Sender: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 8 Jan 2003 10:46:27 -0600 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed |
Organization: |
University of Tulsa College of Law |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
No. Children of slave women are slaves even if their father is the
President of the United States! And surely if their father was "just an
Indian."
Paul Finkelman
[log in to unmask] wrote:
> It is true that the status of the child generally followed that of the
> mother; but I'm wondering if, in Virginia in the 1780s, a father's having
> Indian blood would trump that law. So, would the children of a slave
> woman be free if their father was part Indian?
>
> Henry Wiencek
>
>
>>The birth status of a child followed that of the mother. The child
>>would be a free born or slave born based on the mothers status at the
>>time of the birth. I have found reference in South Carolina to an
>>Indian woman being a slave as late as 1750. I don't know when the
>>enslavement of Indians ceased in Virginia.
>>
>>Deborah Byrd
>>
>
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>
--
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104-2499
918-631-3706 (office)
918-631-2194 (fax)
[log in to unmask]
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
|
|