Consanguineous Marriages in the American Population Part 3

[Footnote 31: _Die Regulierung des Geschlechtsverhaeltnisses_, pp.

243-244.]

Westermarck comments: "The evidence for the correctness of his deduction is, then, exceedingly scanty--if, indeed it can be called evidence. Nevertheless, I think his main conclusion holds good.

Independently of his reasoning I had come to exactly the same result in a purely inductive way." He then quotes a number of travelers to the effect that marriage between members of different races produce a phenomenal excess of female births. When we consider the extraordinary proficiency in fiction attained by many travelers in strange lands, we are forced to the belief that Westermarck based his own conclusion on still more scanty evidence.

The statistics given by Dr. Dusing for Prussia[32] are as follows:

TABLE IX.

------------------------------------------------------------ | | | Other | |Evangelical.| Catholic. | Christians.| Jews.

------------------------------------------------------------ Male births | 4,015,634 | 2,273,708 | 12,283 | 69,901 Female births| 3,775,010 | 2,136,295 | 11,548 | 64,939 Masculinity | 106.374 | 106.435 | 106.36 | 107.64 ------------------------------------------------------------

[Footnote 32: _Das Geschlechtsverhaeltnis der Geburten in Preussen_, pp. 24-25; in _Staatswissenschaftliche Studien_, vol. iii.]

and for mixed marriages:

TABLE X.

-------------------------------------------------------------- |Evangelical |Catholic and| Other | Jews and |and Catholic.|Evangelical.| mixed. |Christians.

-------------------------------------------------------------- Male births | 157,755 | 189,733 | 4.464 | 2,958 Female births| 149,205 | 179,505 | 4.254 | 2,850 Masculinity | 105.73 | 105.70 | 104.9 | 103.8 --------------------------------------------------------------

In the face of these statistics it is impossible to deny that endogamy within a great social cla.s.s or an ethnic race may have some tendency to produce an excess of male births, while exogamy in this broad sense may diminish the masculinity. But the perpetuation of a comparatively pure race by marriage within that race, and consanguineous marriage in the narrower sense are different propositions. It may easily be that the marriage of individuals of a similar type regardless of consanguinity produces a greater excess of male offspring. According to the percentage of first cousin marriages among the Jews as given by Mulhall,[33] and allowing the average number of children to a marriage, there would be only 3100 children of such marriages among the Jewish births in Prussia, and in order that these might raise the masculinity of Jewish births even from 106 to 107 the 3100 births would have to have a masculinity of 200. Among Protestants, or especially among Catholics where the percentage of cousin marriage is much smaller, it seems hardly reasonable that the general masculinity would be appreciably affected. A much better case can be made for similarity or difference of race as the cause of the variation. The difference between Catholic and Protestant is, roughly speaking, the difference between the brachycephalic brunette Alpine race and the dolichocephalic blonde Baltic race. So that a mixed marriage in Germany would almost always mean the crossing of two distinct types.

[Footnote 33: _Dictionary of Statistics, op. cit._, p. 383.]

The investigations of M. Gache in Buenos Ayres covering the period from 1884 to 1894 inclusive, show that cross breeding has had the effect of _raising_ the masculinity. The births resulting from unions of Italian, Spanish and French male immigrants with native-born Argentine females, show a higher masculinity than the births produced either by pure Argentine alliances or by pure alliances of any of these nationalities of Buenos Ayres. Further, the unions of Argentine males with females of foreign nationality provide a higher masculinity than is common among Argentines themselves.[34] These facts do not necessarily contradict the theory that any crossing of great racial groups diminishes masculinity, for all of the nationalities involved in this study are predominantly Mediterranean in blood. The theory is borne out by the statistics of the negroes in the United States, a large proportion of whom are of mixed blood. For taking as a basis the number of children of negro descent born during the year ending June 1, 1900 reported by the Twelfth Census, the females predominated, giving a negative masculinity of 99.8. Furthermore, the percentage of consanguineous marriage is probably high in the colored population.

[Footnote 34: C.J. & J.N. Lewis, _Natality and Fecundity_, pp.

114-116.]

The following table compiled from Mulhall[35] and other sources fails to show any correspondence between the percentage of first cousin marriage and the masculinity:

TABLE XI.

--------------------------------------- Country. |Masculinity.| Per cent 1st | |cousin marriage.

