This blog invites comments on historical matters, but sometimes receives responses of a highly negative nature. These normally just get deleted; people who want to criticise or debate can no doubt find homes elsewhere. But a recent comment on an old post that I wrote back in 2012 prompted this post. It is to clarify a couple of things that crop up from time to time related to Joseph Lytle Russell and Emma Ackley and their marriage.
I am not going into great detail – researchers
can check matters out for themselves and most points have already been covered
in the past on this blog.
The post is:
https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2012/02/marriage-of-joseph-lytel-russell-and.html
It establishes that over a year after CTR
and Maria married, JLR and Emma were still single but living in the Russell
household. The census return for their street, Cedar Avenue, is dated June 14,
1880.
There are four occupants of the house, C T
Russel (sic), married, occupation: merchant; Maria F, married, wife, keeps
house; J L, widowed, father, occupation: merchant; and E H Ackley, single, sister
(step), occupation: at home.
(The relationship entry for Emma in the schedule
is incorrect. Her relationship to the head of the household at this time is
sister-in-law.)
The issues raised in the comment are
basically threefold.
1.
Did Joseph and
Emma ever marry?
2.
What was going
on in that house with four of them there?
3.
The difference
in ages between Joseph and Emma.
The comment starts with: “I’m good at
genealogical investigations and I cannot find any record that indicates that Joseph
Russell and Emma Ackley married.”
I would agree there is no apparent record.
But there is a good reason for that. The State of Pennyslvania did not require
marriages to be officially registered until 1885, and “common law” marriages
continued to be “common” for years thereafter. If you married before then,
generally your immediately family would know, but no-one else would unless you
put it in the newspaper or had legal matters to attend to. If you wanted a “quiet”
wedding, it really was quiet.
To illustrate the situation, perhaps readers
can find an official document for CTR and Maria’s marriage? Like Joseph and
Emma’s, it is not there. But we know about them because they chose to put an
announcement in the local paper and CTR was sufficiently well known in
Allegheny for it to make a short paragraph in the papers. Both the Pittsburgh
Gazette and Pittsburgh Post (March 14, 1879) carry news of the marriage at the
home of Maria’s mother the day before with J H Paton officiating.
As an aside, this lack of documentation did
not just apply to marriages. You will not find a primary source for J F
Rutherford’s birth. When he needed to renew a passport, his mother Lenora, had
to extract a reference from a family Bible and sign an affidavit to that effect.
There were no other records extant.
Returning to Emma, when it came to JLR’s
last will and testament, part was disputed by Emma who believed that as his wife
she should have inherited more. In all the legal documents on the case he is
the husband and she is the wife. Joseph’s obituary found in several newspapers calls
her his wife. You can check the details if you are so minded.
The second criticism is that it was strange
for the four to all be in the same house. The writer makes all manner of
salacious accusations against both Joseph L and Charles T in that same household,
without a shred of evidence.
I am not going to even dignify this with
comments, other than to say that I see no problem with the four people living
under the same roof in the snapshot of June 1880 for Cedar Avenue. I’ve visited
the Cedar Avenue houses. They are large. Years later Maria was able to take in
a number of lodgers in one.
Why were they in the same home? Well, why
not? CTR and Maria were close at this time, committed to their religious work.
Emma and Maria were very close and would spend the last decades of their lives
together. CTR and his father Joseph were very close. There would be nothing
surprising about them being under the same roof at some point, and that may even
have led to the two unattached becoming a married couple. As already noted the
house in Cedar Avenue was large with plenty of space.
We do not know how long they were all at the same address. The census is a snapshot of one day, June 14, but one can assume
that any marriage came quite soon after that date since Emma’s daughter Mabel appears
to have been conceived around December that year.
The December date comes from Mabel’s birth date
in September 1881, and that can be confirmed from her marriage certificate when
she married Richard Packard in 1903. It gives her birth date as September 1881
but does not give the actual day. If she was born in September 1881, then obviously
she was conceived around December 1880. That would be 5-6 months after she and
Joseph were living under CTR’s roof while both single. That gives us a window of
a few months for a marriage.
We might here note that to try and bolster
the slurs made against Charles and Joseph, the writer comments on the period
June-December 1880 with the statement: “That does not leave a lot of time for
the two (Joseph and Emma) to fall madly in love and wed.” What sort of logic is
that? Who is to say they didn’t “fall in love” some time before the census, and
were at the same address on census night planning the wedding for the following
week? We just don’t know. We certanly have no basis for filling in the gaps to
support an obvious negative program.
When married, and after a baby came along
it would make more sense for them all to look for separate homes, but even then,
they were near each other until Joseph, Emma and Mabel went to Florida.
The suggestion that there was something bad
about all of this is a large leap of imagination with an obvious agenda. They
were all close at the time. It is very sad what happened later.
The third criticism that is dredged up yet
again is the disparity in ages. Why would a woman in her 20s want to marry a
man in his 60s?
Don’t be too critical about other people’s
decisions. Just look around in the world
of entertainment and politics, the same thing occurs today. As it happens, the
same has happened in my own extended family. But back in the 1880s an obvious
reason for a woman was to be provided with stablity and financial security.
That is something I venture the Ackley girls were always concerned about by
their later actions. And as a potential bonus, Emma was able to have a child,
which may have been very important to her.
So, whoever wrote the comment, please leave
the sordid speculation alone. And if you can’t do that, just don’t send it
here.