"During that time period ...," you say. But which time period ?
According to Samuel R. Cook, 2000):
1. A 1705 Virginia law proclaimed that the offspring of any Indian
'"should be deemed, accounted, held and taken to be mulatto." (Statutes at
Large..., William Walter Henning, 1823, p. 242)
2. A 1787 law stated that "any person of whose grandfathers or
grandmothers ... is, or shall have been a negro, although all other progenitors ...
shall have been white persons, shall be deemed mulattos." (Statutes at
Large..., William Walter Henning, 1823, p. 184)
3. An 1823 law: "Be it enacted and declared ... that the child of an
Indian and the child, or great grandchild of a Negro, shall be deemed,
accounted, and taken to be a mulatto." (Virginia Assembly, 1823, p. 252)
Therefore, if one finds a person recorded to be a "mulatto," in an 1800
document for example, and uses the more modern definition of the term, he may
conclude that the person in question was a Negro-mix, while he may well
have been an Indian !! The same thing can be true, if before emancipation
he were termed a "free mulatto" or "free colored," where "colored" only
meant not pure white.
In a message dated 6/1/2012 1:14:44 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
No, During that time period they had precise terms to describe a persons
race. In that time period they used many different terms/levels of
mixtures to determine that you had Black in you.
Free Mulatto is a freeperson of color.
Mulatto- offspring of one white and one black parent.
Quadroon- 1/4 Black
Octoroon- 1/8 Black
Metissse, Mestee, Mustee- offspring of one white and one Indian parent.
The other side of the coin is that the US Census depended on the census
taker to correctly determine a persons race. So yes that census taker could
of made a mistake lumped all mixtures in one group do to the rules set forth
for that year or what the census taker perceives what race you are.
Copper is usually the term I have seen on earlier census to describe
Indian.
----- Original Message -----
From: Carole D. Bryant<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: [VA-ROOTS] status of children born of slave mothers in 1858
can't "free mulatto" mean Indian ? or white-Indian mix ?
In a message dated 5/29/2012 3:55:51 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> writes:
I always thought that a child of a slave belonged to the slave owner -
even if the child was father by a white man other than the owner. In
researching my great great grandmother Easter Nelson, I found that her
first
child, my great grandmother Edmonia was fathered by a relative of her
owner's
wife - Lewis Dulin. I know amything is possible - but can it be that a
child
fathered by a white man in 1858 would be raised as a free child by
relatives of the mother? I have found a census record for a child named
Edmonia
Nelson born in 1858 living with free mulatto Nelsons in the same county
in
1870. Of course I have no evidence that this Edmonia Nelson is the same
Edmonia that Easter Nelson bore, but is it possible?
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
instructions
at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html<http://listlva.lib.va.us/arc
hives/va-roots.html>
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html<http://listlva.lib.va.us/arc
hives/va-roots.html>
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
|
