I beg to differ, as some of my ancestors who were Mulatto, Free Negro etc., fought in the Revolutionary War. As far as I know those who fought in the Revolutionary War were citizens. They received pensions, paid taxes, and were awarded Bounty Land. That would be my definition of an American. 

I wrote an article recently and someone commented and asked me why I referred to them as Mulatto. I told him that I was writing about Colonial Virginia, and used the language from that period. 

Anita 

> Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:31:18 -0400
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Monticello Recives NEH Grant
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 
> I have also wondered why historians writing about slaves or free Negroes
> in the early American period now refer to them as "African-Amercans."
> They were not "Americans," at least in a legal or constitutional sense.
> In a historical and legal sense, they were "Negroes" or "blacks" or
> "mulattoes." There is obviously a cultural sensitivity to pejorative
> terms for different nationalities, but is that the reason? Even if it
> is, can the historian continue to use the terms that were current during
> the period about which she is writing? Is there now a rule that this
> issue can't be discussed? To which group was Holder referring, those who
> are willing to discuss it, or those who will not?
> 
> Richard E. Dixon
> 
> Editor, Jefferson Notes
> 
> Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society
> 
>  
> <blocked::http://www.lva.virginia.gov/> 
> 
> ______________________________________
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. 
http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_70faster_032009
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html