LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS-L Archives

Archiver > LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS > 2000-03 > 0953567404


From: "Family Tree Bookshop" <>
Subject: Re: [LDR] Re: LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS-D Digest V00 #116
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:50:04 -0000


Dear Ralph:
An interesting observation, but I do have my reservations on this
point. While the 18th Century was notable for the amount of wars that
racked the continent,---War of Austrian Succession, King George's War, etc.,
it is problematic that they contributed much in the way of
migration ---other than the Scots---to the Chesapeake. By the 18th century,
migration to the region was but a trickle of what it was.

If, however we are talking 17th century, then yes, the Civil war in England
contributed to the migration. However, it was only one of many factors that
would have set up the "push" that resulted in the stream of migrants between
the 1640s and 1680s. More likely a motivating factor was the economic
turmoil that was taking place in Britain at the time. No one is quite sure
of why the "depression" took place, however combined with a rising
population, it did make life and opportunities for many younger sons --as
well as daughters--a bit dicey. I am talking here---as mentioned in an
earlier note--of those of the more middling stratas---sons and daughters of
either yeoman farmers (small landowners) as well as "copyholders" (basically
tenant farmers, but usually with leases that ran 99 lifetimes or so).
Because times were tight, it was not prudent to parcel out land to sons on a
partiable basis--as the economic downturn would not support a family if land
was divided. It was best to keep the land in tact and to devise it to the
eldest son. Younger sons and --also daughters---would be apprenticed out in
hopes of acquiring a trade. Many who did, after the end of their
apprenticeship found opportunities in England to be few. One could make
one's way to London or some of the other larger cities, but as many migrated
to the cities, opportunities became less. The colonies represented one
possibility for economic advancement. And even then, one might
differentiate between the West Indies or say, the Chesapeake. New England
wasn't much in the way of opportunity and was not a tolerant society in
which outsiders were suffered.

One also had the choice of migrating to Europe as well. So, those who might
turn out to be migrants had choices before them. There was both a "push"
and a "pull" factor at work here. Obviously, the potential servant would
want to go to where his/her best opportunity might lie. In the early years,
before slavery really takes hold and available land runs out---the Indies
were seen as a favorable location. Later, the Chesapeake becomes so. Also,
market conditions augered into the "pull" factor. If the tobacco market was
good, then planters in the Chesapeake were looking for more labor to put
more land into production and also had the capital necessary to take on
servants. If times were bad, then planters were probably reluctant to
allocate more capital into contracting for servants. So, you can see there
are a number of factors at work.

Another factor that begins to throw tenant farmers and leaseholders off the
land in Britain, is the beginnings of the Agricultural revolution. As
agriculture becomes more "scientific" large landholders saw opportunities to
enter the market. Thus, in order to put land into production for their own
profit ---or more profit than if left as was--the practice of "rack renting"
began. As leases came up, landowners either refused to enter into long-term
leases as before, and/or began jacking the rents of the land up to a point
where it would be almost impossible for the tenant farmer to make any kind
of living. Also, we see the beginning of "enclosure" where landowners began
putting what heretofore had been "common" land (that which the tenants could
use for pasturage and for gathering firewood, etc) into production. By
cutting off the tenant farmers from their ability to pasture their
livestock, this tended to cause many to leave the land as well. So, for a
variety of reasons you have a large population looking for opportunity and
the colonies serve as one such possibility.

As for "scions" becoming landless---tis doubtful that much of that happened.
Although the Civil War in Britain was pretty damaging, I do not believe that
much in the way of confiscation of estates took place. I do believe that
the Cromwellian government taxed the crap out of the landed holdings of
those in opposition, but I do not believe that much was directly
confiscated. Once again, I might be wrong here and if anyone wants or can
correct me on this count, please do so.

Nevertheless---we don't see those who would be "scions" of the great
families coming over here. And this is where we need to
understand--particularly among the landed gentry and the aristocratic
class---the notions of how land was transmitted. As this also works into
the general population AND does enter into HOW land was transmitted in the
Chesapeake and its variant forms.

If, you remember class--from a previous lecture--how English society is
structured--it is hierarchical. There are certain forces at work in British
society and culture at this time---and preservation of the lineage was chief
among them. In order for the lineage to be maintained and maintained at or
above the status that it held---it was important to pay attention to
"estate." If the lineage was to continue then "preservation of estate" was
paramount. Thus we run into two terms that are essential for anyone doing
genealogical research, and particularly Chesapeake genealogy to know and to
understand. One of these is "primogeniture" and the other is the notion of
"entail."

