1705 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00000 O 395 53. Distribution of Land among Resident Landowners According to Nativity, 1705 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398 5A. ‘Peak.Acreage Acquired by Resident Landowners, Charles County, 1658-1705 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A01 55. Sizes of Tracts by Hundred, Charles County, 1705 . . . . . A11 56. Percentages of Estates by Wealth Categories for Selected Time Periods, Charles County . . . . ..... A27 57. Major Components of Personal Wealth, Charles cmty ’ 1658’1705 0 a e e e e e e e e e e e o e e e e e h 37 58. Backgrounds of Mador County Officeholders in Four Lower Western Shore Counties . . . . . ...... AA6 59. Growth of Selected Components of the Population in Four Lower Western Shore Counties, 17OA-17l2 . . . . AA8 60. Ratio of’Householders to Non-householders and Servant Men, Four Lower Western Shore Counties, 170k 0 O O O O O O O O O O O I I O O O 0 O O O O O O O O )4 51 61. Growth of the Black Population in Four Lower Western Shore Counties, 17OA-1712 . . . . . . . . . . . A52 62. Ratio of Black Taxables (male and female) to White Taxable Males, Four Lower Western Shore Counties 170h-1712 e o e e e e a e e e e e s e e e e e e e e e e h 5 3 63. Wealth.Distributions of Fathers and Sons, Charles county. 1658.1705 e e a e e e e e s e e e e e e e e e o ’46"; xi A3. AA. A5. .A6. B3. D1. D2. Total Population Estimated from.Taxable Figures . . . . Life Expectancies of Males Born in Charles County Between 1652 and 1699 . . . . ........ Seasonal Death Patterns . . . . . .......... Births, Marriages, and Deaths per Thousand, Charles County Reconstituted Families, 1658.1705 e e e e e o o e e e a e e a a e eeeeee Sex and Status of’Maryland.Immigrants, 163A-168l Age Structure of Charles County Decedents Leaving Inventories, 1661-1705 ...... . . Total Servant Population . . . . . . . . . . ..... Proportions of Servants with and without Indentures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Possible Seasoning Rates of Two Groups of Maryland Servants . . . . . . . . . . . . Range of’Proportions of Men Eligible to VCte in Charles County, 1705 . . . . . . . . . Characteristics of Individual Charles County Justices . . . . . . . . . . ..... - . . . . xii A69 A70 A72 A73 A714 A75 A79 A81 A82 500 504 ‘l p.- j... Figure 1. 12. 13. 1A. 15. 16. 17. 18. LIST OF FIGURES Charles County as of 1696 . . . . . . . . . . . Taxables and.Popu1ation Growth, 1659-1705 . . . Pattern of Immigration from Maryland Headright mtries a e - a e e e e e 0 e a e s a e e e e 0 Annual Tobacco Prices and Servant Immigration . Deaths per Year, 1658-1705 . . . . . . . . . . Seasonal Patterns of Deaths . . . . . . . . . . Births and.Marriages per Year in Charles County Records ’ 1655-1705 e e e e e e e o e e e e 0 Seasonal Patterns of Births and Conceptions . . . Ages of Male Indentured and.Unindentured Servants, 1658-1707 . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency of Litigation Involving Servants, 1658-1705 e e e e e e e e' e e e e e e e e e e Percentages of Capital Invested in Servants and Slaves in Charles County, 1661-1705 . . Farm.Prices of Chesapeake Tobacco, 1618-1730 A Charles County Plantation, 1706 . . . . . . . . St. Mary's County Communities c. 1700 . . . . . Hypothetical Neighborhoods of Three Planters c O 1670 O I O O O I O O I O O O O O O O O O 0 Age at First Service in'Various Offices . . . . Years of Experience Among Justices in Charles comty’ 1658.1705 a a e s a e e e e e e a e 0 Annual Means and.Medians, Lower western Shore, 1638-A2, 1658-1705 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii 2A 25 27 A0 AA 61 73 161 173 200 21A 2A7 295 297 358 361 379 Figure 19. Number of Acres Surveyed Annually, Charles COImty, 1&2-1705 o s o e o o e o s e s o o e o s o o 1‘03 20. Price per Acre, Charles County Land, 166A-1710 ..... AOA 21. Land Prices and Number of Acres Surveyed, Wicomico and Pickavixen Hundreds . . . . . . . ........ A06 22. Land Prices and Number of Acres Surveyed, Port TobaccoHundred A07 23. Land Prices and Number of Acres Surveyed, Nanemoy andRiverside Hundreds . . . . . . . . . . . 1109 2A. - Land Prices and Number of Acres Surveyed, Chingomuxenflundred......... ...... ..1410 25. Distribution of Prime Tobacco Soils . . . . ...... A12 26. Means and Medians, Charles County Inventories, 1658.1705 o o o 0 o o s o o s o o o o o ooooooo 1‘22 27. Upper and Lower Quartiles, Charles County Inventories, 1658—1705 . . . . . . . . . . . ..... A23 28. Means and Medians Trimed of £A00+ Estates, Charlefl comty o s o o o o o o s o o s o o o s o o o o 1‘26 29. Means and Medians, St. Mary's County Inventories, 1658-1705oooooosooooosoooosooosh29 30. Upper and Lower Quartiles, St. Mary's County Inventories,l658-1705... .. .. .. . .. . . . . A30 31. Upper and Lower Quartiles, Lover Western Shore, 1658‘1705 o o o o o o o o o o s o s e o o o o e o o o 1‘31 32. Means and Medians, Calvert County Inventories, 1658.1705 o o s o s s e e o s o o o o o o ...... 1‘32 33. Upper and Lover Quartiles, Calvert County Inventories, 1658-1705 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A33 3A. Means and Medians, Prince George's County InventOI‘ieB, 1675-1705 e o s o o o o o o ..... o 0 1‘3h 35. Upper and Lower Quartiles, Prince George's County Inventories, 1675-1705 . . . . . . . . . . . . A35 36. Distribution of Wealth Among Married Decedents with Minor Children, 1658-1705 . . . . ........ AA3 xiv LIST 0F.ABBREVIATIONS Charles County Court Charles County Court and Land Records, MSS, Hall of Records, Annapolis, Mary- land. CSP Calendar 2£_State Papers, Colonial Series, American and West Indies, W. N. Sainsbury et al., eds. (AA vols. to date; London: Public Record Office, 1860- ). yggzland.Archives Archives g£_Ma§yland, William Hand Browne, et al., eds. (72 vols.; Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1883- ). MHM Maryland Historical Magazine 395i William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser. CHAPTER I BEGINNINGS Settlers g the Land In the spring of 163A Leonard Calvert and about 1A0 prospective colonists sailed up the Potomac River searching for a suitable place with- in Lord Baltimore‘s grant to seat a colony. They selected an Indian village on the east bank of the St. Mary's River about six miles from the Potomac.1 From this nucleus colonists began to spread up the banks of the Potomac and Patuxent establishing scattered plantations on the fertile waterside soils of these rivers and their tributaries. By l6A2 there were two msJor settlements at some distance from the original seat. One, cen- tered on St. Clement's Manor at the mouth of the Wicomico, then had about sixty inhabitants.2 A few years after Ingle's Rebellion settlers moved into what would become Charles County, seating on the west bank of the Wicomico and further north and west along the Potomac. By 1650 at the latest planters were growing tobacco along the Port Tobacco River, probably utilizing fields recently abandoned by the Indians of the area.3 l"A Briefe Relation of the Voyage unto Maryland, by Father Andrew White, 163A," in Narratives of Early Ma_.ry1and, 1633-168A, ed. Clayton Col- man Hall (New York: Charles Scribner's 8: Sons, 19107, pp. A0-A2. 2Russell R. Menard, "Econonnr and Society in Early Colonial Mary- land" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iowa, 197A), ch. 2. 3Archives o_f; Mland, eds. William Hand Browne, et a1. , 72 vols. (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1883--), 10: 21-22, 81-82, 192- 93, 220-21. (Hereafter Bland Archives.) l About 100 households containing perhaps A00 individuals lived west of the Wicomico by 1658.“ The hardships which these settlers encountered in Journeying to court in St. Mary's City prompted Governor Fendall to establish a new county in that year, "for the ease 8: benifitt of the People." Bounded on the east by the Wicomico and on the south and west by the Potomac "up as high as any Plantation is now seated,"5 Charles was a frontier county, its Jurisdiction expanding as the line of settle- ment moved up the Potomac and its tributaries. Expansion far to the north was slow, however. Alarms over incur- sions by northern Indians in the 16708 and 16808 apparently discouraged mst planters from seating much above the reserve of the friendly Piscat- tawsys which lay on the north of Mattawoman Creek. In addition, the soils along the banks of the upper Potomac were not especially suited to tobacco culture. By the 16803 larger numbers of settlers were however moving from Calvert County along the Patuxent into a highly fertile region north of the Wicomico. In 1696 there were about 150 settlers on the upper Potomac and approximately 1,500 on the upper Patuxent, enough to Justify the creation of a new county to supply services which the Charles and Calvert County courts could not easily provide.6 Charles County ceased to have a frontier thirty-seven years after its founding. Thereafter its Jurisdiction was defined, not by the flow of settlement, but by precise geographic limits. In 1695 the Assembly ‘‘See below, ch. 2. 5% Archives, 61: 87. 6Lois Green Carr, "County Government in Maryland, 1689—1709" (Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1968), ch. 6; and Edward B. Matthews, The Counties gt; led, Their Ori in, Boundaries, and Election Districts, Maryland Geological Survey, vol. 6, pt. 5, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1907) s DP. 1‘7““??- a. redrew county bounds in southern Maryland, and from this date Charles County consisted of approximately 500 square miles. This area included the original settlements along the west side of the Wicomico and north along the Potomac to Mattawoman Creek. To these were added a small area along the Patuxent which had earlier been part of Calvert County and a strip of land east of the Wicomico which had previously been part of St. Mary's County.7 Although the county's population had increased approximately six- fold between 1658 and 1695,8 most farms were still situated along the water's edge. Tracts bordering on the Wicomico, Port Tobacco, and NanJemoy Rivers and along the Potomac past Maryland Point were seated during the 1660s. Subsequently planters pushed up the creeks and runs which fed these rivers, ventured further up the Potomac, and then turned eastward following the course of the Mattawoman inland.9 Planters‘kept to the waterside with good reason. Rivers and creeks provided abundant sources of food. More importantly, they also "afforded a comodious Road for Shipping at every Man's Door."10 The trans-Atlantic trade was organized around direct bargaining between the English shipmasters and factors who brought goods and servants to the Chesapeake in return for tobacco and the individual planters who produced 7mm dArchives, 19:212-1A. Only one minor boundary change occurred afterward. In 17A8 a small parcel of land along the Potomac north of Mattawoman Creek was returned to Charles County Jurisdiction. Matthews, The Counties 95 Mland, pp. A76-77. 8See below, ch. 2. 9See below, ch. 5. 1"Robert Beverly, Th__e_ History and Present State of VirgiLia, ed. Louis B. Wright (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 191m, P. 57- .é /. e93: . _ . ,x a . .. . 5:3 m . e. I , e. a. .. .. . in. _ . . ... v , 1 . .. w a %‘ acugzax . >z3° 50% =_ucfldl.20 1 .. J u a. 3.... m. . 7:220 \ . n‘ . :i o, M ‘Kiim \s .. . a ,. e .x . . x w, ems. I I 1A“? . {1. .r“ . .\ $1?“ 5" r . 0‘0 I OJ % . 99. - . ._ i. in.» he a: 33:3 9. 53.225 3.5..» 0.! I a: Yaaoufnoao a: n K; .h . - .. it. Ships stopped at landings along the rivers, and.the captains then sent sloops to collect tobacco and deliver goods where the ships them- selves could not go.11 Because tobacco was both too bulky and too fragile to transport far on land, water access--even if only for a raft--was essential to profitable production of the staple. The character of the soil also encouraged planters to cling to the rivers, for it was along their banks that the land.best suited for tobacco cultivation lay. Inland soils were less adapted to the staple, and.some areas were not particularly conducive to any kind of agriculture. The Great Zachia Swamp at the head of the Wicomico and wetlands along Mhttawoman Creek were too low and poorly drained for farming. A strip of gravelly land west of the rich Patuxent Valley was too broken and steep for much cultivation. 0ther inland soils, while suitable for agri- culture, were generally less productive than the land along the rivers, some too sandy, others subJect to drought, and still others too steeply sloped to support intensive farming.12 Yet at the beginning of the eighteenth century most farms still clung to the water. Land forms, soil quality, the organization of trade, and the character of the staple all combined to restrict the expansion of settlement inland. So long as most farmers had access to some kind of water transport, land travel was largely reserved for the movement of people. While roads ‘were not numerous, and while some of those which did exist were often llLois Green Carr, "'The Metropolis of Maryland': A Comment on Town Development Along the Tobacco Coast," land Historical Magazine A9 (Sumner, 197A): 12A-AS (hereafter fl); Menard, 'Economy and Society," ch. 2; and Arthur Pierce Middleton, Tobacco Coast: A Maritime History; 9_f_ Chesa ake 92132.29. Colonial Egg (Newport News; The Mariners' Museum, 1953). le.S., Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, "Gen- eral Soil Map for Southern Maryland" (Washington, D.C.: Government Print- ing Office, 1972). little better than tracks, the importance of land communication should not be overlooked. For, however dependent they might be on the water for transport of goods, the maJority of planters did not own their own boats; instead they hired a craft when they needed it from a local boat owner. Since a boat might not be readily available, during the 16508 and 16608 mamr planters probably seldom traveled farther than their feet could carry them, and much of that over rough, newly cleared tracks. Once roads were better developed, county residents apparently moved about on land with comparative ease. While boat ownership did not increase markedly with time,13 by the late 16808 even the poorest of freedmen owned a horse.” We know that in the 16908 public roads led from various parts of the county to the courthouse (which lay at least four miles from the nearest water) and provided land routes to St. Mary's City, to Annapolis, and to settlements above Mattawoman Creek. Public roads made at least three mills and three churches accessible to county residents.15 Doubtless by the turn of the century the public roads were supplemented by a network of private paths maintained by individual planters. 130n the use of boats for transportation see Carville V. Earle, Evolution 2;; _a_._ Tidewater Settlement System: All Hallows Parish, Ma_ryland, 16 0-1 8 , University of Chicago Department of Geography Research Paper no. 170 Chicago: University of Chicago, 1975), pp. lA3-A5. ll‘Lois Green Carr and Russell R. Menard, "Servants and Freedmen in Early Colonial Maryland," In Thad W. Tate, ed. , The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Euroamerican Politics and Societ Tlhapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, forthcoming.) 15Charles County Court and Land Records, NBS, Hall of Records, Annapolis, Md. (hereafter Charles County Court), W1, 2A2, 277; M2, A5; gland Archives, 20: 109; 60: 615-18; and Morris L. Radoff, The County Courthouses and Records of Magland, Part One: The Courthouses, Hall of Records Commission Publication no. 13 (Ann Ann:apolis Hall of Records Com- mission, 1960), pp. 61-69. The Immigrant Experience If the character of the land did much to shape the society which developed there, the backgrounds of the settlers were also important. Throughout almost all of the seventeenth century the maJority of the county's free inhabitants had been born in Europe, most of them in Britain. Few were persons of distinguished background, and at least three—quarters of the immigrants arrived under some form of short-term labor contract. Those who arrived under indenture came from artisan or small tradesmen or small farmer families. Other servants, perhaps the maJority, did not leave England with indentures but paid for their passage according to the custom of the country. Such servants were usually younger than those who came‘with indentures, and this suggests that they may have come from lower social origins. Whatever their position at home, these transplanted Englishmen shared the same "cultural baggage." They wanted the society which they 'were then building in Maryland to be "enrich[ed] with such ornaments of civill life as our owne country abounded‘with-all."16 There was never any question that the language, culture, and basic institutions would be those of the mother country. Of course many difficulties lay between the inten- tion and the implementation. Not only was the land new and different and virtually empty, the immigrant group lacked the kind of class structure around which English society was organized. Not surprisingly, the society which developed in southern.Maryland differed from that of the mother country in many respects. 15"A Briefe Relation," p. A1. Jpn " . he. an .., u %" . I . ‘. ~ c e .. ... ";‘-~ c... P. ~. ‘- -n 1 1 e \& I e."- “ \. \: "' :. u ‘1 I 1 - \. ‘ n N \‘I‘ H \ I.‘ u e “ . ‘~ \ I‘ . .. .- The process of colonizing a new land required adaptation as well as transplantation. wresting farms from.the wilderness called for effort of a different kind than that needed to eke out a living in crowded England. Energies which might have been devoted to capital accumulation at home-—or which might have been consumed in a dreary struggle for mere survival--had in Maryland to be channeled to the tasks of capital creation. Farms had to be carved out of the wilderness; houses and barns built; orchards planted; livestock propagated; mills, inns, stores, and churches erected, and roads and bridges constructed. Transplanted farmers and tradesmen had also to master the culture of a new crop, for in Maryland tobacco was "the only solid Staple Com- modity"l7 of the province, providing "our meat, drinke, clothing, and monies."18 Most planters learned the techniques of making tobacco and. corn-~the canplementary crop of the Chesapeake--from established farmers while working out the costs of their passage as servants. Free immigrants had to depend on observation and on their now experienced neighbors "advicing the stranger how to improve what they have, and how to better their way of livelyhood."19 From the day they arrived, until the day they died, the rhythms of tobacco culture would dominate the daily lives of every one of the settlers. 17George Alsop, "A Character of the Province of Maryland," in Hall, ed. , Narratives 9_f_ Early M_a_lzland, p. 363. 18"Maryland in 1699; A Letter from the Rev. Hugh Jones," ed. Michael Kamen, Journal _o_f_ Southern History 29 (1963): 369. Jones' obser- vations were based on adJacent Calvert County. 19John Hammond, "Leah and Rachel, or, The Two Fruitful Sisters, Virginia and Maryland (1656) ," in Hall, ed. , Narratives of; Early Mailland, p. 29A; George Scot, The Model 2;; the Government of the Province 93 East— New-Jersgy i_r_1_ America (Edinburgh: n.p. , 16$) quoted in John W. Garrett, Seventeenth Century Books Relating to Maryland," MHM 2A (1939): l3-1A. 1.!- Bl A 9 (Spatial residential patterns peculiar to the Chesapeake emerged. Isolation from the mother country was reinforced by isolation of one family from another, with farms loosely strung out along the banks of rivers and navigable streams. Individual clearings were for some years dwarfed by otherwise unbroken forest, further reinforcing the sense of solitude. Accustomed to more open vistas in England, many a wilderness planter felt choked and closed in; while he often attributed his physical ailments to "the stifling of the wood,"20 it was clearly a cause of spiritual affliction as well. While the amount of acreage cleared must have increased each year, forest still predominated at the turn of the century. "Tho we are pretty closely seated, the Reverend Hugh Jones observed in 1699, "yett we cannot see our next neighbours house for the trees."21 While the county's population also grew, it too remained small and scattered. By 1705 settlers numbered only about seven per square mile in the county overall. If we assume that the acreage which had actually been taken up by 1705 represented the extent of settlement, then population densities remained between eleven and twelve colonists per square mile in settled areas, less than those found in the states of Arizona and Utah today. The absence of towns--a consequence both of low population density and of a system of trade which left most marketing functions in the hands of English merchants and ship captain8--must also have reinforced the colonists' isolation. St.‘Mary's City was the only urban center within reasonable traveling distance for Charles Countians, and it, in the Opinion 20Hammond, "Leah and Rachel," p. 287. 21"Maryland in 1699." p. 371. 5 . is: C‘ 'l l .1 Ad .3 q-.. . / Iii! In 10 of most Englishmen, could not "reasonably bear the name of a Town."22 More distant Annapolis offered little more at the turn of the century. Hugh Jones observed that Governor Nicholson had tried "to make a towne" of it, but aside from the statehouse, the capital was yet only "a paracell of [about forty] wooden houses."23 Not even a hamlet developed in Charles County in the seventeenth century. By the 16908 there were, to be sure, a court house, churches, mills, inns, stores, landings, and warehouses, but almost never were more than two of these located in the same place at the same time. Well into the eighteenth century centers of economic, social, and political activity remained scattered across the countryside. To say that the seventeenth-century planter lived without towns is not to say that in the New World he lived without community. Isolated he might be, anti-social or self-sufficient he was not. Such behavior was not part of "our English natures." Rural neighborhoods in the Chesa- peake might be less compact than those in many parts of England and the more northern American colonies, but nonetheless they supplied some of the same amenities and filled many of the same needs. The disease environment had at least as much impact on the experiences of transplanted Englishmen as did the geography, soil, and climate of the area. Many of the usual maladies which plagued men of the time were present, and in addition, malaria, dysentery, and other diseases to which the typical immigrant might not have been previously exposed were 22Beverly, Histog and Present State o_1_’_ Virginia, pp. 57-58. 23"Maryland in 1699"; cf. Ebenezer Cook, The Sot-Weed Factor in Works p_f_ Ebenezer Cook, Gent.: Laureat 93 M_agland . . . ed. , Bernard C. Steiner, Maryland Historical Society Fund Publication no. 36 (Baltimore: John Murphy and Sons for the Maryland Historical Society, 1900), pp. 1-32 (hereafter The Bot-Weed Ector). — 7‘ fl ll rampant. As a consequence, life in the seventeenth-century Chesapeake was extremely short. New arrivals experienced a "seasoning" during which many died, and immigrant men who survived the initial bout of illness could not expect to live beyond age forty-three; seventy percent would die before age fifty. Not surprisingly early death had a pervasive influence on the social history of the area, affecting such diverse facets as the stability of family life, the accumulation and distribution of wealth, the formation of a political elite, and the growth of population. The make-up of the immigrant group and high mortality experienced in the Chesapeake region resulted in a profound disruption in the patterns of family life. Severe sexual imbalance among immigrants meant that many men would never find partners. Because most came as servants, women and men who did marry married late. An ocean away from parents and kin, imigrants usually selected a mate without the advice, influence, or aid of family. They, in turn, were seldom able to guide or control the maturation of their own children. Because death came so early, marriages were short, remarriages frequent, and families small. Since most native- born children were still minors at the time of their parents deaths, traditional British patterns of parental control could not easily be reestablished. Although the hazards of dying were great, during the 16508, 16608 and early 16708 the rewards for those men and women who survived the initial years were also great. In England the ordinary man could hardly expect to rise above the station to which he was born. In contrast, the expanding Chesapeake econony offered Englishmen with little or no capital a chance to "live plentiously well."2'+ Freedmen could reasonably expect 2"Alsop, "Character of Maryland," p. 356. 12 within a few years to become householders and landowners, and subsequently to assume the kind of minor political responsibilities traditionally asso— ciated with a yeoman's station. The most capable and ambitious immigrants could aspire to more. A number of ex—servants became leading planters and officeholders in Charles County during these years. The successful establishment of the county court, a familiar form of local government which traditionally commanded respect and obedience, did much to maintain social order by offsetting the decidedly untraditional character of most of the county's early rulers. Because few immigrants came to the county possessed of the education, status, and great wealth associated'with political office in England, many of the men selected to rule the county lacked these attributes. For about fifteen years, the social and economic distance between county officeholders and most of the inhabitants they ruled was slight indeed. Many of the county's Justices (of peace lacked not only status or education, but even substantial wealth when first appointed to the bench. Such men were able to govern effec- tively only so long as they retained the respect of fellow colonists; they could command little deference from subJects who were their social and economic equals. Rapid expansion of the Chesapeake tobacco economy had permitted such a relatively undifferentiated yeoman society to develop. Subse- quently, economic expansion slowed and then for a thirty year period beginning about 1680 ceased altogether. Hard.time8 in the Chesapeake resulted in increased social and economic inequality among already estab- lished planters and virtually brought to an end opportunity for unprop- ertied new immigrants . —__—_ 13 The key to the success of the tobacco planters of the 16508 and 16608 had been their ability to acquire a steady and ever-increasing supply of relatively cheap unskilled labor. A small farmer could live in "rude sufficiency" on the proceeds of his own labor, but with the help of one or more servants he could increase his production of the staple and prosper. As: the profits to be made from growing tobacco declined in the 16708 and 16808 poorer planters were at an ever greater disadvantage; they were less able to purchase servants and hence to improve their economic position. Men newly freed from servitude found it increasingly difficult to establish themselves as successful small farmers, much less as labor-owners. A steady decline in the supply of servants in proportion to the number of farming households accompanied low tobacco prices. Improving economic conditions in England and brighter opportunities in other, more recently settled colonies acted to diminish and redirect the flow of immigration. As the labor shortage worsened, the price of servants was bid up, and labor-ownership became more and more concentrated among already wealthy planters.‘ZS In the fact of this continuing shortage of young English laborers, planters turned to other sources to supply new hands for the tobacco fields; chief among these was Africa. By the 16908 the county's labor system had been transformed from one dependent largely on servants to one composed largely of slaves. However, slavery initially provided a solution to the labor shortage only for the wealthier planter; he alone could afford the more expensive black hands. With slaves the wealtmr were able to increase 2"'Menard, "Economy and Society,‘ and other sources cited in ch. A below. 1A their estates, while the poorer planters where hard pressed to maintain their already low standard of living. The adaptation of slave labor brought many changes. Slavery accelerated and accentuated a trend toward more inequitable distribution of*wea1th in the county. It created an almost unbridgeable gap between laborers--both white and black--and labor-owners. And it destroyed the racial and.cultura1 homogenity of the population. No longer could social organization be based on the common experience of all members of the community. Changes in the labor system, and shifts in wealth distribution which accompanied economic decline and stagnation had marked effects on the distribution of political power in the late 16708, the 16808, and the 1690s. .More and more freedmen were unable to establish households and acquire land, and hence many later immigrants remained politically impotent throughout their careers in the Chesapeake. Many small landholders con- tinued to serve in minor offices, but their chances of acquiring offices of maJor power decreased. As wealth became more concentrated, enough rich :men were available so that maJor office was'becoming an obligation and an honor which previously acquired wealth conferred. Although the distance ‘between the rulers and the ruled increased during these years, these changes did not result in the development of a conscious political elite. ‘While most of the rulers were now men of considerable wealth, their back- grounds were still too diverse and their styles of life too different (rang- ing at the turn of the century from.little more than "rude sufficiency" to the beginnings of considerable comfort) to encourage the formation of a unified group interest. Early death still precluded the establishment of lasting connections between influential families, and it almost always Prevented direct transfer of power from fathers to adult sons. 15 Towards a Provincial Society During most of the seventeenth century Charles County was pre- dominantly a land of immigrants, and thus it is appropriate to view the county's early history through their eyes. Should.we continue this approach into the eighteenth century, however, the resulting picture ‘would grow even narrower and more distorted. It thus becomes necessary to shift the focus from.the experience of the immigrant to that of the creole. Some time between the mid-16808 and the mid-16908 the county's population began to grow by natural increase, and ten to fifteen years later, very near the end of the century, Charles became a predominantly creole county. The life experience of creole men and women was in many ways dif- ferent from that of immigrants. For one thing, native-born men could expect to live a few years longer than their fathers, and these few years might prove to be critical ones for their families and for society, since the years gained were ones in which a man'might consolidate his property and see at least one of his children reach maturity. Creole men and women could marry at younger ages than their parents, for even.if’they were bound out as orphans, they owed no term of service beyond maJority. The pressures of an unequal proportion of men and women meant that seventeenth and early eighteenth century creole 'women would marry very young. A8 a consequence native women had longer childébearing careers than their mothers. The two or three additional children‘which native women bore meant the difference between population decline and population growth. 16 The creole's relation to family and community also differed from that of his parents. While most immigrants could claim few kin in the colow, their children usually grew up with one or more natural or step- siblings. Most creole men and women thus had kin in Maryland, and per— haps mre important, they usually had relatives living in close proximity. As kin groups reassumed many of the flmctions which they had been carry- ing out in England and in the northern colonies, connections between families became more significant, while ties to the general community diminished in importance. In the immediate family the combination of early marriage, slightly longer life spans for men, and more widespread kin ties made it easier for creole fathers to maintain more control over the lives of their offspring than their fathers had had over theirs. Most native-born children had the advantage of beginning their careers with more material assets than their parents had started with. The most fortunate were able from the outset to farm inherited freeholds. Whether or not his father could bequeath him land, the native child did receive some portion of his parent's moveable estate. A bed, a pot, a pig, a cow (a typical minimal portion) supplied the young creole with the basics with which to set up a new household. The age at which native men married--before twenty-one at the turn of the century—shows how crucial such initial assets might be to a head start in southern Maryland. By the turn of the century the early period of substantial social and economic mobility in the county was clearly over; however, the creole did have the security of an already known and fairly predictable place in the community. If most native-born sons could not expect to rise much above the station their fathers had achieved, on the other hand, they need not fear that they might fall much below it. For the unpropertied immigrant, 17 turn-of-the-century Charles County was no longer a particularly good "poor man's land," but for most native sons it remained a tolerable place to raise a family and make a living. Native birth conferred advantages too in gaining a voice in local decision-making and, for some, positions of political power. Because the creole had an economic head-start over most immigrants and because he sometimes had the advantage of influential connections as well, he was likely to be appointed to office earlier and thus might remain in power longer. In addition, he was more likely than his father to have sons more nearly of age and thus he was in a better position than his father had been to maintain some continuity of family interests and influence. Since innnigrant and native life experiences were in many ways dif- ferent, as the native-born element became more numerous in the county, changes in the make-up of the population, in family and community life, in the distribution and circulation of real and personal assets, and in the local power structure were certain to occur. As creole ways of thinking and creole sentiment began to predominate, the county slowly changed from an Old World settlement into a New World community. While the completion of this process took place beyond the limits of this study, the direction and the nature’of this social change is already evident in the county by the turn of the century. ’I a CHAPTER II THE DEMOGRAPHIC HISTORY Mate Population Growth The number of individuals who composed the society with which we are dealing was not large. This circumstance enables the investigator to examine the lives of many of those individuals in depth and to describe their society in rich detail. The intensive methodology employed can in fact only be utilized for studying communities of limited size.1 The very abundance of information which results, however, has a tendency to cause the unwary to exaggerate the size of the population examined and perhaps to give too much significance to the conclusions arising from such a study. Thus it is appropriate to consider at the outset the actual numbers involved, in order to put this study into some perspective. 1E. A. Wrigley posits an ideal population for family reconstitu- tion of between 1,000 and 2,500. Kenneth Lockridge's study of Dedham, Massachusetts, involves a population very similar in size to that of seventeenth-century Charles County, while Philip Greven' 8 work on Andover covers an even smaller community. Darrett and Anita Rutman's study of Middlesex County, Virginia deals with a population of a size similar to that of Charles County in 1660, but which grew much more slowly, in 172A reaching Just one half of Charles County's 170A population. E. A. Wrigley, "Family Reconstitution," in An Introduction :03 Mush Historical Demog- ra From 11;; Sixteenth 33 1h; Nineteenth Century, ed. E. A. Wrigley London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1966), p. 105; Kenneth A. Lockridge, A _lLey and Town, The First Hundred Years (New York: W. W. Norton 8. Co. , 1970 ; Philip J. Greven, Jr., Four Generations: ngulation, Land, 5% PM in Colonial Andover, Massachusetts (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1970);- Darrett B. and Anita H. Rutman, "'Now-Wives and Sons-in- Law' : Parental Death in a Seventeenth Century Virginia County," in Tate, ed. , The Chesapeake _i_r_1_ '_t_h_e_ Seventeenth Centu_ry. For a discussion of the sources and methods used in this study see appendix C. 18 If 19 Charles County, when established in May 1658, was composed of no more than 100 households and about A00 individuals. An analysis of the 1659 rent roll reveals 86 to 97 landowning residents, and an additional 6 landowners or renters can be identified from the county court records. As several of these resident planters first established themselves in the county in 1659, there were then slightly fewer than 100 households in 1658.2 Inventories for the period 1658-65 show that these early house- holds were quite small. The number of taxables per household was 2.28, indicating that the householder and one or two servants composed the labor force in.most families.3 As might be expected in a newly settled area in the Chesapeake, men exceeded women (and consequently there were a number of bachelor establishments). Also as might be anticipated, the population was composed largely of young adults with few elderly depend- ents and a limited number of children (because most couples had been 2Rent Roll 0. The rent roll was corrected by adding to the 112 landowners listed an additional 3 men who deeds show had purchased land by the time the roll was drawn up. An attempt was then made to determine the residence of each, with these results: a. 86 proven residents in Charles County b. 16 resident in St. Mary's County c. 2 resident in Virginia d. l probable Charles County resident e. A probably dead or left county f. __6_ residence unknown 115 Eighty-six is thus the minimum number of landholders and 97 the maximum (a. , d., e., and f.) possible. The best estimate would be 90. 3St. Mary's City Commission Inventory ProJect, "Social Stratifica- tion in Maryland, 1658-1705" (National Science Foundation Grant 68-32272). Taxable masters of families and their servants and slaves in Charles, Calvert, and St. Mary's Counties numbered 2.28 per household. If non- householding freeman are included, the figure becomes 2.A9 taxables per household. 20 married only a short time)." Slaves probably numbered fewer than twenty, with ownership widely dispersed. 5 Taxable figures are the primary evidence available for studying the county's growth in population. Ideally they should represent a yearly census of all white males and all slaves capable of adult labor. In practice, the numbers are of course subject to error, both from conceal- ment of taxable laborers by their masters, and lack of diligence on the part of the sheriff, and later of the constables (who were required by an act of 1676 to visit each house within their hundreds between June 20 and July 31 to inquire the number of taxables) , or from mistakes resulting from the complete or partial illiteracy of the compilers. Still, prose- cutions in the county court for concealment of taxables, and numerous requests for the commissioners to decide disputes between masters and constables about the liability of individuals for the poll tax indicates that the compilers were conscientious, and suggests that these figures are reasonably accurate.6 (See table 1.) I'See Irene W. D. Hecht, "The Virginia Muster of 162h/5 As a Source for Demographic History," W_______illiam an__<_1_ Mag Quart erg, 3d ser. , 30 (1973): 65-92 (hereafter m). 5This estimate is based on the number of slaves mentioned in the inventories and wills of men known to be residents in 1659 minus those which records indicate were purchased after that date. 6Charles County Court, V#l, ff. 2th, 1:07; B#l, ff. 1.1341»; m, 1’. 11:9; M2, f. 2148; Gil, f. 1; Mland Archives ’47: 90; 25: 255; John A. Kinnaman, "The Public Levy in Colonial Maryland to 1689," ME}! 53 (1958): 253-7h; Arthur Eli Karinen, "Numerical and Distributional Aspects of Maryland Population, 1631—18ho" (Ph. D. diss. , University of Maryland, 1958), pp. 5-16. 21 TABLE 1 TAXABLES, CHARLES COUNTY, 1659-1705 Year Number Year Number 1659 [205]8L 1686 792 1662 357 b 1689 901 1661: 502 1690 869 1665 556 1691 880 1666 5h8 1692 872 1669 668 1693 901 1671 736 169k 895 f 1672 722 1695 871 f 1671; 782 1696 991 s 1675 785 c 1697 1025 1676 732 d 1698 958 e 1677 700 e 1699 1067 1678 710 1700 1122 1679 739 1701 1195 1680 76h 1702 1239 1681 766 1703 1259 1682 759 170A 1220 168k 71:5 1705 1267 ”Estimate of 90 residents derived from the 1659 rent roll and a multiple of 2.28. See footnote 2 of text. Freemen and all men ser- vants were taxable. brigures are from the Charles County Court records unless another source is indicated. In 1662, taxables were defined as free- men age 16 and over, male servants age 10 and over, and slaves, male and resale, 10 and over. Mland Archives 15: 51. dIn this year the definition of taxables was changed. All male children and imported male servants at 16 years, all slaves male and female at 16, and freeman l6 and above, except priests and ministers and the poor and impotent receiving county alms. Thus the decrease is due to a change of base. eExtremely heavy mortality in this and the preceding year accounts for the decrease. 1Mland Archives 25: 255. 8A boundary change is partly responsible for this increase. 22 A colony-wide census in 1701; is the only other reliable source of detailed information on Charles County population. In that year the county was composed of the following: TABLE 2 CHARLES COUNTY POPULATION, 170k Category Number Percentage Mhsters of families h08 13.7 Free men and servant men 390 13.0 Free women and servant women h85 16.2 Free children 931 31.1 Servant children 179 6.5 Slates 278 12.3 Total 2989 99.8 White Population, 170k: Adult white men 798 33.0 Adult white women ’485 20.1 White children 1128 h6.7 Total 2h11 99.8 Source: _M_az_11and Archives 25: 256. Estimating the county population from the taxable figures is not a simple matter. The multiple used to convert taxables to total popula- ‘tion changes because the definition of taxables varied, and the propor- ‘bion of taxables in the population changed with shifts in age and sex composition, birth rates, immigration, and an increasing percentage of slaves. Because both male and female slaves were taxed, but only male L tfliites, a large slave population lowers the ratio of taxed to untaxed persons, and an increasing slave population can offset the effects of a ,_4 is. O s. t 7".COQ'- ‘ u \e. a .i‘ :- ' ‘ .‘ r V ‘1‘. - "c. .'S' I” '. 23 rising birth rate on the ratio.7 Figure 2 shows estimates of county population from taxable figures. The data on birth and death rates, family size, sex ratios, and immigration on which the multiples are based are discussed later in this chapter.8 Immigration The madority of the people who lived in seventeenth century Charles County were born in the Old World. Thus the pace and timing of immigration to the county is important to the story of its people. Unlike New England, where significant immigration lasted only for a short time, southern Maryland society was composed of a very substantial number of new arrivals throughout the century. Precise annual counts of immigrants cannot be obtained, but changes in the rate of immigration can be identified. A study based on Maryland.head-right entries shows that immigration was heavy throughout the sixties and seventies and that servants formed a large proportion of the immigrants (figure 3).9 Since the head-right system was abolished 7For example, the ratio of county taxables in 1701: to the census population is 2.141}. However, the ratio of white taxables to total white population is 3.02. The presence of slaves who composed 19.3 percent of the population lowered the ratio .58. 8See Menard, "Econom' and Society"; and idem. , "The Growth of Population in Early Colonial Maryland, 1631-1712," unpublished report prepared for the St. Mary's City Commission, April, 1972 (copy available at the Hall of Records). Menard's work corrects and extends Karinen's population study by adding information on immigration, composition, and birth rates. I have used the ratios he suggests for 1659-1695, and have derived my own for 1696-1705. 98cc ibid., and idem, "Immigrants and Their Increase: The Pro- cess of Population Growth in Early Colonial Maryland," in Aubrey C. Land, Lois Green Carr, and Edward C. Papenfuse, eds. , Law, Society, and Politics _i_n_ Early Wand: Essen in Honor 9; Morris Leon Radoff (Balti- more: Johns Hopkins University Press, forthcomingf; idem, "Innnigration to the Chesapeake Colonies in the Seventeenth Century: A Review Essay," _M§_M_ 58 (1973): 323-29. 2h Sconce: MPERDIX A, TABLE A l. T 01A]. TOPUL AfloN «1,009 ’I TAXABLES ‘~ I s 3, 7‘00 (730 “'70 1280 1190 FléUREl. TAXABLES AND POPULATION GROWTH, 16914705 15'» 25 TOTAL ~--—-- Seavnuvs Swazmraaso,'PoroLA TIM 6mm? Nd r393”; w -50 FIWRE 3. PATTERN OF IMMIGRATION FROM MARYLAND HEADRIGHT ENTRIES 26 in 1681, another source must be used to study immigration during the following years. An act of 1661 for the purpose of regulating the length of service for servants arriving without indentures required that masters bring their servants to the county courts within six months after acquiring them to have their ages Judged and recorded. Although a count of these servants excludes both free immigrants and servants with indentures, it is still helpful for determining the pattern and rate of imigration. First, free immigration was probably very small after 1660. Second, the count of unindentured servants has been supplemented, wherever possible, to include indentured servants. Figure II shows clearly that imigration dropped sharply in the early 16808 and continued to be low except for the peak years of 1698-1700. Russell Menard has demonstrated the correlation between high tobacco prices and heavy immigration. The number of servants registered closely follows the fortunes of the tobacco trade, because, he maintains, merchants actively recruited servants when prices were high, and were reluctant to invest in labor when returns were lower. About 1680 the number of immigrants declined most dramatically, falling below the demand of planters for new laborers. A fall in the English birth rate twenty years earlier had reduced the supply of labor in England, raising wages and increasing opportunity there. This situation in combination with new and brighter prospects for immigrants in Pennsylvania and the Carolinas curtailed the number who left the Old World and diverted them to places other than the Chesapeake. 1° Later immigrants to southern Maryland included increasing numbers of Irish and of women--groups to 10Russell R. Menard, "The Transformation of the Chesapeake Labor System, 1680-1710," paper read before the Southern Historical Association, Miami, Florida, 1972 (copy available at the Hall of Records). IVA '0‘“ 0' go Ll! 0’! m “A” of ca 7V 3! “I" .m m ”was: room nus- S‘Mnebfl 8 28 which merchants turned when the supply of young Englishmen willing to imigrate fell below the numbers sought by New World planters. In addition, by the 16803 and 16903 involuntary black immigrants con- tributed to population growth in growing numbers . Death When an individual made a decision to immigrate to the New World he was venturing, amongiother things, his life. Those who chose to come to Maryland found themselves in an environment where survival was dif- ficult, and where their chances of living to old age were perhaps even more slender than in the Old World; worse, in fact, than in present-day underdeveloped countries. The steady growth of the county's population tends to obscure the terrible extent of mortality in the Chesapeake. In order to appreciate the conditions which prevailed, one) needs to create reliable estimates of mortality for men who immigrated to and were born in Maryland in the seventeenth century. Construction of life tables is the best method of achieving this goal. One such table (3) follows which estimates mortality for native-born adult males in Charles County. 11 The table is based on the experience of a selected group of males whose births were recorded in Charles County between 1652 and 1699.12 Because it is usually impossible to find death dates for 11The table is published in Lorena S. Walsh and Russell R. Menard, "Death in the Chesapeake: Two Life Tables for Men in Early Colonial Maryland," MHM 59 (1971:): 211-27. 12The births appear in Charles County Court, P#1, Q#l. The entries in the registers are largely confined to births and are not adequate for extensive family reconstitution. 29 TABLE 3 EXPECTED YEARS To LIVE FOR MALES BORN IN CHARLES COUNTY, MARYLAND 1652-1699 A B C D E Known Ages Preferred High Revised High Low Age at Death Estimate Mortality Mortality Mortality 20 23.3 26.0 23.1 2h.5 27.2 25 20.2 22.7 20.5 21.6 2h.0 30 18.0 20.h 18.5 19.h 21.7 35 15.7 18.0 15.9 16.9 19.3 ho 13.5 15.6 13.h 1h.5 17.0 As 12.8 1h.5 12.5 13.5 16.0 50 10.5 12.0 10.1 11.0 13.6 55 9.2 10.6 8.9 9.6 11.8 60 8.2 9.3 8.0 8.7 10.3 65 8.3 9.h 8.0 8.7 10.1 70 5.7 7.0 6.0 6.5 7.3 75 . 3.5 3.5 3.8 3.5 3.5 A—includes only those whose date of death was discovered. B-assumes that unknowns lived until day of last appearance and then followed rate of knowns . C—assumes that unknowns died the day after their last appearance in the records. D—-assumes that one-half unknowns died the day after their last appear- ance and that one-half lived until the day they last appeared and then followed the rate of the knowns. Unknowns participate only through the age at which they last appear. E—-assumes that unknowns lived for ten years after their last appearance and then followed the rate of knowns. Unknowns participate only through the age at which they last appear. Source: Walsh and Menard, "Death in the Chesapeake," p. 213, and appendix A, table 2. 30 children, only man known to have lived to age twenty are included. Males known to have died during childhood or who did not appear in any record as adults were dropped. This procedure left 153 men whose births were recorded and who did appearinthe records after reaching age 20. Since the vital records are almost exclusively confined to births, probate records provided a majority of death dates. 13 This introduces some inaccuracy into the life table, there being always a delay between death and the initiation of probate. However, the lag was usually short and the error seems tolerable. Users of the table might wish to compensate by reducing all estimates of longevity by one-eighth or one-fourth of a year. Age at death could be determined for 122 of the 153 native-born men, 80 percent of the total. Their experience is described in table 3, column A. But what of the remaining 31? Were they all very young when they died? Or very old? Can we assume that they died at the same rate as those whose age at death is known? To create a range of mortality estimates that would include the life experience of these 31 men, their careers were followed to determine the date at which they could last be proven to have been alive in Maryland. Their deaths were then distributed according to a procedure developed by E. Gautier and L. Henry adapted to fit the peculiarities of the population under study.“ The high mortality 13The probate records are in the Hall of Records. They are described in Elizabeth Hartsook and Gust Skordas, Land Office a_n_d Preroga- tive C_o____urt Records of Colonial Mlan ,Hall of Records Comission Publi- c—_ation, no. 13 (Annapolis: Hall of Records Commission, 191:6). l"Etienne Gautier and Iouis Henry, _L_a_ Population__ de Cru1__a_i_._, parolese lorma‘nde (Paris: 11. p., 1958). See also the discussions in E. A. Wrigley, "Mortality in Pre-Industrial England: The Example of Colyton, Devon Over Three Centuries," Daedlus 27 (1968): 516-80; T. H. Hollingsworth, Historical Demogapgz (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1969) , pp. 185-89; and Wrigley, ed., Introduction _t_g English Historical 31 estimate (table 3, column C) assumes that all the men whose death date is unknown died the day after they last appeared in the records. The low mortality estimate (table 3, column E) assumes that all unknowns lived for ten years after their last appearance and then shared the mortality experience of those whose date of death is known. The high and low mortality assmnptions are sufficiently extreme to encompass the possible effects of the men whose death date is unknown upon the measure of longevity. The actual mean expectation of life surely fell within this range. Instead of following the usual practice of taking a mean of the high and low mortality tables as the "best estimate," a preferred esti- mate was developed by assuming that the unknowns lived until the date of their last appearance in the records and then followed the pattern of the men whose age at death is known (table 3, column B). In all of these calculations the unknowns participated in the table through only the age cohort in which they last appear. The high mortality assumption is clearly unreasonable and can be revised to reflect the range of possibilities more accurately. There are three reasons for the failure to determine the date a partici— pant died: emigration, a death that is not mentioned in any of the surviving records, and the inability to create a firm link between a man whose birth date was recorded and other records for a man of the same name. The high mortality estimate assumes that a special instance of the second reason accounts for all of the unknowns and certainly understates expectation of life. A more reasonable assumption is that only one-half of the unknowns died the day after their last appearance Demogaph: pp. 1113-53. George W. Barclay, Techniques of Population sis (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1958), pp. 93—122, provides a good introduction to the structure and uses of life tables. 32 in the records and that the rest shared the mortality experience of those whose date of death has been determined (table 3, column D). If this revised high mortality figure is accepted as a lower bound, a man born in Charles County in the seventeenth century who reached age twenty could expect to live an additional 2h.5 to 27.2 years. Men who reach age twenty in the United States today can expect to live nearly twice that long. 15 While the native born enjoyed comparatively short lives, their immigrant fathers lived for an even briefer time. Using a similar method Russell.Menard calculated life expectancies for male immigrants to Maryland in the seventeenth century. He found that a man who arrived at age twenty-two could expect to die between ages forty-two and fortybsix. This estimate undoubtedly understates total mortality among immigrants because it does not reflect the risks of "seasoning," the contemporary word fer illnesses incurred during the first year in the Chesapeake. Uthrtunately, no method of measuring the prOportion ‘who died during seasoning has yet been discovered, but the number was substantial.16 If fifteen to twenty percent of new male immigrants 15For the method of record linkage see appendix C. Life tables fer the United States today are available in a variety of sources. See, fOr example, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics 22. ‘thg_United States, Colonial Times to 1221_(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1965), series B76:lOO. 16For example, in 1670 Michael Jefferson, a recent immigrant, was staying at the house of Samuel Cressey in Charles County, "and fall— ing into some discourse concerning his life past and the Danger of Seasoning in this Country . . . in case he should dy in hes seasoning in this Country" made his will on the spot, and died shortly thereafter. Gilbert Clark reported in 1687 that Mr. Hugh Marshall died at his house "in his Seasoning" and.had left Edward Napper his executor, "he the said Rapper being alsoe in his seasoning not able at present either to manage the Concernes of’himself or of the testator." Overseers of an estate explained in 1671I that two servants had harvested almost no tobacco ‘because they "were new hands and sickly." When a man protested in 1709 33 died in their first year, then expectation of life at age twenty-two would have been only an additional eighteen to nineteen years.” (See table 11.) TABLE 1: IMPACT OF SEVERAL SEASONING RATES ON THE PREFERRED ESTIMATE OF EXPECTATION OF LIFE AT AGE 22 1 Who Die of Seasoning ox 5% 10% ' 15% 20% Expectation of Life in years 22.7 21.6 20.5 19.1: 18.3 Note: Assumes that imigrants were age 22 when they arrived and that victims of seasoning died six months after arriving in Maryland. Source: Walsh and Menard, "Death in the Chesapeake," p. 215. Several questions concerning the quality of the data should be considered. Is the Charles County data reasonably representative of conditions in various regions of the Chesapeake? Were there significant changes over time? Is the table weighted in favor of a particular social groqu The life table is clearly not severely unrepresentative of the experience of native men in the Chesapeake. Although it may well be that there were regional variations in mortality, in life tables so far con- structed for various areas of the Tobacco Coast, the range in expectation of life for men has been relatively narrow. This suggests that a fairly uniform disease environment prevailed. 18 that he wanted a seasoned Negro, the owner replied that the slave in question "was ailing as other New Negroes were." Testamentary Proceed- ings,:MSS, AA: 51-55: 12: 12; 5: 16: 21: 9h. 17Walsh and Menard, "Death in the Chesapeake." 18See Russell R. Menard, "The Demography of Somerset County, Maryland: A Preliminary Report," paper presented to the Stony Brook Con- ference on Social History, Stony Brook, New York, June, 1975; Darrett B. 3A A check of the status of the fathers who recorded births of sons in Charles County also revealed no perceptible bias. Nevertheless, some upward social bias may be present in the life table. In the heavy out- migration from the Chesapeake that began in the mid-16903, poor families were more likely to emigrate than the moderately prosperous or the rich.19 A disproportionate number of sons from poor families may have been excluded from the life table because they moved from the county with their parents befOre reaching age twenty. Still, the esti- mate of expectation of life should at least reflect accurately the experience of men who lived and died in the county. Were the men in the table all married men, or were single men included? It is important to know the answer, because other studies indicate that the experience of married men alone may overstate longevity fer all adults.20 Since sex ratios in the seventeenth century Chesapeake were heavily imbalanced, it is particularly important that the experience of the single men who made up a substantial segment of the population be included. Of the 153 Charles County men in the table, 102 are known to bare married, 29 died while single, and the marital status of 22 could and Anita H. Rutman, "Of Agnes and Fevers: Malaria in the Early Chesa- peake, m 33 (1976): 31-60. 19For emigration in the 1690s see Governor Francis Nicholson to the Duke of Shrewaury, June 1h, 1695. Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, American gpg'west Indies, 1623-1626: W. N. Sainsbury, et. al., eds. (Ah vols to date: London: Public Record Office, 1860-), no. 1891; Thomas Lawrence to the Board of Trade, June 25, 1695, no. 1911 (hereafter CSP); Francis Nicholson to the Board of Trade, Mar. 27, 1697. England Archives 23: 87-88. 20Susan L. Norton, "Population Growth in Colonial America: A Study of Ipswich, Massachusetts," Population Studies 25 (1971): MIO- 1. 35 not be determined. The mean age at death for married men was 149.1, while for bachelors it was only 32.21 The life table does not seem to conceal significant changes over time. Longevity may have increased for men born at the end of the century, but the number of participants is too small to support a firm conclusion. (See table 5.) TABLE 5 MEAN AGE AT DEATH BY BIRTH COHORT Mean Age at Death for All Par- Birth Mean Age at Death ticipants According to Preferred Cohort for Knowns Estimate 1650-5h 37.09 37.0* 1655-59 h2.3* h5.0* 1660-6h 71.0“ 71.0* 1665-69 15.9 1:9. 8 1670-7h 36.0 h1.2 1675-79 hh.5 h1.7 1680-81: 39. 5 M: . 6 1685-89 h5.1 hh.6 1690-9h h2.5 hh.9 1695-99 h9.8 50.1 Total participants 153 Known death dates 122 Unknown death dates 31 'Low number of observations makes these figures less reliable than those that follow. Source: see text. Professor John Duffy has suggested that, while death rates were high among immigants, expectation of life improved with the growth of a 21The Reverend John Clayton commented on this phenomena in 1687. The English and the Indians were alike, he observed--if they lived "past 33 they generally live to a good age, but many die between 30 8: 33." Edmund and Dorothy Smith Berkeley, eds . , The Reverend J ohn lgflon, _A_ Parson with 2 Scientific Mind, h_i_s_ Scientific Writings an__g O_t_her Related Pagers (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1965), PP- 22-39- 36 native colonial population.22 Was this the result of some medical advance-the widespread use of quinine to control malaria, for example-- or were the native-born more resistant to local diseases than immigrants? If the preferred estimates are followed, a comparison of the native and.immigrant life tables indicates about three years longer life for natives than for immigrants up to age forty, although the difference declined in the older age cohorts. When deaths due to seasoning are con- sidered, the gap between immigrant and native life expectancies is lengthened. If, for example, ten percent of the new arrivals died with- in a year of moving to the province, the difference in expectation of life between natives and immigrants in their early twenties would nearly double. Professor Philip Curtin, in a recent discussion of epidemiology and the slave trade, advanced an argument that is helpful in interpret- ing this difference in expectation of life between immigrant and native- born men in Maryland. Immigration almost invariably results in higher rates of’morbidity and.mortality for the migrant. Disease environments exhibit a wide range of local variations throughout the world; immunities acquired in one place often offer little protection in another. "Child- hood disease environment," Curtin writes, "is the crucial factor in determining the immunities of a given adult population. Not only will the weakest members of a society be removed, leaving a more resistant ‘population of survivors; childhood and infancy are also a period of life 'when many infections are relatively benign." As a rule, Professor Curtin concludes, "the individual will be safest if he stays in the disease 22John Duffy, yidemics in Colonial America (Baton Rouge, La.: Louisiana State University Press, 1953), pp. 237-57. 37 environment of his childhood; if he migrates, a fully effective set of immities to match a new disease environment could not be expected to appear in his generation."23 This suggests that the slight improvement in native-born expectation of life is largely the result of immunities to Chesapeake diseases that the men born in Charles County acquired as children. Additional explanations may be necessary for continued improve- ments in life expectancy. In the families studied, second generation natives lived longer than the children of immigrants , although not dra- matically longer. The mean age at death for 88 men identified as first generation sons (using all participants according to the "preferred estimate" described above) was h5.h years, while for the hl identified as second generation it was 19.0 years. The numbers are too small to permit a generalization to all second generation sons, but we know by the mid-eighteenth century expectation of life was much higher still.“ Life expectancy apparently improved for the men born shortly after those in this study. What happened and why are questions worth investigating. The Charles County data proved inadequate for a direct measure of female mortality. Indirect evidence suggests that women may have lived longer than men. 0f hll seventeenth century marriages among whites in the county, 221 wives outlived their husbands , while only 11h husbands sur- vived their wives. In 2? marriages both partners died at about the same time; in 149 it was unclear which partner survived. Although the results exaggerate the relative longevity of women because women were several ”Philip D. Curtin, "Epidemiology and the Slave Trade," Political Science'm 83 (1968): 196-97. 2"This statement is based on unpublished research of Paul G. E. Clemens of Rutgers University and on Allan Kulikoff, "Tobacco and Slaves: Population, Economy and Society in Eighteenth-Century Prince George's County, Maryland," (Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University, 1976), ch. 3. 38 years younger than men at first marriage and because a second wife with the same name as the first would be counted as a surviving first wife, it still seemed clear that women outlived men. However, Darrett and Anita Rutman have recently presented a life table for women born in seventeenth century Middlesex County, Virginia which reports that men outlived women by almost nine years. A measure of female longevity based on Somerset County, Maryland data also gives native men an advantage-albeit six years less. Russell Menard had advanced an explanation which may resolve this apparent conflict between the direct and indirect evidence. The indirect measure includes both immigrant and creole women, while the life table reflects only the experience of the native born. The experience of these two groups may in fact have been different. Women, it appears, are particularly vulnerable to malaria during pregnancy. However, because immigrant women married late, they avoided exposure to the hazards of childbirth for a good portion of their reproductive lives. Conversely, native women married young and were thus exposed to the hazards of death in childbirth much earlier and for a longer period of time. Hence, although native men lived longer than immigrant men, because of their different life experiences, native women may have died somewhat earlier than their immigrant mothers.25 The Charles County data could not produce a direct measure of infant and childhood mortality either. However, rough estimates were calculated by combining information from the birth register with model life tables. The results underline the fragility of life in the Chesa- peake for the young as well as for the adults. One-quarter or more of 25Darrett and Anita Rutman, "'Now-Wives and Sons-in-Law'"; Menard, "Inmigrants and Their Increase." 39 babies born in Charles County must haye died before their first birth— day, and.between thirty-nine and fifty—five percent of the children born did not survive to age twenty.26 Why was life so short in seventeenth and early eighteenth century Maryland? The answers are not easy to arrive at. People described diseases that left them.chronically ill or that they had recently survived, but they seldom left accounts of an immediate cause of death precise enough to permit diagnosis. Even when accounts of ill- ness survive, they are often too vague to be helpful. In order to put what literary evidence remains in a firmer context, the first step in investigating the causes of early death is to examine the pattern in which deaths occurred. Deaths in seventeenth century Charles County were concentrated in four "crisis" periods, 1662, 1675-77, 1685-86, and 1698. (See figure 5.)27 Colonial records are most uninformative about the nature of these crises. No descriptions were found of the mortality of 1662. On February h, 1675/6 two St. Mary's County residents requested that they not have to travel to St. Mary's City to prove a will, "the life of man ‘being ever in danger and.more especially now, in these Infectious times . . ."23 Many absences due to illness were recorded in the pro- ceedings of the prdbate court in 1677, and all victims reported "great 26The procedure used is explained in welsh and Menard, "Death in the Chesapeake." 27Analysis of death patterns for Charles, Calvert, St. Mary's and Prince George's Counties shows that these were crisis years throughout southern Maryland. "Social Stratification in Maryland." 28Testamentary'Proceedings 7: 226. ho 22-3: .59» fin. 2.23 m 23: oo . . 2 3.: an... no a. .e he“: 0.... no... . can. 2.! 0...! ma. . _ In. I9. I“. 8 Ion It.“ i -. Ina. 0: salt as» u wagon - an Ice I... 1:1 sickness and much weakness," and "long and grievous sickness."29 The Reverend John Clayton left an account of the sickness of 1686 as it manifested itself in Virginia: sore throats were very frequent 8: seemed infectious, running generally through whole familys, 8: unless early prevented became a cancerous humor, 8: had effects like the French Pox. Likewise Pains in the Limbs . . . are very exquisite.30 William Byrd noted an outbreak of smallpox during the same time, which he thought some slaves from Gambia.had brought to the Chesapeake.31 A few more clues remain of the death crisis of 1698. In March of that year the assembly received a letter from an Anglican minister complaining: that the Popish Priests in Charles County do of their own Accord in this violent 8| raging mortality in that County make itt their business to goe up and [sic] the County to p[er]sons houses when dying 8: frantick and endeavour to seduce and mike prosellites of them 8: in such Condition boldly presume to administer the Sacrament to them.32 Many people flocked to the Cold Spring in upper St. Mary's County which was believed to have curative properties. The governor instructed that someone be employed to read prayers at the Spring. In June the reader, John Davies, submitted a report of the cures which had been performed since he took up his duties, as did in July the Justice who had employed him. Unfortunately these reports tell us nothing about the contagion. Persons from St. Mary's, Charles, Calvert, Baltimore, Somerset, Kent, and Talbot Counties, Maryland, and Stafford and Accomack Cmmties, Virginia, 29Ibid., 9: 312-hoo. 30The Reverend John Clafion, pp. 25-26. 31Byrd to Sadlier and Thomas, Oct- 8, 1686; Byrd to Perry and Lane,uliov. 10, 1686, Virginia M, azine 9; History a_n_d Biography 25 (1917): 133-3 . 