Consanguineous Marriages in the American Population Part 1

Consanguineous Marriages in the American Population.

by George B. Louis Arner.

PREFACE

This monograph does not claim to treat exhaustively, nor to offer a final solution of all the problems which have been connected with the marriage of kin. The time has not yet come for a final work on the subject, for the systematic collection of the necessary statistics, which can only be done by governmental authority, has never been attempted. The statistics which have been gathered, and which are presented in the following pages, are fragmentary, and usually bear upon single phases of the subject, but taken together they enable us better to understand many points which have long been in dispute.

The need for statistics of the frequency of occurrence of consanguineous marriages has been strongly felt by many far-sighted men. G.H. Darwin and A.H. Huth have tried unsuccessfully to have the subject investigated by the British Census, and Dr. A.G. Bell has recently urged that the United States Census make such an investigation.[1] Another motive for undertaking this present work, aside from the desire to study the problems already referred to, has been to test the widely prevalent theory that consanguinity is a factor in the determination of s.e.x, the sole basis of which seems to be the Prussian birth statistics of Dusing, which are open to other interpretations.

[Footnote 1: Cf. Bell, "A Few Thoughts Concerning Eugenics." In _National Geographic Magazine_, March, 1908.]

The stock ill.u.s.trations from isolated communities have been omitted as too difficult to verify, and little s.p.a.ce has been given to the results of the inbreeding of domestic animals, for although such results are of great value to Biology, they are not necessarily applicable to the human race.

The writer regrets that it is impossible here to acknowledge all his obligations to those who have a.s.sisted him in the preparation of this work. Such acknowledgement is due to the many genealogists and other friends who have kindly furnished detailed cases of consanguineous marriage. For more general data the writer is especially indebted to Dr. Alexander Graham Bell, to Dr. Martin W. Barr, to Professor William H. Brewer of Yale University, and to Dr. Lee W. Dean of the University of Iowa. In the preparation of the ma.n.u.script the suggestions and criticisms of Professors Franklin H. Giddings and Henry L. Moore have been invaluable.

G.B.L.A.

MARCH, 1908.

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this essay is to present in a concise form and without bias or prejudice, the most important facts in regard to consanguineous marriages, their effects upon society, and more particularly their bearing upon American social evolution. The problems to be considered are not only those which relate primarily to the individual and secondarily to the race, such as the supposed effect of blood relations.h.i.+p in the parents upon the health and condition of the offspring; but also the effect, if any, which such marriages have upon the birth-rate, upon the proportion of the s.e.xes at birth, and the most fundamental problem of all, the relative frequency with which consanguineous marriages take place in a given community.

No thorough and systematic study of the subject has ever been made, and could not be made except through the agency of the census. The statistical material here brought together is fragmentary and not entirely satisfactory, but it is sufficient upon which to base some generalizations of scientific value. The sources of these data are largely American. Little attempt is made to study European material, or to discuss phases of the problem which are only of local concern.

Some topics, therefore, which have frequently been treated in connection with the general subject of consanguineous marriages are here ignored as having no scientific interest, as for instance that of the so-called "marriages of affinity," which has been so warmly debated for the past fifty years in the British Parliament.

For obvious reasons it will often be impossible to distinguish between the different degrees of consanguinity, but wherever possible the degree will be specified. It is probable that where a number of marriages are vaguely given as consanguineous, few are more distant than second cousins, for in the United States especially, distant relations.h.i.+ps are rarely traced except by genealogists. In designating degrees of relations.h.i.+p the common terminology will be used, as in the following table, expressing, however, the rather clumsy expression, "first cousin once removed" by the simpler form "1-1/2 cousin."

[Ill.u.s.tration]

By far the greater part of the literature of consanguineous marriage is of a controversial rather than of a scientific nature, and a search for statistical evidence for either side of the discussion reveals surprisingly little that is worthy of the name. Yet men of high scientific standing have repeatedly made most dogmatic a.s.sertions in regard to the results of such unions, and have apparently a.s.sumed that no proof was necessary. For example, Sir Henry Sumner Maine "cannot see why the men who discovered the use of fire, and selected the wild forms of certain animals for domestication and of vegetables for cultivation, should not find out that children of unsound const.i.tution were born of nearly related parents."[2]

[Footnote 2: Maine, _Early Law and Custom_, p. 228.]

Much s.p.a.ce is given to the alleged "innate horror of incest," and frequent appeals are made to Scripture, wrongly a.s.suming that the marriage of cousins is prohibited in the Mosaic Law.

The origin of "prohibited degrees" is only conjectural. The Christian Church apparently borrowed its prohibitory canons from the Roman Law,[3] and a dispensation is still necessary before a Catholic can marry his first cousin. However, such dispensations have always been easy to obtain, especially by royal families, and even the marriage of uncle and niece sometimes occurs, as among the Spanish Habsburgs, and as recently as 1889 in the House of Savoy.

[Footnote 3: Luck.o.c.k, _History of Marriage_, p. 282.]

The prohibition of the marriage of first cousins was removed in England by the Marriage Act of 1540,[4] but by this time the idea of the harmfulness of kins.h.i.+p marriage was so thoroughly impressed upon the people that they were very p.r.o.ne to look askance at such unions, and if they were followed by any defective progeny, the fact would be noted, and looked upon as a chastis.e.m.e.nt visited upon the parents for their sin. Naturally the idea became proverbial, and in some places it has influenced the civil law.

[Footnote 4: Child, "On Marriages of Consanguinity," in _Medico-Chirurgical Review_, April, 1862, p. 469.]

Perhaps the first printed discussion of the subject in America is from the pen of Noah Webster, in an essay which should be as interesting to the spelling reformer as to the sociologist.[5] He writes: "It iz no crime for brothers and sisters to intermarry, except the fatal consequences to society; for were it generally practised, men would become a race of pigmies. It iz no crime for brothers' and sisters'

children to intermarry, and this iz often practised; but such near blood connections often produce imperfect children. The common peeple hav hence drawn an argument to proov such connections criminal; considering weakness, sickness and deformity in the offspring az judgements upon the parents. Superst.i.tion iz often awake when reezon iz asleep."

[Footnote 5: Webster, _Collection of Essays and Fugitiv Writings on Moral, Historical, Political and Religious Subjects_, 1790, p. 322.]

From about 1855 to 1880 much was written about the effect of consanguineal interbreeding. One of the first contributions came from America. In 1858 Dr. S.M. Bemiss, of Louisville, Kentucky, reported to the American Medical a.s.sociation the results of his investigation of 833 cases of consanguineous marriage.[6] His compilation remains to this day the largest single piece of direct statistical work on the subject. Unfortunately, however, his statistics have a strong, if unintentional, bias which seriously affects their value. In France one of the earliest discussions was by M. Boudin,[7] who evidently obtained the Bemiss report (attributing it to Dr. O.W. Morris, who had quoted freely from Bemiss),[8] and enlarged greatly upon its fallacies. He also collected statistics of the deaf-mutes in Paris, and, by an amazing manipulation of figures, "demonstrated" that consanguinity of the parents was the cause of nearly one-third of the cases of congenital deafness. The savants of the Societe d'Anthropologie took sides and the debate became very entertaining.

Finally M. Dally came to the rescue, and published some very sane and logical articles which avoided both extremes, and first advanced the theory that any ill effects of consanguineous marriage should be attributed to the intensification of inherited characteristics.[9]

[Footnote 6: See _Transactions of the American Medical a.s.sociation_, 1858, pp. 321-425.]

[Footnote 7: "Du Crois.e.m.e.nt des families," _Mem. de la Societe d'Anthropologie_, vol. i, 1860-63, pp. 505-557.]

[Footnote 8: See Morris: "On Marriages of Consanguinity," in _Amer.

Med. Times_, Mar. 23, 1861.]

[Footnote 9: See _Bulletins de la Societe d'Anthropologie_, 1863, pp.

515-575; 1877, pp. 203-213.]

In England similar discussions took place during the same period, complicated, however, by the presence of the patient and long-suffering "deceased wife's sister." The best of the English work has been the statistical study by George H. Darwin,[10] and the cla.s.sic "Marriage of Near Kin" by Alfred H. Huth, a book of 475 pages, including a very complete bibliography to the date of the second edition, 1885. Although Mr. Huth's book is not free from error, and is enc.u.mbered with a large amount of worthless material, it is now after thirty-three years, by far the best treatment of the subject.

[Footnote 10: "Marriages of First Cousins in England and their Effects," _Journal Statistical Society_, 1875, pp. 153-184.]

In Italy Dr. Montegazza,[11] in Spain Senor Pastor[12] and others, have made useful contributions. German writers have usually preferred more general subjects, but many of them have given much s.p.a.ce to consanguineous marriage in sociological and biological works.

[Footnote 11: _Studj Sui Matrimonj Consanguinei_. Quoted by Darwin, op. cit., p. 178.]

[Footnote 12: "De los Matrimonios entre Parientes," Memorias _de la Real Academia de Ciencias Morales y Politicas_, vol. ii, pp. 369-400.]

Since the appearance of the Bemiss report little has been published in this country which bears directly upon our subject. The most important American contribution, however, is to be found in the Special Report on the Blind and the Deaf, in the Twelfth Census of the United States, prepared by Dr. Alexander Graham Bell. Although American writers have had little part in the theoretical discussions, our legislators have been active, so that the statutes of every state specify degrees of kins.h.i.+p within which marriage is prohibited. In at least sixteen states the prohibition is extended to include first cousins. In New Hamps.h.i.+re such marriages are void and the children are illegitimate.

