I somehow missed the beginning of this exchange.  Was there a question
that started all this off?  There is ample documentation of "white slaves"
so why would anyone argue over that fact?  Re: George Washington's slaves
-- "The general's house servants are mulattoes, some of whom have kinky
hair still but skin as light as ours.  I noticed one small boy whose hair
and skin were so like our own that if I had not been told, I should never
have suspected his ancestry.  He is nevertheless a slave for the rest of
his life." -- Louis Philippe, _Diary of My Travels in America_, translated
from the French by Stephen Becker, New York: Delacorte Press, 1977, pp.
32-33.  A visitor to Mount Vernon in 1833 made a similar observation:
"Among the females was a Mulatto so light as to show the red in her
cheeks, very modest and intelligent. The blood of some offshoots of the W.
family no doubt ran in her veins": Tap. Wentworth to John S. Burleigh,
March 12, 1833, Mount Vernon Collection, A-259, M-1294. (That final
sentence contains speculation: the slave's white ancestry may have been
from the Washington family or from some other family.) One can argue over
what all this means, but facts are facts.  White slaves did not become
"white people" when they became free. When white slaves were freed they
were still known in their communities as being former slaves and as having
mixed blood, so they were regarded socially as black, which carried legal
implications. Any Southerner knows of many "black" people who are as white
as Ronald Reagan but regard themselves as black and are considered to be
members of the black community. Certainly there can be no argument over
that.
Henry Wiencek

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