To Mr. Dixon and All;

  Actually, there is another "logical" way to think about it.  Would a
slaveowner let another person house his slave?  Would he allow
another person to work his slave?  Would he (have) allowed another
person transport his slave?  (Here, I am assuming two principles,
1) the slaveowner did not receive payment, and 2) that these things
were not the owners' wish.)
  So, on what basis does one assume (or set as "nul hypothesis"
as the social science oriented thinkers tend to say) that just
anyone could impregnate a slave woman.
  Here, we aren't even broaching the subject of black resistance,
but simply discussing white ownership rights and privileges.  White
people as a rule were not innately preferable as sexual partners.
Look for evidence of miscegenation in Africa, where Europeans
haunted the coastal trading ports from at least the 17th century,
before occupying the continent in the 19th century.  (See, for
example, Marvin Harris, Patterns of Race in the Americas, 1966,
for a discussion comparing race mixing in Brazil and its
comparative absence in Portuguese occupied Africa.)
  Moreover, southern farmers, planters in particular, were often
obsessed with "breeding."  It is perhaps not accidental, that slavery
in British America was called chattel slavery:  referring generally to
the property law of moveables I believe, but more specifically to the
law of cattle.  Precisely why would Virginia planters in particular,
so concerned about breeding in every sense and social distinctions
amongst white people, be assumed to be so, what can I say,
cavalier, about the formation of offspring among their most
expensive domestic mammals (if I may speak so bluntly.)
  With all due respect, Mr. Dixon, it appears to me that you have
spent too much time constructing arguments for a fee and too little
time reading history and imagining the past based on its records.
You have consistently misunderstood, accidentally or intentionally,
Kevin Hardwick's keen assessments of the importance of slavery
and the planter class to the nature of the American Founding and
our current society.  And I, for one, am willing to drop the pretext of
exquisite courtesy and tell you so.

Harold S. Forsythe
History & Black Studies
Fairfield University

Date sent:              Sat, 30 Mar 2002 12:38:38 -0500 (EST)
From:                   "Richard E. Dixon" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:                Re: "high crimes and misdemeanors"
To:                     [log in to unmask]
Send reply to:          Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
        <[log in to unmask]>

> In a message dated 3/29/2002 12:34:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> > It is especially interesting that some of the families in the
> >  1870 census are shown with the head of the household as a female black,
> >  and her children as mullato. Hmmm.... where is dad?
> Other than anecdotal evidence (e.g. Mary Chesnut), are there any studies
> on the fathers of mulatto children? What about the white workman,
> overseers, white teenagers? It is not logic that Jefferson is suspect
> because A. mulatto is born B. father owns a plantation C. Jefferson owns a
> plantation, ergo, etc.
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Richard E. Dixon Attorney at Law 4122 Leonard Drive Fairfax, VA 22030
> 703-691-0770 fax 703-691-0978
> ____________________________________________________________________
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html