--------------------------------------- England | 104.5 | .75 France | 105.3 | 1.26 Italy | 107.0 | .69 Prussia | 105.8 | .67 U.S.[36] | 104.9 | 1.00 Jews[37] | 107.6 | 2.30 ---------------------------------------

[Footnote 35: Op. cit., p. 92.]

[Footnote 36: Masculinity, _Twelfth Census, Vital Statistics_, Pt. 1.

Per cent of cousin marriage, estimated.]

[Footnote 37: Duesing, op. cit., p. 24.]

It is impossible to obtain the actual masculinity ratio for the United States, for the Census gives the statistics for only one year in ten and even then is untrustworthy on this point. In a few states birth registration is attempted but the figures thus obtained do not harmonize with the Census and the situation is not greatly improved.[38] The masculinity varies considerably in different parts of the country, and is generally higher in states where the rural population predominates. This fact agrees with European statistics which almost universally show a high masculinity in rural districts.

Table XII, ill.u.s.trates this point:

TABLE XII.

_Masculinity in Scotland_.[39]

------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Mainland |Insular Period. |Princ.i.p.al|Large |Small | rural | rural | towns. |towns.|towns.|districts.|districts.

------------------------------------------------------- 1855-1861| -- | -- | -- | 105.6 | 106.6 1862-1871| -- | -- | -- | 105.9 | 105.6 1872-1881| 105.0 | 105.6| 106.1| 105.3 | 108.0 1882-1891| 105.1 | 105.6| 105.5| 105.5 | 108.7 1892-1901| 104.7 | 104.6| 104.9| 105.2 | 107.1 ------------------------------------------------------- Average | 104.9 | 105.3| 105.5| 105.5 | 107.2 -------------------------------------------------------

[Footnote 38: Ma.s.sachusetts _Census_, 103.1; Reg. 1891-1900, 105.6.

Vermont _Census_, 108.1; Reg. 1890-1896, 105.9. Connecticut _Census_, 103.9; Reg. 1887-1891, 107.2. Rhode Island _Census_, 103.8; Reg.

1854-1901, 104.9.]

[Footnote 39: Lewis and Lewis, op. cit., p. 128.]

This would seem to bear out the theory that masculinity is affected by consanguineous marriage, for consanguineous marriage is more frequent in rural districts, and especially in insular rural districts. But unless consanguineous marriages can directly be shown to produce an excess of male births greater than the normal, such indirect evidence is valueless.

In the genealogical material previously considered, we have a sampling of the American population throughout its whole history, but the data so far collected are insufficient for more than an indication of what might be expected in further research along the same line. In the following table as before, the figures compiled from printed genealogies are separated from those obtained through correspondence and from miscellaneous sources. The "unrelated" marriages from genealogies, are marriages of brothers and sisters of the persons who have married first cousins, and their records were obtained from the same sources as those in the next previous category. The "children of first cousins" are the offspring of the first cousin marriages who married persons not related to themselves by blood. The last category includes distantly related marriages from correspondence and other sources and marriages between persons of the same surname whose relationship could not be traced.

TABLE XIII.

------------------------------------------------------------------ | | s.e.x of Children. | |Number |-----------------------|Mascu- Marriages. |Fertile.| Male.|Female.|Unknown.|linity.

------------------------------------------------------------------ 1st cousin. Gene. | 125 | 318 | 314 | 40 | 101 Unrelated. Gene. | 629 | 1561 | 1559 | 64 | 100 Ch. of 1st cousins. Gene.| 170 | 402 | 375 | 48 | 107 Other cousin. Gene. | 301 | 736 | 666 | 15 | 111 1st Cousin. Cor. | 150 | 316 | 295 | 148 | 107 Ch. of 1st cousins. Cor. | 124 | 192 | 164 | 214 | 111 Miscellaneous | 88 | 210 | 205 | 50 | 102 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Total | 1587 | 3735 | 3578 | 578 | 104.4 ------------------------------------------------------------------

It is of course impossible to explain all the ratios in this table.

Much variation is here due to chance, and a few additional cases might appreciably change any of the ratios. It will be noticed, however, that the two categories whose masculinity is most similar (100 and 101), are derived from cases taken from the same families and from the same environment, and differing only in that the first is closely consanguineous while the second is not. The third and fourth groups, separated from the first two by at least a generation, and probably living in a different environment, differ greatly in masculinity from them. In the fourth group are included 1-1/2, second, third, and a few even more distant cousins, all more distantly related than first cousins, and taken from the same genealogies as these; yet the masculinity is much greater.

