In 1869, a case of adultery coupled with a case of fornication and bastardy were brought before Adams County courts. The adultery charge resulted in acquittal, but the latter charges led to convictions and the judgment that the man involved, Isadore Keefer, had to pay some measure of support for his child to the child’s mother, Caroline Shenabrook. The child would later have the surname Wolford. In other posts, we will trace those involved in the case—Isadore Keefer, Caroline Shenabrook, and John Wolford—but it helps to understand how some sexual relations were treated as crimes in the era.

Legal Context in 19th Century Pennsylvania

In the mid-19th century, adultery (sex by a married person with someone not their spouse) and fornication (sex between unmarried persons) were still criminal offenses in Pennsylvania. These laws dated back to colonial times when moral offenses were harshly punished – for example, William Penn’s 1682 law prescribed whipping and a year in jail for adultery. By the 1800s, punishments had become less severe: public corporal punishments (like branding or whipping) for adultery were abolished by 1791, and the crimes remained misdemeanors punishable by fines or imprisonment. (Pennsylvania did not formally repeal its adultery and fornication statutes until 1973.) Homosexual acts (termed sodomy or buggery in period law) were also illegal and treated as serious felonies, theoretically punishable by long prison terms. In practice, however, such cases rarely came before local courts in that era due to the stigma and secrecy surrounding them.

Frequency of Adultery and Fornication Cases

Court records from Gettysburg and greater Adams County indicate that charges of fornication, bastardy, and occasionally adultery were fairly common on the dockets in the mid-1800s. In fact, these “moral offense” cases made up a large share of the criminal caseload related to personal conduct. One study of Pennsylvania court records found that fornication and bastardy charges accounted for roughly 70% of all moral offense prosecutions in Adams and neighboring Cumberland County (with most of the remainder being other crimes like bigamy or public drunkenness). In contrast, adultery cases were less frequent – they occurred in most counties but only sporadically. Every county (except one) had at least one adultery indictment in the mid-19th century, but far fewer in number than fornication cases.

In Adams County’s Quarter Sessions (criminal court) registers for 1840–1890, charges labeled “fornication & bastardy” appear regularly, often several per year, whereas adultery indictments were occasional. For instance, the Adams County criminal index includes numerous entries for illegitimate births and related fornication charges, reflecting how routine these cases were. By the late 19th century (1880s), the volume of prosecutions for sexual morality offenses was actually declining compared to earlier decades, as Victorian society increasingly handled such matters privately (e.g. through civil divorce or quiet arrangements) rather than public trials. Nonetheless, throughout 1840–1890 these laws were actively used when circumstances prompted formal action.

Typical Punishments and Outcomes

Punishments for those convicted of adultery or fornication in this era tended to be moderate and chiefly financial. Unlike the colonial period’s whippings or pillory, 19th-century offenders were usually fined and seldom jailed for long (unless unable to pay fines). A common sentence for adultery in many states was a fine up to a few hundred dollars or a short term (several months) in county jail. In practice, Pennsylvania courts often showed leniency: for example, an 1870s adultery case in a neighboring state ended with just a $125 fine for the guilty manen.wikipedia.org, and Pennsylvania judges similarly favored fines over incarceration for consensual offenses. Adultery was also recognized as legal grounds for divorce, so a convicted adulterer could face marital consequences in parallel with criminal penalties.

For fornication and bastardy cases, the “penalty” was usually monetary and oriented toward child support rather than punishment per se. If an unmarried woman gave birth, the reputed father would be indicted to ensure he acknowledged and supported the child. Upon conviction (or often by pre-trial agreement), courts ordered the father to pay the lying-in expenses (the mother’s childbirth costs) and either a lump sum or regular payments for the child’s maintenance, along with court costs and a token fine to the county. In essence, the proceeding functioned like an early form of paternity and child support enforcement. The mother herself might technically be charged with fornication as well, but typically her charge would be dropped or she’d receive a nominal fine once paternity and support were settled. One Pennsylvania legal historian notes that in fornication/bastardy proceedings, “the penalty…was usually monetary – child support and lying-in expenses, in addition to court costs and a fine”. Jail was generally a last resort (e.g. if the father refused to pay the ordered support, he could be committed to jail for contempt).

It’s worth noting that community service or public shaming punishments occasionally survived into the early 1800s (in some areas, offenders had stood in courthouse yards clad in a white sheet as a form of humiliation), but there is no evidence of such punishments being imposed in Adams County by 1840–1890. The approach had shifted almost entirely to financial penalties and binding over the offender to ensure future good behavior (in adultery cases) or future child support (in bastardy cases).

Enforcement Patterns: What Got Prosecuted and Why

Not every act of infidelity or premarital sex in Gettysburg was dragged into court – prosecution tended to occur in specific situations. Fornication or adultery laws were invoked when an offense produced public consequences that authorities or victims felt compelled to address. The most common trigger was pregnancy out of wedlock, which created an illegitimate child. In those cases, there was strong incentive to prosecute: the unwed mother (or the local Overseers of the Poor responsible for destitute children) would swear a complaint to make the father accountable for support. This is why the charge was usually termed “fornication and bastardy.” Essentially, if a man would not marry the woman, the courts stepped in to enforce financial responsibility. Historical records show that if a child was born and the father “indicate[d] unwillingness to marry the mother,” he would face a bastardy charge to provide for the child. In the culture of the time, marriage was the expected remedy; a willingness to marry often led to charges being dropped, whereas refusal virtually guaranteed prosecution.

By contrast, adultery cases (where at least one party was married to someone else) required someone – typically the betrayed spouse or scandalized neighbors – to formally complain. These were often domestically driven prosecutions. For example, if a husband discovered his wife’s affair, he might press charges against the wife’s lover (or against the wife, though in practice husbands more often sued the lover in civil court for “criminal conversation” damages). Women wronged by adulterous husbands had fewer legal avenues – a wife could not sue her husband’s mistress for damages, but she could seek a divorce or, in theory, ask the district attorney to indict the husband for adultery. In Adams County, adultery indictments appear to have arisen mostly when the adultery was flagrant or combined with other misconduct: cases in which a spouse essentially deserted the marriage and cohabited openly with a lover were more likely to draw criminal charges. A notable example from local records is an 1875 case of a man (Abraham Fisher) who was “married but living with Catherine W.” as if she were his wife – he was indicted for adultery in that situation, presumably after community or family outcry. By the 1880s, such prosecutions were relatively rare and usually signaled a highly public or egregious situation (adultery was embarrassing to air in court, so quieter resolutions were often preferred).

Overall, adultery and fornication laws were enforced selectively. Consensual sexual misbehavior that remained discreet or did not result in a public burden (like an illegitimate child) was typically not prosecuted. The legal system of that era did not actively investigate private liaisons – there were no vice squads looking for cheaters – so an offense had to come to light through pregnancy, gossip, or a spouse’s complaint. It’s telling that many fornication cases begin with a “complaint of” or “oath of” a private individual (the woman or her father, for instance). This indicates these were essentially private-party initiated prosecutions. Even when charges were filed, they were often settled or dropped if the parties reached a compromise (for example, the father of an illegitimate child might pay a lump sum to the mother in exchange for withdrawing the case – though technically illegal, such out-of-court settlements did occur). In one Adams County case from 1839, Captain James Wade was accused of “forcible fornication” (essentially rape that led to a child), but he beat the charges – likely through a combination of legal maneuvering and the fact that he later married someone else and was indigent. The result was that his infant son born out of wedlock eventually spent time in the county poorhouse, underscoring that the court’s main concern was not jailing the father, but ensuring the child did not become a public charge.

Homosexuality cases, in comparison, were virtually absent from the local legal record. Although sodomy was a crime in Pennsylvania (earlier punishable by death, later by up to 10 years in prison after an 1820s reform), there is no mention of any sodomy prosecutions in Adams County’s 19th-century court index. This isn’t surprising – social attitudes meant such relations were kept very secret. Unless an incident was non-consensual or very public (which would more likely be framed as sexual assault), it would not come to the attention of authorities. We can reasonably conclude that no known cases of consensual homosexual activity were prosecuted in Gettysburg or Adams County during 1840–1890. Contemporary moralists certainly condemned “unnatural acts,” but practically speaking, this was a topic swept under the rug. (For context, Pennsylvania’s sodomy law was rarely enforced in the 19th century except in cases of sexual assault or bestiality; it primarily served as a deterrent statute.)

Notable Cases and Trends

A review of Adams County cases between 1840 and 1890 reveals some telling examples of how these laws were applied:

• Caroline Shenabrook & Isadore Keefer (1885): This is the case we will trace and that is recorded in the news clipping in this article, involving a married man (Keefer) and a single woman (Shenabrook) whose liaison produced a daughter. Such a scenario would be charged as “fornication and adultery” – the man’s act was adultery (since he had a wife), the woman’s was technically fornication, and the birth of the child triggered the bastardy aspect. The records note that a child from the affair. In line with usual practice, the court’s priority would have been to ensure support for the child. Keefer, as a married father of an illegitimate baby, could expect a fine and an order to provide financially for the child’s upbringing. Shenabrook, as the mother, might have been socially stigmatized but legally her role would mainly be as the complaining witness (the “prosecutrix”) rather than a defendant punished harshly. This case illustrates how adultery prosecutions often overlapped with paternity proceedings: it wasn’t mere moral zealotry, but a practical response to an illegitimate birth in the community.
• Captain James Wade (1839–1842): An earlier case that remained part of local lore, James Wade (whose daughter Jennie Wade later became famous as a Civil War civilian casualty) was charged in 1839 with fornication and bastardy. Mary Kuhn swore he was the father of her child. Wade never married Mary and initially resisted acknowledging the baby, leading to the bastardy charge. Ultimately, he did not go to prison for this – he “beat the charges” – but the consequence was that his illegitimate son spent some time living with the Wades and some time in foster care (the county almshouse and then “bonded out” to work for a local family). This case is interesting because it shows the system’s focus on economic outcomes: even in what we might view as a rape, the resolution centered on what to do with the child born as a result. Wade’s later troubles (arson and other crimes) overshadowed the fornication charge, but the community clearly took the birth out of wedlock seriously enough to bring charges initially.
• Open Cohabitation Scandals: On a few occasions, local grand juries indicted couples who lived openly in adultery. The Abraham Fisher case of 1875 (mentioned earlier) is one example, where a man set up house with a woman not his wife. Another case in 1886 involved a local man charged with fornication and bastardy after having an “illegitimate son” with a woman – community records suggest that public knowledge of the situation forced action. These cases were morality enforcement, but typically the catalyst was a public aspect: either the flaunting of the affair or a resulting child. Private infidelity that remained behind closed doors usually did not see a courtroom.
• Absence of Same-Sex Cases: It bears repeating that nowhere in the 1840–90 records does a case appear analogous to adultery or fornication for same-sex relations. The silence itself is notable – it reflects 19th-century societal norms where such matters were not openly discussed, let alone litigated. We do know from broader history that a few sodomy prosecutions occurred in Pennsylvania in the 1800s (generally involving sexual assault on minors or animals, which fall outside the scope of consensual “homosexual” relationships). In the Gettysburg area, there were no “sodomy” indictments on record in this period, and likely any known instances would have been handled quietly or not at all.