Primogeniture--to put it simply--is that the eldest son inherits the entire
estate, and any title (if it is one that is hereditary) that the father has.
This is important to know---because those of you who --in some cases--trace
your heritage back to the 13th Earl of Tyaskin (or some such name) would not
necessarily be considered of the "aristocracy." Perhaps one could call it a
"cadet" branch but unless you are the eldest son and inherit the title, you
are not aristocratic. (Although there is debate on this issue among
historians--the definition has been hotly contended as there are arguements
attempting to prove that the British aristocracy lasted as long as it did
because it was amenable to social mobility). While the eldest son inherited
title and estate, all other siblings were pretty much off on their own.
Daughters of course, would be used for making favorable marriages and
improve the fortunes of the family, but second and third sons, etc., were
pretty much out on their ear. Usually, they would be given either a
University education---in order to allow them to improve their
circumstances, or perhaps a cash settlement, or were purchased a living in
the church (purchase of an office, etc), or a military commission was
purchased for them. The only function they served within their family was
as a "spare" ---thus the notion of Princes William and Harry as being "the
heir and the spare" Once the eldest son inherited the estate---it was sort
of a shuffle off to Buffalo for the younger sons. We do see in many cases
that estates in the colonies would be purchased for them---particularly in
the late 17th and early 18th century---or they would be sent here to act as
factors for the families on family owned property. Many of these younger
sons did go to university, and later enter business where they establish
ties with the colonies and with the Chesapeake in particular.

Interestingly enough, it is these sons who come over here who begin to gain
influence through a) family connections and b) their business connections.
Thus, in many cases, the planter elite that had survived in the Chesapeake
saw these newcomers as desirable matches for their own daughters---thus
helping to increase influence, and estate.
While the notion of "primogeniture" carries on in the colonies it does so in
an adapted fashion. Mainly for two reasons---the first being the most
obvious---abundence of land. There is no need to boot out the younger sons
when so much land is available (unlike England) and where many of the
planters own a number of estates throughout various counties. The second
reason as one historian argues is that the second and third sons, etc. who
make their way to the colonies were none too happy with the notion of
"primogeniture" in the first place, since they were themselves victims of
the practice. However there are bows toward "primogeniture"--where in a
number of cases the eldest son was given the "home" plantation and the
younger sons given outlying estates---or given more land in comparison to
younger sons. In many of the wills, you will see the eldest son getting
land, with the provision that he pay to the younger sons a certain amount,
or the younger sons are given a share of the personal estate and the
provision concerning the land is that if the eldest son dies w/out heirs,
then the younger son is to inherit the land and so forth down the line. See
the similartiy here?

The second term we need to look at class is the notion of "entail."
Again, it goes back to preservation of lineage and particularly preservation
of lineage by preservation of the estate. "Entail" means that even though
the eldest son inherits the estate---he cannot cause any destruction of that
estate. In other words he cannot--by law--sell any of the land that he has
come into. His living is derived solely from the profits or rents due from
the land. Thus, if he becomes financially in straits he cannot just develop
part of the land into a shopping center or housing development. If he is in
debt for one reason or another, he has to look to other sources. Now you
can see why Princess Di's brother has to work for a living. The money
derived from the estate is not enough for him to live on---since the 19th
century squeeze put on the aristocracy's landed holdings. He might sell a
painting, or a chamber pot or something like that to raise some quick cash,
but could not sell any of the estate.

"Entail" does and does not survive the colonization of the Chesapeake. If
you will notice in many of the wills, land is left to sons but with the
stipulation that it NOT be sold out of the family or if sold then to another
brother or relative. There are attempts to legislate "entail" but these
are doomed to fail for two major reasons. The first being the use of
slavery as the principal labor force. Since slaves were considered
property, they were then also considered as part of the estate. At the same
time the other consideration comes into play. That is---tobacco exhausted
the land in a very short period of time. Thus, if one was to continue to
prosper, one had to be able to sell the land that was exhausted and move on
to better and more arable soil----AND one had to be able to take one's
slaves with one when making the move. If slaves were considered part of the
estate, then they could not be moved from "plantation to plantation" nor
could they be sold. So, in that respect "entail" does not catch on.

So much for today's lecture class, hope I haven't bored you too terribly
much---but remember these two terms and when going through the records see
how they might apply to your particular family.

Best wishes to all, and to all THANK YOU for all your kind words.

<<<Neil>>>
www.familytreebookshop.com

-----Original Message-----
From: RALPH MC ALLISTER <>
To:
<>
Date: Friday, March 17, 2000 12:01 AM
Subject: [LDR] Re: LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS-D Digest V00 #116


>In a lot of cases young men and women signed a contract stating that they
>would work a specified number of years for a guarantor in exchange for
>transoceanic passage. Given that the Eighteenth Century saw numerous wars
in
>Europe, including within the British Isles, It''s probable that many scions
>were left landless as a result, and saw the New World as a way out -- or
>perhaps a way back. About this time lots of Scots, Welsh, and Irish begin
to
>show up in New England and the Mid Atlantic colonies.
>
> R. Mc Allister
>-----Original Message-----
>From:
><>
>To:
><>
>Date: Thursday, March 16, 2000 6:09 PM
>Subject: LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS-D Digest V00 #116
>
>
>
>
>==== LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS Mailing List ====
> Have you seen the *GHOTES web page?
>(*Genealogy and History of the Eastern Shore of Virginia)
> http://www.esva.net/ghotes/
>

This thread: