A Community Study of Mecklenburg County
THE COURT
“I once stopp’d at a Magistrates on his Court day, to see the Practise of Things”
Charles Woodmason, 1771
From the 1770s through the 1830s, the most commonly prosecuted crimes against order and morals in the Mecklenburg court were sexual offenses, including bastardy, fornication, and adultery.
Potential economic threats from sexual crimes—including the burden of illegitimate children and the dissolution of families—motivated the court to concentrate on these types of crimes at a higher rate.
The Crime of Bastardy
The emphasis on prosecuting bastardyy had an obvious economic bearing in Mecklenburg County. In the courtroom, the immorality of sexual offenses held less import than the economic strain illegitimate children could bring to the community. From 1780 through 1839 there were 125 bastardy cases in the county, far more than any other crime against order and morals. The county’s need to cover economic costs pressured the court to prosecute such crimes. State legislation that regulated illegitimacy contributed to Mecklenburg County’s manner of enforcement as well, particularly regarding the system of monetary punishment.
From the colonial to the antebellum era, moral concerns regarding bastardy lessened as economic issues took precedence. During the colonial era, illegitimacy laws had two primary purposes: to minimize the threat of bastardy to the family structure and to protect the public from the obligation of paying the burdensome costs of raising such children. By the nineteenth century, however, economic motivation took priority. Court minute records and monetary data demonstrate that few Mecklenburg County bastardy cases presented variations from the norm.
The Court enforced two forms of monetary punishment that demonstrate the clear presence of economic motivation for prosecuting such crimes. These forms are bastardy bonds and child support.
Bastardy Bonds
The concept of a security bond demonstrates the focus on the economic threat of bastardy. The court bound the reputed fathers of bastard children to a sum of $20 or more for their initial appearance in court to answer for their crime. In every case, one or two men—usually friends or family of the accused—served as bondsmen, agreeing to help pay the fee if the father did not come to court. Therefore, these bondsmen were both funders and persuasive forces to guarantee the appearance of the alleged fathers. Often, the court maintained the security bond for many years to ensure that the fathers returned to the court “for any future orders of the court and for the maintenance of the child.” Through these security bonds, the court held substantial power over the reputed fathers and could request money from them for a number of years.
As time progressed, the monetary amount required for the security bond swelled from $20 to $500. Likely to prevent bastardy and to remain competitive, the county increased bond amounts to maintain an economic foothold.
The graph also illustrates an interesting development during the late 1790s. From 1780 through 1795, the bond amounts were random with little consistency or order. By 1796, a clear regulation of bond amounts occurred. Many factors could have contributed to the randomness of the early years, including different judges, the father’s economic standing, and the financial state of the county at the time. The fact that order emerged by the end of the eighteenth century demonstrates that the county took strides to become a more structured society, one that not only prosecuted these crimes, but also allotted consistent punishment.
The fewer number of bonds administered in the nineteenth century likely relate to lack of consistent record-keeping, as well as trust that the men would return to court to pay child support. Inflation itself contributed the high rate of increase the bond amounts. The Mecklenburg County court regularly enforced the establishment of security bonds, primarily to ensure that the reputed fathers paid the mothers child support.
Child Support
Once the court bound the reputed father to a security bond, they had the legal power to summon him to court if the mother petitioned for an allowance. The court generally expected the man to pay the mother’s childbirth fees and child support for the first year of care. Court minute data demonstrates that nearly fifty bastardy cases addressed the issue of first year allowances. However, there were fewer second and third year allowance cases. The court minutes do not provide evidence for payment beyond the third year of the child’s life. This lack of data suggests that the mothers either received financial support from their family or married by the time their child reached age four.
Similar to the security bond, the monetary amount of the allowances increased moving into the nineteenth century. The following graphs compare the child support paid to mothers with children within their first, second, and third years of life.
Child support in years two and three show a more orderly system of payment throughout the years examined.
The graph to the left demonstrates that from 1780 through 1800, the court lacked consistency and did not have a standard allowance set for the first year of the child’s life. By 1800, the court consistently regulated payment.
These figures also reveal a clear difference between first, second, and third year allowances, for the first year’s average was generally much higher than the second and third years’. All allowances gradually increased from the 1780s through the 1810s, but a major boost occurred in the 1820s. The first year’s allowance continued to spike in the 1830s as well. Inflation contributed to the general increase, but the invention of the cotton gin and the demand for cotton during the first twenty years of the nineteenth century likely resulted in higher wages and a thriving economy.
The monetary data demonstrates that these Mecklenburg County cases were not static, for other forces often influenced the bond and allowance amounts requested by the court. Few bastardy cases presented variations from the norm. The case study of Elizabeth Paul illustrates the nature of the prosecution process for the crime of bastardy. Elizabeth’s is not an exceptional case, but rather the standard for bastardy proceedings. Click the button below to view Elizabeth's Case Study.
Sexual Offenses
Bastardy remained the most frequently prosecuted crime against order and morals throughout the 1830s, but the court did try community members for other sexual offenses. Fornication was the second most common sexual crime prosecuted. Of the eight Mecklenburg County fornication cases between the years 1767 and 1839, only two resulted in punishment. Unfortunately, the minutes do not divulge the reason for the respective verdicts. Typically, the Mecklenburg Superior Court only charged the male for fornication, while the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions prosecuted both the female and male involved in the case.
In contrast to the low conviction rate for fornication, three of the four adultery cases ended with a guilty decision. The higher conviction rate likely occurred because of distressed accusers and witnesses. Though there are few cases in the sample size, only the males received punishment, while the female defendant evaded a sentence.