32M§£yland Archives 22: 22. ’42 maintained that they had been cured of a variety of maladies, but these were problems of a chronic and not an acute nature--yaws, ulcerated sores, lameness, deafness, blindness, and the itch, for example.33 The Cold Spring apparently did not aid those who were suffering from the epidemic. The Testamentary Proceedings provide some terse descriptions of symptoms of the infection. On August It, 1697 John Elsey of Calvert County suffered from "much sickness. . . . I am very ill and not able to ride soe farr." Kenelm Cheseldyne of St. Mary's County on January 1, 1697/8, had "a great Strelling in my Leggs," and William Husband reported from the same place on February 26, "haveing lately lost 2w Negro 8: three more of aw ffamilly being verry ill my wife 8: two more." Joseph Tilly of Anne Arundel County, a witness to the will of Gabriel Parrott, Jr. , and to that "of Elizabeth his now sick wife or widdow and alsoe to the last will . . . of Francis Price . . . am now so ill and full of Payne in w Limbs that I Cannot Ride or Goo on foote Three miles on perill of Death." John Pitt of Choptank wrote on May 10 that he had "been Extra- ordinary sike sac that I could not goo over [the Bay] if I might have had al the world."3" A chirurgeon, Robert Jones, submitted a report to the Provincial Court on July 23, 1698: concerning the Distemper that Mr. Henry Denton late Clerk of his Ma[Jes]tys honoble Councill here Died of is as followeth-- I was sent for to Mr Denton who had been sick nine days before I was sent for to him, and he kept his bed three days of the same before I came to him . . . I found him extream ill of a malignant fever and he had a very Low pulse and his urin[e] as in time] of health which I have allst observed to be a true Sintum of a malignant fever. . . . But all my care Skill and Endeavour did prove Ineffectuall for the violence of his 33Provincial Court Deeds, MS, WRC#1, ff. 833-3h, 877-73- 3"Testamentary Proceedings 17: 10, ll, 59, 65, 137, 138. h3 Distemper did gain Upon him more 8: more Evexg Day . . . till his Days was Ended by this malignant fever. Governor Nicholson informed the Board of Trade in August 1698 that "by a rough computacan" he Judged "betwixt 800 a 1000 persons" had died of the epidemic in Maryland. 35 On the basis of this evidence it is most probable that the 1675- 77 and the 1698 crises were the result of influenza epidemics. In no cases are symptoms peculiar to diphtheria or yellow fever mentioned, so these diseases can probably be ruled out from negative evidence. In addition, the timing indicates influenza. John Duffy discovered an influenza epidemic in Western Europe in 1675 and he believes it spread to the colonies. He locates another in New England between November 1697 and February 1698, and again in the winter of 1699, precisely the months of heaviest mortality in southern Maryland. 37 The nature of the epidemic of 1685-86 is more problematic. It may also have been influenza (Duffy suggests another outbreak in the late 1680s), but the evidence is less clear than that for the other two crises. In addition, smallpox may have also been at least partly responsible for the unusual number of deaths. By examining the seasonal pattern of deaths, we can also learn sanething of their causes. Figure 6 is based on 170 individuals who died between 1658 and 1705 for whom the season in which death occurred could be determined. (For example, if a man made a will on May 15, and it was proved on July 6, his death can be narrowed to a 52 day period.) Deaths decreased in the spring, reached a low in June, rose through the fall, and peaked in December, January, and February. Probably some of 35Provincial Court Deeds, WRC#1, r. 816. “Mland Archives 23: 1:98. 37Duffy, Epidanics in Colonial America, pp. 1814-88. 14h smcmmuw A, mama bah-w”- tune: , 3 .. won‘- a. ? mah- o— ‘— 0W- nwaz a SEASONAL Pmenus as DEATHS 1:5 the deaths in August-October were caused by malaria; new servants and babies seem to have been especially vulnerable during this period. "When the weather breaks [in September] ," John Clayton noted, "many fall sick, this being the time of an Endemical Sickness, for Seasonings, Cachexes, Fluxes, Scorbutical Dr0psies, Gripes or the like . . ."38 The best explanation of the heavy winter and early spring deaths seems to be that people were so weakened by chronic ailments such as malaria, dysentery, dietary deficiencies, and venereal diseases that when also exposed to cold and dampness, they succumbed to respiratory diseases.39 .Aside from the extraordinarily "Infectious times" of 1675-77, .1685-86, and 1698, the most serious health problems mentioned in the records were continual and intermittent fevers and agues, "bloody flux" or "gripes of the guts," smallpox, and.measles. Apparently neither smallpox nor measles were maJor threats to many lives in southern Mary- land in the seventeenth century. A low incidence of smallpox was very likely given the large proportion of immigrants in the population. Mbst residents had already survived or develOped immunity to the disease in Europe."0 38The Reverend John Clgflon, pp. 1:5, 5h. ”Duffy, yidemics _i_n_ Colonial America, pp. lBh-Bs, 200. On the seasonality of malaria, see Peter H. Wood, Black Majority: Ne roes _i_..r_1_ Colonial South Carolina from 1610 throggh 3y; Stono Rebellion iNew York: Alfred A. Knapf, 1971;}, ch. 3. “Charles County Court, 131/2, 1?. 130. Provincial Court Deeds, WRCIl, ff. 833-314, 877-78; Testamentary Proceedings 150: 16-17. One reference each to smallpox and measles were found, while malaria and dysentery appeared much more frequently. Apparently few native children were exposed to smallpox in the colony, since it was greatly feared abroad. Hugh Jones observed about 1720 that more boys from the Chesapeake would be sent to England for schooling, "were they not afraid of the small- pox, which most comonly proves fatal to them." ‘_l'_h_g Present State 9_f_ Virginia From Whence _i_s_ Inferred _A_ Short View 9_f_ Maryland and North Carolina, ed. with Introduction by Richard L. Morton (London, 1723; Chapel HillJ: University of North Carolina Press for the Virginia Historical Society, 1956), p. 82. .‘ll‘ 146 Malaria, however, apparently approached pandemic proportions among ' wrote a correspondent of the Royal Society, immigrants. "Most newcomers,‘ "have a severe fever and ague, which they call the seasoning and most part have it the first year.""1 John Roads, an indentured servant, bore out this observation; he was still ill six months after his arrival, having "had a fever and ague ever since they had been out of the first weeks.""2 The Sat-Weed Factor offers a graphic account of the new immigrant's suf- faring: With Cockerouse [a substantial planter] as I was sitting, I felt a Feaver Intermitting; A fiery Pulse beat in my Veins, From Cold I felt resembling Pains: This cursed seasoning I remember, Lasted from March to cold December."3 John Duffy has called malaria "a maJor hurdle in the development of the American colonies" because not only did it kill recent immigrants, but it also left many of the survivors in chronic poor health, easy vic- tims of other infections.“ Immigrants most susceptible to the disease probably constituted a maJor proportion of those dying "in their season- ing." Furthermore, survivors of an initial attack suffered recurrent bouts. One merchant upon his return to England from the colony, reported that he had been visited with a recurrence of "Maryland fever." Hugh “Stanley Pargellis, ed., "An Account of the Indians in Virginia," 1143 16 (1959): 233. "M Archives 10: 216. "3p. 17. See also, The Reverend John Clayton, p. 26; Beverley, Present State 2; Virginia, p. 306; William Fitzhugh to Henry Fitzhugh, July 18, 68 , in William Fitzhggh and His Chesapeake World, 1676-1701, Richard Beale Davis, ed. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press for the Virginia Historical Society, 1963), p. 229; Jones, The Present State 93 Virginia, p. 8h; Mland Archives 1&1: 1:78-80. “Duffy, Epidemics _i_n_ Colonial America, p. 211:. 1:7 Jones graphically described the fate of malaria victims who remained in the Chesapeake: the distemper . . . reduced them to an irrecoverable, lingering ill habit of body; especially if they live meanly, . . . and . . . generally ends their lives with a dropsy, consumption, the Jaundice, or some such illness."5 Philip Curtin and John Duffy consider intestional diseases, especially dysentery, the second greatest cause of imigrant deaths in the southern colonies."6 Dysentery was clearly a serious problem in Maryland. Charles James of Cecil County wrote in September 1682 that he could not come to St. Mary's City to account for an estate because: the almighty hand visited me with a very great 8: Unexpected fitt of the Grypes of the Gutts, a distemper too well known in this Province, which hath brought me to that Extremity of weakness that God knows when or how soon I may be able to undertake soc great a voyage.” A Charles County planter wrote to his physician: Mr Meekes I woold desir you to Cume to mee with all speed as possibly you Can for I am very dangerously sicke of a violent Vometing and a loosnes and bring meanes along with you I pray fayle mee not of your Coming speedily or els it will bee to 1aet I Rest your louing frind from my hows March the 29th 1663 Humphrey Haggat I was taken with this loosnes a friday last and I haue a stool every quarter of an hower. Dr. Meekes related that he was "sent for by Mr humphery haggot being sick of a bloodie flux 8: did cum to him April the second day," at which time ”Provincial Court Deeds, when, ff. 30-31: Jones, _T_h_e_ Present State 2; Virginia, pp. 8h-85. “Duffy, Epidanics in Colonial America, p. 215; Curtin, "Epide- miology of the Slave Trade ,"_p. 200. ”Testamentary Proceedings 1213: 259-60. 1:8 Meekes administered two "restringent Portions" and one "suppositer at night to Cause Rest." On April 3, ll, and 5 Meekes prepared "cordial potions," "restringent and cordiall boloses and glisters," "subpositers to Cause Heat," a "parcell of oyntment for his hips," and a "parcell of Cardamins and sum lef to bee used in his drincke." These medications were to no avail, and Haggat died within the week."8 In November 1688 Samuel Ashcom of Calvert County told Henry Jowles that he was troubled with "the griping of the Gutts." Jowles: told him he must take physick, . . . [and offered to] take physick with him. . . . Samuel made answer that he had such urgent business at Point Patience he could not then stay to doe it, but when he came up againe he would come to . . . [Jowles] house 8: take physick. Richard Gardiner related that as Ashcom was going down to Point Patience, he called at Gardiner's house, "8: desired him to lett him have a pint of Rum for he was not well, 8: was in earnest business to goe downe 8: lett out a Sloop." Ashcomb was unable to take a cure with Henry Jowles, for he died of dysentery at Point Patience."9 While the miseries of dysentery were probably most common, others fell victim to the "dry gripes," or the "wind gout," an often fatal form of lead poisoning brought on by the consumption of rum which had been distilled in lead pipes. Although Hugh Jones mistakenly identified the climate as the cause of the ailment, he did observe that the most frequent victims were "hard drinkers of rum."50 “egg-llama Archives 53: 1:26. Cf. ibid., 10: 97. 1:66; 1:5: 51:5. ”Testamentary Proceedings 12B: 259-60. ”LheMfleEei Vir inia. p. 85; ThemaiahAM: p. A: "An Account of the Indians in Virginia," p. 233. 149 Deaths and injuries from accidents were also common, particularly among men. A tree falling in the wrong direction could result in a broken back or in death. Others died from falling off or being kicked by horses. Drowning was a common hazard in a region heavily dependent on water transport, and winter voyages on Chesapeake Bay were considered particularly dangerous. In addition, quarrels frequently erupted into physical violence. Both men and women engaged in hitting, kicking, clubbing, stabbing, and shooting, resulting in numerous injuries, many of than minor, others disabling, and some fatal. Skirmishes with the Indians claimed some additional lives. Finally, others ended their days in Mary- land by suicide.51 Much fuller evidence remains about ailments which caused chronic misery, but not necessarily death. Lameness was the most frequently men- tioned complaint. Whether induced by accidental injuries, deliberate beatings, unhealed abscesses, rheumatism, or other causes, lameness had the same result—the victim was unable to get a living by his own labor and might be forced to seek maintenance from the county. Chronic pain in the back, side, shoulders, and arms belong to the same class of dif- ficulties. Unhealed wounds of all kinds were common. The Reverend John Clayton observed that "upon an ill habit of body, the least scratch is dangerous, 8: . . . it often turns into a very desperate ulcerous sore."~‘32 Rehobeth Barnfeather had such a problem, "being greviously afflicted [in 1700] with an old and ulcerous tumour in his thigh," which a doctor had been unable to cure since 1696.53 John Wall, a Charles County laborer, 51Testamentary Proceedings 12B: 39, 76, 106, 115; 7: 159; 13: 375-77; 9: 1:20. 52The Reverend John Clgflon, p. 37. 53Charles County Court, X#l, f. 3111. V. 50 provides an even more graphic example. Initially he suffered from.a sore leg, but: by hard usage and long and habituall bad habitts ye s[ai]d John hath contracted such gross and foule humors in his body than when ye sores are healed up they breake out again in a smallsktime, so that it was a burden to keep him from stink- ing. Blindness and deafness were less frequently mentioned-few people lived long enough to contract these ailments. Children and servants suf- fered particularly from.skin diseases--"scaled head" and "the itch"--and both occasionally developed scurvy. women complained of sore breasts and.menstrual difficulties. Both sexes were sometimes also victims of lunacy.55 One fairly common and puzzling affliction is "the yaws." Yaws is a contagious skin disease clinically similar to syphilis, spread by contact with an infected person or his clothing or by flies. It causes :multiple cauliflower eruptions of the skin, especially around the mouth, nose, and anus and on the neck, buttocks, arms and legs; and later, in the worst cases, can develop into bone lesions and can destroy or deform the nose, lips, hands, and feet. In the west Indies yaws was brought over with the African slaves, "and was a common affliction among the slaves of the English islands."56 I have found no reference to yaws in 5"Ibid., Sil, ff. 118, 188. 551bid., A#1, ff. 5h-55. 8h, 85, 93, lhs-h6, 157; B#l, ff. 5h, 188, l92-9h, 216; Oil, r. h9; D#1, r. 116; E#l, ff. 93. 180; H#l, ff. 38- 39; Ifl, ff. h7-h8, SO; K#l, f. 357; R#l, ff. 28, 166, A19, h30; S#l, ff. 105, 18h; v#l, ff. 15h, 205; x#l, ff. hl, A9, 52, 352, 375; Y#1, ff. 36, 130, 313; 2’1, ff. 60-61; A52, ff. 133, 166, 200, 21k, 273; B#2, ff. 128, 173; Inventories and Accounts, M88 5: 332; Provincial Court Deeds, WRC#1, fit 833-8h, 877-78; Testamentary Proceedings 10: 317-20; 11: 295-97; 1 A: . 56Richard S. Dunn, Sggar and Slaves, The Rise 9£_the Planter Class Egm H2932. Indies, l 2 -1:[13, Institute of Early American History andthflture Series (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1972), pp. 302-050 51 blacks in Maryland, but there are references to the disease in whites and in Indiana. Most of these occur after the late 1680s, thus coinciding with the first maJor importation of slaves, and suggesting that the disease may have originated with them. Most of the people afflicted were ex-servants and poor orphans, people who might well have lived in close contact with blacks, and who were also most likely to have neglected sanitation. Specific references to yaws include the following: 1691 George Darby, a laborer of Charles County, had yaws. 1700 Elizabeth Scroggin, a poor Charles County orphan, was "in a languishing condition, verry farr gone with the distemper called the yaws." 1705 Barbarie Barker, a single pauper, was old and afflicted by yaws. 1708 Th: Bot-Weed Factor quotes an apothecary as saying: Upon by Life we'll win the Cause, With all the ease I cure the Yaws. And in a footnote the author of the poem states for the benefit of British readers, "The Yaws is the Pox."57 The following claimed to be cured of yaws after bathing in and drinking the water of the Cold Spring in St. Mary's County: Jane Miles of Baltimore County who had the yaws. Graves Garret and his wife of Somerset County who both had yaws. A child of Sanlel Williamson of St. Mary's County who had the yaws in both his nose and eye. 57Charles County Court, Rll, ff. 319-22; Y#l, ff. 3h, 39; B#2, f. 56; Cook, The Sot-‘Weed Factor, p. 19. 52 A Mr. Wilkinson of Talbot County who had yaws . (He is probably the only victim who was not poor.) Abraham Homissland's wife of St. Mary's County, "being a most miserable Spectacle to behould last fall was Cured in Three months of ye yaws." John Linton of Stafford County, Virginia, who had yaws and the itch. John Garrett of Somerset County, "having ye Yaws Two yeares was Cured in a fortnight's time Last March when all ye Doctors he tryed Could doo him noo Good." A visitor to the springs, however, conmented that many patients who appeared to be cured, later suffered relapses of the disease, and that sores reopened or erupted in other places.58 Yaws midlt also account for the following case in which the diesase was undiagnosed. In 1681 Elizabeth Brasitt, an ex-servant, was "afflicted with a sadd deplorable disease, that doth breake forth in her face, soo that y[ou]r petitioner is rendered uncapable of getting a lively hood, for that by reason of ye same few or noo people will entertain her in their houses."59 Whether these symptoms are evidence of an outbreak of yaws in the Chesapeake is problematic: One of the main problems . . . lies in diagnosis. The note in The Bot-Weed m ("The yaws is the pox.") underscores the confusion which contemporaries had between diseases which raised similar sores on the body-~smallpox, syphilis and yaws. Even when the differences were obvious , the nomenclature remained vague. 6° 58Provincial Court Deeds, WRC#1, ff. 833-3h, 877-78. 59Charles County Court, Ifll, f. 59. 5°Peter H. wood to Lorena s. Walsh, New York, 22 March 1973. 53 Smallpox did occasionally occur in the county.61 Syphilis, "El-i mg Tm," or "the French pox," was certainly also present, and was an ill-understood disease "held by all phisitians accompted incurable."62 One thing which was not a cause of death was insufficient food. There is absolutely no evidence of any shortage of food at any time in seventeenth century Maryland. For example, despite extremely heavy mrtality among livestock in the severe winter of 169h/95, when 2,1198 cattle and 11,260 hogs died in Charles County alone,63 there is no evidence that even then people lacked food. Nor is there any reason to believe that there was a link between this event and the death crisis of 1698. The Chesapeake environment was clearly unhealthy, but food was much too easily gathered or grown for there to be any crises of subsistence. When malnutrition occurred it resulted from ignorance, not from a scarcity of food.“ It is clear from the extremely low life expectancy that medical knowledge and practice was ineffectual in combatting the diseases which decimated the colonists. Although some of the men who pursued medicine had benefitted from what formal training was then available, the profes- sional healer was able to do little more for his patients than was the amateur . 61Charles County Court, B#2, f. 130. “England Archives 70: 1:13-15; "An Account of the Indians in Virginia," p. 233; Charles County Court, M1, f. 1148. G3Eyland ArChives 20: 191-92, 270-71. Karinen's suggestion that there may have been a subsistence crisis results partly from incorrect estimates of population for the period 1690-1700. He offers no evidence to support this explanation other than his p0pulation estimates. "Mary- land Population," ch. '4. 6"On the contrary, travelers remarked on the abundance and easy availability of food in the region. "Narrative of a Voyage to Maryland, 1705-06," Anerican Historical Review 12 (1907): 327-141; Cook, The Sot-Weed Factor, pp. 5- 5h The forty-one chirurgions and apothecaries who practiced in Charles County between 1658 and 1705 came from a wide variety of back- grounds, and boasted various degrees of training. Richard Helms (practicing in the county in 1662) was London trained, as was George Eyres (1700-03) , a well-to-do practitioner with an apprentice and a sizeable p1antation.55 Dr. William.Hall (1691-97) of Chichester, Sussex, the second son of William Hall, glazier, had had at least enough educa- tion to enable him to read books on chirurgery,66 as had Charles Gregory (1676),67 Nicholas Solsby (1672-7h),68 John Cornish (1675-97)69 and Joseph Venour (1701:.06), a. nephew of Dame Abigail Harrington.70 John Meeks (1662-6h) had practiced in London before going to Barbados. He removed to Maryland in 1662 with his apprentice, John Helm, and began doctoring there, as well as setting up a store near the Charles County court house where he sold cloth and finished clothing, as well as rum and sugar which he had brought with him from Barbados. In 1661: he left the colonies and returned to a more certain and settled practice in England, ending up in Ratcliffe, Middlesex, from whence he finally decided in 1691 to sell his landholdings in Charles County.71 Dr. John Lomaire 6"Charles County Court, M1, f. 190; Ylll, ff. 19h, 361:. See also George B. Scriven, "Maryland Medicine in the Seventeenth Century," MHM 57 (1962): 29-h6. 66Wills, MS, 7: 261; Inventories and Accounts 15: 166. 67Inventories and Accounts 8: 3611-65. 68Ibid., 1: 58-59. 69Ibid., 15: 233. 7°Ibid., 32B: 188; Wills 12: 188. "MAI-£93135 53: 1:00: Provincial Court Deeds, WRC#l, ff. S6h-65. 55 (167L88), a native of AnJou, France, had had some formal education,72 as had Bartholemew Pigott (1685) , also possibly of French extraction.73 Other men were less trained or less persistent practitioners. John Lumbrozo (1660-66) was a highly literate black Jew from Lisbon who occasionally did some doctoring (including illegal abortions), as well as planting and trading. How he obtained his education or medical skills cannot be determined.” Edward Maddock (1672-810 initially set himself up as an apothecary, and began doctoring soon after; medicine seems to have been only a sideline, however, as he engaged primarily in land specu- lation.75 George Hodgson (1680-8h) began as an apprentice to Dr. John Peerce of Calvert County. Peerce was perhaps one of the best—equipped doctors in the province, having a stock of 21:3 kinds of powders, oils, spirits, ointments, pills, syrups, and roots, 6 cases of instrtunents, and 11: "Large and small Bookes of Physick 8n Chyrurgery" at his death in 1679. Peerce bequeathed all this equipment to Hodgson, and it was prob- ably with this stock that Hodgson set up as an apothecary and chirurgeon in Charles County. He branched more and more into merchandising, how- ever, eventually making his income primarily through the sale of dry goods and by lending money.76 John Meredith (1671) began doctoring while still 72Myagyland Archives 60: xxxiv. 73Inventories and Accounts 8: 36h-65. 7355;“ land Archives 53: xxii-xxiii, l-li, 387-91. 75Charles County Court, EI/l, ff. 7’4-75, 157; F#1, ff. 95, 12h, 178-79. 180-81, 200; Hll, rt. 59, 132-33; IIIl, tr. 125-26, 18h-85; L#l, ff. 1180-112. ”Wills 10: 15; Inventories and Accounts 6: 1:02-16; Charles County Court, U1, f. 355. '- e.,. ,3... .10. i 1:: 1': .‘y‘ 56 a servant, and was probably entirely self-trained.77 John Brasher (1690-1705) entered chirurgery by a different route. Between 1677 and about 1690 Brasher was a farrier, caring for livestock and specializing in blooding, drenching, dousing, and healing wounds of horses. By 1690 he branched into two additional trades, blacksmithing and doctoring. Brasher's years of experience with livestock was perhaps at least as use- ful as the medical training of the times. He appears to have had particu- lar success in setting broken bones, healing wounds, and in relieving lameness and back pains.78 What training, if any, the other county practitioners had has not been determined. The treatments administered by all physicians consisted largely of herbal remedies, bleeding, and purging.79 No Charles County practi- tioners were so well supplied as John Peerce. Charles Gregory's medical equipment consisted of: l parcell of old Phisick bookes 2 pr of scales and brass weights 1 old pocket casle] with instruments 1 pewter cyringe l parcell of Instruments 2 lancets a parcell of dry herbes and rootes severall parcells of medicines.80 Bartholemew Pigott had equipment similar to Gregory's with the addition of "a parcell of Dismember Instruments," as did Nicholas Solsby, who also owned The M phistian and manuell 93 the anatoy 93 man. William 77Charles County Court, Ell, f. 39. 7'3Ibid. , on through M2. 79Ibid., Ml, r. 190;.Ma_lryland Archives 53: 1:26; 60: 21:6, 367, 391:. 80Inventories and Accounts 2: 353-59. (‘5 R P“b‘a‘ "' ‘by‘ I I. O ‘ . I ,- !' n- a 57 Hall had.on1y "a parcell of ould Docttors Instruments Sum.brooke and Sum whole."81 In addition to those men who deemed themselves chirurgeons and apothecaries, a number of planters and their wives gained local reputa- tions in the practice of folk medicine. They prepared potions and oint- ments, and often took the sick into their homes in order to cure them for a fee. The herbal remedies, rest, and good diet administered by these unlettered.healers were probably more beneficial to the sick than the bleeding, purges, and vomits administered.by more educatedpractitioners.82 In 1662 Elizabeth Cherman successfully cured George Bradshaw's ailing man servant. She and her husband presented the following bill: for a qt 8- 1/2 a pint of cordiall sirrups lb. tob. 01:0 for 5 poultry at 8 lb. a poultry 0’40 for too pound and a half of sugar 010 for four bottles of diat drinke 030 for too Cordialls 020 for too pills 020 for the troobel of the hows for eight days 910 The totall sum is 210 33 The protagonist of The Sot-Weed Factor related that he had suffered from malaria frcm March to December: Nor would it then its Quarters shift, Until by Cardus [an herbal remedy] turn'd adrift, And had nw Doctress wanted skill, Or Kitchin Physick at her will, My Father's Son had lost his Lands, And never seen the Goodwin-Sands: But thanks to Fortune and a Nurse Whose Care depended on ny Purse, I saw nwself in good Condition, Without the help of a Physitian. 8" 81Ibid., 8: 36h-65; 1: 58-59; 15: 166. John Cornish's equipment was as meager as Hall's. 'Ibid., 15: 233. 62The Reverend (JOhn Clgfion, pp. 116-117. as?” land Archives 53: 190. See also Charles County Court, A#l, ff. 37—38, 5, 92-93, 100, 11:5, 15h-56, 158; H#l, ff. 38-39: 8:71, ff. 297-98; M2, f. 66. 8"Cook, The Sot-Weed Factor, pp. 17-18. 58 There was community concensus that everyone, rich or poor, free or servant, should have access to such medical care as was available. If a person could afford to pay, he was required to do so; if he died, the first bill to be paid out of his estate was the doctor's. The chief Judge of probate elaborated this in 1680, when he ruled that an adminis- tratrix ought to have paid the chirurgion who administered in her husband's last sickness: before any other debts in her acc[oun]t . . . being by ye Customs of this Countrey debts of ye first Ranke since no Doctr. will give medicines to ye sicke in this Country where there is no mony to pay Ready downe for Doctr. fees unless ye doctr. acct. shall in the first place be payd.85 When a person was sick and could not afford medical care it was common, especially in the early years, for him to bind himself to serve a physician for one or two years in return for a cure. If the physician neglected the patient, or could not effect a cure within a reasonable time, the patient could be freed by the county court.86 The court played an increasingly active role in ensuring that all county inhabitants received medical care. Masters who refused to pay for needed attention for their servants were ordered to do so, or to free than at once.” The medical bills of the indigent were sometimes paid for by the county. For example, the court ordered Elizabeth Agramba who was caring for Benjamin William, an orphan, that she "doe agree as reasonably as shee can with some Doctor for ye Cure of Bend amin asTestamentary Proceedings 12A: 77-78. 86Charles County Court, Xil, r. 3hl; Ill, r. 59: R#1, ff. 319-22; Ill, :66; 381, r. 319: Dill, r. 116; Ml, r. 357: z#1, ff. 60-61; an, r. 18 O - °7Ibid., M1, r. 210, G#l, r. 119; Hill, rr. 319-22, 1:19; W1, r. 310.. 59 William's hand," which the county would then pay for. In 1693 it was "ordered that MaJor James Smallwood one of ye Justices of this Court make an agreanent with Dr. William Hall as cheape 8: reasonable as hee can pos- sible for ye Cutting [amputation] of ye sd John Walls legg 8: to looke after ye same" at county expense.88 Marriage and Famig Before exploring available data on marriage and the family in Charles County, a digression on sources and methods is in order. The life table represents one attempt to explore the demography of colonial Maryland. The data on the numbers and seasonal patterns of death, and that which fol- lows on marriages, births, and family size was collected by a modified form of family reconstitution. There was no system of church registration of vital statistics before 1696. In 1658 the county clerks were ordered to perform this function; registration was far from complete, however, and penalties for failure to register births, deaths, and marriages were apparently never enforced. Civil registers remain only for Charles , Kent , Talbot, and Somerset Counties. After the Anglican Church was established in 1695 the parish clerks were given responsibility for keeping vital registers , but unfortunately none have survived for the seventeenth cen- tury. The births recorded in the Charles County Court and Land Records number only 391:, while there are fewer than two dozen marriages and deaths combined. Therefore vital information was collected wherever it could be found. Deaths, for example, were determined from the proof of wills, filing of inventories, taking out of administration bonds, orphan court 88Ibid., Ill, r. 29k, and S#1, r. 118. See also H#l, r. 237; V#1, ff. 215. 310;.1091, r. 191; Ill, ff. 3h, 39. 6O proceedings, appropriations for burials of paupers, suits involving estates, and chance references. Evidence of marriages were found in mar- riage contracts, suits, depositions, deeds, wills, and administration accounts. Births were determined from deeds of gift, registration of livestock marks, wills, orphan court proceedings, administration accounts, and bastardy cases. These references were then combined with the material from the register and linked to reconstitute families. For annual totals of recorded births and marriages see figure 7. Obviously, the resulting data are much less precise than those obtained from good parish registers. In the majority of cases dates of vital events could not be determined precisely, but within the range of one year. For each calculation, a level of minimally acceptable accuracy had to be determined, and the data scrutinized in order to eliminate entries below the acceptable level. The rules of family reconstitution provided valuable guidelines for data selection, but could not always be followed literally; rather, entries were accepted or rejected on the basis of standards derived from the most precise data which could be obtained from the sources available. Under-recording of vital events is a serious problem. The informa- tion on marriage is the fullest, with the rate per thousand well above an acceptable minimum until after 1696. (See appendix A, table Ah.) Births are the most seriously under-recorded, as many families did not register any of their children, and those who did recorded only those children who survived early infancy. After 1695 almost all birth registrations were made in the now lost parish records. It is very difficult to estimate the extent of under-recording beCause there are few examples of societies with a naturally declining population with which to compare this data. The 61 82.82 Susan :58 Mme-so a as: at «855:2 92 art—a a. was: .3 as J 2 9.: 2a. 3.2 a... no... or... an a. so... no.9 sea. 0 ‘ o. " O Ian can ‘b: l acceded! :2: :3 «Int: oestrus-cud use .33..» 8a.: sausage so. Nd‘ .\ ”h ,1 .:\ 62 births registered were probably between thirty and forty percent of those which actually took place.89 Data on deaths was drawn primarily from probate records, a source which usually yields information only about adult males. The deaths of most free adult men probably were recorded.90 On the other hand, infant and child deaths almost never appear in any records. The deaths of women are only infrequently mentioned, as most women were married, and married women did not own property to put through probate. Birth and death were of course universal experiences; marrying and having children, however, were experiences which all seventeenth cen- tury colonists did not share. A few of the early settlers immigrated from England or Virginia in family groups. About three-quarters of those who ventured their lives in southern Maryland between the 16508 and 1690s , however, came to the Chesapeake as servants, and married in Maryland after the completion of their terms. Because male immigrants outnumbered fanale by as much as three to one, marriage was not one of the things the New World offered to every man.91 Over one-quarter of the men who left 89A rough estimate of probable births can be calculated by multi— plying the total population estimates in Appendix A, table 1 by a range of birth rates. The minimum estimate uses a rate of 30 per thousand. At this level between 1677 when the register begins in earnest and 1695 when it tapers off, roughly 958 births would have occurred. Were the birth rate as high as 165 per thousand, a reasonable estimate for the county in the early eigiteenth century, approximately 1,1430 births would have taken place between 1677 and 1695. The 3914 births actually registered are hl.l percent of the minimum estimate and 27.6 percent of the maximum. 90Russell R. Menard, P.M.G. Harris, and Lois Creen Carr, "Opportunity and Inequality: The Distributim of Wealth on the Lower Western Shore of Maryland, 1638-1705," MHM S9 (1971:): 17h-77. 91Menard, "Population Growth." The high ratio of men to women is further illustrated by Menard's work on immigrant lists. See Appendix A, table A5 . 63 inventories in southern Maryland between 1658 and 1705 died bachelors.92 Men who did marry had to wait until their late twenties or early thirties. those who came as servants were of course not free to marry until their terms were up, and several more years might then be required to accumulate enough capital to set up a household. Conversely, almost every woman coming to the Chesapeake could and did marry. However, if she immigrated as a servant, and most did,93 she too would have to delay marriage until her term of service was completed, unless a planter purchased her time in order to marry her. Most immigrant women probably married in their mid-twenties. (See table 6. )9" Age at marriage for men declined from above thirty in the 1650s, to twenty-six in the late 16708, and remained there until the turn of the century. Here creoles had some advantage over immigrants. Native sons married almost five years earlier than their fathers had, and more than three years before immigrants their own age. That age at marriage remained above twenty-five for nearly fifty years must be in large part the result of the continuing unbalanced sex ratio};5 92"Social Stratification in Maryland." 93Only 2 of the 806 immigrants in the Maryland head-right sample studied by Menard were unmarried adult women. 9"The ages for Charles County in this table are approximate. The number of cases in which both date of birth and exact date of marriage were known was too small to generalize from, as marriages were almost never recorded. Date of marriage was estimated from marriage contracts, from first notation as married in court records, and from one year before the birth of the first child in cases where the recording of children's births appeared to be complete. Reliance on this kind of evidence for date of marriage results in an over-statement of the age of marriage. In most cases this would amount to between 6 and 18 months. 95As late as 18701: for purposes of parish taxation a bachelor was defined. as a man age 25 and above and having an estate of £100 or more. All Faith's Parish Vestry Proceedings, 1692-1720, MS, f. 70. II rn'. D...‘ 6h TABLE 6 MEAN AGE AT FIRST MARRIAGE 1690-99 male cohort supplied by Allan Kulikoff. ‘Native Born Immiggants Combined No. Mean Age No. Mean Age Mean Age Birth Cohort .at Marriage Men-Charles County 1610-19 - -- h 32.75 32.75 1620-29 -- -- 15 3h.1o 3h.10 1630-39 1 30.00 21 29.11 29.15 16ho-h9 1 26.00 11 28.63 28.33 1650-59 11 2h.63 9 27.88 26.10 1660-69 2h 26.12 2 30.00 26.50 1670-79 15 26.55 1 26.00 26.h3 1680-89 13 20.73 -- -- 20.73 1690-99 16 22.62 -— -- 22.62 Women--Charles County 1610-19 -- -- 1 27.00 27.00 1620-29 -- - 2 30.50 30.50 1630-39 - - 6 22.50 22.50 16h0-h9 1 16.00 A 25.62 23.70 1650-59 1 1h.00 -- - lh.00 1660-69 8 19.31 -- -- 19.31 1670-79 9 18.66 -- -- 18.66 1680-89 8 19.93 -- -- 19.93 Source: Walsh file of Charles County Reconstituted Families; ages for :1: I :‘.'J. 'Oevgfi 3‘ “i e., -‘I the ..K I. \J .a \ 0|! 0 .m\ be xx. \ x 65 Reference to the county population graph (figure 2), the annual importation of servants (figure h), and to the 1701:, 1710, and 1712 censuses helps to explain the drop in age at marriage for those born after 1680. .A declining rate of immigration, and the emigration of single men out of the county, both results of stagnation in the tobacco trade, brought about a gradual improvement in the sex ratio, and children of earlier immigrants were coming of age in sufficient numbers to greatly increase the proportion of the native born in the population. It is clear from.the census data that the sex ratio did not approach unity until some time in the eighteenth century. The emigration of single men was, however, lowering the percent- age of white males in the population, while white women constituted the most rapidly expanding segment. (See table 7.) Native women married very early, five to ten years younger than their immigrant mothers. Here too the sex ratio seems the most important influence. Creole girls grew up in a society with a large surplus of men of marrying age. Almost certainly, from the time a woman reached sexual maturity there would.haye been a number of avid competitors for her hand. In an analysis of the fuller Somerset County civil register, Russell Menard found a,mean age at marriage of between sixteen and seventeen for native girls born in the second.half of the seventeenth century.96 For Charles County the mean age calculated was about nineteen, but this is probably an overstatement. The numbers are very small, and the dating of the marriage is imprecise because in the absence of a marriage register, unions could be dated only from their first mention in the records, an event which might follow the marriage by a year or more. 96"The Demography of Somerset County." 66 NJ «on can «.8 new... «a: 34 on.” or: £8 SR 3: no.“ no: I ES an“ 35 33. 38 u n .o- 88 5.6.8 83.3 18a. 3.93 can! .33— 3 83% can! :38 Tau can 18 in a..." ~88 and... 13 .2. Ind! v.8 83 JAM. “.2 «2. 4.4! min an Add: 83 «ca .13 v.3 on» To can 83 «.«n was no u a 5.... Ra 4.. a Ran on: I «.3 2.“ I has and I «.2 no. I was on. I . 82 8: Snore a . 6 some... a . songs a . “null?“ sou-gm .8 38 [I m Ema—um "mi l unwfl II" Baa-”Son g «flu.o¢u.§n8§.§-§8§ has! IN I. 67 As a consequence of high mortality and the initial late age at marriage among imigrants, many marriages were of short duration. The mean length of marriages contracted between 1658 and 1705 and ending by 1706 was Just nine years, and the median seven. (See table 8.) Both economic necessity and the unbalanced sex ratio contributed to rapid remarriage after the death of a spouse; two-thirds of surviving partners remarried within twalve months. (See table 9.) Widows "with a charge of small children" were hard-pressed to support them without a man's labor, and widowers in a similar situation needed a woman to care for their household and offspring. So long as there were many unmarried men eager to wed aw wanan who became available through the death of her husband, pressures for widows to remarry were great. Widows in fact remarried four times as often as did widowers.97 In addition, since wives more often survived a marriage than did husbands there were more women available for remarriage. This circumstance enabled more men to hurry. Because both lives and marriages were short in Charles County, most couples, by seventeenth-century standards, had very few children.98 (See table 10.) The overall mean was Just 2.75 children per couple. Apparently the size of individual families declined after initial settle- ment and then rose again at the turn of the century. This supports Menard's impothesis that a high birth rate prevailed in the years 97See below, chapter 3. 9allaniel Scott Smith, "The Demographic History of Colonial New England," Journal gg‘Economic History 32 (1972): 176-77; Norton, "Population Growth in Colonial America," p. mm; Robert V. Wells, "Family Size and Fertility Control in Eighteenth-Century America: A Study of Quaker Families," Population Studies 25 (1971): 76. s . NC. «L 68 TABLE 8 LENGTH OF MARRIAGE, 1658-1705 Length .in .Years Number 1 Percentage Cumulative Percentage Less than 1 11 3.8 3.8 l 27 9.3 13.1 2 12 14.1 17.2 3 15 5.1 22.3 h 23 7.9 30.2 S 17 5.8 36.0 6 23 7.9 143.9 7 2: 8.3 52.2 8 15 5.1 57.3 9 16 5.5 62.8 10 in 14.8 67.6 11 8 2.7 70.3 12 7 2.14 72.7 13 10 3.h 76.1 it 7 2.h 78.5 is 7 2.h 80.9 16 8 2 7 83.6 17 h 1.3 8h.9 18 7 2.h 87.3 19 3 1.0 88.3 20 7 2.h 90.7 21 5 1.7 92A: 22 1 0.3 92.7 23 2 0.6 93.3 21:. 3 1.0 9113 25 1 0.3 9h.6 26 3 1.0 95.6 27 h 1.3 96.6 28 1 0.3 97.2 29 3 1.0 98.2 31: _1__ 0.3 98.5 Total 289 Mean Length 8 9 years Median Length II 7 years Source: Walsh file of Charles County reconstituted families. \h 69 TABLE 9 MONTHS BETWEEN DEATH OF FIRST PARTNER AND REMARRIAGE FOR CHAREES COUNTY MEN AND WOMEN, 1658-1705 Months Between Death of Partner and Cumulative Remarriage Number Percentage Percentage 1-12 96 67.6 67.6 13-2h 21 1h . 7 82 . 3 25-36 10 7.0 89. 3 60+ h 2.8 99.8 Total 1112 Source: Walsh file of Charles County reconstituted families. TABLE 10 FAMILY SIZE IN CHARLES COUNTY, 1658-1705* Cumulative lumber of Children Number of Families Percentage Percentage O hl 9.9 9.9 l 90 21.8 31. 2 102 2h.6 56.2 3 56 13.5 69.7 h 53 12.8 82.5 5 22 5.3 87.8 6 23 5.5 93.3 7 10 2.h 95.7 8 lO 2.h 98.1 9 5 1.2 99-3 10 O -- 99.3 11 2 O.h 99.7 Total Families hlh Total Children 1139 'This data was checked for completeness by dividing the births by sex. It males greatly outnumbered females, it would be an indication of underrecording of the births of girls. There were 275 boys and 261 girls, yielding a ratio of 1.05 males-“the same ratio prevailing today. Source: Walsh file of Charles County reconstituted families. 29;". 8A1 ... he .. ‘5”, . ""'- 0‘ AA l’ :8" . I.’.' .- fa...“ '5 . . "t. I K. I. t I ‘ we. .1 70 immediately fellowing settlement, fell after ten to fifteen years, and did not rise again sharply for about thirty years. Young married couples made up a large proportion of the population in the 1650s and 16608, and opportunities for freed servants were greater during the initial period of settlement. A gradual aging of the population, a decrease in the pro- portion of free immigrants resulting from the heavy purchase of servants by the first settlers, and a reduction in opportunity for those freed later caused the birth rate to fall. It was rising again by the turn of the century, a result both of an improving sex ratio and more importantly of a low age at marriage for native women.99 (See table 11.) TABLE 11 FAMILY SIZE BY DECADE, CHARLES COUNTY, 1653-1705 —‘— Decade Marriages Contracted Number of Families Size 1658-69 118 3.15 1670-79 79 2.58 1680-89 95 2.86 Source: Walsh file of Charles County Reconstituted families. Because a woman so often had more than one husband, the number of children per couple is not synonymous with the number of children that a woman bore. While the mean number of children which a seventeenth century man fathered was less than three, the number which his wife might bear over the course of her reproductive career was larger. In Charles County immigrant women had a mean of 3.5 children, while creoles bore a mean of 5.1. (See table 12.) 99Menard, "Population Growth," pp. 10—11, 17-18. 71 TABLE 12 NUMBER OF CHILDREN BORN BY IMMIGRANT AND NATIVE CHARLES COUNTY WOMEN ENDING CHILDBEARING YEARS OR DYING BY 1705 number of Children per Woman Immigrants Natives o 6 6 l 8 l 2 1h 5 3 5 2 h 6 S S 6 h 6 7 3 7 2 6 8 3 h 9 - 3 t: 15 - 1 Total 59 A2 Mean for Immigrants 3.51 Mean for'Natives 5.08 Source: Walsh file of Charles County reconstituted families. 72 Native-born women probably had more children primarily because they married younger. Adequate measures of age-specific fertility proved impossible to cmstruct for Charles County because of small numbers and biases in the data. What evidence is available does not suggest a marked difference in fertility between the two groups.100 An interval of two and a quarter to two and a half years between births contributed to small family size, and is what one would expect to find in a society where children were normally breast fed for about one year.”1 Conceptions and resultant births, like deaths, followed a seasonal pattern. Lhny more babies were conceived in April, May, and June than during the rest of the year. This was precisely the season in which the fewest deaths occurred and presumably the time when the colonists enjoyed better health. A secondary peak in conceptions occurred in January and February, probably because many weddings took place during the Christmas holidays. Births then most often occurred in the beginning of the year, in January, February, and March. Being born in the season of highest morbidity and mortality may well have contributed to big: infant death rates. (See figure 8.) Consequences The vital history of the county is of more than esoteric interest, for the experiences of individual seventeenth century Charles County 1”Menard found no siglificant difference in relative fertility of immigrants and native women in seventeenth-century Somerset County. "The Waphy of Somerset County. " 1°1John Demos, A. Little Commonwealth Famil Life in P uth Co]. (London, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1970) , pp. 133-3E. 21:5 observations for the intervals between first and second and subsequent births yielded a mean interval of 30.8 and a median of 27.3 maths. Intervals between marriage and first birth could not be calculated. Similar intervals occurred in seventeenth-century Somerset County. Menard, "The Demograptv of Somerset County." 73 55- . \ SO " o'\ ’ ‘ “3" ' \ I 19’— """""' (MI P170“ " " ' Snares FIGURE 8. SEASONAL ”NEWS OF BIRTHS AND CONCEPTIONS 73 55- : \ 30 " A ’ ‘ “I" ' \ I §~‘ ~- ‘ ur- --" (out-s Prams "' " " 3117093 “CURE. 8. SEASONAL PAVE!“ 0F BIRTHS m0 CONCEPTIONS 71: residents were strictly circumscribed by the demography of the region. High mortality and an unbalanced sex ratio limited opportunities for marriage and constricted family life. Early death cut short the years in which a man could accumulate an estate, and very often precluded the transmission of prOperty from parents to adult children. A short life expectancy also worked to prevent the development of a stable ruling class. Men who gained office usually did not live to hold power long, and they could not be at all sure of producing heirs, much less of pass- ing on positions of power to their sons. The peculiar demography of the Chesapeake region also constrained and curtailed developnent of society. Not until the last decade or two of the century did the number of births exceed the number of deaths.”2 Hence, seventeenth century population growth came only as a result of continuing influxes of new settlers. It was only when a slackening of the pace of immigration (from the mid-1680s through the mid-16908) occur- red simultaneously with the coming of age of the first sizeable group of native-born children that natural increase could begin. "’3 Prior to that time Charles County society reflected in large measure the problems and aspirations of the Old World immigrants who dominated the population. 102Menard has shown through the calculation of replacement rates that mryland men did not begin to replace themselves until the 1680s or 1690s. "Economy and Society," ch. 1:. lo3Ibicl. and "Immigrants and Their Increase." CHAPTER III MARRIAGE AND FAMILY IN MARYLAND IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY In Maryland in the seventeenth century the fabric of family life took on a markedly different texture from that found in either 01d or New England. It has been argued that in Elizabethan and Stuart Britain parents had great and long-lasting influence over their children's lives. The head of the household exercised patriarchal authority over other masters of the family, and especially over his children, who often did not achieve economic independence until well after they reached maJority. Paternal control was most evident in the father's dominant role in his children's marriages. In order to marry, a child had to have not only his parents' consent, but also their economic support in the form of a marriage settlement. The choice of a mate was not Just a matter of indi- vidual preference; the parents were the final arbiters of when and whom their children would marry. 1 Englishmen who imigrated to New England were able to transfer these same patterns of behavior with relatively little disruption. They soon established and then maintained stable families and orderly com- munities in which fathers retained traditional authority over their Irate:- Laslett describes this view in The World _w_e_ save Lost, 2d ed. (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971), pp. 3-5, 18-21, 78:79, 150—51, 173. See also Lawrence Stone, 23g Crisis 9; the Aristocracy, 1228—1610. (Oxford: Oxford University Press-:36?) , ch. 11; and Christopher 3111- M 922 Puritmim is W M (NO? York: Schocken Books, 1965), ch. 13. 75 76 children. Late marriages of'men, marriages of men and.women in strict birth order, delays in the transference of real and personal estates from fathers to sons, and residence of married children on their father's lands were characteristic of many New England families in the seventeenth and much of the eighteenth centuries.2 In contrast, immigrants to the Chesapeake experienced an immediate and profound disruption in the patterns of family life, first in the selection of their mates, and later in relationships with their children. As a result, traditional family arrangements were much less successfully transplanted there in the seventeenth century. The make-up of the immigrant group and high mortality experienced in the Chesapeake region were the main causes of discontinuity. unlike New England where significant immigration lasted only for a short time, Maryland received substantial numbers of new settlers during a number of periods over the seventeenth century. And, instead of coming in family groups, the maJority of those who ventured their lives in Maryland were both young and single. Almost three-quarters of the immigrants arrived as indentured servants. Neither men nor women servants were free to marry until their terms were completed, and a man might require several years more in order to accumulate enough capital to set up a household. Both a late age at marriage and an unbalanced sex ratio affected family life. Immigrant women usually married in their mid-twenties, and men " 2Greven, Four Generations, chs. h, 6, 8, 9; Daniel Scott Smith, Paternal Power and.Marriage Patterns: An Analysis of'Historical Trends in Hingham, Massachusetts," Journal at Marriage 4% the Famig 35 (1973): 19-28. 77 seldom wed before their late twenties. Since male immigrants out- numbered female by as much as three to one, many men never married at all. 3 Not only did the imigrants marry late; they also died very young. A man who came to Maryland in his 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 maJ ority in southern Maryland before 1720 had only about twenty-five more years to live. In contrast, men reaching age twenty in the Plymouth Colony in the same period could expect to live an additional forty-eight years.” Growing up, marrying, procreating, and dying were compressed within a short span of years in seventeenth-century Maryland. Most unions were of short duration. One-half of the marriages 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. This situation did not change significantly until rather late. Although native women married very ear1y--between sixteen and nineteen- and were likely to bear one to two more children than had their imigrant mothers, families remained small. In the first place, immigrants 3See above, ch. 2 and Menard, "Population Growth"; idem. , "Imi- Sration to the Chesapeake Colonies"; and idem. , "Imigrants and Their Increase." For a good discussion of the effects of unbalanced sex ratios, see Roger Thompson, Women in Stuart M 9.92 America: A Cmarative m (London and Boston: Routledge and Kegan, 1975), Ch. 2. ‘‘Walsh and Menard, "Death in the Chesapeake ," pp. 211-27; Maria A. Vinovskis, "Mortality Rates and Trends in Massachusetts Before 1860 ," £23192! Economic History 32 (1972): 1811-213. 78 constituted a maJority of the popllation until the end of the century. Moreover, because there continued to be fewer women than men in the colon, most native-born men married only two and a half years earlier than their immigrant fathers. Since women who raised large families usually had two or more husbands, the number of children per couple rmined 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.s Margyigg These various demographic features had far-reaching effects on marriage and family relationships in the Chesapeake. However much the new immigrants may have attempted to recreate traditional procedures and norms, they found it impossible. New World social structure and institu- tions were still fluid. When combined with extreme demographic disruption, this situation forced alterations in the forms of marriage, in sexual mores, and in the kinds and degree of control exercised by the family. 58ee above, ch. 2, and Menard, "Econonw and Society," ch. 1:. The pattern of marriage survivorship in England may have been different. Among the aristocracy between 1558 and 16111 husbands were more than twice as likely to survive their wives. Stone, _C_r____isis of t__he Aristocracy, pp. 619-23. High mortality and unbalanced sex ratios in_ the British West Indies had a similar effect on family compositim and size as they did in Maryland. In a census of Bridgetown on Barbados in 1680, 56 percent of the enumerated families had no children, and 31 percent had only one or two. In contrast, on a 1689 census of Bristol, Rhode Island, 59 percent Of these New England families had three or more living children. In addition, many of the Bridgetown households did not contain "'normal'" families; one-third of the householders were unmarried or widowed. Dunn, m_ arand Slaves, pp. 106—110; John Demos, "Families in Colonial Bristol, aide Island: An Exercise in Historical Demography," m 25 (1968): 57 5". g. "fia . I’";'{ f I I II. 79 Unlike the New England Puritans, settlers in mryland demonstrated no desires to reform either the laws or attitudes about marriage then pre- vailing in England. Whenever conditions permitted, they followed the five steps indicated by Edmund Morgan as necessary to a proper marriage in England—espousals, publication of banns, execution of the espousal con- tract at church, celebration, and sexual consummation.‘5 Often , however, the austerity prevailing in a recently settled area caused some of the steps to be eliminated. As in England, all mar- riages were recognized as valid "that had been consmated in sexual union and preceded by a contract, either public or private, with witnesses or without, in the present tense or the futm-e tense."'7 Espousals were probably always the first step, and were then frequently followed directly by the last, sexual consummation of the marriage.8 Banns were published only irregularly until after 1695, and, with the scarcity and sometimes complete absence of clergy in a colony which banned public support of religion, very few marriages, especially those of non-Catholics, were solemnized by a minister. Before Justices of the peace were authorized 6Edmund S. Morgan, T_h_e_ Puritan Family, rev. ed. (New York: Harper and Row, 1966), pp. 30-32. A study of family life in seventeenth-century Maryland is severely handicapped by the complete absence of literary sources; one must rely almost entirely on scattered information found in court records. The discussion which follows is based largely on manuscript materials available at the Hall of Records. The series primarily used are the Charles County Land and Court Records for the years 1658 to 1705 and the Testamentary Proceedings for the same years. Material from later volumes of the Testamentary Proceedings, from Wills, from Provincial Court Records, and from Provincial Court Papers are also used. 7Morgan, Puritan Family, p. 31 6The binding nature of espousals is illustrated by the fact that an intended marriage gave the surviving partner the right to administer the other's estate and to be guardian of the deceased's children. Tests» mentary Proceedings 12B: 71-73; 11:: 11:0. 80 to perform marriages, many couples simply married themselves, signifying their union by some customary ceremony such as breaking a piece of silver between them.9 Marriage celebrations were apparently uncommon in the seventeenth century; there are almost no records of wedding feasts until after 1700. A marriage which occurred in St. Mary's County in 1676 was thus described: one Charles Fitgeferis went Over St. Mary's River to St. Inegoes to be married to one Ann Towsend in Company . . . with John Sikes, John Miller, and William Wheret, and . . .. they came back againe the same day to the house of the said John Sikes and there Beded as Man and Wife and from that time passed as man and wife.10 Giles Tomkinson, a planter, expressed very well the prevailing conception of a marriage, when, in November 1665, he came to Charles County sflland Archives 1.9: xxiii, Isl-173, 817-85; hl: 1:56-57; Charles County Court, Ell, f. 1175; Sanerset County Deeds, IKL, MS (marriage register). Registration of marriages was still uncommon in the middle of the eighteenth century. In 1757 an Anglican minister, Rev. Henry Addison, stated, "If the rule was Established here that no marriage should be deemed valid that had not been registered in the Parish Book it would I am persuaded bastardize nine tenths of the People in the Country." Mont- gomery County Land Records #3 (C), MS f. 330. loProvincial Court Deeds, PL#6, f. 265. This argument from nega- tive evidence seems more valid in the light of l) abundant evidence about funeral dinners in the seventeenth century, but almost none about wedding celebrations, and 2) frequent reference to both in eighteenth-century sources. In addition, the kinds of evidence presented in court as proof of the validity of a marriage changed. Most seventeenth and early eight- eenth century proofs were similar to the example given in the text; con- tinued cohabitation and community acceptance of the union were the main evidence submitted. See also text, pp. 103-06 and Maryland Archives 10: 5149-51. By mid-eighteenth century proofs of marriage usually began by describing the wedding ceremony and subsequent celebration. For example see Montgomery County Land Records #3 (C), ff. 326-31. Widows applica- tions for Revolutionary War pensions contain many such descriptions. See Revolutionary War Pension series, National Archives, Washington, D.C. The two latter sources were brought to my attention by Allan Kulikoff. 81 Court to refute the charges of constable Thomas Gibson, who "accuseth a woman living at Gils Tomkinsons to bee illegitimately got with child": The sayd Gils Tomkinson affirmeth in open Court that she is and was befor the Getting of her with Child his lawfull wiffe and Confeseth himself the father of the Child shee now Goeth 'with and hear in Open Court alleageth that his marriage was as good as possibly it Coold bee maed by the Protestants hee beeing one because that befor that time and ever since thear hath not bin a protestant minister in the Province and.that to matrimony is only necessary the parties Consent and.Pub- lication thereof befor a Lawfull Churchman and for their Consents it is Apparent and for the worlds satisfaction they hear publish themselves man and wife till death them doe part. 1 Maryland colonists of'marriageable age were people peculiarly lack- ing in family ties. Most had come as indentured servants, and even among the free immigrants there were few family groups. When they left Europe, their break with their families was usually complete. Few of them expected ever to return to the Old World, and prdbably there was little communica- tion.with relatives left behind. In addition, when many immigrants came to marry, questions of property were irrelevant. An ex—servant had accumu- lated through his own hard labor whatever estate he brought to a marriage, and.thus was not obliged to ask anyone's consent to its disposition. Parental control over nativeéborn men and.women in Maryland was :not significantly greater than.that of the immigrant generation. Because most parents died before their children reached marriageable age, native- ‘born men and women in Maryland also frequently married without parental consent. Step-parents or guardians could prevent their charges from marrying before they were of age, but could not control what they did afterwards. Up to the 16903, most men did not marry until several years after the age of inheritance, at which time their own fathers had often 11Charles County Court, an, r. 1:92. 82 been dead for some years. Thus the wishes of his parents infrequently entered into a man's decisicxl about when and whom to marry.12 Somewhat more control was exercised over women, since they mar- ried much earlier than men. Because of community distaste for child brides, most guardians refused to allow, or the court instructed them to prevent , girls marrying much below the age of fourteen. 13 Orphaned women, however, generally became free to order their lives when they reached the age of inheritance--sixteen--making relatively short the period in which others could restrict their freedom to marry.” Seventeenth-century marriages were unusual in other ways . Fre- quent disparity in the age and status of the partners characterized many marriages. A man marrying for the first time was often 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 man and wife had previously married, quite likely each had custody of 12Appendix A, Table A6 confirms that one-quarter of men leaving inventories in Charles County 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 eighteen. 13Charles County Court, P#l, f. 2110; Testamentary Proceedings 17: 206. ll‘Charles County Court, Bil, ff. 355-56; Testamentary Proceedings 16: 269; 17: 51. 2:1“ 51‘." ‘- n',‘ s I” \I‘"'E 5» . l “.1 ‘\ 83 underaged offspring by their first mates.15 Age differences and con- flicts arising from the presence of both natural and step children in the same household must hare heightened tensions within a marriage. (See table 13.) Lack of family ties, unsettled New World conditions, and the pressures of the sex ratio all contributed to a milieu of relative sexual freedom in seventeenth-century Maryland. One result was a high rate of bridal pregnancy especially among immigrants. In a register of marriages and births for seventeenth-century Somerset County more than a third of 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 extent 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.16 lsDarnett and Anita Rutman found similar family structures in seventeenth-century Middlesex County, Virginia. "'Now-Wives and Sons- in-Iaw. '" For a similar observation (not elaborated) about the structure of seventeenth-century French families, see Elizabeth Wirth Marvick, "Nature Versus Nurture: Patterns and Trends in Seventeenth-Century French Child-Rearing," in The Histogy _o_i: Childhood, Lloyd de Manse, ed. (New York: The Psychohistory Press, 1975), p. 288. “The information on bridal pregnancy is from Menard, "Demography of Somerset County." The observation on presentments for bridal pregnancy was supplied by Lois Green Carr. For rates of English premarital preg- nancy see P. E. H. Hair, "Bridal Pregnancy in Rural England in Earlier Centuries," Poflation Studies 20 (1966-67): 23343; and N. L. Tranter, "Demographic Change in Bedfordshire, 1670-1800" (Ph.D. diss. , University of Nottingham, 1966), p. 2M4, reported in J. D. Chambers, Pppulation, Boom, a_n_d Society in Pre-Industrial Elgland, Oxford Paperbacks Univer- sity Series (London: Oxford University Press, 1972), p. 75. 8’4 “813 sum W muss mama. cm coum. 1658-1705 1658-1681 : 1 Previous 2 Previous ”‘1' 10.1213!— ..aSL-La «- 'llsn: Single 73 69 s 1 Previous m1“. 10 18 1 2 Previous 1 _ _ Marriages Status 81nd . I Previous m— In: Status _ ' Unknown 188 ' sale 82 - - 1 Previous 2’ _ _ Ilsa-riage 1682-1705 313610 1 Fans 2 Previous Janus!— __m; h: Single 89 87 18 1 Previous 8 17 I: .22."!!! 8 Status SI 1 1 Previous m In: status Ihknovs ”6 2 ‘ Single 110 - - 1 Previous 17 - _ lhrrisgs M3 173 Total Marriages 230 907mm mountablishssthstssubstsstislmofpsviouslysingle www.mwmmmmumm hsbsndsthsnwsrsnsntohsveseverslwivss. Probablyslsonm-e widowesasrrisdwidowstnssnrrisd single girls. but.“ Wmmpseiseststmtsthssthsss.m,bsosussof theisrgsmbsrofuknons. Bsesuseofthsnstursofps'obste rssords.onsissors1ikslvtolssrssboutr-srrisgssofwusa Beneathstablsprohsblr thsnofsss. seem-atoll: behaviorofwusa.butwaottssssdsqustsindiostioo marriage ofthsbshsvioeofmsa. tensstsths 85 Native-born women also shared in this freedom, although to a lesser extent than their mothers. Preliminary research suggests that about one out of five Maryland-born brides was pregnant when she married in the seventeenth century. Lack of parental control was a contributing element. Orphaned girls were apparently particularly vulnerable to pre- marital conceptions; initial study indicates even greater frequency of bridal pregnancy among women whose father had died during their minority. 17 While not approved by the canmunity, other kinds of sexual freedom persisted after marriage. Both lax laws regarding marriage and the freedom of movement to another colony or back to England provided the unscrupulous with opportunity for bigannr.18 When the Reverend George Tubman was so accused, he confessed that there was: a Woman in England whom he Owned as his Wife, has Wrote to, 8: rec'd from her Letters under that Demonination 8: has desired leave to go & fetch her hither Under that Title but says she never was his wife 8: that he was never married to any woman but to his wife Elianor, a local heiress whom he had wedded shortly after his arrival in Maryland.” Sarah Younger related that Alexander Younger, "pretending himself to bee a p[er]son free to mary being a widdower did persuade . . . her to marry him" and then took all her goods, including her children's portions, sold the land, and left for England with the proceeds. Two neighbors testified that they happened to meet Younger in London where he introduced l'lltienard, "Demography of Somerset County." 18Morgan, Puritan Family, p. 31. ”MM”: 13. 22-21., h2, no. 86 then to his wife in England and maintained that, in Maryland, Sarah was "only his whore."20 When a Colonel Hutchins was absent from Maryland, according to the Chief Judge of Probate, his wife: eloyned her affections from him 8: fell into other Embraces and had a bastard child by . . . [one] Hogg . . . neglected the Child she had by . . . Hutchins, and that there are very strong and pregnant circumstances of her being marryed to . . . [one] Leger and had Children by him, and nothing wanting of full proof but the priests Joyning hands, and if she were not marryed she lived in adultery with him and had Children and for that its not reasonable to believe she could impose upon the neighbourhood, and the Children beare the name in England where the laws are soe regular 8: strickt against adultery if she had not been marryed. 1 The large measure of freedom which native-born children enjoyed when marrying in Maryland was as much a result of historical accident as of deliberate policy on the part of parents. In instances where parents survived until their children were of marriageable age, they tried to direct their children‘s marriages mlch as parents in New England did. In instances where substantial amounts or property were involved, it was essential that the prospective couple obtain their parents' consent. Sons and daughters of wealthy families, unlike many of their compatriots, could not simply marry at will. After giving consent, their parents or guardians negotiated the terms of the marriage contract, and dissatisfaction with the share offered by one of the parties could prevent a match. An “Provincial Court Deeds, wncn, ff. 122—23. See also Testamentary Hoceedings, 1h: 29-30; and Provincial Court Papers, MS, St. Mary's County, Wildman v. Wildman, 1718, where a Jury found that Cornelius Wildman "was Marryed to another woman by a Popish priest in London wch same womn was living at ye time of his marryage to the pl[ain]tiff." “Testamentary Proceedings 20: h3a; see also Ibid. 13: 1458-62. 87 acquaintance of William Boareman made clear the economic basis of mar- riages among the wealtmr: ye sd: four hundred acres of land was proposed and offered in free and franck marryage to Mr. Joseph Piles with his ye sd: Boaremans daughter Sarah, but for want of other additional por- tion as this deponent did understand ye sd: Match was broken of[f] by disagreement of Parents on Mr Piles his side, . . [and later] a match was proposed betweene Thomas Matthewes alias Doctor Thomas Matthewes of Portobaccoe and his Eldest son Thomas Matthewes and ye sd: Sarah daughter of ye sd: Boarman, which being well receiued and well approved by ye Parents on both sides 8: ye Match agreed, before ye marryage ye sd: Boareman 3. ye sd: Doctor Matthewes together with ye young peOple and ye then wife of Doctor Matthewes now Mrs Hussey went to see ye sd: land proposed in marryage again with ye said Thos: Matthewes as had beene to ye sd: Piles, and returning this deponent did believe it was liked by them because ye Match was Concluded.22 Usually, a surviving parent gave a child his "portion" of property when he married, and might help the couple, in addition, by extending them credit with which to buy household goods. Not many deeds of gift at mar- riage were recorded, and it is likely that many parents did not attempt any kind of formal settlanent. There are, however, other indications that children custanarily received their shares of their father's estate at this time. Married children were frequently granted only token bequests in their father's wills, often with the notation that they had already received their due portions, or gifts previously made to married offspring often were confirmed but not augmented by the will.23 Also, in cases where a father died intestate, the county courts were ordered to determine, before apportioning the estate, which orphans had been 22Charles County Court, s#l, f. 111; Z#l, ff. h2-h9; land Archives 53: 631 . 23Charles County Court, F#l, ff. 182-83; Qfll, ff. 2-3; Testamen- tary Proceedings 13: 331—32; Wills 3: hTS; h: ho; 5: 91; 6: 251; 7: ll; 11: 199. 381. 