Other states in which first-cousin marriage is forbidden are Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Nevada, Was.h.i.+ngton, Oregon, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana. Since both Oklahoma and Indian Territory had similar laws, the present State of Oklahoma should probably be added to this list. In all of these states marriages within the prohibited degrees are incestuous or void or both, except in Ohio, where no express declaration is made in the statute. In Ohio, Indiana, Nevada and Was.h.i.+ngton the law is made to read: "and not nearer of kin than _second cousins_," therefore including "1-1/2 cousins" within the prohibited degrees. In many states the marriage of step relatives is forbidden, as also marriage with a mother-in-law or father-in-law. Of the territories, Arizona, Alaska, and Porto Rico forbid the marriage of first cousins, but in Porto Rico the court may waive the impediment.

These laws probably have some effect in reducing the number of consanguineous marriages in these states, but the sentiment back of the law is more responsible for the decrease in the number of such unions than the law itself. For in the nature of things enforcement would be very difficult, and apparently little real effort is made in that direction. In Ohio, and probably elsewhere, the question as to consanguinity is not directly put to the applicants for a marriage license. The applicants are required to answer the usual questions in regard to age, parentage, residence, etc., and are then required to swear that their previous statements have been correct and that neither of them is "epileptic, imbecile or insane," that they are "not nearer of kin than second cousins, and not at the time under the influence of any intoxicating liquor or narcotic drug." Undoubtedly violations of the consanguinity clause are very frequent, and it is likewise easily evaded by going to another state where the laws are more liberal. One effect of the law is to provide a painless method of severing the marriage bond. A correspondent, who is a District Court Judge in Kansas, in reporting a case of first cousin marriage, adds that he "divorced them on the ground of consanguinity."

In the absence of direct investigation by the Census Bureau, or other public records of consanguineous marriages, perhaps the most promising field for research is in the genealogical records of American families. Several thousand volumes of such material have been published within the last half-century, and a large number of these are very carefully and scientifically prepared. The material gathered from such sources is very accurate in regard to the number of births, youthful deathrate etc., but mental or physical defects are rarely mentioned. The greatest objection to the utilization of this material, however, is the amount of labor necessary in order to glean the desired facts from the ma.s.s of irrelevant data. For example, in order to find one case of first cousin marriage it is necessary on an average, to examine the records of nearly two hundred other marriages.

The collection of data from personal sources is likewise open to grave objections. Not only is the informant likely to be bia.s.sed, but the cases which he will remember will be those in which something unusual has occurred. Herein lay the fallacy in the conclusions of Dr. Bemiss.

I have endeavored to overcome this bias by restricting my requests for information to genealogists and others who would more naturally appeal to records, but my efforts have been only partially successful.

The number of cases of consanguineous marriage, embracing all degrees of consanguinity, which I have collected from these two sources, genealogies and correspondence, is 723, a number too small in itself to establish any definite conclusions; but by using this material in connection with other related data, I trust I may be able to add something to the comparatively small amount of real knowledge which the world already possesses in regard to the marriage of kin.

In the course of my investigations I visited Smith's Island, in the Chesapeake Bay, about twelve miles across Tangier Sound, from Crisfield, Maryland, and nearly opposite the mouth of the Potomac.

Here is a community of about seven hundred people, who are princ.i.p.ally engaged in the sea-food industry. Their ancestors have lived on the island for many generations and there have been comparatively few accessions to the population from the mainland. As a natural consequence the population is largely a genetic aggregation.

Consanguineous marriages have been very frequent, until now nearly all are more or less interrelated. Out of a hundred or more families of which I obtained some record, at least five marriages were between first cousins. All of these were fertile, and all the children were living and apparently healthy. Since over thirty per cent of the inhabitants bear one surname (Evans), and those bearing the first four surnames in point of frequency (Evans, Brad-shaw, Marsh, and Tyler) comprise about fifty-nine per cent of the population, it will readily be seen that comparatively few absolutely non-related marriages take place. Yet in this community from September, 1904, to October, 1907, or during the residence there of the present physician, Dr. P.H.

Tawes, there have been 87 births and but 30 deaths, the latter from the usual causes. During this period there has not been a single case of idiocy, insanity, epilepsy, deaf-mutism or even of typhoid fever on the island.

The evidence gathered from various other isolated communities is very conflicting. Huth describes a great many of them which have existed for many generations without crosses without ill results. Other writers quote instances where whole communities have become degenerate. Until the antecedents of a community are known it is of course impossible to estimate the effect of consanguinity. The exceptionally high percentage of deaf-mutism on Martha's Vineyard may to some extent be due to a high percentage of consanguineous marriage, but that inbreeding is not the primary cause is revealed by the records showing that among the first settlers were two deaf-mutes, whose defect has been inherited from generation to generation for two hundred and fifty years.[13]

[Footnote 13: See article in Cincinnati _Gazette_, Jan. 22, 1895.]