The earliest case occurred in 1814, in State v. David Gowan. Interestingly, prior court records divulge that David Gowan was a Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions Justice of the Peace in 1805. Considering his prominent legal position, it is not surprising that he appeared in court on three different occasions for this particular case. His first appearance, on May 10, 1814 served as a preliminary hearing, followed by two additional appearances in November for his trial. The court found him guilty of adultery and sentenced him to a fine. An additional case occurred in the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions in 1837. The court bound Levi Ferturman to £200 for his appearance at the next superior court in order to answer the charge for adultery. Unfortunately, the Superior Court records do not suggest that Levi ever made this appearance, likely resulting in his payment of the security bond. These fornication and adultery cases, though few, represent the sexual crimes prosecuted in Mecklenburg County in the nineteenth century outside of bastardy.
Another related case type is divorce. Divorce cases did not always involve sexual impropriety, but they did have an economic and social effect on the community. In 1814, North Carolina passed the first divorce laws. North Carolina had relatively liberal divorce laws in comparison to other colonies, though the justices in state’s high court held conservative views of divorce. Often, the high court refused to affirm divorces decreed by the superior courts. Despite this fact, the Mecklenburg County superior court judged a number of divorce cases.
Of the thirteen divorce decisions in the county from 1814 through 1839, four involved adultery. Three times, the adulterers were women. In divorce cases concerning adultery, the court removed the petitioners “from the bonds of matrimony” and often required the defendant to pay a sum of money for the court appearance. The fact that men were more likely to shame women for adultery demonstrates a power dynamic between couples. Antebellum society tasked the man with protecting a white woman’s purity. Therefore, when women challenged this obligation, men responded by petitioning for divorce. In contrast, judges in other North Carolina counties denied men divorces from adulterers, for the women had few resources by which to live after the divorce. In Mecklenburg County the courts permitted a separation for couples with female sexual indiscretion, demonstrating a variation from the norm in North Carolina. Women petitioned the court if their husbands deserted the family, but men rarely appealed to the court unless their wives committed adultery.
Thomas McKorkle and Katharine Evits’ case offers another layer to the story of prosecuting sexual offenses, particularly fornication. Click the button below to learn more about their case.
Disorderly Conduct
The Mecklenburg court also prosecuted citizens for other immoral actions that disrupted the order of society. Contempt of court, peace warrants, drunkenness, and profane swearing cases all appear in the court minutes, though to a much lesser degree than sexual offenses.
The court often employed punishment that publicly shamed the guilty party in cases that challenged order in society. Public embarrassment functioned as a mechanism for social control and took many forms. The stocks and pillory publicly humiliated individuals, but newspaper accounts of trial proceedings produced the same result. Advertising divorce cases in the newspapers demonstrated disorderly behavior in the society and embarrassed both involved parties. The goal of public shaming was to prevent others from partaking in similar actions. Contempt of court and peace warrant cases did not see print, but they did employ punishment that publicly shamed the guilty.
From 1800 through 1830, the Mecklenburg County Justices of the Peace judged ten contempt of court cases. Often, the minutes did not detail the reasons for contempt of court, but some did. The 1802 case of Thomas Kennedy specifically states the he insulted the court, resulting in a ten-shilling fine. In State v. Henry Price, the defendant faced punishment for quarrelling during a court session. In addition to standing in the stocks for half an hour, Henry paid a fine of $5. For contempt of court cases, the fines ranged from a few pounds to ten and the defendants often spent time in the stocks.
The peace warrant was another type of order-regulating court ruling. Some historians describe the peace warrant as a means for women to seek protection from abusive marital relationships. The wife could initiate the peace warrant, which required the defendant to post a bond that guaranteed twelve months of peaceful behavior toward her. Mecklenburg County represents a deviation from this description, for the court issued peace warrants to both males and females.
Argyle King’s case in 1828 resulted in a court order to keep the peace toward the citizens of North Carolina, and Polly Beaty in particular. This case represents the only one between two citizens who had a known sexual relationship, for Argyle King fathered Polly Beaty’s illegitimate child in 1822. Six years later, he faced the court yet again for mistreatment of Polly. Another intriguing peace warrant case involved three women. In August of 1833, the state issued a peace warrant to Delila Grover, which bound her to $200 to keep the peace for twelve months toward Sally Carter and Lucretia Allen. This order demonstrates that in Mecklenburg County, the court charged women with peace warrants to protect other women in the community. Peace warrants in Mecklenburg County did not involve abusive relationships between husbands and wives, as some historians suggest, but they did represent a desire to maintain order in society and civility between citizens.
The county did not follow the law in all cases involving the crimes against order and morals, probably due to a lack of economic threat. In general, few cases for drunkenness and profane swearing saw trial. The sole drunkenness case occurred in 1785 and the guilty John Hokerty faced confinement in the stocks for half an hour. The first swearing case occurred in 1774. The court placed John Johnson in custody until he could pay the 15 shilling fine. Over forty years later, John King profanely swore and acted disorderly in court. The court found him guilty and fined him $20, consistent with the North Carolina laws that required stricter punishment for such behavior in the courtroom. Though the county acquired money from such cases, these acts did not threaten economic security like the crimes of bastardy, adultery, and divorce.
The Mecklenburg County court tended to prosecute the crimes against order and morals that had a negative economic effect for the community. The court focused on moral crimes that disrupted the economy and occasionally the social order of the community. Other institutions disciplined different groups of people for crimes against order and morals, particularly the church.