88 "advanced by the Dec[ease]d in his Lifetime," and which had yet received nothing.2" Parents might provide for their own future maintenance as part of the marriage settlements for their children. This was uncommon simply because few.parents lived long enough to see their offspring married. One who did was James Neale, a wealthy Charles County Catholic, who in 1681 married one son, James, to a niece of Lord Baltimore, and his other son, Anthony, to the daughter of a prominent St. Mary's County commissioner. Neale settled h,900 out of the 5,000 acres he owned on his two sons, reserving only 100 acres and the use of the dwelling house during his and his wife's lifetime. In return he obtained for James Junior 20,000 pounds of tobacco, 6 able men servants, and 3,000 acres as the bride's dowry, while Anthony was promised 3 negroes, h0,000 pounds of tobacco, and one-half of his future father-in—law's land. James Junior and Anthony on their part agreed to pay 5,000 pounds of tobacco and 10 barrels of corn yearly to their parents so long as either lived.25 Christopher Kirkly, a Joiner, made provision for his future on a ‘more modest scale. He made over all his estate, including ho acres of land, a house, livestock, household goods, and debts receivable, to his daughter, Susannah, when she married John Vincent in 1706. In return, he was to have: Meat Drinck washing and apparrell in the same manner and noe worse than the said John Vincent himself his heires Executors or Administrators (according to his or their ability) shall Eate Drinck or weare, 6 2"Carr, "County Government," pp. 352-53; Testamentary Proceedings : 238. 25Provincial Court Deeds, WRC#1, ff. 211-13; Charles County Court, “1, fr. 131.33 a y..- n..- \J-a as. ‘ \ a... 89 and Kirkly reserved for himself one chamber, a bed, a gun, the use of a horse, his work shop and Joiner's tools, and all the tobacco and money he could make from carrying on his trade.“5 Since few parents lived to see their children married, the question of whether or not they tried to control the lives of adult off- B1E>::':l.ng by retaining economic sanctions after Children wed can be asked in. but a few instances. Surviving parents apparently did not try to maintain such controls. Fathers did not often retain title to lands which constituted an adult son's portion, and in the few cases where land on which a son was already seated was bequeathed by will, it appears that the son had only very recently reached twenty-one.” Luke Gardiner, a wealthy planter, was one father who did try to 1'eg'ulate his sons' lives after his death. He stipulated that his sons Could not sell the land bequeathed them until they reached age twenty- five, because, "he had no land but what was speciall good Land and he would not have it goe from his Children." Gardiner did not wish to impose further restrictions, however. When his lawyer asked him if he intended by this clause to keep his sons from marrying before that age, GQJdiner replied that the provision was meant to prevent the land from I"Easing out of his sons' hands, but was not meant to hinder them from Ming or bequeathing their lands to wife and children.28 \ 26Charles County Court, Z#l, ff. 227-28. 27Wills 2: 78; 7: 71, 268; Testamentary Proceedings 6: 269. For instance, John Lewgar wrote from London in 1663 to promptly assign to his Bowl John a warrant for 1,000 acres, "which land I hear is since layd out for w some John and hee hath entered upon it." Charles County Count, Bfi'l, r. 110. 28Testamentary Proceedings 6: 269. 90 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. Her family might, for example, look after her and her husband's interests in cases of inheritance. Robert Cager, Junior was "near 21 and married" when Henry Hyde, the executor of his father's will, made his final account. The account: was first Read unto the said heire and his wifes father and Brothers then present in Court and the same was Immediately deliured unto the said Robert Cager the heire, and notive given by the Judge heere unto him and his wifes relations . . . that they had liberty to except to the said account. Cager decided to approve the account after deliberation with his father- and brothers-in-law. 29 Recognizing the likelihood of an early death, parents might attempt to control their children posthumously. Some fathers , prompted by a desire to provide for their widows and to keep their families together, did seek to order their children's futures through their wills. Edward Bowles, for example, gave his son Edward his entire estate, with the proviso that Edward maintain his mother in the family home "with Sufficient meat , drink, and apparrell with one room to herself and a good bed and chest."30 If one child were of age, the father might require that he allow the younger children to live with him, so long as they remained unmarried and worked. Robert Marston received all his father's land, but with the restriction that his two younger brothers were to live and work with him, and he to maintain them to age eighteen and his sister Elizabeth to sixteen. He ‘ 29I‘nid. , ff. 323-2h. 3°Wills l: 87. 91 was also to support another sister, Mary, then of age, so long as she was single and kept house for him.31 A wealthier planter bequeathed his sons substantial acreage on the frontier, but stipulated that they not leave their mother to settle on it until they reached age twenty-five.32 Some men did attempt to provide supervision for their daughters' marriages by making a gift to a daughter dependent on her mother, brother, or some other adult approving of the match. More distant rela- tives also occasionally tried to use bequests to promote desirable behavior in young people. For example, Richard Chandler told "Mrs. Jane Brent his Neece that if she Married ag[ains]t his Consent hee would not give her A farthing of his Estate." Jane, however, passed up the pro- visional bequest, and married a man of whom her uncle disapproved.33 0n the other hand, there were also fathers who put no qualifica- tions on their daughters' inheritances. Ignatius Causine, for example, willed that his daughter Jane should have the use of 150 acres of land for life if she married a man without land. As Causine was a Justice and a substantial landowner, such a match would not be expected, but Causine intended that his daughter be provided for, whether or not she made a "good" marriage.3“ Restrictions on a child's future freedom of action by his parents through their wills were the exception, not the rule. In the maJority of cases, a father sought to give his children as much freedom as k 311hid., 6: 271. 321hid., r. 2h1. 33Testamentary Proceedings 17: 107. 3“Wills 7: 93. .mum ‘0 WW new.“ .m'a ”u‘ HM‘ a a tie ck“! are“ 8". Qua-u .u .z r. ...e h. a»... .1»... ..a t. .....l ...... ....a. ....a r. ”I‘d JEn‘ 92 possible to order their lives after his decease. This emphasis on free- dom rather than on regulation was the result of a fear (often well- grounded), of the treatment the children might receive at the hands of subsequent stepfathers or guardians. Sons were frequently made of age by will at seventeen or eighteen, and sometimes as young as sixteen. Richard Jones, for example, willed that his son was "to enJoy the benefit of his Estate in his own hands and to bee free from all servitude at the age of sixteen-either from his mother or any other person."35 An arrange- ment which allowed both a measure of freedom.and of regulation was often employed. .A father would direct that his sons could act only with the consent of their guardians until age twenty-one, but that they should work "fer themselves" (i.e., enJoy the proceeds of their labor) at age eighteen. In this way, the length of time a boy labored for someone else would be minimized. The boy could gain experience at making his own living, and begin adding to his estate, while still enJoying the legal protection and.the advice of a guardian.36 Precisely because he could not foresee the future, a man some- times maximized his children's future options by providing one or more alternative arrangements for his family after his death. For instance, he might will that the children were to remain with their mother when she remarried, so long as their new stepfather did not mistreat them, and, in case, he did, they were to be removed to the household of a guardian. A way of protecting both widow and child, if the child was nearly of age, Vas'to'bind the child to his mother until he reached maJority g£_until ¥ 35Ihid., 6: 201. See also r. 177; 7: 320. 393. 36Ibid., h: 189; 13: 157; Charles County Court, X#l, f. 251. 93 she died. If the mother lived, she could look after the child's welfare, and in return might be at least partially supported out of the proceeds of his labor. However, if she should die before the child reached maJority, he would then be free, and.would not have to continue working for a stepfather after his mother's death.37 Women made widows by the early death of their husbands did not remain in this status for long. The presence of so many unmarried men seeking wives and.the need to provide for the minor children they were so often left responsible for led most widows to quickly become wives again. Because a woman could legally own no property, nor make any con- tracts while married, it was essential that, before remarrying, a widow safeguard her own and her Children's estate while she was still Eggm§_ sole, and free to act. Many women were apparently aware of, and took steps to avoid, the plight of the credulous widow taken in by the glib newbcomer who wanted to marry only for her money. The widow Ann Cosden was one who learned the lesson the hard way. She soon regretted her hasty remarriage to John Liesett: who instead of looking after and getting in the Estate to her belonging from.the said adm[inistrat]ers [of her first husband, Cosden], by his ill husbandry spent & consumed most of her wear- ing apparell & other goods she was possessed off (gig), as her paraphrenalia, and is since runaway from her & whether he be dead or alive she cannot certainly tell.38 Prudent widows took steps to protect their own and their child- ren's portions of the deceased husband's estate. Many deeded shares of 37For instance, see Charles County Court, D#l, f. 99; A#2, f. 259; Wills 5: 82, 167. 38Testamentary Proceedings 1h: ll6-17. 9h the estate to their children before remarrying in order to protect the Children's inheritance.39 Sometimes the marriage contract specified in detail what the second.husband had to pay to the children of his wife's first marriage as their portions of their father's estate."0 Such measures were clearly advisable in view of the speed with which remarriage frequently took place. The offspring of less prudent ‘widows often suffered from their mother's failure to safeguard their interests. Sarah Ballard, for example, remarried in September 1682, ‘within four days after taking the oath of administration on her first husband’s estate. By January 1683 she wrote, "It hath been my hard Fortune to marry with one Stephen Luffe which only looks the Ruins of mee and.my Childrens Estate.”1 It is impossible to determine whether marriages in Maryland in this period-however fermed-were more or less happy than marriages in other periods and locations. That difficulties did occur is clearly demonstrated in the court records. Adultery, continual and violent quarreling, and desertion were the marital problems which the courts most frequently dealt with, and they were the actions which signaled the factual if not the legal end of a marriage."2 There is ample 39For example, Ibid. 17: 129-31; Charles County Court, V#l, f. 130; Provincial Court Deeds, WRC#1, f. h39; Testamentary Proceedings 1h: 1 20. l”Testamentary Proceedings 6: 63-65; 17: 29-31; Charles County Court,.A#l, ff. 216-17; B#l, r. 78; C#l, ff. 270-71; P#1, f. 180; Q#l, f. 39. l”Testamentary Proceedings, 13: 1—2. "ZSee Morgan, Puritan Family, ch. 2 and Demos, A_Little Common- £22352, ch. 5. ""A I... a, g is I ‘fio O u-’ . .‘ .- '0... I ‘QO. ...; a" e I" In I .:‘\~ \ L ‘l 95 evidence as well of other prdblems which might not end a marriage, but which would make living together difficult: disputes over the estates of the respective partners, disagreement about the upbringing of child- ren, and personality conflicts between husband and wife. In Maryland, as in England, there was no divorce. Other solu- tions had to be found for unhappy marriages. Separations could be Obtained in the event that the marriage contract was broken. When Robert Robins charged his wife with adultery, the couple decided to separate. Before the county clerk they "did make this their Particular declaratione": I Robert Robins doe hearby disclayme my wife Elizabeth Robins for euer to acknowledge her as my wife and I doe hear dblige myself and euerie one from mee neuer to molest or trouble her any further. Elizabeth made the same declaration, with the additional promise that she would not ask Robert "for maintenance or any other necessaries.”3 Separation with maintenance by the husband might be ordered by the court in cases of extreme and prolonged incompatibility. Suits of this sort were unusual. Most couples resolved their marital difficulties by other means than legal proceedings. Anne Hardy, the wife of a Charles County Justice, did resort to the courts. In 1702 she, "upon a difference betweene her and her Husband petitions that shee with her Children may be Permitted to live upon her Owne Land and to be allowed a Sufficient main- tenance to Subsist upon." In this instance, two of the Justices were appointed to try to compose the couple's differences. The two continued to quarrel, however, disagreeing particularly about the treatment and discipline of Anne's children by a former husband. In 1703 she complained g "3Charles County Court, A#l, ff. h, 39. 96 of Hardy's "harsh and ill usage of her Children and desires they may be taken away from him and that they may all be bound out to trades." She finally petitioned in 1706 that: through his harsh and Ill Usage shee is not able to live and Cohabitt with him and Therefore Desires with the approbation of the Court Shee may Live from him and that the Court would Order her a competency for a Separate Maintenance. Hardy: propounds to Allow her fifteen hundred pounds of Tobacco [about £5] Yearly and Every Yeare Dureing her naturall Life and Doth promise and Engage to Deliver her her necessary Utencills of Cloathing and as shee is now Possest with According to the Degree of his wife. This "mutual agreement of boath partyes" was approved by the court."" More frequently, unhappy spouses sought to escape unwelcome mar- riages by simply running away. Anthony Smith, fer example, was reported in 1691 as having "absented himselfe from.his sd: wife Martha and hath left her destitite of any way of releiveing herselfe or to gett her livelyhood," forcing the county to cloath and house her."5 Susanna Dunn, wife of Thomas Dunn of Rappahanock County, Virginia, was indicted in Charles County in 1672: for absenting herselfe from her said Husband and allso Philip Cary of’Mattawoman was indicted for entertaining the said Susanna Dunn and fer keeping the said Susanna for the space of two yeares and upward and lived together as man and wife and shee . . . for being delivered of a Bastard Child about a years since."6 Anne Thompson was apprehended in 1685 for marrying a second husband in Charles County; she escaped punishment by promising to return to the ““Ihid., A#2, ff. 5, 250; B#2, ff. 2h2—h3. See Carr, "County Government," p. 189. I'SCharles County Court, R#l, ff. 279-80. See also Testamentary Proceedings 13: h58-62. “Saharles County Court, E#l, r. 99. 97 first."7 Elizabeth Johnson must have been truly desperate, when in 1669, for several months she "absented herselfe from Dan: Johnson then her husband and having then noe place of Residence or abode But wandring from place to place," sought shelter from various neighbors."8 In many instances couples turned to relatives and neighbors rather than the courts when they encountered marital problems. Neighbors, for example, intervened on St. Clement's Manor in 1659 when Clove Mace came to the house of his neighbor, John Shanks, "beinge bloudy and said that Robin Coop and his wife were both upon Him," Shanks asked another neighbor, John Gee, to go with him to Mace's house. Shanks: asked her [Mrs. Mace] to come to her husband and shee replyed that hee had abused Robin and her and so . . . John Shanks gott her consent to come the next morning and Robin with her up to bee freinds with her . . . husband but hee would not bee freinds with her but the next night following they were treinds.“9 ‘Wives especially, could prdbably expect little sympathy from an all-male court which had a special interest in preserving the authority of hus- bands and fathers. Many women, trapped in unhappy marriages, probably Just endured the situation. The court did make a maJor effort to ensure that persons who were living together took steps to marry. Constables were expected to report the births of any supposed bastards or cases of unmarried persons cohabiting to each meeting of the court. Because several forms of mar- riage were recognized-Aboth public and private, religious and civil, “7Ihid., C#l, r. 80. “BIhid., E#l, r. 96. "SMaryland Archives 53: 628. 98 official and customary-the Justices were usually satisfied if the couple both acknowledged themselves to be man and wife.50 Anne Oliver, accused of having a bastard, declared that she had been married nine months, and her statement was accepted.51 Mary Simpson was not prosecuted for having a bastard because she had married the father before her case was tried.52 When a constable presented the widow Elinor Warren "for heading and entertaining Thomas Howell for the space of six weeks in her house and not lawfully married to him," Elinor resolved the problem by agreeing to marry Howell.53 Kenelm.Cheseldyne forewarned a constable who had come to arrest Mary Phippard, than living with him, for incontinence: from.taking her away at his perrill for that he would give his oath that there was not any such person as Mary Phippard. Thereupon . . . [the constable] ConJecturing they were Marryed told them that Instead of taking her away or taking her security [for appearance in court] he ought to wish them.Joy.5“ If a couple was espoused, but prevented from marrying by circump stances beyond their control, the court did not punish their incontinency. George Darby, fer example, indented himself for three years to George Newman in return for curing him of yaws and permitting him to marry Margaret Anderson, one of Newman's servants. Newman subsequently pre- vented the marriage and sold Darby to another master. When the court was appraised of this situation, they remitted Margaret's punishment for ”See the case of Gils Tomkinson,PP- 80-91 and Charles County Court, G#l, f. 121. 51Charles County Court, N#l, f. 339. 52Ibid., Wl, r. 1. 53Ibid., Efll, f. 99. Testamentary Proceedings 1h: 122. suTestamentary Proceedings 23: 368. 99 having a bastard, and ordered Newman to pay Darby damages for his dis- appointment, as well as for his cure by another doctor.55 When espousals were broken off after intercourse, but for reasons within the couple's control, more complicated moral situations might arise. First, neighbors or relatives or perhaps some of the Justices would attempt to reconcile the differences which had led to the break. If either of the two then refused to marry, guilt had to be apportioned, and some arrangements made for the care of the children born of such abortive unions. Arthur Turner, for example, accused by Lucie Stratton of fathering her bastard child, confessed to a friend: that hee coold loue her as wel as euer hee did his owne [former wife], and.it was by her faythful promise to bee his wife that made him.Act what hee did and further requested [his friend Christopher Russell] . . . to bare him companie the morning following to go to See whether hee coold win her to bee his wife. Russell "told Lucie Stratton that Mr Turner was . . . come to tender boath Person and Estate unto her if She woold take him.to bee her hus- band." However, Lucie's experience with Turner had been most disillusion- ing. She denied that she had promised to marry him, and.protested that: shee coold not loue him.much les make him her husband . . . and that Shee had suffered enough by him, and . . . shee woold not marrie him if shee suffered for it, saying tht.hee was a lustful man a very lustful man, and.that she could neuer bee at quiet for him. Apparently there was no question of Lucie's initial consent to the rela- tion, for Turner, in reply, "demanded of her, who was most lustful Shee or hee Seeing thou Camest to the bed when I was in bed and put thy hand under the cloaths and tooke mee by the priuat parts." At the end of a 55Charles County Court, R#1, ff. 272, 319—22. 100 series of litigations, the Provincial Court decided that Turner had done his part by offering to make satisfaction by marrying Lucie, and that if she refused, it was then her responsibility to support the child.56 The courts and vestries reserved little patience for those who lived together without any intention of marrying. Elizabeth Grindall, convicted of cohabiting with John Morris one year, was fined twenty shillings. Susanna Scroggin, presented for incontinent living and steal- ing melons, was given twelve lashes for the first misdeed, and six for the second. Agnes Taylor received twenty lashes "for having Played the whore hauing bin befor accused of the like Crime." Thomas Plunkett was admonished by the local vestry not to entertain Barbara Jameson, a "sup- posed lewd woman." Mary Hews was ordered to ask forgiveness in court for the public scandal she caused by lying to neighbors about being married to an itinerant tailor in order that she might be allowed to sleep with him” Katherine Bud, a married woman, was sentenced to twenty lashes for sleeping'with the same tailor. James Smallwood, Junior, and his brother Matthew, sons of a prominent planter and Justice, were fined for cahabit- ing with two women of questionable moral and social status whom they clearly had no intention of‘marrying.57 As these examples indicate, it was most frequently the woman who was called to account for the arrange- ments under“which she lived. If a man fathered a bastard, he would be punished for so doing, but a woman's putting herself in a position to conceive one was often in itself a cause for presentment. 56Charles County Court, A#l, ff. 35-38; Magyland.Archives hl: 29l-9h. 57Charles County Court, Y#l, ff. 1h, 37; R#l, r. 236; B#l, r. M9: M1, 1'. 218; M2, ff. 160, 18h, 21:9. 326. 101 Inter-racial unions were the one aspect of marriage for which English law and custom provided no guidance. Men in power reacted early and strongly to the threat of miscegenation. In l66h the Assembly stated that: forasmuch as divers free born Englishwomen forgitfull of theire free Condition and to the disgrace of o[u]r nation doe Inter- marrage with negro slaves, . . . for deterring suCh free‘borne weoman from.such shamefull matches Bee it . . . Enacted . . that Whatsoever free born weoman shall Intermarrage wth any slave . . . shall serve the master of Such Slave during the life of her husband and yt all the Issue of such free borne weoman soe married shall bee slaves as theire fathers were.58 This, and subsequent legislation which stipulated that a free negro male fbrfeited.his freedom if he married a white woman, limited but did not entirely stop interracial.marriages. Clearly a number of white women failed to share the legislators' abhorence of unions with blacks. Despite the fact that such offspring were liable to serve a thirty-year term.of servitude, mulatto children were regularly born to white women throughout the period. Probate inventories listing mulatto children belonging to black mothers demonstrate that white men also chose black women as sexual partners. White men were of course not punished for this kind of mis- cegenation. and neither the black women nor their offspring gained any c1aim.to freedom through the father of such children. From evidence about matches which failed, it can be deduced that colonists considered normal and exclusive sexual union, peaceful cohabita- tion, and economic support of the wife by the husband the minimal duties s"Ibid. , Lil, 1'. 2h; All Faith's Parish Vestry Proceedings, 1‘. 28; Carr, "County Government," ch. 7, fn. hh. 102 which ran and wife must perform.59 Testimony about the more positive ingredients of a marriage are more rarely encountered. A central question concerns the colonists' attitude toward con- Jugal love. Did they believe that love was essential to a marriage, or was the absence of incompatibility enough? Was love a precondition for marriage, or was it believed to develop after the union, a product of, but not a reason for marrying? Was economic advantage a more important criteria for choosing a mate than affection? Not enough evidence has sur- vived to provide adequate answers . ConJugal love was clearly considered something other than, or at least more than, sexual desire. Sometimes though a man might find it to his advantage to blur the distinction, as did William Watts when he importuned a maid-servant, "to ly with her and did bege and pray to have to doe with her and hee woold marrier if shee would." Later, when the servant's master tried to force Watts to marry her because he had gotten her pregnant, Watts offered a number of excuses, all of which indicated the ephemeral nature of his desire: he "didn't know how to procure a pare of shoes and stockings to bee married in"; Mr. Fitzherbert [a Roman Catholic priest] would ex-communicate him; his "friends would not abide" him; "hee shoold bee Confined to one place"; and, if he were made to marry her, "he woold bind her to a tree and euerie day whip her."6° ”See Morgan, Puritan Family, ch. 2, and Demos, A Little Comon- wealth, ch. 5. One Calvert County case suggests that non-performance of housekeeping duties by the wife (as well as non-support by the husband) was considered a possible ground for separation. See Chancery Records, )8, 11252, ff. 202-014. 60Charles County Court, A#l, rr. lh2—h3. 103 Surviving evidenCe does suggest that love--or the probability of its development-dwas considered highly important. For example, espousals ‘were broken off‘between Arthur Turner and Lucie Stratton for, although Arthur, "coold loue as wel as euer hee did his owne [former] wife," Lucie decided that she "coold not loue him, much les make him her husband."61 Conversely, the presence of love might help to prove the existence of marriage, as when in 1659 question arose as to whether Henry Mitchell had abducted Grace Molder, or whether she had gone away with him and.married willingly. Two members of the household in which she had been living testified that Mitchell had previously confessed that "there was loue between them," and another related that, from observation, "hee did.know there was loue betweene Henry Mitchell & Grace Molden. That he . . . did Speak to the ad Grace of it, But shee denyed it." Grace herself clarified the voluntary nature of the match by explaining that Hutchell "did not steale her away . . . But rather more willingly shee went away wth him; than he did wth her; for that shee was before tht time resolved to marry'him, bearing love & affection to him," The fact that Grace was heiress to a substantial estate may have increased her attractive- ness. The marriage, however, clearly had an emotional as well as an economic basis.62 In 1719 a case of contested administration caused contemporary attitudes about marriage to be recorded in rare explicitness. Kenelm Cheseldyne of St. Mary's County had died in 1718, naming his wife, Mary, as administratrix of his estate. Cheseldyne's sisters sought administrap tion for themselves on the ground that Cheseldyne had, in fact, never 61Ibid., B#l, ff. 35-38. 62MagylandArchi'ves hl: 336-38. 10h married the woman he had been living with. At Mary's request, a number of neighbors testified that they believed that she and Cheseldyne had been man and wife because Cheseldyne had behaved in ways which defined the manner of a husband, not a paramour.'53 The Cheseldyne's problems arose because, about 1712, they had "Marryed in private," without banns, license, clergyman, Justice, or witnesses, after Mary-~then the Widow Phippard--was pregnant , and pos-- sibly not until after the birth of the child. Although Cheseldyne asserted that "she was his Lawfull wife" as much as his friend's, Thomas Bolt's, who "was Marryed to his . . . wife in a full Congregation at picawaxen Church in Charles County according to the Canons of the Church of England," proof of Cheseldyne's marriage depended solely on their word and on comunity acceptance. John Greaves testified that while he was constable he had gone to arrest Mary Phippard because she had recently borne an illegitimate child. Cheseldyne had forewarned him "from taking her away at his perrill for that he would give his oath that there was not any such person as Mary Phippard," claiming Mary as his wife, and declaring the child legitimate. Because Cheseldyne always acknowledged Mary as his wife, and because neighbors believed they were married, Greaves also acknowledged the union. Sarah Turner, the midwife who had delivered the three children of Kenelm and Mary, testified that they were man and wife because: the said Cheseldyne particularly was at the birth of the second and seemed very fond of the child and [Mary]. . . . Cheseldyne called her his wife and took care of her as such and Owned the Children. 63The docmentation for the following discussion of Cheseldyne's marriage is found in Testamentary Proceedings 23: 3h9-77. 105 BenJamin Reeder, a neighbor, hearing of Mary's being presented for incontinence, had inquired of Cheseldyne's kinsman, John Coode, whether or not they were married. Coode had assured him that they had been married in private. Reeder then believed that they were, and he testified that "afterwards . . . Cheseldyne came with her publickly to Church and helped her off and on her Horse and shewed her the respect due to a wife." Another neighbor, Thomas Bolt, once went to Cheseldyne's house, and found him: walking in his Hall with one of the Children he had by [Mary] . . . in his Armes and in discourse about a certaine Mr Donaldson who had been [at the house] but a small time before and was angry about [Mary's] . . . giving the said Donaldson's Child Indian bread in boiled Milk . . . . Cheseldyne sayd that he thought his wife knew what was best for children for says he our own Children Eat the same. When questioned again about the validity of his marriage by his cousin, William Coode, Cheseldyne had replied, "there is Some plate on the cupboard look at it there is both our names I should not have put it on unless she was nor wife." Another neighbor, William Maria Farthing, explained that Cheseldyne had been at his house shortly after the birth of his second child, and: in publick Company said that he had one Child by his wife before and that he had another borne about a night or two before . . . and said that he hoped to have another by her and see who would oppose it. Farthing also noted that "after the birth of the third Child he hath seen him Very fond of the . . . Children." The conception of a husband expressed by these neighbors was that he always acknowledged his wife, that he appeared with her in public, 106 that he showed affection and respect for her, and that he supported her in a condition commensurate with his means. A husband also owned the children born of the union, showed affection towards them, and cared for them. In addition, he acknowledged his wife's Joint authority in their upbringing.6" Bringing Up Children Colonists in seventeenth-century Maryland bore children and brought them up through the early years of life much as they themselves had been born and brought up in the 01d WCrld. In later childhood and adolescence, however, familiar patterns often broke down. Because at least one of a child's natural parents so often died early, the community was forced to take on responsibilities for the support, supervision, and education of children which had traditionally been carried out by the family; Not entirely prepared for the role so suddenly thrust upon it, the community‘s success in carrying out these responsibilities was far from complete. Babies were born in the home, usually with the help of a mid- wife.55 The husband was probably customarily at hand; "his wife being neare Delivery" regularly excused men from Jury duty and other official 6"If this conception of marriage sounds most similar to that of the New England Puritans described by Edmund Morgan, it serves to point out the common cultural heritage and underlying religious tradition of the immigrants to both the Chesapeake and New England. While we have no evidence that anyone in southern Maryland either owned or had read many of the works of Puritan writers, it is clear that they shared many of the concepts of marriage which these authors expressed. See Morgan, Puritan.Family, pp. hl-6h. 65Charles County Court, A#l, rr. 37-39, 225-27, 269; D#l, r. u; S#l, ff. 297-98; Xfl, f. 51; Testamentary Proceedings 23: 363. 107 business.66 He might be Joined.by his nearer neighbors, who apparently, as soon as they heard the delivery was in progress, went to the house in order to be among the first to view the new arrival, and to celebrate the event with a round of drink.67 When a minister was available, the infant was normally baptized within two months; otherwise baptism would be delayed until a minister arrived in the neighborhood.68 Infants were breast fed, and if for some reason the mother could not nurse, a neighbor with milk to spare was hired to help nourish the baby. One such negotiation was recorded. John Ashbrooke related: Mr. Arthur Turner came to this Deponent's house on the 25th of October last past hee Sat him downe by the table, and this Deponants wife Sukling her owne Child upon the left breast, the sayd Turner Sitting by Sayd unto his Deponants wife, Roase, I see thow has good Store. I Sir Replyed this Deponants wife. 80 I have thancke Godd for it whearupon the sayd Turner Sayd hee had a Child that wanted it to which this deponant Sayd, Sir, if in Case you.have I coold wish it had as much as my wife coold Spaer it.69 Infants were occasionally also nourished by other means. Turner had previously approached Marie Dod about nursing the child, and she "answered Shee coold not for Shee thought She was with child herself but if hee woold haue it drie nurst she woold doe her best endeavor for it."70 For the first two or three years of their lives, children were probably attentively cared for. Petitions for aid from the county levy 66Charles County Court, A#2, ff. 81, 16h. 67Ibid., All, f. 37; Testamentary Proceedings 23: 363. 68Cbaries County Court, F#1, r. 2hh; K#l, ff. 11-12; P#l, ff. 208, 210, 211; Q51, f. 11; Y#l, f. lh3; Testamentary Proceedings 5: 3h8. 69Charles County Court, A#1, ff. 35. 38. 7°Ib1d., r. 38. 108 to help maintain orphan infants attest to "ye trouble I have with such an one,‘ and "ye Trouble of'my hous with 2 small children [twins about a.year and a half old] washing Lodgeing Combeing, Pickeing, nurseing and fostering them one whole yeare."71 Until a child was able to walk well, it was carried in the sums of one of the parents when they went abroad, and very young children were probably frequently picked up and fondled. women are often recorded as going out "with their infants in their arms," and a father'was described as "walking in his Hall with one of the children . . . in his Arms."72 The line between infancy and childhood was crossed at age three. A child was likely to be weaned sometime at the beginning of the second year, and a new baby might be expected by the end of it.73 One or both of these events apparently signified the transition from the status of infant to that of "little adult." A child's chances of surviving to maturity also improved about the third birthday. This fact was reflected in public policy. The county courts authorized payment from public taxes to persons who cared fer orphans without estates until they were two years old. Thereafter orphans, in theory, paid for their maintenance through their own labor. Clearly, a child of three or four would not be able to do much work, so the custom of public payments for early care 71Ibid., I#l, r. 230; x#1, r. 303; Y#l, ff. 13, 130. 72Ibid., All, ff. h, 32; B#l, ff. lbs-50; Testamentary Proceed- ings 23: 365-66. 73Demoe, A;Little Commonwealth, pp. 35-36. See also Alan Macfarlane, The Family Life 93 Rath Josselin (Cambridge: Oxford Univer- sity Press, 1970 , pp. 87-88, and Appendix A, for a similar example of the effect of breast feeding on birth intervals. 109 must hate taken into account a high infant death rate. The chances of a baby not living to repay the costs of its care were apparently so great that public compensation was necessary to induce a couple to take charge of an orphaned infant. Conversely, masters were willing to accept the risk far those above age three.7" Susanna Taylor, for example, was promised 1,600 pounds of tobacco in 1667 for nursing, feeding, and cloth- ing a month-old orphan for a year with the condition that: if the child die anie time within halfe a yeare then the Allow- ance to be but for halfe a yeare and if it die anie time with- in a.yeare after the halfe yeare then she is to have the whole yearlie allowance.75 The situation was reversed if the child were older. Seabright Maycock in 167k was to: have Elinor Fish tht is three yeares of age, till shee arrives at the full & Compleat yeares of twenty on[e] yeares of age, hee finding her all manner of necessaries & keeping the county cleare of all Charge, hee entering into Recognizance to save the County harmlesse.76 7"Carr, "County Government," pp. 3h6-h7; Charles County Court, All, f. 37; C’l, f. 2hh; F#l, f. 13; H#1, ff. 105, 2h2; I#l, ff. 12h, 230—31; Kll, r. 8h; L#l, r. 71; Y#1, r. lh3; B#2, r. 3. A child was able to produce substantial returns by his labor beginning between ages eight and ten. Testamentary Proceedings 12B: 238-5h; Provincial Court Judge- ments, DSC, ff. 55-56; Charles County Court, E#l, f. 81. Apparently Englishmen shared similar expectations for children, at least those of the poorer classes. Locke in his Report _f_og is Reform 9;; th_e Poor _Lag (1697) proposed that "working schools be set up for poor children between the ages of three and fourteen so that "from their infancy [they] be inured to work . . . ." Quoted in Joseph E. Illick, "Childrearing in SeventeenthPCentury England and America," in Thg.Histogz‘g£_Childhood, p. 3 1. 75Charles County Court, C#l, f. 2hh. Another reference to improved chances of survival over the age of three is found in a deed of Thomas Jarvis. Upon leaving the province he deeded his cows to the man who was then caring for them with the exception of a calf "to be giuen unto William.Empsons child after [italics mine] it cons to the age of three years or upwards."' Charles County Court, Bfll, ff. 355-56. 751b1d., Ffll, r. 13. 110 Illegitimate children born to servant women were also customarily removed from.their mothers and bound to masters between the ages of two and three, and sometimes as young as six months. Neglect of such child— ren.by inattentive nurses, and.by the mother (whose time was not her own) must have sadly increased the already high proportion of children dying in infancy.77 Once he reached age three, a child was probably assigned house- hold tasks. we can suppose that this was true of those who remained at home, as well as for those who were bound out. Children undoubtedly "learned the behavior appropriate to their sex and station by sharing in the activities of their parents."78 For example, most planters owned several guns and a supply of fishing lines and hooks, and they prdbably spent a great deal of time fishing and roaming the woods in search of game with their sons. we have a glimpse of this in depositions given about land boundaries. Sons frequently tell of long walks in the woods while hunting, fishing, berry picking, or going on errands. During these times their fathers shared their knowledge of the character and history of the area in which they lived. Boys were told about the first settlers, where they lived, and who they married, and about the location of Indian towns and fields. The bounds of nearby tracts of land were pointed out, and the succession of owners related. Men showed the best places to swim and to fish, and.where to ford rivers. They pointed out the location of common paths and told where they went. The boys learned to recognize 77Ib1d., I#l, r. 13; v#l, ff. 111, 213; Y#l, ff. 16, 3s, 2h5; A12, ff. 80, 182, 251; B#2, ff. 59, 127, 128. 78Demos, A;Litt1e Commonwealth, pp. 139-h0. good land and.bad, and the different kinds of trees and plants and their uses.79 From an examination of period inventories something can be learned about children's material conditions. It appears that whatever toys children may have had were home-made, and of so little worth that they were never valued. Since most houses were quite small in this period, usually Just one to two rooms, children generally slept with their brothers and sisters in the same room as their parents or in a loft above. Only in the inventory of William.Dent, one of the wealthiest men in the county, was specific reference made to a nursery, one of the seven rooms in his house. It contained 6 straw chairs; h cane chairs; 1 hat case; a close stool; h beds; h sheets; 3 suits of curtains, valances, and coverlids; 3 cheats; some clothing, and, perhaps the only items specifically far children, 3 low chairs with cushions.8° Similarly, there was very little in typical merchants' stock that was specifically designed for the yCUng, aside from.clothing, which, except in the case of infants, apparently differed from.that of adult‘s only in size. Prdbably the only treat that a parent might ever purchase for his children at the store would be a little sugar.81 79See, for example, depositions about boundaries in Charles County Court, W2 and land commission proceedings in P#2, Q#2, R#2, and T172, and in the Provincial Court Papers. 80Inventories and Accounts 25: 390; Wills 3: 718. Cf. Inventories and Accounts 7: 295-302. 81Ibid. Among the stock in Dent‘s store were "1 child's first ccurt" and "9 pairs of children's first stockings." For another store inventory see Ibid. , f. 698. Out of 212 books which the'merchant William Baily stocked in 1702, only four were primers. Ibid. , 22: 99. Among seventeenth-century merchant inventories in southern Maryland, only Thomas Jackson's mentioned children's toys. He stocked two parcels of toys veuhued at two shillings four pence. Ibid., 9: 3&3. See Laslett, TQSDWCrld 113 Have Lost, p. 105, on the similar condition of most British children. 112 Usually, the only valuable thing children possessed was live- stock. Frequently a father would register a separate livestock mark for each child, and.when his cow or pig or horse gave birth would present the child with an animal of his own. Grandparents, uncles and aunts, and godparents might also give a favorite child livestock.82 Gifts of animals were the seventeenth-century equivalent of opening a bank account or purchasing a savings bond for a child today. The purpose was not to give the child a pet (although occasionally he might have treated the animal as such), but to give him something which would increase in value by having offspring and which would provide some income should the parents die, or a nest-egg with which to start out when he reached maJority. In 1662 Rdbert Cole, a middling planter of St. Mary's County, went on an extended trip to England. He left his family behind-a step- son Francis Hnott, 13, and his children Robert, 10, Mary, 9, William, 7, Edward, 5, and Elizabeth (Betty), 3. Since his wife was dead, extensive preparations were necessary to arrange for their care while he was gone. Mary went to live with another family, and Francis, Robert, William, Edward, and Elizabeth were left at home along with four servants. we know in detail of these arrangements because Cole died while in England, and when two of the children brought suit against the guardian, Luke Gardiner, in 1673, Gardiner presented the whole account of what Cole had 82See Charles County Court, All, ff. 66, 110, 138; 351, ft. 111, 2&3; D#l, ff. 5, 6; E#1, rt. 3k, 101; F#l, r. 198; G#l, ff. 156, 16h; 3’1. ff. 135. 292. 293. 329; I#1. ff. 85. 59. 170. 173. 2h7. 3h2: L#1. r. 92; Mwl, ff. 10, 100; N#l, r. 205; P#l, ff. 18h, 202, 203; R#1, ff. 23h. 333, 5&1, 5h8; s#1, ff. 168, 17h, 239, 313, 33h; Y#1, r. 16; Z#l, ff. 57, 67, 160, 161, 209, 260. 113 left when he sailed, and what Gardiner had subsequently expended and received. This account provides an insight into childhood in southern "hryland.83 Cole made an inventory in 1662 of what he had, and described the preparations he had made for his family. "I Doe Suppose," he stated, "I have left nw Children Indifferent well ffurnished with cloaths till Christmas onely they will want shooes." He had also laid up a year's provisions--twelve barrels of corn, eighteen middle pieces of bacon, sugar, salt, spices, sweet oil, biscuit, and soap. He expected them to get from.the plantation fresh meat, tallow, milk, butter, cheese, cider, vegetables, and fruit. Some of the children slept together, because there were only one feather bed and three flock beds in the house. "Two ivory combs for the children" were the only personal items listed. Cole had locked his books and some other prized possessions in a chest, but noted "6 other bookes left out for the children to Read in." Luke Gardiner carefully supervised the children's welfare for the next eleven years. In addition to managing the plantation and ser- vants, he saw that the children were fed, clothed, doctored, and educated. On occasion he hired a neighbor woman to help with the housework. Each year he purchased the clothing the children needed, and hired a tailor to make up new clothes and mend old ones. Table 1h summarizes the clothing each child received. Their food came largely from their own farm, although Gardiner did from time to time bring in soap, salt, sugar, beans, molasses, and.mackerel. He also bought more combs, and provided the older boys with pocket knives, pipes, and bridles fer their horses. Medical care was a3Testamentary Proceedings 6: 118-h6. Wills 1: 182-86. 11h TABLE 1’4 CLOTHING PROVIDED FOR FIVE CHILDREN, 1662-1672 Year Francis Robert William Edward Elizabeth 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. l. 3. 3. 1. 2. 5. 1662 h, 5’ 99 I"! SO 99 h, 59 99 h! 59 99 6’ 79 9 11 11 ll 11 2, 3, h 2, 3, h 1 - 2 8 9 1663 11, 12, 13 11, 12, 13 10 ’ 1, 2, 17 l, 2, 17 1, 2, 11 1, 2, 11 1, 2, 1h 166" 17 17 17 1665 1 1 l, 15 1 1, 10, 16 1666 l, 2 l, 2 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2, 8 1667 1, 3, 18 1, 3, 18 1, 3, 18 1, 3, 18 1, 18 123 123 123 12,3 1218 1553 .15 ’ 16 ’ 18 ’ 18 ’ ’ 1669 1, 2, 18 1, 2, 18 1, 2, 18 1, 2, 18 1, 2, 18 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. l. 2. 3 1 2. 3 167° 18 18 18 18 16718- 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 1672 18 18 18 18 .Key: 1. shoes 10. petticoat 2. stockings 11. suit 3. hat 12. gloves h. drawers 13. shirt 5. linens 1h. Jumper 6. apron 15. britches 7. frock l6. shift 8. hood l7. waistcoat 9. neckcloth l8. outer clothing, kind unspecified. Purchased as cloth and.made up by a tailor. Source: Robert Cole Account, Testamentary Proceedings 6: 118-h6. 115 needed from.time to time. In 1663 there was a bill for pills for Rdbert. In 166k all the children were administered a purge, and Elizabeth was given two purges in 1665. Each child apparently received about four years of education. Cole had instructed Gardiner that his sons learn to read and write and cast accounts and.his daughters to read and to sew with their needles. "All of them.[were] to be kept from Idleness but not to be kept as ComSn Servants." When the fOur years of instruction were finished, "such care [was to] be taken of my Children that they may not forgett their Learn- ing, before they do come to . . . age." The fallowing expenses were listed in the account: 1665 2 boys schooling [Francis and Robert] 350 lbs. tab. schooling for William 150 " " Edward and Betty-schooling for 1 year 600 " " 1666 h children schooleing [Rdbert, Edward, William , BEtty] 11 ,050 I! n 1667 3 boys schooling (Robert, Edward, William] 500 " " boarding and schooling Elizabeth 1,000 " " 1668 boarding and schooling Betty 1,000 " " 1670 Edward's schooling h00 N n 1671 8: 72 William' 8 schooling 100 " " Edward's schooling h00 H n The two older boys had probably already received some instruction while Cole was still at home. By 1670 Francis Knott was making himself useful on the plantation evidenced by Gardiner's paying him.for building a hen house. In 1673 Robert was making a crop of tobacco. The low cost of the boys' schooling seems to indicate that either a tutor was hired to come to the farm to teach the boys, or there was one living within walk- ing distance. Elizabeth left home for two years of schooling, and her education.was more than twice as expensive. She very likely attended a 116 boarding school operated by the Jesuits at Newtowne, Just across St. Cle- ment's Bay, and she stayed at the home of the planter on whose land the school was located.” There is no reason to suppose that the maintenance and education of the Cole children was atypical of that of many other families. Guardian Gardiner probably cared for them much as Cole himself would have done. 8 5 The most frightening aspect of childhood in the seventeenth cen- tury must have been the very real uncertainty of the future. Most child— ren could expect that at least one, or perhaps both, of their parents would die before they were old enough to care for themselves.86 When “Edwin Warfield Beitzel, The Jesuit Missions of St. W County, Maryland (n.p.; by the author, 195], pp. 28, 131-52. 85The subsequent direction that the lives of the Cole children took was also fairly representative. Robert married a widow, and he went to live on her lands, never again dwelling on his father's home planta- tion. He died in 1693, worth £68, leaving a widow, his second wife, and one small child. Mary married a nearby planter and received as her share of her father's estate 10 cattle; 1 feather bed and bolster, pillow, and rugs; 1 copper kettle; 1 pair of sheets; 1 iron pot; and 1 bell metal mortar and pestle. Edward went to England in 1672, but later returned to take up sane of his father's lands. He became a merchant as well as a planter, and had accumulated an estate of £778 at his death in 1717 at the relatively old age of sixty. William was bound as an apprentice in 1673, and he was dead by 1688. Betty died in 1670 at age eleven. 86For example, using the life table described in chapter 2, a male immigrant who married at the mean age of marriage, 26, had a life expectancy of only 19.6 additional years. Assuming that the first child was born within a year of the marriage, that subsequent children came at two year intervals, and that all of them survived, his children would be aged 18, 16, 1h, 12, 10, 8, 6, h, and 2 when he died at age 1&5. Thus, all sons would be minors, as would all but a possible maximum of two daughters, at his death. The father might appoint a friend as the child- ren's guardian. If we assume that the guardian was 140 years of age when appointed, his life expectancy would be an additional 13.2 years. Up to three of the children would still be minors at the time of the guardian's death at age 53, and would then be raised by someone else. Thus, while it might normally be obJected that orphan court proceedings are an atypical source, in the seventeenth century they reflect the experience of a very substantial number of children. 117 this happened, at best the children would have to adJust to a new step- parent and subsequently to learn to live with stepbrothers and sisters. The potential for conflict was great in situations where children of more than one marriage lived together in a family. Each parent very naturally tended to favor his own children and to discriminate against those coming from a partner's previous marriage. Parental favoritism only heightened conflicts between stepchildren already competing for their parents' attention and affection. Complaints of ill treatment by stepparents are legion. Margaret O'Daniell protested about her stepfather Thomas Denton: Your Pet[itione]r after her father's decease, lived with . . . Denton about 9 yeares as his servant working for him at the Hoe, as hard as any servant, & when hee saw, shee would marry, hee put her off, without any clothes or shift to her back, that was good for anything, sac that her husband was forced to buy her necessaries, & now refuseth to give her anything of her fathers estate or her owne.87 Stepparents sometimes went so far as to try to entirely rid them- selves of their mate's children. Thomas Price was presented in 1696 "by ye Information of Hannah Price his wife for selling a child of’ye sd Hannahs which shee had by another Husband in ye Colony of Virginia."88 Enough suspicion was aroused by the death of Katherine Lee that her step- mother'was accused, but later acquitted, of poisoning her.89 Although the county court acted to remove children from the custody of patently abusive parents, it firmly maintained the stepfather's right to compensation for raising another man‘s offspring. Almost every orphan ‘was expected to work to some degree fer his maintenance, since by law the 87Testamentary Proceedings 9: 512-15. 88Charles County Court, V#l, f. 1. 89Ibid., P#l, r. 123. 118 principal of his inheritance could not be used for the child's upbring- ing, but only the income from.it. In this period, very few estates were [large enough to so support an orphan.90 When Nicholas and Grace Bolaine petitioned that they be allowed to live with a guardian, the court agreed with their stepfather that they be bound instead to him, because they were Just now old enough to begin working to repay him for their early maintenance.91 When John Booker complained that his stepson Richard Price, then about seventeen, "takes to idle company, absents himself from the house and endeavours to get his freedom," Just when old enough to be productive, the court ordered Richard to return to the service of his stepfather.92 Stepbrothers could also be hard.masters. Humphrey Warren, Senior, a,merchant, immigrated with his son by his first wife, Humphrey, Junior. The father, encountering financial reverses, transferred most of his substantial estate to his son in order to prevent its being attached to pay for a suit which he had lost in English courts. A few years before his death, the elder Warren, still in financial straights, remarried and had three additional sons. In 1673 his widow married one Thomas Howell, a.man of small estate. She died shortly thereafter, and Howell managed to care for the three young Warren orphans until his death in 1677. 90Ibid., B#2, r. 129; M1, 1'. 199; Maryland Archives 58: 302; 65: 90;'Wills h: 313; Carr, "County Government,"7pp. 3HOJE7. In this period an orphan was defined as a child whose father had died. The mother could be the guardian only if she could give the bond required to ensure pay- ment of the child's portion, and she was accountable to the court for the condition of the child and his property. If she remarried and was then femme convert, the new husband was required to give bond or else the court would appoint other guardians, at least to care for the property. 91Ibid., N1, r. 199: led Archives 57: 302. 9ZCharles County Court, B#2, f. 129. 119 Their stepbrother Humphrey then took charge of them and their small estate. The three boys subsequently encountered even harder times. One of them, Thomas, petitioned to the Judge of Probate in 1697, explaining that his youngest brother had since died, and that he had served his step- brother: by working in the ground till he was 21 years of age and that Abraham the other [brother] served him 17 years at the howe and after that seayen years more at the trade of a shoomaker. By this time Humphrey warren, Junior, had died, and his executor not only refused to give the stepbrothers the inheritance due them from their father, but was threatening to further extend the brothers' long period of servitude by charging them for the costs of their upbringing! The executor was eventually forced to pay Thomas and Abraham their portions and free them; the fact that their stepbrother had not reveals a high degree of callousness.93 Mothers who were unable to remarry quickly or otherwise support their orphans had no choice but 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. Fatherless children were put out to others often while very young. Their only advantages over other servants was that they could not be sold to other masters, and the mother was sometimes able to mitigate their treat- ment and conditions of labor, and to stipulate that they receive some education.9" 93Testamentary Proceedings 17: 122. cr. 9: 176-77. 9“Char1es County Court, A#1, r. 1A5; M#l, r. 221; v#1, r. 310; Ill, ff. 78, 100; A#2, ff. 131, 260; B#2, f. lhl; Testamentary Proceed- ings 8: 355; Carr, "County Government," p. 3h5. 120 Even worse might be the fate of those children who lost both parents. Seldom were there surviving kin to take them in. Unless they had a large estate, they were bound out by the county court to labor for someone else until they reached maJority. This situation implies no special hardheartedness on the part of the commissioners; they had few alternatives. In a society where most children whose parents were living were expected to work to contribute to their maintenance as soon as they were plursically able to do so, it is natural that those children who had the misfortune to become orphans should be compelled to do the same. The impossibility of institutional care in a recently settled rural area and the relative poverty of the seventeenth century demanded that , beyond public payments for the care and nursing of orphaned infants, there be a system by which the orphans themselves repaid the costs of their early maintenance.”5 The county court was responsible for overseeing the treatment of all orphans and each year a special Jury inquired into their welfare. If children were mistreated or their property embezzled, the court was supposed to place them with other masters or guardians.96 A case which occurred in Anne Arundel County describes the difficulties which orphans might encounter when com'ts did not act in their behalf. One Keely, a planter, died in 1672, and his wife about a year after. In 1678 their son described what had happened to the family: 95Carr, "County Government," pp. 3110-147. 96Charles County Court, It'l, f. 259. For a discussion of the Jurisdiction and functioning of the orphans' court in Maryland see Lois Green Carr, "The Development of the Maryland Orphans' Court, l65h-1715," in Land, Carr, and Papenfuse, eds., Lag, Society, and Politics. 121 Wee three Children the least about ten yeares old the maid servant and noe body would Administer and wee lived in my father's house soe long as wee had Victualls and haveing noe Creditt for more Every one shifted far themselves wee two Brothers Bound ourselves with ye order of our Court to James Rigbie & my sister lived with a neighbour and the maide ser- vant went about the Countrey to Worke for Victualls and Still Expected Some body to take further care of ye Estate for wee left ye house and.was.Advised not to meddle with any good for feare ye Administrator when he came would take itt away now ye time being fower or five years Since my mother dyed and noe body Appeares wee crave that wee may take ye Little that people have left in ye house & that wee may have Lyberty to let ye Plantation to Some that would live on it and that wee may EnJoy it Safely.97 The experience of the Watts children in St. Mary's County tells much about the standards of care expected, as well as about abuses. William.Watts died in 1678, two years after his wife, leaving three sons: Charles, 8, William, 6, and Edward, 1:. The children's grand- father protested in 1682 about the treatment accorded them by their act- ing guardian, Gerrard Slye, the executor of Watts' estate: I never knew any bastard Children in the Province soe used as to victualls 8 Cloathes but such Ragga & old Clouts that scarce would cover their nakedness & those given them by the charity of others a as to victualls nothing allowed this present year but salt & hominy & half a bull for meate amongst all the family. An overseer, Richard Craine,added further testimony. Captain Slye had given him the eldest son at age ten to work for half a share. Craine told Slye the boy was not able to perform.such labor, as did John Sheppard, the cooper, but Slye replied that their estate would not :maintain them, and that if Craine would not take the boy, he would put him.to another quarter. 30 Craine worked Charles for two years, and.for the last-year-had‘worked the next youngest at planting corn and suckering 97Testamentary Proceedings 10: 312-13. See also 8: 135-37, 172, h38-39; 10: 11, 22-23; 123: 55-62, 216. 122 tobacco. For clothes, Craine testified, the last year the two eldest had a.yard of linen apiece and a pair of shoes and stockings and the youngest only an ozenbuck frock, "so that for the most part of this Last yeare they were almost quite naked only a paire of drawers apice that this deponent made them of Sacking Cloath." One neighbor swore, "that they were putt to unreasonable Labour supposing them.to have been bastard Children much more orphants that had an Estate Left them." A stranger to the quarter testified that he had asked who the naked and ragged children were, and a woman there told him that the children were put to hard work, had little or no Cloathes, "& were saddly beaten & abused by ye overseer as tyed up by the hands & whipt." The Judge agreed that "they have not ye Comon Care had of them as is usuall for planters to have of their meanest Serv[an]ts or Slaves," and recommended that the county court put them.in their grandfather's custody. There were delays, however, and it was not until two years later that the children were finally put in their grandfather's hands.98 This sad history shows that the community expected orphans to be at least minimally cloathed and fed. Second, it suggests that there was some concept of "children's work." Witnesses stated that expecting a ten year old to raise a crop half the size of that grown by an adult was "unreasonable." The older boy must have been performing tasks in the fields more laborious than those perfbrmed.by the younger--planting corn and suckering tobacco. Perhaps these latter Jobs were among those regularly assigned to young children. Third, flogging of children was clearly not an accepted method of discipline. Fourth, it was expected 98Ibid., 123: 238-5h; 13: 135-59. For similar cases see 10: 312-13; 17: 122. 123 that orphans be accorded different treatment depending on the size of the estate left them. Bastard children could expect nothing beyond minimal maintenance. legitimate children with no estates were accorded a higher status than the illegitimate, but probably received little more in the m of food and clothing and were also expected to work to cover the costs of their care. Orphans with inheritances were supposed to be better maintained, and apparently to work less. Such children were "to be kept from Idleness," but they were not to be "kept as ComEn Servants" working continually at routine manual tasks. Richard and Ann Jones of Charles County obtained more effective relief from the court of Charles County. In March 1690 their stepfather, Thomas Lindsay, bound them to Philip nynes, probably the hardest master in the county. In November they complained to the court that they were not given enough food and clothing. Again in January 1691 they protested that Lynes "hath taken noo care of your poore Petitioners nor found them any clothing or dyett sufficient fOr them, soo that yoor poore Petitioners in this condition without your worshipps speedy reliefe are likely to perish." The court ruled that the indenture had been voided through hynes' neglect, and returned the children to Lindsay. A few months later the court bound them.to Richard Harrison, as Lindsay was not caring fer their estate. In June 1692 Richard.comp1ained that Harrison was not teachingihhm to be a‘boatwright and carpenter as he was supposed to do, but was using him as conmon labor at the axe and hoe. The court agreed with.flarrison's Judgment that Richard was still "soo young and small that as yett hee was not fitt to worke at his trade." However, as Thomas Lindsay had still not accounted for the children's estate, the sheriff 12h was ordered to seize goods in Lindsay's possession equal to the child- ren's share of their father's inventory, and turn the goods over to Harrison for safekeeping. Unfortunately, by this process over one-third of the orphan's meager estate was consumed in court and attorney's fees.99 In order to avoid ill treatment of the kinds earlier described, a father might appoint a guardian for his children in his will. Then the court might formally bind the orphan to his guardian, especially if the mother was also dead or had remarried. When the orphan of an intestate who was heir to land reached age fourteen, he was permitted by law to go into court to make his own choice of guardian. The law did not specify who was to be guardian in cases where there was a will, but no guardian named. The stepfather or other relatives probably customarily acted.100 The Chief Judge of Probate, for example, instructed a neighboring com- missioner to acquaint an orphan that he was of age to choose a guardian and should address the county court about it: it is high time to ye orphants to Looke about them; for their Estate (I doubt) is much Embezzled by soe mamr stepfathers & an unkaremll mother . . . . I humbly Charge you to putt ye sd orphant in mind as above--& to make him sensible of his, 8: his sisters condic'6n; Give him ye best Counsell you Can is my Request.m1 ”Charles County Court, Pfl, r. 195; an, rt. 18, 23. Lynes had a long history of mistreatment of indentured servants and of orphans bound to him. He was singly responsible for almost one third of the cmplaints brought by servants before the Charles County Court between 1658 and 1705. 1°°Ibid., All, 1*. 95; Yfl, r. 16; zn, r. 160; Wills l: 1.13; 6: 181; 11: 377; it: 68, 2011. The only set terms for guardianship were that the guardian 1) put up security against waste of the estate, 2) educate the orphan according to his estate, or bind him to a trade, and 3) be of the sane religim as the child's parents. Carr, "County Government ," pp- BBS-Mt. 1"1'1‘esttamental'5r Proceedings 13: 1&5-56- See 5130 Charles County Court, Cll, r. 2hh;r#1, r. 230; an, r. l; mu, ff. 1, 270; I#l, r. 259; K11. r. 356; an, 1‘. inc; W1, 1’. 16h; B#2, r. lhh. 125 Because of the real uncertainty of a parent's survival, the choice of godparents for his child was an important decision. This practice was probably most common in southern Maryland.among Catholic families, who had greater access to the sacrament of baptism, but Protestant couples named them also. The godparent promised to see that his godchild was brought up in the natural parents' religion, and, should the child be orphaned, this promise could theoretically include raising and educating the child. Many persons took these religious duties very seriously.102 Rice Jenkins, for example, was taken in by his godfather, Christopher Williamson, when he was orphaned at six years of age. At Williamson's request the court bound Rice to his godfather to age twenty-one. ‘Williamr son agreed to teach his godson to read, and, having no children of his own, promised to give his entire estate to Rice. When John Land's father died, his godfather, Henry Aspinall, stepped in, promising "to care for him and teach him.a trade."103 Frequently godparents made some gift to their godchildren in their lifetime, such as a cow, horse, or sheep, and others left livestock or some personal belongings in their will.1°" In the event that a man had no children of'his own, he might, like Christopher Williamson, will a 1°2Joan Beale willed "That my Sonne George Read and.his Estate be fully and wholly committed to the Custody, tuition and Guardianship of my good ffiends his godfathers George Mackall and John Wauhub, or the Sur- 'wivor of them, my said Sonn to be by them protected un[d]er God and pro- ‘Vided for (out of his estate) and brought up in Civility good Litterature and.the feare of God, untill he shall be of age." Testamentary Proceedp irugs 1h: 21~23. 1”Charles County Court, V#l, f. 126; Pll. f- 195. 1°“Ihid., M1, r. 95; In, ff. 16, 311; Ml, 12.160; Wills 6: 181; 11: 377. ... a 126 substantial portion of his estate to a godchild. Thomas Burford, for instance, willed that his godson live with his executor until age twenty- one and that he receive three years of schooling and a negro boy.”5 Because of the special interest godparents might take in them, the court often preferred to bind orphans to their godparents rather than to more indifferent masters.”6 Also, in cases where the children were put out to others, a godparent might intervene to rectify the master's treat- ment of a godchild. For instance, when complaint was made about Thomas Sprigg, an executor of Sarah Belcher's estate, that: he locks up the said [orphan] Sarah Belcher and puts her to all kinds of Drudgery like a camon bought servant in the Country and refuses any person admittance to Speake with her so that she remaines more like a slave and a prisoner than an Orphant to whom an Estate is Due, the court ordered her immediate delivery to John Sewall, the husband of "Elinor that is both godmother and was Nurse to the said Orphant."1°7 Of course, the lives of all orphans were not so dismal as those in some of the preceding illustrations. Examples appear of extra-ordinary kindness among godparents and other persons who acted as surrogates for kin. For instance, a man might take responsibility for the orphans of an intended wife, as happened.when the widow Sarah Clarke was espoused to Miles Gibson, but she died before they could be married. Gibson adminis- tered her estate, took care of the plantation, and cared for and educated her two small orphaned daughters.”e What the preceding examples do show 105Wills 6: 93. See also 1: 379; 2: 102; 3: 638; 6: 3h2. 106Charles County Court, Efl, f. 132; S#l, f. h02. 1”Testamentary Proceedings h: 9‘10. 1“Ibid., 123: 71-73. 127 is that the wicked stepmother or brutal master of today's "fairy stories" were often very real persons in the lives of seventeenth-century children. Teen-aged children appear somewhat more frequently in the records than do younger ones. Although still legally minors, they were often doing the same work as adults. A boy might even attempt to support his fhmdly‘before he was of age. In June 1696 Thomas Shuttlesworth "hath absented htmselfe and is gone away" from.his wife and two minor children. Edward, his son, "Endeauouring to make a Crop for ye mainteineance of himselfe & his mother," was declared to be not lyable for his father's debts, in order that the family might be kept together through the son's labor.109 There are suggestions that, among boys at least, something of an adolescent crisis may have occurred. Not all children exhibited the "dutifull behaviour" expected of them. Especially in families where the father had died, teen-aged sons got into arguments with their parents, sought to escape from work and from the authority of others, spent their inheritances imprudently, and got into scrapes with the law. Older men often commented on the lack of industry and self- discipline they saw in younger charges. A father complained that his stepson, age seventeen,"takes to idle company absents himself from the house and endeavours to get his freedom."11° A godparent protested that his fourteeneyear-old godson was being brought up to "idleness, swearing and all other ill vices."111 Another boy was described by his intended stepfather as: 109Charles County Court, V#l, f. l. 11°Ihid., 1352, r. 129. 1111bid., Y#l, ff. 311-12. 128 a young Wilde b dissolute p[er]son much given to Company keep- ing 8: of such as are debouch[ed] a: rude fellowes, 8: that hee is uncapable of managing his owne estate left by his father being Considerable but living up & downe, or to & fro ye County one weeke in one place 8. a fortnight in another letting his estate fall to Ruine 8: decay for want of management. 