{"id":103140,"date":"2025-06-16T12:16:50","date_gmt":"2025-06-16T16:16:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.genealogybank.com\/?p=103140"},"modified":"2025-06-16T12:17:28","modified_gmt":"2025-06-16T16:17:28","slug":"the-ducking-stool-colonial-cure-for-the-common-scold-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.genealogybank.com\/blog\/the-ducking-stool-colonial-cure-for-the-common-scold-part-2.html","title":{"rendered":"The Ducking Stool: Colonial Cure for the Common Scold (part 2)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Introduction:<\/em><\/strong> In this article, James Pylant continues exploring a form of humiliation and punishment used by our colonial ancestors to chastise \u201cpublic scolds.\u201d James is an editor at GenealogyMagazine.com and author for JacobusBooks.com, is an award-winning historical true-crime writer, and authorized celebrity biographer.<\/em><\/p>\n

In my previous article, \u201cThe Ducking Stool: Colonial Cure for the Common Scold,\u201d<\/a> I wrote about the notorious centuries-old punishment for female fiendishness. As noted in the eighth volume of Ruling Case Law<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u201cAt early common law a woman who used wicked, scandalous and infamous words in a public place and within the hearing of citizens was indictable as a common scold and subject to the penalty of the ducking or cucking stool.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"Illustration:
Illustration: a ducking stool, from a Pearson Scott Foresman textbook. Credit: Pearson Scott Foresman; Wikimedia Commons.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

What about ducking male scolds?<\/p>\n

\"Illustration:
Illustration: a mortified colonial ancestor. Credit: from the author\u2019s account with Microsoft Copilot.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

That question was posed by a New York newspaper in 1824.<\/p>\n

\"An<\/a>
National Advocate (New York, New York), 4 November 1824, page 2<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The following year, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania set aside a judgment from the Court of Common Pleas that had sentenced a common scolder to the ducking stool.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis punishment is a remnant of barbarism, and deserves to be abolished,\u201d opined a Connecticut newspaper reporting the case, adding that \u201cthere are as many scolding men as women.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"An<\/a>
Middlesex Gazette (Middletown, Connecticut), 19 January 1825, page 3<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The Keystone State played \u201can outsized role<\/a>\u201d in prosecuting women as common scolds, even after the revised penal code repealed the ducking stool, this \u201crelic of barbarism<\/a>,\u201d in 1860. However, commonwealth law declared that \u201cevery felony, misdemeanor or offense whatever, not specifically provided for by this act, may and shall be punished as to heretofore.\u201d<\/p>\n

In Northampton County on 30 August 1865, Elenora Mohn<\/a> behaved as a common scold, according to an indictment. Elenora, \u201can evil-disposed person,\u201d attempted to debauch and corrupt citizens, openly and publicly with a loud voice, by uttering \u201cwicked, scandalous and infamous words.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Mohn case caught national attention, as shown by this Chicago newspaper article.<\/p>\n

\"An<\/a>
Chicago Tribune (Chicago, Illinois), 13 June 1866, page 1<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

\u201cThe ducking stool is not the punishment of a common scold in Pennsylvania,\u201d wrote attorney Solomon B. Boyer<\/a> in 1891. \u201cThe offense, however, is indictable and to be punished by fine, or by fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court.\u201d<\/p>\n

Eventually, men would get into the act when the \u201ccommon scold\u201d term broadened to include a male menace.<\/p>\n

In 1892, Philadelphian Robert McKeown was held on $600 bail for being a common scold, the accusation pressed by neighbor Carrie New, with 13 nearby residents joined as witnesses.<\/p>\n

\"An<\/a>
Philadelphia Inquirer (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), 5 August 1892, page 5<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

John Hartmann, another nagging neighbor in the City of Brotherly Love, was arrested for the same offense in 1898. This article, by the Philadelphia Record<\/em>, was reprinted by a newspaper in Montana.<\/p>\n

\"An<\/a>
Butte Weekly Miner (Butte, Montana), 25 August 1898, page 16<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The article reports on this interesting exchange that occurred in the courtroom:<\/p>\n

When the magistrate held Hartmann on the charge of being a common scold and demanded bail, the defendant\u2019s lawyer cried: \u201cYou cannot hold my client on the charge. Who ever heard of a man being a common scold?\u201d \u201cI did, just now, and unless your client enters bail for $400, he will take a ride in the wagon waiting outside,\u201d replied the court.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Yet another petulant Philadelphian, Herman Nitchy<\/a>, was arrested in 1901 after his daughter filed a complaint against him as a common scold. \u201cYou never heard anything like him, I am certain,\u201d said daughter Mamie. \u201cHe scolds from morning to night. He gets up scolding and he scolds the last thing at night.\u201d A magistrate held nettling Nitchy on $600 bond. \u201cIf he waits until mother gets bail for him he will wait forever,\u201d said Mamie.<\/p>\n

A New Jersey woman made headlines in 1905 when she was named as a ducking candidate.<\/p>\n

\"An<\/a>
Duluth News Tribune (Duluth, Minnesota), 9 January 1905, page 4<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

This article reports:<\/p>\n

Because eternal warfare was waged, it is asserted, between Mrs. Charlotte P. Wood and sundry small boys in the vicinity of her home in Webster Street [Jersey City, New Jersey], Mrs. Wood has been indicted by the grand jury on the ground that \u201cshe was and is [a] common scold.\u201d<\/p>\n

Mrs. Wood objected to the youngsters batting balls through her windows and throwing mud on her sidewalk. On numerous occasions, it is alleged, she administered chastisement to them and quarreled with their parents.<\/p>\n

Under the ancient law related to common scolds, Mrs. Wood may be ducked in \u201cthe nearest pond, creek, or river\u201d if she is found guilty. It is more than a century since a scold has been ducked in New Jersey.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Philadelphian Anna Eppley was found guilty of being a common scold in 1918. \u201cOver a score of Mrs. Eppley\u2019s neighbors appeared in court to complain of her conduct,\u201d reported the Philadelphia Inquirer<\/em><\/a>. \u201cThey declared that from the time the defendant\u2019s husband arrived at home in the evening about 6 o\u2019clock until he left the following morning for work, Mrs. Eppley fought with him, calling him names and disturbing the peace and rest of her neighbors.\u201d The court sentenced her to three months in the county prison.<\/p>\n

Three Pittsburg sisters were charged under the old common law offense in 1947. Evidence introduced at the trial included a secret phonographic recording of the trio as they hurled abusive language across a fence at neighbors. Sitting red-faced as they heard the blue language, jurors returned a guilty verdict<\/a>, sentencing one of the women to a three-month jail term, while her two sisters received 13 months to two years in a reformatory.<\/p>\n

Incredibly, even in the 1970s, suburban Philadelphians faced indictment for the offense of being a \u201ccommon scold\u201d!<\/p>\n

\"An<\/a>
South Bend Tribune (South Bend, Indiana), 17 December 1971, page 56<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Mrs. Joanne Hauk was found not guilty<\/a>. Her story, perhaps the last hurrah for common scold prosecutions, prompted humorist Dick West<\/a> to quip that \u201ccongressional crime hearings have turned up evidence that organized common scolding rings are operating throughout the land, often under the cover of legitimate enterprises.\u201d<\/p>\n

Explore over 330 years of newspapers and historical records in GenealogyBank. Discover your family story! Start a 7-Day Free Trial<\/a><\/p>\n

Note on the header image:<\/em><\/strong> replica ducking stool at Leominster, England; last used in 1809. Credit: John Phillips; Wikimedia Commons.<\/p>\n

Related Article:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n