Comparisons and Trends

Gettysburg and Adams County’s experience with these crimes was fairly typical of rural Pennsylvania in that era. Rural communities were often vigilant about illegitimacy, since a child without support could become a burden on the town. Thus, fornication/bastardy cases were essentially an early form of social welfare enforcement. By contrast, urban areas (like Philadelphia) by the late 19th century saw fewer such prosecutions as unwed motherhood became somewhat less stigmatized and charitable institutions took on support roles. In Adams County, community pressure to uphold sexual morality remained strong through mid-century, but by the 1880s–90s there was a gradual liberalizing trend. Punishments that once involved public shame had shifted entirely to fines, and there was growing reluctance to air private scandals in court unless absolutely necessary. As one study notes, “over time, fewer people were whipped and more were fined for their sexual transgressions,” and prosecutions for fornication became less common by the late 1800s compared to earlier in the century. This was a broad Victorian trend: morality was still preached, but the law increasingly focused on the most disruptive cases (like those involving abandoned women or children).

In terms of gender and double standards, it’s interesting that the laws were written in gender-neutral terms – both men and women could be punished for adultery or fornication – yet the social reality was different. Women often bore the brunt of social blame (an unwed mother’s reputation suffered far more than the father’s). Legally, however, Pennsylvania did not impose harsher penalties on women; if anything, the typical outcome of a fornication case was that the man paid the money while the woman might technically be guilty of fornication but receive no further penalty. Still, the stigma was unequal. A married woman caught in adultery risked not only legal punishment but also divorce and loss of societal position, whereas a married man’s infidelity, while condemned, was more likely to be quietly tolerated unless he outright abandoned his family or fathered a child with another woman. One finds few instances of a woman being criminally charged alone for adultery – usually it was the male lover who got indicted at the husband’s behest (since convicting the wife served little purpose when the goal might be to sue or punish the interloper). This implicit double standard aligns with the era’s broader patriarchal norms.

Finally, compared to modern law, the handling of these issues was quite different. Today, adultery is not a crime in Pennsylvania (and hasn’t been for decades), and issues of fornication and paternity are dealt with entirely in civil family courts without the stigma of “criminality.” In the 1840–1890 period, however, the concept of morality as a public matter was still alive – hence the willingness to use criminal courts to enforce sexual behavior standards. By 1890, that approach was on the wane, setting the stage for 20th-century reforms. Pennsylvania’s eventual repeal of fornication and adultery laws in the 1970s confirmed a long evolution from seeing these as crimes against society to viewing them as private mattersen.wikipedia.org.

Conclusion

Adultery and fornication prosecutions in Gettysburg and Adams County (1840–1890) reflect a society in transition. In the earlier part of that period, the community and courts actively intervened in cases of extra-marital or premarital sex when they resulted in a tangible social problem (particularly illegitimate children or broken marriages). Dozens of such cases appear in the local court ledgers, typically resolved by financial penalties and enforced support obligations rather than harsh jail time. As the century progressed, there was a noticeable shift toward more private resolutions – criminal charges became less frequent, used mainly in egregious or unavoidable situations. The absence of any homosexual (sodomy) cases in the records underscores how some “crimes” were handled with silence rather than prosecution.

In summary, fornication/bastardy cases were the most common sexual morality prosecutions in Adams County, driven by the need to provide for innocent children and uphold community standards of marriage. Adultery cases occurred on occasion, usually propelled by a spouse’s complaint or a public scandal, and served to legally affirm the wrongness of marital infidelity (sometimes aiding a divorce process or simply punishing the offense with a fine). Homosexual acts, while officially criminal, saw no open enforcement locally, likely due to being hidden from public view. The general trend in this era was toward leniency and practicality: rather than severe corporal punishment, the courts aimed to fine the offenders and “right the wrong” (by compelling marriages or child support). By 1890, one can already see the Victorian ethos of keeping such matters behind closed doors taking hold, a significant change from earlier generations when they would have been pilloried – literally and figuratively – in the town square.