112 William Dent willed that his children have their estates in Maryland delivered to them at age seventeen, but admonished: I will not have any [of] the boys to have their Moneys in England till twenty one yeares to the intent that if they Take loose and Idle Courses here which God for bidd they may have one after game more to play by which time they may see their former folly and amend. Less frequently, boys had difficulties with their mothers also. The widow Carvers Clark, for example, was anxious about "her sonn . . . being almost of Age 8: threatens to Leave her."n" When Levinia Dickeson renounced her right of administration of her deceased husband's estate in favor of her son Samuel Bagby, she anticipated potential differences. Included in her renunciation was the provision "that nw sonne . . . shall give . . . [me] a lawful maintenance a. dyett & lodgeing 3. Clothing & more- over ye sd Samll Bagby shall not abuse his mother but shall be dutifull 8n obedient to. all her Comands a. god will bless you ye more."115 Long- standing and bitter conflict must have preceded the disputes betwaen 112Testamentary Proceedings 9: 1714-78. 113w111s 3: 1175-80., Thomas Clarke in his will instructed his wife Sarah to dispose of the estate between his two children, "in such manner and by such parts and portions as to her shall seeme most meet and fitt, Respect being Chiefly had, in the said division of Goods and Chattells, to theyr respective dutifull or undutifull department towards her theyr mother . . . dureing the time of her abode in this present Life." Testa- mentary Proceedings 7: 20-22. 11"Charles County Court, M2, f. 260. 11“"Testamentary Proceedings 13: 22. 129 Richard Cole, who had Just reached twenty-one, and his mother, Sarah. She accused him of: abusing her and her [second] husband Younger . . . . And said she would have her sonne Cole make an end of the difference between her and him about his Childs part of his Fathers goods and in discourse about it, fell into extreame passion, and threw a firebrand and a howe at her said sonns head, and snatched up a spitt of wood and threatened to runne it into the gutts of her said sonne. Richard took refuge in the house of a neighbor complaining that his mother would not let hinalone.116 Real delinquency might be considered the fault of the parent as well as of the child. Charles Garrat, Junior was convicted of stealing a cable from a sloop and was sentenced by the court to ten lashes and a fine. In an attempt to put him under better supervision, the court bound Charles with his mother's consent to John Fendall. Charles' father, who had been absent at the time of the arrest and trial, later tried to get him back, "alledging y't Mr Fendall hath not performed ye Conditions on his part . . . but bath putt him to other Servile Labour in his Planta— tion." The court decided that Charles was not being abused, and upon Fendall's promise to keep him to a trade, recommended that he remain in Fendall's custody and not that of his parents.117 Since girls generally assmned adult roles earlier than their brothers, there was less time for conflict with parents to develop. Also, because there were more men than women in the colony, for a girl marriage frequently proved an easy escape from an unhappy home situation. Margaret O'Daniell is a case in point. She clearly was anxious to leave the custody of her stepfather, with when she had lived, "about 9 yeares as 1161bid., 8: 285-87. 117Charles County Court, Y#l, ff. 78, 100; A#2, r. 260. 130 his servant working for him at the Hoe, as hard as any servant," and who, when "hee perceaved . . . she was Resolued to marry . . . put her off, with out any clothes or shift to her back." Many girls finding themselves in similar situations must have left home and.married at sixteen as Margaret did.118 The education which children received was supposed to be suited to their station, and might be practical or academic or both. Children of ordinary farmers and craftsmen were trained to be farmers and crafts- men. Those of wealthier parents might be educated for more prestigious occupations, as merchants or lawyers. Richard Chandler, a wealthy planter, invoked this distinction of station when he specified that his nephew, John Hamilton, should receive "such Schooling and instructions . . . as shall be requisite and necessary for one of his degree, and may capasitate him for some suitable Employment when he shall be a man."119 Some boys learned trades by serving an apprenticeship. The con- tract into which master and apprentice entered enumerated the mutual obligations of both, and followed a long-established form. The wording was almost identical to that of contracts then in use in New England and in other colonies.120 The widow Dameris Ward, for instance, apprenticed her son James to a carpenter, James Edmondson, in 1691:. The contract: Witnesseth that ye sd James for diuers good Causes and Con- siderations and.Especially by ye aduice approbation & Consent of ye sd Dameris his mother Hath putt himselfe an apprentice 8: servant unto him ye sd Robert Edmondson with him his heirs Exerers or admers to serve 8: dwell with from ye day of ye date hereof for In untill ye full End 8: teams of six yeares fully 118Testamentary Proceedings 9: 512-15. 119Ihid., 17: 101-10. 12°Morgan, Puritan Family, pp. 120-21. 131 to bee complete 8: Ended, dureing which time hee ye sd James Ward shall well a faithfully serve his sd: Master his heires Exerers: or admers: in such service or Imployment as hee or they shall Imploy him in, his or their Lawfull Comands he shall Euery where gladly doo 8: performe, his sd: Masters goods bee shall not purloyne nor give aid or Consent to ye same, but shall Informe his Master thereof, neither shall hee suffer or permitt his sd: Masters goods to be Imbeezled, waisted, or otherwise destroyed without useing his uttmost Indeauour to prevent ye same & Informeing his sd: Master thereof, Ordinary or 'I'ypling houses or such like places hee shall not frequent or haunt dureing ye sd: tearme at Cards Dice or such like unlawfull games hee shall not play dureing ye said tearme without his sd: Masters leave, Matrimony within ye said tearme hee shall not Contract, and finally in all other matters 8: things as a good faithfull 8: honest apprentise ought to bee and doo, shall behaue 8: demeane himselfe towards his sd: Master 8: all his dureing ye sd: tearme. In Consideration whereof ye sd: Robert Edmondson for him- selfe his heires Exerers: 8: admrs: doth hereby Couenant promise 8: agree to 8: with ye sd: James Ward to prouide 8: allow to him sufficient 8: Compleate Clothing, apparell, meate, drinke, washing 8: lodgeing dureing ye sd: tearme Requisite and necessary for apprentices in such sort, and to teach 8: instruct or Cause to be taught or Instructed him ye sd: James in ye art trade 8: Mistery of a carpenter which hee now professeth and useth and that by ye best wayes 8: meanes that hee Can within ye sd: tearme and in all other things to doo what a Csrefull 8: honest Master ought to doe towards his apprentice 8: servant.121 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 16903 very few fathers bound out their children; when families were not broken up by the early death of the father, sons and daughters were kept at home. Unlike New England, where non-agricultural trades developed, in the labor intensive , staple crop economr of the Chesapeake there was no rationale for apprenticing children to trades when their labor was needed in the family's fields. Instead, it was 121Charles County Court, s#l, ff. h30-3l. See also Q#l, r. 3o;‘ s#l, ft. 183, 211, 1:03: ”1, r. 311: M2, 1‘. 212. 132 ‘widows who insured that their orphaned sons be cared for and taught how to earn a living through apprenticeship, and.their orphaned daughters provided far by binding them.cut to learn housekeeping. (See tables 15 and 16.) There were crucial differences in attitudes towards the work which nativeéborn children and.which common indentured servants were expected to do. Servants were by definition the suppliers of unskilled labor in the field and household. Children, on the other hand, were to be kept busy, but were ideally to be exempted from daily rounds of sheer hard labor. Orphans, for example, were not to be "turned to Common Labor" and were "to be exempted from.the How and.the Mbrtar" or from "the axe and the Hoe"122 in order that they might learn skills which would prepare them for a better adult life. Seventeenth century parents perhaps perceived to some extent that childhood was a time of learning as well as of physical growth. The criteria of an academic education was the ability "to read distinctly in the Bible." Few other books were available.123 Generally, ”humid Archives 57: 302: 65: 383; Charles County Court, on, f. l; Rll, f. 372; B#2, f. 1h2. Nicholas Skidmore's apprenticeship con- tract to house carpenter Hugh Toares specified that he was not to spend his time planting,'but was to be taught his master's craft. After the age of fifteen he could be used in the fields for one corn crop only per year. Charles County Court, S#l, f. h03. See David Bertelson, Thg_Lazy South.(New York: OxfOrd University Press, 1967) for a discussion of attitudes towards work in the southern colonies. It is Bertelson's con- tention that while colonists both in New England and in the South believed equally in the need to practice the virtue of work and to avoid the vice of idleness, those in the South lacked the religious fervor of the Puritan 'work ethic. Hence, he believes, while children were perpetually admonished to keep busy, the admonitions lacked the social dimensions which they had in New England. For confirmation see Chancery Records, IR#3, ff. h8-h9. 123Joseph Towne Wheeler, "Books Owned by Marylanders. 1700-1775:" @345 35 (191:0): 337-53. 133 : o : a.mH : : m s e mmmH : m : o.Hm o.» o.H H s m emmH : m : o.aH : o.o : m m mmmH H H o.OH : o.m : H H m mmoH : n : : : : : : : HmmH : m 0;. 0.3 no Tm s s w ommH H m m.a : m.o : m : m memH : s o.HH o.a a.» a.mH m m s maoH : HH a.mH : : o.e m a HH aemH : w : o.HH : o.OH m m m mamH : H : : : : : H H mamH : : : : : : : : : samH : H : : : : : H H memH : H : : o.H : H : H mamH H : : : u a u H H HamH : H : : : : : H H mmmH : m a.sH : o.m : H m m ammH : H : : : : : H H mme : m o.m o.mH : o.m H H m momH oeHHe Assurance see: one: aoHssoa noan noHnsua ooHsz ossom Ensues ones soHnaoauossom soHozuessom one one: o3 use: on 6: steeds... to» chanson endow .0.” made» .0: .on Hon—on. moeH:ommH .Hazaoo msHmemo .aao meson me anemones enroHHmo m." mam-«B InllJIIi...vd§ei-..u .. - a~.ooaa\ I. 13h .mam mwsosnp Had msopHH .mosooom psdoo hassoo moHsono "oohoom m m m.m o.mH o.m m.HH : m m mowH I m I v.0H o.m >.m m m m JONH : m o.HH m.m o.m «.mH : m NH mowH m m m.0H ~.HH :.m m.m m b 0H NOFH m mH o.mH o.m m.m m.m P NH mH HorH m HH o.HH m.mH o.m o.m m m :H oo~H H : 0.0H o.: o.» I m m m mmmH I :H m.» o.m h.m o.mH m m :H mmmH H m m.0H o.mH o.m o.m m a h pmmH I m o.HH o.bH o.m 0.: H H m mmmH I H I 0.:H I o.» I H H mmmH H m I o.mH I m.m I b w :mmH H H I I I I H H m mmmH H I I o.om I o.H I H H mmmH I s I 0.0H I o.HH I z : HmmH I m I o.mH I o.» I m m oamH I H o.HH I o.» I H I H mmmH I s I I I I m H a 33 H m o.m o.» o.OH o.» N a m hmmH I : o.m o.MH o.mH o.MH H m : mmmH 2:2 H3393 one: one: noises sodas noises sodas Henson Pangaea coon moHdaothgom uoHdchoH-on 02 use: 02 one: . oz . on defining Hoe» whomeuh nude» .02 undo» .02 .oz Havoa eSsHosoolmH .35; 135 TABLE 16 DISTRIBUTION OF AGES AT WHICH CHILDREN WERE BOUND Age Number Mhlea Percentage Number Females Percentage 1 2 3.2 1 2.1 2 h 6.1I 2 h.2 3 h 6.h h 8.3 h 5 7.9 6 12.5 5 2 3.2 7 1h.6 6 h 6.h 3 6.3 7 9 1h.3 h 8.3 8 h 6.h h 8.3 9 5 7.9 5 10.h 10 5 7.9 5 10.h 11 1 1.6 1 2.1 12 h 6.h 3 6.2 13 2 3.2 1 2.1 1h 3 k8 - .— 15 2 3.2 1 2.1 16 1 1.6 1 2.1 17 2 3.2 18 3 h.8 19 1 1.6 63 100.h he 100.0 Mean.Male3: 7.2 Mean Females: 7.h Mbdian 8 Median 7 Source: Charles County Court Records, libers A#1 through B#2. 136 it was expected that children could achieve this proficiency within two years of instruction.12“ Literate parents frequently taught their own children to read, or perhaps sent them to another relative for instruction. A schoolmaster might then be employed in the home for six months to a year to teach writing or accounting. Generally the latter instruction was reserved for'boys. After height taught to read, girls were put to sewing "& Such other Education as is suitable for Woomen." Both boys and girls might also be sent for elementary instruction for a season or so to a boarding school. Such an education served two purposes. It conferred an advantage in making a living, and it enabled the child to gain a first- hand.know1edge of the Bible.125 When John Robbinson brought suit against his guardian, John Ingram, in 1718 for neglecting his education, the guardian described to the court the instruction which Robbinson had received. First, he had been taught for fbur or five years at home, at the end of which time John could read a chapter in the Bible and a ballad or song, and, "con- sidering he had no Latine Education he could read English as well as other Youth that had no further Education than English." A schoolmaster was then employed in the home for about a year to teach John to write and .12“Charles Count Court, Ail, ff. 16-17; Y#1, ff. 209, 311; A#2, f. 306; B#2, ft. 129, 17 ; Wills h: 201; 6: 93; 11: 199; Inventories and Accounts 13B: 122. 125See discussion of schooling of Robert Cole's children, supra, and also Testamentary Proceedings 123: 71-73; Charles County Court, Afll, rt. 13-1h; G#l, r. 1; s#1, r. h30; x#1, ff. 130, 3H3; Y#1, ff. 16, 176, 311; A52, f. 386; B#2, f. 5; Wills h: 189; 12: 1h. Mention is made in Charles County Court, Y#l, f. 176, of a boarding school in Nangemy. 8choblmasters taught basic reading, writing, and arithmetic. Instructors in the social graces did not appear in the county until after 1705, with the exception of Richard Land, who, in 1685, was "teaching and instruct- ing divers of his scholars in the noble science of defence." 137 account. The boy protested that a year was not enough time to master writing, but others testified that the fault was his, he being "a care- less Idle Lad and woud gett from.his book if he coud," and that "there are many who can write and account with less than a year's schooling." Subsequently John was sent to his guardian's father-in-law for more instruction in writing and arithmetic. This arrangement did not work out, as John considered the older man incompetent, and he, losing patience with the boy, put him to work in the fields, "swearing he would learn him.to weed a corn row." As a last resort, Ingram offered to send John for a year to a boarding school four miles from home, which he refused to go to. The court ruled that deficiencies in John's education were due to his own incapacity or negligence, and that the education pro- vided was suitable to his station.126 The age at which children received their education varied widely. Robbinson was in his teens, as was Thomas Dickinson, whose father willed in 1673 that his son, then age sixteen, should have two years schooling and then be put to work. On the other hand, some of the Cole children were much.younger when they were instructed, and William.Hawton directed that his godchild, Richard Smoot, have two years schooling at age seven or eight.127 Clearly there was a danger that children who received their education at a tender age might "forgett their Learning" before they came of age unless parents or guardians saw that their lessons were periodically reviewed. The paucity of education so often noted in the colonial South was prdbably as much a-result of a short life expectancy as it was of the 126Testamentary Proceedings 22: 381-h22. 127W111s 2: 78; 11:377. 138 absence of towns and low density of settlement. Parents very often did not live long enough to oversee their children's education or to teach them whatever they themselves knew. Not every guardian, stepparent , or master would be so conscientious as the guardians of the Cole children or of John Robbinson, or would not have the same interest in seeing that a child was educated as his own parents would have had. Towards the end of the century, more and more often it was stipulated in indentures that an orphan receive some education, usually that boys be taught to read and write and girls, to read distinctly from the Bible.128 However, unless the mother lived long enough to enforce the contract, it is likely that in may cases the children did not receive the specified instruction. If an apprentice complained to the courts that he had not received the educa- tion he was entitled to by his indenture, he was frequently awarded monetary compensation instead of remedial instruction.129 For example, Thomas Jackson had been bound to Henry Hardy for four years to learn receiving tobacco, writing, and casting accounts. When Hardy not only did not teach him accounting but also demanded three years more service, the Charles County Court ordered Jackson to choose a guardian through whom he could bring suit against Hardy for damages sustained by Hardy's breach of the contract.13° In another instance, the widow Coniers Clark petitioned about her son John's master, Ralph Shaw: 12°Chsr1es County Court, Kfl, r. 209; s#1, r. h02; vwi, ff. 126, 16k, 310, ush;.XI1, r. 130; Ill, ff. 35, 129, 209, 3h0; Ai2, ff. 2, uh, 162, 259. 306; 3:2, ff. h, 59, 61. 129Ib1d., 811, f. hoa; 312, f. 175; Carr. "County Government," p. 31415. 13°Chsr1es County Court, x#1, r. so. 1" (1’ '." - 139 That [because of] the faire promise of Ralph Shaw to bee in the stead of a Father to your Petitioners sonne John Clarke and to keep him at schoole your petitioner was consenting to putt her said son to the said Ralph. . . . [who] Doth not use him as a son but a servant or rather a white Negro clothing him in such things as Negroes are usually Clothed and Puting him under an Over seer to make tobacco and Corne instead of gooing to Schoole. When other witnesses corroborated her complaint, the court declared John's indenture void, and returned him to his mother. There is, however, no indication that he was compensated for the education he had not received.131 William Williams, an orphan, was bound at age ten by his mother to John Hawkins. He was to serve until age twenty-one, and was to be put "to school till hee can reade in ye Bible." Hawkins died soon after, and the two administrators under whom Williams subsequently served did nothing to instruct him. Williams was awarded damages for the administrators' default, but had to serve out the full term.of his 1ndenture.132 Even when an orphan could be educated out of the proceeds of his own estate, his guardians might not attend to it. Colonel John Courts com- plained about the situation of his godson, John Warren, the orphan of a wealthy Charles County planter and Justice of the peace. Warren's father and two subsequent guardians had died during his minority, and he was then in the custody of the widow of the second guardian, who, Courts maintained: is but a woman and I believe has a great deale of business of her owne to mind . . . [Warren was being] brought up to nothing but idlenesse, swearing and all other 111 vices. She hath pretended to put him to schoole to Mr. Potter about h months agoe after that shee heard that I did intend to move the Court about him; I will testify that hee has not been att schoole above fifteene dayes in the four months . . . . [Courts promised to] keepe him close to schoole untill I have learned him to read and write a legible hand 131Ih1d., V11, r. h10; x31, f- 375- 1321b1d., 3:1, 1. h02; s#2, r. 175. or. P#1, r. 203; B#2, r. h9. ~ I 5 he. at. “ ‘fl‘ a \o ‘I e .x\ .t... 1140 and to cast account as farr as the Rule of Three, and after soe done to learn him to know how to gett his living and that hee shall have the same in dyett lodging and apparrell as well as my owne Children or little worse. Of course, neglect of education was not so serious a matter then as now. Many of those children who received no education at all prospered as adults. Literacy was not necessary for economic success. However, in , Maryland, as in England, most of those who held positions of real power had at least a.minimal education.13" From the period of first settlement, parents were concerned that their children be "brought up in Civility good Litterature and the feare of God," but the struggle Just to stay alive often made this goal impossible to achieve. By the turn of the century, demographic conditions were changing. Immigration to the Chesapeake slowed after 1700, a substantial number of nativeéborn children were coming of age, and many single men were leaving the settled regions of southern Maryland for areas which offered.more opportunity. Thus, the proportion of men was becoming more equal. More men were able to marry, and they often could do so by the time they reached.madority. The age at marriage for women remained low, and as a result the birth rate increased, and native-born finally outnumbered immi- grant in the population. Life expectancy also increased somewhat for those born after 1700.135 133Ibid., r#1, ff. 311-12 13"Russell R. Menard, "From.Servant to Freeholder: Status Mbbility and.Property Accumulation in Seventeenth-Century Maryland," WMQ 30 (1973): h7, 56-57; Laslett, The World gg_ste Lost, pp. 19, 65-66. 13“"See below, ch. 2, and Menard, "Population Growth." The fall in age at marriage was dramatic. Men born in the 1670-79 cohort married at a mean age of twenty-six, while those born in the 1680-89 cohort married at a.mean age of twenty. Those born in 1690-99 married at a mean age of twenty-two. An improvement in life expectancy is demonstrated in the unpublished research of Paul G. E. Clemens of Rutgers University and in Kulikoff, "Tobacco and Slaves," ch. 3. .‘N Hy. H .“3- ‘D {5' 1h1 As a consequence of a longer life span and a more uniformly early age at marriage, many more parents lived to raise their children to maturity and to see them married. In addition, in those cases where one or both parents died before their children were of age, in a society in which the maJority were native born, kin were much more often present.136 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. Previously, many a father, fearing the consequences of his early death for his family, had given his children as much freedan as possible to control their lives after his demise. By the early eighteenth century, parents were more often able to reassert control over the lives of their maturing offspring. Disposal of Body, Mind, and.Estate Death was an omnipresent fact of life in seventeenth-century Mary- land. It came early and often, and not many weeks would pass in a comp 'mmnity in which one of its members did not die. This served as a constant reminder to the survivors of their own imminent mortality. Persons "sur- prised by sudden death" had no opportunity to dispose of their estates or make arrangements fer their burial. Many of the living, however, con- stantly aware of "the uncertainty of this transitory life," made intricate arrangements for their deaths. Samuel Ashcom, for instance, decided: that he would not deferre the sealing of his Will any longer, but would invite three or four neighbours . . . . & seale signe — b-haye it witnessed. . . . He intended.that Col. Jowles & his 1“Lois Green Carr and Lorena S. Walsh, "The Planter's Wife: The Experience of White Women in Seventeenth-Century Maryland," paper pre- sented to the Columbia University Colonial History Seminar, April 13, 1976. 3&3? n :11 a V I J98: one: I lpOnu ‘- fie! fl.‘ ERIC at t‘: . t vivahculalunenhh¢\ 1&2 1ady[,] James Keetch & his wife & . . . [Captain Richard Gardiner] & his wife should come downe & eate part of a mutton for Col. Jowles had made his Will and intended that then they should be witnesses to it.137 Many a man, "haveing a Good Estate and Many friends [resolved] to have a Will Alwaies by him.to prevent Striff amongst his Relations after his Death."138 Less presentient persons sent for someone who could write in order to make their wills when they fell ill, or else declared their intentions orally to those present.139 The significance of a will was described in this way: This Record's such, wherein you'l find, men to dispose their Bodyes, Souls & Mind Their lands, Goods, Chattels and the Rest Of their Estate whereof they were possest.”o Makingta‘will was first of all, an affirmation of religious belief. Although a set form was followed, the wording varied to express the particular tenets of the testator. John Luger's will is typical: In the name of God Amen. The twentieth day of November in the year of our Lord one Thousand six hundred sixtie and nine I John Luger of Charles County in the province of Maryland being sick of body'but of good and perfect memory praised be to god do make & ordain this my last will and Testament in manner and form follow- ing. I commend my Soul into the hands of God my creator hoping assuredly through the meritts of Jesus Christ my redeemer to be made partaker of life everlasting and I commend my body to the earth whereof it is made desiring it may be buried in a Christian manner and for the small Estate which it hath pleased god to lend me my will g2? request is it be disposed of in the manner follow- ing. . . . 137Testamentary Proceedings 1h: 112-l6. 13°Ihid., 17: 109. 1 39min. , 12A: 116-17. 1“°Wills 6: 1. 1“Ibid., 1: 355- D. ‘1’ “A 'v 1h3 Next, the testator acknowledged the obligation that his "Just debts" be paid first. If the estate were small, severe hardship might result for the survivors. It was the custom in estates where there was not enough to pay the debts to allow the widow her paraphrenalia-- personal property exclusive of her dowry. This was defined in one case as "her bedd 3 Barrills of Corne and a pestle & morter," and, in another case where there was also a small child, as "one bed and furniture, one gun, an ax, a pot, three barrels of corn, two howes, one frying pan, two spoons, a spitt, and necessary provisions for her and her child for one year."1"2 It is not mmch wonder that some widows sought to elude the distribution of a meager estate to pay off debts. It was probably sheer need which motivated Robert Hale's widow when she "possessed herself of the [few] hogs . . . of which Hale's estate chiefly consisted . . . and fled out of this province or concealed . . . [herself] in private."“’3 What surplus of goods, chattels, and lands the testator owned after allowing for payment of debts, he next disposed of. It was impera— tive that men who owned land and wished to divide it among their children write a will, because by law land.could not be devised orally. If the will was nuncupative or there was none, by English law all the land descended to the firsteborn son only, and.primogeniture was clearly dis- tasteful to all but a few of the colonists.1"" In one southern Maryland county more than ninety percent of landowners whose estates were l“Testamentary Proceedings 16: 198; 13: 363-6h. See also 7: 37-38; lhA: 8. 1"3Ibid., 9: 329-30. 1""Ibid., 6: h83-89; 9: h71-72. 523-2h. 1m: inventoried made wills. A similar proportion of married men wrote wills. Conversely, only about half of the inventoried decedents who were single and/or non-landowners left wills. “*5 A wife usually received generous treatment in her husband's will. This was a reflection first of the fact that most families were composed only of minor children,”6 and the second of the high regard mam seventeenth-century colonists had for their wives' ability to manage their estates.1w In Charles and St. Mary's Counties over the seventeenth century less than one-third of the men left their widows with no more than the dower the law required--one-third of his land for her life plus outright ownership of one-third of his personal property. More than two-thirds of the dying husbands left their widows more. If there were no children, a man almost always left his wife his whole estate. Otherwise there were a variety of arrangements. During the 1660s nearly twenty percent of the fathers left the entire estate to their wives, trusting them to see that the children received fair por- tions. As the century progressed, husbands more often gave the wife all or a maJor part of the estate for her life, the testators themselves designating how the property should be distributed after her death. Only 1"5Lorena S. Walsh, "Report on Seventeenth Century St. Mary's County Wills," unpublished report prepared for the St . Mary's City Com- mission, November, 1971: (copy available at the Hall of Records). “50f 199 St. Mary's County testators between 1631: and 1710 who had offspring, 69 percent had only minor children. In II9 (25 percent) of the families there were some maJor and some minor children, and in only 12 (6 percent) were all the children of age. Similarly, among 1:01: men dying and leaving inventories between 1658 and 1705 in Charles County, 197 left only minor children, 52 had some children of age, and in only 26 cases were all of age. 1"'7Carr and Walsh, "The Planter's Wife." 115 a handful of men left estates to their wives only for widowhood or until the children came of age. When a man did not leave his wife a life estate, he often gave her land outright or more than her dower third of his moveable property. Such bequests were at the expense of his children and showed his concern that she should.bave a maintenance that young children could not supply.”8 (See table 17.) The way in which property was divided among the children varied with the size of the family and the age of the father. Land was distri— buted slightly more inequitably in smaller families than in large. This is probably a consequence of the longevity of the father. The older the man.was the more Children he was likely to have, and he was also likely to have accumulated more property. Conversely, those who died earlier frequently had both fewer children and less property. The effect on daughters was particularly pronounced. In families where there were only one or two daughters, the daughters received no land in over half of the cases, regardless of the number of sons. In families with three or four daughters, the pattern is reversed; daughters received some land in over ‘half of the cases. The effect of an increasing number of sons on the distribution pattern is less clear—cut. One thing is certain-~1arge 1"°Ibid., and Walsh, "Report on St. Mary's County Wills." A simi- .lar situation prevailed in the presumably malarious fens of Cambridgeshire in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. More childless couples and families with all minor children appeared in wills there than in the up- lands of the county. In the fans the wife was commonly left all the estate for-the minority of’the children, and frequent allusions were made to her probable eventual remarriage. Upland widows often received less generous Ixxrtions, and they more often had some children of age. Margaret Spufford, Contrasti Cmunities: Engish Villagers iii the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries [Londom Cambridge University Press, 1975], pp. 159_-61I. 1h6 .maaaz apqsoo moanaso was m.ausz .pm "oosaom om mm 0N Hm : MH m 0N mm HOH w 0N mom Hdpoa Nm 0N mm :H m N 0H m Nm 0N Nm mochH wN wH :H 0H m N OH > m: Hm H H mm mommH mN MH HN HH : N z N hm mH oH m Nm mommH om wH HN MH m m m N :m HN a : Hm mobmH mm mH 0N m h m a N wH m wH w m: mome :4 b mN : m H m H MH N w H mH mommH pm a mm H m moses R. .02 u .02 \\MW .02 11M. .oz MM“ .02 u .02 sandman 98% .385 3.30 no 320st 6008.633 .83 no.“ . puma museum H2 .02 open no smog a.“ assoc mom :5de no.“ .3de $3325 no HH< no hoe—on can» 0.8: 3335 no a mnHHHog no HHd OHPHIozmH nz. .p h g t 3 E5 {3 . 43 9+3 in In H t .2: 5 °: 3 as a; 1.3 \ H git—l g +3 0 V! 8a a. 9. “80 Pa 5.3 a: a 5. .. a .. 5.. id 8 a o u) o .n'E-H > .9 .. v 3 g ”g 3 an: as 3 §:o E; E! tscocb 04«< p.463 2 it b! R R it it. 1658-6A 13 5A 8 38 38 31 8 1665-69 19 37 37 26 27 58 21 1670-7A 22 27 27 A5 A1 59 18 1675-79 27 63 15 22 30 A8 15 1680-8A 36 69 19 11 17 AA 11 1685-89 17 77 2A - 12 29 6 1690-9A 18 72 11 17 11 28 - 1695-99 8 88 13 - 13 13 - 1700-05 7 100 - - - 1A - n- 167 185 experiences of the 167 Charles County servants whose later careers could be followed. Clearly those who had arrived earliest had the greatest success. Among those freed after 167A, the percentages owning land or bound labor declined sharply and only a handful from this group rose above small planter status. Table 22 shows that the experience of ex-servants who had served elsewhere followed a similar pattern, although the decline for those who appeared as freedman after 167A was somewhat less severe. Men without capital trying to establish themselves in southern Maryland were suffering from a slowing and then stagnating economy."6 Political participation, and hence having some say in how one was governed or even exercising some measure of power over others , was also dependent upon early arrival in the county. Only those who came earliest achieved maJor office. As shown in tables 21 and 22 the participation of most former servants was limited to Jury service, and even this opportunity declined sharply for those freed after the mid- l680s. Here demographic as well as economic conditions were at work. Not only were poor men less likely to acquire property sufficient to entitle them to serve, but as more English merchants and gentry came into the county, and as the sons of the earlier settlers came of age, the pool of wealthy and socially prominent men increased. Consequently “For Maryland tobacco prices see Russell R. Menard, "Farm Prices of Maryland Tobacco, 1659-1710," MHM A8 (1973): 80-85, and idem, "Note on Chesapeake Tobacco Prices, 16183660," Virginia Magazine g Histog a_n_d'BioE' am, forthcoming. For a similar description of declining opportunity for servants who arrived after. 1660 in Virginia, .see Wertenbaker, Planters 9_f_ Colonial Virginia. Freedmen in south- eastern Pennsylvania apparently found a similar situation there by the end of the next century. See James T. Lemon, The Best Poor Man's Countgz (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1972), pp. 85-96. 186 TABLE 22 ECONOMIC STATUS AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION OF FORMER SERVANTS EIIGRATING TO CHARLES COUNTY Eigiézégeiizzzz gtfgiztEYSE Political Participation E 8 8 3 "E 2 3 § 3% 3" SE 83 ,3: t a 3.32 E 53: 0.2 353 a: 5 g a?» 5»; m 3%: ”a g 3 m 23 3 2.28 82 9143;: I: it it we we he he 16h8—5h 9 - 11 88 78 78 56 1655-59 25 20 8 72 hh 72 uh 1660-6h 19 53 - h7 h2 63 he 1665—69 22 us 18 36 9 6h 18 1670-7h 26 50 8 he 31 he 15 1675-79 2h 63 8 29 25 58 13 1680-8h 25 80 - 20 16 hh 12 1685—89 16 56 13 31 19 56 31 1690-9h 10 7o 20 10 10 20 10 1695-99 5 80 - 20 - 20 - 1700-05, 67 - 33 11 22 11 112190 Note: Date of first appearance as freedman is less precise in this table than in table 21. The figure in this table is based on first appearance in the county records, as precise infbrmation about the terms of servants freed in other counties is unavail- able. 187 standards for eligibility rose. In the 16608 a servant could obtain his freedom in the morning and sit on a Jury in the afternoon; by 1700 he was unlikely to serve (if he did so at all) for some time after he . had established a household and acquired land."7 When the economic achievements of ex-servants are compared with the landholdings and personal wealth of all county residents, it becomes even clearer that Opportunities for men beginning without capital were indeed limited in southern Maryland probably as early as the mid-16608."8 Examination of the 1659 and 1705 rent rolls reveals the extent of initial opportunity and its subsequent decline."9 In 1659, 115 persons, about 90 of them residents, held land in Charles County. Of these, 2h, or 26.7 percent were former servants, most of whom had recently moved "7See below, ch. 6, and Menard, "From Servant to Freeholder." For similar developments in Virginia, see Bernard Bailyn, "Politics and Social Structure in Virginia," in Smith (ed.), Seventeenth Century America, pp. 90-115. The results of this study do not support T. H. Breen's argument that a rise in tObacco prices during the 1680s elimp inated a "'giddy multitude'" of poor whites and servants (who had before this time constituted a threat to peace in the Chesapeake) by increasing their access to land and eliminating "grinding poverty." Rather, tobacco prices and resulting economic opportunity moved in the opposite direction. Nor is there any evidence for his assertion that post-1680 immigrants were of higher social rank than their predecessors. "A Changing Labor Force and Race Relations in Virginia, 1660-1710." Journal of Social History 7 (1973): 3-25. "BThat a change in equality of wealth distribution occurred, at least by 1670, is supported by results of the St. Mary's City Commis- sion inventory project, "Social Stratification in Maryland." Between l6h0 and 1660 the mean value of personal estates fell and the median . rose, indicating that wealth became more equitably distributed in that period. From 1660 to the early 16803 the mean increased substantially, while the median levelled out by 1670 and perhaps earlier. Thus, inequality increased. Fran the 1680s through 1705 the mean and median remained stable, and further shifts in wealth distribution did not occur. See Menard, Harris, and Carr, "Opportunity and Inequality." "9Rent Rolls 0 and 8. 188 from adJacent St. Mary's County. The mean acreage of all landowners was Sh6 acres, while the mean holding of former servants was 366 acres. Many of the ex—servants had Just recently acquired the first of what would later become many tracts, yet they already held 13.h percent of the land in the second year of the county's history. Forty-six years later, in 1705, 3&0 persons, about 293 of them residents, held land in the county. Only one of the ex-servants who had appeared on the 1659 rent roll was still alive. Ex-servant landholders numbered only 27, or 7.9 percent of the whole and owned only 8.1 percent of the land, although one of them, Philip Lynes, was the biggest landholder in the county. The mean acreage of all landowners was A68. That of ex—servants (here excluding Lynes) was 2h5 acres. The disparities were growing. The former servants from other counties who owned land in Charles County in 1659 had had only to move from a neighboring county in order to become landowners. This was not true for the freed servants who at a later period moved away from Charles County. Only four or five identified former Charles County servants held land in adJacent Prince George's County in 1706, and they had acquired their tracts by 1691 or earlier.50 Nor did the freed servants move into St. Mary's 50For lists of all land owners and biographies of officeholders in Prince George's County between 1696 and 1709, see Carr, "County Government," appendix 6. It might be supposed that there were former Charles County servants among the non-officeholding, non-landowning residents of Prince George's County, a group not so extensively covered in the above study. However, it appears that most former servants moved further away than an adJacent county. A complete name index appears in the published Prince George's County records (Joseph H. Smith and Philip Crowl, eds., Court Records 93 Prince George's County, EEEEZ. land, 1626-1622, American Legal Records vol. 9 (washington, D.C.: American Historical Society, l96h).) These early Prince George's County records share the advantage of the early records of Charles County in that the names of most of the male residents appear in them. A search of the index revealed no additional men whom I could identify as former Charles County servants other than those land and/or office- holders or craftsmen who also appeared in Carr's study. 189 County. Fewer than five former Charles County servants could be identi- fied as St. Mary's County residents, and none of them held land on the 1705 rent roll. Similarly, none held land on the Calvert County rent . roll of the same period.51 A look at the personal assets of ex-servants as shown in probate inventories also demonstrates the relationship between early arrival in the county and economic success. Inventories have survived for 77 men identified as fermer servants, including 31 of the 52 freedmen known to have served and died in Charles County between 1658 and 1705. Not sur- prisingly they usually died with less personal property than appears overall in the estates of county residents: mean and median personal wealth for all county residents over the period was £116 and £h6 res- pectively,52 whereas for former county servants it was £88 and £29. However, servants who were freedmen by l66h did much better than those who came later. Most of these earliest freedmen had emigrated to Charles after serving in other counties. The mean and median values of their personal estates were £lhl and £112. Estates of later arrivals had a mean value of £70 and a median value of £32.53 51Rent Rolls 3, h, and 8. The St. Mary's City Commission is currently assembling biographical files of all seventeenth century St. Mary's County residents who appear in period records. 52"Social Stratification in Maryland." S3This disparity in total estate value appears to be influenced more by time of entry than it does by length of economic career. There were twenty-four inventories for the pre-l665 emigrant freedmen and twenty-two fer the post-1665 group. Men in the earlier group whose economic careers lasted thirteen years or less (seven) were less wealthy than their longer—lived companions (seventeen). The mean value of their estates was £96, below the mean value of those who lived longer--£159. In the later group, the mean value of the estates of the men whose economic careers lasted nineteen years or longer (six) was only £59, less than the mean value of the estates of the shorter-lived members of the earlier group, and only £5 more than the mean value of £5h of the estates of those who died younger (sixteen). 190 Among servants freed after 166%, the personal estates of those who had served in the county show an interesting difference from the estates of those who had served elsewhere. The mean value of the per- sonal estates of the first group was higher than that of the second, £80 as opposed to £5h, although the medians were £32 as opposed to £3h. A possible explanation lies in the fact that the two groups invested differently. Tables 21 and 22 show that the men who had come from else- where had higher rates of landownership, apparently choosing to put more in this resource and less in labor, livestock, and consumption goods. The men who had served in Charles County had lower rates of landowner- ship. They frequently continued to rent, often from former masters, rather than purchase their own land, and instead invested more in their personal estates. To summarize, as the tobacco economy slowed down and as popula- tion increased in the settled regions, opportunities for men beginning without capital decreased. The best land was taken up, and labor, a necessity if a man was to rise above the level of "rude sufficiency," became increasingly scarcer and.more expensive. Men who had immigrated as servants found that the initial advantages possessed by native-born sons and free immigrants with capital was one which was more and more difficult fer them.to overcome. A decrease in chances for political participation paralleled the decline in economic opportunity. The chances for integration of ex-servants into the community diminished in other ways. Social integration of former master and former servant was easiest in the period when population was small and the need for labor great. In the early years of the county, further- more, servants often worked for masters who had themselves once been 191 servants and sometimes for ex-servants not very long freed. By the end of the century, native-born masters-—men who had not known servitude—- were becoming numerous, and masters were more likely than earlier to have wealth and status to which their servants could not aspire. Such men more easily established and maintained deferential relationships with those who served them or who had formerly served them. Most of the immigrants who served in Charles County did not remain there long. A number died "in their seasoning," and many others who survived left the county as soon as their terms expired. The low level of persistence indicates that many of those who chose to immigrate to Maryland as servants were not integrated into the region in which they served their time. As the area's population increased, outmigration ‘was not simply a matter of moving to the next county. By the 16808 many freed servants fOund it necessary to leave the tobacco coast entirely. This is not to argue that colonists without capital did not find opportu- nities to improve their lots in other regions. It is clear, however, that many more men immigrated to southern Maryland to satisfy that region's labor needs than could be absorbed into the local economy and body politic. Slavery: The Structure‘g£,Non-opportunity for Blacks Slave labor was at first a small and infrequent substitute for that of indentured servants among Charles County planters. So long as voluntary bondsmen arrived in adequate numbers to satisfy the planters' requirements, white servants constituted almost the whole of the county's labor force. However, as the century progressed the servant trade failed 192 fOr a variety of reasons to provide sufficient numbers of laborers. Local planters then looked to other sources, especially to Africa, to supply their continued demand for hands in the tobacco fields. Substan- tial importation of blacks began to change the composition and distribus tion of’the labor force, and.to dramatically alter the nature of the local society.5" During the 16503 and 16608 only a few black immigrants came to Charles County. In the early 16608 they comprised Just two to three percent of the population. Because these early black immigrants were few in numbers, and because they dwelt scattered over a number of farms with none living in large groups, their presence did not markedly alter the character of the emerging society.SS (See table 23.) Some had come voluntarily. An example was John Baptiste, a "Mbore of Barbary" who arrived with an indenture, served out his term, 5"The brief and incomplete discussion of black immigration and slavery which follows is a result, not of the writer's assessment of the importance of the subJect, but rather of’the paucity of surviving evidence. Because references to blacks in seventeenth century Maryland are scarce, a study based on sources relating to one county does not yield enough infbrmation from which to make meaningful generalizations. Hence, in the section which follows, I have relied heavily on the works of other scholars fer the interpretive framework in which the Charles County evidence is placed. 55See ch. 2. Commenting on the inability of Maryland planters to afford slaves, Charles Calvert wrote to Cecilius Lord Baltimore in 166k: "I have endeavoured to see if I Could find so many responsible men that would engage to take a 100 or 200 neigros every yeare from.the Royall Company at that rate you mentioned . . . . But I find wee are nott men of estates good enough to undertake such a'businesse, but could wish wee were for wee are naturally inclined to love neigroes if our purses would endure it." Calvert Papers, Maryland.Historical Society Funthublication 28 (Baltimore: .Maryland Historical Society, 1889), p. 2 8. .llllll all" it my PM Eabnn <-s 193 .mOFHImmmH .mpnsooo< one moHAOpoo>nH one .mHHfi3 .mouooom phdoo hpnsoo moaneno "moaaom .wonooou hpsaoo has ow condemns uo>oo mMoeHn hues hausow>oo .Heoh use» a“ hpqsoo on» ad newsman mobeau wen ouoa.enonp nausea :ova one on.moaouooo< .qofleuaomom abode on» no noavaOQEOo won one ems demand can anemonmoa poo has so has mondman omens ”ovoz mam Hm Hm HH eOH m: m HmH em mHapoe mmH . m H as w m ms mH mouooeH mmH . mH s mm mm m an 0H mmnmmmH mH . u m s m .. a m 3.0me ms . n m mH m . 0H a mmummmH mm Hm H H m u u m u swnommH mH - m a m : n m u aanmpmH H u u u H u H m u HeuoemH a u u H m a n H m mmumwwH m u u .. .. .. .. .. m .66me Hence eoHeHooauaa coHuHooAuas eoHnaan ‘ eoHnuuHa mason now no um< saw no eHo omva mHno no eHo omHMH mHno uo>eam nouoaano oodeaeh mode: mnmoomm M82300 2H mozo .Awma u 2V meouonsa hep moooeosHp .oOHpsmsooo Hdhdpddoeams Isoo semen 0p moeosooos omememmseo one: some» someone was endpdsoesws neon se newsman on: see venue menu oHs beam empoa em mm m o m m o e e oe woe mwwwe em mm me e m m e e m CH mwm mmmwe 3e as a e m m e m m me new mmmwe pm on me o e m o o a w Nwm mewe am me o e e o e e m o smm mwmwe mm em me o m m m o m m sew meme nm 5e me we we e m z o o m a mom MWWWH me eo m o o s e e m a one mewe . some «me new use no ue am no me am «a mom nmmoe ozone woe Hooe> cwsemmooonm wmooose Mondays owsexeoz owsexnoz owsexeoz phonon 909352 ooasoma< no: Ipsdem loom ooom woespoeo wseoeesm Hope: someone oooz ooeeexnob pmueh undo» chaowopso assoepmmdooo se psoouom moralwmmd .MBZDOU mmqmdmu zH mquz BADQ< mmmm ho HAHmomm AuH maooa maoos mHooa maooa mHooB nHooB weaponsuth endow 338 £20 388.. 9.83% mafia 3.8.88 38» no 80.5: so .28 08m .850 .826 fir. A33 use. -8980 a»? flu. sanctum a»? 9808.” fit. pdmonom psoouum pqmouom pnoouom mordlmmwd .mflHMOBzH>zH NBBDOO mmqmdmo 2H mqooa Bhdflb ho HOZHnHozH om mqmo gawk myocaonomsonwnos no muuuaomomsom .Ammw on as mo mflad> opspmm HasOmsom Hdpopv spoons adpaamo so» no oosooa>o ans_msucaonom:on no muucaonomsonnsoz ¢ .muonopsn.usm .moudup manpoao on» .muouafidn .muvgnos1uwneaoa .Ampnmwnsaafia was mpnwahakmop pmooxov mnoxhokluoos..mumuonma moosaoaw mags» mamas m om mm hm mm om mm H: 0: mm D Humanom om mm mm mm or pm mm mm mm o psmonom :H mm mm om Pm am pm om mm hogfisz msoapsasooo assspasssswarsoz_sss assspasossma spam m o as m mm on sa 0 om m assassa mm mm mm as we a» mm 00H am a assosom Hm em mm mm mm Pm :H e mm sonssz ease soausasooo assspasossmansoz moms mama smma mama saws mama seed .mmwa sews -ooea -mmma noses -moma uomwa umrma noewfl ummma named condommd pagan cownom tmcha¢mDooo A¢MDBnDon6mHmo< chEHmom OHSOZOUH EmmmUHm Hm mqmmmm mmmmmu 2H mo mandma n<=zaz QMNHAMHmQ< ZOHBHmom UHZOQOOH Bmfimch mm mumdfi 23h planters. Because such men could comand substantial capital, they could achieve substantial returns from a variety of investments. (See table 33.) The decision of whether or not to engage in planting as well as in mercantile or professional activities probably produced a bigger political than economic payoff. In Charles County, at least, becoming a planter was a pre-requisite for men of this class for obtain- ing positions of influence in the county power structure.25 The Occupational Structure: Women's Work So far we have considered how the occupations which men brought with them were utilized or discarded in a tobacco economy. But what of the occupational experience of women? The maJority of immigrant women as well as of men paid their transportation costs by working without pay for a four or five year term of service. The kind of work she did depended on the status of the family the woman served. A female servant in the house of a small planter—who through about the 16708 might likely have a servantzsu- probably worked at the hoe. In wealthy households she probably most often did not. On the other hand occasionally women are listed in inventories of wealthy people as living on the quarters--that is on plantations other than the dwelling plantation. Such women saved men time necessary for food preparation and washing linen but must also have 25See below, ch. 6. 26Menard, "Economy and Society," table 7-5. Most of the discus- sion of women's work which follows is based on Carr and Walsh, "The Planter's Wife." :P In. lush; 235 .Hm oHde com Q can .0 .m .< 90 maowpwnfihoo Mom "ovoz .mpnunouma nod .maop Imwoaa .thQHOpps .mofispgso mans .mooomhoswno one msswowmhna .mowsdoospogs .ms050>hom wounded“ manna mamas :m ooa mp Hm mm Hm ooa ooa am a pooosom HA 0 mm m ma m o o m o pooosom m m a HH m HH ma : mm nonsoz moowasgoooo HanopaoownwmHm mouez.mmmao Qz< mZOHmmmhomm 2H NABMdm mo wage 3.nfio¢ozm 2m: Mm Qm>mHmo< chaHmom UHZOzoom BmfimUHm mm Manda 236 worked in the fields.27 In inbetween households experience must have varied. Where the number of people needing feeding and washing was large, women servants would.have little time for the hoe. A.woman who stayed in England would also spend time as a ser- vant, but if she were not from a cotter's hut, she probably did not do heavy fieldwork.28 What proportion of women servants in Maryland found themselves demeaned by such unaccustomed work it is impossible to say, but it must have happened to some.29 A study of how women servants were distributed among wealth groups may shed some light. Nevertheless we still will not know whether those purchased.by the poor or sent to work on a quarter were those whose previous experience suited them.for field labor. An imbalanced sex ratio in Maryland guaranteed that once freed, immigrant women would marry quickly. As a wife, a woman continued to carry out the roles that she had had as a servant--those of both provid- ing services for men engaged in producing tdbacco and of being a part- time producer of tobacco herself. A woman newly freed from servitude 27See above, ch. h. zeMflldred Campbell, The English Yeoman Under Elizabeth and the Early Stuarts (New Haven: Yale University Press, l9h2), pp. 255-61; Everitt, "Farm Labourers," p. 1632. 29Forinstance, a servant in the Sot-Weed Factor lamented: In better Times, e'er to this Land I was unhappily Trapann'd; Perchance as well I did appear, As any Lord or Lady here, Not then a Slave for twice two year, My cloaths were fashionably new, Nor were my Shifts of Linnen Blue; But things are changed now at the Hoe, I daily work, and Bare-foot go, In weeding Corn or feeding swine, I spend my melancholy Time. 237 would not bring property to her marriage, but the benefits of her labor would be great. A man not yet prosperous enough to own a servant might need his wife's help in the fields as well as in the house, especially if he were paying rent or still paying for land. Moreover, food pre- paration was so time consuming that even if she only worked at house- hold duties she saved him time he would otherwise spend away from making tobacco and corn. All the corn, for example, often had to be pounded in the mortar or ground in a handmill before it could be used to make porridge, grits, or bread, for there were very few water mills in seventeenth-century Maryland. The wife probably raised vegetables in a kitchen garden, and it would be she who milked the cows and processed the milk into butter and cheese, which might produce a saleable surplus. She would wash the clothes, and make them if she had the skill. When there were servants to do field work, the wife undoubtedly spent her time entirely in such household tasks. A contract of 1681 expressed such a division of labor. Nicholas Maniere agreed to live on a planta- tion with wife and child and a servant. Nicholas and the servant were to work the land and his wife was to "Dresse the Victualls milk the Cowes wash for the servants and Doe allthings necessary for a woman to doe upon the ad plantacon."3° 3”Mpgmland Archives 70: 87. Also see Ibid., hl: 210, h7h, 589; and Charles County Court, Ml, f. 178 for examples of allusions to washing clothes and dairying activities. Water mills were so scarce that in 1669 the Maryland Assembly passed an act permitting land to be con-demed for the use of anyone willing to build and operate a water will. Ibid. , 2: 211-lh. In the whole colony only four condemnations were carried out over the next ten years. Ibid. , 51: 25, 57, 86, 381. Probate inventories show that most households had a mortar and pestle or 8. hand mill. 238 Promotional tracts asserted that women servants did not engage in field labor, except "nasty" wenches not fit for other work.31 This implies that most immigrant women expected, or at least hoped to avoid such labor. Nevertheless, several kinds of evidence suggest that some wanen must have worked beside their husbands. There are occasional direct references in the court records. Mary Castleton, for example, told the Judge of probate that "her husband late Deceased in his Life time had Little to sustaine himselfe and Children but what was produced out of ye ground by ye hard Labour of her the said Mary."32 Household inventories provide indirect evidence. Before about 1680 those of poor men and even middling planters on Maryland's lower western shore--the bottom two-thirds of the married decedents33--show few signs of house- hold industry, such as appear in equivalent English and New England estates.“ Sheep and woolcards, flax and hackles, and spinning wheels all were a rarity, and such things as candlestick molds were nonexist- ent. Women in these households must have been busy doing other things. “Hammond, "Leah and Rachel," pp. 290-91. 32Testamentary Proceedings 10: 18h-85. Cf. Charles County Court, M1, r. 169; C#l, ff. 23840; Dill, r. 150; I’ll, ff. 9-10, 259. 33Among married decedents in southern Maryland before 1680 (N = 308), the bottom two-thirds (N = 212) were those worth less than £150. Among all decedents worth less than £150 (N = 1:51) , only 12 had sheep or yarn making equipment, about three percent. "Social Strati- fication in Maryland." 3"Everitt, "Farm Labourers ,"p p.p 1422-26; W. G. Hoskins, Essays _i_n Leicestershire History (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1950), 1:. 132E;1dem., Th___e_ Midland _I_>______eesent, pp. 295-97. 307-08; Darrett B. Rutman, Husbandmen of Pfluth: Farms an_d Villages in the Old Colog,1620-1622 (Boston: Beacon Press, 1967) , pp. 19, 31, MainT-"Measuring Wealth and Welfare," pp. 163-20h, 260-93. 299-300. 239 In households with bound labor, the wife doubtless was fully occupied preparing food and.washing clothes for family and hands.35 But the wife in a household too poor to afford bound labor—-the bottom fifth of the married decedent group--might well help in the fields when she could.36 Eventually the profits of her labor might enable the family to buy a servant. With a servant greater profits were possible. From such begin— nings many families climbed the economic ladder in seventeenth-century Maryland. The proportion of servantless households among the living must have been larger than is suggested by the inventories of the dead. Fewer young men died than old in proportion to their numbers, and young men had had less time to accumulate property. In the living population well over a fifth of the households of married men may have had no 35While standards of cleanliness were undoubtedly low when com? pared to present-day standards, people at all economic levels placed some importance on clean clothing. Almost all contracts between freedmen and householders with whom they were rooming included provisions not only for room and board but also for washing of linen. Apparently then even very poor men did not consider clean clothing a luxury which they could fore- go. In addition, the task must have been sufficiently time—consuming that men were willing to pay the housewife to do it, rather than economiz- ing by caring for their own clothing. More affluent non-householders-- clerks, lawyers, merchants, and the 1ike--hired the wives of various planters with whom they stayed to wash and sometimes to mend their clothes. The sources shed little light on the question of how often various kinds of clothing were in fact washed. We know only that task was of sufficient importance that contracts for room and'board regularly made provision for it. Fifteen contracts which include such provisions appear in Charles County Court, A#1, f. 188, 2h8—h9; H#l, f. 207; K#l, f. 61; R#1, ff. 70, 125, 181, 217-18, 501; S#1, ff. 123, 225; Y#l, ff. 18, 219; Y#1, f. 277; A#2, f. 13. 36Among married decedents in southern Maryland, the bottom fifth were approximately those worth less than £30. Before 1680, these were seventeen percent of the married decedents. By the end of the period, from 1700-05, they were twenty-two percent. Before 1680, ninety-two per- cent had no bound labor. From 1700 on, ninety—five percent had none. Less than one percent of all estates in this wealth group had sheep or yarnmaking equipment before 1681. "Social Stratification in Maryland." 2&0 bound labor. Not every wife in such households would necessarily work at the hoe. Upbringing, illness, many small children might prevent. Nevertheless it seems likely that many wives in such households did. A lease of 1691, for example, specified that a man could farm.the amount of land that "he his wife and children can tend."37 Stagnation of the tobacco econony, beginning about 1680, produced changes that had some effect on women's economic role. In inventories of the lower western shore, signs of home industry increased, especially over the upper ranges of the economic spectrum. In these households many more women than earlier were spinning yarn and presumably knitting it into clothing.38 There was far less increase in such activity in the households of’the bottom fifth, where changes of a differnt kind.may have in fact increased the pressures to grow tobacco.39 Fewer men at 37Charles County Court, R#la f- 193° 38During the seventeenth and.very early eighteenth centuries fiber processing and subsequent clothing manufacture in southern Maryland ‘was done only in the home. This was limited almost exclusively to knitted items, as very little woven cloth was being produced. Only one loom.appeared in all southern Maryland inventories (N = 1,7h5) between 1658 and 1705. While some large planters were clearly weaving cloth by the 16903, the amounts produced were quite small. (See note 106 below.) This picture changed during the eighteenth century. In adJacent St. .Mary's County after about 1720 professional weavers began to appear in the decedent population. Concomitantly, many more homes possessed spinning wheels. Thus it is likely that from.that time women often spun thread which was made into cloth by professional weavers. Annual data have not yet been processed, but gross counts are available. In 1,99h St. Mary's County inventories for the period 1705-1777 forty-three per- cent of the estates contained spinning wheels, while eight percent had looms. 39Among southern Maryland estates worth £150 or more, signs of diversification in this form appeared in twenty-two percent befbre 1680 and in sixty-seven percent after 1680. Over the years 1700-05, the figure was sixty-two percent. Only six percent of estates worth less than £h0 had such signs of diversification after 1680 or over the period 1700-05. These figures are for all estates. "SCCial Stratification in Maryland." 2h1 this level could now purchase land and a portion of their crop went for rent."0 In these groups possibly more wives than befbre were helping produce tObacco when they could. But by this time they were often help- ing as a matter of survival, not as a means of improving the family position. Some wives also generated additional income by taking in work or by earning wages outside the home. Wives of poorer planters often helped out by taking in washing, mending, or sewing. Fer example, Thomas Witter's wife accepted seventeen ells of holland linen from.John Hamilton and agreed to make it into shirts "for the usual pay.”1 Dameris Sar- Jeant did washing for her husband's landlord, Dennis Doyne, on an annual basis as did Edward Williamis wife for their landlord."2 "oAfter the mid-16703 information about landholdings of southern Maryland decedents becomes increasingly less available, making firm estimates of the increase in tenancy difficult. However, fer house— holders who were married or widowed and.who died without children of age the following table is suggestive. Householding decedents in this cate- gpry worth less than £h0 (N = 255) were 21 percent of all married or widowed decedents with all minor children. Estate Value £O-19 £20-39 Decedents Land With With Decedents Land With With Uhk. Land Land Uhk. Land Land N N N 1 N N N 1 to 1675 10 0 7 70 3h 2 29 91 1675 on 98 22 hO 53 113 16 6h 66 In computing percentages, unknowns were distributed according to knowns. A man who died with a child of age was almost always a landowner, but these were a small proportion of all decedents. "Social Stratificap tion in Maryland." ' "ICharles County Court, A#2, ff. 156—57. “ZIhid., v#1, r. 2&6. 2h2 The planter's wife might also find part-time employment on other farms. Helping to wash, clean the house, milk cows, and to prepare meals on special occasions were the most usual services supplied."3 Neighborhood women were often paid to prepare funeral dinners for decense: members of the community, and.by the 16908 enough farmers had taken up wheat-growing that extra help was needed to "dress victualls in ye time of'yer reaping.""" Women also frequently earned money nursing the sick and acting as midwives, and on rare occasions they were paid for wet- nursing."5 This practice, however, appears to have been almost entirely confined to payment for the nourishment of orphaned infants or for the care of babies whose mothers were ill or for other reasons unable to nurse themselves; children of healthy mothers were rarely put out to nurse. '. Less frequently wives also worked long hours outside the home on an annual contract basis. A neighborhood woman might be employed as a full-time housekeeper in families where the wife had died, as happened when Robert Cole's motherless children were left alone at home while he returned to England."6 When servants were in short supply, area women nught also be hired as supplementary domestic help."7 Such seems to have been the case when Anne Wright agreed, in return for one stuff gown "3Ibid., A#l, f. h7; B#l, r. 1h3; K#l, ff. hlh-15. 9“:hid., R#l, f. 2h8; s#1, f. 297. “SIhid., H#l, ff. 38-39, 52-53; R#l, r. 327; v#1, f. 15; Y#l, ff. 1N3, 163; A#2, ff. 66, 319. "SSee below, pp. 263—76. l"Ibid., and Charles County Court, v#1, ff. 65, 197. 2h3 lined with callicoe and six hundred pounds of tobacco, to live with and serve Robert Smallpageuwith the consent of her husband, George-~for one year."8 What appears to be missing entirely from the seventeenth-century Maryland household is the woman who was educated to be primarily an ornament. In the upper classes of English society this was a growing tendency, but in Maryland even the Proprietor's niece, in the words of her cousin, the Governor, had "charge of my household affairs." Dying fathers in Maryland urged that daughters not be brought up to idleness , and put their widows in charge of their estates."9 The planter's wife then contributed to his prosperity in a variety of ways, whether by property she had brought to the marriage, by the labor she performed in the house, garden, dairy, and fields, or by wages earned outside the home. She was well enough acquainted with his affairs and in his estimation sufficiently capable of managing his estate, that, when he died, he usually left his wife a life interest in his property and made her his executor. Women clearly had a role of impor- tance, political and economic, in the management of the planter's house- hold.50 ”Charles County Court, R#l, f. 19. ”Thompson, Women _i_p_ Stuart England and America, pp. 200-207; _T_h_g_ Calvert Pagrs No. l, p. 236. 5"Carr and Walsh, "The Planter's Wife." 2M4 Farm, Neighborhood, and Community Economic and social interaction between individuals occurs in specific spatial settings and in the context of a particular material culture. Some knowledge of the physical dimensions of life in seventeenth-century Charles County is required for a better understand- ing of the residents' style and quality of life. This section begins by attempting to place the material culture of the period in context. It then proceeds to a discussion of the basic unit of economic and social organization, the family farm, and ends with a preliminary description of the structure and functions of two primary units of collective economic and social interaction, the rural neighborhood and the rural community. Today, men and women from.highly developed nations frequently experience "culture shock" when they first encounter local conditions in so—called under-developed countries. They are unprepared for the quantum differences in all aspects of life which vast disparities in levels of per capita income bring. The dazed traveler feels that he has not arrived in another part of his world, but has somehow fallen into a different world altogether. The historian experiences a similar kind of cultural reaction when he first examines the material assets of seventeenth-century Chesapeake colonists. In a contrived way at least he feels quite at home with the artifacts of the mid-eighteenth century, "the golden age of colonial culture." He feels a basic empathy with the men and women who dwelt in the houses whose style he still imitates and who made and used the kinds of furniture, domestic utensils, and tools which are today prized collector's items. 2h5 When the historian extends his studies earlier into the colonial period, however, he finds that somewhere in the early eighteenth century he has entered into a period which—~in the context of material-culture at least-~is truly part of "the world we have lost." It is increasingly clear, both from the evidence provided by surviving physical artifacts and from the documentary evidence pro- vided.by probate records, that a reVClution in thought about the nature and use of domestic architecture and about investment in non-capital items beyond those requisite for subsistence occurred in southern Mary- land sometime between 1720 and 1750. The seventeenth-century colonists' standards of sufficiency, of comfort, and of luxury were not simply more modest versions of eighteenth century dictates; they were different standards altogether.51 Such attitudes and standards persisted for a long time and they were shared by most of the colonists. What we find is not simply a brief reversion to primitive and spartan conditions in a frontier situa- tion. Very few changes occurred in the material culture of southern Nhryland for something like a century, both in newly settled regions and in older areas which had long passed the frontier stage.52 Neither was the phenomena limited to a small segment of the population. Doubt- less resident contemporaries saw subtle distinctions in the acquisition 51Cary Carson, Barbara Carson, Lois Carr and I are preparing papers on patterns of consumption and domestic architecture in seventeentho and eighteenth-century southern Maryland. For surviving artifacts see Gary Stone, "St. John's." 52For the persistence of a culture of "rude sufficiency" in some regions and strata of the Chesapeake in the eighteenth century see Aubrey C. land, "The Planters of Colonial Maryland," MHM 67 (1972): 2h6 and.use of possessions which elude us. What mainly strikes our eye, and what struck the eyes of contemporary aristocratic European observers was the general lack of distinctions between wealth groups, and the peculiar homogenity of tidewater Chesapeake culture. Like Charles Calvert, we would undoubtedly have found seventeenth-century Charles County "very mean and little,‘ a place where the homes of lead- ing merchants and planters might be mistaken for modest farm cottages in England, a place where social groups did not develop distinct identi- ties based on differing patterns of consumption.53 Just how did the county's residents live? The great maJority lived and worked on single family farms, called by contemporaries, plantations.5" The focus of each such farm was a cluster of buildings similar to those illustrated in figure 13 which usually included a dwelling house; perhaps a quarter or two for servants or slaves; sometimes miscellaneous outbuildings sudh as kitchens, milk-houses, storehouses, and workshops; and almost always one or more tobacco houses. There might also be a pen for cattle and horses, a hog house, and a hen house. A paled kitchen garden and a fenced orchard were commonly located close to this assemblage of buildings. Further away would be found cleared fields with stands of tobacco and corn, and occasionally a.patch of wheat or cats. The rest 53"Answer of Charles Lord Baltimore to the Lords of Trade," March 26, 1678, CSP 10: no. 633. I 5"For contemporary usage of the term "plantation,' Evolution _c_f; g Tidewater Settlement System, pp. 102-103. see Earle, ......t... “an... ...n. . 8. . ensue .... 3“. III II .‘ '4-I'y1’i. 2h? r ,n w t q ..4 g 3.KITCHI.N on. "Man. ouraaleuc LTDBA COO BARN 2.2wEI-LIN6 Moos 7. tum/13. CHARLES COUNTY COOK Sonnet I706 FIGURE 13. A CHARLES COUN‘I‘I PLANTATION 2&8 of the land was wooded with here or there a temporarily abandoned "old field" reverting to the original vegetation.55 Dwelling houses were invariably small, unpretentious structures. House dimensions are occasionally stated in building contracts, in suits for debt, and in estate valuations. House sizes mentioned in seventeenth- century southern.Mbryland records ranged from ten to forty feet in length and from.ten to twenty-five in width. Twenty by sixteen feet was the most common dimension.56 In a one-story house this represents a.meager 320 square feet of living space. Typical Chesapeake farm houses were dissimilar to vernacular buildings in England and even to very early structures built in Maryland and Virginia. Settlers apparently began experimenting with new forms of housing almost immediately, and they quickly developed standardized types of dwellings which were appropriate to local needs: 55This description of a typical seventeenth-century southern Maryland farm.is based on two sources. The first source is a topical file compiled by the St. Mary's City Commission staff which contains all references to dwellings, outbuildings, fences, and farm layout in most of the maJor series of provincial records for the seventeenth cen- tury and in selected county records. The second source is a collection of extant orphan's court valuations. These documents list the size and condition of buildings, fences, orchards, and.sometimes of fields. Early valuations were not systematically recorded and are feund scattered in a variety of county records. I have here used the fourteen valuations for the period 1678-1722 which related to Prince George's, Charles, and St. Mary's Counties. Both collections are available at the research office of the St. Mary's City Commission, St. Mary's City, Maryland. 56The sources listed in note 53 contained thirty-four observa- tions of dwelling house lengths and fifteen Observations of widths. 2&9 By the third quarter of the seventeenth century carpenters were building a type of house so different from English farm.houses and so universally acceptable to tobacco planters on both sides of the Potomac that it was known by a shorthand phrase as the "Virginia style" or the "Virginia house."57 One distinguishing feature of the "Virginia house" was its con— struction, employing as it did a new technology based on indigenous material. Not only was the whole exterior of the building covered.with riven oak clapboards, a locally abundant and easily produced building material, but following a system unlike any then known in England, the clapboards were essential structural elements of parts of the framing. Such houses were more easily constructed than dwellings in the English style, and.while they might not last so long as English structures, they were quite suited to the planters' needs. Many "Virginia houses" also had a characteristic style: a one-story frame dwelling with two rooms on the ground floor and one or two exterior gable and chimneys.58 The exterior appearance of Chesapeake farm.houses was as unpre- possessing as their size, and--from.our perspective--uniformly dreary. Left unpainted, the clapboard-covered roof and walls soon weathered to a dull grey, usually unrelieved by any kind of exterior ornamentation. In the eyes of some less aristocratic seventeenth-century beholders, such functionalism.had an aesthetic side as well. Hugh Jones called these dwellings "pretty timber houses," and John Hammond found them."pleasant in their building, which although fer most part they are but one story besides the loft, and built of wood, yet contrived so delightful, that 86 57Cary Carson, "The 'Virginia House' in Maryland," MEM;69 (1975): l . 581bid., pp. 189-90, 192-93. 250 your ordinary houses in England are not so handsome . . ."59 Some his- torians have considered such favorable descriptions puzzling, but we must remember that the observers were Judging Chesapeake architecture by their own standards, and not by ours. The interior of the "Virginia house" was generally as unpreten- tious as the exterior. Unornamented ceiling beams were usually left exposed. Interior woodwork was often left unpainted, although sometimes too whitewash covered ceilings and lath and plaster walls, or exposed timberwork was painted. Windows were either glazed or simply provided with shutters "which are all made very pretty and convenient." Floors ‘were perhaps usually planked, but certainly sometimes were simply hard- packed earth.60 While the classic "Virginia house" had two ground floor rooms with a loft above, some Charles County planters had even simpler floor plans. Many, perhaps the maJority of their houses consisted at least in the beginning of only one room.61 This nay have changed as family size grew or as the planter became more affluent. The central focus of a one- room.house was clearly the fireplace, the sole source of'heat and of cooking facilities. Remodeling, when it occurred, seems often to have 59Carson, "The 'Virginia House'"; Hugh Jones, The Present State 2; Virginia, p. 7b.; Hammond, "Leah and Rachel," p. 1:97. Cf. Cook, The Set-Weed Factor, p. 25. 60Carson, "The 'Virginia House,'" p. 193; Hammond, "Leah and Rachel," p. 297. . . 61The household furnishings listed in many estate inventories wereeclearly contained in one or two room.houses. Between 1658 and 1705 inventories for the four southern Maryland counties mentioning houses with more than two rooms number fewer than fifty, and’are limited to the higher ‘wealth brackets. 251 been associated with changes in this central structure. By the 16905 several bricklayers were active in the county, and a spate of brick chimney construction seems to have taken place, either replacing struc- tures built of wood and plaster, or renovating earlier brick ones. Changes in floor plan seem commonly to have accompanied chimney renewal or replacement. The walls of the house might be extended lengthwise, the new room partitioned off, and an additional chimney stack erected at the gable end of the expanded structure. Alternatively, the rebuilding of an existing chimney stack might prompt the owner to rearrange his living space and to erect a partition within existing walls, thus creat- ing an "outward" and an "inward" room. Houses might also be expanded 'without elaborate changes to chimney or floor plan by adding a shed along one wall or by digging a cellar.62 Despite such improvements, the most significant features of seventeenth-century southern Maryland housing remain the small size and the relatively undifferentiated use of space within. Food.preparation, cooking, eating, sleeping, sewing, reading, recreation, and craft activi- ties were all carried on in one or two small rooms. Such rooms at least in more well-off homes had of necessity to contain a Jumbled assortment of tables, beds, chairs, chests, linens, clothing, pots and.pans, guns, agricultural and craft tools, and stored foodstuffs and merchandise. Household organization had to be flexible, adapting during the day to cooking, eating, crafts, and recreation, and at night to sleeping. In 62See Charles County Court, R#1, ff. 217-18; V#l, f. 220; A#2, f. 13; S#1, f. 22h. For descriptions of additions to two early southern Nbryland.houses see Carson, "The 'Virginia House.'" 252 Charles county only the very wealthiest planters and merchants possessed houses with more than two rooms; they alone built structures in which domestic functions could be more strictly separated. But even in these homes, traditional ways of thinking about the use of space prevailed. Hoes, guns, pots, beds, and bales of merchandise were frequently found in every room of a multi-room.house, Just as they would of necessity have been found in the one room of an unpartitioned dwelling.63 The implications of this kind of domestic architecture for family life are far-reaching. Personal privacy was virtually unobtain- able. Not only were all members of the immediate family domiciled in one or two rooms; frequently several lodgers or servants were also present. Depositions recorded in numerous cases (particularly those concerning fornication and.sdultery) indicate how very difficult it was for two people to share a private moment. Even where partitions shut out prying eyes, observant ears detected almost everything that went on in the house. Births, procreations, deaths, quarrels, bargains, and conversations were all at best semi-private and often quite public. As John Demos has observed, in such situations anger and aggression had to be firmly con- trolled and disruptions strictly avoided. Members of a household.had to find someone else to vent hostile impulses against because it was impera- tive that they maintain smooth relations with other members in their own household . 5 '* 63These statements are based on an analysis of all seventeenth-. century Charles County estate inventories found in Charles County Court records, in the Testamentary Proceedings series, and in Inventories and Accounts. Conversations with Cary and Barbara Carson provided many valu- able suggestions about ways of analyzing inventories and about possible neanings of their contents. 5‘5 Little Commonwealth, ch. 2. The case of John Dandy illus- trates the potentially tragic consequences of uncontrolled conflicts 253 If small size, undifferentiated use of space, and a particular technology characterized seventeenth-century Chesapeake houses, an equally marked feature was their impermanence. The tidewater environ- ment of course favored rapid decay in wooden structures.65 Tobacco barns and dwelling houses were intended by the builders to last only a few years, and their construction was apparently such that it was almost invariably easier to put up a new building than to repair the old one. valuations indicate that there were standing on most planta— tions several structures so decayed as to be "not worth repairing." The expected life of a tobacco house was surely under ten years.66 Presumably dwelling houses were constructed to last a few years longer, but not many. A deed of 1675 for instance described the property of Robert Slye, one of the colony's leading merchants. His story and a half or two story frame house contained four main rooms and was undoubt- edly one of the larger and more elaborate dwellings then standing in southern Maryland. It could have been built--at the earliest--in l65h, but by 1675, only twenty-one years later, it was already an "ancient" within the household. Dandy was executed for murdering his servant, Henry Gouge, at the end of a long series of altercations. Dandy had had premonitions of the outcome, for he had told his wife "often at Severall times . . . that his mind Gave him.that he would be hanged for the said Gouge one time or other." Unfortunately he did not heed his wife's advice to sell or give away the servant to get him out of'the house. Mland Archives 10: 538-39. 65For this reason, among others, few such structures have sur- vived. "Whereas New England is reckoned to have over 200 dwellings built before 1700, fewer than twenty standing structures of‘the same period.have been identified and documented in all of Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas," Carson, "The 'Virginia House,'" p. 186. 66Charles County Court, V#l, ff. 37h-75. On the similar condi- tion of plantation structures in eighteenth-century Anne Arundel County, see Earle, Evolution of _a_ Tidewater Settlement firstem, pp. 136-38. 25h dwelling. Slye had in fact already constructed a new house (very similar in size and.plan to the old one) about 1671.67 The demands of tObacco culture and the short life spans of the colonists even more than the environment contributed to the adaptation of an architecture of transience. Fields soon became temporarily exhausted, and often the owner simply moved to another tract or built new housing adJacent to fresh-cleared fields elsewhere on his land. The old dwelling and outbuildings, then let to short-term.tenants, fell rapidly into decay. Similarly, when a man died, his widow and orphans might well move elsewhere, leaving the home plantation in uncareful hands. Alternatively if the widow remained on the farm, but remarried, her new husband, conscious of the fact that he had the use of the property only so long as she lived, might exploit and land to the full, while letting the buildings fall into decay. The elaborate precautions which the orphans court took to forestall this event suggests that it must have been commonly attempted. Planters undoubtedly realized the likeli- hood that presently cleared land would be worn out and that plantation buildings, through the ravages of climate and.human neglect, would fall into decay some years before their children would come of age to manage the family farm. Surely the realization that they were building, not for posterity, but for--at most-the present generation influenced the kind of structures they built and lived in.“ 62!E£Il§£§;飣§i!2§,55: 506; 57: 220-21; Testamentary Proceed- ings 5: 152-90. 68For documentation of the disruptive effects of high mortality on family life, see above, ch. 3. For court oversight of orphans' plantations see Carr, "County Government," pp. 3hh-h8. 0n the ecologi- cal imperatives of transient architecture, see Earle, Evolution gt; a Tidewater Settlement System, pp. 17-18, 2h-30, 138. 255 Most seventeenth-century houses were sparingly furnished, with emphasis on utility rather than on ostentation. Beds (frequently Just mattresses filled with cattails, rags, or other odd materials, or in better households, with feathers) were the most common items. Often these were simply laid out on the floor. Such beds might be improved by the addition of a bedstead (usually a wooden frame with cord laced back and ferth). Middling planters (men with personal estates worth about £35 or more) and up almost always owned at least one feather mat- tress with a bedstead and curtains. Such "good beds" frequently consti- tuted the planter's most valuable pieces of furniture.69 Some tables, chairs, stools, benches, and couches were imported from.Europe, while others were "this country made." Whatever their origin, these pieces were practically and simply designed and.were almost invariably of small value. Tables were usually planks or leaves set on trestles. Very few planters possessed more elaborate pieces such as "an open cupboard with a drawer."70 When such items did appear, their small value (usually under £1) indicates that they also were simply, even crudely constructed. A variety of chests, trunks, and boxes, both imported and indigenous completes the inventory of’typical household furnishings. These could serve as auxiliary seats, but their primary function was storage. Chests held clothing, cloth, and other sewing material and miscellaneous small items which needed.to be kept out of the way. Containers with locks were used for safekeeping books 69See note 61. 70Charles County Inventories, liber 1677-1717, f. 186. 256 and papers and valuable, easily pilfered possessions such as spices and liquor.71 Such simple and economical furnishings were to be feund in the homes of all classes of planters. Wealthy families of course possessed more furnishings than did poorer ones, but seldom are there indications that they made or purchased different kinds of things. Beds, tables, chairs, chests, and the like show a very narrow range of values in inventories across the whole population. The degree of austerity prevailing in seventeenth-century Charles County can be inferred from table 3h which shows the incidence of some items of domestic comfort and of luxury in county inventories. Fewer than half of county households possessed ceramic tableware or storage vessels; the maJority made do with either woodenware or pewter. Simi- larly, the maJority of planters ate from bare tables and slept on beds without sheets. Table knives were rare and forks almost unknown; almost all residents clearly ate either with spoons or with their fingers. Almost paradoxically, silver plate appeared in over a quarter of county estates. Most plate, however, consisted of a few silver but- tons or a spoon or two, and seldom.amounted to more than one or two pounds sterling in value. Very small amounts of plate appeared almost randomly in estates at all but the very lowest levels of wealth. By the 16908 a few big planters were beginning to own larger quantities of plate; the maJority of wealthy families, however, continued to own only a few pounds worth. 71See note 61. 257 e.euuaauuz no uoHeueeuseueem Heeeome "oeusom moss mm m m m s m: . s: as s :4 mad lemma mama am m m m m mm mm m H am am namma «mm “a e: am .3 “em as. as no “a a2 83 uwmma madam muwz apnea moaned: ammz mMoom sooaq mo>wom thOh momhwvad< moau09sm>aH cowaom InspmnH .mxooao .mohopowm manna a com magma magma .mofiamnoo Mo nooasz Hdowmoz maopH umsbmnoo mOPHImmmH .mMHmoazm>ZH wBZDoo mmqm4 nu odd 453$an eso- ueali 9'8»..— 3 is; game: 393» gm seine-ass hal- o-n mm m“ 44.31ng % «BC-83 Ilia—BI .31: 35.813 sic-£333.13 “2.4.83 .ggggsggg nag 332 grand and petit Juries were both chosen from.among the eighteen to twenty men.summoned for each.meeting of the court. Petit Juries were, however, more likely than grand Juries to contain some men of "scant sufficiency," especially in the two later fifteen-year periods. Petit Jurors were more often tenants, and those who did hold land had fewer acres and fewer bound laborers than the average grand Juror. Service on petit Juries was also more universal. Eightyhfour percent (65h out of 779) of county Jurors served on petit Juries, while only h56 (59 percent) served on grand Juries. This situation stands in.marked contrast to at least two other Chesapeake counties in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth cen- turies where studies have shown that grand Jury service was more universal. In Prince George's County, Maryland, eighty percent (223 out of 277) of Jurors who served between 1696 and 1709 served on grand Juries. And in Surry County, Virginia, between 1682 and 1703, petit Jurors were chosen from.a relatively small number of more substantial planters, while grand Juries tended to be drawn from.a larger number of smaller planters. Differences between these counties may reflect dif- ferent attitudes about participation held both by residents of the three counties and by their rulers. Kevin Kelly has hypothesized that grand Jury service in Surry County was a vehicle for involving, but strictly limiting, the impact of small planters. Conversely, he sees the more exclusive choice of petit Jurors as a way of ensuring that men in a position to make decisions about an individual's property would them- selves.be propertybholders who "would understand the gravity of their decisions and duties." The tendency in Charles County to include larger 333 numbers of small planters on petit Juries may reflectnthe discontent with the status quo felt by a number of its residents and rulers, especially the supporters and followers of Josias Fendall.39 Unlike common Jury duty, the post of Jury foreman was probably a position of some prestige in the community. The men chosen to head both grand and petit Juries were presumably men of ability, and cer- tainly were men of sufficiency. Foreman possessed more than twice the landed wealth and bound labor of the mean petit or grand Juror. (See table ’45.) In addition, they were often men who had immigrated or cane of age with considerable wealth. The first group of petit Jury foremen was the exception—men who had immigrated as servants or with small amounts of capital dominated. Thereafter, however, men who began more suspiciously were usually chosen. Grand Jury foremen in particular were among the more important planters in the county; all of them owned more land than did the maJority of county planters, and most had started out with the advantages of status and capital. Such men were undoubtedly expected to exert considerable influence over their fellow Jury members."0 The other conscripted officers of local government—the con- stables and the overseers of the highways-“were men of status similar to that of the Jurors. They were frequently in fact the same men—sixty 39Carr, "County Government," pp. 658-66; Kelly, "Political Order in Surry County." “Jury foremen in Prince. George's County between 1696 and 1709 had similar economic and social characteristics. Carr, "County Govern- ment, p. 659. According to Carr, how Jury foremen were selected is unclear. Were they chosen by the Jury members thanselves, this would be strong evidence of deference. A more likely supposition seems to be that foresen were chosen by the sheriff when he empaneled the Jury; we do not know for certain that this was the case, however. 33h Jeanna-ease 558 8338 no ea .31. ”eon—.8 3 e3 33 2b «8 .3 3 1 .. 3 3 R .. - e 33.83 3 cc. to .. 83 C3 - 8 on - 3 3 3 3 3 3 83.33. 3 e.» no - 8o 33 .. 3. 3 - 3 .. 3 a. 3 3 £3.33 . its 5.. its 6 o o. a. 3» 8o 3 3 3 a. a. an n 9 a a 3 83.83 2 3.. .... 3 e3 2.» 3 3 G a m 3 ... 3 3 3 .3 83.33 a e. n 3 3 e8 83 m an R a. - o.m 3 3 3 .... a 3.33 g a «do: all i a; a8- gab-sued $0 ewousn g learn Em u *flnfla usages-e» “OE—guegggsghogg “:5 335 to seventy percent of these minor officers also sat as Jurors. Men who served as constables and overseers were wealthier than Jurors as a whole, but not as well off as Jury foremen. To the extent that the recruitment of’men of social standing is an indication of the prestige of the office, overseers had the least prestige, and Jury foremen the most, with the constables occupying a.middle position. When selecting constables, the Justices must have looked for men mature and able enough to carry out the duties of the office-Jobs which were essential to maintaining order and administering Justice on the frontier. Fulfilling these duties--breaking up fights, reporting various offenders to the court, and.preparing annual lists of taxables ‘were the principal tasks-required the expenditure of some time and effort on the constables‘ part, for which there was no remuneration. For this reason, the duties were rotated fairly frequently, usually D about every two years. Constables for the first thirty years tended to be well-established planters thirtybfive to forty years old. The exclusion of Catholics from the office in 1689 must have severely depleted the ranks of’men eligible for the office, for a.number of much less wealthy individual served as constables thereafter, while the total number of’men holding the office declined. (See table R6.) 0f fortyhfour men who sat on twenty or more Juries after 1689, seven also served as constables; six, as overseers, and thirteen in both conscriptive offices. Overseers of the highways were expected to impress county resi- dents to build and repair roads and then to direct the work. The Job apparently carried little prestige, for the men chosen were usually less 6.33.1338 3.8 833 «o 03.8 an; .093 829.3 I.“ 336 n «.— 5 PH g 8.3% 3 an an R can can a o 8 a «a 3 8 a3 3 3 83.2.3 83 «2 an n R nu 83 n n .. £3.83 3 .3 «o .8885 83 .33 33 3 an ..3 ..3 2 n 3 an 3 83.83. 93 .2 «3 n3 2 «a 3 3 3 «3 3 3 8 83.2.3 8» E. - 3 3 3 x. 3 3 3 a. B 5 3.3.33 83.338 3 as: 0.83 ‘33 at“; :0 firms...“ legit firtnst .5... 3 'H a .3135; ice-33.333.83.889 SFHIRWH ogaasgggsgg Wag 337 wealthy than those selected as constables. Since the Justices control- led the location of any new roads, overseers had no discretionary powers. The office must often have been a vexing responsibility, some neighbors resenting demands for their labor and others quick to criticize the amount and quality of the work performed. By the end of the period, a maJority of the adult males aged twenty-one to thirty were creoles, and not surprisingly, the burdensome duty of overseeing the highst was often delegated to young, native-born men.In Other minor local offices were filled in a variety of ways, and they carried somewhat more prestige than those of the conscripted constables and overseers of the highways. Such offices, however, were seldom stepping stones to more important positions. Court cryers, county clerks, clerks of indictments and undersheriffs received remunera- tion for their efforts. Town commissioners did not, but they also had fewer duties to perform. Court cryers were appointed by the county Justices, and they needed few qualifications for the office aside from conscientious attendance. For the performance of their duties they received modest fees. Most of the men appointed were rather obscure planters who other- wise held no important offices. Clerks of the court secured their positions from the provincial secretary, buying the position or paying him a share of the profits. They were men of some education,and they provided the Justices with pro- fessional guidance (essential given the background of many of the “For a similar age/experience differential inPrince George's County constables and overseers see ibid. , p. 656. 338 Justices) and organized the business of the court.“2 Little is known about the origins of Charles County's clerks. Most do not seem to have hmd.mmmh.capital when they took.up the office. On the Other hand, if they lived long enough, the clerks built up a comfortable estate from the profits derived from the office."3 The clerkship was not, however, a stepping stone to higher offices. One clerk, Randolph Brandt, did serve as a burgess and a.militia officer. None of the others Obtained high county office.““ Altogether men of some standing in the community, they were not full-fledged.members of the county power structure. The clerk of indictments (an office which appeared in the 16808) prepared indictments and argued the government's position in any case in which.it was involved. Clerks obtained their appointments from the attorney general and apparently paid nothing for the position."5 In contrast to the county clerkship, this post was sought by able-and rising-attorneys. William.Dent, for example, who was clerk of indict- ments for nine years beginning in 1685 later became a Justice, a burgess, and the attorney general of the province. “zIbid., pp. h90-502. For a listing of Charles County clerks see Donnell M. Owings, HisLo rdship‘ s Patrogge, Studies in Maryland History, no. 1(Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1953). PP. 1 9-50. “3For the profits of the office, see Carr, "County Government,“ pp. h9l-96. In 1692 Charles County clerk Thomas Lomax estimatedd his annual income at 20,000 pounds of tobacco or about £67. yggxlm Archives 8: h01-03 I"‘Richard Boughton, a Charles County clerk sat briefly on the council by virtue of one year's service as secretary of Maryland, a post which.brought automatic status as a councillor. Had Broughton's skills as a clerk not been desperately needed, he clearly would not have achieved such high position. I’5Carr, "County Government," pp. h90-502. 339 The sheriff selected and paid the undersheriffs who aided him in carrying out his duties. “5 A few of the twenty-one men known to have been undersheriffs in Charles County later achieved wealth and prominence. Most were and remained small and middling planters. Almost all the under- sheriffs were, however, men of more than average education. Samuel Cressey and Edward Chapman for instance later qualified as attorneys. Such men very likely helped to keep the sheriff's accounts. as well as performing such tasks as delivering surmnonses. Town Commissioners were to supervise the laying out and develop- ment of the towns established by the assembly in 1683 and 1681+ "for the Advancanent of Trade." The groups of men named for the various towns included county Justices and some substantial landowners who lived in the area where the towns were to be established." Although lots were laid out , few were developed, and no functioning villages appeared. Hence, town commissioners had few duties and the office was one of little practical importance. The Rulers: Division O_f; Power The Justices of the peace were the effective rulers of the county. As administrators they regulated local economic activity, they determined what public services would be provided, and they apportioned the costs of these services both in time and taxes among county resi- dents. The Justices were also the main conservators of order in the “Ibid. , pp. 520-21. “Mum Archives 7: 609-19; 13='118—19; 70: 19; 3= 1‘58- 31.0 community. In addition to Jointly trying all cases brought before the county court, each individual Justice had a number of powers designed to keep the peace. They each had the power to demand a peace bond or recognizance from anyone who broke or threatened to break the peace, and the power to require bond for good behavior. In the absence of aay police, it was the Justice who interrogated those accused of offenses by their neighbors and either bound the accused to appear in court for trial or ordered him.to prison. From the 16903 the single Justice heard and determined small civil causes, and.two Justices together per- formed functions ancillary to litigation in the higher courts."8 According to Carr, "Their concentration of Judicial and executive powers gave the Justices far more control over individuals than any single agency of government has today.“9 The powers dulngranted to these men were augmented by the fact that in the seventeenth.century governmental authority was so highly decentralized that for many Charles County planters the local rulers were in many instances the only rulers. The powers of the local Justices could theoretically be checked by the higher courts, by the governor and council, and by the assembly, but these remedies were slow, time-consuming, and often expensive for the individual citizen. For many there was probably no effective appeal from the decisions of the local magistrate.so “OCarr, "County Government," pp. th-BB; "Foundations of Social Order," pp. 8-22; and "Magistracy and Social Order." “gflagistracy and Social Order," p. 7. 50Ibid.; "County Government," pp. th—83; and "Foundations of Social Order,‘ pp. 8—22. For the broad, even "'extravagant‘“ Jurisdic- tion of the county court see "County Government," pp. 167-92. The county and not the provincial court heard the great maJority of both criminal and civil actions. 3h1 However broad the powers of the Justices of the peace, they were not sufficient in thanselves to ensure the effective rule of a frontier community. It was critical that the occupants brought to the office the added weight of community respect. The settlers held in contenpt men whom they thought unfit for the office. .A Justice of the early 1660s who "hath bin A Comon defamor of most of all his neighbors," and who "had the Comon Repuit of A Hogstealer" was quickly dropped from the bench.51 In 1677 Thomas Hussey was suspended from office at his own request because he kept "a house of publick entertainment for all persons wch. seems somewhat to disparrage the quality of such Comission, 8. Cause it to be sleighted.by sundry persons . . ."52 Complaints about the” quality of some of the Justices were. still being voiced in 1681. "God dam them," raged planter John Wright, "what pittifull Justices have they picked up for us, George Godfrey is a Rebell, a. william Smith . . . is a hog stealer."53 Not surprisingly the governors appointed when pos- sible men of considerable social, economic and educational standing. The number of colonists possessing such rank or training was, however, considerably less than the number of offices to be filled, so wealth was the most common and frequently the only criterion for selection. Legal qualifications for appointment to the office were few. Although this was also the case in England, there the Justices represented the long-established landed wealth of their counties . In addition, 51Chsr1es County Court, All, ff. 225—26, 229. 52Ibid., Gil. f. 56. 53Ibid., xvi, f. 87.‘ 31.2 English Justices also usually boasted coats of arms and often had had considerable formal education. Since there were few men of this sort in the colonies, New World standards necessarily differed from those of the Old World. 5" Such differences were most apparent in Charles County in the early 1660s. The men initially appointed to the county bench were, with the exception of William Batten, a merchant, men whose origins were very similar to those of many of the settlers they were to . govern. Six of the twelve Justices appointed by 1660 had arrived as indentured servants, and four of the remaining six had immigrated with little capital. Probably only Batten was called "Mister" upon arrival. Neither were the Justices exceptionally wealthy. Aside from Walter Bayne who had already accumulated 2.500acres, the mean landholding was 1‘61; acres. At least one quarter of the early appointees were illiterate, and those who' were literate had probably had little formal education. (See table 1&7 and appendix D, table D2. )55 Sane of these first appointees had, one can speculate, demon- strated sane ability and qualities of leadership which came to the ears s"Carr, "County Government," pp. th-TB. Cf. Bailyn, "Politics and Social Structure in Virginia." 55mm references are not here included for all the biographies of maJor officeholders. The career studies are based largely on w research in the Charles County records; full citations are available from my files. The information so obtained was then supplemented by reference to complementary studies and career files. These include Russell R. Menard, “MaJor Office Holders in Maryland to 1689," DB, Hall of Records; Carr, “County Government," appendix 2 for Prince George's County office- holders; St. Mary‘s City Commission, “Career File of Seventeenth-Century St. Mary's County Residents," MS,Hall .of Records; and files of Charles and St. Mary's County delegates and councillors from the "Maryland Legis- lative History Project,.1635‘-1789,'.‘.sduard c. Papenfuse and David w. Jordan, principal investigators, MS, Hall of Records. 3&3 .3 0.33 .a i 8a 3938 3.3 n 88 02.3 2. a no a “2.31.2.3 8.3 33 «a 33m 333 8 o . 8 a 83.53 i3 .. e 3e 3.. a 33 3 a. 33.83 +30 u a San 2.33 on ..3 83 m 83.33 ca 32. 33 33 333 mm 33 no u , 83133 3... Ru 3m 2.3 moo mm .3 83 u 83 «.3 an 3 333 33. 8 8 83 n 33 ...«3 as... a 83 ..«e 8 c 8 a 2.3 «.a 33 a :33 3o 5 o . no 3. 2.3.83 3.3 «3 a. 8.33 can an 3 no o 63 a.» 33 n. «38 3o 8 2 83 a 83 ...o 333 a. 83 «3 o R 8.3 3 R3 83.3.3 3 233.88 898.3 858 3.8 8.3338 58.33 385338.33 33.83. oats-oil 38.53! a 82.388 :8» s1: E 38.5w 3o III! :8: on .3 3233...: u u 3.33. .383 5.8 as 38.32 :8: so 333.38 4.: moralomWH g a to flag g go no 85% rag 3“; of the governor. Others were perhaps simply the most' prosperous settler living in a particular area of the county.56 Five of the Original twelve choices must have been adequate--Henry Adm, Robert Henley, James Lindsay, Joseph Harrison, and Zachary Wade all went on to serve on the bench for more than ten years. Some other appointees must have had little aptitude for the Job. John Cage and James Walker, for example, were shortly dropped from the canmission although both continued to. live in the county. for a number of years. Most of the men Governor Charles Calvert named Justices after his arrival in 1661 had immigrated with more economic resources than the earlier appointees. For example, two sons of former governor William Stone were. chosen. Thomas Stone refused to serve, but his brother John sat for twenty-eight years. Another appointee, Humphrey Warren, Senior, had English mercantile connections , while Thomas Matthews. and Gerrard Fowke were already substantial landowners who probably came from respectable English families. The amount of land held by Justices newly appointed during the 1670s. edged upward; there was not yet, however, a great gap between the wealth of most of these "gentlemen Justices" and that of many middling planters in the county. Also, few as yet had likely had much formal education. By the mid 1680s the distance between the wealth of the county rulers and the men they ruled increased.S7 Justices named in the mid- 1680s. were on the whole older, wealthier, and better educated than many 56Carr, "County Govermnent," pp. 623—36. Appointments. in Prince George' a County were clearly made with an eye to providing a Justice for each. Concentration of population. 57See Menard, Harris, and Carr, "Opportunity and Inequality." 3&5 of their predecessors. John Addison, for example, came from a prominent family of merchants and clergymen' in England. In partnership with: several English merchants he was able to establish a considerable mer- cantile business, trading with the Indians as well as with white settlers, and importing many servants. Within three years of imigration he married the widow of a leading planter and attorney, and at his appointment to the bench in 1687, he was already the owner of over 3,000. acres.58 After the Revolution of 1689 the characteristics of newly appointed Justices were more diverse. With the exclusion of Catholics, more positions became available to qualified Protestants, and in addi— tion, the deaths at this time or a large number of men who had been Jus- tices for ten to fifteen years opened an unusual number of posts. Apparently there were not enough men of background and fortune to fill them. Although some of the Justices chosen during the 1690s. were many times wealthier than all but a few‘ of their neighbors, men with much more modest fortunes were also named. Henry Hardy, for instance, had arrived as an indentured servant in 1661;. He was free by about 1668, and became a small planter, first acquiring land-“150 acres—in 1676. He began his career in local government as an undersheriff to Robert Doyne in the eighties and was long a mainstay of the Jury system, serving on a total of thirty-nine panels, twelve times as grand Jury fordn‘an. When appointed to the bench in 1696 (twenty-eight years after he became a freedman), Hardy was still a middling planter owning only 1‘60 acres, part of which had been acquired by marriage to. a middling planter‘s widow. A man to mom polite manners probably alwaysirem'ained foreign, during his term 58See Carr, "County Government," appendix 2, pp. 272-78. 3h6 on the bench Hardy was called to account for abusing his step children, mistreating his wife, and making advances to his maid servants.‘ The beginning of the eighteenth century marked a return to the appointment of the wealthy and better educated. It also marked the' beginning of the transition from an.immigrant to a native+born bench. FOur of the six men named after 1699 were born in Maryland, and by 1705 nearly forty percent of the Justices were natives. Typical of new Justices was Gerrard Fowke, son of a Justice of the 1660s.' The elder Fowke had died in 1670, leaving lands in Stafford and westmoreland Counties, Virginia, to his eight—year-old son and a daughter. 0f age in 1683, the younger Fowke two.years later acquired a 500.acre planta- tion in Charles County through the sale of some of his Virginia lands. By marrying an heiress the next year Fowke gained control of an addi- tional 800 acres in the county. His sister's marriage to William.Dent in the previous year forged connections with another wealthy, powerful, creole family. The younger Fowke's political career began in 169h when he was named to the NanJemoy Parish vestry and he became an undersheriff. Fowke had served only one time in a conscriptive office, and that as grand Jury foreman. By 1699 Fowke had acquired the shrievalty, serving until 1701, and three years later was appointed to the county bench. In the.ssme year Fowke was elected a burgess. Inherited wealth.and status clearly smoothed and quickened the course of his career. The preceding discussion of the men chosen as Justices has emphasized temporal differences in background and wealth 0f Charles County's rulers. It is equally important to note that as shown in table h? differences in wealth were minimized as the Justices' careers prog- ressed. 3h? By the time of death or departure from the county, most of the political rulers were also among the leading land and labor owners. The economic success of the county rulers most certainly was a result of business acumen, inheritance, or a good marriage rather than of the office itself. Justices of the peace were rulers expected to serve without reward. They received no fees or salary, and there was little opportunity for a Justice to acquire or increase a fortune in the course of carrying out his official duties. Neither was the position one likely to lead to appointment to maJor offices of profit on the pro- vincial level; these lucrative posts were reserved largely for relatives and friends of the Calverts.59 Rather, the process by which Justices were selected must have been, on the whole, a remarkably successful one. Successful, that is, if the aim of the governors who named the Justices was to bolster the authority of the bench with men who wielded the influence of wealth, at least, if not of education and high social status. It was of course simple enough to select men who were already wealthy. On the other hand, in the early years, a keen insight intomen's abilities and potentials was required in order to determine who among a group of relatively poor, newly- established planters would become the county's maJor wealthholders.“ $9Ibid., text, pp. h68—71. 6"The initial choice Of Justices was made by Governor Josias Fen- dall. After Fendall‘s revo1t of 1660 was ended, Governor Phillip Calvert named some new men and also retained some of the Fendall appointees. Thereafter, from 1661 until 168k (with a break between 1676 and 1679) selections were made by Governor (and from 1676) Proprietor Charles Calvert. From the 16703 on appointments to the county bench may well have been influenced by the advice of the members of the council residing in the county. Before 1672, however, there were no councillors from Charles, other than Richard Boughton (see note 143). 3&8 The governors' increasing tendencies from the mid-1680a to. select men who had already made their fortunes seems largely a result of the choices available. Earlier, governors sometimes had little alternative but to select some middling planters whOse futures looked promising. When enough county residents had built up large estates it became possible to make the office an obligation or honor which previously acquired wealth and status conferred.61 The sheriff was, equally with the Justices a county ruler. He was both the servant of the" Justices and an independent power, commis- sioned by and representing the central government.62 Although the Jus- tices did not gain control of the office, as happened in Virginia, the Charles County sheriffs were local residents, and two-thirds of them served also as Justices. Initially, Governor Fendall appointed Nicholas Gwyther, a St. Mary's Countian, to be sheriff of both that county and of newly formed Charles. From 1661 until 1667 five men who were Justices and one who was not each served one year terms. These men were from 1662 to 1669 chosen by law by the governor from a list of nominees submitted to the Justices. Such short terms did not allow the occupant to. gain mch experience in the office and probably severely limited the profits which could be made from it. Although a disadvantage from the point of view 6"In Charles County beforel681 only four estates were valued at shoal or more. Between 1681- and 1705. twenty estates of this value were probated. "Social Stratification in Maryland." .52Carr, "County Government," pp. 508-26; and Cyrus H. Karraker, th Seventeenth-Century Sheriff: A Com arative Sttidl o_f_ the Sheriff in; M a_n_d the. Chesapeake .. Colonies 1301-32 (Chapel Hill: University 61‘ North Carolina Press, 1930 . 319 of efficiency, the average planter may have considered frequent rotation a positive good, one which Checked the sheriff's effective. powers. Subsequently Governor Calvert selected several highly influential menwho were not county officeholders to fill the position, - and.he retained them in the office for much longer terms. BenJamin Rozer, who was sheriff for eleven years between 1667 and 1679, brought to the office a prestige and authority which earlier sheriffs could not command. Well-educated. and well-connected, and from 1677 a member of the council, Rozer was one of the richest men in the colony, at death. commanding a personal estate six times that of the mean estate of Justices appointed in the county. during his term of office. John Allen, an ambitious if not always successful former London merchant, was sheriff from 1672 to 1675, and William Chandler, a wealthy militia officer, served for seven years beginning in 1679. Robert Doyne, who previously had served as a Justice, obtained the shrievalty in 1685. Like Rozer he brought to the office. the power of very great wealth and influential connections. County residents, including perhaps some of the Justices, resented the power and influence of these officials. While no specific charges of misconduct had been made against Robert Doyne in 1686, for example, a Justice reported that "the common vogue and clamour of the people" opposed his reappointment.” After 1689 county sheriffs served first two and then three-year terms, and regular rotation in office. again became the practice. The size of the performance bond which. candidates were required to post insured that only men of considerable substance could serve; subsequent 531431 land Archives 5: Ira-72. 350 occupants were all substantial landowners, but none possessed such. ' spectacular wealth as had some of their immediate predecessors. Sheriff Gilbert Clark, a sometime resident of St. Mary's County, received the position in 1689 as a reward for services rendered during the" revolution. A man of mixed character, Clark was charged with extortion in 1691‘ and lost the office.“ The seven later sheriffs were all wella-established in the county; four were Justices when named and two'others later' became Justices. Significantly, six of the seven were native-born. The officeuand its profits—was coming to be the province. of county- based creoles. The men who occupied, the benchwere by and large the men who represented the county in the provincial assembly. We know very little of how the burgesses were chosen. The sheriff first smoned four or more of the Justices who sat as a court to appoint a day and place for the election. They then ordered "that ye sherife make proclamation thereof 3'. giue notice to ye severall Inhabitants of this County. of ye day & place aforesd . . ."65 There are no answers to manyof the questions which interest us the most: who the defeated candidates were; whether or not there were contents; if so, what issues were involved; the size of the electorate; how many voted; and what determined their votes. are topics which did not enter .the' records and thus have been lost to time.66 h .1; 6"See Carr and Jordan, Eland‘s Revolution _o_f; Government, pp. 550ml“ County Court,.I#l, r. 316, for example. “For a discussion of one-Of the few descriptions of a seventeenth- century‘Maryland election see Carr, . "County Government," pp. 380-91. 351 What can be learned. about delegates from Charles. County. is .that of the thirty~two men who represented. the county in the assembly before 1706., twenty—five (78- percent) were also Justices. As most of these were elected after taking seats on the bench, the maJority. of the dele- gateswere men who were already a part of the county. power. structure. Until the turn of the century, there were no distinguishing characteristics which might separate burgesses fran the other. Justices. Although the maJority of the electorate must always have been Protestant, both Protestants and Catholicsterechosen. Social originssofthe dele- gates were varied. Exesemrants, middling imigrants, and men who arrived with titles. all served. Prior to the late 16808 the men elected were, on the average, no more or no less wealthy than the members of .the‘ county bench. Afterwards a change is evident. One result of Maryland's revolution of government and subsequent period of royal rule was a growth in power and procedural sophistication in the lower house.67 The men mo represented the county during the 1690s. and early 17003 were among the wealthiest and the best educated county residents. The mean land- holding of the delegates rose to almost twice the mean acreage held by other Justices. Men of top caliber were clearly coming to seek—and to be elected-to an office growing in promise and importance.68 Parish.vestrymen played only a.minor role in local government in Maryland. The office, however, was one which attracted the interest "David w. Jordan, "The Royal Period of Colonial Maryland, 1689- 1715" (Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, 1966), chs. 3 and 5. 68Cf. idem. , "Political Stability and the Emergence. of a Native Elite. in Maryland, 1660—171.5," inTate, ed., The Chesapeake"_i_n_ the Seventeenth. C entugy. 352 and participation of many of the county's rulers. Whether they were motivated primarily by a desire to see Anglicanism organized and established or whether they were simply reluctant to allow taxing and administrative powers to fall into other bands is uncertain. Whatever their motives, vestrymen were for some years preoccupied with parochial duties—building churches, procuring ministers, and creat- ing congregations. They also performed some governmental functions- keeping vital records, admonishing couples for cohabitation, investigating sabbath violations, and helping supervise the upbringing of orphans . And when parishs acquired the power to tax all residents for the support of the established church in 1698, the vestrymen made decisions which affected the estates of everyone.69 Most of the men who carried out these tasks were powerful county figures. Vestrymen were initially elected by the county? s freeholders when the parishes were established in 1692 and were then to be self— perpetuating. In 1702 a change of law made the Office again elective with periodic rotation of the office a requirement. However chosen, at any given time a maJority of the vestrymen were also holders of other important offices. A few lesser individuals were selected. Nine vestry- men chosen between 1692 and 17 05 held no other high county offices. These men were middling planters who owned between 100 and 800 acres of land and who all participated in other minor local offices.70 There is 69For the functions of the parish vestry see Carr, “County Govern- ment," pp. 528—39, 668-76. For surviving seventeenth-century parish records see the parish register, 1689-1801, and vestry minutes, 1693-1779, of Piscattaway Parish, MS, and the vestry minutes, 1692—1720, of All Faiths Parish. 70The vestries in Prince‘George‘s County were similarly dominated by 111228 wigs were already Justices or delegates. Carr, "County Government," PP. - 90 353 little evidence of any great interest in vestry elections on the part of'most parishioners. Perhaps most men simply accepted that the state church should be organized and administered by the county's economic and political rulers. Or, perhaps the ordinary planter was not con- cerned enough about the activities of the vestry to participate either as an elector or a candidate. The initial result of the establishment of vestries, then, was a.minor extension of the powers of the men already ruling the county. The extent to which the same men dominated all facets of local government can be seen in table h8. Men appointed sheriff could not hold other civil posts while serving in that position; the offices of burgess, Justice and vestryman could be held concomitantly. Half of the county's.rulers held.more than one office over the course of their political careers. In the first twenty-two years, one man in ten held three important offices, and in the second period, one in five. The creation of the vestries accounts for this increase in pluralism. Securing appointment to the bench was clearly the critical step in establishing a political position in the countya-election to the assembly and the vestry, and perhaps a term as sheriff, might then fol- low. Few men were selected as burgesses or sheriffs who had not first served as Justices, and while some men who were not first Justices were named to vestries, not many of the men so appointed later obtained other positions of power. Because the Justices were more often than not during the course of their careers also sheriffs, burgesses, or vestrymen, the administra- tive, Judicial, legislative, and even religious life of the county all fell under the direction and control of a small group of men. This 35h TABLE h8 PLURALISM IN MAJOR POSITIONS, CHARLES COUNTY, 1658-1705 Years 1656-1680 1661-1705 Offices Held During Career N=h7 N=h3 Served only as Justice 38% lhfl Served as Justice and in another maJor office as well (sheriff, burgess, or 32 37 vestryman) Served as Justice and in two or more 10 16 other maJor offices Served in other maJor office, but not 20 32 as Justice Totals 100% 991 355 great concentration of power in the hands of a few was, however, at least during the seventeenth century counterbalanced by two other factors. First, these arrangements were generally supported by community consen- sus. Second, heavy mortality meant that great power was seldom held for long, and family interests were not readily transmissible. The Rulers: Transfer of Power Perhaps the most striking aspect of the distribution and trans- mission of political power in early Charles County is the lack of an elite class from.which rulers could be recruited. Institutions of local government proved much easier to transplant than the classes who tradi- tionally occupied positions of power in England. Only by the turn of the century were ruling families beginning to emerge. During much of the seventeenth century who would rule was determined to a large extent by who was most successful in seizing the opportunities which an expanding economy offered. We have seen that the maJority of early Justices, sheriffs, and'burgesses were immigrants, many of them of very humble origins, who achieved a social and economic status in Maryland well above that they could have expected to achieve in Britain. In addition to economic success, the careers of some early officeholders were advanced by education, successful marriages, and longevity. Birth and connections did not often play a role in local political appointments. Of the fOrty Justices named to the county bench befOre 1681, only five may have owed their appointments to their back- ground. 356 The rise to power was swift and often immediate. This was due to the small numbers of men available to fill key offices and to the short life span of most Chesapeake settlers. A belief that men should serve only in those offices which were appropriate to their abilities must also have contributed. That is, a man perceived as "Justice material" usually began service in that position, and not in a lesser post. In contrast with at least some New England towns, there was very little working up through the ranks.71 (See table h9.) Only five of the forty Justices appointed befbre 1681 served in a lower county 'office other than that of Juror befOre becoming a county ruler. The younger and less educated Justices must truly have had to grow into their positions. The early rulers were relatively young men. The mean age at first appointment to the bench was fOrty during the period 1658-1669. Death quickly depleted the ranks of the initial nominees, and in the fo1- lowing decade, men several years younger were chosen to replace them. (See figure 16.) Mean age at first service remained at or below fOrty through the turn of the century. The unusually early age at which Charles Countians assumed positions of maJor responsibility was very likely a result of the peculiar demographic situation of the region. In contrast, ‘ men assuming power in the Plymouth Colony (where lives were longer) dur- ing this same period were almost all over age fOrty at the time of first service, as were local leaders in at least some Massachusetts towns.72 71Selectmen in Dedham.and'Watertown, Massachusetts, fOr example, had.many years' prior experience in lesser local offices. Kenneth A. Lockridge and.Alan Kreider, "The Evolution of Massachusetts Town Govern- ment, 16m to 17140," 3433 23 (1966): 514941;. 72Cf. Demos, §.Little Commonwealth, pp. 172-7h; Lockridge and Kreider, "The Evolution of Massachusetts Town Government." 357 TABLE 1:9 PLURALISM IN ALL LEVELS OF COUNTY OFFICE Other Offices Held Durigg:Political Career Low Mid-level Mid-level High Highest Level County County County Provincial Provincial Office Held N None Office Office Office Office MaJor county office 91 55% 11% 18% 5% 10% Mid-level county office 57 81 18 - 2 - Minor county office 201 100 - - - - Source: Walsh File of Charles County Office holders. Key: MaJor county office = Justice, sheriff, burgess, vestry. Mid-level county office = cryor, county clerk, clerk of indict- ments, undersheriff, town commissioner. Minor county office = constable, overseer of’highways. Mid-level provincial office 8 surveyor, naval district officer, clerk of assembly. High provincial office 8 council, provincial court Judge. 358 ACE A. JU‘RO‘RS Its - Ismcuwrs 3S " as - “~t‘ x,” DIMIVES B OVERSEEQS AND CONSTABLES 55 - H5-— IMIGRMITS 95 - x I ’l .’ ”ANIVES - 6 ~ « 5 \“ ” s-’ Ion-'51 Involve moi-a1 Mad—I705 FIGURE lb. ME AT FIRST SERVICE IN VARIOUS OFFICES 359 A“ CvMAJoR ornczuuozns 5 5 - 45" Inaucuwrs 35 " I”, x ” NATIVIS 15" ‘~‘~-‘.y’/’ [6511 61 IMO-‘79 “ROE-31 (510!- I705 macs: «Mass sus. or- EMILE: :00qu RESIOIN 1's FIGUR E. IO C CONT'D.) 36o Tenure in office was long in the sense that three-quarters of the Justices remined in office until they retired, or died, or were appointed to higher positions. However, because of high mortality, virtual "life-long" tenure amounted to an average of only seven and a half years in office. (See table 1:7.) This situation continued into the 16903.73 As a consequence, the number of experienced Justices sitting at any given time remained small. (See figure 17.) Most of the initial appointees died in the late 16603, with the result that during the next decade the number of Justices with five years or more experience continued to be low, fluctuating between three and six. Only after 1685 did the number consistently reach five or more. The bench was particularly experienced between 1685 and 1697 when three or four men with ten and fifteen years of service sat. The court's suc- cess in maintaining order and continuing governmental functions in the county between 1689 and 1692 during the overthrow of the provincial government” must have been partly due to the degree of experience of the men running local government. The number of members with five or more years' service dropped in the late 1690s as another large group of Justices died, and then rose again beginning in 1701. Here the contrast with New England was particularly striking. Between 1686 and 1697 when the Charles County bench was notably experienced and stable, the mean number of years of cumulative experience as Justices of the various 73Similar circumstances occurred throughout the colony. The mean number of years of service Of all Maryland Justices sitting in 1689 was 7.18. Carr and Jordan, Mland's Revolution _o_f. Government, p. 187. 7"Ibid., pp. 110-11, 139, 1hs, 223, 228-30. 361 nostatfaeuw... «355 2. 33.52. 33.2 8522qu one.» .... BBC 2.0. 32 “C‘- a: e. 0.0 “a... ....s... /.1. .....Lw (......l-" -t \fllflt... . noes-33 I3. «oust: a! ...-I... 3.33 as; «it .82 5.5 an; ..... 3.33 92938:...» 553...: 3:: 3318595.. 4331...“. Jo 362 members ranged from a. low of 7.3 years in 1690 to a maximum of 10.3 years in 1693. In contrast, in Dedham, Massachusetts, the mean cumu- lative years of experience of selectmen ranged from a high of 53.0 years in the decade 1660-69 to a low of 23.2 years in the decade 1700- 09.75 Because of early death the county's rulers were unable to hold power for long. And, because they died so young, few were able to bequeath successfully positions of power to their heirs. Over half of the Justices serving before 1681 (22) in fact left no male heirs at all. Seven others did have sons who reached adulthood, but the fathers had not accumulated sufficiently large fortunes to sustain the position of the family into the next generation. Less than one-quarter (9) of the early rulers left heirs who later held important political offices.76 Men who came to power during the 16803 and 1690s did better. Most left male heirs, and half of these at least were able to assume a political and economic position equal to that of their fathers. Such inheritance was far from automatic, however, because many of the fathers died during the minority of their sons. At least another generation would be required for there to be many adult sons at hand to step directly into their father's shoes. 75Lockridge and Kreider, "The Evolution of Massachusetts Town Government." 76The situation in the provincial government was similar. Between 1660 and 1689 only 15 out of a total of 175 Provincial office- holders were of the second generation of their family to hold power, and only 1 was of the third generation. David Jordan, "Political Stability and the Emergence of a Native Elite." 363 The county court of the 16803 and early 16903 was composed almost entirely of immigrants. The transition to rule by a.native4born maJority began in the late 1690s (a change which had occurred abruptly in the shrievality in 1689).77 The new native-born rulers owed their fortunes to inheritance and had perhaps been brought up by their mothers in the expectation that they would.hecome county rulers as their fathers had been. The transfer of’power from father to son was, however, indirect. With the exception of William Smallwood, who was appointed to the bench while his father was still sitting, the new appointees whose fethers had held positions of’power took office twenty-feur to thirty-seven years after their fathers had died. Inherited.wealth-when combined with high mortality-ewes becoming enough, however, to preclude the appointment of all but the richest of immigrants after about 1710. ‘Men who did not have to spend years in amassing an estate that would entitle them to positions of power possessed a great advantage over those who did. Natives were consistently named to office fifteen years younger than were immigrants. (See figure 16.) So long as there were only one or two creoles eligible fer high office, the effect on qualified immigrants was not great. As the number of’native- born grew, however, opportunities fer immigrants without large amounts of capital to acquire power quickly declined. While most immigrants ‘were still building up their fortunes, younger natives who could inherit wealth were already county rulers. Appointment, even for men arriving with a requisite fertune, would then have to await a vacancy on a 77The transition to a nativeéborn maJority in the Assembly was occurring at the same time. Ibid. 36h youthful bench. Because the younger native office-holders would live a relatively long time, many aspiring immigrants would die in the interim, During most of the seventeenth century who ruled Charles County was largely determined.by who had the greatest success in the economic sphere. The distribution of power in the county closely followed the distribution of wealth. High social standing-~for those immigrants who had it--might be transferred from.the Old WOrld to the New. More com, monly, however, social prominence was gained after arrival in the colony. Family connections--aside from.alliances with the Calvert family-avers poorly developed and as yet not usually instrumental in obtaining power. Such were the characteristics of an immigrant society. The advent of a native-born maJority meant that the character of the ruling class was changing. wealth would remain an important criterion for recruitment to positions of power, but inherited status and.the right connections would become increasingly essential too. The amorphous, open society which immigrants of the 1650s and 16603 had encountered was being rapidly transformed into a well-defined and.much more closed provincial community. CHAPTER VII SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND PROCESS Sources o_f_ Disorder Charles County society as it developed over the course of the area's first fifty years was a product of a number of elements—who the settlers were , what they brought with them, what they found when they arrived, specific decisions they made, and economic and demographic changes over which they had little control. It is time to look some- times in review and sometimes afresh, at this combination of character, environment, cultural baggage, and conscious choice which together determined the shape and structure of local society. As a consequence of the character of the immigrant group, of the his) rates of morbidity and mortality encountered in the area, and of the diffuse patterns of Chesapeake settlement, many traditional elements of social cohesion were initially absent, and, more signifi- cantly, several important kinds of "social glue" failed to develop at all, and others continued to be lacking even into the final decade of the seventeenth century. Substantial waves of immigration to the county throughout the second half of the seventeenth century insured that a maJority of the inhabitants would come from a variety of backgrounds and that often they would not share common ways of doing things. And, because immigrants seldom arrived as part of a family group but were usually single, 365 366 unrelated youths, the role of the family was at the outset diminished. In addition, since most men and women had to complete terms of service before marrying, new settlers were slow to form families of their own. Finally, since amng imigrants men outnumbered women by about three to one , many men never married at all. Consequently much of the stability which family life and non-nuclear kin relationships frequently provided in Britain was absent in seventeenth-century Charles County. Disruptions in family life continued into the next generation. Because life was short and, for immigrants, marriage came late, the majority of first generation creole children spent part of their child- hood in single-parent households, or with a step-parent, or else as orphans in homes of guardians, or of masters for whom they were obliged to work in return for their maintenance. Consequently, not only the immigrant group, but at least the first native-born generation as well usually matured and began forming their own families without the advice, influence, or aid of older family members . Social disruption occurred also at levels above that of the household. While many immigrants surely intended that the new society that they were building in Maryland be "enrich[ed] with such ornaments of civill life as our owne country abounded withall,"1 New World condi- tions hindered or prevented an orderly transference of many Old World hierarchies and institutions. First of all, because the immigrant group did not represent a cross-section of English society, but rather was composed largely of the offspring of poor to middling families, traditional kinds of social 1White, "A Briefe Relation," p. hl. 367 and. political authority were not readily re-established. The missing slice of English society was at the top; few members of the traditional elite immigrated. Those gentlemen who did come to Charles County were usually able to transfer at least some of their Old World status, and often to obtain some position of power, but there were never enough men of rank to fill all important offices in the local government. A shortage of distinguished immigrants meant that positions of power-~traditionally the preserve of the well born or the rich--fell not only to this group, but also to a number of men of undistinguished origins, even to men who had arrived in the colony as servants. 2 Because many early county rulers were men of humble origins, without education or experience in the world of polite society, and men whose life style was almost identical to that of their less influential neighbors , the early county power structure was quite untraditional. The authority by which these local rulers governed did not depend on deference automatically accorded to rank, but rested instead upon respect for native ability earned over a period of time in daily inter- course with men who were their equals--or at least near equals. The fact that county residents found acceptable only those officeholders who were locally respected points up the conservative, tradition- oriented mind set of most county inhabitants. The main departure from Old World practice was the routes by which community respect could be gained. These were-by the standards of the day--highly unconventional, 2Cf. William Reavis, "The Maryland Gentry and Social Mobility, 1637-1676," [IQ 1h (1957): h18-28; Carr, "County Government"; Bailyn, "Politics and Social Structure in Virginia"; and Menard, "Economy and Society." 368 with much depending on recent behavior and often very little on previous background. The end result produced somewhat less certainty than the traditional system; earned respect--and concomitantly the ability to rule effectively--might be more easily lost than might respect based on a rank ordering which had been determined at a man's birth. Further down in the populace, traditional English social order was disrupted Just as it was at the top. The area's occupational struc- ture bore small resemblance to that of many parts of Britain, and thus status associated with most Old World occupations unrelated to agriculture was not transferable. Similarly, gradations in rank rooted in local family status and reputation had greatly diminished meaning in a settle- ment where other residents in all probability had little or no knowledge of the camnunities from which fellow immigrants had come. Finally, the techniques of tobacco culture and Chesapeake farm management were very different from agricultural systems in Britain. Transplanted farmers whose approaches to crop cultivation and marketing had accorded them some prosperity and enhanced status at home might well fail to achieve comparable success and status as tobacco growers, while some men who had made a poor showing at farming in England might turn out to be able planters. As a result of the difficulties immigrants encountered in re- establishing many kinds of Old World status, economic success became for some time the most important determinant of rank. Such success in turn almost invariably depended on tobacco culture, and here too instability was the rule rather than the exception. Violent fluctuations in the price of the staple made planting a risky business. A series of good 369 years could bring enhanced prosperity and status, while a run of bad years might permanently foreclose the opportunity to rise.3 Initial uncertainty about one's place in the new society was compounded by continued instability created by a labor system based on indentured servitude. The great majority of new immigrants entered the regional society at the bottom as servants, but what their rank might be once they were free men was less certain. A limited amount of status mobility—from servant to freedman--was built into the system. This in itself presented local society with a massive assimilation problem which could not but have some effect on the existing social order. In the county's early years many former servants achieved substantial gains in economic and social status, moving successively from laborers and tenants to householders and finally to freeholders, and finding elbow room in the established order to do so. Later, as the county became "filled up" (in the sense that establishing more farmers on the land at that particu- lar time would yield diminishing returns), the opportunity to achieve an independent economic status was closed off for the great majority of freedmen in the county. For them, full social and economic integration became increasingly less frequent. At this point the result of a labor system which annually discharged more such freedmen, whether there was a place for them in the local community or not, was to induce geographic rather than status mobility, as ex-servants moved out of the county in search of opportunities no longer available to them there. Pressures for continued assimilation and frequent movement of large numbers of 3While studies of the differential risks involved in various kinds of farming in England are unavailable for this period, it seems probable that mono-culture was by nature riskier than more diversified kinds of farming. 370 immigrants into and then out of the county thus contributed to a certain amount of social uncertainty even after the period of wide-spread economic and social integration of newcomers had ended. The lack of traditional social and political authority and the absence of.a clear rank ordering among lower levels of the populace were not the only missing pieces of social cement. In addition, many familiar local Old Werld institutions failed to take root in county soil. Manorial organization for example, proved an anachronism in an area which quickly came to be peopled largely by freeholders. While there were thirteen privately-owned manors granted within county bounds at one time or another in the seventeenth century," few of the owners could command the services of many tenants, and apparently none of them ever held manor courts as they were entitled to do. Second, due to a combination of local geo- graphy and special tdbacco marketing practices, towns failed to develop in the county at all. Economic activities and social interaction all took place without benefit of urban centers, and no municipal corporap tions appeared to exercise any measure of local power. Finally, as an unforeseen result of Maryland's policy of religious toleration, until the last decade of the century Protestant ministers and churches were also almost entirely non-existent. Organized religion thus failed to play a significant role during the time that county society was taking shape. Only in the 16903 did many churches begin to appear and parish vestries be established. Because vestries came so late to Maryland, they had much less power and influence in the province than in England and.in many other North American colonies.S "Donnell MacClure Owings, "Private Manors: An Edited List," _gugg 33 (1938): 307-33. 5See above, chapters five and six, and Carr, "County Government." 371 No other local institutions developed to take the place of the manor, the town, and the parish church. What local security existed was supplied through the informal functioning of the neighborhood. This form of spontaneous help, companiOthi-P. and law enforcement could be—and frequently was--very effective, but such a system left much to chance-- and to the character of one's neighbors. Nonetheless , however harsh the environment or unstable the society, life in the county had its brighter side as well. While the absence of familiar class structures, local institutions, and family ties, and the extraordinary hazards of early death were causes of great insecurity both to individuals and to the community, this very disorder was also a source of unusual opportunity for many men. Individuals could marry whom they wished without parental interference, and could begin independent economic careers without waiting for their fathers to release family resources to them. During the 16508, 16608, and early 16708 the expanding county econonw offered men with little or no capital a chance to rise into the ranks of householders, landowners, and minor office- holders, and the most capable and ambitious could aspire to substantial estates and to offices of considerable power. Since so many of the inhabitants had begun their careers in the colony as servants, there appears' to have been no local prejudice to hinder the rise of men with such origins, and of course there were few born to more privileged positions residing in the area to block their way. Early death acted to prolong this fluid situation, with a rapid turnover among officeholders and leading planters (who frequently had either no heirs or no heirs of age to succeed them) continually opening up new positions at the top. 372 Women too benefitted from these more fluid conditions. attitudes toward sexuality were clearly much freer in the Chesapeake than in the Old World and in many other parts of the New as well. Greater freedom of course brought greater risk of unwanted pregnancy, but it also allowed women an unusual degree of independence and self expression. Also unequal sex ratios ensured that almost every woman who wished to marry could do so, and in the early years at least her chances of marry- ing above her station were good. In addition, a combination of factors including her scarcity value and the very substantial contributions she made to the household economy won for her a position of substantial power in the family polity which seems to have persisted for some time after family life returned to a more normal course. Even though it was probably the advantages that a new, open , relatively undifferentiated society offered that had induced many immigrants to come to Charles County in the first place, almost para- doxically, once there, what many came to long for instead was the greater security and certainty of a more structured and ordered community. Open- ness and fluidity were not obtained without social cost, and while such conditions did offer unusual opportunity, they remained a source of con- tinuing doubt, uncertainty, and fear. The county might be a good place in which to seek one's fortune, but it was perhaps not, to the settlers' way of thinking, exactly the kind of place in which to establish a family and bring up children. A deep-felt desire for greater order and security doubtless contributed to increasing political stability on the local level, to the development of a local class structure, and to the reasser- tion of the role of family and kin in individual and community life. Community 373 Before moving to a discussion of the ways in which order did evolve, it is necessary first to review the general course of the economic and social development in Maryland's lower western shore across the seventeenth century. Charles County was part--and a special parcel-- of this region, and consequently it is desirable in the process of examining county society to try to detemine what developments were purely local phenomena and what were part of a larger colonial experience The lower western shore, first settled in l63h, started out as Cecil Calvert had planned with a rigidly stratified, hierarchic society composed of two groups--a dominant, largely Roman Catholic gentry and a number of subservient, largely Protestant laborers. This social arrange- ment soon disintegrated in the face of both political turmoil and rapid economic growth in the mid-lGhOs.6 From the late l6hOs to the late 16603 immigrants--both bound and free--poured into the rapidly growing region. As settlement spread from its original seat in St. Mary's County further up the major rivers, two new counties were created, Calvert in 165,4 and Charles in 1658. Good times and rapid growth afforded poor men a period of expanded opportunity to acquire property. Since opportunity for men who were beginning with little was greatest along the leading edge of settlement, Charles and possibly also Calvert attracted large numbers of former servants from St. Mary's County who were ready to strike out on their own. More populous St. Mary's offered more of the amenities of "civilization"-- a landscape which had already lost some of its wilderness quality to the axe and the hoe, closer neighbors, greater proximity to the seat of government, a few resident merchants and doctors, and, for Roman 6Menard, "Economy and Society." 37h Catholics, at least, two or three fimctioning congregations with resident priests. These inducements may have attracted a larger proportion of free immigrants with capital and especially those who already had families to settle in more "crowded" St. Mary's, rather than in sparsely populated newer regions. Consequently in the 16608, differences in wealth may have been a little greater in St. Mary's than in Charles and Calvert Counties because more St. Mary's settlers had arrived with some capital.7 Wherever they settled, however, most of the imigrants who sur- vived their first years in the colony entered the ranks of small, inde- pendent, landowning planters. Differences arising from the initial advantages with which some settlers had begun were frequently minimized by hard work and the profits of a few good crops of tobacco. The most striking characteristic of the late 1650s was the wide expansion of mid- dling wealthholders. Yeoman farmers became the dominant economic and political force, as their growing numbers eclipsed the importance of the few gentlemen resident in the area, and as the proportion of more subservient men—free laborers and tenants--declined.8 A fall in tobacco prices in the early 16608, while not imme- diately braking the rising careers of many already-established planters especially those in the newer areas, was enough to discourage many potential free immigrants. Substantial numbers of newcomers continued to arrive in the region for another twenty years , but a much greater proportion of them were servants. 7See figures 25, 30, and 32 for differences in wealth distribu— tions in Charles, Calvert, and St. Mary's Counties. 8For an account of the economic development of the lower western shore and assessments of opportunity there at various times see Menard, Harris, and Carr, "Opportunity and Inequality"; and Menard, "Economy and Society." 375 This change in the character of the immigrant population coin- cided with some effects of demographic maturation to produce changes in the way colonists throughout the region handled their living arrange- ments during the 1670s. Maturing settlement, it turned out, may have resulted in almost as great a sense of disorder as had been felt during the days of initial establishment. As early death broke up the families of the first settlers, the survivors had either to bring new members into their own households or to find places in the households of others. The number of families which contained at least one previously married spouse--often with minor children—increased, as did the numbers of families who sheltered unrelated orphaned children placed there by the county court.9 Besides experiencing increasing complexity within the family, many households probably also began to shelter more unrelated residents. Large numbers of servants who had entered Maryland during the 1660s were now becoming free. Another slump in tobacco prices in the mid-16703 meant that many freedmen would have to spend a longer time working as wage laborers or- sharecroppers before they could accumulate enough capital to set up their own households. In the interim many lodged with established planters. In addition, a higher proportion of those free immigrants who still came were both single and relatively poor. They too sought to board for a time with established families.10 In the 16708 we must add to this already unruly assemblage of persons in 98cc tables 13 and 15. 10The percentage of men in Charles County who were not heading their own households was highest among the decedent population between 1671 and 1689. "Social Stratification in Maryland." While this might not necessarily be true for the living population as well, a close reading of the county court records suggests that this was probably the case. 37 6 more than half of all households, and in seventy-nine percent of house- holds worth at least £50, one or more indentured servants, some of whom at least, lived, ate, and slept with the rest of the family.11 The tensions which these living arrangements produced must have been enormous, especially when we consider that most families were then living in extremely small one or two room dwellings. Man and wife had first to agree on how to manage their children, and there is ample evidence that especially when stepchildren were present, agreement frequently was not reached. Second, even when parents did achieve a consensus on how to treat their offspring, long-standing conflicts between the children themselves or between parent and child might still develop. Third, servants had also to be supervised and disciplined. The presence of one or more laborers who might well avoid work if not carefully watched, who might run off at critical times in the farming year, and who had an alarming tendency to produce illegitimate children must have added to levels of anxiety. Finally, the addition of one or more free, unmarried male lodgers over whom the head of the household had very limited coercive power surely created possibilities for other kinds of conflict. The presence of such lodgers must often have dis- rupted normal domestic routines, but on the other hand, the additional incone which these arrangements made for the family provided a powerful incentive to the householder to keep the lodger on, even at the cost of severe strains to the family's emotional life. If living in these conditions in itself proved taxing, there soon ceased to be a spirit of buoyant optimism abroad to help dissipate 11See table 20. 377 stresses arising within these crowded and often disassorted households. Tobacco prices took another ominous downturn during the early and mid- 16708; credit was tight; labor was increasingly scarce; religious ten- sions were running high; Indian troubles occasioned heavy military expenditures and hence increased taxes; poorer planters and most non- landow'ners, disfranchised by Lord Baltimore in 1670, chafed under the burden of heavy taxes which they no longer had any voice in determining. Bitter disputes between the legislature and the proprietor added to uncertainty, while the repercussions of serious rebellion across the Potomac were felt throughout the lower western shore. There is little wonder that most of the 16708 were years of vague unease and discontent. What is surprising is that greater disorder and outright violence did not ensue. '2 After the mid-1680s conditions on the level of the household probably stabilized somewhat. White innnigration dropped off drastically, with the consequence that the numbers of poor, unestablished freedmen would shortly decrease and that the supply of new immigrants to be assim- ilated would thereafter be minimal. Laborers, when they could be had, were now usually slaves. These new hands, of totally different race, culture, and language, and having a new and lower status, were probably less often fed and bedded in the dwelling house along with the rest of 12For problems of the period see Andrews, The Colonial Period 2: 27h-379; and Carr and Jordan, Mland's Revolution of; Government, ch. 1. Of course there is the other side of the coin. That order did prevail in these circumstances is strong testimony to the tenacity and power of English customs and traditions. Apparently sufficient con- tinuity prevailed in enough facets of the colonists ' lives to prevent widespread social disintegration. I do not dispute this, but rather choose here to emphasize the very real trials to which Old World customs and traditions were put during this period of colonial history. 378 the family.13 Problems of supervision and discipline of the new work force were probably at least as great as those encountered with servants, but pressures to accommodate blacks within the family circle were less. For the native-born whites maturing in the 16908 and early 17008 the presence of kin dwelling in close proximity may have further relieved tensions within individual households. There was more likely to be some- one available with whom to share family joys and family problems , someone to whom fractious children might be sent when difficulties arose, and greater likelihood that family continuity could be maintained even in the event of the early death of one or both of the primary members of the nuclear household. While domestic difficulties may have diminished after the 16708, economic troubles certainly increased. The Chesapeake tobacco economy had grown more slowly during the late 16603 and 703 than during the 16408 and 508, and fran the 1680s stagnated completely for a thirty year period. During this time tobacco output ceased increasing at all. Labor supplies failed to keep pace with the growing numbers of new households, credit dried up, and planters' income from tobacco fell. In the lower western shore as a whole from the 16603 when tobacco prices began to decline until the early 16803 when they bottomed out, the distribution of wealth gradually became less equitable. As shown in figure 18, mean personal wealth was still rising in the 16703, but now 13Most slaves were owned by larger planters, and these men would be much more likely than small farmers to have outbuildings or quarters separate from the dwelling house in which to house slaves. In addition, slaveowners' dwellings were much more likely to consist of more than one room and might well contain spaces such as lofts, rooms under stairs, etc. , which were not needed to accommodate the owner's family where slaves might sleep apart. I" 379 LVI I ”Human!- --- Menus 3: I. 'I H ' I h ..L It... Swan: , IBM-‘11, Issa- nos mwmqmu, m cannot-newton! m lusmufl' “Mutts-u an tau-5| «noun. Fl‘UflE ll. ANNUAL MEANS AND MEDIANS. LOWER WESTERN ‘4 57:8; 116 380 the advantages went only to the already well-established. Lower and lower middling wealthholders experienced no increase in the value of their personal estates. This meant that per capita wealth was clearly falling as the numbers of mouths dependent on no longer expanding estates slowly increased. All but the wealthier planters fell upon hard times indeed, frequently experimenting with a variety of alternative sources of income with not much success, and almost universally tighten- ing their belts by several notches. From the 16803 through 1705 wealth distributions for the region as a whole revealed no long term tendency to change. The period of redistribution was over, leaving in its wake greater numbers of rich planters and an increase in the proportion of poor men--both shifts occurring at the expense of middling groups.” In the face of the continuing critical labor shortage which accompanied low tobacco prices, the region shifted from dependence on servant labor to dependence on slave labor. The resulting influx of new black laborers in the late 16808 and early 1690s, however, benefitted only the wealthier planters who could afford these more expensive new hands. Poorer farmers, now almost entirely excluded from the bound labor market , were unable to purchase hands , and without such supplementary labor, had little chance of improving their economic position. The adOp- tion of slave labor accentuated the kinds of changes which the shifting wealth structure entailed. Among other things it created an almost unbridgeable gap between laborers--both white and black-~and labor owners.15 J'"For regional wealth redistribution see Menard, Harris, and Carr, "Opportunity and Inequality." For increasing diversification in the county see chapter 5. 15For changes in labor ownership see table 20. 381 In the midst of these developments, settlement continued to spread north and.west along the Patuxent and Potomac above Charles and Calvert Counties. Settlers from Calvert County began to occupy land in this area in the late 16603, and by the mid-16703 the Patuxent side was being rapidly taken up. .A combination of poor soils, a large Indian reserve on the upper fringes of Charles County settlements where white occupation was proscribed, and fears of raids by northern Indiana all acted to curtail the movement of substantial numbers of Charles Countians up the Potomac until the 1690s. The majority of’the settlers in the area which would become Prince George's County came from Calvert County; By 1696 population in the area had reached nearly two thousand individuals, sufficient to warrant the creation of a new county.16 The kinds of people who developed the Prince George's area deserve particular attention, fer their backgrounds differed considerably from.those of the men who settled new areas in the lower western shore in the 16603. The majority of the settlers were still immigrants, but probably only a few came directly to Prince George's from abroad. Many had already estab- lished themselves, at least in a minor way, in one of the older counties, and then moved to the new area in hope of substantially increasing their estates. Another important group of settlers were the English merchants who, once arrived, took up planting themselves. Finally there were the native born--sons and grandsons of earlier settlers who had astutely acquired frontier lands years before-awho now came to take up their inheritance in the new county. While the native-born had previously been virtually absent from areas of new settlement, the first two groups had been helping to develop 16Carr, "County Government," ch. 7. 382 the lower western shore for some time. There is, however, one group of men who had played a major role in earlier settlement and who were now conspicuously absent--the freedmen. Whereas in the 16608 and 16708 many former servants had achieved the status of independent, landowning far- mers by moving to the newest, most rapidly growing parts of the lower western shore, such areas no longer offered them this opportunity. Only h or 5 out of over 1,000 men who served terms in Charles County prior to 1706 acquired land in new Prince George's, and only a handful more appear to have settled there without acquiring land. Nor did many man known to have served terms in Calvert County later become landowners in Prince George's. Significantly, most of those ex—Calvert County servants who did so had already become landowners before they moved into the new area. Finally, very few men indeed who had been servants in Prince George's County later acquired land there.17 These facts suggest that in early Prince George's, just as in the older areas, opportunity to get ahead was largely limited to those who had inherited or had already acquired capital. After about 1680 new areas of the lower western shore were not much better "poor man's country" than were the older ones. By the 16903 conditions on much of the lower western shore were such that small planters who had already established farms there saw little enough hope for the future. Many poor men who were just embarking on their economic careers saw no hope at all. News from Pennsylvania, the Jerseys, and the Carolinas revealed that these new, rapidly expanding regions were the "poor men's countries" of the 1690s. Outmigration from the lower western shore, especially of 17For biographies of many Prince George's County settlers see ibid. , appendix 2. 383 young, single adult men was substantial. And this outflow in turn relieved some of the pressure on resources for those who remained behind. The Beginning _o_f_ Order Having reviewed the economic and social development of the lower western shore in general, it is time to turn to a more detailed examina- tion of the structure of Charles County society, considering especially the ways in which political and social order evolved. One of the first signs of developing political order was the emergence of the county court as an effective form of local government. The need for some kind of local order was great, and the possible sources of such order few. Given the absence of manor courts, town governments, and parish vestries, most colonists' initial response was to respect and obey the county court , the one familiar institution of local government which was then functioning—even if mny of the men in office possessed The few of the traditional attributes of social and political leaders. county court's early successes in establishing order won continuing sup- port fran area residents, which in turn enhanced its subsequent ability to maintain order. In addition, the court's quick acquisition of powers which were divided among a number of organs of government in Britain pre- vented competing sources of local authority from developing, and ensured that no series of power struggles over local jurisdictions would subse- quently disrupt the county society. After the late 1680s only minor institutional changes took place on the local level until the end of the colonial period. Surely this lack of change became in itself a growing source of stability. 18 18This argument is one of the major themes in Carr, "County Government . " 38h Also by the mid-16803, the county power structure itself began to take on a more traditional appearance. As the numbers of men dis- tinguished by substantial wealth, if not by gentle status increased, a greater proportion of the county's rulers were selected from this group, while the number of appointees with moderate wealth, no education, or prior status as servants declined. Greater disparities in wealth and influence began to separate the rulers from the ruled, and presumably it was becoming more difficult for ordinary citizens to dispute the actions of those who--in the eyes of provincial governors at least--were their betters. The facet of the emerging social order which remains to be explored in depth is the development of a local class structure based on attributes peculiar to the region and particularly suited to the local populace. Since the qualities of high birth, education, and influential connections were sparsely scattered indeed through the county's early residents, local status was mainly derived from other characteristics. Religion and marital status undoubtedly helped to establish a man's rank, but clearly the most critical determinant of social status was the one thing which all residents shared in varying degrees-landed and personal wealth. Doubtless a man's religion played a part in forming the many subtle distinctions which in combination determined his standing in the community. The role of religion in developing these distinctions would have been apparent to the man's neighbors but—given the near absence of literary materials for this period-—they are no longer so clear to us. What surviving sources do reveal is that religion was a power- ful stratifying influence because of its relation to political power. 385 ’rior to 1689 seats on the provincial council were in general limited to Roman Catholics and to close relatives of the proprietor, and councilors :ended also to dominate the provincial judiciary, the militia, and to 1016. other patronage positions. Thus a few wealthy Roman Catholic gentlemen (or Protestants who married into the Calvert family) had a great deal more influence than their wealth and experience alone might have entitled them to. The proprietary policy of religious favoritism primarily angered aspiring Protestant gentlemen who were frequently shut out of the highest offices. However, it was also a cause of anxiety to ordinary planters who were concerned about the state of the Protestant church in Maryland and who resented the overbearing attitudes of some of the Catholic gentry.19 After the revolution of 1689 the tables were turned. Catholics were excluded from all but a few minor local offices, and only Protestants 19While qualified Protestants clearly had a greater chance of gaining positions of power in Charles than was the case in neighboring St. Mary's, some Protestant county leaders still seem to have felt threatened by the proprietary policy of religious favoritism. Mland Archives 5: 312-3h. Such fears may well have been reinforced by the manner of appointment and the deportment of some of the county's Catholic officeholders. For example, Jesse Wharton and Edward Pye had not been active in local civil government prior to their appointment to the Council. As comcillors and judges of the provincial court they possessed at least some of the powers of single county justics and could sit as justices of the county quorum (Carr, "County Government ," pp. 121-2h) . Perhaps these men were reluctant to perform such services, or perhaps county residents chose to go instead to other county justices. At any rate Wharton's and Pye's non-activity on the local level was a marked contrast to the careers of Protestant councillors William Digges and Benjamin Rozer who had served in local office prior to their appointment to the council and who continued to provide services to county residents thereafter. While evidence to the point is scant and inconclusive, it is possible that the Catholic elite tended to be more "deference" than "service" oriented, while initially at least many members of the Protestant elite stressed service. 386 could aspire to positions of power. While in some respects still equal participants in county society, Catholics were proscribed from main- taining public churches and schools. The necessity of holding religious services in private, of being circumspect in the way they educated their children, and their total exclusion from positions of authority and decision-making must have tended in many ways to the development of a minority Catholic culture over the course of the eighteenth century.20 Because of the highly unbalanced sex ratios among immigrants, so long as the county was primarily an immigrant society, marital status probably had greater importance in helping to determine community stand- ing than it did in England. There, a man who had enough assets to set up a household could probably find a woman willing to marry him without too much trouble. In Maryland, on the other hand, women were in short supply and not all men who were ready and able to marry could find wives. The economic benefits of householding and of a wife's services gave the man who succeeded in marrying an economic boost. In addition, marrying and setting up his own household usually also insured a man's initiation into the group who helped make canmunity decisions as jurors and minor officeholders. Consequently, the ability to win a wife may have accorded a man a certain status at least so long as marriage was not necessarily part of the normal course of most men's lives. The most important determinant of status--landed and personal wealth--remains to be examined, and in order to understand how these stratified county society, we need to know how such wealth was distributed. The use of wealth distributions to describe social structure presents the historian with conceptual as well as with methodological 20Carr and Jordan, Maryland's Revolution 93 Government, chs. l and 6. 387 problem. Even when the more serious technical difficulties inherent in some of the materials have been overcome,21 the problem of the meaning of the distributions remains. For example, exactly what has the historian learned once he has found out how various arithmetic groupings of his population divided various kinds of property? Can this information then be used to learn something about how individuals thought and felt about each other and about how the society actually worked?22 In an attempt to enhance the explanatory as well as the descrip- tive uses of wealth distributions, in the discussion which follows where data are available, Charles County will be contrasted with the lower western shore of Maryland as a whole and with the other three counties of the region individually.23 This approach helps to determine what characteristics of Charles County society were region-wide and what were a result of purely local experience. The comparative approach also provides some tentative understanding of the process of social develop- ment in the region and the roles various kinds of areas played in the growth of the whole across the second half of the seventeenth century. 21For a discussion of the technical problems encountered in deal- ing with seventeenth century Maryland inventories-—primarily inflation, changes in reporting rates, and age biases--and ways of solving them see Menard, Harris, and Carr, "Opportunity and Inequality"; and Main, "Measur- ing Wealth and Welfare," ch. 1; and idem, "Probate Records As a Source for Early American History," m 32 (1975): 89-99. Discussion of Charles County probate materials which follows is based on data from the St. Mary's City Commission inventory project, "Social Stratification in Mary- land," and hence are adjusted as described in "Opportunity and Inequality." 22For an excellent evaluation of conceptual problems encountered in the use of quantitative materials see James A. Henretta, "The Quanti- fication of Consciousness," paper presented at the Stony Brook Conference on Quantification in Early American Social History, June 13, 1975. 23Inventory data for St. Mary's, Calvert, and Prince George's Counties also comes from "Social Stratification in Maryland." 388 Distribution of Land The first issue to be considered is the distribution of landed property. Here the fecus will be on three main questions. What propor- tion of the residents of the four lower western shore counties owned land at various times and what proportion did not? How equally was land distributed among those who owned it, and what were the career prospects of men who did not own land? And finally, how can changes in the rates of landownership and tenancy be explained? Land distribution in Charles County can be most thoroughly described for the beginning and the end of this study, as quit-rent rolls survive for the years 1659 and 1705.2" These documents list the owners of freehold tracts in the county, the hundred in which the various tracts lay, the acreage owned, and.the amount of quit-rent due. They often include additional information about when and.by whom the tract was originally surveyed, and occasionally refer to the exact location of the tract and.the circumstances under which the current owner obtained possession.25 These two rent rolls, when corrected for missing surveys and conveyances, and.when combined.with biographical studies of the landowners, provide good descriptions of the way in which county land ‘was distributed and of the character of the landholding population. In addition, when compared with population data, information from.the rent rolls makes possible estimates of tenancy in the county. Beginning in 16h9 an average of about 3,000 acres were surveyed in Charles County annually. By 1659. 62,755 acres in portions of Charles 2“Rent Rolls 0 and 8. 25For a general discussion of Maryland rent rolls see Hartsook and Skordas, Land Office and Prerogative Court Records. 389 and of what would later become Prince George's County had been taken up, although of course only a small fraction of this acreage was as yet occue pied. The land was held.by 115 owners, and of these 86 were definitely resident in the county. Eighteen of the remaining owners were living in other Maryland counties, and the residence of the rest (ll) is uncertain. When compared with the first years of settlement in Maryland, land in Charles County in 1659 was relatively equally distributed. A rent roll recently constructed for the year l6h2 for St. Mary's County shows that in that year holdings had.been very unequal. Then, landowners held either very small parcels of 100 acres or less, or else large tracts of l,000 acres or more. Few holdings fell in the middle ranges. Perhaps even more important was the fact that most men did not own land at all. More than three-quarters of the free men who lived in St. Mary's in l6h2 were non-landowners.26 In contrast, in the newly formed Charles County of 1659 few aspects of the highly stratified society of the first settlements appear. Most free adult male residents of Charles County were landowners. Only 6 additional free males other than the 86 resident landowners listed in the 1659 rent roll can be identified in the local records as than living in the county. Even when allowances for non-appearance in the records are included, it remains clear that at least ninety percent of the county's freemen were already landowners. For a number of reasons the future prospects of’the few Charles _County residents who did not yet own land in 1659 were favorable. The amount of assets required to purchase and set up a farm were not great, ”Russell R. Menard, "Population Growth and Land Distribution in St. Mary's County," unpublished report prepared for the St. Mary's City Commission, May, 1971. Copy available at Hall of Records. 390 and the chances for a.man to acquire such assets were good. Land was relatively cheap and tobacco prices high in the late 16508 and early 16603. Within a few years a tenant could save enough out of the proceeds of crops grown on rented land to buy a fanm of his own. Career studies have demonstrated that, in this period, tenancy was usually only an early stage in a poor man's economic career, and not a permanent condi— tion.27 In addition, in the early years of county settlement, the function of tenancy was often more to develop land than to produce income for the landlord. Previously uncleared or only partially cleared farms were let at relatively low rents, but with stipulations designed to increase the value of the farm, for example that the tenant must clear and fence a specified number of acres, or plant an orchard, or perhaps erect some buildings such as hen houses or kitchens or tobacco barns. Arrangements such as these permitted the landowner to develop his holdings cheaply and allowed the tenant to pay part of his rent in labor that could be performed during the off-season. In this fashion the tenant was able to retain a substantial part of his crop for himself and eventually to use the proceeds to become a landowner himself.28 Also in contrast with St. Mary's County in l6h2, land in Charles County was more equitably distributed among those who already owned it in 1659. The pattern of a few large and.many small holdings does not appear. While there were some large parcels (l2 exceeded 1,000 acres), there were 27See ibid., and Menard, "From Servant to Freeholder." 28For examples of short-term.leases see Mggzland Archives 5h: 12-13, 2hh-h5; 70: 86-89; and Charles County Court, Kfil, 33-3 . I am.indebted to Lois Carr for sharing her research.on tenancy in colonial Maryland. 391 very few small ones (only 2 were less than 100 acres). Most fell in the middle ranges. Fiftybeight percent of the landowners owned tracts of between 100 and 300 acres, and an additional 28 percent had parcels of hSO to 1,000 acres. Among the 86 resident county landowners, mean acreage held was 6&1 acres, and the median, 250 acres. Distributions had become more equal in St. Mary's County as well by 1659, but the degree of concen- tration remained greater there than in Charles.29 While the Charles County settlements clearly offered a great deal of opportunity to most of the early residents, career studies of the 86 resident landowners show that some men were in a better position to take advantage of the available land than were others. Ex-servants predictably needed more time in the colony than did free immigrants to accumulate.more than.minimal acreages.30 As shown in table 50, landholdings among fommer servants who had lived in Maryland eight years or less were little more than half the size of tracts acquired by free immigrants who had been in the colony for a similar length of time. Once in the colony nine years or longer, however, former servants seem to have been.more successful in acquiring sizeable amounts of land than were known free immigrants with modest capital. The advantages of arrival free of the burden of service were apparently not always cumulative. Free immigrants who had spent between nine and twelve years in the colony held about the same acreages as did more recent free arrivals. was the drive to accumulate more land perhaps stronger in men who had.begun with nothing? 29Menard, "Population Growth and Land Distribution in St. Mary's and "Economy and Society." County,‘ 3°Menard found that among 158 men who entered Maryland as servants before the end of l6h2 and who later appeared as freedmen, the median length of time required to become a landowner was seven and a half years. "From Servant to Freeholder." 392 .mpooownoa hpsooo moandmo mo oHHH,mnHm3 one o Haom poem ”moonoom o .oom. m m o .ooox a o 534 m e E393 owned .ooah m.Hom ma m.H~m 0H o.mmm ma mm Hdpfimoo poooos .oohm H.Hmm m 0.0mm m m.m:H : ma eso>hom munch +MH smash Nana name» etc moned hsoaoo nouo< hooHoo nono< hsoaoo nonapz nowpwnww a one: oH sonsoz one: ca Hanson one: ow unease p p pm I. "i" "n mmmH .NBZDOU mmqm¢mo .zzozu mH Hzogoo aha 2H HEHE ho maozmq and ZOHBwm noom\ooom noom\ooom am no on powoonom ooom noon\ooow me no mm anaconda ooom ooom “we mam “om oowaoofiz nnoood hpwanod nomad nono< moned oononnm nouns Haom 00: one o noospop oom one o noosvop omH one o nooavoo mo nausea no ondq no spouse no ondq no spouse nu onnq ooho>nnm mo pnoohom ooho>hnm no pnoohom ooho>hom no pnooaom nova M92500 mmnmemo enmngDm Hm mandma ho mmNHm mm money 1:12 '1 'r‘dh--- ‘ I I -_— VVVV “IV: I'fijr17l(!"7;‘:u" I”I”(”HH’EI'I'IIHI‘T-W" u («M 1m," ' II'I'HI ['(n, ,‘(H' (F‘Ill I“ Ipll‘ '[171‘77II7' I I 4‘ I H" ‘75": I‘ “I “‘“II({’ 'IglgIllll‘l'H' «IH((.7I‘I;, IIIIHIHIH 13‘ II 'I' (I 7,IHUI7H 7 13‘ II “I I I. ' 3v". - t “J. .2... 433' ". . “ x. -.. '. m -J O L.) 5i Q h . U . . s . \ "' ::|III : g 5 .. ... is ° ’0 . ‘5‘. I ‘ :3 2 0°, 1,,“ ‘ , r In 0 .Q.‘..’ ‘ o .__: F: > O ' . : ‘Owi‘VTF\ . 7" I?) g 2 “Z. "to. g _ a r o _g 0 a g as .O, Q m > ‘ _— 3 . —' __ ‘ _. 1 U5 g? : ml)" v ,. ~ g d. 7 O i 8 It I “'H U a "I A III :1: I :3, I —: 9 In! hl3 County-wide measures of concentration mask the fact that by 1705 the most productive land in Charles and probably also in St. Mary's County was tied up in large tracts and was controlled by a few large planters. Especially after the 1680 slump in tobacco prices, these men possessed a strong advantage over smaller planters, for they were in the best position to grow enough tobacco to provide income to expand their labor forces, to further develop their lands, and thus to produce even greater income. In addition, very good land appeared on the market infrequently. Large planters sought to retain their "speciall good Land" in the family, and should sale of some lands become necessary, disposed instead of tracts of more morginal value."1 Since the best land tended to be sold in large parcels, and since the price of such land continued to rise, in general only men who already had substantial capital could afford to buy such choice tracts as came on the market. Continued concentration of ownership of the best lands helps to explain why some large county planters were able to prosper even in the face of severe economic depression. 0n the other hand, the situation of the many smaller planters who owned less productive lands was much less favorable around the turn of the century. If tract size is any indication-~and there is a high corre- lation between large land holdings and large amounts of other kinds of capital--men with the least assets ended up with the poorest lands."2 I”This becomes clear when patterns of land sales and of land willed to heirs are compared. See also Testamentary Proceedings 6: 269. "ZObviously there was nothing to prevent a large planter from acquiring a number of small parcels of land and farming them as a single large tract. Here the argument is that the best tobacco-growing lands tended to be surveyed relatively early in the settlement process and to be patented in large blocs, while land less suited to tobacco, whenever surveyed, was more often patented in much smaller parcels. Once established, hlh Very small planters then labored under a severe disadvantage, for, so long as tobacco prices remained depressed, they were unlikely to produce enough income from the staple to procure labor and thus to expand produc- tion. This situation must have had an effect upon non-landowners as well as upon men who already owned land. Perhaps when a poor man con- sidered the various ways by which he might make a living in the county, survey or purchase of a marginal freehold may not have appeared to him.to be the best alternative. Leasing more productive land--even though this entailed the payment of substantial rents--may have produced higher or at least equal net incomes. Credit considerations probably also favored tenancy. When credit was scarce, poor men probably feund it especially difficult to borrow money for the purchase and development of marginal lands. Very probably, when men chose or were forced for lack of capital to rent rather than to buy farms, more of them let land from large rather than from small planters. Such men had more land (and more productive land) available to rent than did small planters who might already be using most of their prime tdbacco acreage or else be saving what surplus they had for their children. As a result, tenancy in Charles County probably had a pronounced geographic bias. MOst non-landowners probably lived in prime tobacco growing areas where land ownership was also most concentrated. It is probable too that the function of tenancy itself was changing in many areas by the turn of the eighteenth century. Even though we cannot prove this since infbrmation about rents and the condition of leases is cadastral boundaries were slow to change, and subdivision of large tracts other than through inheritance infrequent. Cf. Earle, Evolution _o_f. g Tidewater Settlement System, ch. 8. hlS scarce because no law required that short-term.leases be recorded, it is likely that as older-settled areas filled up, landowners began to rent already developed farms solely for the purpose of producing income. Once a landlord no longer had a need for tenant-produced improvements on his holdings, doubtless he demanded a greater share of the tenant's crop in return for use of the land, especially since concomitant obligations on the part of the tenant (primarily the maintenance of existing buildings and fences) were less burdensome than initial clearing and construction. Consequently, even had tobacco prices not fallen, the career prospects of many non-landowners would probably have changed fer the worse. Men renting already developed land probably paid out a greater share of their crops for rent, and thus had.proportionately less to save to buy land of their own. .Again, the greatest advantage would accrue to large planters who had the most land to rent, for they could now add increasingly profitable rents to their sources of income. Evidence from.the other lower western shore counties demonstrates a similar inter-relationship between land quality,"3 tract size, and rates of tenancy. In the first place, over-all figures are suggestive. In 1705 Charles, with the least good tdbacco soil, had the lowest propor— tion of landless householders of the four counties, 29 percent. In St. l'3For soil types see U.S., Department of.Agriculture, Soil Con- servation Service, "General Soil Map of Southern Maryland," and U.S., Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in Cooperation with .Maryland.Agricultural Experiment Station, Soil Survgy, Prince Geor e's Countyg Magyland (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1967). very real differences in soil productivity are still evident in the region despite the availability of.modern fertilizers. Patuxent valley soils today yield from 1,500 to 1,900 pounds of tabacco per acre and 70 to 115 bushels of corn. Soils in the interior of Charles and St. Mary's Countiesiyield only 850 to 1,000 pounds of tabacco and 65 to 85 bushels of corn per acre. U.S., Department of Agriculture, "General Soil Map for Southern Maryland." A16 Mary's,where soils most closely resembled those of Charles, 33 percent of the householders were tenants."" In more fertile Prince George's County by 1706 35 percent of householders owned no land,"5 and in highly productive Calvert County, tenants made up about 38 percent of heads of household in 1707."6 The mechanisms which determined what proportion of a county's residents would own land were of course highly complex, and clearly elements other than soil quality are part of the equation. Were this the only factor involved, much higher ratesof tenancy might be expected in Calvert County than actually appeared. The closeness of the proporb tions of tenants in the four counties suggests that rents asked for less desirable tracts may have been lower than those charged for better land, thus tending to produce similar rates of tenancy throughout the region. It is prdbable too that Calvert County planters were utilizing slaves rather'than white tenants to a greater extent than were planters in the other three counties for both developmental and income-producing pur- poses."7 Finally, Calvert County was more intensively developed than the other three counties. Consequently by 1707 little land may have been let there primarily for purposes of development, while this form.of tenancy was still important elsewhere. ""Menard, "Population Growth and Lend Distribution in St. Mary's County." l'SCarr, "County Government," ch. 7. "5The proportion of tenants in Calvert County was calculated by determining the number of resident landowners among property holders listed on the 1707 rent roll (Calvert Papers #887, Maryland Historical Society) and comparing this figure with an estimate of the number of free adult male residents Obtained by interpolating between the l70h and 1710 censuses. "7See below, pp. hh7-h5h. hl? Data on soil quality, tract size, and rates of tenancy are available by hundred for St. Mary's and Prince George's Counties, and these lend strong support to the pattern of good tobacco land, large tract size, and high rates of tenancy suggested fer Charles. In St. Mary's County in 1705 the highly productive land along the Patuxent River was laid out in much larger tracts than land in most other areas of the county. Taxable figures for the two Patuxent hundreds indicate that 26 percent of the total population lived.there, and.that h8 to 59 percent of Patuxent householders were leasing land. In contrast, in the remaining eight hundreds on the Potomac side of the county where three- quarters of the population lived, very good land was generally in shorter supply. There tracts tended to be smaller and tenancy less. Only 2h to 28 percent of householders in this area were tenants."8 Similar relationships between soil quality, tract size, and rates of tenancy appear in Prince George‘s County. In the southern part of the county on the rich tobacco lands along the Patuxent median holdings of resident landowners were relatively large-about hlS acres, and rates of tenancy were the highest in the county, h2 to h3 percent of all householders. Further up the Patuxent in the northern part of the county where good tobacco land was less plentiful, the median holdings of resident landowners was smaller, 295 acres, and the percentage of tenants decreased to 29 to 30 percent. 0n the Potomac side of the county most of the soils were not well suited to tobacco. Here, however, the generalizations about soil quality and tract size do not hold. Mbst of these Potomac lands had initially been granted to and were still owned by a few large planters instead of by a number of small farmers. Here "BMenard, "Population Growth and Land.Distribution in St. Mary's County." h18 the median holding for residents reached 7ho acres. Rates of tenancy ‘were also relatively high-33 to 35 percent of householders. However, low settlement densities on the Potomac side of Prince George's suggest that these tenants were probably renting from landlords who were still development rather than income oriented. Consequently, in this county, lower rents may have attracted more tenants to poorer tobacco areas than was the case in Charles and St. Mary's, where such lands were divided among many small owners and thus less likely to be available to tenants."9 A comparison of soil quality and the amount of unclaimed land remaining in the four lower western shore counties at the turn of the century is also helpful for understanding why the proportion of men who owned land.may have varied from one area to another. Out of the four counties Charles contained the greatest proportion of poor tobacco lands, and it was also the least developed of the counties. In 1705 only about sixty percent of available county land had been claimed. In earlier settled St. Mary's Countyb-which like Charles included a significant proportion of soils not well suited to tObacco-fortybfour percent of the land remained unpatented in 1705. As in Charles, the unclaimed lands lay in the interior; most lacked either ready water access or good tObacco-growing soils.50 In contrast to rather slow development in St. Mary's and Charles Counties, the Patuxent side of recently created Prince George's County was relatively densely settled at the turn of the century. By 1706, "9Unpublished research of Lois Green Carr. s"Menard, "Population Growth and Land Distribution in St. Mary's County." hl9 only ten years after its creation, sixty-three percent of all available land in Prince George's County was occupied, but almost all of the pro- ductive Patuxent lands had been claimed.51 Calvert County, established at about the same time as Charles, boasted by far the most productive tobacco soil of the four counties, and unlike the other three, it included almost no lands unsuited to the staple. Not surprisingly, very little land remained unsurveyed there; by 1707 (the date of that county's early eighteenth century rent roll) eightybthree percent of available land had been taken up. This suggests that in the early eighteenth century, Just as in the middle of the seventeenth century, opportunity to acquire land remained greatest in the least developed areas. By the turn of the century, however, the gains which could.be realized by purchasing previously unsurveyed land were greatly diminished, because most tracts then available were not well suited to tobacco or they lacked access to water, or both. Data on land prices are scarce, but available figures not sur- prisingly indicate that land prices were highest in those areas where unclaimed land was scarcest, and, at the same time, where the most pro- ductive tobacco lands lay. It is almost certain that-given both the degree of development and the quality of Calvert County land-prices there would have been higher than in most parts of the adJacent counties. Land on the Patuxent side of Prince George's sold for more than double the price of land on the Potomac side of the county in 1700-1705, and tracts on the Potomac in St. Mary's must have been equally dear. The generally less desirable but still reasonably good tdbacco lands along the Potomac in Charles (and presumably in St. Mary's) remained somewhat 51Carr, "County Government," ch. 7. h20 less expensive, while the much less desirable interior tracts in all three counties must have brought rock bottom prices. Differences in price must then too have encouraged men with limited resources to settle on cheaper but less productive farms.52 It may prove useful here to summarize the findings for Charles County. There the distribution of land among freeholders was remarkably stable during the county's first fifty years. What changes might occur in the near future were likely to be in the direction of increasingly equitable distributions, as the custom of'partible inheritance led to more equal holdings among the nativeéborn, by far the most rapidly growing segment of the white population. In fact, however, landholdings were not quite so equitably divided, for when countyawide distributions are broken down by hundred, it is clear that the most productive tobacco lands were held in large tracts, while small farms dominated in less productive areas. This situation gave additional advantage to the well- situated large planter. The most dramatic change which occurred between 1659 and 1705 was a trebling of the proportion of men who did not own land. An increase of from about ten to Just under thirty percent tenancy dramatically underscores the inability of a growing number of county residents to start new farms of their own on unclaimed or salable land, and this in the portion of the lower western shore where proportions of landowners were highest. 52The records from which land prices for Calvert and St. Mary's Counties could be Obtained have not survived. For Prince George's County 'in 1700-1705 Lois Carr found a mean price of 8.29 shillings per acre for Patuxent watershed lands, and 3.91 shillings per acre for Potomac water- shed lands. The Prince George's Potomac side prices are quite similar to Charles County prices for the same period. Allan Kulikoff reports that the marked price differential between Potomac and Patuxent land continued in the mid-eighteenth century. h21 Distribution ngPersonalty Changes in the distribution of personal wealth over the second half of the century were much greater than changes in the distribution of land in Charles County, and they reflect much more closely the short-term.as well as long-term vicissitudes of the Chesapeake economy. While analysis of land distributions was based on quit-rent rolls, the description of the division of personal wealth comes from.a study of all county estate inventories filed between 1658 and 1705.53 In the absence of taerecords or other listings of the property of the living population, inventories of the movable assets of property owners at death are an invaluable source for studying accumulation, social struc- ture, and the direction of economic and social change. The inventories demonstrate that from.the mid 16608 through l67h all elements of’the population benefited from favorable tobacco prices, and from the county's rapid rate of growth. As shown in figure 26, the difference between mean and median personal wealth, and.hence the degree of inequality, was smallest during this period. Median wealth in Charles County reached a peak of £130 at the end of the decade, by far the highest of any time in the seventeenth century, and, as seen in figure 27, the wealth of the lower quartile was steadily increasing as well.5" 53"Social Stratification in Maryland." For a comparison of‘wealth levels and of composition and distribution of estates in seventeenth and early eighteenth century Charles County with those of Calvert, Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Kent, and Somerset Counties, see Main, "Measuring Wealth and.Welfare," and ibid., "Maryland and the Chesapeake Economy, 1670 to 1720," in Land, Carr, and Papenfuse, Egg, Society, EEQEPolitics. 5"In the graphs of'mean, median, upper quartile, and lower quar- tile wealth which follow, data were grouped in short, three or four year segments in order to dampen violent fluctuations caused by very small numbers while preserving information about the direction and extent of movements caused by cyclical fluctuations. The year groups used are 1658- 61, 1662-6h, 1665-67, 1668-70, 1671-7h, 1675-77. 1678-80, 1681-8h, 1685- 87, 1688-90, 1691-93, 169h-96, 1697-99, 1700-02, 1703-05. \8 200 I”! :- Q01- 591... 501.— wW~ lO- I 1‘22 NOT! : TRINO was on Tune AND W09! went on"; A“ smut up.“ SQUARES or kO‘S .__... MEAN “" MEDIAN p v\ I a \ I \ I \ I \ ' ‘(4 \ / , ‘ I \‘ I, I I \\ /A\ I I l l I 1560 ”no ' ' ' ‘ ”no (no ' n‘oo ' I ma FIGURE 16. MEANS AND ”igléanglgAE-FLES COUNTY INVENTORIES) 1‘23 ”Os-p.“ Oh \ < l \ I \ \ ’ I”--.\ I, ‘ I \ I \ f' \ o ' i‘ a, | ‘ ’\ I. ‘ I \ I ’ I \ I I \ I 1 ‘ I I \ I ‘ I I I \ , I o ‘ ,' ”L- , ‘ ' I \ I ' I \ l | ‘ I I "’ ‘ ' , H ‘I 'J..I ‘ ObL " It.” . OJ. ' O ' noun: :1 UPPER no Lam owmus. mans COUNTY Imu'ronuts, lel-I‘IOS ueh Until 1675 the level of median wealth in Charles County was well above that for the lower western shore region as a whole (as a comparison of figures 18 and 26 demonstrates), clearly indicating that middling planters were the maJor beneficiaries of this early period of prosperity. During the 16708 the wealth levels of all groups in the county declined, reflecting the increasingly less favorable returns produced by the staple and a slowing of the county growth rate. Smaller planters were harder hit than larger ones, however. Median wealth continued to fall from the beginning of the 16703 through the early 1690s, while mean wealth, after a sharp drop in 1671-7h, either did not decline further or else rose. Consequently, inequality increased. After the mid-16808 no further distributional shifts occurred in the lower western shore as a whole.55 In Charles however, the gap between the rich and the poor continued to widen until the very end of the century. Median wealth fell steadily, while the worth of the lower quartile plunged precipitously to well under £10. Wealth levels of the upper quartile remained stable from the mid-16708 through the 808. Then they too dropped. After the mid-16903 estate values of all groups showed some improvement. The gains for the lower wealth groups were not great, however. By 1705 median wealth had returned to £70, Just a little above the level of the early 16808, and scarcely more than half the peak reached in the 16603. The worth of the lower quartile was still well below what it had been in the 16703 and less than half of the peak of'£39 of the early 16808. Most of the increase in mean total estate value at the turn of the century can be attributed to an increase in the value of estates of the upper quartile of wealthholders and especially of estates worth SSMenard, Harris, and Carr, "Opportunity and Inequality." h25 £h00 or more. Substantial growth in the number of estates at the top was a characteristic of the post 1680 period. Before 1681 only four estates in the county were worth £h00 or more; between 1681 and 1705 twenty estates of this value were probated. After 1681 rich planters at worst maintained their wealth levels, and at best grew richer, but small and middling planters consistently lost ground. (See figure 28 and table 56.) Wealthholders in the other three counties of the lower western shore had somewhat different experiences across the second half of the seventeenth century. In earlier settled St. Mary's, the poorest wealth- holders owned much less personal property in the 16608 than did members of this group in Charles and Calvert. (see figures 30 and 33.) Evidently the opportunities which the initial rapid expansion of a newly settled region seemed to afford small men had already passed in that county. 0n the other hand, apparently some sort of base level already had been established, fOr the wealth of the lower quartile did.mot decline with hard times after the mid~l6803. By the end of the century it had even risen a few pounds above the 1660 level. Similarly, the poorest quarter experienced little long-term change in levels of wealth in Calvert County during the same period. In contrast, in that portion of the lower western shore which would become Prince George's County, initial phases of rapid growth continued into the 16808. As in Charles twenty years earlier (as shown in figure 35), the poorest quarter of the Prince George's population died with estates worth as much as two-thirds more than the estates of this group in more developed counties. subsequently, as happened earlier in Charles, the wealth of the lower quartile declined. h26 i g MIMI : ---- nuns. L um I! to 3°C I- 20 LI I l n I l I I I this "no I580 lb'O Moo I'NO FIGURE 18. MEANS AND MEANS TRIMMED 0F f'IOO ESTATES, CHARLES COUNTY 1.27 TABLE 56 PERCENTAGES 0F ESTATES BY WEALTH CATEGORIES FOR SELECTED TIME PERIODS, CHARLES COUNTY Total Estate Value Percent of Estates in s Sterling 1671-77 1685-90 16§7-99 £ O-29.99 21% 361 ABS 30-lh9.99 62 h8 39 ISO-399.99 15 1h 11 h00+ 1 2 I 99% 100% 100% Number of Inventories 68 58 70 Source: "Social Stratification in Maryland. h28 A comparison of the upper quartiles in Charles, St. Mary's, Calvert, and.Prince George's Counties (figures 27, 30, 33, and 35) reveals that after the mid-16708 the rich were more often growing richer in the other three counties than they were in Charles. After the Mid! 16703 the wealth of the upper quartile in Charles County did not exceed the regional average (compare figures 27 and 31), and.between 1685 and 1695 it fell well below it. In St. Mary's County this group equaled or exceeded the regional wealth level across the period, while in Calvert the wealth of the upper quartile increased steadily from the mid-16808. New, rapidly-expanding Prince George's frequently offered even greater opportunity for accumulation among the richest quarter of the population, with the worth of the top quartile reaching a high of ihoo in the early 16908. In a comparison of’mean and median wealth levels for the four counties, Calvert emerges as the richest of the four, followed by Prince George's and.St. Mary's, with Charles coming in last. Certainly more than soil productivity was involved, but it is interesting to note that mean wealth does not seem to be strongly related to the amount of good tobacco soils available in a county. We should also note that across the course of the second half of the century in Charles an increase in mean wealth was accanpanied by a pronounced decline in the level of median wealth (figures 26, 29, 32, and 3h). While mean wealth increased in the other three counties, median wealth either remained stable or declined less drastically than in Charles. This difference, as we will see later, probably reflected among other things, differing abilities of local societies to absorb marginal wealthholders.56 56For a comparison of’mean gross personal wealth and mean values of personal wealth in each decile of the pOpulation in Charles, Calvert, mz-rfimw‘b‘ ab L 129 HEAN --- MEDIAN V ' A I" ,\ ' ‘ I, \ "I I, \ I \ I, \ I \ I \ .’ \ I l \ \ , l \ II \ , \ I \ I £ \ I; \ I L I L" ‘ ’ ‘ I~ I \ ’, ‘ ’0 ‘e‘ \‘\ 'I \ I ‘ ’0 ‘\\ I \\ I! ‘ ’ 4 I \ I \ I \ ’I \I y I I I “‘60 It 90 I also ‘ lbIQO ' ”'00 I I'IIo FIGURE 11. MEANS AND MEDIANS, ST. MARY‘S COUNTY INVENTORIES, I658 ~I705 A30 i g —-03 —--Q I” ' e W /\/\ I III I 4 .’ E I, I l I It to It so It'lo I Ib'vo | [£60 I ”I. FIGURE 30. UPPER MID LowER QUARTILES, ST. MARY'S COUNTY INVENTORIES. 1658-mos 1:31 fl ’\ I I I \ I \ I \ I I I \ I \ I ‘\ I E f --1 L--"--"\ ,‘\\ r“- , \ /’ 1” 3J- ’ \ i \ I fl I \.--./ \ / I \\ / I \\ ’/ I, \\ 1’ ’ \/ I l I I l l I It N60 "I70 | IOIO ' Iblflo ' I‘I so ' I'IIo mun: 3|. UPPER AND Lou/ER QUApILeslom WESTERN snout; I65 8 ‘- I 05 oz-r’n-u- M '2' E 1—"—'I '5 l p 8 T I00 F" h32 MEAN _ - - - MEDIAN .oL—ele' 1.. 16 FIGURE 32.. MEANS AND Iblco i ”175 l nloo j _WTL MEDIANS, CALVERT COUNTY \NVE NTORI ES, I658 — I705 3433 5; 5" S T 1:: «co Q: .. ----Q. G ”— 'oL—N'LF l “Lt—I KL" 1 4V) L 7* 1 TV!) FIGURE 33. UPPER AND Lowm QUAMnLEs, CALVERT couu‘rv tuvauromss, ”358—1705 hsh lounaA'u "new.” raw“ osotcc‘: cownv muu‘uml: "Ht-mos mun lNVINTOICI’ 0' CIWLIES \N 1H3 ARIA ..or’ll «nah .. f v , ’ '\ I’ ‘ ’ \‘ ’I’ I \ I u I \ A , I I \ ’ I \ I I I ‘ 1 \ AI " “ ’ ‘ ' _- II ‘I’ ‘ l I ‘ ' \ ,’ 30 v— | x .’ ‘ I 10 b “ I, I b - - - MIOIAN ” '° 15160 I :5'5'6 l ”5110 l u 9 FIGURE 35‘. MEANS AND MEDIANS, ‘PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY , mvemomss, Ins—nos IO oz-I-rn-lm 30s h35 soa- NOTI: GRMH wcwbns “we: stators couu'rv luvsu‘roues ”46- mos AND W - mvrmouz: o! "rul-s w TH. pawn Elna-‘9 AAIA In! - ”>45. 30- MI I q I, so A\ I, \ ' \ I \ v 'I X 'I \ ' \\ I, I \ I I \\ I I \ I, I \ I \\ ' \ I \ I 0‘ \‘ ' \\ I \\ '1 V - - -- Q I \ I \ \ I \ I \I to J I I l 1 J J l l I650 I576 I‘OO I690 "'00 FIGURE 35 UPPER AND LOUIER QUARTILE s, PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY INVENTORIES, lens-I705 1436 Knowing the uses to which wealth was put is perhaps as important to understanding class structure as knowing the way wealth was distributed. For example, how did colonists use their assets to signify and reinfbrce already established rank? Did different ranks have different and distinct styles of life, or did a relatively homogenous mode of living prevail? How much did the use of assets differ from.one group to another? What role did display and ceremony play in developing and reinfbrcing group identifies? Systematic analysis of inventories can provide answers to some of these questions. Most Charles County planters channeled at least three-quarters of their assets into capital investments-—livestock, labor, credits, crops, merchandise, and craft and agricultural tools. Only about twenty per- cent of the typical planter's worth went into consumption goods--clothing, household furnishings, kitchen utensils, bedding, books, and'the like. The estates of’the very poor-—who often owned nothing more than their clothing and a few personal items--of course showed a greater percentage of assets in consumption goods. Beyond this very poorest group, however, there were apparently no significant deviations from.the general pattern. Small, middling, large, and extraordinarily large planters all made similar decisions about how to invest their assets. As table 57 shows the kinds of capital goods which a planter owned were as predictable as his overall investment decisions with regard to capital and consumption expenditures. Throughout the last half of the seventeenth century, approximately one-third of a planter's assets con- sisted of livestock--cattle, swine, horses, and sheep-~from.which Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Kent, and.Somerset Counties, see Main, "Measur- ing Wealth and Welfare," tables III-8 and III-25 through III-30. h37 .coondPuo pfidouo no .osc moms: .pso puma hosoa msacsaosw poocoooc d on @930 upwuouo Has no puamnoo oHnm>Hoouu masons :.chahhdz aw soapuowmwpuupm Hdfioomz "monoom m.» a.» a.sm m.am a.ms m.am moeauaoaa m.: m.m o.mm a.sm o.m» o.:m ooaanmmma m. :.»H a.sa m.o: o.H» a.mm mawauamma m.» o.mH o.»a m.mm a.ms m.om ommaummwa m.m o.mH m.ma a.mm :.w~ m.am mmmHIHmma :.m o.mH m.ma a.mm a.mo H.