Teen age marriage ages of the late 1800s

[webbles]

In the "Ages of early prophets and their wives thread", there was a statistical discussion over marriage ages in the 1800s.  I went and found access to the complete 1850 and 1880 census as well as 5% of the 1900 census (I used the "Integrated Public Use Microdata Series" located at https://usa.ipums.org/usa/).

The 1850 and the 1880 census has the age and marriage status of each person but doesn't have the age at which they were married.  They have two data points that you can try and guess the marriage age.  The first is a field for "Married in the last year".  If that is checked, then the person's age is most likely their age when they were married.  The second is a field for "Age of eldest child".  Subtracting that from the parents age gives a really rough estimate of marriage age.

The 1900 census also has the age and marriage status but it also has a field for "Years of marriage".  Subtracting that from the age should give the marriage age.

Based of off that data, here's the numbers that I got:

1850 census:

• Total married women for the USA: 3156838.
• Total married women under 18: 39907 (1.3%).
• Total married women who gave birth before 18: 269997 (8.6%)
• Total married women in the last year under 18: 9909 (11.6%) (out of 85460)

1880 census (I didn't get the field for "Married in the last year" but I can if needed):

• Total married women for the USA: 8433603.
• Total married women under 18: 68473 (0.8%).
• Total married women who gave birth before 18: 649562 (7.7%)

1900 census (this is a 5% sampling of the actual census):

• Total married women for the USA: 671976.
• Total married women under 18: 5310 (0.8%).
• Total married women who were married before 18: 107283 (16%)

 

By state:

• The first number is the number of married women who gave birth before 18 in the 1850 and 1880 census and the number of married women who were married before 18 in the 1900 census.
• The second number is the number of married women under 18 at the time of the census.
• The states are ordered by the first percentage, so the top state had the most marriages with the wife under 18

1850 census:

New Mexico: 2223 (27.2%), 432 (5.3%)
Washington: 21 (20.0%), 3 (2.9%)
Oregon: 311 (18.8%), 72 (4.4%)
Texas: 4336 (18.3%), 909 (3.8%)
Arkansas: 4412 (18.0%), 855 (3.5%)
Florida: 1240 (17.9%), 187 (2.7%)
Minnesota: 145 (17.2%), 23 (2.7%)
California: 364 (17.2%), 79 (3.7%)
Mississippi: 7312 (16.7%), 1208 (2.8%)
Alabama: 9824 (15.7%), 1453 (2.3%)
Louisiana: 5563 (14.8%), 899 (2.4%)
Georgia: 11224 (14.6%), 1887 (2.5%)
Tennessee: 14127 (12.7%), 2116 (1.9%)
South Carolina: 5048 (12.7%), 699 (1.8%)
Missouri: 11124 (12.5%), 1866 (2.1%)
Kentucky: 14235 (12.4%), 2227 (1.9%)
Iowa: 3407 (11.1%), 577 (1.9%)
Utah: 200 (11.1%), 75 (4.2%)
Illinois: 14639 (10.9%), 2437 (1.8%)
Indiana: 16132 (10.4%), 2677 (1.7%)
North Carolina: 8413 (10.2%), 1175 (1.4%)
Virginia: 9168 (10.0%), 1040 (1.1%)
District of Columbia: 645 (9.8%), 72 (1.1%)
West Virginia: 3791 (9.0%), 471 (1.1%)
Delaware: 1115 (8.6%), 112 (0.9%)
Maryland: 6124 (8.6%), 692 (1.0%)
Michigan: 5644 (8.3%), 935 (1.4%)
Ohio: 23501 (7.4%), 3173 (1.0%)
Wisconsin: 3797 (7.1%), 626 (1.2%)
Pennsylvania: 23280 (6.4%), 2634 (0.7%)
New York: 32445 (6.2%), 4586 (0.9%)
New Jersey: 4653 (5.8%), 546 (0.7%)
Maine: 4967 (5.0%), 695 (0.7%)
Rhode Island: 1244 (5.0%), 196 (0.8%)
Vermont: 2715 (4.8%), 402 (0.7%)
Connecticut: 2986 (4.6%), 446 (0.7%)
Massachusetts: 7438 (4.3%), 1074 (0.6%)
New Hampshire: 2184 (3.8%), 351 (0.6%)

