To H-Law,
We on H-VA-Hist have come across a question that the scholars
on H-Law may be able to help us with. I am not sure how to put
the question but: did property rights, recognition of marriage,
inheritance, the whole range of private and family law, chance in
relation to independence, the Articles of Confederation, and then
the Constitution? What about relations between the states
involving these matters, during the fluid period, 1776-1790?
We appreciate any assistance you can provide.
Harold S. Forsythe
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date sent: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:52:32 -0500
From: "Harold S. Forsythe" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: VA-HIST Digest - 29 Oct 2001 to 30 Oct 2001 (#2001-194)
To: [log in to unmask]
Copies to: [log in to unmask]
Priority: normal
This is fascinating. I had never considered the practical effect of
state
sovereignty and the several quick changes of regimes in the US in
the late
18th century.
Let me suggest that you consider the practical effect of the "full
faith
and credit" provision of (Article IV?) the Constitution. It requires that
all states give credence to the legal acts, licenses, etc. of every
other
state. Given what John Maas importantly reminds us of, North
Carolina's
(and Rhode Island's) initial refusal to join the Union under the
Constitution, full faith and credit would not have necessarily
extended
from Virginia to a North Carolina NOT a state in the Union.
There must be some legal/historical scholarship on this. Perhaps
H-Law should be called upon. The scholars on that listserve have
parsed some legal mysteries I could not even imagine existed.
Harold
Date sent: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 09:27:35 -0600
From: Michael Flanagan <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: VA-HIST Digest - 29 Oct 2001 to 30 Oct 2001
(#2001-194) To: [log in to unmask] Send reply to:
Michael Flanagan <[log in to unmask]> Organization: PRS
> The following statements by Harold Forsyth and John Maas may hold the
> keys to a riddle I've been trying to understand for a number of years:
>
> HF: "The second regime was under the Articles of Confederation
> (1781-1788). Under that constitution, the states were declared to be
> sovereign."
>
> JM: "I argue that the 13 colonies WERE in fact separate states albeit
> for a short period of time. For ex., there was a brief period after the
> Revolutionary war when NC refused to adopt the Constitution; for 7-8
> months NC was not a member of the new union, but then in a second
> convention at Fayetteville NC decided to join. . . . The riddle: A
> wealthy young widow/mother of 4 (Martha), raised in VA/Sussex-Dinwiddie
> but lived her married life in VA/Mecklenburg, was married 2nd in
> mid-1783 to an equally well-heeled widower/father of several (John) who
> had grown up in VA/Brunswick but lived at the time of the marriage (and
> after) in NC/Warren. For some reason, it was not until August 1792 that
> the marriage of John and Martha was also made a matter of record in VA.
> The 1783 marriage year is unmistakable. Nonetheless, for several years,
> the widow's land by her former husband (just across the state line from
> where she and 2nd husband John lived in NC) was reported in the
> Mecklenburg tax lists under her former married name (initially as the
> "Estate" of her former husband). Only after the marriage to her 2nd
> husband was formalized in 1792 did the property lists change to the name
> of her 2nd husband. Neither the premarital agreement between John and
> Martha, nor the will and estate records of John and Martha, shed any
> light as to why VA/Mecklenburg did not recognize her surname by her 2nd
> marriage, or why John & Martha opted to have their marriage formalized
> in VA after having been married and living just across the state line in
> NC for 9 years. Even after the VA ceremony, they continued to live in
> NC, and are not found in any of the VA land or property tax lists, with
> the exception of the property of Martha's first husband. One exception
> to this: A son from Martha's first marriage did show up in the
> Mecklenburg tax lists for one year, in 1787, about the time he came of
> legal age, but he, too, returned to live in NC.
>
> In trying to understand the WHY of this, I have assumed that there must
> have been some post-Rev.War statutory differences in property and
> inheritance laws between VA and NC that would be significant enough to
> account for this. I further assume that something happened in 1792 to
> precipitate the August civil ceremony in VA, probably to protect the
> interests of the yours-mine-ours family structure of John and Martha.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
> instructions at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
Harold S. Forsythe
Assistant Professor History
Director: Black Studies
Fairfield University
Fairfield, CT 06430-5195
(203) 254-4000 x2379
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