~H ommaumsma m. a.ma m.mH «.m: a.ma m.om mamHIHPmH :.m m.am a.ma a.mm o.mm a.ma opmaummma o.H a.mm a.ma um.om ug.oo «o.mH mmmaummma flaggflOHg tOHDgHUOOM H093 MOO fluvbflg @6005 @0000 9.30% apnea H338 839538 moooo Hdpfimwo Mo unaccommoo msoahd> movalmmma MHz—.50 mg .mag 455% .m0 mafizomzoo mo; hm “HHS moanowopdo msownd> ow covmobuH usad> oeupmm Hdpoa mo pnoonom I h38 he obtained meat, milk, hides, tallow, wool, transportation, and increas- ingly, help with plowing and carting. Initially credits were equally as important as livestock. In an economy where cash was almost non-existent, long-term credit was essential in order to transact even day to day business. Towards the end of the century, the amount of capital tied up in credit was reduced. Instead, labor became increasingly important. During the 1660s and early 708 planters invested on the average 12 to 13 percent of their personal assets in bound--usually servant—labor. The proportion increased to 17 to 18 percent in the 1680s and early 903. With the transformation of the county labor force from inexpensive white servants to more costly slaves in the late 808 and early 908, planters had to increase the amount of their investment in labor in order to procure the same number of hands. Consequently, at the turn of the century, the proportion of planters' assets in labor rose to over one- quarter. Few other investments were commonly of much importance. Occasionally sizable amounts of trading goods appeared in inventories. However, since few men mintained year-round stores , the appearance of merchandise in an inventory was as dependent upon the season as was the presence of crops. The tools required for tobacco culture--primarily hoes and axes- were few and inexpensive. Agricultural inqulements almost never exceeded £1 in value and usually made up no more than one or two percent of a planter's estate. Investments in craft tools, usually simple woodworking implements , were equally modest. The primary avenues of investment remained livestock, labor, and credits. During most of the seventeenth century the maJor way in which wealth stratified county society was through differential access to 1439 income-producing assets. Livestock could be procured relatively cheaply and herds built up through natural increase. Labor and credit were dif- ferent matters. As the supply of servants declined, fewer and fewer planters could procure extra hands. While many middling and some small planters could afford indentured servants , this was not the case with slaves. Credit constrictions accompanying depressed tobacco prices further widened gaps between large and small planters , for it was only the largest producers who could be assured of obtaining credit from English merchants for necessary purchases and who were able in turn to extend credit to others for goods or services. In a depressed economy, only the already well-off could obtain the labor and credit which were essential to building a sizable estate in the Chesapeake. Men who were not wealthy found it increasingly difficult--through their own and their family' 8 labor-to reach the wealth level prerequisite for expanded tobacco production and hence increased income. Planter investments in non-capital items were nearly as predict- able as capital purchases. Beds, chests, a table, some benches, a chair or two, and perhaps a couch-bed and a cupboard--all of simple and crude construction—were the typical furnishings. Some pots and pans, fire- place equipment, wooden trenchers and pewter plates or cups took care of cooking and eating. Only in estates of about £200 or more would one be more likely than not to find conveniences such as warming pans and chamber pots. Even such ordinary comforts as bed and table linen, coarse earthenware, Bibles or other religious books, and some form of interior lighting appeared in only about one-third of all estates. The only wide- spread exception to the prevailing austerity was a weakness for silver hho plate which was shared by members of all wealth groups. Fascination for the precious metal led men who owned few comforts or conveniences to ornament their coats with plate buttons and to place a silver spoon or dram cup on the table beside the wooden trenchers. A scattering of such items appeared in even the very poorest estates, and as wealth increased, so did the frequency of ownership. Some wealthy planters were content as well with a few buttons , spoons and a small silver cup or two, but by the 1690s others were advertising the extent of their fortunes by importing increasing quantities of fashionable plate cups, tankards, and porringers complete with engraved monograms. Even so, the most striking thing about consumption patterns in the second half of the seventeenth century is their simplicity and relative homogeneity. In comparison with contemporary England, with Maryland in the eighteenth century, and possibhr with contemporary Virginia, the range of differences in non-capital possessions among various'wealth groups was slight. There were of course exceptions; a few families who did surround themselves with large homes and fine furnishings . Before the 1690s they were so exceptional, however , that one suspects that their life style my have tended as much toward their own isolation as it did towards emulation by their neighbors. Nearby planters would like as not have passed off any signs of English high fashion as "of little use in this country." On the other hand, there were undoubtedly ways in which differ- ing amounts of non-capital wealth effectively set off the rich from the poor and the powerful fran the powerless . The trouble is that little in our own experience can provide a yardstick to measure those things. What implications can one draw from the fact that only in wealthy hhl households were chairs provided for anyone other than the master of the household, and that in many poor households there were no chairs at all? Or that only the well-off made extensive use of interior lighting, while the maJority of planters could not afford or chose not to afford extendp ing human activities into the hours of natural darkness? How were marital relations affected by the opportunity for a couple to sleep alone in a bed closed in by curtains, versus sleeping on an exposed pallet in a room shared with several other persons, indeed, with the mattress itself often enough shared with other family members? We are only beginning to ask questions such as these; it will undoubtedly be some time befbre we start finding satisfactory answers.S7 Given the prdblems inherent in assessing the importance of non- capital investments upon stratification in the seventeenth century, it is perhaps fortunate that these may not have been the primary ways in which various amounts of wealth divided society. Perhaps only in passing did Charles Countians consider a neighbor's personal possessions as indicative of his or her social status. In Judging their neighbors' places in the community, most men and women may have looked first at the individual's capital assets--the amount and fertility of his land, the size of his herds, the number of his laborers, the size and.yield of his orchard, and finally at his reputation for repaying his debts. Probably neighbors cast a suspicious eye on any family who indulged in 57Some of these assertions are documented and developed in Lois Green Carr and Lorena S. Walsh, "How Colonial Tobacco Planters Lived: Consumption Patterns in St. Mary's County, Maryland, 1658-1777," and in Barbara Carson and Cary Carson, "Styles and Standards of Living in Southern.Maryland, 1670-1760," papers presented to the Annual Meeting of the Southern Historical.Association, Atlanta, Georgia, November 12, 1976. hh2 an "unwarranted" number of material comforts, not to mention luxuries, and undoubtedly they questioned the commitment to the community of a neighbor who failed to plow back most of his assets into his farm. Certainly in the beginning, frontier conditions demanded an austere and simple life style. That values and norms which looked.with disfavor upon expenditures fer non-essential personal possessions per; sisted long after the pioneering stage had passed is strong evidence that this society had not yet entered the age of widespread material consumption. The collective character of the men who held offices of power in Charles County was strongly affected by the way wealth came to be distributed in the last quarter of the century. In the county's early years most settlers fell into, and consequently most officeholders were selected from, a relatively condensed spectrum of low and.middling wealth groups. Decline and then stagnation in the staple market and an increasing differentiation in wealth which seems to accompany the maturation of local settlement subsequently created in Charles an asymr metrical wealth structure with a few rich men at the top, many poor men at the bottom, and a decreasing number of men of moderate wealth in between (see figure 36).58 As a consequence, the political elite of the 16803, 16903, and early 17008 was far from homogenous, for, whenever the number of major positions to be filled exceeded the supply of very rich men, it was necessary to dip much lower into the wealth structure, 58In figure 36 only data for married householding decedents with minor children and no children of age is used in order to eliminate changes in wealth distribution which might be due to shifts in the age structure of the decedent population alone rather than to actual alterap tions in the distribution of wealth. m XCfl‘i‘”) X (9331) ‘ I- i i g i g 503$.555fis’mstugn §. 0 36... 3“ X g. .. g- {J I- ,“ x x a. . WI W :3 :2" I23» I: 0 $33. 2:...» . . .0 : e. ’ z W W, $339 33"” . WIMMN ”3x.” ,”2‘ OH. to Q I“ ‘h‘. .‘ m H‘.‘ O ”H “ M .HA‘A MAOA.A.A.A.A.A.AOA.I’A’A‘A MSG-7‘! AIMS“ 8 ‘I I640- -I'Io$ M: 30 N 3 5"! Na 5 I FIGURE 3t DISTRIBUTION OF (HEALTH AMONG MARRIED DECEDENTS wlTH MINOR CHILDREN, 1658-470$ hhh selecting some men of quite ordinary means to fill the remaining slots. Great disparities in wealth, certainly some variations in life style, and prdbably marked differences in social influence thus existed 'within the political elite itself. Undoubtedly this circumstance along with continued high mortality helped to impede any developing sense of group identity among county rulers. Over the same period St. Mary's County officeholders tended to have a similar disparate character. This was particularly true during the stagnation of the 16803 when the proportion of‘men with substantial but not great property dropped off, necessitating, as in Charles, recruitment of some men of ordinary wealth to positions of power.59 With its large Catholic population, St. Mary's was most gravely affected by the exclusion of Catholics from.office after 1689. An insufficient pool of‘wealthy Protestants in the county guaranteed that there too men from a variety of backgrounds would share power for some time to come.60 In contrast to Charles and St. Mary's, in Calvert County the pro- portion of substantial estates was increasing after 1680 despite the general regionewide depression. There, there was a sufficient number of large and upper middle wealthholders available to fill all the important posts. In addition, since Calvert had only a very small number of Catholics among its inhabitants, the revolution of 1689 had little effect on its 59Lois Green Carr, P.M.G. Harris, and Russell R. Menard, "The Development of Society in the Colonial Chesapeake: A Program for Analysis," supplemental proposal submitted to the National Endowment for the Humanities, December, 1975, copy available at Hall of Records. 60A census of Roman Catholics taken in 1708 reported 709 Papists in Charles County and 1,238 in St. Mary's. The total white population of Charles County in 1710 was 2,791 and of St. Mary's, 3,h53. Mhryland Archives 25: 258. _______—' nus power structure.61 Consequently, Calvert's rulers were a wealthier, more homogenous group than those of either Charles or St. Mary's. Thus there was greater potential for Calvert's political elite to identify and consoliate group interests and to develop a style of life appro- priate to its position in the society. Similarly, most early Prince George's County officeholders came from large and upper middle wealth groups. There rapid initial growth produced a body of large and sub- stantial wealthholders second in size only to that of Calvert County.62 Differences in the composition of political elites in the feur western shore counties are illustrated in table 58.63 Over half of the men who entered office in Charles County before 1693 came from.undis- tinguished origins, and nearly a quarter had arrived as servants. In none of'the other'three counties did.the proportion of men of'ordinary background approach this figure. In contrast, a full fifty percent of Prince George's early Justices possessed a title of distinction upon arrival or maJority, and only three percent were known to have been fbrmer servants. Almost paradoxically, then, relative poverty and unequally distributed wealth in Charles produced a power structure some- what more representative of the population as a whole with members drawn from.several economic strata, while greater prosperity and broader dis- tribution of wealth among middling groups in Calvert and Prince George's led to a leadership largely recruited from.only one social group. 61Only hB Catholics were counted in Calvert County in 1708, while its total white population in 1710 was 2,282. Ibid. 62Carr, "County Government," ch. 7 and appendix 2; Menard, "Economy and.Society," ch. 8. 63The large number of unknowns among Calvert County officeholders presents problems. Because the county records are destroyed, biographical studies of all county leaders are difficult to come by. hh6 TABLE 58 BACKGROUNDS OF MAJOR COUNTY OFFICEHOLDERS IN FOUR LOWER WESTERN SHORE COUNTIES Prince Charles St. MAry's Calvert George's * a,c * a,d * a + b Number 63 70 77 36 Percent in Status Categories Former servant 23% th 9% 3% No title at arrival or majority 28 25 21 31 Title at arrival or maJority 33 ho 21 50 Background unknown 16 2O h9 1h *Tabulations cover the years 1655-1692. +Tabulations cover the years 1696-1709. Sources: a. Menard, "Major Officeholders." b. Carr, "County Government," appendix 2. c. Welsh file of Charles County officeholders. d. St. Mary's City Comission, St. Mary's County Seventeenth Century Career File. 1m Assimilation and Explusion After we begin to understand how landed and personal wealth was divided among those inhabitants of the four lower western shore counties who remained there long enough to become property owners, the problem of assimilation remains. Our assessment of the character of a society will differ depending upon whether the society was able to absorb most of those who entered it--voluntarily or involuntarily--or whether it excluded or only marginally integrated large numbers of potential wealth- holders. Here the censuses of lTOh, 1710, and 1712 provide a focus for discussion.5" From.them we learn that by the beginning of the eighteenth century exclusion rather than inclusion of new wealthholders was the rule in the lower western shore as a whole. While each of the feur counties in the region was either consistently gaining white adult females and white children or else occasionally losing only a very small percentage of them as shown in table 59, all but Charles were consistently losing a significant proportion of white adult males. This indicates a substantial exodus of single adult men, especially from Calvert and St. Mary's Counties and to a lesser extent fromgmore recently settled Prince George's. Given the prevailing economic stag- nation, these three counties were apparently no longer able to assimi- late the men already living there, much less make room for any expansion of the ranks of wealthholders. While Charles was still accommodating some growth in the number of-its wealthholders, from other information we know that this is an 5"The censuses can be fOund in Maryland.Archives 25: 256, 258-59. M48 .88.. .8 neigroes—3.353588. Ila: gait-unila- .&.on« is Raga 38:8 o.m? o4 .. o.m .. an... «.80 in? o.m? on..." 338 ..k... .8 fin o o ...n o a ...1 «an “a .. o.m? a; .. 35 588 ...-.88 88.... a.» w a.» + Ta . an «.3. o6 « 3n- 3: 388 9858 18+ «.39 «.a 0 an o.m ... min. 4.3.. ed..— hloo .888 o v.5. e mi + o a.“ a an 36 0 E359 3.0.7 35 03.33%; 558 «.973: 1.1.9 indication less of how well that county was managing than of how very badly the others were doing. The career study of Charles County ser- vants presented in chapter four clearly demonstrates that even this county had for a number of years been able to absorb only a tiny fraction of its own freedmen, and these rather marginally as comon laborers or tenants. The other three counties were apparently failing to assimilate not only almost all of their own ex-servants, but also some free immi- grants and poorer native-born sons as well. Some of the factors which enabled Charles County to make room for a growing number of wealthholders very probably concerned land. Greater availability of unclaimed land in the county, lower land prices, and possibly lower rents may have made it possible for more men to form households in Charles, and hence to fulfill the first requirement for setting themselves up on the tobacco coast than in the other three counties. The presence of such marginal wealthholders and their families had a marked effect on Charles County society. The difference is best illustrated by contrasting Charles with neighboring Calvert. There the general level of prosperity had been rising since the l680s--but at the cost of squeezing out marginal householders as well as poor single men. (Note the small or negative increases in white women and children in Calvert as compared to the other three counties. This suggests some outmigration of families as well as of single men.) Consequently Calvert County society was more homogenous at the turn of the century, but it was a homogeneity resulting from increasing exclusion of the poor. In Charles the mean wealth Of decedents had been falling during the same lv30 period. One of the reasons for this was that the number of marginal households was increasing, not decreasing. In 170h as illustrated in table 60 only in Charles did the number of heads of households exceed the number of non-householders and adult male servants, and this in a county where investment in servants remained relatively high. Turn- of-the-century Charles County was thus more diverse than Calvert, encomp passing a greater spread.between the rich and the poor, and including both large scale commercial farms which provided their owners with a comfortable if not luxurious existence and.many small establishments which afforded their Operators only a bare subsistence living. Charles' relative poverty was thus in part a result of its greater inclusive- ness.65 At the same time that most of the lower western shore counties were excluding potential white wealthholders, they were adding increas- ing numbers of persons who by definition would always remain nonp wealthholders. As the area‘s labor prdblem was "solved" by growing slave importations, the presence of increasing numbers of blacks in turn affected the structure of opportunity fer those whites who remained. Predictably, slaves made up an ever greater percentage of the labor force in more prosperous Calvert and Prince George's, as shown in tables 61 and 62. Planters staffed their recently settled plantations in Prince George's by heavy investments in slaves shortly after the turn of the century. There the black population more than doubled between lTOh and 1710, with black workers outnumbering white by the latter year. In Calvert blacks dominated the work force by 1712, both as a result of 551 am indebted to P. M. G. Harris for sharing his analysis of wealthholding patterns in the four lower western shore counties. 1:51 TABLE 60 RATIO OF HOUSEHOLDERS TO NON-HOUSEHOLDERS AND SERVANT MEN, FOUR LOWER WESTERN SHORE COUNTIES, 170% Charles 1.05 Prince George's .90 Calvert .50 St. Mary's .145 Source: ‘yggzland.Archives 25: 256. Census figures fer 1710 and 1712 are not broken down into householders and non-householders. use TABLE 61 GROWTH OF THE BLACK POPULATION IN FOUR LOWER WESTERN SHORE COUNTIES, 17oh-1712 Percent Growth County Number of Blacks Since Last Census Charles lTOh 578 1710 638 + 9.h 1712 72h +ll.9 Calvert 170h 938 1710 93h i 0.0 1712 1179 +20.8 Prince George's 17oh 602 * 1710 1297 +53.6 1712 13h9 * + 3.9 St. Mary's 170h hso * 1710 668 +32.6 1712 707 + + 5.5 Source: gagyland Archives 25: 256, 258-59. “Adjustments were made in census figures as described in Menard, "Economy and Society," pp. h02-07. +Here it was assumed that only taxable blacks were counted in St. Mary's County in 1712, as a thirty percent decline in the black population which use of the unadjusted figure for 1712 produces seems unlikely. During this period slaveowners were very unlikely to emigrate, and we know of no other factor which would produce such a drop. A multiple of 1.38 was used to convert the census figure. h53 TABLE 62 RATIO OF BLACK TAXABLES (MALE AND FEMALE) TO WRITE TAXABLE MALES, FOUR LOWER WESTERN SHORE COUNTIES, 170h-1712 County Ratio Charles 170k ‘ .53 1710 .h9 1712 .53 Calvert lTOh .73 1710 .96 1712 1.33 Prince George's 170h .50 1710 1.11 1712 1.11 St. Mary's 170h .2h 1710 / .hh 1712 .51 Source: Magyland Archives 25: 256, 258-59. Note: White taxables are given in the census. All blacks are numbered together. Following Menard, "Economy and Society," pp. h02—07, I assumed that the Prince George's and St..Mary's returns for 170h listed only black taxables, and that the population for Prince George's for 1712 was underestimated. I also assumed that the St. Mary's returns for 1712 reported only taxable blacks (see note, table 61). The remaining figures for total blacks were divided by 1.38 to obtain the number of adult blacks. 1.511 heavy planter investment in slaves and of the exodus of non-slaveowning whites which automatically increased the proportion of blacks among those who remained. (Compare tables 59 and 61.) St. Mary's had taken the lead among the lower western shore counties in shifting to slave labor, with significant numbers of slaves appearing in the county labor force by the mid-1670s. Although St. Mary's was by 170h more deeply committed to slave labor than were the other three counties, blacks were proportionately less numerous there because St. Mary's also had a large young native-born white population whose presence lowered the percentage of slaves among all taxables. As in Calvert, blacks came to ferm.a greater proportion of the popula- tion by 1712 as much through outmigration of whites as through actual gains in their own numbers. While large planters in Charles County had already switched from servant to slave labor by the 16908, their smaller neighbors could.not afford or did not choose to follow suit in subsequent years.66 Unlike the other three lower western shore counties, the ratio of black tax— ables to white adult males remained stable between 170h and 1712, as modest increases in the black population were off-set by greater increases among whites. Slave ownership must have accentuated differences between small and large planters, since by the turn of the century it was almost exclusively the big planters with their large-scale operations on the most productive sites who were able to procure such laborers. The situa- tion of small planters must have become more precarious psychologically as well as economically as they and their families found themselves com- peting with unfree black labor for a share of the profits of the tobacco 66See chapter h. h55 market. Nonetheless small planters were apparently better able to survive in a relatively poor area where bound labor remained scarce than in more prosperous areas where the proportion of slaves was increasing. StabilitygAchieved While population growth in and of itself was certain to bring about some changes in Charles County society, the particular nature of that growth in the l690s.and early 17003 ensured at least two far- reaching alterations. ‘We have Just looked at one of theme-the shift in the labor system.from primarily white servants to primarily black slaves. This transformation marked the end of racial and cultural homogeneity inthe county. Thereafter there would be no question of assimilation of new immigrants. Instead the county would develop two distinct societies. Each would be based on a life dominated by the rhythms of tObacco culture and each would evolve from.the limited but intense relationships which develop in an isolated rural area. But the two would spring from.very different cultural roots and.would.be organized to fulfill the needs of individuals who had radically dif- ferent present status and future prospects. Demographic change which accompanied the shift from.a predom- inantly immigrant to a predominantly native population meant social change as well. The fact that the growth of white population seen in the turn of the century censuses was due in part to natural increase as well as to immigration points to other alterations which were taking place in the ways in which men and women interacted and in the means by which members of the society ranked themselves. 1156 The beginning of natural increase in the late 16808 or early 16903 signalled an eventual end to severe demographic disruption. Sex ratios, levels of morbidity and mortality, and completed family size all began to tend toward more normal levels. Among first generation native- born the experience of the sexes varied, but the end result would be to produce a more demographically stable society in which the courses of men's and women's lives would become much more predictable for subsequent generations. Changes in patterns of marriage were marked. Nativeéborn men-- who did not owe any time of service beyond the age of maJority and who usually had the advantage of some inherited property with which to launch their careers-dwere able to marry at younger ages than their fathers. A continued fall in age at marriage fer native men during a time when sex ratios were still unbalanced suggests that young creoles had the advantage over immigrants when it came to finding a wife. Because men did continue to outnumber women, there was considerable competition fer the hands of prospective brides. Creole girls-awho owed no service beyond age sixteen and.who usually had at least a small dowryb-married at significantly younger ages than their immigrant mothers. There changes, in turn, had important results. Because creole women married young, even though they may have died a little earlier than their immigrant mothers, they still had longer childébearing careers. The two or three additional children which the average creole woman bore meant the difference between natural population decline and natural increase. 0nce natives became a more significant proportion of’the childsproducing population, the dynamdcs of growth would clearly be different. “57 While these demographic adjustments were working themselves out, the role of the family was also changing. Native men not only married a little younger; they also lived a little longer. Hence they had a greater chance of seeing one or two of their children reach maturity. A lengthening duration of’marriage; a longer period of parental control; and the presence of siblings, cousins, and other kin in the locality all strengthened the influence of the family in the direction of the lives of its individual members. While the disruptive effects of high mor- tality would hinder the progress of these developments fer some time to come, creole family life was still more structured.than it had.been for immigrants. The transition from a predominantly immigrant to a predominantly native population and culture was swift. Between 1700 and 1710 in the lower western shore counties, natives became a maJority of the landp holders, and, on the provincial level, they became the dominant influence in the colony's most important posts of power.67 Surviving literary evidence reveals little about the progress or the results of this trans- formation. We must instead draw inferences about its course from.the collective biographies of the men and women who experienced it. One effect of the growing dominance of the creole element was the emergence of a "Maryland way" of doing things. Clearly colonial culture was not a product of the creole generation, but had evolved over the years as some out of‘many competing Old WOrld traditions came to predominate among immigrant settlers and to be in turn shaped by New 67Jordan, "Political Stability and the Emergence of a.Native Elite." Cf. Carole Shammas, "English Born and Creole Elites in Turn of the Century Virginia," in Tate, ed., The Chesapeake in_the Seventeenth Centugy. use WOrld conditions into uniquely local practices. At first, when colonists from a variety of European backgrounds were thrown together, each had dealt with his new surroundings in the manner he had been accustomed to at home. Eventually some of these ways proved better suited or more adaptable than others, and.purely local customs began to emerge. As long as population growth came primarily from immigration, however, local customs could never completely coalesce. Each wave of fresh immigration brought new settlers who challenged the status quo and who might well begin anew the process of testing and selecting among various imported traditions. In contrast, the creole generation knew no other tradition. They had very little direct knowledge of the Old WOrld, and what ties their parents had been able to maintain with the home country were doubtless considered less important by the children. These youth had neither to give up part of a cherished past nor to assimilate unfamiliar ways of others. Thus the generation born in the New WOrld was not troubled by competing loyalties, nor might it feel only partial commitment to evolving colonial ways. Consequently [the nativeAborn maJority would soon reach agreement on what constituted local custom and begin to transmit it to their children as established tradition. Another result of creole dominance was the addition of a new element to the factors whiCh determined local status. Unlike their immigrant fOrebears, the nativeaborn possessed a local history and most had local connections as well. Religion, land, and personal wealth would continue to be prime elements of local position, but family status would become important too. With this change the society would inevitably 1159 become more rigid, for a substantial part of an individual's status would be predetermined at birth. Family background had not been important for most immigrants. A few had been able to parlay Old World status into local importance, but most had either not been successful or, much more commonly, had had little status to transfer. It was not what they had been in Europe, but what they were able to achieve in the colony that mattered. Things were not so simple for the creole. His parents' rank and reputation, and the behavior and achievements of his siblings and other close kin were part and.parcel of his own rank and reputation.68 This had both advantages and disadvantages. Possession of a local history gave each nativeéborn child the security of a clear definition of'his place in the community. But it also meant that creole children now had a famdly reputation to live up to--or to live down. Undoubtedly community expectations for a young creole came to be based as much on the status and accomplishments of older family members as on his own potential, and his later achievements would, in turn, be affected.by what these local expectations were. 68This can be seen in the personal histories immigrant and native plaintiffs presented in suits fer slander. Usually an immigrant testi- fied to his living in "good name, fame, creditt and godly and honest con- versation condition and gesture" amongst his neighbors "ever since gig. arrivall in_this Province." (italics mine) The few who could do so also noted that they were "so known & reputed . . . in England"-4but generally it was local reputation based on achievement in the colony that was important. The native plaintiff stressed in contrast that "from.the time of his nativity" he had been a faithful subject of the king and "hitherto hath behaved & Governed himself and hath been reputed of good behavior amongst his neighbours." The shift in wording is slight, but the emphasis is clearly different. For immigrants, achievement as an adult was what counted, while fer natives, up-bringing and family status were part and parcelof their local reputation. See for example, M 'land'Archives 57: 65-67; 65: 606-08; 66: 207-10; 67: 90-93; 69: 118-21; Provincial Court Judgments, MSS, EI#7, 185-86, 329. A60 In addition to having a locally known family history, the creole's situation was also different from that of the immigrant in that he usually had some kin living close by. This probably meant that in time kin groups began to take over some of the functions previously performed.by the community in general. This probably helped to change patterns of interaction at the community level, as creoles began socializing with kin living in other neighborhoods as well as with their immediate neighbors. Kin groups may also have provided another means of collective action, an alternative to organizing the community at large. Brothers, sisters, siblings' spouses and cousins of varying degree sometimes pooled efforts to promote political action, to preserve the interests of the family, and to direct Joint economic ventures. Consequently, while neighborhood and community were still an important part of the creole's way of life, they may have been somewhat less important to him.than they had been to his immigrant parents who had very often literally had no one else to turn to.69 In a demographically more stable population, family connections became increasingly important, important because for the first time such alliances were effective. The growing power of kinship alliances is most evident on the level of provincial politics. Prior to 1689 in. the whole of the colony only three families other than the Calverts succeeded in establishing multi-generational office-holding lines, and Just three more such families appeared between 1689 and 1700. In con- trast, in the fifteen years after 1700 a number of politically powerful, 69Allan Kulikoff finds some of these tendencies fully developed in neighboring Prince George's County by mid-eighteenth century, "Tobacco and Slaves," ch. 10. h61 often extensively interconnected families emerged, who managed not only to dominate most important posts but also to transfer power to the next generation of their families.70 Obviously family connections could not secure important political posts for the great maJority of creole colonists. However, kinship net- works were undoubtedly becoming increasingly effective on more mundane levels as well. The right connections might fer example help a colonist to make a good marriage, to secure local credit, to rent a.more produc- tive tract, to get a new road built in a favorable location, or to secure a desired.minor local office. Membership in effective kin net- works thus became a way of'mmintaining and perhaps of enhancing local status.71 Some means of establishing social status other than through cone tinued economic achievement was becoming increasingly desirable, as both economic change and local inheritance patterns acted to curtail upward social movement among the native-born. When many of their fathers had arrived in the county in the 16508, 16603, and early 1670s, economic conditions had been more favorable. A rise from indentured servant to middling or even wealthy planter had not been uncommon during those years. Subsequently, economic decline and then stagnation had heavily weighted the scales in favor of the already well-off, and.had severely limited opportunities for poorer men to rise. A native son starting out near the bottom as a wage laborer or a sharecropper in the 16903 would be lucky if he made his way into the ranks of a small planter before he 70Jordan, "Political Stability and the Emergence of a Native Elite." 71$ee Kulikoff, "Tobacco and Slaves," ch. 10. h62 died. Many such sons who chose to remain on the lower western shore 'would never rise above a tenant's status. IMost of the substantial gains in social and economic status were thus confined to the immigrant generation and to the county's early years.72 The custom of partible inheritance also tended to limit economic mobility among subsequent generations. There was no community support for the Old WOrld custom of promoting the economic continuity of the line by concentrating the family's assets in the hands of the eldest son. Perhaps too many southern Maryland fathers had.themselves been victims of this practice in England. At any rate, the norm was clearly to divide landed property equally among sons, and sometimes among daughters as'well.73 This was possible in part because most fathers Who held land held a sufficient amount that they could safely divide it between several children and still bequeath each with a viable economic unit. In addition, it was not customary for a father to encumber the shares of the elder heirs with the burden of paying off the inheritances of younger brothers and sisters.7" The result and perhaps also the aim of a very strict adherence to the custom of partible and unencumbered inheritance seems to have been to provide each child with sufficient assets so that if he chose his spouse wisely, lived prudently, worked diligently--and survived long enough--he would rise to something like his parent's level of wealth by the time he died. 72For a similar conclusion in eighteenth—century Prince George's County see ibid., ch. 5. 73The effect of intestacy on land distributions was minor since the great majority of landholders made wills. See above, chapter 3. 7"For-a contemporary example of such encumbrances see Spufford, Contrasting Communities, pp. 85-87, th-lll. A more modern illustration of the deleterious effects of encumbered inheritances is found in 1163 Because both economic stagnation and inheritance patterns tended to stabilize wealth levels from one generation to another, a community would usually not be far off the mark if it in fact did evaluate a young creole's future prospects from his father's current status. A look at the economic careers of the first nativeAborn generation shows that sons, on the average, ended up at about the same economic level that fathers had reached, as appears in table 63. A variety of experiences of course made up this "average" result. There were, to be sure, some instances of spectacular advances in fortune. One immigrant father, Thomas Dent, for example, died in 1676 leaving a £623 estate to a widow and.three miner sons. The eldest boy, William, was able to parlay his inheritance into a £2,729 estate by the time he died in 1705, like his father still with some sons underage. Such successes, however, were matched by similar declines. William Smoot, for instance, had.been "left a sufh ficiencye for ye support of his outward Enjoyment [by his parents] and himselfe since their decease for some time lived in good ranke and fashion." However, by 1690 he was "by ye frownes of fortune reduced to a meane condition" and applied for a license to open an ordinary with credit supplied by friends "to procure a subsistence for his wife and‘ Children," and.pay off his debts.75 In general, if a son died.young, he would probably own less prOperty at death than had his father, while if he lived to about the same age or survived a little longer, he would David P. Gagan, "The Indivisibility of Land:.A Microanalysis of the System of Inheritance in Rural Ontario," Journal QfDEconomic Histogy 36 (1976): l26—h6. 75Charles County Court, R#l, 130. 464 TABLE 63 WEALTH DISTRIBUTIONS OF FATHERS AND SONS, CHARLES COUNTY 1658-1705 Percent of Sons with Father's Estates of Estate Value of Sons £0-49 50-99 100-399 400+ £ 0-49 132 132 41 42 50-99 4 O 4 100-399 0 8 25 400+ 4 4 4 4 N I 21 fathers N - 24 sons Sources: Social Stratification in Maryland," walsh file of Charles Note: County Residents. Numbers were too small to permit a meaningful comparison of only those fathers and sons who were in the same stage of the life cycle. The results are not however strongly biased by over- representation of any one age group. Among the 21 fathers, 13 died with all minor children and 8 with some adult and some minor children; the father's estates were thus not heavily biased upward by the presence of many older men. Among the 24 sons, 8 were unmarried, 10 had minor children, 4 had adult and minor children and 2 could not be classified. Naturally, by including unmarried sons in the table, some of them can be expected to fall into a lower estate value category than their married fathers. 465 probably do equally well or perhaps a little better.76 Thus through the complex interaction of community expectations, family influence, local inheritance patterns, and the state of the economy, economic status was quickly becoming "inheritable." By the early eighteenth century, then, social order in Charles County was assuming the form.which it would hold for the remainder of the colonial period. A.man's rank was now usually determined relatively early in his career, and upward movement, should it occur, would probably come only through the acquisition of what were coming to be accepted as the marks of social superiorityh-landed and personal wealth and perhaps education for immigrants, and in the case of creoles, family background and connections as well. Rank was thus coming to be much more predictable, and it was becoming more rigid as well. With the end of economic growth, it was much more difficult fer men at lower wealth levels to improve their positions, and, among the growing native-born population, more of the elements of status tended to be fixed at birth. Order--and rigidityedwas also evolving because the society was beginning to exclude persons whom it could not readily assimilate. While a few new wealthholders were able to establish themselves in the county each year, by the 16903, some poor men were already being forced out of the tObacco-growing areas. In order to become independent householders and farmers they had to depart the region altogether. Just getting 76St. Mary's County inventories reveal a similar pattern after the turn of the century. There, wealth.levels of the nativeeborn did not exceed those of immigrants for nearly twenty years after 1700. Carr, Harris, and Menard, "The Development of Society in the Colonial Chesapeake." 466 started at the bottom was difficult enough so that what opportunity the county could yet offer was in most cases going to creolesu-who were able to begin their careers with some inherited prOperty--and to immigrants who came with more property yet. The end of white servants as the primary source of labor was both a consequence of declining opportunity and a major contributor to increas- ing rigidity. When a period of service in the tobacco fields no longer represented a means of improving one's economic position, potential immigrants chose to go instead to English cities or to other colonies which could offer the migrant more. This then lessened some of the dif- ficulties of assimilating many potential new wealthholders into the tobacco areas, but it did not solve the problem of recruiting new hands to grow tobacco. Planters turned instead to black men and women who had no choice about whether they would come to the tobacco coast or not. This provided a partial remedy to the labor shortage, but it also contributed to social transformation. The transition to a slave system ended the need for assimilation, for by then racial prejudice and a system of perpetual bondage ensured that blacks would not be integrated into white society or ever freed to becane new wealthholders. If slavery decreased the number of new men needing to be taken in at the bottom of white society, it also contributed to widening gaps near the tap. The social distance between men who owned bound laborers and men who could not afford them increased, while the profits of slave labor led to a growing concentration of wealth in the hands of rich planters. These economic and demographic changes interacted to produce at the turn of the century a society in which social and economic classes 467 were fairly well defined. Men and women at the bottom, as slaves, technically held no wealth and were accorded the most inferior status. Among the lower levels of white society poverty was widespread, and changes of escaping it small. The social status of laborers and tenants, especially as indicated by participation in local government, was declin- ing. Since most young creoles had not begun at the very bottom, they, along with immigrants who had gotten a start in better times, tended to enjoy a somewhat more comfortable existence as small and middling planters. While middling families were experiencing difficulties in procuring credit and labor too, they still comanded enough resources that they were not in danger of being pushed out, and they could maintain a position of coxmmnity respectability. At the top of the econanic ladder a few very wealthy men occupied places of unquestioned social, economic, and political preeminence. There was still, however, one condition which would continue to contribute to some local instability. The numbers of men at the top were small, and in addition there were relatively few upper middle wealth- holders occupying a place between rich planters and ordinary farmers. As a consequence some major officeholders would continue to be recruited from among middling planters , and some minor officeholders from among small farmers. This ensured that there would be some social mix among county rulers, and consequently—until the ranks of an upper middle class were filled out- or turnover in top offices declined-«somewhat less likelihood of those in authority setting themselves apart as a relatively closed and close-knit elite. Developments in neighboring counties make it clear, however, that the central tendency in the period was toward a local power structure composed of men who were wealthier and better educated than their neighbors, often related to each other through birth 1:68 or marriage, and united by a conscious understanding of their position and interests. The structure of early Charles County society was the result of interaction between the settlers' cultural heritage, the local environ- ment, economic and demographic changes, and conscious choice. One of the main threads in its history is the gradual constriction of initially wide opportunity and the concomitant growth of greater predictability, inequality, security, and order. While many settlers surely regretted some of the results of the evolutionary process, their story is not--at least in the context of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century minds-entirely one of declension. Order was one of the most precious. benefits to be gained from communal living, a state difficult to achieve and worth considerable sacrifice to maintain. Every community pays a price in return for social order. Whether or not the result was worth the cost in early eighteenth century Charles County is perhaps better left to the judgment of those.who paid it. APPENDICES A69 TABLE A1 TOTAL POPULATION ESTIMATED FROM TAXABLE FIGURES Year Taxables Ratio Total Population 1659 [205] 2.20 451 1662 357 2.30 821 166k 502 2.30 1155 1665 556 2.30 1279 1666 5&8 2.ho 1315 1669 668 2.30 1536 1671 736 2.30 1693 1672 722 2.30 1661 167k 782 2.30 1795 1675 785 2.30 1806 1676 732 2.60 1903 1677 700 2.60 1820 1678 710 2.60 18h6 1679 739 2.60 1921 ' 1680 76h 2.60 1986 1681 766 2.60 1992 1682 759 2.60 1973 168k 7h5 2.60 1937 1686 792 2.60 2059 1689 901 2.60 23h3 1690 869 2.60 2269 1691 880 2.60 2288 1692 872 2.60 2267 1693 901 2.60 23h3 169h 895 2.70 2h16 1695 871 2.80 2&39 1696 991 2.50 2h76 1697 1025 2.50 2562 1698 958 2.h0 2299 1699 1067 2.30 2h5h 1700 1122‘ 2.30 2581 1701 1195 2.30 27h8 1702 1239 2.30 2851 1703 1259 2.30 2895 17oh 1220 2.hh 2976 1705 1267 2.hh 3091 Source: Taxables--text, table,l. Ratios--ch. 2, fn 8. 1170 um: 112 an mm or wuss son I! mans 00mm 1652 m 1699 W A s c n 3 Known Ages Preferred 3101 Revised M has Ags at best]: Estimate Wty lbrtslity lbrtslity 20 23.31 27.211 23.06 211.50 25.96 21 22.50 26.112 22.37 23.67 25.13 22 21.69 25.59 21.67 22.03 211.29 23 21.05 211.93 20.96 22.13 23.62 211 20.90 211.00 .0k 21.90 23.00 2’ 20.17 23091 20.“ _ 21005 22.60 26 19.92 23.66 20.23 20.66 22.25 27 19.09 23.10 19.07 20.11 21.70 20 19.06 22.71 19.30 19.57 21.23 29 10.25 21.00 10.66 10.72 20.39 30 10.00 21.56 10.115 10.30 20.03 31 17.57 21.06 17.93 17.711 19.51 32 17.56 20.96 17.75 17.63 19.32 33 16.76 20.13 16.91 16.93 10.110 311 16.15 19.110 16.39 16.37 17.00 35 15.13 10.99 15.06 16.26 17.21 36 15.12 10.33 15.30 15.00 16.50 37 111.51 17.66 1 .65 15.19 15.00 38 1‘s" 17061 $5.61 130” 15.” 39 10.11 17.03 13.93 111.00 15.10 to 13.52 16.37 13.k1 111.13 10.01 111 13.50 16.23 13.59 13.96 111.17 112 13.110 15.911 13.119 13.03 13.79 ‘13 13.71 15.87 13.56 13.90 13.59 1.0 13.50 15.00 13.27 13.53 13.02 115 12.76 111.63 12.00 12.72 13.26 06 12.29 10.00 11.07 12.10 12.90 1.7 12.30 13.711 11.60 12.116 12.75 30 11.95 13.11 11.30 12.09 12.50 I19 11.511 12.05 10.91: 11.52 11.95 50 10.50 12.02 9.90 10.71 11.13 51 10.37 12.36 9.76 10.33 10.09 52 10.59 12.111: 10.30 10.19 10.72 53 9.91 11.80 9.90 9.111 9.92 5'» 9.55 11.51 9.52 9.26 9.95 55 9.21 11.03 0.90 0.71 9.62 56 0.09 10.09 0.76 0.39 9.00 57 0.60 10.17 0.32 0.65 0.76 50 0.77 10.15 0.56 0.03 0.59 59 9.16 9.95 0.63 0.05 0.26 60 0.16 0.95 0.00 0.10 7.75 61 7.61 80” 1s“ 1.52 10“ 62 7.56 0.01 6.10 7.50 7.73 63 7.07 0.30 6.09 6.95 7.111 h—Msdssemlythesswhessdsts erdssthsssknews. thsrseerds. D—sssussthstl/Zumhsensdisdtbsdqsftsrtbsirlsstsppssrsmes isthsma'dssndthstllalivsduntilthsdsythqlsstsppssrsd isthsrseerdsssdthsndisdseecdingtothsrstsefthosesbess date of dssth was discovered. husussthstunhmsuvsdutildqetlsstsppssrsssssndthss fellowsdrstsefknowss. M1 “WWNPQEEMS D A B c I lmnAps hdund ma hfludufl kn st Dssth lst i-ts Mortality Ibrtslity Mortality MO 1%uuMmownmmm LLL66L6L6LLL saaaomwwnnn LLL6L66L6th 5mn3 auMM6flflM 6816706655.“ 31... wmawanfifiwwMM 88. 106666 SEN-36%|! snnnuwi mammm 7.08. QHGGSS... 5.... 33 fifiwflafimnnn sutum kw“: 1172 TABLE A3 SEASONAL DEATH PATTERNS Months Number of Deaths Percentage November-January 59 3h.7 February-April 50 29.4 May-July 26 15.2 August-October __§2___ 20. Total 170 99.8 Source: Charles County PrObate Records. 1173 TABLE All BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS PER THOUSAND, CHARLES COUNTY RECONSTI'HJTED FAMILIES, 1658-1705 Year . Birth .Rate Marriage Rate Death Rate 1659 10 2o 10 1662 3 15 25 16611 3 13 8 1665 7 11 11 1666 9 18 9 1669 1 0 11 1671 5 8 5 1672 5 13 11 16711 3 8 8 1675 h 11 20 1676 3 11 25 1677 6 15 21 1678 11 16 10 1679 7 9 8 1680 10 111 0 1681 I1 15 3 1602 8 9 6 16811 5 12 11 1686 9 13 15 1689 0 0 7 1690 11 111 5 1691 11 10 3 1692 15 11 2 1693 18 9 11 16911 111 9 8 1695 11 6 6 1696 -- 5 6 1697 - 8 10 1698 -- 10 30 1699 -- 5 15 1700 -- 5 15 1701 -- 11 10 1702 -- I1 11 1703 -- 6 11 17011 .- 6 10 1705 -- 5 6 Sources: The rates are based on population estimates from taxable figures in table Al, and on numbers of vital events collected for the reconstituted families by the method described in the text, ch. 2. WAS 16304681 808 istic AsssgAdslts 11711 Adult Woman Adult HI "511.”- Ill Ira-11700100 let 0 80 S 100 0 Jam: 19. 68261 32 315 20 8122991 3 ass-vant Prss Tsssbls W? Fully hits I 1785 26‘38 5166 866031 mfifinm TT 1 1 bl: Date of Arrival Tetsl 16311-115 16116-52 1653-57 1650-67 263 1117 56 116110 159 601011 New 56070230305115 1668-81 Bones: Russell Isms-d, "Population Growth." 875 HH I I I I .3 ...; I m I U\ I \D (\I CO H H I... I I HHN I m r-I (\J H (\I H H H CD (\I I I I I NNNNHNMJNNJNHMNQ r-I MMNNLA HHMMr-I t— MMNNJ (\I .3 I (\I .d' I r-I N I H I H H 010101 I 01er Nmmmmmmmgrhamzmmm I I NMMNNNNMNMJNHNN I mama mama same mama name name mama mama Heme oema mmma. mmma emma mmma mmma smma mmma mmma Hmma washout» moaned: Odwnwm upoecooea macho .oz .02 .oz Odo: 62 \o 1n '3’ m N Fl New mow—”lawman .mMHmOBEH wzgfimq “@950an E00 magu ho gnaw mad $4 "Hugh. A76 I-Ir-IN H (\I I-I\Ot-I I I I MI-Iu—INN r-It-‘I I I I I I H I I I INr-IAI’NQ—d‘b- IMN Iu-It-III I Oozmmm r-I r-Ir-IIr-IMNI HHMMMMHHMHHN I I I‘ I I I I (fir-INN: ma INH—JOQJQ mJMm MHHMW Nv-IIr-Iad’l NMMNu—Ir—INI I ma mm NH. Nb r-Ic-I O\\Ob-FNU\r-I—:f mama mama some mama mama some mama mama Home omma mmma mmma amma mmma mmma smma mmma mmma Hmma omma m onerous: OHmHv .oz L: on on r1 oeuhnmz .02 mawsam .oz muoeoooen was: .62 use» moaanHOOIlw< Ham0 98080.03 00.80 808 0808 80 088891080 28.—10.80088 08.3.00 0808 0808888 30H 28mg 0» 080080 33.80008 0.900 00.808 0883 88.7.33 008808 08.... 8H 808908081888 0008000888080 .3008 8088 08.308008 0.308 0800 0008000888 80 080 03309808 8088 .80 8030888800 0 80 900880 08.... 3080 03.000 8.031808 80 0818.800 089 .000088 80303808 0880.» 8800' 0 003 088p.1 $3888 1800 080.. 80 0.808808 000040 089 no 0000 088 98080 08 088.30». 08800. 80888 80 0310 03.8008 088. 8089008808 088 .80 088908880 000 08» 9800.0 8800a 09 .803 080 08 008000000 80 088090 080. 80 80800 0 .0800 080800 08.88008 .0 80 8. 0800.888 . .m 80 m 0800.808 . .11 80 m 0808888 . 0.3800808 88 0802 .wa 8086 8080.280 ._H0 .0088808 8000. 008 . .808 0800 0.380308 8.“ 080m .9” 805.0 8080380 .50 .0088808 8000. 008 . .908 0800 .0H0808808 8.“ 0800 .wa 8005 8080.280 0800 .0.” 80088 8080.380 0800 .0088808 8000. 008 . 03800808 88 a .08.. 8080 8080380 0800 .08 8008.: 8080.280 0800 .0088808 8000. 008 .m .3 80088 8080.380 .30 .0088808 8008 008 .N 00.88808 80.» 908 z... 80\\01-000\ "0.380 Op 808 . u u 8 .. .. 11 m m 8 m 0 21 mo: - - 8 .. .. - - 11 - .. .1 .. m 1128 .. u n m 8 0 1 11 m .. 3 1 m8 8: u 8 a u 8 u 1 11 8 m m .o. 88 028 u 8 n 8 u 8 u m .. 8 11 .. a. 828 u u .. 11 8 0 1.. m 0 m 1. 8 m8 8: a m 1. m m 11 m 0 8 08250; 0011.182 080080 380308 .308 0808.0 .02 . oz .02 0H0: .02 0088.380 Ollwd mafia h78 ...00088802 08 88838830880 8880.. .3860 8080.380 808.88 8883 0300.83 80 00008800 300803 0030 003 880.8 0888. .wopauwowa 8.8 00.38 0803 00088 80 80088888 08.0 .008808 03083 088 8.8 00880880388 80080888 8380 808 008880000 80803 .8808» 0 00 80803 88080 0388.3 08 0308 080 .3080 08 808888 088 080808088. 00880880388 8803 0300.83 080 080808880 380 0080008 00083088 808 0803 80803 00308.08 08808 8803 80 .0088808 808 808 80888.0 0803 808 8008 88000 80 8088 0.8 83080 08 08 8080830800 880880888 8008 088. .083800 0803 8080.380 88088 30 3888 003.3 0800808 880138038 .380 .008808 8.008 8808:88808 03083 088 8H .3080 00880808 80088080 8030 8080.380 88.83 808888 088 0800 8088 80880 08.0 .80088080 8030 80803380 88.0 008 308 8.803 @803 080808 .0088808 8080.380 8.8088 300 0880808 308 8088 8808 1088.0 088 00808880 380030 03808 088. 8080.380 80 0000 088 8088 08.0 088080 308.8808 088 0588 0w0 0 .88000000 088 80 0008 80 008380 008808 0.888. .03080 08.3 88 88800030 08 0.8 08800880 000 80 08.88003 80 803 080 0088.8 paoollm0. M1838. h79 TABLE Bl TOTAL SERVANT POPULATION Determining the actual number of servants in the county is extremely difficult because there are no extant tax lists for the period. The only helpful census figures for Charles County are for the year lTOh, and these do not separate servants from.non-householding freemen. 170% Census Popup Masters of Free Men 5 Free WOmen & Free Slave lation Households Servant Men Servant women Children Children Slaves 2,989 hoa 39o h85 931 197 578 Source: garyland.Archives 25: 256 However the number of slaves is given. Consequently the number of servants can be estimated by using the ratios of servants to slaves found in period inventories. This produces a servant population in 170h of 36k 578 x .63). Servants and Slaves in Charles County Inventories, lTOl-OS Year Servants Slaves 1701 6 16 1702 19 23 1703 20 29 lTOh h - 1705 .33. ._hé. Total 72 11h Ratio: 72/llh = .63 Source: Charles County Inventories, 1701-1705, "Social Stratifi- cation in Maryland" The next step is to find what proportion of the 36h appeared in the records and thus in this study. To the number who first appeared in l70h was added those who first appeared over the.preceding six.years. (Seven years was the mean term of service.) The result was 290, or 80 percent of the total servant population estimated from.the census. Attempts to derive estimates of the servant population for other years was abandoned. One cannot derive the numbers of servants directly from.taxable figures because of inadequate information about the composi- tion of the white population. This is particularly true because of the 1:80 TABLE Bl—Cont inued disproportionate influence of a small number of slaves on the number of taxables, and the absence of information about the numbers and ages of the slaves in the population. Attempts to reconstruct the servant popula- tion for other years by multiplying the number of servants per household derived from inventories by an estimate of the number of householders yielded too wide a range of results to be useful. hBl TABLE B2 PROPORTIONS 0F SERVANTS WITH AND WITHOUT INDENTURES Number Percent Hypothetical total number of servants entering Charles County, 1658-1705 1,850 100.0 Number whose names were recorded 1,387 75.08' Number identified as serving without indentures 80h h3.5 Number identified as having written indentures 97 5.2 Number whose status was undetermined, assumed to have indentures h86 26.3 Number whose names were not recorded, assumed to have written indentures h63 25.0 Number without written indentures 80h h3.5 Number assumed to have written indentures 1,0h6 56.5b a .13.::hzssngaeagissgrazrinaiééaslsefsezgsteoagwpercent 1. assumed. b 56.5 percent prdbably overstates somewhat the proportion of servants who had indentures. The "undetermined" category very likely includes indivuals who were purchased and their ages recorded outside the county, unindentured servants who entered at age 22 or above, and unindentured servants under that age whose masters had neglected to bring before the court for Judgment of age. h82 TABLE B3 POSSIBLE SEASONING RATES OF TWO GROUPS OF MARYLAND SERVANTS I. 275 Servants Arriving befbre l6h3 Seasoning No. Seasoning No. Normal No. Surviving, No. Surviving, Rate Deaths Deaths Recorded Unrecorded hOS 109 5 161 0 35 96 6 161 12 30 83 6 161 25 Method: This table was calculated according to the method described in Source: table 19 of the text, with two exceptions: the term.of service was assumed to be five years and.men were assumed to have immi- grated at age 19 and.to have been age 23 when freed. These assumptions reflect the differing terms of service and ages of the earlier immigrants. Figures are from Russell R. Menard, "From Servant to Freeholder," .__—William are Mm mama: so (1973): 37-6h. II. .137 Servants Arriving l6h8—l652 Seasoning No. Seasoning No. Normal No. Surviving, No. Surviving, Rate Deaths Deaths Recorded Unrecorded hOZ 55 3 72 7 35 h8 3 72 1h 30 kl 3 72 21 Method: As above. Source: Figures come from Russell R. Menard, "Economr and Society in group and thirty-five or even ferty percent for the second. clearly seems to represent the minimum rate of seasoning. Early Colonial Maryland" (Ph.D. diss., University of Iowa), ch. 5. Thirty-five percent seems a reasonable seasoning rate for the first Thirty percent It is unlikely that in this period more men survived but did not appear in the records. APPENDIX C: NOTE ON SOURCES AND METHODS Intensive studies of colonial American communities are relatively new to American historiography, while local studies of Chesapeake communi- ties have only recently gotten underway.1 The methodologies employed in such studies are various in part because of lack of consensus as to what approaches are most fruitful, and in part because each scholar must select topics for concentration and must modify established techniques to one degree or another in order to accommodate the pecularities of the local records with which he must deal. This appendix describes the kinds of analysis used in this study, identifies some of the problems inherent in the sources, and explains the methods used to overcome these problems. One of the first requirements for a community study is the availability of sufficient information about the size, and where possible, about the age structure of the population being examined. This is essen- tial in order to determine how complete various record series (e.g., parish registers or probate records) are, and to assess how applicable the results obtained from analyses of such series may be to the pOpulation as a whole. 1For examples of such studies see Carr, "County Government," ch. 7; Darrett and Anita Rutman, "‘NowAWives and Sons-in-Law‘"; "Social Stratification in Maryland"; Kulikoff, "Tobacco and Slaves"; Michael Lee Nichols, "Origins of the Virginia Southside, 1703-1753: A Social and Economic Study" (Ph.D. dissertation, The College of William.and.Mary in Virginia, 1972); Kevin P. Kelly, "Economic and Social Development of SeventeenthpCentury Surry County, Virginia" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, 1972); and Sarah Shaver Hughes, "Elizabeth City County, Virginia, 1782-1810" (Ph.D. dissertation, The College or William and Mary in Virginia, 1976). h83 h8h Obviously the aggregate figures must be obtained from sources independent of the record series studied.2 In the case of Charles County, a relatively complete set of taxable figures and a census of ITOh provide the essential infOrmation about the size of the population.3 Detailed‘ information about the county age structure was unobtainable. Hence, where precise age breakdowns were required, an age structure had to be borrowed from another area whose stage of development was comparable and for which figures were available.“ Four maJor and inter-related types of analysis were employed in the Charles County study. The first was the modified form of family reconstitution described in chapter two which involves filling out the data obtained from the civil birth register with information found in probate series and in miscellaneous county records. Only in this way could a sufficient data base be obtained from which to calculate most standard demographic measures. Similar approaches are being used by the Ruhmans in their Middlesex County, Virginia, study and by Russell Menard in his analysis of the Somerset County, Maryland, civil register.5 In both of these studies the problem is the same as that of Charles-- registers provide critical but in themselves insufficient demographic evidence. 2Wrigley, ed., Introduction.tg_§gglish Historical Demoggapgy. 3Taxable figures are found in the county court records. The census is found in Maryland Archives 25: 256. t’Merle Curti, _T_h_e_ _Miing of a_n_ American Community: A. Case Study _o_f_ Democrac in 5 Frontier County—(Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1959), p. 56, and George Blackburn and Sherman L. Richards, Jr., “A.Demo- graphic History of the West Manistee County, Michigan," Journal gt; Anerican Histog 57 (1970),: 607.. 5Darrett and Anita Rutman, "'Now#Wives and Sons—in-Law'" appendix 1; and Menard, "Demography of Somerset County." h85 While such.modified reconstitution enables us to generate vital and otherwise unobtainable information about the parameters of life in the colonial Chesapeake, it is a method which must be used with extreme caution. Techniques for population analysis based solely on parish registers have reached levels of considerable sophistication, and the results so obtained are generally considered to have a high degree of precision. This is due in large measure to a well-elaborated series of rules imposed at all levels of analysis in order to control for and to correct the many biases inherent in the records. Once the scholar incor- porates into his reconstitution project data collected from a variety of other sources whose biases are frequently much less well understood and sometimes impossible to measure, he runs grave risks of seriously prejudicing his results. An example may help to illustrate the problem. In parish register analysis, one excludes from measures of fertility any families whose presence in the parish is detected only because they registered the births of children. The reasoning is that, otherwise, couples living in the parish who had no children would be under-represented in the measure. What happens when the scholar incorporates information from wills, deeds, estate accounts, county order books, etc.? Are these sources also biased in favor of fertile couples? No ready answer is available, but the possibility must be accounted for.6 There are numerous ways to minimize errors caused by undetected or unmeasurable data bias, three of which are discussed here. First, come putations can sometimes be compared to the results which can be expected to appear, and if necessary corrected to correspond to those which obtain 6For rules of reconstitution see Gautier and Henry, §g_pgpulation g£_Crulai, and Wrigley, "Family Reconstitution." h86 in fully observed populations. .For example, might a measure of family size be too small because females were under-recorded in the kinds of sources used? A quick tabulation of the sex ratios of the children provides an answer, and if females were indeed recorded less often than males, aggregate figures for family size can then be adjusted upwards by raising the sex ratio of the children to unity. Second, where the pos— sibility of record bias which cannot be accurately measured exists, the scholar may be well advised to present his results in the form of a range rather than in absolute figures, thus alerting the reader to the tentative nature of his results and suggesting in the form of upper and lower limits what the possible effects of the suspected bias might be. Third, the scholar should compare his results with those obtained for communities contemporary in time and/or stage of development for which control of record bias is possible, or with appropriate stable population models. Widely deviant calculations for which no good explanation exists should then either be discarded or further work undertaken to detect and correct for probable biases.7 The second type of analysis on which this study is based is a series of computerized biographies of the 2,th free adult male residents who appear in any of the county records. The biographies were compiled by breaking down extant records on a name basis and reassembling them by individual. All linkage was done by hand, a choice predicated by the very diverse kinds of information collected, and by the widely varying 7See the comments of T. H. Hollingsworth, "The Importance of the Quality of the Data in Historical Demography," Daedalus 27 (1968): h15- 32. Stable population tables can be found in Ansley J. Coale and Paul Demeny, Regional Model Life Tables ggd_Stable Populations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966). h87 amounts of'material (ranging from 2 or 3 to over 300 pieces of data) for various individuals. While studies based on a few fairly standardized kinds of sources such as tax lists, censuses, poll books, etc., lend theme selves to first coding all the available information, and then making linkages, studies based on record stripping from a variety of disparate sources require extensive initial preparation by hand. Only after the record stripping is completed, the data assembled roughly by individual, and some initial frequency counts made, can the researcher be sure what kinds of information appear frequently enough to be worth actually cod- ing and machine processing. The method of linkage that I used involved a number of steps. First, some linkages were made during the process of data collection; pieces of information clearly belonging to one individual were collected on one data extraction form. Entries which could not be immediately linked to any given individual were recorded separately for later linkr age. Second, all the information collected was arranged alphabetically, and duplicate entries recorded under variant spellings of the same name con- solidated under one spelling. Third, in instances where there were clearly several individuals with the same name, entries were first arranged and separated as far as possible by date. For example, a nota- tion of a court suit begun by John Jones in 1695 must pertain to a dif- ferent man than the John Jones whose will was probated in 1687. Fourth, materials belonging to two or more individuals of the same name who were residing in the county contemporaneously were examined for their context and further linkages made. Many entries relating to Richard Smith, gent., an officehOlder and prominent planter, for example, could be separated from entries relating to Richard Smith, laborer, from the context of the 1:88 information; Smith the laborer would clearly not be acting as sheriff, while Smith the officer would not be suing for back wages for manual labor. Fifth, the remaining entries for men of the same name which could not be separated by any of the above methods were linked on the basis of residence and patterns of association. In the previous stages most landowners were associated with a particular tract or group of tracts, and in turn, the general location of many of the tracts dis- covered. Then, by examining the biographies of neighboring landowners, networks of association as described in chapter five became apparent. In many cases it is possible to separate same-name entries on the basis of the other persons named in the documents. For example, if there were three Thomas Stones residing in various parts of the county at the same time, most entries could be separated by noting the residence of the men who witnessed the wills, appraised the estates, served together on Juries of the neighborhood, witnessed deeds, notes, and other business papers, etc. So long as the various Thomas Stones lived more than about two miles distant from each other, the men with whom they commonly associated would in most cases constitute distinct and separate groups. Once the entries were separated by individual and assembled in good order, I then coded the most prevalent kinds of information for machine analysis. This included information about the area of residence, origins, date of first appearance, date of death or emigration, literacy, religion, occupation, age, family status, maximum landholdings, number of servants or slaves owned, military and political offices, and an assess- ment of the man's general economic status at the peak of his career. These were then processed using the SPSS program package. Many of the h89 aggregate results appear in chapters five, six, and seven, while the individual biographies were used throughout the study to identify the social and economic position of individuals mentioned in illustrations and to help interpret the meaning of documentary materials. This part of the "mass prosopography" was by far the most time- consuming part of the data processing, and.the results were alternatingly rewarding and frustrating. The collective biographies proved adequate fer studying the character of county officeholders and were full enough to permit relatively firm generalizations about the county's occupar tional structure and patterns of labor and handholding. Information about origin, literacy, religion, and age could not be obtained for suf- ficient numbers of the men to be of much use. The reasons for the use of a code for general economic status along with the other kinds of infbrmation collected requires some explanation. Obviously it is preferable to rely on "hard" evidence such as estate valuations, tax assessments, number of acres owned, amount of labor held, or designated occupations, rather than to use such "soft" evidence as a general status code which is much less specific and much more subject to error through inappropriate decisions on the part of the coder. In this study, the nature of the material necessitated resorting to a general status code for some kinds of analysis. Recordpstripping does not pro- duce the few kinds of easily comparable information which tax lists, censuses, and the like provide. There were many individuals for whom some important pieces of information were lacking and others for whom "hard" evidence was scarce indeed, but about whom something could be inferred. Such individuals could of course simply have been dropped from the study. The consequence of such a decision, however, would have h90 been to bias the results toward the better-off for whom the best informa- tion is more commonly available. Thus, in order to keep the study broad— based, I attempted to classify as many individuals as possible under a general status code of l) laborers, landless artisans, or tenant farmers, 2) small, land-holding planters or craftsmen 3) middling planters, well- to-do craftsmen, or middling professionals A) large planters or merchants and high income-earning professionals and 5) the very rich. In many cases, for example, occupation, land holding status, possession of some capital or possession of no capital, etc., could be inferred, and a general status assigned. In order to minimize distortions brought about by errors in assigning the general code, in most kinds of analysis I used the "soft" status code in conjunction with what "hard" evidence on land and labor holding was available, a procedure facilitated by the availability of the "missing values" option in the SPSS package. Where precision was more important than inclusiveness, I limited the selection to a cross-section of individuals for whom one piece of "hard" evidence was available in all cases, that of men who died and left inventories, a group fer whom biases and omissions could be tested. One of the major difficulties encountered in using a series of collective biographies such as those assembled fer this study is the question of what proportion of the county's population at a given time is included in this "mass prosopography." ,As a result of this diffi- culty, where various nominal lists are available, other scholars have prObably wisely concentrated their efforts on analyzing individuals named on such lists.8 This was not possible in Charles County, for no tax lists or other nominal records survive for the period. 