1880 census:

New Mexico: 4482 (21.8%), 704 (3.4%)
Arizona: 735 (17.2%), 128 (3.0%)
Mississippi: 28796 (16.7%), 2684 (1.6%)
Florida: 7071 (16.6%), 769 (1.8%)
South Carolina: 25087 (15.9%), 2488 (1.6%)
Georgia: 36576 (15.1%), 4151 (1.7%)
Louisiana: 22616 (15.1%), 2229 (1.5%)
Texas: 37580 (15.1%), 5271 (2.1%)
Arkansas: 19243 (14.9%), 2897 (2.2%)
Alabama: 28753 (14.6%), 2796 (1.4%)
Tennessee: 31047 (12.9%), 4430 (1.8%)
Idaho: 463 (11.7%), 77 (1.9%)
North Carolina: 25120 (11.6%), 2403 (1.1%)
Kentucky: 29171 (11.2%), 3810 (1.5%)
Washington: 1262 (11.0%), 190 (1.7%)
Virginia: 24791 (10.9%), 1769 (0.8%)
Oregon: 2714 (10.3%), 328 (1.2%)
Montana: 439 (10.0%), 79 (1.8%)
Utah: 2042 (9.2%), 294 (1.3%)
Missouri: 30921 (8.9%), 3941 (1.1%)
West Virginia: 8599 (8.6%), 1043 (1.0%)
Colorado: 2132 (8.2%), 348 (1.3%)
Wyoming: 215 (8.1%), 38 (1.4%)
District of Columbia: 2238 (8.1%), 62 (0.2%)
Kansas: 12849 (7.4%), 1800 (1.0%)
California: 8727 (7.2%), 777 (0.6%)
Maryland: 10236 (6.9%), 590 (0.4%)
Indiana: 22526 (6.6%), 2413 (0.7%)
Nebraska: 5014 (6.4%), 711 (0.9%)
Delaware: 1564 (6.4%), 123 (0.5%)
Nevada: 479 (6.3%), 66 (0.9%)
North Dakota: 333 (6.2%), 49 (0.9%)
South Dakota: 927 (6.0%), 130 (0.8%)
Michigan: 17885 (5.8%), 2379 (0.8%)
Illinois: 29484 (5.6%), 2737 (0.5%)
Iowa: 15139 (5.4%), 1695 (0.6%)
Minnesota: 6457 (5.0%), 713 (0.6%)
Pennsylvania: 34811 (4.8%), 2615 (0.4%)
Ohio: 26419 (4.7%), 2170 (0.4%)
Maine: 5876 (4.6%), 619 (0.5%)
Wisconsin: 10104 (4.5%), 964 (0.4%)
New Jersey: 8531 (4.2%), 431 (0.2%)
New York: 38398 (4.2%), 2910 (0.3%)
Vermont: 2707 (4.1%), 333 (0.5%)
New Hampshire: 2832 (4.1%), 344 (0.5%)
Rhode Island: 1949 (3.9%), 116 (0.2%)
Massachusetts: 10496 (3.3%), 615 (0.2%)
Connecticut: 3726 (3.2%), 244 (0.2%)

1900 census:

New Mexico: 548 (33.4%), 46 (2.8%)
Georgia: 4799 (26.5%), 348 (1.9%)
South Carolina: 2816 (26.5%), 195 (1.8%)
Arkansas: 2884 (26.2%), 198 (1.8%)
Texas: 6461 (26.0%), 447 (1.8%)
Florida: 1146 (26.0%), 109 (2.5%)
Oklahoma: 1654 (25.7%), 127 (2.0%)
Mississippi: 3126 (25.1%), 231 (1.9%)
Alabama: 3682 (24.9%), 263 (1.8%)
Louisiana: 2690 (24.5%), 177 (1.6%)
Tennessee: 3751 (22.4%), 286 (1.7%)
Kentucky: 4032 (21.8%), 316 (1.7%)
Arizona: 164 (21.6%), 14 (1.8%)
Idaho: 263 (21.3%), 8 (0.6%)
North Carolina: 3216 (21.2%), 228 (1.5%)
West Virginia: 1646 (19.9%), 109 (1.3%)
Virginia: 2793 (19.0%), 142 (1.0%)
Oregon: 630 (17.6%), 22 (0.6%)
Missouri: 4704 (16.9%), 223 (0.8%)
Wyoming: 109 (16.8%), 7 (1.1%)
Kansas: 2266 (16.4%), 87 (0.6%)
Washington: 675 (16.0%), 23 (0.5%)
Montana: 267 (15.4%), 9 (0.5%)
Utah: 328 (15.2%), 9 (0.4%)
Indiana: 3729 (15.0%), 168 (0.7%)
Nevada: 39 (14.8%), 0 (0.0%)
Michigan: 3469 (14.5%), 114 (0.5%)
Colorado: 704 (14.2%), 33 (0.7%)
Nebraska: 1365 (14.1%), 42 (0.4%)
Maryland: 1419 (14.0%), 36 (0.4%)
Vermont: 467 (13.8%), 24 (0.7%)
Maine: 961 (13.6%), 40 (0.6%)
Delaware: 223 (13.3%), 8 (0.5%)
North Dakota: 337 (13.2%), 9 (0.4%)
California: 1597 (13.1%), 48 (0.4%)
Pennsylvania: 7189 (12.7%), 212 (0.4%)
Iowa: 2544 (12.2%), 101 (0.5%)
New York: 8101 (12.1%), 196 (0.3%)
Illinois: 5459 (12.1%), 223 (0.5%)
New Hampshire: 484 (12.1%), 23 (0.6%)
Ohio: 4789 (12.0%), 158 (0.4%)
District of Columbia: 278 (12.0%), 5 (0.2%)
New Jersey: 2064 (11.8%), 49 (0.3%)
South Dakota: 384 (11.5%), 11 (0.3%)
Wisconsin: 2016 (11.0%), 62 (0.3%)
Rhode Island: 398 (10.4%), 12 (0.3%)
Minnesota: 1492 (10.0%), 53 (0.4%)
Connecticut: 814 (9.9%), 16 (0.2%)
Massachusetts: 2311 (9.2%), 43 (0.2%)

 

It is interesting that for Utah sits in the middle of the states for all three census's.  It's also interesting that the New England states are usually in the bottom half and the western and southern status are usually in the top half.

If you want other numbers, tell me and I'll get them for you.

 

[Guest]

In the poorer South things were different, where young girls would marry in their middle teens to help families survive harsh times. I think this would be amplified in polygamous communities, where the hardship of very large families could be offset by their daughters can marry early as well. It is a sometimes harsh reality that makes clear why God teaches in the Book of Mormon an uneasy, if not absolute disregard for the practice when not necessary. 

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, webbles said:

In the "Ages of early prophets and their wives thread", there was a statistical discussion over marriage ages in the 1800s.  I went and found access to the complete 1850 and 1880 census as well as 5% of the 1900 census (I used the "Integrated Public Use Microdata Series" located at https://usa.ipums.org/usa/)....

Always impressive to see people go the extra mile in doing research and not just repeat others' work (like myself )

[strappinglad]

One question. How were the 1850 and 1880 created by state when , for example , only 31 states technically existed in 1850?   Also some of the states were part of a territory which may have occupied areas of more than one state. I'm not up on all the historical details so I need clarification.

[webbles]

8 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

One question. How were the 1850 and 1880 created by state when , for example , only 31 states technically existed in 1850?   Also some of the states were part of a territory which may have occupied areas of more than one state. I'm not up on all the historical details so I need clarification.

This is what IPUMS gives for the geographic data:

Quote

As long as boundary changes are taken into account, this variable is largely comparable across years. However, some households in the 1980 Urban/Rural sample were identified only by "state group," not by state. All of these state groups are coded 96 in STATEICP; the state groups are separately identified in STATEFIP.

Beginning with the 1970 Puerto Rican Census, but excluding the 1980 PR census (so this includes the 1970 PR census, the 1990 PR census, the 2000 PR census, the 2010 PR census, and the 2005-onward PRCS), Puerto Rico is identified as an unincorporated Commonwealth territory of the United States and has the STATEICP code of "83" applied.

The following territories/states were either not identified or not included in samples for the years specified below. These areas were not politically organized, were part of other territories/states, were not yet part of the United States, or were not part of the census sample.

Alaska: 1850-1880, 1940, 1950 (not in sample)
Arizona: 1850, 1860 (mostly part of New Mexico)
Colorado: 1850 (mostly unorganized)
Hawaii: 1850-1880, 1940, 1950 (not in sample)
Idaho: 1850, 1860 (part of Oregon Territory)
Kansas: 1850 (unorganized)
Montana: 1850, 1860 (mostly unorganized)
Nebraska: 1850 (unorganized)
Nevada: 1850 (split between Utah and New Mexico Territories)
North Dakota: 1850 (mostly part of Minnesota Territory)
Oklahoma: 1850, 1870, 1880 (part of Indian Territory)
Puerto Rico: 1850-1900, 1930-1960 (see Puerto Rico datasets for other years)
South Dakota: 1850 (split between Minnesota Territory and unorganized)
Washington: 1850 (part of Oregon Territory)
Wyoming: 1850 (mostly unorganized)

So it looks like the "state" value can also be the territory if it existed.  Since Arizona was part of the New Mexico territory in 1850, we won't see it separated out in 1850.  Residents within the current geographical boundary of Arizona would be considered part of New Mexico in 1850.

[Tacenda]

Any age under 16 is too young, I don't care if its 1800 or below.  Or if Mary, mother of Jesus was only 14. These are young women and they get the raw end of the stick, bad simile but that's the best I have.   

But thank you for those statistics, it would be nice for lazy people like me if you could tell me what they all mean.  Or not.  =)

[JulieM]

Please change the title of this thread.  There were no "teen age" youth back then.  Did you learn nothing from the other thread?  

Just kidding.  This is so interesting!  Thank you for compiling all of this. I'm sure it was a lot of work!

Edited March 19, 2016 by JulieM

[SeekingUnderstanding]

That is great. Since the concern is really young girls married to much older men, it would be interesting to see a the age difference (between spouses) distribution of brides 16 and younger. 

[thesometimesaint]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Any age under 16 is too young, I don't care if its 1800 or below.  Or if Mary, mother of Jesus was only 14. These are young women and they get the raw end of the stick, bad simile but that's the best I have.   

But thank you for those statistics, it would be nice for lazy people like me if you could tell me what they all mean.  Or not.  =)

Why?

[Sleeper Cell]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Any age under 16 is too young, I don't care if its 1800 or below.  Or if Mary, mother of Jesus was only 14. These are young women and they get the raw end of the stick, bad simile but that's the best I have

Are you suggesting that Mary, the mother of Jesus, may have gotten “the raw end of the stick?”

[webbles]

9 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That is great. Since the concern is really young girls married to much older men, it would be interesting to see a the age difference (between spouses) distribution of brides 16 and younger. 

Here's the distribution of age difference.  Each row is of the format:

Woman Age, # of women, % of women (compared to all married women), # of women married to 10-19 year olds, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50+

The percentages for the age difference are based on the number of women married at that age.

So you can see the percentage of women married at that age and then see the distribution of what ages they married.

(there were apparently 11 women married below the age of 10.  I'm ignoring them for these numbers)

Census 1850:

Based on age at time of census:

13, T 800 (0.0%), 10-19: 529 (0.661), 20-29: 261 (0.326), 30-39: 9 (0.011), 40-49: 1 (0.001), 50+: 0 (0.0),
14, T 1560 (0.0%), 10-19: 875 (0.561), 20-29: 673 (0.431), 30-39: 8 (0.005), 40-49: 4 (0.003), 50+: 0 (0.0),
15, T 3077 (0.1%), 10-19: 987 (0.321), 20-29: 2067 (0.672), 30-39: 18 (0.006), 40-49: 5 (0.002), 50+: 0 (0.0),
16, T 12849 (0.4%), 10-19: 2732 (0.213), 20-29: 8662 (0.674), 30-39: 1146 (0.089), 40-49: 309 (0.024), 50+: 0 (0.0),
17, T 21611 (0.7%), 10-19: 2110 (0.098), 20-29: 16803 (0.778), 30-39: 2247 (0.104), 40-49: 450 (0.021), 50+: 1 (0.000),

Based on age at time of census minus age of eldest child:

13, T 17009 (0.5%), 10-19: 4736 (0.278), 20-29: 9895 (0.582), 30-39: 2262 (0.133), 40-49: 116 (0.007), 50+: 0 (0.0),
14, T 23475 (0.7%), 10-19: 5970 (0.254), 20-29: 14281 (0.608), 30-39: 3013 (0.128), 40-49: 211 (0.009), 50+: 0 (0.0),
15, T 43064 (1.4%), 10-19: 11162 (0.259), 20-29: 26676 (0.619), 30-39: 4775 (0.111), 40-49: 451 (0.010), 50+: 0 (0.0),
16, T 73283 (2.3%), 10-19: 14665 (0.200), 20-29: 49571 (0.676), 30-39: 8140 (0.111), 40-49: 907 (0.012), 50+: 0 (0.0),
17, T 113156 (3.6%), 10-19: 15831 (0.140), 20-29: 83434 (0.737), 30-39: 12492 (0.110), 40-49: 1398 (0.012), 50+: 1 (0.000),

Census 1880:

Based on age at time of census:

12, T 2 (0.0%), 10-19: 2 (1.000), 20-29: 0 (0.0), 30-39: 0 (0.0), 40-49: 0 (0.0), 50+: 0 (0.0),
13, T 309 (0.0%), 10-19: 50 (0.162), 20-29: 205 (0.663), 30-39: 35 (0.113), 40-49: 14 (0.045), 50+: 5 (0.016),
14, T 1675 (0.0%), 10-19: 278 (0.166), 20-29: 1187 (0.709), 30-39: 145 (0.087), 40-49: 45 (0.027), 50+: 20 (0.012),
15, T 5647 (0.1%), 10-19: 677 (0.120), 20-29: 4382 (0.776), 30-39: 454 (0.080), 40-49: 85 (0.015), 50+: 49 (0.009),
16, T 19574 (0.2%), 10-19: 1809 (0.092), 20-29: 15716 (0.803), 30-39: 1675 (0.086), 40-49: 262 (0.013), 50+: 112 (0.006),
17, T 41265 (0.5%), 10-19: 2768 (0.067), 20-29: 33820 (0.820), 30-39: 3958 (0.096), 40-49: 557 (0.013), 50+: 162 (0.004),

Based on age at time of census minus age of eldest child:

12, T 2 (0.0%), 10-19: 2 (1.000), 20-29: 0 (0.0), 30-39: 0 (0.0), 40-49: 0 (0.0), 50+: 0 (0.0),
13, T 40643 (0.5%), 10-19: 10830 (0.266), 20-29: 21961 (0.540), 30-39: 6550 (0.161), 40-49: 1101 (0.027), 50+: 201 (0.005),
14, T 60297 (0.7%), 10-19: 16434 (0.273), 20-29: 33250 (0.551), 30-39: 8890 (0.147), 40-49: 1471 (0.024), 50+: 252 (0.004),
15, T 99285 (1.2%), 10-19: 22114 (0.223), 20-29: 60530 (0.610), 30-39: 13772 (0.139), 40-49: 2367 (0.024), 50+: 502 (0.005),
16, T 170837 (2.0%), 10-19: 31502 (0.184), 20-29: 113972 (0.667), 30-39: 21198 (0.124), 40-49: 3377 (0.020), 50+: 788 (0.005),
17, T 278497 (3.3%), 10-19: 38384 (0.138), 20-29: 200540 (0.720), 30-39: 33619 (0.121), 40-49: 4893 (0.018), 50+: 1061 (0.004),