An a.n.a.lysis of the cases collected fifty years ago by Dr. Bemiss, of course without thought of masculinity, gives the following result:[40]

TABLE XIV.

---------------------------------------------------------- | s.e.x of Children. | |----------------------| Marriage. |Number.| Male.|Female.|Masculinity.

---------------------------------------------------------- 1st cousins and nearer| 709 | 1245 | 1171 | 106.3 2d and 3rd cousins | 124 | 264 | 240 | 110.0 All consanguineous | 833 | 1509 | 1411 | 106.9 Unrelated | 125 | 444 | 380 | 116.9 ----------------------------------------------------------

[Footnote 40: Bemiss, _Report on Influence of Marriages of Consanguinity_, pp. 420-423.]

In the "Marriage of Near Kin," Mr. Huth gives a list of cases of consanguineous marriage collected by various persons from all over Europe.[41] He is free to say that they are worse than useless for the purpose for which they were collected, that of determining whether or not such marriages produce degeneracy, but in so far as the s.e.x of the children is concerned they would not be bia.s.sed.

TABLE XV.

----------------------------------------------------- |s.e.x of Children.| |----------------| Marriage. | Male.| Female. | Masculinity.

----------------------------------------------------- 1st cousins and nearer| 165 | 164 | 100 More distant cousins | 95 | 73 | 131 -----------------------------------------------------

[Footnote 41: Huth, _Marriage of Near Kin. Appendix._]

The unusual ratios are of course due princ.i.p.ally to a "run of luck,"

and this table only shows that if consanguinity is a determining factor in s.e.x, its influence is negligible when a small number of cases is considered. It is interesting accordingly to note that of 100 children of incestuous unions and from uncle-niece and aunt-nephew marriages from Bemiss, Huth and other sources, the s.e.x distribution was 48 males and 52 females, giving a negative masculinity of 92.

While in general the evidence presented in this chapter is somewhat conflicting, that which bears most directly upon the problem does not substantiate the hypothesis of Westermarck. The evidence in favor of the theory is all indirect and is open to other interpretations. It is hardly safe to go to the other extreme and to a.s.sert that consanguinity diminishes masculinity. The safest, and withal the most reasonable conclusion is that consanguinity in the parents has no appreciable effect upon the s.e.x of the child.

CHAPTER IV

CONSANGUINITY AND REPRODUCTION

The princ.i.p.al object of nearly every previous discussion of the intermarriage of kindred, has been either to prove or to disprove some alleged injurious effect upon the offspring. The writers who have treated the subject may be divided into three groups. First, those who have maintained in accordance with popular opinion that consanguinity _per se_ is a cause of degeneracy or that in some mysterious way kinship of the parents produces certain diseases in the children. In this group Boudin in France and Bemiss in America are typical. Second, those who have flatly contradicted this position and have a.s.serted that on the whole such marriages are beneficial, and that crossing is in itself injurious to the race. Huth is the chief exponent of this theory, although he admits that where degenerate conditions exist in the parents consanguinity in marriage may not be beneficial. The third group holds that cousin marriages in themselves, especially if not carried through too many generations, are not harmful, but that if any hereditary tendency to malformation or disease exists in the family of the parents, this tendency, inherited through both parents is strongly intensified in the offspring, and that consequently an increased percentage of the offspring of cousin marriage may be afflicted with hereditary diseases. This group includes a number of the later writers such as Feer and Mayet. Among the earlier discussions, those of Dally in France and George H. Darwin in England take substantially this position. On the whole this theory seems to be the most reasonable one and with a few modifications it will be seen to account for all the facts herein presented.

It is undeniable that degeneracy does in some cases follow from the marriage of near kin, and probably with greater frequency than from non-related marriages. But it is likewise true that many of the world's greatest men have been the products of close inbreeding, sometimes continued through several generations. Frederick the Great of Prussia was the product of three successive cousin marriages between descendants of William the Silent,[42] and among his seven brothers and sisters at least three others ranked among the ablest men and women of the generation. Cousin marriage has always been frequent in the "first families of Virginia" which have produced a phenomenal percentage of able men. In fact, few persons who have traced their pedigrees back through a number of generations, do not find some names duplicated, as a result of cousin marriage.