8Kulikoff, "Tobacco and Slaves"; Nichols, "Origins of the Virginia Southside." 1491 A very rough estimate of the extent of coverage obtained.by the record stripping could be made for 1659, and an even rougher estimate might be calculated for lTOh-OS. I based the estimate for 1659 on the rent roll of that year.9 Here all but 11 out of 115 men named as land- holders on the rent roll appeared in the Charles County records or could be located in adjacent counties and hence determined to be non-residents. When the numbers of the non-landowners appearing in the records in or shortly before 1659 are added to the number of men named as landowners, the total is fairly close to the free adult male population estimated in that year from.taxable figures, and hence it can be assumed.that the "mass prosopography" is fairly complete for the earliest period. From the census of lTOh and the rent roll of 1705 one can deter- mine the names of county landowners and the number of nonplandowning householders and can.make an estimate of the number of non-householding adult sons and laborers in the county. Checking the biographical file for the appearance of the named landowners is simple enough, but beyond that the problems mount. Even determining how many of the non-landowners appearing in the file were in the county in 170h-05 would require several steps. First, all men known to have died or emigrated befbre ITOh could be eliminated. Second, after reading ferward in the records for five to ten.years, some of the non-landowners who appeared off and on before 1705 could clearly be classified as residents of the county in lTOh-OS. Third, one would have to make a series of assumptions about the remaining men who disappeared from the records, but cannot be proven to have died, stayed, or emigrated. A range of estimates based on a series of assumptions about 9The rent roll was corrected as described in chapter 2, footnoteEL 192 these men's various possible ends-~remaining in the county and not reap- pearing in the records, dying undetected, or emigrating--wou1d have to be calculated. For these one could not simply use the proportions of the knowns, for the men who disappear from the records may have dis- appeared because they had different characteristics from men whose come plete career histories can be traced. Fourth, the range of possible non-landholding residents could.then be added to the number of land- holders who were picked up in the record stripping, and the total comp pared to the free adult male population estimated from the lTOh census to Obtain the prObable range of coverage of the collective biographies for the period. Given the amount of time required to make such an estimate and the imprecision of the results, I did not attempt this calculation. MW'impression is that the coverage of the "mass prosopo- graphy" declines as the county's population increased, ranging from near-completeness in the early 16608 to prdbably about three-quarters coverage of the free adult male population at the turn of the century. Fortunately for the viability of this study, none of the major economic groups in the white population were omitted from the collective biographies. Although not necessarily represented in the same propor— tions as prevailing in the population at large, non-householding and 'householding laborers; tenant farmers; small, middling, and large planters; and various professionals all appeared in the records with reasonable frequency. Thus, while given groups may well be under- or over-recorded, none are omitted completely. Being acutely aware of the uncertainty about the proportion of the adult male population represented by the collective biographies at A93 various times I have tried in most instances to avoid generalizing from the mass of collective biographies to the whole population. Rather, wherever possible I have used better-defined sub-sets of the biographies. The firmest sub-sets were those for groups of men independently defined (i.e., the criteria of selection was something other than appearance in the records) and completely listed in other sources, for example, major county officeholders and landholders of 1659 and 1705. Other sub-sets 'were independently defined but not listed in other sources. Such sub- sets were used when the numbers appeared adequate to support some generalizations about the selected groups. Examples of these sub-groups are sons of immigrants who had died in the county, men who had been servants in other counties, and freedmen who had served in the county. The importance of an independent definition of the sub-set becomes clear when we consider the problems encountered in dealing with groups not separately defined. For example, a study of a sample of litigants in the county court was abandoned after it became clear that the major prOblem was not choosing the sample (where explicit rules for selection and :methods of testing for accuracy exist), but determining what the original group (all free adult males appearing in the county records) of which the sampled litigants were a part represented. While, for example, it was possible to conclude from.the analysis of the sample that the county court did not serve simply as a collection agency for wealthy planters and merchants and that a sizeable proportion of adult male residents initiated suits at one time or another in their careers, it was not possible to determine such questions as what proportions of the various economic groups tried to collect debts through the courts, what proportion W: of male residents brought suit or were sued, or whether poorer litigants were more willing to settle suits out of court than were wealthier ones. Because the relationship between the collective biographies and the population at large remains, for most of the period studied, uncertain, it proved impossible to draw many valid generalizations from a sample of the biographies. In retrospect, the futility of the attempt is apparent. It was not so evident at the beginning, however, and thus the example seems worth bringing up as an illustration of the kinds of mistakes that researchers should take care to avoid. One of the sub-groups of which I made extensive use was that of all decedents who left probate inventories. Here estimates could be made of the completeness of the coverage, and the results suggest that there 'were no significant changes in reporting rates or shifts in age structure among the decedents which might impair the usefulness of the inventories as tools for social and economic analysis.10 However, while the relation- ship between men who left inventories and the total decedent population can be measured, generalizing from the decedent population to the living population is another matter entirely.11 Such generalizations were not attempted in this study; rather, where appropriate, expected differences between the decedent and.the living population were simply called to the reader ' s attention. loMenard, Harris, and Carr, "Opportunity and Inequality." 11For discussions of generalizing from decedent to living popula- ‘tions see Main, "Measuring wealth and.Welfare," ch. 1, and Daniel Scott Smdtb, "Under-registration and Bias in Probate Records: An Analysis of IData.from.Eighteenth-Century, Hingham, Massachusetts," E!9.32 (1975): lOOblO. h95 One way of validly generalizing from the biographies to the whole population is to try to identify characteristics or kinds of behavior peculiar to special groups. For example, if most identified immigrants in a set of biographies representing a variety of age cate— gories and economic groups behave one way, while most identified natives behave in another, one can be reasonably certain that he is dealing with traits shared by most immigrants and natives in the popula- tion. Similarly, if most early settlers exhibit different career pat- terns from later settlers, if most ex-servants die with fewer assets or emigrate more often than most free immigrants, or if most tenants do not participate in local government, while most landowners do, one can begin to generalize about characteristics of the population even when the members of some of the groups are under-represented or over-represented in extant records. The stronger the identification of the phenomenon--say participation or non-participation in local government-dwith membership in a particular group, the more compelling is the generalization.12 A problem similar to that posed by the issue of coverage was the question of'how to deal with the collective biographies over time. Again, the earliest period offered few problems, fer the individuals appearing in the records could be proven to be a fairly inclusive listing of the county's initial settlers. Beyond about 1665, however, the collective 'biographies do not lend themselves to the "slice in time" approach which 'tax lists or censuses provide. For example, to obtain a profile of the men listed in the collective biographies for say, 1685 (leaving aside :for'the moment the problem of how many individuals and what groups may have been omitted from the records entirely), one would have to l) 12For an example of such a study see Carr, "County Government," ch. 7. 1#96 include the individuals for whom a date of immigration or arrival at majority prior to 1685 and date of death after 1685 were known, 2) make a range of estimates for the men appearing in the records prior to 1685 who might or might not still be resident in the county in 1685, and 3) make a range of estimates for the men appearing in the records after 1685 who might in fact have already been in the county by 1685. This is clearly an example of an exercise which would not yield results worth the effort of calculating, and suggests that the "slice in time" approach is inappropriate to this kind of mass prosopography. I selected a cohort approach as the best means of presenting the collective biographies over time. Normally of course, cohort analysis is based on groups of individuals born within a given period or belonging to a particular generation. Since age was unknown for the majority of the men, and generational analysis inappropriate to an area receiving continual influxes of new immigrants, I used a cohort analysis based on the date at which men began their careers in the county. Immigrant men and men with unknown origins were grouped by date of first appearance in the county records and native-born men by first appearance as an adult. Such an approach would not work for many kinds of communities, but seemed justified in an area where the majority of settlers were either 1) natives reaching majority and first appearing in the records at or near twenty-one years of age, or 2) immigrant servants the great majority of whom would become free sometime between the ages of twenty- one and twenty-six. Successive cohorts were thus roughly contemporaneous in age, and by using this approach, the varying career prospects of suc- cessive waves of settlers could be presented. h97 In general the viability of using cohorts of entry depends on the nature of the population studied, the quality of the records, and the availability of studies based on actual date of entry into the region which can be used for checking the results. The main weakness of the method, at least for this study, is that migrants from other counties may be grouped inappropriately by their date of first appearance in the county, having in fact begun their careers as free men at an earlier date, as may be men who resided in the county for some time before appear- ing in the records. However, since most migrants tended to be relatively young men, the distortion resulting from their inclusion in later groups is probably not great. In addition, the presence of such distortion does not affect the direction of the interpretation of the career prospects of successive groups of settlers offered here. What it may well affect is the timing of changes. For example, if the settler cohort first appear- ing in the county records in the period 1670-7h, when economic conditions were worsening, included a significant proportion of men who had in fact begun their careers in other counties in 1665-69 when conditions were more favorable, the effect of their inclusion in the later group would be to partially mask declining career prospects of bona fide 1670-7h settlers. Since precise timing was not critical to the arguments made in this paper, such distortion seemed tolerable. Also, a cross-check of the results of my cohort of entry analysis with a career study of immi- grant servants based on actual date of immigration13 suggests that the amount of distortion is not great, at most about a five year lag. 13Menard, "From Servant to Freeholder." h98 A third kind of analysis used in this study was a set of col- lective biographies of all identified servants and slaves appearing in the county records. The method of linkage was the same as that used for the biographies of the free adult males, with the exception that the entries were cross-referenced by name of master as well as by indi- vidual in order to help in eliminating duplications. Since the numbers involved were smaller (1,387 servants and 389 slaves), the kinds of information more limited, and.hand tabulation of the data relatively simple, and because of a shortage of computer funds I chose to process this portion of the study entirely by hand. Unlike the case of the free adult males, for the servants an external source, lists of indentured servants leaving Britain for the colonies, provided a means of identify— ing the kinds of individuals who were omitted from the county records. In addition, a fairly easily calculated estimate of coverage was pos- sible for lTOh-OS (see chapter four and appendix B). The fourth and final kind of analysis involved assembling a topical file built on a collection of references to various subjects appearing in depositions, court cases and proceedings, wills, accounts, etc. Some of the main topics pursued included attitudes toward children, treatment of orphans, the role of women, marriage customs, evidence of agricultural diversification, architecture and farm lay-out, kinds of local economic exchange, the appearance and function of inns and stores, diet, wages and conditions of labor, kinds of recreation, and evidence about diseases and other health problems. By assembling the many bits and pieces of scattered information which appeared on these subjects, it 'was possible to some extent to compensate for the scarcity of literary evidence. Assuredly such topical assemblages have many disadvantages, 1‘99 for example, often providing little context for interpretation. On the other hand, they have the advantage of frequently recording the expres- sions and attitudes of persons of a class and station unlikely to leave literary records, and they permit investigation of topics for which little or no fermal literary evidence survives. Being as explicit about the problems encountered in a study as about its strengths of course has its risks. However, community studies are too expensive of time, money, and effort, and mistakes too often unnecessarily repeated, for historians to afford the luxury of failing to alert fellow travelers to some of the detours and dead ends likely to be encountered in the journey from local record to computer file to completed analysis. APPENDIX D Table D-l shows the probable range of proportions of men eligible to vote in Charles County in 1705, the only year for which sufficient data survive to attempt such an estimate. Readers should note the large number of assumptions required to construct the estimate, and would be well advised to use the results with caution. Numbers in the left hand column of the table correspond with the numbered notes below. These explain the sources of the data and the pro- cesses by which the various figures were arrived at. Symbolic notes explain the assumptions underlying the high, low, and preferred estimates. TABLE D-l RANGE OF PROPORTIONS OF MEN ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN CHARLES COUNTY, 1705 High Preferred Low Estimate” Estimate+ Estimate)? Men qualified to vote: 1. Householders with freeholds of 50 263 263 263 acres or more 2. Householders with freeholds of less 8 8 0 than 50 acres 3. Tenants and non—householders with 32 13 6 511:0 or more in personal property 1:. Proprietary Manor tenants 12 9 8 5. Long-term leaseholders 82 22 11 Total qualified voters 397 315 291: 6. Total number free adult males: h83 Percentage qualified to vote 82% 65% 61% 500 501 Netes to Table D—l: 1. Rent Roll 8 lists all freeholders in Charles County in 1705. Status and residence were determined for each of the 3h0 freeholders. Nineteen of the 3h0 were widows, l was a minor, and N9 were non- residents. For purposes of this calculation, it was assumed that the same persons were freeholders in the previous year, a year for which census data are available. Rent Roll 8. Possible numbers of tenants and non-householders worth 2&0 or more were estimated on the basis of information about these groups in the decedent population. Among 26 non-landowners who left inventories in Charles County between 1695 and 1705 only h (or 15 percent) had estates of £h0 or more. "Social Stratification in Maryland." Since the decedent population is biased toward older and wealthier men, the proportion of men in the living population worth this amount may well have been smaller. Corrections for this bias are made in the preferred and low estimate. In the highest estimate, for example, A83 male residents (see note 6) minus 271 landowners equals 212 times 15 percent equals 32. There were h7 leaseholders on prOprietary manors in Charles County in 1733. Calvert Papers MS 17h, felder 91h, Maryland Historical Society. This record, and an incomplete listing for 1731 (Calvert Papers MS 17%, folder 912) constitute the first listings of proprie- tary tenants in the county. Tenure on these manors was most commonly by lease for three lives, although some long-term leases of twenty- one years or more were also let. Initial seating of the proprietary manors began in southern Maryland in the mid-16903, with the number of tenants increasing gradually through the 17308. Here I have assumed that an equal number of the h7 tenants took up land during each decade of the period l69h-1733. Hence the number of proprietary tenants in 1705 would have been between 12 and 13. The number of long-term.leaseholders on non-proprietary freeholds was estimated according to three different methods. The high estimate is based on a calculation of the amount of land available to long-term leaseholders. The low estimate is based on the number of recorded long-term leaseholds, and the preferred estimate begins with the low estimate and adds a correction factor. The high estimate was calcuy lated from a number of assumptions. First, it was assumed that only non-landowners purchased long-term.leases. The second assumption is that men who held less than 1,000 acres did not let their land in long-term leases or leases fer lives. Presumably men with less land ‘would want to keep all of it available for their children to seat and.would.be willing to rent it out only on short-term.leases or tenancies at will. The third assumption is that land was not let on long-term leases in parcels of less than 500 acres. (The mean size of recorded long-term leaseholds was 516 acres.) The available land for long-term leasing was then calculated by isolating onthe Rent Roll 502 Notes to Table D-l,,Continued of 1705 all resident landowners who held 1,500 acres or more (1,000 acres + a 500 acre minimum parcel size). Seventeen men fell into this category. Next, the number of parcels of 500 acres or more possessed by each landowner was counted; these came to 68 five hundred acre parcels. Then all non-resident landowners holding 1,000 acres or more were counted. It was assumed that these men held sufficient land in their home counties for purposes of inherit- ance, and would rent all their Charles County holdings on long-term leases. In 1705, 6 non-resident landowners had available 1h parcels of 500 acres. Thus, there could.have‘been a total of 82 long-term leaseholders on available non-proprietary land. Other information suggests that the high estimate greatly exaggerates the number of long-term leases. First, after 1663 longeterm leases, like conveyances of land.beld in fee, were required to be recorded. Only h3 such leases appear in the county records between 1663 and 1705. While some leases may well have escaped recording, it is unlikely that this was the case with nearly half such leases. Second, long-term leases were usually purchased for a relatively high lump sum payment. Available infermation about wealth levels in the county suggests that not many non-landowners possessed assets sufficient to meet the initial purchase price of a long-term.lease (see note 3, above). Third, men who already owned land sometimes purchased longbterm.leases as additional investments; 21 (h9 percent) of the recorded leases were in fact purchased by men who also owned freehold land. Fourth, we know from the Rent Roll of 1705 that there 'were 271 landowning householders in the county. If we suppose that few non-householders were long term leaseholders, then the maximum. number of long-term tenants must have been small. Given these circumstances, the low estimate assumes 1) that all long- term leases were recorded, 2) that half of the leases were purchased 'by men who were already freeholders and 3) that of the remaining recorded leases presumed to be held.by men who owned no freehold land, twenty percent were void.by 1705 through non-renewal or escheat. Thus, h3/2 - (22 x .20) = 17. The preferred estimate accepts assump- tions 2 and 3, but allows for twenty-five percent under-recording of leases. Thus 1+3 + ('3 x .25) a sh. (sh/2) . 27. 27 — (27 x .20): 22. The total number of free adult males was calculated from.the census of l70h (table 2, page 22). Several adjustments are necessary since 1) the census lumps free male non-householders with servant men and 2) the category "heads of household" includes some non-males. In order to determine the number of free non-householding men, the number of servant men was first calculated from.other data. .Accord— ing to the assumptions made in appendix B, table B-l in 1705 the total county servant population, male and female, was 36h. The next step is to divide the servant population by sex. If we assume that the number of free adult women was equal to the number of’heads of ‘household listed in the lTOh census, then 77 of the h85 women listed 503 Notes to Table D—lgL Continued in the census category "free women and servants" were servants. Thus, 287 of the estimated servant population of 36k were males. This number can now be subtracted from the 390 men listed in the census as free non-householders and servants leaving 103 free males. The census takers clearly included widows and some quarters in the category "heads of household" (Menard, Econony and Society, ch. 6). An allowance of 2 percent was subtracted for quarters. (Work done on the Prince George's County census suggests an allowance in this range. Menard, Econonw and Society, ch. 6). Among land- owners the proportion of widows heading households was 6.6 percent. If we assume that all of the 103 non-householders were unmarried, and that the same proportion of widows headed tenant as landed households, then the total number of widows to be subtracted is 20. The number of free adult men in the county can now be calculated (in the following way. 1:08 heads of household minus 8 quarters minus 20 widows leaves 380 male householders plus 103 free non-householders equals 1183 adult free males. ”The high estimate assumes 1) that freeholders with less than 50 acres voted. 2) that tenants and non-householders in the living population had the same wealth levels as the decedent population. 3) that pro- prietary tenants did not own freehold land. it) that all land available for long-term leasing was taken up. +The low estimate makes the following assumptions. 1) Freeholders with less than 50 acres did not vote. 2) Tenants and non-householders in the living population did not have the same wealth levels as the decedent population (here a 15 percent reduction was entered to compensate for age bias) and that since non-freeholders with £h0 or more in personal property were likely to be long-term leaseholders (and thus counted twice in the high estimate) an additional 75 percent should be deducted to eliminate double counting. 3) Since proprietary leaseholders often held freeholds as well, the number of proprietary tenants qualifying by leasehold alone was reduced by one-third. h) For the number of long- term non-proprietary leaseholders see note 5. #The preferred estimate assumes: 1) All freeholders voted regardless of acreage held. 2) The wealth of tenants and non-householders should be corrected for age bias as in the low estimate, but reduced by only 50 percent to eliminate double counting. 3) Proprietary leaseholders should be reduced by 25 percent to eliminate double counting. h) A com- pensatory factor for under-recording should be added to the number of long-term leaseholders as described in note 5. Table 02 Characteristics of Individual Charles County Justices 504 25""' """'~-~I~Iun. ii"""""‘”"'~|~luu., um ZSEZSZEEiESE'SiEEEEZ A a! A “A Aduddddcuudadc aaaaaa a-“ 0 hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh 200- we“ Hi 2. i. §.§oa.§gaas§§a. MCQIIII‘HIIQ”HI.~IHI 3"“. canons-nadauaan ssssi~sisszizzatagia isegigasg§a§°a§§§s§a s nannnnannaannannaann NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN "iiiai m m Iii am his: ii” : in: h M afi-sstsecac-sa-onaas OINOI..I=H|O “I “C.:: ............ a.“ illiiiiiiilizsfiiiiéi ~t§tg§ntg§giigsg3-g§ nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn a. a. 600.com onosniuonasnn A ~~H..HH=-HH~NNMHH~MN Table 0:! Continued 506 fi":“‘“*£~*§“é§"§"§§" si-- .s- I; .................... g! .................... 315331333333§33332333 i m 1t? m) aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa nu sh n S ..... a iiiiiiiiiii o- 0 0- d I: CCCCC a ......... at. tissssaaztssssatassa 1523: l. 11%! i OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO A ~.~~~N~~NNUHH-N~H~~= 5'35 3 an. 22! i: iii ' 3:11 :3i3 " “ 507 main: dddddddd 1 “H! as ----- :0“ III s-s ''''' 9a2§§§~s a-sissit fifififififififi 1:235 508 Key; to Table D-2: Economic Status at first appearance 1. Imigrated as servant. . Immigrated as freeman, no capital. . Immigrated or came of age with small capital. . Immigrated or came of age with moderate capital. . Immigrated or came of age with substantial capital. . Imigrated or came of age with substantial capital and title. aunt-mm Economic Status at death, emigration or 1705 l. Pauper. . Laborer or tenant. . Small planter. . Middling planter. . Large planter and/or merchant. . Among wealthiest in colony. Gun 3’00“) Total Est ate Value Value in pounds sterling of personal estate at death. Occupation Planter unless otherwise specified. Occupation preceded by two dashes indicates occupation in addition to planting. Religion C . Roman Catholic. P I Protestant; P-A I Anglican; P-P a Presbyterian. Q 8 Quaker. Literacy Usually measured by ability to sign name. Title B =- before. D 8 during. A I after BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY BIBLIOGRAPHIC ESSAY Nature of the Primary Sources The major source used for this study is the Charles County Court and Land Records housed in the Maryland state archives, the Hall of Records, in Annapolis. Charles County records through 167A are published in the Maryland.Archives, volumes 53 and 60. Otherwise the scholar must consult the manuscripts. These consist mainly of court proceedings (minutes, judgments, levy accounts, etc.) and recordations (land convey- ances, bills of sale, letters of attorney, vital records, livestock marks, etc.). In the earliest volumes, proceedings and documents are enrolled together. By the 16908 the clerks began keeping the two series in sep- arate volumes. Descriptions of the two series can be found in Morris L. Radoff, Gust Skordas, and Phebe R. Jacobsen, The-County Courthouses and. Records 9}; Mland, £2.11 _qu: The Records, Hall of Records Commission Publication no. 13 (Annapolis: State of Maryland, 1963) and Louis Dow Scisco, "Colonial Records of Charles County," _M_i_m_ 21 (1926): 261-69. Surviving parish vestry minutes and registers for county churches, also available at the Hall of Records, proved far less useful. These do not begin until the 16908 and contain only a few pages of records relevant to this study. Various record series generated by the Provincial Government extend and supplement the materials contained in the county court records. Some of the most important are printed in the Maryland.Archives, and unpub- lished materials are available at the Hall of Records. 509 510 The Prerogative Court series is used extensively in this study. This series consists of wills, estate inventories, administration accounts, and prerogative court proceedings. Throughout the colonial period all probate materials from.the various counties were kept and officially recorded in the central Prerogative Court. Thus, in order to locate all extant probate records for individual counties, the scholar must examine the colonyawide series. Re-recorded volumes of wills, inventories, and accounts compiled in the counties following an Act of Assembly in 1777 afford more convenient reference to these materials, but are very incomplete, especially for the years prior to 1680. The Land Office records for the period studied consist of quit- rent rolls; warrants; and a combination of proofs of right, warrants, surveys, and patents recorded together in a series called the Patent Libers. In this study the rent rolls of 1659 and non-07 for Charles and neighboring counties were particularly useful for determining who did and who did not own land and what the distribution of land was. The other series were used to fill out landholding infbrmation not con- tained in the rent rolls or county land records. Useful in completing biographical information on county residents and in extending topical files were the proceedings of the governor and council, the journals and acts of the Assembly, and the proceedings of the provincial court. The first two series are printed in full in the Magyland.Archives, while the third is in print through 1683. Thereafter, deeds, judgments, and loose papers may be consulted in manuscript. 511 Some of the most important non-public primary sources are the correspondence, promotional tracts, and travelers' descriptions col- lected in the Narratives 93 Early Maryland, 1633-1681;, edited by Clayton Colman Hall (New York: Charles Scribner's 8: Sons, 1910). Other pub- lished sources which pertain to the seventeenth-century Chesapeake include Hugh Jones, The Present State 9}; Virginia From Whence _i_s_ Inferred A Short View _o_f_ _M_a_ry1and and North Carolina, ed. with Introduction by Richard L. Morton (London: 172h; Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press for the Virginia Historical Society, 1956); William Fitz- hugh's correspondence in William Fitzhugh and His Chesapeake World, 1676-1701, Richard Beale Davis, ed. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press for Virginia Historical Society, 1963); Ebenezer Cook, The Sot-Weed Factor, in Works 2;: Ebenezer Cook, Gent.: Laureat o_f_ land . . ., ed. Bernard C. Steiner, Maryland Historical Society Fund Publication no. 36 (Baltimore: John Murphy and Sons for the Mary- land Historical Society, 1900); John Clayton's correspondence in Edmund and Dorothy Smith Berkeley, ed. , T_h_e_ Reverend John Clayton, A Parson with a Scientific Mind, his Scientific Writings and 9_t_1_l_e_l; Related Papers (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1965); Robert Beverley, The History and Present m 2; Virginia, ed. Louis B. Wright (Charlot- tesville: University Press of Virginia, 191:7); the "Narrative of a Voyage to Maryland, 1705-06," American Historical Review 12 (1907): 327411; and "Maryland in 1699: A Letter from the Rev. Hugh Jones," Michael Kammen, ed. , Journal g Southern History 29 (1963): 362-72. Invaluable for filling out biographies are a series of data files compiled from primary sources by various scholars and research groups 512 pursuing prosopographical studies in seventeenth-century Maryland. These include Lois Carr's biographies of early Prince George's County settlers in appendix 2 of her dissertation "County Government in Mary- land, 1689-1709" (Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1968); Russell R. Menard's "Major Officeholders in Maryland to 1689," MS, Hall of Records; the biographies of Maryland.burgesses and councillors compiled by the "Maryland Legislative History Project, 1635-1789," Edward C. Papenfuse and David W. Jordan, principal investigators, MS, Hall of Records; and a biographical file of seventeenth-century St. Mary's County residents compiled by the St. Mary's City Commission, MS, Hall of Records. A Computer tapes and printouts analyzing all extant probate inven- tories and accounts for the four lower western shore counties of St. Mary's, Calvert, Charles, and Prince George's from.l658 to 1705 (St. Mary's City Commission, "Social Stratification in Maryland, 1658-1705," National Science Foundation Grant GS—32272) provided much of the quanti- tative data on which chapters h and 5 were based and also permitted a comparison of Charles with neighboring counties in chapter 7. As with the biographical files cited above, the availability of such a data bank gives the individual scholar access to much more quantitative material than he himself could practically collect and process. Secondary_Sources While some older works on Chesapeake history proved useful as background material for this study (especially Charles M. Andrews, The Colonial Period 93 American History, h vols, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1936); Lewis C. Gray, The History_gf_Agriculture in_ 513 thg_Southern United States, 2 vols. (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Insti- tution of washington, 1932); Newton D. Mereness, Maryland.a§_gLProprie- tg£y_Province (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1901); and Arthur Pierce Middleton, Tobacco 933.111: _A Maritime History 93 Chesapeake £21 31 gig Colonial Ere (Newport News, Va.: The Mariners' Museum, 1953)), I have relied most heavily on the recent work of a number of historians interested in the demographic, social, and economic history of the colonial Chesapeake. Arthur Eli Karinen's "Numerical and Distributional Aspects of Maryland Population, 1631-18h0" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Mary- land, 1958) provides an overview of Maryland population. The work begun by Karinen is expanded and corrected in Russell Menard's dissertation, "Economy and Society in Early Colonial Maryland" (Ph.D. dissertation, university of Iowa, 197A), and in his articles and reports on immigration and natural increase ("Immigrants and Their Increase: The Process of Population Growth in Early Colonial Maryland," in Aubrey C. Land, Lois Green Carr, and Edward C. Papenfuse, eds.,gg, Society, an_d Politics in Early land: Essen in 112221; _o_f_‘ Morris _ngn M (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, forthcoming, May, 1977); "Immigration to the Chesapeake Colonies in the Seventeenth Century: A Review Essay," M§M_ 58 (1973): 323—29; "The Growth of Population in Early Colonial Maryland, 1631-1712," unpublished report prepared for the St. Mary's City Commis- sion, April, 1972; and "Population Growth and Land Distribution in St- Mary's County," unpublished report prepared fer the St. Mary's City Come mission, May, 1971). Some precise measures of longevity and fertility, rare for Chesapeake studies, appear in Menard's analysis of Somerset County vital records ("The Demography of Somerset County, Maryland: 514 A Preliminary Report," paper presented to the Stony Brook Conference on Social History, Stony Brook, New York, June, 1975); in Lorena s. Walsh and Russell R. Menard, "Death in the Chesapeake: Two Life Tables for Men in Early Colonial Maryland," Mild; 69 (1971:): 211-27; and in Darret B. and Anita H. Rutman, "'Nowaives and Sons-in-Law'= Parental Death in a Seventeenth Century Virginia County," in Tate, ed., The Chesapeake in. the Seventeenth Century; while Menard's "A Profile of the Maryland Slave Population, 1658-1730: A Demographic Study of Blacks in Four Counties," EMQ_32 (1975): 29-5h, is a pioneering study in the demography of the early slavery period. Wesley Frank Craven's White, Red, and Black: The_ Seventeenth-Century Virginian (Charlottesville: University Press of Vir- ginia, 1971) provides an introduction to the history of white immigration to Virginia. Abbot E. Smith's Colonists i2 Bondage: White Servitude and Con- v_igg Law in America, 1607-1116 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, l9h7), is the most comprehensive study of indentured servitude in the colonies. Richard B. Morris, Government and Labor E2 Early.America (New York: Columbia University Press, l9h6), is also use- ful as is Mildred Campbell's "Social Origins of Some Early Americans" in James Morton Smith, ed., Seventeenth Century America: Essays in_Colonial History (Chapel Hill: university of North Carolina Press, 1959), pp. 63- 89. Russell Menard's work goes far in describing and explaining the rise and fall of servitude and its relation to the tobacco trade in colonial Maryland. (See especially "Economy and Society"; "The Transformation of the Chesapeake Labor System, 1680-1710," paper read before the Southern Historical Association, Miami, Florida, 1972; and "From Servant to Free- holder: Status Mbbility and Property Accumulation in Seventeenth-Century Maryland," 1M3 30 (1973): 37.-61:.) 515 Essential to an understanding of the political and institutional structure of colonial.Maryland are Lois Green Carr's dissertation and articles on county government ("County Government in Maryland, 1689-1709" (Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1968); "The Development of the Maryland Orphan's Court, 16514-1715," in Land, Carr, and Papenfuse, eds., Law, Society, and Politics; "The Foundations of Social Order: Local Government in Colonial Maryland," in Essays gr the Structure 22 Local Government ;r_the American Colonies, Bruce C. Daniels, ed., forthcoming; and "Magistracy and Social Order in Seventeenth—Century Maryland," a paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Historical Asso- ciation, Atlanta, November, 1973), and Carr's and David Jordan's Maryland's Revolution gr_Government, 1689—1692, St. Mary's City Commission Publica— tion no. 1 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, l97h), a study of the revolution of 1689. David Jordan's work on provincial elites is also most useful ("Political Stability and the Emergence of a Native Elite in Maryland, 1660-1715," in Tate, ed. , The Chesapeake lg 1hr; Seventeenth Centrry , as is his dissertation on the royal period of Maryland colonial government ("The Royal Period of Colonial Maryland, 1689-1715" (Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton university, 1966)). Recent articles by P. M. G. Harris, Menard, and Carr stemming both from.individual research and from collaboration in research projects of the St. Mary's City Commission provide a basis for understanding the economy and social structure of Maryland's lower western Shore. See especially, Menard, Harris, and Carr, "Opportunity and Inequality: The Distribution of Wealth on the Lower Western Shore of Maryland, 1638- 1705, MHM_69 (l97h): 169-8h; Carr, "'The Metropolis of Maryland': A Com- ment on Town Development Along the Tobacco Coast," MHM 69 (l97h): l2h-h5; 516 and.Menard, "Economy and Society." Detailed studies of special groups in Chesapeake society are found in Carr and.Menard, "Servants and Freed- men in Early Colonial Maryland," in Tate, ed., 232.0hesapgake $2.222. Seventeenth Centgry; and in Carr and Walsh, "The Planter's Wife: The Experience of White Women in Seventeenth-Century Maryland," WMQ_(forth- coming, Octdber, 1977). Social and economic studies of other colonial Maryland counties, useful for comparison and contrast, are Paul G. E. Clemens, "From Tobacco to Grain: Economic Development on Maryland's Eastern Shore, 1660-1750" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, l97h); Carville V. Earle, Evolution _o_f_ a Tidewater Settlement System: All Hallow's Parish, M_a_.ry:_ land, 1650-1783, University of Chicago Department of Geography Research Paper no. 170 (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1975); Allan Kulikoff, "Tobacco and Slaves: Population, Economy, and Society in Eighteenthé Century Prince George's County, Maryland" (Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis University, 1976); and Gloria Lund Main, "Measuring wealth and Welfare: Explorations in the Use of Probate Records from Colonial Maryland and Massachusetts, 1650-1720" (Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1972). Some recent social and community studies for colonial Virginia which also proved helpful include Bernard Bailyn, "Politics and Social Structure in Virginia," in Smith, ed., Seventeenth-Century America; Edmund S. Morgan, "Slavery and.Ereedom: The American Paradox," Journal gr_American History 59 (1972): 5-29; Darrett Rutman, "The Social web: A Prospectus for the Study of Early American Community," in Insights and Parallels: Problems and Issues gr_American Social Stgdy, ed. William L. O'Neill (Minneapolis: 517 Burgess Publishing Co., 1973), pp. 57-123; Darrett and Anita Rutman, "'Nowbwives and Sons-in-Law'"; and idem., "Of Agnes and Fevers: Malaria in the Chesapeake, W_M_QL 33 (1976): 31—60; Kevin P. Kelly, "Economic and Social Development of Seventeenth-Century Surry County, Virginia" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, 1972); and Michael Lee Nicholls, "Origins of the Virginia Southside, 1703-1753; A Social and Economic Study" (Ph.D. dissertation, College of William.and.Mary in Virginia, 1972). The bibliography which follows includes only works cited in the text and is divided into six sections: manuscripts (listed according to depository), printed or processed primary sources, works dealing with techniques and concepts, secondary sources on the colonial Chesa- peake, secondary sources pertaining to seventeenth and eighteenth century Britain, and secondary sources dealing with other British American colonies. The last two categories consist of works cited for purposes of comparison and contrast and are not in any sense complete listings of sources for these areas. BIBLIOGRAPHY Manuscripts 1. Hall of Records, Annapolis, Maryland a. Charles County Records Charles County Court and Land Records Charles County Inventories Charles County Wills b. Other County Records Montgomery County Land Records Somerset County Deeds c. Parish Records All Faith's Parish Vestry Proceedings Piscattaway Parish Parish Register and Vestry Minutes d. Provincial Records Chancery Records Inventories and Accounts Patent Series Provincial Court Deeds Provincial Court Judgments Provincial Court Papers Rent Rolls Testamentary Proceedings Wills 2. Maryland Historical Society, Baltimore, Maryland Calvert Papers 3. National Archives, Washington, D.C. Revolutionary War Pension Series h. Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. PRO Transcripts, COS/Th9 518 519 5. Folger Shakespeare Library, washington, D.C. Folger MS vb l6 6. Research Office, Colonial Williamsburg, Inc., Williamsburg, Va. Microfilm copy of Sloane MSS no. 1008, ff. 33h-35, in the British Museum, London. Printed gr Processed Prrpgry_8ources Alsop, George. "A Character of the Province of Maryland," in Clayton Colman Hall, ed. Narratives prLEarly Maryland, l633-8h. New York: Charles Scribners & Sons, 1910. Archives 93 M_p._ryland. William Hand Browne et. a1. , eds. 72 vols. Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1883- . Beverley, Robert. The History and Present State pr_Virginia. ed. Louis B. Wright. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 19147. Bordley, John Beale. A Spppgry.View of the Courses of Crops in the Husbm mgry_ ofE ngim ad and Mgryland; 'with a Coppgrison_ of’Their Products; and a System_ of Improved Conrses Propgsed_ for Farms in America. Philadelphia: n. p., 17 "Byrd to Sadlier and Thomas, October 8,1686," and "Byrd to Perry and Lane, November 10,1686." Virginia Magazine _o_f_ History and Bio- Epppy 25 (1917)=133-3h. Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, American and West Indies. W'. N. Sainsbury et al., eds. HE vols. to date. London: Public Record Office, 1860- . Calvert Papers. Maryland.Historical Society Fund Publication no. 28. Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1889. Charles County Historical Society, Port TCbacco, Maryland. File of County Tombstone Records. Clayton, John. Tpg.Reverend John Clgypon, ApParson‘withIg.Scientific Mind, p;§_Scientific writings gpd_0ther Related Papers. eds. Edmund and Dorothy Smith Berkeley. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1965. Cook, Ebenezer. The Sot-Weed Factor in works of Ebenezer Cook, Gent. Laureat of Maryland . . . ed. Bernard _C. _Steiner. Maryland Historical Society Fund Publication no. 36. Baltimore: John Murphy and Sons for the Maryland Historical Society, 1900. 520 Fitzhugh, William, William Fitzhugh and His Chesapeake WOrld, 1616- 110 . ed. Richard Beale Davis. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press for Virginia Historical Society, 1963. French, Elizabeth. List of migpants_ to America from,Liverpool, 1621 11 1. Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1969. Ghirelli, Michael. A List of Emigrants from En and.pp_America, 1682- mg Baltimore: Magna Carta Books, 19 Hall, Clayton Colman, ed. Narratives g£_Ear1y Maryland, 1633-168h. New York: Charles Scribners & Sons, 1910. Hammond, John. "Leah and Rachel, or, The Two Fruitful Sisters, Virginia and.Maryland (1656)" in Clayton Colman Hall, ed. Narratives of Early Mpgylw Md, 1633-168h. New York: Charles Scribners & Sons, 1910. Hartsook, Elizabeth and Skordas, Gust. Land Office Lnd Prerogative Court Records of Colonial Mpgylm d. Hall of Records Commission Publication not-h. Annapolis: Hall of Records Commission, l9h6. Hernden, G. Melvin, ed. ‘William Tatham.and the Culture of Tobacco. Coral Gables, Fla.: University of Miami Press, 1969_. Jones, Hugh. The Present State ofV irginia From Whence ig_Inferred A Short VLew of Mapyland_ and,North Carolina. ed. with Introduction by Richard L. Morton. London: 1725. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press for the Virginia Historical Society, 1956. Kammen, Michael, ed. "Maryland in 1699: A Letter from.the Rev. Hugh Jones." Journal g£_Southern Histopy 29 (1963): 362-72. MbAnear, Beverly. "Mariland's Grevances Wiy The[y] Have Taken Op Arms." Journal.g£_Southern Histopy 8 (19h2): 329-h09. "Maryland Legislative History Project, 1635-1789." Edward C. Papenfuse and David W. Jordan, principal investigators. MS. Hall of Records, Annapolis, Maryland. Menard, Russell R. "Major Officeholders in Maryland to 1689." MS. Hall of Records, Annapolis, Maryland. "Narrative of a Voyage to Maryland, 1705-O6." American Historical Review 12 (1907): 327-hl. Nicholson, C. D. P. Some Early Emi rm wts to Aerica. Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1965. Nickalls, John L., ed. The Journal of George Fox. rev. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952. 521 Pargellis, Stanly, ed. "An Account of the Indians in Virginia." WMQ 16 (1959): 228-h3. Saint Mary's City Commission. "Career File of Seventeenth Century St. Mary's County Residents." MS. Hall of Records, Annapolis, Maryland. . "Social Stratification in Maryland, 1658-1705." National Science Foundation Grant GS-32272. Scot, George. 222 Model of the Government of the Province 9£_East-New- Jersey in America. Edinburgh: n.p., 1885. Quoted in John w. Garrettj—"Seventeenth Century Books Relating to Maryland." lggg 2h (1939): 13-1h. Skordas, Gust, ed. The Early Settlers of Maryland. Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1975. Smith, Joseph H. and Growl, Philip, eds. Court Records 2: Prince George's County, Maryland, 1696-1699. American Legal Records vol. 9. Washington, D.C.: American Historical Society, l96h. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Historical Statistics g§.the United States, Colonial Times 32.1257. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1980. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. General Soil Map for Southern Maryland. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1972. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in Coopera- tion with Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station. Soil Survey, Prince George's Count , Maryland. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1937. White, Father.Andrew. "A Briefe Relation of the Voyage unto Maryland, by Father Andrew White, l63h," in Clayton Colman Hall, ed. Nar- ratives 93 Early Maryland, 1633-168h. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1910. Secondary Sources 2E,Methods and Concepts Barclay, George W. Technigues 2£_Population.Analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1958. Coale, Ansley J. and Demeny, Paul. Regional Model Life Tables and Stable Populations. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966. Gautier, Etienne and Henry, Louis. 4L§,prnlati n dg_Crulai, Paroisse Normande. Paris: n.p., 1958. 522 Henretta, James A. "The Quantification of 'Consciousness.'" Paper presented at the Stony Brook Conference on Quantification in Early American Social History, June 13, 1975. Hillery, George A., Jr. "Definitions of Community: Areas of Agree- ment." Rural Sociology-2O (1955): 111-23. Hollingsworth, T. H. Historical Demography, Ithaca: Cornell Univer- sity Press, 1969. . "The Importance of Quality of the Data in Historical Demo- graphy." Daedalus 27 (Spring 1968): h15-32. Main, Gloria L. "Probate Records as a Source for Early American History." mg 32 (1975): 89-W Mayo, Selz C. "Testing Criteria of Rural Locality Groups." Rural Sociology 1h (19kg): 317-25. Slocum, Walter L. and Case, Herbert M. "Are Neighborhoods Meaningful Social Groups Throughout Rural America?" Rural Sociology 18 (1953): 52-59. Smith, Daniel Scott. "Underregistration and Bias in Prdbate Records: An Analysis of'Data from.Eighteenth-Century Hingham, Massachusetts." WMQ 32 (1975): 100-10. wrigley, E. A.. "Family Reconstitution," in An Introduction to hglish Historical Demography_ from the Sixteenth to the Nineteenth Centggy. ed. E. A. Wrigley. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1966. . An Introduction to kglish Historical Demoggaphy from.the Sixteenth to the Nineteenth Century. London: Wiedenfeld and Nicholson, 1966'. Secondagy Sources 95.the Colonial Chesapeake Andrews, Charles M. The Colonial Period of American Histogy. h vols. New'Haven: Yale University Press, 1936. Bailyn, Bernard. "Politics and Social Structure in Virginia," in James M. Smith, ed. Seventeenth-Century America: Essays ig_ Colonial Histogy. Chapel Hill: university of North Carolina Press, 1959. Beitzel, Edwin Warfield. The Jesuit Missions g£_St. Magy's County, Mggyland. N.p.: by the author, 1960. Bertelson, David. The Lazy South. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967. 523 Billings, Warren M; "The Cases of Fernando and Elizabeth Key: A Note on the Status of Blacks in Seventeenth-Century Virginia." EMQ,30 (1973): h67-7h. Breen, Timothy H. "A Changing Labor Force and.Race Relations in Vir- ginia, 1660-1710." Journal of Social Histogy 7 (1973): 3-25. Campbell, Mildred. "Social Origins of Some Early Americans," in James M. Smith, ed. Seventeenth-Century_America: Essays Lg. Colonial Histogy. Chapel Hill: university of North Carolina Press, 1959. Carr, Lois Green. "Ceramics from.the John Hicks Site, 1723-17h3: The St. Mary's Town Land Community," in Ian M. G. Qmimby, ed. Ceramics ;2_America. Winterthur Conference Report, 1972. Charlot- tesville: University Press of Virginia, 1973. . "County Government in Maryland, 1689-1709." Ph.D. dissertap tion, Harvard university, 1968. . "The Development of the Maryland Orphans Court, 165h-1715," in Aubrey C. Land, Lois Green Carr, and Edward C. Papenfuse, eds. Law, Society, and.Politics in Earl Magylm Essgys‘;p_Honor 2;. Morris Leon Radoff. Baltimore. Johns Hopkins University Press, forthcoming, 1977. . "The Foundations of Social Order: Local Government in Colonial Maryland," in.Bruce C. Daniels, ed. Essays Ln the Struc- ture Lf Local Government in the American Colonies, forthcoming. . "Magistracy and Social Order in Seventeenth-Century Maryland." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Historical Association, Atlanta, November, 1973. _________ "'The Metropolis of’Maryland': A Comment on Town Development Along the Tobacco Coast." MHM 69 (197k): 12h-h5. , Harris, P. M. G., and.Menard, Russell R. "The Development of Society in the Colonial Chesapeake: A Program.fbr Analysis." Sup- plemental proposal submitted to the National Endowment fer the Humanities. December 1975. and Jordan, David W. Maryland's Revolution Lf Government, 1682-1622. St. Mary's City Commission Publication no. 1. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 197h. and Menard, Russell R. "Servants and Freedmen in Early Colonial Maryland," in Thad W. Tate, ed. The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Centpgy: Euroamerican Politics and Society. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, forthcoming. 524 and Walsh, Lorena S. "The Planter's Wife: The Experience of White Women in Seventeenth-Century Maryland." Egg, forthcoming, Octdber, 1977. and Walsh, Lorena S. "How Colonial Tobacco Planters Lived: Consumption Patterns in St. Mary's County, Maryland, 1658-1777." Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Southern Historical Association, Atlanta, November, 1976. Carson, Cary. "The 'Virginia House' in Maryland." _MEM 69 (1971:): 185-96. and Carson, Barbara. "Styles and Standards of Living in Southern Maryland, 1670-1760." Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Southern Historical Association, Atlanta, November 1976. Clemens, Paul G. E. "From.Tdbacco to Grain: Economic Development of Maryland's Eastern Shore, 1660-1750." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 19TH. Craven, Wesley Frank. White, Red, and Black: The Seventeenth-Century Virginian. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1971. Curtin, Philip D. "Epidemiology and the Slave Trade." Political Science QuarterLz_83 (1968): l91-216. Deen, James W., Jr. "Patterns of Testation: Four Tidewater Counties in Colonial Virginia," American Journal g§_ngal_Histogy 16 (1972): 15h-76. “““"’ Degler, Carl. "Slavery and the Genesis of American Race Prejudice." Comparative Studies ig_Society and History 2 (1959): h9-66. De Michele, Michael David. "The Glorious Revolution in Maryland: A Study of the Provincial Revolution of 1689." Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1967. Duffy, John. Epidemics ig_Colonial.America. Baton Rouge, La.: Louisiana State University Press, 1953. Earle, Carville V. Evolution ggLa Tidewater Settlement System: All_ Hallow's Parish, Magyland, 1620-1183. University of Chicago Department of Geography Research Paper no. 170. Chicago: Univer- sity of Chicago, 1975. Ellefson, Ashley. "Free Jupiter and the Rest of the Werld: The Problems of a Free Negro in Colonial Maryland," MHM 66 (1971): 1-13. Gill, Harold B., Jr. "Cereal Grains in Colonial Virginia." Report pre- pared for Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Inc. October, l97h. 525 "Tobacco Culture in Colonial Virginia, A Preliminary Report." Report prepared for Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Inc. April, 1972. Gleissner, Richard A. "Religious Causes of the Glorious Revolution in Maryland." MHM 6h (1969): 327-h1. Gray, Lewis C. The Histogy gflAgriculture ig_the Southern United States. 2 vols. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1932. Handlin, Oscar and Handlin, Mary. "The Origin of the Southern Labor System." mg 7 (1950): 199—222. Hecht, Irene W. D. "The Virginia Muster of l62h/5 As a Source for Demographic History." WMQ 30 (1973): 65-92. Hughes, Sarah Shaver. "Elizabeth City County, Virginia, 1782-1810." Ph.D. dissertation, The College of William.and.Mary in Virginia, 1976. Jordan, David W. "Political Stability and the Emergence of a Native Elite in Maryland," in Thad W. Tate, ed. The Chesapeake _i_n_ plug Seventeenth Centggy: Euroamerican Politics agg_Society. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, forthcoming. . "The Royal Period of Colonial Maryland, 1689-1715." Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, 1966. Jordan, Winthrop D. White Over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Neggo, 1250-1812. Institute of Early American History and Culture series. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1968. Kammen, Michael G. "The Causes of the Maryland Revolution of 1689." £91 55 (1960): 293-333. , Hall, Michael G., and Leder, Lawrence H. The Glorious Revolue tion in America, Documents on the Colonial Crisis 93 1682. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1965. Karinen, Arthur Eli. "Numerical and Distributional Aspects of'Maryland Population, 1631-18h0." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, 1958. Karraker, Cyrus H. The Seventeenth-Century Sheriff: A;Comparative Stugy 9_f_ the Sheriff _i_n_ England and the Chesapeake Colonies, l 01- 2. Chapel Hill: Univerfiity of North Carolina Press, 1930. Kelly, Kevin P. "Economic and Social Development of Seventeenth-Century Surry County, Virginia." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washing- ton, 1972. 526 "Political Order in Surry County, Virginia, 1682-1703." Paper presented at the 32nd Conference in Early American History, College Park, November, 1971:. Kinnaman, John A. "The Public Levy in Colonial Maryland to 1689." £214; 53 (1958): 253-7”- Kulifkoff, Allan. "From African to American: Slave Community Life in Eighteenth Century Maryland," in Aubrey C. Land, Lois Green Carr, and Edward C. Papenfuse, eds. Law, Society, and Politics in Early Magland. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, forthcoming, 1977. . "Tobacco and Slaves: Population, EcononV, and Society in Eighteenth-Century Prince George's County, Maryland." Ph.D. dis- sertation, Brandeis University, 1976. Laing, Wesley N. "Cattle in Seventeenth Century Virginia." Virginia M_agazine _o_g Histogy and Biography 67 (1959): lh3-6h. Land, Aubrey C. "Economic Behavior in a Planting Society: The Eighteenth Century Chesapeake," Journal 9_f_ Southern Histogy 33 (1967): 1:69-85. ""'""" ‘— . "The Planters of Colonial Maryland." w 67 (1972): 109-28. "The Tobacco Staple and the Planter's Problems: Technology, Labor, and Crops," Agricultural History 1:3 (1969): 69—81. , Carr, Lois Green, and Papenfuse, Edward C. , eds. Law, Society, and Politics i_n Early M_a_ryland: Essays E Honor o_f_ Morris Leon Radoff. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, forthcoming, 1977- LoveJoy, David S. The Glorious Revolution i_n America. New York: Harper and Row, 1972. Main, Gloria Lund. "Maryland and the Chesapeake Econow, 1670 to 1720," in Aubrey C. Land, Lois Green Carr, and Edward C. Papenfuse, eds. Lair, Society, a_nd Politics :_L_I_1_ Early Bland. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, forthcoming, 1977. . "Measuring Wealth and Welfare: Explorations in the Use of Probate Records from Colonial Maryland and Massachusetts, 1650— 1720." Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1972. Matthews, Edward B. The Counties gt; Maryland, Their Origin, Boundaries, and Election Districts. Maryland Geological Survey, vol. 6, pt. 5. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1907. Menard, Russell R. "A Tract Map for St. Mary's County in 1705." Chronicles _o_f_ St. Mtg 21 (1973): 261-72. 527 . "The Demography of Somerset County, Maryland: A Preliminary Report." Paper presented to the Stony Brook Conference on Quanti- fication in Early American Social History, June, 1975. . "Economy and Society in Early Colonial Maryland." Ph.D. dis- sertation, University of Iowa, 197k. . "Farm Prices of Maryland Tobacco, l659-1710." _M_‘I_M_ 68 (1973): 60-85. . "From Servant to Freeholder: Status Mobility and Property Accumulation in Seventeenth-Century Maryland." WMQ 30 (1973): 37-6h. "Immigrants and.Their Increase: The Process of Population Growth in Early Colonial Maryland," in Aubrey C. Land, Lois Green Carr and Edward C. Papenfuse, eds. ‘ng, Society, and Politics in. Early Colonial Magyland. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, forthcoming, 1977. . "Immigration to the Chesapeake Colonies in the Seventeenth Century: A Review Essay." MHM 68 (1973): 323-29. . "Note on Chesapeake Tobacco Prices, 1618-1660." Virginia Magazine g£_Histo§y and Bioggaphy, forthcoming. . "The Growth of Population in Early Colonial Maryland, 1631- 1712." Unpublished report prepared for the St. Mary's City Comp mission. April, 1972. . "Population Growth and Land Distribution in St. Mary's County." Unpublished report prepared for the St. Mary's City Commission. May, 1971. . "A Profile of the Maryland Slave Population, 1658-1730: -A Demographic Study of Blacks in Four Counties." WMQ 32 (1975): 29- 5h. . Tract maps fOr St. Mary's County in 16h2 and l660. Unpublished maps prepared for the St. Mary's City Commission, 1972. . "The Transformation of the Chesapeake Labor System, 1680-1710." Paper read before the Southern Historical Association, Miami, Florida, 1972. , Harris, P. M. G., and Carr, Lois Green. "Opportunity and Inequality: The Distribution of Wealth on the Lower western Shore of Maryland, 1638-1705." MHM 69 (197k): 169-8h. Mereness, Newton D. 'Magyland.§§_ELProprietary Province. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1901. 528 Middleton, Arthur Pierce. Tobacco Coast: A_Maritime History 9£_Chesa- peake Bgy‘in_the Colonial Era. Newport News, Va.: The Mariners' Museum, 1953. MOrgan, Edmmnd S. "Slavery and Freedom: The American Paradox." Journal 'gf’American History 59 (1972): 5-29. Morris, Richard B. Government and Labor in_Early America. New York: Columbia University Press, l9h61 Newman, Harry Wright. The Lucketts of Port Tobacco. Washington, D.C.: by the author, 1938. Nichols, Michael Lee. "Origins of the Virginia Southside, 1703-1753: A Social and Economic Study." Ph.D. dissertation, The College of William and Mary in Virginia, 1972. Owings, Donnell M. His Lordship's Patronage. Studies ig_Magyland Histogy, no. 1. Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1953. . "Private Manors: An Edited List." M§M_33 (1938): 307-33. Radoff, Morris L., Skordas, Gust, and Jacobsen, Phoebe R. Thg_County Courthouses gnQ_Records g£_Mggyland; Part 9&3; The CourthOuses; Part Two, The Records. Hall of Records Commission Publication no. 13. Annapolis: State of Maryland, 1963. Reavis, William, "The Maryland Gentry and Social Mobility, 1637-1676." MI!» (1957): 1418-28. Ross, Nellie Grant. Charles County, Maryland, Tombstone and Bible Records. Report of the Genealogical Records Commission of the D.A.R., vol. 6h. washington, D.C.: Daughters of the American Revolution, 19h0. Rutman, Darrett B. "The Social web: A Prospectus for the Study of Early American Community," pp. 57-123, in Insights and Parallels: Problems and Issues of American Social Study. ed. William L. O'Neill. Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Co., 1973. and Rutman, Anita H. "'NowaWives and Sons-in-Law': Parental Death in a Seventeenth Century Virginia County," in Thad W. Tate, ed. The Chesapeake ig_the Seventeenth Centugy: Euroamerican Politics Egg Society. Chapel Hill: university of North Carolina Press, forthcoming. . "Of Agues and Fevers: Malaria in the Early Chesapeake." WMQ 33 (1976): 31-60. Scisco, Louis Dow. Colonial Records of Charles County." MHM 21 (1926): 529 . "Evolution of the Colonial Militia in Maryland." MHM 35 zl9h0): 166-77. Scriven, George B. "Maryland Medicine in the Seventeenth Century." MHM 57 (1962): 29-h6. Shammas, Carole. "English Born and Creole Elites in Turn of the Century Virginia," in Thad W. Tate, ed. The Chesapeake ia_the Seventeenth Century: Euroamerican Politics and Society. Chapel Hill: university of North Carolina Press, forthcoming. Smith, Abbot E. Colonists ia_Bondage: White Servitude and Convict Labor ig.America, 160 -l 6. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1957. Smith, James M. ed. Seventeenth-Century America: Essay§_ia_Colonial Histogy. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1959. Sparks, Francis. Causes gf_the Magyland Revolution 9£_1689. The Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, series 1h, nos. 11-12. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1896. Steiner, Bernard C. "The Protestant Revolution in Maryland," pp. 279- 353. Annual Repgrt of the American Historical Association for the Year 1821. Washingtan, D.C.: American Historical Association, 1898. Stone, Gary Wheeler. "St. John's: Archanlogical Questions and Answers." MHM 69 (197k): lh6-68. Tate, Thad W., ed. The Chesapeake ig.the Seventeenth Centggy: Euro- american Politics and Society. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, forthcoming. . walsh, Lorena S. "Report on Seventeenth-Century St. Mary's County Wills." Unpublished report prepared for the St. Mary's City Commission. November, 197k. . Tract map for St. Clement's Manor area and resident associa— tion networks. Unpublished maps prepared for the St. Mary's City Commission, 1975. ' and Menard, Russell R. "Death in the Chesapeake: Two Life Tables for Men in Early Colonial Maryland." MHM 69 (197k): 211-27. Wertenbaker, Thomas J. The Planters g£_Colonia1 Virginia. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1922. Wheeler, Joseph Towne. "Books Owned by Marylanders, 1700—1776." ‘M§M_ 35 (19ho): 337-53. Wycoff, Vertrees J. "Land Prices in Seventeenth-Century Maryland." American Economic Review 28 (1938): 81-88. 530 Secondary Sources Pertaining £9_Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Britain Campbell, Mildred. The Engaish Yeoman Under Elizabeth and the Early Stuarts. New Haven: Yale University Press, 19H2. Chambers, J. D. Population, Econogy, and Society la.Pre-Industria1 England. Oxford Paperbacks University Series. London: Oxford University Press, 1972. de Manse, Lloyd, ed. The History 9£_Childhood. New York: The Psycho- history Press, 1975. Everitt, Alan. "Farm Labourers," in The Agrarian Histogy g£_Eng1and and wales: Volume IV, 1500-16h0. ed. Joan Thrisk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Hair, P. E. H. "Bridal Pregnancy in Rural England in Earlier Centuries." Population Studies 20 (1966-67): 233-h3. Hill, Christopher. Society and Puritanism aa_Pre—Revolutionary Engaan . New York: Schocken Books, 196k. Hoskins, W. G. Essays aa_Leicestershire Histogy. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1950. . The Midland Peasant: The Economic and Social Histogy f a Leistershire Village. London: Macmillan & Co., 1957. Laslett, Peter. The WOrld We Have Lost. 2d ed. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971. Macfarlane, Alan. The Family Life g£.Ralph Josselin. Cambridge: Oxford university Press, 1970. Razell, P. E. "Population Change in Eighteenth-Century England, A Rein- terpretation," Economic Histogy Review, 2d ser., 18 (1965): 312-32. Sache, William.L., ed. The Diagy 9; Roger Lowe gglAshton-in-Makerfield, Lancashire, 1663-1h. With a Foreward by Wallace Notestein. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1938. Slatter, Doreen, ed. The Diagy‘gnghomas Naish [1685-1728]. N.p.: Wiltshire Archaelogical and.Natura1 History Society, Records Branch, 1965. Spufford, Margaret. Contrasting_Communities: English Villagers aa_the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. London: Cambridge University Press, l97h. Stone, Lawrence. The Crisis g£_the Aristocracy, l558-16h1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965. 531 Thompson, Roger. Women‘aa_Stuart Eagland and America: A Comparative Stuay. London and Boston: Routledge and Kegan, 197M. Tranter, N. L. "Demographic Change in Bedfordshire, 1670-1800." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Nottingham, 1966. Wrigley, E. A. "Family Limitation in Pre-Industrial England." Economic Histog; Review 19 (1966): 82-109. . "Mortality in Pre-Industrial England: The Example of Colyton, Devon Over Three Centuries." Daedalus 27 (1966): 5h6—80. Secondary Sources Dealing with Other British American Colonies Battalio, Raymond C. and Kagel, John. "The Structure of Ante-Bellum. Southern Agriculture: South Carolina, A Case Study," in William.N. Parker, ed. , The Structure _o_g 1:113 Cotton Econogy a; the Antebellum South. washington, D.C.: The Agricultural History Society, 1970. Bennett, J. Harry, Jr. "The Prdblem of Slave Labor Supply at Codrington." Journal 2.1:. Negro History 36 (1951): ho6-h1. Breen, Timothy and Foster, Stephen. "Moving to the New World: The Character of’Early Massachusetts Immigration." gyg_3o (1973): 189-222 . Demos, John. "Families in Colonial Bristol, Rhode Island: An Exercise in Historical Demography." WMQ 25 (1968): h0657. . _A_ Little Commonwealth: Family Life l9. Pamuth Coloay. London, Oxford, and.New York: Oxford University Press, 1970. Dunn, Richard S. "The English Sugar Islands and the Founding of South Carolina." The South Carolina Historical yagazine 72 (1971): 81-93 a . Sugar and Slaves: The Rise 2£_the Planter Class aa.the a25;;5a_weat Indies, 162h-1113. Institute of Early American History and Culture series. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1972. Gagan, David. "The Indivisibility of Land: A.MHcroanalysis of the System of Inheritance in Rural Ontario." Journal a£_Economic Histogy 36 (1976): 126-h6. Gallman, Robert E. "Selthufficiency in the Cotton Economy," in William N. Parker, ed. The Structure of the Cotton Econoay‘g£_the Antebellum South. Washington, D.C.: The Agricultural History Society, 1970. Greven, Philip J., Jr. Four Generations: Population, Land and Famigy $2. Colonial Andover, Massachusetts. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1970. 532 Illick, Joseph E. "Childrearing in Seventeenth Century England and America," in Lloyd de Mause, ed. The History 2; Childhood. New York: The Psychohistory Press, 1975i? Lemon, James T. The Best Poor Man's Country. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972. Lockridge, Kenneth. a New Eagland Town: The First Hundred Years. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., Inc., 1970. and Kreider, Alan. "The Evolution of Massachusetts Town Government, l6h0 to 17h0." WMQ 23 (1966): 5h9—7h. Morgan, Edmund S. The Puritan Famiay. rev. ed. New York: Harper and Row, 1966. Norton, Susan L. "Population Growth in Colonial America: A Study of Ipswich, Massachusetts," Population Studies 25 (1971): h33-52. Rutman, Darrett B. "Governor Winthrop's Garden Crop: The Significance of Agriculture in the Early Commerce of Massachusetts Bay," EMQ_ 20 (1963): 396-his. . Husbandmen a; Plyaouth: Farms and.Villages aa.the 01d Coloay, 1620-1622. Boston: Beacon Press, 1967. Sirmans, Eugene. Colonial South Carolina, a_Political Histogy, 1663- 1763. Institute of Early American History and.Cu1ture Series. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1966. Smith, Daniel Scott. "The Demographic History of Colonial New England." Journal 9; Economic History 32 (1972): 165-83. . "Parental Power and Marriage Patterns: An Analysis of Historical Trends in Hingham, Massachusetts." Journal ggwMarriage and the Family 35 (1973): hl9-28. Vinovskis, Maris A. "Mortality Rates and Trends in Massachusetts Befbre 1860." Journal 23_Economic Histogy 32 (1972): 18h-213. wells, Robert V. "Family Size and Fertility Control in Eighteenth-Century amegica: A Study of Quaker Families." Population Studies 25 (1971): 2" Se WOod, Peter H. Black Maqority: Negroes aa.Colonial South Carolina from 1610 throaga the Stono Rebellion. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1975. .6