I somehow missed the beginning of this exchange. Was there a question that started all this off? There is ample documentation of "white slaves" so why would anyone argue over that fact? Re: George Washington's slaves -- "The general's house servants are mulattoes, some of whom have kinky hair still but skin as light as ours. I noticed one small boy whose hair and skin were so like our own that if I had not been told, I should never have suspected his ancestry. He is nevertheless a slave for the rest of his life." -- Louis Philippe, _Diary of My Travels in America_, translated from the French by Stephen Becker, New York: Delacorte Press, 1977, pp. 32-33. A visitor to Mount Vernon in 1833 made a similar observation: "Among the females was a Mulatto so light as to show the red in her cheeks, very modest and intelligent. The blood of some offshoots of the W. family no doubt ran in her veins": Tap. Wentworth to John S. Burleigh, March 12, 1833, Mount Vernon Collection, A-259, M-1294. (That final sentence contains speculation: the slave's white ancestry may have been from the Washington family or from some other family.) One can argue over what all this means, but facts are facts. White slaves did not become "white people" when they became free. When white slaves were freed they were still known in their communities as being former slaves and as having mixed blood, so they were regarded socially as black, which carried legal implications. Any Southerner knows of many "black" people who are as white as Ronald Reagan but regard themselves as black and are considered to be members of the black community. Certainly there can be no argument over that. Henry Wiencek To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html