Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [genpcncfir] Discussion of InterMarriages

Expand Messages
  • Carol Singh
    Dear Jewelle, I also should have mentioned to prevent misunderstanding that the Richmond Times-Dispatch had a series of articles last year on the State of
    Message 1 of 8 , Jun 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Jewelle, I also should have mentioned to prevent
      misunderstanding that the Richmond Times-Dispatch had
      a series of articles last year on the State of
      Virginia eugenics movement (how eugenics came to the
      attention of doctors here and then got passed on to
      leaders in the business community and welfare
      reformers and ended up with the mass sterilization
      program conducted primarily by the state mental
      hospitals and referrals from mental health clinics and
      social services). In the course of the running of
      these articles, there were also featured articles
      giving interviews with families whose family members
      had been sterilized (it was an involuntary program).
      The governor of Virginia issued a public apology to
      these families and set up a compensation program for
      these families whose members had been sterilized. I
      learned about the sterilizations as a teenager because
      of where I was working at the time--I was just out of
      high school, and Mama was undergoing chemotherapy for
      uterine cancer. My stepfather died at home of a
      massive heart attack, and my uncle was in the
      sanitarium with t.b. It was not a subject that people
      discussed back then--not in my family anyway--so of
      course I never brought it up to anyone, but quite
      frankly, I really did not know what to think. I simply
      did my job and felt strongly that I did not understand
      adults. Carol
      --- Carol Singh <csinghworthington@...> wrote:
      > Dear Jewelle, Roger Kammerer of the Pitt County
      > Family
      > Researchers and I had a delightful telephone
      > conversation on this very subject. More often than
      > not
      > our Eastern Carolina relatives and their ancestors
      > intermarried to keep money and property within the
      > family. Another reason may also have been that
      > families tended to follow one another from the old
      > country and to live in clusters, with groups of
      > families settling the same area in the new world. As
      > with Adam and Eve, one might well ask who else was
      > there to marry? Look also at the Amish and at the
      > Icelanders where generation after generation
      > intermarried. Today, even in Virginia--though
      > Virginians are very tabooish on the subject--first
      > cousins may legally marry. Another reason for the
      > tabooish attitude here is that Virginia was very
      > eugenics oriented--pro Nazi sympathesizers in the
      > sense that they believed that we could breed out the
      > undesirables (mentally retarded, epileptics,
      > diseased,
      > addicted) through forced sterilizations which were
      > conducted here through the 1970's--and also
      > mistakenly
      > believed that cousin-to-cousin marriages put
      > children
      > at risk of genetic disorders. Within the past few
      > months, I read an article discussing research on the
      > topic of intermarriage where the researcher found
      > that
      > there were few if any contraindications for
      > cousin-to-cousin marriage and that, in fact, many
      > times the outcome was a more intelligent and
      > talented
      > offspring than from families where there was little
      > or
      > no intermarriage. If anyone is interested, I'll
      > revisit this topic and provide references to the
      > research or even pass along the findings directly by
      > typing relevant sections from the readings I have
      > done. Thanks for introducing a very interesting
      > topic.
      > Later, Carol
      > --- Jewelle Baker <jewellebaker@...> wrote:
      > > Hello Group...
      > > The below makes very interesting
      > reading....
      > > which I gleaned for you from NCYancy
      > > List, posted by Charmaine. Truth be known..
      > this
      > > can be said of ALL of the beginning
      > > families.
      > > In my personal research, I have found that
      > > my GGGGrandFather George
      > > McGLOHORN (who married twice) is the same on
      > either
      > > side.... CANNON line began
      > > with one of his sons and the JACKSON line with
      > > another..... now my task is by which
      > > wives :') Read on:
      > >
      > > Just noticed this question about whether
      > > intermarriages, first cousin
      > > marriages was common in Yancey Co., NC, in other
      > > family groups besides this one. Yes,
      > > it was actually a very common practice throughout
      > > western NC, and other
      > > regions in the South.
      > >
      > > This practice has been discussed by numerous
      > > published writers over time.
      > > Emma Belle Miles in her book Spirit of the
      > > Mountains, pub. 1905, reprinted 1975,
      > > University Tennessee Press, p. 13 -14, gave this
      > > description:
      > >
      > > "All children in the district are related by blood
      > > in one degree or another.
      > > Our roll call includes Sally Mary and Cripple
      > John's
      > > Mary and Tan's Mary, all
      > > bearing the same surname, and there is besides,
      > Aunt
      > > Rose Mary and Mary-Jo,
      > > living yon side of the creek. There are different
      > > branches of the Rogers
      > > family -- Clay and Frank, Red Jim and Lyin' Jim
      > and
      > > Singin' Jim and Black Jim
      > > Rogers -- in this district, their kin intermarried
      > > until no man could write their
      > > pedigree or ascertain the exact relation of their
      > > offspring to each other.
      > > This question does not disturb the children in the
      > > least. They never address
      > > each other as cousin........."
      > >
      > > Horace Kephart, in his book Our Southern
      > > Mountaineers A Narrative of
      > > Adventure in the Southern Appalachians and a Study
      > > of Life Among the Mountaineers,
      > > 1913, McMillan Company, p. 297, wrote this:
      > >
      > > "The evil consequences of inbreeding of persons
      > > closely akin are well known
      > > to the mountaineers: but here knowledge is no
      > > deterrent, since whole districts
      > > are interrelated to start with. Owing to the
      > > isolation of the clans, and their
      > > extremely limited travels, there are abundant
      > cases
      > > like those caustically
      > > mentioned in King Spruce: "All Skeets and
      > Bushees,
      > > married back and forth and
      > > crossways and upside down till ev'ry man is his
      > own
      > > grandmother, if he only
      > > knew enough to figger relationships." "
      > >
      > > David Hackett Fischer, in his book Albion's Seed
      > > Four British Folkways In
      > > America, 1989, Oxford University Press, discusses
      > > the cultural practice and
      > > reasons behind it.
      > >
      > > "The family ways of the backcountry, like its
      > speech
      > > and building ways, were
      > > also brought from the borderlands of North Britain
      > > (Note: the Scotch-Irish,
      > > who were the primary settlers of frontier North
      > > Carolina) and adapted to a new
      > > American environment with comparatively little
      > > change. "The conquest of the
      > > back parts," writes Carl Bridenbaugh, "was
      > achieved
      > > by families ...The
      > > fundamental social unit, was preserved intact
      > ...in
      > > a transplanting and reshuffling of
      > > European folkways."
      > >
      > > ....serial migration or stream migration was
      > common
      > > in the peopling of the
      > > backcountry. A few clan members opened a path for
      > > others, and were followed by
      > > a steady stream of kin.
      > >
      > > These concentrations of kinsmen, all bearing the
      > > same surname, created
      > > endless onomastic confusion. We are told that in
      > > Catawba County "so numerous were
      > > the tribe of the Alexanders that they had to be
      > > designated by their office,
      > > their trade or their middle name."
      > >
      > > "The clan system spread rapidly throughout the
      > > southern highlands, and
      > > gradually came to include English and German
      > > settlers as well as North Britons,
      > > because it worked so well in the new environment."
      > >
      > > Hope this helps explain why you may be finding
      > > cousin marriages in your
      > > family research. I stumbled upon this common
      > > practice in my own family lines
      > > several years ago and as I continued researching I
      > > found it appeared to be the
      > > norm, so I wanted to understand why. At this
      > point
      > > I have reached the conclusion
      > > that 2/3 of the families who descend from those
      > > early pioneers settlers are
      > > interrelated one way or another to the present
      > day.
      > > When I break it down I'm my
      > > own cousin several different ways, which never
      > > ceases to amaze me.
      > >
      > > Charmaine
      > >
      > > Interesting ...
      > > Jewelle
      > >
      > > jewellebaker@...
      > > jewelle@...
      > > Researching: (Main Capitalized)
      > > BAKER, Barrow, BEAMAN, BLOUNT, Bonner, Bours,
      > > Braxton, CANNON, Carraway,
      > > COX, Chester, Dail, ELLIS, Faircloth, Gardner,
      > > HANCOCK, HARDEE, Hardison,
      > > Harris, Harper, Harrington, Heath, Hollyman (all
      > > sp), JACKSON, Johnson,
      > > Jones, Letchworth, Manning, McGLOHON (all sp),
      > > McGOWAN, McKeel, Mills,
      > > Mitchell, Mumford, PHILLIPS, Price, Shaw, Smith,
      > > Sumrell, Stocks, Stokes,
      > > Tyson, Vandiford, Walls, Walston, Weeks,
      > Wilkerson,
      >
      === message truncated ===