Census 1900:

Based on age at time of census:

12, T 1 (0.0%), 10-19: 0 (0.0), 20-29: 1 (1.000), 30-39: 0 (0.0), 40-49: 0 (0.0), 50+: 0 (0.0),
13, T 29 (0.0%), 10-19: 7 (0.241), 20-29: 14 (0.483), 30-39: 5 (0.172), 40-49: 1 (0.034), 50+: 2 (0.069),
14, T 141 (0.0%), 10-19: 18 (0.128), 20-29: 111 (0.787), 30-39: 10 (0.071), 40-49: 1 (0.007), 50+: 1 (0.007),
15, T 488 (0.1%), 10-19: 76 (0.156), 20-29: 357 (0.732), 30-39: 40 (0.082), 40-49: 9 (0.018), 50+: 6 (0.012),
16, T 1549 (0.2%), 10-19: 165 (0.107), 20-29: 1219 (0.787), 30-39: 131 (0.085), 40-49: 25 (0.016), 50+: 9 (0.006),
17, T 3102 (0.5%), 10-19: 254 (0.082), 20-29: 2451 (0.790), 30-39: 337 (0.109), 40-49: 41 (0.013), 50+: 19 (0.006),

Based on age at time of census minus years married:

12, T 1 (0.0%), 10-19: 0 (0.0), 20-29: 1 (1.000), 30-39: 0 (0.0), 40-49: 0 (0.0), 50+: 0 (0.0),
13, T 29 (0.0%), 10-19: 7 (0.241), 20-29: 14 (0.483), 30-39: 5 (0.172), 40-49: 1 (0.034), 50+: 2 (0.069),
14, T 9307 (1.4%), 10-19: 2325 (0.250), 20-29: 6045 (0.650), 30-39: 791 (0.085), 40-49: 124 (0.013), 50+: 22 (0.002),
15, T 19048 (2.8%), 10-19: 4215 (0.221), 20-29: 12894 (0.677), 30-39: 1641 (0.086), 40-49: 237 (0.012), 50+: 61 (0.003),
16, T 31953 (4.8%), 10-19: 6022 (0.188), 20-29: 22837 (0.715), 30-39: 2677 (0.084), 40-49: 336 (0.011), 50+: 81 (0.003),
17, T 46945 (7.0%), 10-19: 7457 (0.159), 20-29: 34620 (0.737), 30-39: 4250 (0.091), 40-49: 510 (0.011), 50+: 108 (0.002),

 

Since 1880 and 1900 have 13 year old women married to 50+ year old men, I ran the numbers to see which states/territories had these marriages:

• The first number is the number of potential women married at age 13 to 50+ year old women (1880 uses the age - eldest child, 1900 uses the age - years married)
• The second number is the number of married women who were 13 at the time of the census.
• The percentage of the numbers are based off of the total number of married 13 year old women.
• I'm only printing the states that have 13 year olds married to 50+ year olds

1850 census:

There were no 13 year olds married to 50+ year olds in either numbers.

1880 census:

Nevada: 1 (6.3%), 0 (0.0%)
South Dakota: 1 (2.0%), 0 (0.0%)
New Hampshire: 2 (1.3%), 1 (100.0%)
Florida: 7 (1.2%), 0 (0.0%)
Utah: 1 (1.1%), 0 (0.0%)
Maryland: 7 (1.0%), 1 (100.0%)
Mississippi: 21 (0.9%), 1 (5.3%)
Virginia: 17 (0.9%), 0 (0.0%)
Alabama: 16 (0.8%), 0 (0.0%)
Maine: 3 (0.8%), 0 (0.0%)
South Carolina: 14 (0.8%), 1 (6.3%)
Tennessee: 13 (0.7%), 0 (0.0%)
California: 3 (0.7%), 0 (0.0%)
Texas: 15 (0.6%), 0 (0.0%)
North Carolina: 10 (0.6%), 0 (0.0%)
Arkansas: 7 (0.6%), 0 (0.0%)
Georgia: 13 (0.6%), 0 (0.0%)
Iowa: 4 (0.5%), 0 (0.0%)
Ohio: 8 (0.5%), 0 (0.0%)
Massachusetts: 3 (0.5%), 1 (25.0%)
Louisiana: 7 (0.4%), 0 (0.0%)
Kansas: 3 (0.4%), 0 (0.0%)
Kentucky: 5 (0.3%), 0 (0.0%)
Missouri: 5 (0.3%), 0 (0.0%)
New Mexico: 1 (0.3%), 0 (0.0%)
New York: 5 (0.2%), 0 (0.0%)
Michigan: 2 (0.2%), 0 (0.0%)
Indiana: 3 (0.2%), 0 (0.0%)
Pennsylvania: 2 (0.1%), 0 (0.0%)
Illinois: 2 (0.1%), 0 (0.0%)

1900 census:

Illinois: 1 (100.0%), 1 (100.0%)
Tennessee: 1 (50.0%), 1 (50.0%)

 

First off, it is interesting that 1900 only has 2 such marriages while 1880 has 201.  This could mean that either the age - eldest child is flawed or the age - years of marriage is flawed.  1880 does have 5 such marriages at the time of the census so it could also be that between 1880 and 1900, the amount of 13 year olds marrying 50 year olds decreased substantially.

Also, in the 1880 census, Utah territory is high on the list but two northeastern states (New Hampshire and Maryland) are high as well.  I believe northeastern states were more civilized than the rest of the country at that time so seeing 13 year olds marrying 50 year olds in those states could be indicative that it was acceptable (but definitely not the norm).

I'm also curious on why Utah territory has such few raw numbers.  Supposedly only 1 such marriage in the Utah territory in 1880.  Since this is during the polygamy wars, I wonder if they lied to the census takers about polygamy marriages.  There is a data point for polygamous relationships.  I'll have get that point and see what that says.

 

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said:

Are you suggesting that  Mary, the mother of Jesus, may have gotten “the raw end of the stick?”

 IMO, Mary didn't conceive literally, and that's the cruxt of the young age of these brides. 

[thesometimesaint]

Age of Consent wasn't well defined prior to the Victorian Age. In fact it wasn't legally well defined until the later 20th Century in this country.

Edited March 19, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

 IMO, Mary didn't conceive literally, and that's the cruxt of the young age of these brides. 

She was literally pregnant.  She gave birth literally.  She was married to Joseph (who may have been much older) literally.  She raised a baby at 14 literally.  When Christ was already 12 teaching in the temple Mary was a whopping 26 years old.

Edited March 19, 2016 by JLHPROF

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

 IMO, Mary didn't conceive literally, and that's the cruxt of the young age of these brides. 

Honestly it's the pregnancy and birth that are far more physiologically dangerous for young teens/girls. They're more likely to have high risk pregnancies and experience stalled labor that can kill both mother and child. In countries/eras without medical interventions, these births can lead to severe tearing and fistulas between the urinary tract, vagina, and/or anus that often go untreated.

[webbles]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

First off, it is interesting that 1900 only has 2 such marriages while 1880 has 201.  This could mean that either the age - eldest child is flawed or the age - years of marriage is flawed.  1880 does have 5 such marriages at the time of the census so it could also be that between 1880 and 1900, the amount of 13 year olds marrying 50 year olds decreased substantially

After rethinking this, I don't think the fact that 1900 has 2 such marriages is a big deal.  The 1900 data set I have is only 5% of the entire census.  So it is more likely that the other 15 to 50 marriages just aren't in the dataset.

[Calm]

Not only that but being pregnant and then a mother is a lifealtering event that goes on and on and on.  I don't understand why you (Tac) seem to see this as less traumatic/emotionally taxing than being married and having sexual relations with an older husband.

[Atheist Mormon]

"Teen age marriage ages of the late 1800s"

Excuse me but was my mother a Teenager (granted she didn't marry in USA)  when she was married at the age of 15 in 1944?

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Not only that but being pregnant and then a mother is a lifealtering event that goes on and on and on.  I don't understand why you (Tac) seem to see this as less traumatic/emotionally taxing than being married and having sexual relations with an older husband.

It escaped me I guess that she then would be giving birth and how hard that would be on her body, and considering she was only 12, not 14.  But having to go through the initial act before conceiving for others is traumatic as well.  

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

After rethinking this, I don't think the fact that 1900 has 2 such marriages is a big deal.  The 1900 data set I have is only 5% of the entire census.  So it is more likely that the other 15 to 50 marriages just aren't in the dataset.

I appreciate all the work

What useful conclusions can we draw from it?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

"Teen age marriage ages of the late 1800s"

Excuse me but was my mother a Teenager (granted she didn't marry in USA)  when she was married at the age of 15 in 1944?

Huh?

What are you asking?  Is this about the definition of "teenager"?   Technically it means anyone between 13 and twenty.  By that definition of course she was a teenager.

[webbles]

30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I appreciate all the work

What useful conclusions can we draw from it?

Unfortunately, I'm not really a statistician or a demographer.  I just like compiling data.

But it looks like 1 in 10 married woman was married before the age of 18.  The majority of those married a 20-29 year old (>60%).  Another 20% married someone between 10-19.  Then about 10% married someone 30-39.  Only 1-2% married 40-49 year olds and an even smaller number married 50-59 year olds.

So depending on how you define common (which was debated in the other thread), if you say 10% is common, then it was very common for an under 18 year old to marry someone between 10-29.  It was common to marry someone between 30-39 and very rare for any one older than that.  But it does appear that an under 18 year old marrying a 40+ year old was not unacceptable since some of the more civilized parts of the country (northeast) had those types of marriages.

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It escaped me I guess that she then would be giving birth and how hard that would be on her body, and considering she was only 12, not 14.  But having to go through the initial act before conceiving for others is traumatic as well.  

The age of Mary is a guess, though based on her culture so even if she was older there were many of her friends and family having that experience.  I think the level of truama would greatly depend on what one expected and grew up with and especially what type of person one was married to.  Lot less sheltered back then.  One big room where everyone slept so everyone would know what happened between husband and wife.  We have so much baggage attached to it because of literature, movies, TV, etc. that it has turned the physical act into something way beyond just the physical nature of it.  

They give out free birth control to anyone over the age of 10 as far as I can tell (from the Planned Parenthood site) without telling parents in New York state.  2% of 12 year olds in this day and age are having sex, 16% are by or at the age of 15.  And this is recently lower (note:  apparently the most common reason for a teenager not to have sex is religious or morals reasons):

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-ATSRH.html

I don't know what your jr high and high school were like but in mine girls were starting to talk about wanting to have sex in 8th grade and I was getting lectures about intercourse and oral sex from other 16 year olds who teased me (in a friendly, patting the naive, but nice kid on the head way, not mockingly) about being a virgin.

[Calm]

Can't edit...

Nonconsensual sex is traumatic at any age.

[Bernard Gui]

Another problem is that birthdates were not always accurately remembered.

For example, doing genealogy for my relatives in the early and mid-1800s, it is not unusual to find various birth years, sometimes as much as a 5 year spread.

Speaking as one, us old dudes are just as capable of love, provision, and devotion as some of the young bucks I know. Maybe even more so. Not all of us are Humbert Humberts, as seems to be the implications going around here.