Elizabeth,
Although this was the law, there are some instances in VA where the "bastard" mulatto children of a free white woman were NOT bound into servitude nor did the woman pay a 15 pounds sterling fine. These children either were taken over by Overseers of the Poor or remained with the white mother if she could identify funds to care for the children. At least that is what happened with my ancestors in the early 1800's. It was the courts not the church wardens who determined these cases. Any reason for this exception?
Aurelia
From: Elizabeth Shown Mills <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: [VA-ROOTS] indentureships in VA
>To ensure the welfare of the child but more definitively to ensure that the
child did not become a burden of the parish, Margaret's child, as all
illegitimate children of indentured servants, was bound out. Margaret had no
way to support the child since she was being supported by her master.
Several good answers have been provided to the original question. The above
well applies to white children born of white indentured mothers. However,
the original question stated that Margaret Shaw's child was "mulatto," a
description that changes the situation radically.
The Library of Congress has an easily accessible essay that relevant to this
issue, in its "American Women" module of _American Memory_.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awlaw3/slavery.html .
"Slavery and Indentured Servants"
"Virginia passed its first miscegenation law in 1691 as part of "An act for
suppressing outlying Slaves."
"Another section of the law closed the loophole created by the 1662
birthright law, which mandated that children born of a free white mother and
Negro father were technically free. This amendment stated that a free white
woman who had a bastard child by a Negro or mulatto man had to pay fifteen
pounds sterling within one month of the birth. If she could not pay, she
would become an indentured servant for five years. ****Whether or not the
fine was paid, however, the child would be bound in service for thirty
years.*****
The law is cited here as follows:
"Act XVI, __Laws of Virginia,__ April 1691 ( __Hening's Statutes at Large__,
3: 87). This section of the law with its amendments remained in force until
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional in __Loving v.
Virginia,__ 388 U.S. 1 (1967)."
Elizabeth
----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG
Tennessee
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
|