      __________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
      http://calendar.yahoo.com
    • Carol Singh
      Dear Robert, Thanks so much for your research. With each state being a law unto itself in civil matters, it s impossible to make blanket statements about
      Message 2 of 8 , Jun 2, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Robert, Thanks so much for your research. With
        each state being a law unto itself in civil matters,
        it's impossible to make blanket statements about
        marriages. One state's restriction is another's
        license. It is also interesting to consider changes in
        laws over time. I don't know about N.C., of course,
        since I was a child when I moved to Virginia, but I
        have seen many changes in the laws here. That's what
        makes genealogy and history so exciting, though.
        Policy and law reflects the feelings and beliefs of
        the people, and these derive from experiences,
        circumstances, and advances in knowledge as well as in
        population characteristics. Later, Carol
        --- robertlcapps <robertlcapps@...> wrote:
        > Carol, Jewelle and group,
        >
        > here are the states showing laws for marriages.
        >
        > Marilyn
        >
        >
        http://www.cuddleinternational.org/laws/laws-explained.html
        > Home
        > About
        > Laws
        > Genetic
        > Religious
        > News
        > Interact
        > Resources
        > Our purpose
        > Staff
        >
        >
        >
        > U.S. State Laws Explained
        >
        >
        > Second cousins may legally marry All States
        > First cousins may legally marry AK, AL, CA, CO,
        > CT, FL, GA, HI, MD,
        > MA, NJ, NM, NY, NC, RI, SC, TN, TX, VT, VA
        > and Washington DC
        > First cousins and first cousins once removed
        > cousins prohibited AR,
        > DE, IA, ID, KS, LA, NH, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, ND,
        > NE, OR, OK, PA, SD,
        > WV, WY
        > IN, KY, NV, OH, WA, WI
        > First cousins and first cousins once removed
        > prohibited only if
        > they can not bear children or are over a certain
        > age AZ, IL, ME, UT,
        > IN, WI
        > First cousins may marry if the submit to genetic
        > counseling ME
        > Only double first cousins prohibited NC
        > Cousin marriages allowed only if permitted by
        > aboriginal culture of
        > the couple MN
        > Cousins may legally evade state laws and marry
        > elsewhere
        > (Interpretation of law unclear)
        > (Not legal but Ethridge v. Shaddock may have set
        > a precedent to
        > overturn) IN*, KS, LA, NE, OK, WA, WV, WY,
        > MI
        > AR**
        > Cousins are prohibited from marrying, but are
        > not defined as incest
        > (defined as incest only if over 18)
        > (defined as incest only if under 18) ID, LA, MN,
        > MO, MT, OR, PA, WA,
        > WV, WY
        > AZ
        > SD,
        > Cousin marriage is defined as incestuous only if
        > couple is of
        > reproductive age or ability WI
        > Cousin marriage is defined as incestuous All
        > prohibited states,
        > excluding those listed in the previous two (2)
        > categories
        > Half cousins can marry (absolute, apparent) NE,
        > NV
        > AZ, KS, MT, OK
        > Adopted cousins may marry with proof of
        > eligibility LA, MS, OR, WV,
        > Uncle/Niece and other consanguineous marriages
        > allowed i permitted
        > by aboriginal culture CO, MN
        > Uncle-in-law/Niece-in-law marriages allowed CT
        >
        > * Indiana
        > While most marriages are void if contracted
        > elsewhere to evade
        > Indiana's law, cousin marriages do not fall
        > under the statute which
        > would make it void:
        >
        >
        > IC 31-11-8-6
        > Sec. 6. A marriage is void if the parties to
        > the marriage:
        >
        > 1. are residents of Indiana;
        > 2. had their marriage solemnized in
        > another state with the
        > intent to: (A) evade IC 31-11-4-4 or
        > IC 31-11-4-11 (or IC
        > 31-7-3-3 or IC 31-7-3-10 before their
        > repeal); and (B)
        > subsequently return to Indiana and
        > reside in Indiana; and
        > 3. without having established residence
        > in another state in
        > good faith, return to Indiana and
        > reside in Indiana after
        > the marriage is solemnized.
        >
        > Cousin marriage is defined under IC
        > 31-11-1-2 section 2.
        >
        > ** Arkansas:
        > � 9-11-107. Validity of foreign marriages.
        >
        > (a) All marriages contracted outside this
        > state which would be
        > valid by the laws of the state or country in
        > which the marriages
        > were consummated and in which the parties then
        > actually resided
        > shall be valid in all the courts in this state.
        >
        > Ethridge v. Shaddock, a case won for validating
        > out of state
        > marriages, does not appear to mandate that the
        > couple actually LIVED
        > in the other state at the time of marriage
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been
        > removed]
        >
        >


