71-7434 DiSTEFANO, Judy Mann, 1945- A CONCEPT OF THE FAMILY IN COLONIAL AMERICA: THE PEMBERTONS' OF PHILADELPHIA. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1970 History, modern University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan Copyright by Judy Mann DiStefano 1971 THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED A CONCEPT CF THE FAMILY IN COLONIAL AMERICA* THE PEMBERTONS OF PHILADELPHIA DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of 'The Ohio State University By Judy Mann DiStefano, B.A. The Ohio State University 1970 Approved fay At^^er Departmentr^f History ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am indebted to Bernard Bailyn and Philippe Aries for the stimulating works which directed my attention to the possibility and importance of an historical study of the concept of the family, I would also like to express my appreciation to Professors Bradley Chapin, Paul Bowers, Clayton Roberts, and William Gibson of The Ohio State University who read the manuscript end offered suggestions, I am grateful to my husband, Anthony J. DiStefano, for his assistance end patience. In addition, I would like to thank my parents, Mr, and Mrs, Howard M, Mann, for their encouragement. 11 VITA October 19, 1945 . « . • • Born - Silverton, Oregono 1966 • • ........ « . B.A., Central Washington State College, Ellensburo, Washington. 1966-1968 ....... NDEA Fellow, Department of History, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 1958-1969 ...... ....... Teaching Associate, Department of History, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 1969-1970 ............. NDEA Fallow, Department of History, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Colonial American History. History of the United States Slavery Controversy. Professor Merton Dillon. History of Tudor and Stuart England. Professor Clayton Roberts. History of Latin America in the National Period. Professor James W. Wilkie, ill TABLE or CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............ .......... Ü V I T A ................ iii INTRODUCTION ............................... 1 PART ONE - A FAMILY AS A SMALL GROUP Chapter I. Heads of Families ...... ..... 21 II. Offspring T1 III. Relations and Others .............. 136 IV. U n it y.............................................................................................. 169 PART TWO - A FAMILY IN COMMUNITY V. Children of C o d ........................ 195 VI. Interest in L e a r n i n g ......................... * 242 VII. Productive Lives ................ 273 VIII. Socializing and Social Order ........... 303 PART THREE - A CONCEPT OF THE FAMILY IN PERSPECTIVE IX. Continuity and Change ..... ................ 329 X. Ideal and Real ................. 347 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......... ........................ 355 iv INTRODUCTION The research project which culminated in the writing of this dissertation began with the purpose of studying the concept of the family in colonial America• Eased upon the experience of historians who have probed the roots of other American ideas and institutions and upon the fact that American colonials came from Europe, it first seemed reason­ able to look into European sources. Yet there were also the accounts of the historians who told of American colonials finding that the conditions in America required modification of the ideas and institutions which they had attempted to transfer to America from Europe. If the concept of the family had been changed in America, a study of that concept should delve into American sources. Logic suggested and historians argued that the family, being a fundamental institution of social, economic, and political significance, had been affected by the transit to, and establishment in America. Bernard Bailyn, for one, has mentioned changes which occurred in the American family and has.- cited the need for new studies.^ Many questions came to mind. Were American colonials aware of the changes which later historians described? If they did recognize these changes, what was their attitude toward changes which were then occurring or had occurred? Did they regard changes as an improvement, or did they view changes as threats to personal happiness and to the future of civilization? Furthermore, was there a clear pattern of change in the concept of the family in America (both a possible cause and result of change in the institution) in the course of the eighteenth century when colonial society underwent a process of maturation? In order to begin to answer such questions the personal papers of one colonial family— the Pembertons of the colony of Pennsylvania— cams to be selected for study. In the course of studying the source material and the background readings which were expected to aid in the inter­ pretation of ideas found in the sources, it became evident that rather than focusing upon questions relevant to change in a concept of the family, the questions which first had to be asked and answered were questions about the concept of the family itself. There will be those who will argue that there was not a single colonial American concept of the family; rather, there ware only many individual conceptions of the family— indeed, many which did not even have the clarity to warrant being identified as "concepts,*' The value of such a view lies in the fact that the argument directs attention to the distortion involved in rigid, indefensibly broad generalizations» The study of the Pembertons here presented is a beginning in the study of the concept of the family in colonial America. This should be made clear. It does not presume to set forth "the" colonial American conception, "the" eighteenth-century conception, "the" Philadelphia conception, "the" Protestant conception, or "the" Quaker conception of the family. However, comparisons end contrasts (beyond the scope of this paper) of the ideas about the family distilled from the Pemberton Papers with the ideas of other men and women may reveal striking similarities of thought among American colonials. One respected American historian, Curtis Nettels, regards the family as the most important component of colonial 2 society. Another scholar, Max Savelis, states that "... in practical affairs the family, and respect for family connec­ tions, was a powerful force in American life and thought. It was the great aristocratic families, for example, who dominated, if they did not actually control colonial politics as well as colonial society."^ At the beginning of the twentieth century Arthur Calhoun recognized the significance of the family and wrote a multivolume work in which he attempted to set forth the "forces" which had shaped American family institutions. He thought the American family should be studied " , , . as a social institution in relation to other social institutions and to 'the 4 social forces,Calhoun, like sociologist Meyer Nimkoff, understood society as a social system in which all social insti­ tutions are correlated. Hence, change in one part of the system has an impact on the other parts. The family changes because of changes in political and economic institutions, for example. On the other hand, a change in the family affects government, and agriculture, trade, and industry»^ Based upon extensive research, Calhoun wrote a survey account of the history of the American family in which he presented the colonial family " , , , as a property institution dominated by middle class standards, and operating as an agency of social control in the midst of a social order governed by the interests of a forceful aristocracy which shaped religion, education, politics, and all else to its own profit.'*^ Calhoun provided a general history; it raised many questions about colonial family life and thought. Yet research lagged; it was as if Calhoun had said all of what needed to be said, Willystine Goodsell pointed out that the study of the family lagged behind the study of other social institutions despite the fact " , . it has justly been reckoned the basis and starting point of social research by the historian and the 7 sociologist," In the 1960*s sociologist William Kenkel could say quite correctly that "information concerning the colonial family is sketchy and impressionistic .... From the sundry records available we can reconstruct a reasonably accurate picture of the colonial family, but it necessarily will lack g specificity and detail." Part of the reason for the "sketchy" portrait of the colonial family lies in the lack of revealing source material; part of the reason lies in the incomplete use of available materials. On the basis of the research done in preparing this dissertation, it is apparent that there is much g to be learned of the colonial ideas about the family. Max Savelle suggests the importance of such studies when he states that the family ” ... was of great importance to the mind of the American in the eighteenth century. For it was generally accepted as a basic unit of society, and it had been and still was a powerful force in politics."”"^ The research for this dissertation proceeded on the assumption stated by Alan Heimert in the following manner: An understanding of the significance of any idea, or of a constellation of ideas, requires an awareness of the context of institutions and events out of which thought emerged, and with which it strove to come to terms. But full apprehension depends finally on reading, not between the lines but, as it were, through and beyond them. Also shaping the study was the conviction that intellectual history not only must