I came across a Cardwell in the late 1700s who married "Betty Brown,
colored" and her mother was "Kitty Brown." Totally unscholarly, I
know, but I like to wonder what deep love they shared, to defy
society and be married like they were. As I understand it, that title
could mean anything from all or a very small part African or Indian
or anything else not wholly white. Am I correct on this? I have been
unable to find anything else about this couple, maybe they moved out
to more remote areas, if their marriage was not well received. [but I
find, in courthouse records, that in the 18th century there were a
surprising number of interracial marriages in Virginia]. There are
some Cardwells said to be "melungeon", and much speculation in the
genealogy groups exactly what this means, but I wonder if at least
part of it might be traced back to William Cardwell and his wife
Betty Brown. I believe the so-called melungeon Cardwells appear in
NC. More needs to be done to find out where they came from, and if
they were descended from William and Betty.
Off the subject, but does anyone know what the term "spinster" means
on a marriage bond? I take it they were older, unmarried women as
none seem to have a father named, as was usual. In Petersburg, around
the time of the War of 1812, for some reason a lot of men were
suddenly marrying a lot of "spinsters." Trying to protect their
properties with a war on their doorstep, and them being marched off
to fight, perhaps? I've never noticed it anywhere else so much as I
did at Petersburg.
Nancy
-------
I was never lost, but I was bewildered once for three days.
--Daniel Boone
On Jan 20, 2007, at 10:31 PM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> It is my opinion that a people, a group of people, should be
> allowed to decide how it is that they wish to be described or
> referred to. American blacks have had to deal with all sorts of
> "identification" issues, I think.
> Up from slaves but down from Jim Crow. Then there are the issues
> that arose from intermarrying....are they part this or part that or
> part anything or fully this or fully that?
> By God, if it gives these dear people a stronger sense of who they
> are to be called African Americans rather than whatever else
> they've been called, then I say, give it to them. Is it too much to
> ask?
> DFM
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Excalibur131"
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 10:03 PM
> Subject: Re: VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE... Being PC
>
>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Pemberton"
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 3:00 PM
>> Subject: Re: VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE... Being PC
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>> A lot of African-Americans are as interested in their "heritage"
>>> as are white folks.
>> <snip>
>>> Anne Pemberton
>>
>>
>> I'm not offended by it, but I'm somewhat taken back by the use of
>> "African-Americans" vs. "white folks." Is there a double-standard
>> at work here? If the identifying terminology were reversed how
>> would the sentence read?
>>
>> Tom
>> Eastern Shore & More Forum
>> http://www.easternshoremore.com/forum/
>> 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
|
