LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS-L Archives

Archiver > LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS > 2000-06 > 0960572911


From: "David Kearney" <>
Subject: Re: [LDR] Musing on Rhodeah
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 13:48:31 -0400
References: <01cb01bfd214$c2e91fa0$eb9821a2@default>


Neil,

Your points are well taken, but 30 years of childbearing still has to be
on the outer edge of what was normal back in those days. I don't think any
of my maternal ancestors, for instance, of whom I know of quite a few, had
children over so long of a period (although a few come close and perhaps I
even have missed one or two). Although women might have borne children at
an earlier age than women today (well, maybe than in the 1950s), my guess is
that few women of the time made it through 30 years of labor because of
mortality associated with childbearing. I also imagine that women stopped
having babies then at an earlier age on average than what we see today,
because of modern medical advances. As Craig says, 30 years is not
impossible, but it certainly is enough to raise a yellow flag to look for
other possible explanations.

I hope your statement that "[m]ost women conceived from before ... they
were married ..." didn't come out quite the way you intended. Regardless of
the funnigans of Rhodeah and other couples of the times, it seems a leap to
say that MOST women of the Delmarva during the period conceived prior to
marriage.

Dave K


----- Original Message -----
From: "Family Tree Bookshop" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: [LDR] Musing on Rhodeah


> Dear Craig:
> The force of nature was usually very evident in the time you
are
> looking at. Most women conceived from before (as we know ) they were
> married---teenage years, post puberty until menopause. This is why in
most
> cases family size became so large. The only things to interrupt the
> process, usually, were death, or breast-feeding which acted as a brake on
> the period of conception---which is why you normally see a range of about
1
> 1/2 years to 2 years between children. This constant cycle of pregnancy
was
> most evident in New England, where climate affected infant mortality rate
as
> well as the mortality of the elderly. In the Chesapeake, as disease
ridden
> as it was, family size was not large until we see a native stock take
> hold---and then it begins to grow rapidly.
>
> Take care,
> <<<Neil>>>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig O'Donnell <>
> To:
> <>
> Date: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 3:10 PM
> Subject: [LDR] Musing on Rhodeah
>
>
> >
> >This Force of Nature, Rhody Lamberton Fassitt (Cropper) Franklin -- I
have
> >a hard time seeing how she could have children over a span of 30 years,
not
> >that it's impossible.
> >
> >Could the Rhodeah who married Franklin have been her daughter?
> >
> >I wonder if she was buried in a churchyard (as opposed to a likely
> >long-lost family plot).
> >
> >
> > Craig O'Donnell
> > Sinepuxent Ancestors & Boats
> > <http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~fassitt/>;
> > The Proa FAQ <http://www.cyber-dyne.com/~jkohnen/proafaq.html>;
> > The Cheap Pages <http://www.friend.ly.net/~dadadata/>;
> > Sailing Canoes, Polytarp Sails, Bamboo, Chinese Junks,
> > American Proas, the Bolger Boat Honor Roll,
> > Plywood Boats, Bamboo Rafts, &c.
> > _________________________________
> >
> > -- Professor of Boatology -- Junkomologist
> > -- Macintosh kinda guy
> > Friend of Wanda the Wonder Cat, 1991-1997.
> > _________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >==== LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS Mailing List ====
> > Visit the VAGenWeb site -
> > Virginia's entryway to the USGenWeb Project!
> > http://www.rootsweb.com/~vagenweb/
> >
>
>
> ==== LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS Mailing List ====
> Visit the Lower Delmarva Genealogical Society Online -
> Your link to your DelMarVa roots!
> http://bay.intercom.net/ldgs/
>
>

This thread: