John W. Peterson-Scoundrel?

UPDATE:  6/6/2019  See the end of this post for an update.

Several years back I was researching my Jones ancestry and I came across some information that my 2nd great-grandfather George W. Jones was not really a Jones.  He was in fact a Peterson.  This particular Peterson is not related to my paternal Peterson side but is on my Mother's side.

Supposedly, a John Peterson was going to marry the widow Catherine DeWesse Jones (my 3rd great-grandmother) in 1859 but backed out the last second.

Catherine DeWesse was first married to James Jones in 1834 in Ohio and had at least seven children with him.  James Jones died in 1848 leaving Catherine a widow with all seven minor children.  Ten years later in 1860 Catherine DeWesse Jones was the head of the household with three of her sons and a small boy named George W. Jones, age 1.  My first thought was that this George Jones was a grandson, but I learned later on that he was in fact Catherine's boy, born when she was 39 years old.

I was able to make contact with other Jones researchers who confirmed that George W. Jones was in fact Catherine's son and that the father was a John W. Peterson.  It wasn't until recently that I was able to confirm this story through a court document.

John Peterson and Catherine Jones had planned on getting married in 1859 and even applied for a license (see pic.)  For some reason the marriage never happened.  George W. Jones was born in April of 1859.   Clearly, John Peterson and Catherine Jones were more than just friendly neighbors-According to the Adams Co., IN 1860 census, they lived close to each other.

So the question is:  Why didn't the marriage happen?  It seems natural to think that John Peterson didn't want to follow through since Catherine would have had a lot of pressure to marry the man who got her pregnant.

Is John W. Peterson a scoundrel?  It would be hard to pin that label on him without more information.  It is possible that he wasn't the father and decided to not marry her when he found out she was pregnant or maybe Catherine didn't want the marriage and refused.  I will probably never know.

I have wondered what life was like for Catherine and George.  Considering the time (1860s) children born to women who were not married were often mistreated by society and family.  Yet, it seems that George's half brothers and sisters embraced him and he grew up in a healthy environment and love.  That is good.

In the meantime, I am hoping that through DNA I will be able to see if John W. Peterson is in fact my 3rd great-grandfather.

______________________________________________________________________________

Recent DNA results from ancestry says that John W. Peterson is in my family tree.  Hopefully more links will be established so I can be more confident in these results.

A Ruined lady

I've often imagined a world where in the past people were more honest, trustworthy and moral.  In my research, I've learned that my ancestors were probably just good at concealing their true nature.  Of course, societal norms made it difficult to "act" a certain way in public and people had to put on a facade to conceal their hidden selves.  Today, we don't have such a burden.  Just tap into any part of social media and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Life was different in the 1800's.  People were not suppose to have sexual intercourse outside of marriage.  Women were not supposed to be pregnant if they were not married.  If a women became pregnant, she was considered "ruined."

Here is an interesting article from November 10, 1893 from The Cincinnati Enquirer regarding Kitty O'Brien who was "ruined" and became pregnant.  There is more to this story that is worth looking at, but for this post, I want to focus on the perception that Kitty had about having sex with a man she wasn't married to.