Ed,
Yes, 1691 comes from Edmund Morgan and others. It was the real basis of
the caste system that would form the legal underpinning for the emerging
slave system. There could be not LEGAL kinship ties between the "white"
and "black" castes. It persisted until Loving in 1967. The Supreme Court
at the time of Brown decided not to rule on another VA miscegenation
case, Naim, involving a Chinese man and a white woman, saying that, "one
bomb shell at a time was enough."
Jim Hershman
Ed Truslow wrote:
> It is also my understandiing that Virginia did not have a miscegenation law until 1691 so the Rolfe-Pocahontas marriage was not a legal problem. Could anyone confirm that?
>
> Edward Truslow
> Williamsburg, Vrginia
>
>
>> From: David Kiracofe <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: 2008/05/07 Wed PM 07:48:25 CDT
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Mildred Jeter Loving (1940-2008), & an apology (was Re: What would Jeffer...
>>
>
>
>> John Rolfe was the Englishman who married Pocahontas--not John Smith -- although I fear there will be someone who will insist that DNA must somehow be brought to bear on the discussion to demonstrate that it is preposterous that Smith could have had a sexual relationship with Pocahontas! (Sorry, that's a joke-- brought on the punchiness of too many hours grading).
>>
>> Dave Kiracofe
>>
>> David Kiracofe
>> History
>> Tidewater Community College
>> Chesapeake Campus
>> 1428 Cedar Road
>> Chesapeake, Virginia 23322
>> 757-822-5136
>>
>>>>> Paul Finkelman <[log in to unmask]> 05/07/08 6:40 PM >>>
>>>>>
>> Smith and Pocahontas were an early mixed race couple. In the 1920s VA
>> passed its law declaring that any person with ANY non-white ancestry was
>> not white! A few years later the legislature passed an amendment to say
>> that people with less than 1/16th Indian ancestry were also "white." It
>> was known as the Pocahontas law because many FFV's claimed to be
>> descendants of Smith and his Indian bride. Before the Civil War people
>> who were less than 1/4th non-white were considered white. The
>> definition of "white" or "black" has alway been socially and legally
>> constructed.
>>
>> Paul Finkelman
>> President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
>> and Public Policy
>> Albany Law School
>> 80 New Scotland Avenue
>> Albany, New York 12208-3494
>>
>> 518-445-3386
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>>>>> [log in to unmask] 05/07/08 5:53 PM >>>
>>>>>
>> Weren't John Smith and Pocahontas a mixed race marriage in Virginia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> We quote the late Ned Heite, who wrote about white-Indian couplings 30
>> Jan 2000:
>>
>>
>>
>> What happened to
>> the Delmarva Indians? Dr. Helen C. Rountree, in her several
>> excellent
>> publications, has given us a picture of those Eastern Shore
>> Indian descendants
>> who have been identified. Many of our neighbors are clearly
>> identified
>> as Indians, and their ancestry is not in doubt.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> However, I am coming
>> to the conclusion that most of the Indian descendants in the
>> Middle Atlantic
>> region today are identified as "white," and not "mulatto"
>> or "black."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> There is plenty
>> of unwritten evidence that intermarriage between Indians and
>> whites was
>> the rule, rather than the exception, in the early years of
>> European colonization.
>> In the latest issue of the Archaeological Society of Virginia
>> bulletin
>> is Martha McCartney's insightful analysis of the census records
>> for the
>> Virginia colony compiled in 1619-1620. Most settlers were male;
>> in some plantations, all were male. There simply were no "available"
>> English women.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Therefore, we must
>> assume that these fellows were either gay, celibate, or mated
>> with Indian
>> women. Take your choice, but remember that they were largely
>> young and
>> robust single Englishmen, away from home and not terribly well
>> regulated.
>> So only the third choice stands the test of reasonableness.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Flash forward nearly
>> a century, and? ---the Virginia legislature passes a law stating
>> that the
>> child of a white and an Indian is a mulatto, but the child of a
>> white
>> and a half Indian (that is, with one Indian grandparent) is
>> white.--- ? This
>> rule seems to have held in Delaware and Maryland, too.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Why do legislatures
>> pass laws? Because some constituent believes there is an issue
>> to be addressed.
>> We don't talk about gun laws unless there is gun violence.
>> Clearly there
>> is a reason to enfranchise as "white" anyone with only one
>> Indian
>> grandparent. My suggestion: The legislators, or their
>> constituents, needed
>> to define a difference between "mulatto" and "white"
>> for purposes of the civil law.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The logical inference
>> from the Virginia legislature's definition is that there must
>> have been
>> plenty of white planters with Indian ancestry who wanted their
>> franchise
>> protected during a period when racial divides were becoming
>> sharper and
>> sharper.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Indian wives would
>> help explain why so many genealogies are easily traced through
>> the male
>> line, but hit dead ends at the female side. If the mother was an
>> Indian,
>> and if the marriage was sanctioned only in the most irregular
>> way, a child's
>> legal record (in cases of probate for example) would refer only
>> to his
>> or her father's side, the mother's family being outside the
>> English legal
>> system.
>>
>>
>>
>> B&R Terry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [log in to unmask]
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Sent: Wed, 7 May 2008 3:47 am
>> Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Mildred Jeter Loving (1940-2008), & an apology
>> (was Re: What would Jeffer...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Weren't John Smith and Pocahontas a mixed race marriage in Virginia some
>>
>> time before the Loving's decided to make a Federal case out of the whole
>> thing.
>>
>> J South
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> **************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on
>> family
>> favorites at AOL Food.
>> (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
>>
>> ______________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> ______________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
> ______________________________________
> 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
|