        __________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
        http://calendar.yahoo.com
      • Winack27@aol.com
        I lost the state laws on this that someone sent to the list. Would you please send them again? I really would appreciate it. Anne (If you don`t want to post
        Message 3 of 8 , Jun 2, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          I lost the state laws on this that someone sent to the list.
          Would you please send them again? I really would appreciate it.
          Anne
          (If you don`t want to post them again, just send to me}


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • robertlcapps
          I think this is what you were referring to ....just check out the site. Marilyn Capps robertlcapps@cox.net
          Message 4 of 8 , Jun 2, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            I think this is what you were referring to ....just check out the site.

            Marilyn Capps
            robertlcapps@...

            http://www.cuddleinternational.org/laws/laws-explained.html


            Home



            Winack27@... wrote:

            >I lost the state laws on this that someone sent to the list.
            >Would you please send them again? I really would appreciate it.
            >Anne
            >(If you don`t want to post them again, just send to me}
            >
            >
            >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >
            >Click here for current information on Pitt County Historical Society: http://www.pittcountyhistoricalsociety.com/
            >
            >Chronicles of Pitt Co Order Form: http://www.usgennet.org/usa/nc/county/pitt/Chronicles%20Flyer%20Feb03.htm
            >
            >Treasure-Trove of PITT Co.NC Genealogical Resources: http://www.usgennet.org/usa/nc/county/pitt/
            >
            >We welcome all Archives visitors and invite you to join our dynamic group if you are interested in genealogy discussion and research in Pitt and all Eastern and Coastal North Carolina counties.
            >GenealogyPITT Co NC Friends In
            >Research http://groups.yahoo.com/group/genpcncfir
            >
            >
            >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.