Comments on Solomon Bird Sr.

Question

On 30 Mar 2023 Maurice Allison Jr wrote on Bird-2113:

Why would someone write this, "if either of my said daughters should unlawfully Cohabit or marry then they or either of them shall forfeit their right and Title to that part of my estate lent them", at that time?

Comments

Only a guess, but sounds like he did not want a daughterʻs hare of the estate to go to a husband or cohabitant of his daughters.

I wonder why the daughters are not listed on his profile.

---

The key word that I saw was “unlawfully.” What law would that have been?

---

It was unlawful to live as man and wife w/o being married

---

Was it also unlawful at that time to marry certain peoples?

---

I don't know state specific laws, but laws did exist against interracial marriage in many states well into the 1900's. The first law prohibiting interracial marriage was passed in Maryland General Assembly in 1691.

Answer 1

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but in those days, women were expected to marry someone capable of providing for them. Usually, the first-born son, for names sake, inherited the lions share to ensure the family name continue with prominence. Should a daughter choose to co-habitate, or bare children out of wedlock, thereby bringing shame upon the family name, they were disinherited. Let's not forget, not keeping the Sabbath Holy could deem you a witch, which could bring on other consequences.

Comments

How deep was the pool of candidates that was demonstrably capable of providing in those times?

I read that part of his statement differently. Perhaps your perception is correct.

---

another reason for young women to marry older men and marry young before they started having kids- whole different set of societal norms

wives were only left a maintenance for the most part as it was expected they would remarry