I'm trying to get a clearer understanding of how marriage customs and money worked in colonial America around the time of the Revolutionary war (late 1700s/early 1800s ). I've searched and searched and can't find a clear answer to this question.
For example, why did daughters from wealthy families have to marry rich? Did doing so also benefit a person's siblings, or did it only help to secure their own financial future? Was this social expectation of marrying up limited to the eldest daughter, or was it true for all children aside from the eldest son, who often benefited from the custom of primogeniture? In what ways would marrying someone of a lower status negatively affect a woman in this time period? And would her husband benefit from marrying into a wealthy family?
[For added context, I'm trying to understand the problem posed in a lyric from the musical "Hamilton" (which I know is not necessarily historically accurate), as sung by the eldest daughter of a high society family: "My father has no sons, so I'm the one who has to social climb for one."]
So, first of all, the song is problematic - apart from the fact that there were Schuyler sons, Angelica Schuyler's mother was a Van Rensselaer. The Van Rensselaer family had been in New York since it was New Amsterdam (Angelica's mother Catherine was part of the first generation to really use English names instead of Dutch ones) and were massive landowners - they were New York royalty. The Schuylers themselves were a Dutch-American family of long standing, and other names in her lineage were Van Cortlandt (there's a gigantic park named for them in the Bronx, plus a historic mansion upstate) and Livingston (likewise a big-deal family in New York politics and society). There was no need for any of the Schuyler sisters to social climb, as they were already at the top.
What was important was for them to marry well, which could be defined as a lateral move as well. A woman in colonial America needed to marry well for the same reasons as a woman in Britain at the time: because an improvident husband, who had the right to the money and property she brought to the marriage, could spend them both into a hole, and because she derived her status from her husband. Her future inheritance would generally be given as a dowry, mostly as money and/or movables (fine furniture, silver, etc.), and that would effectively be her husband's property after the wedding. If he were wealthy, this would be added to his capital and eventually inherited by their children; if he were not, who knew? So yes, this did secure a woman's financial future. And yes, it could also benefit their siblings - it could help them get political connections or marry other rich people. Angelica's husband became an MP, giving the family a foothold in British politics; Eliza's was, of course, Alexander Hamilton, creating a close connection in the new American government; Peggy and John married wealthy Van Rensselaer siblings; Rensselaer forged a link to the Ten Broeck family. All of the children were supposed to marry well, because it was less than ideal for any of them to have their potential or money "wasted".
If a woman married down, there were a few different possibilities. One was that she might be cut off from the family: this could mean no dowry (if there wasn't a family settlement requiring it), or it could mean "no more support after this dowry". In those cases, she would be entirely at her husband's mercy, with no family pressure on him to treat her well or help if they ran out of money. She would also be socially estranged from her family in this situation, and treated with condescension if she wasn't completely dead to them. On the other hand, a more forgiving father might instead get his son-in-law some kind of money-making position where he had influence - industry, banks, politics. That would help him rise in society so that he could provide properly for his wife and children, and be more acceptable as a connection.