<<<why was it important to differentiate between black and mulatto in the first place?>>
The late Ned Heite had this to say --
"...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."
So 'mulatto' includes white/Native American mix as well as white/African. Mulattoes had to be differentiated from African because a mulatto may have been an 'important' persons grandpa.
More -- http://nativeamericansofdelawarestate.com/Who%20is%20an%20Indian.htm
Ray
-----Original Message-----
From: Mitchell Lichtenberg <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Mon, Feb 14, 2011 1:39 pm
Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Census Enumerator's Instructions re: race
Thanks John. I have read the enumerator's instructions previously. The
particular enumerator in Orange County was an attorney, wealthy enough not worry
about satisfying a quota to get paid. My line by line examination of the
manuscript data tells me he was diligent and as accurate as one might be. I
guess the question behind all this is why was it important to differentiate
between black and mulatto in the first place? In asking this, I am trying to
enter the frame of reference of the census designers (who were primarily members
of the United States Senate and who micromanaged the forms and questions for the
1850 (and 1860) census schedules.)
________________________________
From: "Metz, John (LVA)" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Mon, February 14, 2011 11:50:10 AM
Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Census Enumerator's Instructions re: race
My understanding is that by the 1850s, the enumerated were supposed to
provide the answers to all of the questions asked by the enumerators.
The specific instructions to the enumerators in 1850 with regard to
color are as follows:
"Heading 6, entitled 'Color,' in all cases where the person is white,
leave the space blank; in all cases
where the person is black, insert the letter B; if mulatto, insert M. It
is very desirable that these particulars be carefully regarded."
These instructions become more emphatic by 1870:
"Color.-It must not be assumed that, where nothing is written in this
column, ''white'' is to be understood. The column is always to be
filled. Be particularly careful in reporting the class mulatto. The word
is here generic, and includes quadroons, octoroons, and all persons
having any perceptible trace of African blood. Important scientific
results depend upon the correct determination of this class in schedules
1 and 5."
That said, I have worked extensively with three counties in Georgia
where I followed the populations from 1850 through 1910, and I have
found significant variation in the way color is reported within families
over time - some or all of the members will be described as black in
1860 and 1870, some described as mulatto in 1880, and then reported as
black in 1900 and 1910. This change leads me to believe that
enumerators may have ignored the "official" instructions and offered
their own assessment of race.
Historians have long been aware of the reporting problems with the
pre-1920 decenniel censuses, particularly the 1870 and earlier
enumerations. Much of the criticism revolves around how marshalls and
enumerators were appointed with the locality and the fact that they were
paid on a quota system which placed a premium on visiting as many
households as possible, usually at the expense of accuracy.
This is a good opportunity to share a couple of sources related to the
U.S Census. The U.S. Census Bureau has put historic census data online
going back to 1790 - the official reports from 1820 forward are scanned
from the originials in their entirety. Unfortunately, they do not have
the manuscript census returns scanned as yet - that, I imagine, would be
a massive undertaking. You can find all of that here:
http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/hiscendata.html
While I imagine that you can find the original enumerator's instructions
somewhere on that site, they do have a PDF publication called "Measuring
America: The Decennial Censuses From 1790 to 2000" which provides
transcripts of the instructions for most if not all of the censuses.
______________________________________
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
|
