A Decline In Morals

I'm having an interesting discussion at Moral Authority about the homosexual plot to destroy American values and take down American civilization.

That is not the first time American civilization took the short road to decline. Marriages were once decided on the basis of economic interests and personalities mostly by parents. And then by 1830 or so romance was all the rage and parents had lost much of their say in the matter. Would America ever be the same?

Between 1708/9, when Samuel Gerrish courted Mary Sewall, and 1835, when Theodore Weld courted Angelina Grimke, the rituals of courtship underwent profound changes. Parental influence and involvement in the selection of their children's marriage partner visibly declined. Young women and men were increasingly free to pick or reject a spouse with little parental interference. At the same time that courtship grew freer, however, marriage became an increasingly difficult transition point, particularly for women, and more and more women elected not to marry at all.

In seventeenth and early eighteenth century New England, courtship was not simply a personal, private matter. The law gave parents "the care and power...for the disposing of their Children in Marriage" and it was expected that they would take an active role overseeing their child's choice of a spouse. A father in Puritan New England had a legal right to determine which men would be allowed to court his daughters and a legal responsibility to give or withhold his consent from a child's marriage. A young man who courted a woman without her father's permission might be sued for inveigling the woman's affections.

Parental involvement in courtship was expected because marriage was not merely an emotional relationship between individuals but also a property arrangement among families. A young man was expected to bring land or some other form of property to a marriage while a young woman was expected to bring a dowry worth about half as much.

As you can see we have never recovered. Decisions that were once made rationally are now consummated based on half-witted ideas like romance.

The Puritans had the right idea

Puritan New Englanders, in sharp contrast, did not regard love as a necessary precondition for marriage. Indeed, they associated romantic love with immaturity and impermanence. True love, the Puritans believed, would appear following marriage. A proper marriage, in their view, was based not on love and affection, but on rational considerations of property, compatibility, and religious piety. Thus, it was considered acceptable for a young man to pursue "a goodly lass with aboundation of money," so long as he could eventually love his wife-to-be.
Giving up the strict rules has lead to ruination.

By the middle of the eighteenth century, parental influence over the choice of a spouse had sharply declined. One indication of a decline in parental control was a sudden upsurge in the mid-eighteenth century the number of brides who were pregnant when they got married. In the seventeenth century, fathers--supported by local churches and courts--exercised close control over their childrens' sexual behavior and kept sexual intercourse prior to marriage at extremely low levels. The percentage of women who bore a first child less than eight-and-a half months after marriage was below ten percent. By the middle of the eighteenth century, the figure had shot up to over forty percent.
So as I stated in a comment to Moral Authority in response to this comment:
The legitimizing of homosexuality is one lynchpin in a program to undercut Western sexual morality, and to disrupt the legal and social constraints that give weight, strength, and stability to the family unit.
Dude,

You are not going to get that toothpaste back into the tube. The horse has left the barn. The culture has changed.

Western sexual morality as you think you remember it (I saw a study once that in the US in the 1700s about 1/3 of the brides were already knocked up - true? I haven't cross checked - [see above]) is gone.

You want to do something about Western morality? Forget gays. The bigger hole is adultery and divorce. If we could bring back stoning for adultery and 40 lashes for fornication we might get somewhere. It all started going bad long before women got the vote. But it didn't help.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

posted by Simon on 07.19.10 at 10:12 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/9857






Comments

One of my grandmothers had Quaker ancestors. My father was able to find some old church records on a Quaker ancestor courtesy of a local library in Pa., which mailed him a copy.

This Quaker ancestor and her mate had been condemned in church for "fornication," but were back in good standing once they were married. And this was over 300 years ago!

Gringo   ·  July 20, 2010 03:08 PM

Well, you must remember between the Puritans and the mid-1700s, more inhabitants had come over here that weren't attached to a family - young persons whose parents stayed behind in the old country. Therefore, the issue of parental control is rather moot.

Further, the gene pool had widened - more people from less sexually repressive backgrounds than the Puritans, or social classes that didn't expect to marry for money or never had money (often, didn't marry at all). Don't look to the pregnancies, look to the near-certainty of marriage in that event. It may have become a way of pressuring a reluctant father-in-law to consent to the wedding.

LindaF   ·  July 21, 2010 06:00 AM

Linda,

So you are telling me that no matter what the laws are the government can't control the social order?

It is a point I make over and over. Good to have you on board.

M. Simon   ·  July 21, 2010 11:16 AM

"[I]n the US in the 1700s about 1/3 of the brides were already knocked up - true?"

The traditions of the Scot-Irish settlers in the US (now know as rednecks or crackers) were that the girl could make her choice by seducing a marriable lad. When she became pregnant, she would inform her father who the lucky husband-to-be was. Papa would then ensure that the marriage contract was made - or there would be a dead lad.

This is traditionally called a "shotgun wedding."

I happened just like that to me so I know the tradition was alive and well, at least up through 1969.

Whitehall   ·  July 21, 2010 04:39 PM

Re: toothpaste and horses--There's nothing new under the sun, including the current climate. It's all been tried before and then rejected.

As Ambrose Bierce said so succinctly, being moral means "having the quality of general expediency." The generations that are vulnerable to so many STDs now have to be looking at the Fifties moral environment that, whatever else one can say about it, provided a rather safe environment for its children (today's parents and grandparents) to practice "free love" without a care in the world.

Thus, today's generation are probably rediscovering the expediency of limiting sexual contact while still enjoying it, and realizing that marriage has no equal in that regard. Wise children and grandchildren that they are, they won't say anything about that right now; they'll just choose it.

Then, when there's minimal risk of catching h*** from what few surviving and very decrepit members of the "free love" generation remain, they'll mainstream it.

Again. That's how life works. There's no straight line to progress and the future; it's a wheel we're riding on, following the same track over and over again.

BarbB   ·  July 21, 2010 06:30 PM

Whitehall,

I had a Mormon girl try to pull that trick on me. She was rather free with her favors. But I decided to avoid going all the way with her. I wasn't interested in Mormonism.

M. Simon   ·  July 21, 2010 07:47 PM

Another reason a lot of brides were already with child in the 1700's- it made no sense to get married for many until certain that both halves of the couple were fertile.

In my family tree, traced back to the 1500's, there are a whole lot of marraiges with first-born coming less then 9 months later.

gospace   ·  July 22, 2010 07:03 AM

gospace,

Why the jump from 10% in 1700 to 40% in 1850?

Taking a test drive became the norm? If so why?

M. Simon   ·  July 22, 2010 10:17 AM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


July 2010
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits