A History of Matrimonial Institutions, Vol. 2 of 3Howard, George Elliott
History
A History of Matrimonial Institutions, Vol. 2 of 3
Howard, George Elliott
Families; Marriage -- History
What has just been said regarding South Carolina applies equally to
Georgia, whose territory had belonged to South Carolina since the
original grant of 1663. But the charter issued to James Oglethorpe
and his associates in 1732 expressly abrogates the laws of the
parent colony,[796] and gives the power to enact new laws to the
corporation of associates as trustees for the colony. The Episcopal
system was introduced, but it was not rigidly enforced. The charter
to Oglethorpe "guaranteed liberty of conscience to all except
papists,[797] and the spirit exhibited in ecclesiastical legislation
was one of toleration. Hence a considerable Puritan element was
drawn to the Colony."[798] The preamble of the act of 1785 shows
that it had been the custom for justices, ministers, and "preachers
of the gospel" to solemnize marriage. Such marriages are made valid
and the practice legalized for the future.[799]
[Footnote 796: With an exception relating to military power:
POORE, _Charters_, I, 373, 374. Georgia was made a royal province
in 1751; but the policy of toleration was maintained: HOLMES,
_Annals_, II, 45; STORY, _Commentaries_, I, 102. In early days
the province suffered the usual evils from scarcity of women:
_Coll. Georgia Hist. Soc._, II, 105; III, 32, 144.]
[Footnote 797: POORE, _Charters_, I, 375.]
[Footnote 798: COOK, "Mar. Cel. in Col.," _Atlantic_, LXI, 356.]
[Footnote 799: _Digest of the Laws of Georgia_ (Philadelphia,
1801), 314.]
It appears, then, that throughout the southern colonies matrimonial
legislation was tending in the same direction. Everywhere, except
in Maryland, the optional civil ceremony was legally or practically
recognized, though under various restrictions. Marriage was already
a civil contract of mutual partnership; and, notwithstanding an
occasional invalidating clause for neglect of the prescribed forms,
the common-law marriage by mutual consent was probably valid,
though, so far as it appears, the records of the provincial courts
are almost entirely silent on that question.[800] In short, in its
principal elements, throughout the South matrimonial law had reached
or was strongly tending toward the existing American type.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account