tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post5983700539241130162..comments2024-03-28T04:26:30.557-05:00Comments on Boston 1775: “Mr. Cleaveland’s moral, Christian and ministerial character” Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-91833185219530032802017-09-22T12:39:15.589-05:002017-09-22T12:39:15.589-05:00I’m switching from documented facts to speculation...I’m switching from documented facts to speculation here. I couldn’t find out when Elizabeth Cleaveland was born. I saw a hint that she was significantly younger than John Cleaveland, and she outlived him by fourteen years. <br /><br />In eighteenth-century a swift marriage was often a sign that the bride was pregnant. Neighbors seeing the Cleaveland’s swift marriage, after she had already been keeping his house, might have assumed that was the case with them. Usually a community dealt with that situation by watching one of a couple become a church member while confessing to the sin of fornication, and then everyone ignored it. It was too common to get excited about. The criticism of Elizabeth for not being pious enough might have been based on her not going through that ritual as she formally joined the church.<br /><br />The council explicitly and repeatedly said there was no basis for the criticism of the Rev. John Cleaveland. If Elizabeth had delivered a baby within eight months of the marriage, that conclusion could have been quite different. So does that mean that the Cleavelands had not started to have sex before marriage? Not necessarily because John Cleaveland never had children with either of his wives. He might have been infertile. And if so, that might have saved his reputation in front of the council. J. L. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405157000473731801noreply@blogger.com