I have a 5X grand father who was a traveling tailor in Washington and
Pendleton counties Virginia 1790 to 1830. Does anyone have any idea of how
this person would have lived? I know he fathered three sons 1795 to 1799
but I can not find him in census until 1830. The info I have on him is from
his Revolutionary pension records. I am wondering if they did not just walk
or drive a wagon from place to place and therefore never were counted.
Thank you for the help. Ray Harlow
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Carole D. Bryant" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 3:53 PM
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [VA-ROOTS] VA-ROOTS Digest - 30 May 2012 to 31 May 2012
(#2012-77)
> If a "creationist" is also a Bible believer, he will know that after the
> Flood of Noah's day, there was only one family on the earth. From them all
> other families were derived. Earth was a very changed place when they
> stepped out of the Ark, which rested upon the mountains of Ararat, which
> is not
> in Africa.
>
> Personally, I dislike homo sapiens applied to humans, who are NOT
> animals.
> Humans were created in the image of God. Animals were not. I fear some
> folks would have us take our theoretical Tree back to a point where we
> were
> swinging from trees ! ! If it ever gets to that point, then the rest of
> us
> can be sure that it was "science falsely so called."
>
> Actually, I think we're diverging too far from the purpose of this
> discussion group. This has little to do with true, by-the-books (record
> books,
> that is) genealogy. We don't need to be dabbling into such highly
> controversial topics, as where people originated. DNA research is so new
> that it is not
> yet solid ground to stand on, for family history studies, and we'd better
> proceed cautiously.
>
>
> Carole
>
>
>
> In a message dated 6/1/2012 3:16:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> Dear Carole,
>
> Easily enough, although I make no claims to being an expert, this is my
> understanding. I don't believe that this particular science creates
> major
> conflicts with even "creationist" theories of life.
>
> All of us have within us two distinct forms of DNA (deoxyribonucleic
> acid). One is contained in the cell nucleus, the other is contained
> within a
> separate organelle called the mitochondria. Now that DNA, especially
> nucleic
> yDNA, is in such general use in serious genealogy, it seems improbable
> that anyone on the list is unfamiliar with the subject. Mitochondrial
> DNA, an
> analysis of which is now available from all the major genealogical testing
> groups, is distinct in that it traces directly back only through female
> parents. In other words, it will match to your mother, her mother, her
> mother -- on and on.
>
> Two threads come together in Africa. First, each form of DNA is subject
> to mutation over time, mitochondrial DNA, in particular is subject to a
> relatively uniform rate of mutation. Overall, today's African native
> population exhibits the most "mature" on earth, i.e. exhibits the
> largest number of
> these relatively regular mutations. That indicates, in general terms,
> that that the African community constitutes the oldest continuous line of
> our
> genus, homo sapiens, on earth. Similarly, all of our collective
> mitochondrial DNA coalesces around a single source, a source whose
> antiquity,
> measured by mitochondria's regular rate of mutation would place her as a
> close
> contemporary of the oldest remains of homo sapiens ever found -- all in
> Africa. This is but a summary. If you would like further information on
> the
> subject you can make a preliminary start with online resources like
> Wikipedia
> and continue your research from there.
>
> It's probably worth pointing out that the theory behind the original word
> "mulatto" is also "laughable" on a common sense basis. With thousands
> upon
> thousands of viable mixed race children appearing over the years, the
> notion that the union would be sterile was disproven virtually from the
> moment
> it was conceived.
>
> Jack Fallin
>
>
> "
> On May 31, 2012, at 9:00 PM, VA-ROOTS automatic digest system wrote:
>
>> There is 1 message totaling 266 lines in this issue.
>> s
>> Topics of the day:
>>
>> 1. Mixed race slave children
>>
>> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
> instructions at
>> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 16:10:33 -0400
>> From: "Carole D. Bryant" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: Mixed race slave children
>>
>> Could you quality how we now "know" (item 2) that "all currently
> identified
>> human populations came out of Africa" ?
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 5/30/2012 3:38:26 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>> [log in to unmask] writes:
>>
>> Dear List,
>>
>> I've just had a similar issue come up in a different context.
>>
>> 1. The rule followed throughout the slave-holding states was that
> slavery
>> status followed the race of the mother. A number of the most famous of
>> the fugitive slaves (Frederick Douglass, William Wells Brown, etc.)
> were the
>> children of slave mothers and white fathers. Any freedom granted to
> such a
>> mixed race child came as a matter of grace from its owner; in common
> with
>> other slaves it had no right whatever to determine its own fate.
>> Technically, the children of an African-american father and a white
> mother, should
>> have been born free. However, that event seems to have been so rare
> (or so
>> severely repressed) as to have left little record.
>>
>> 2. The term "mulatto" came from a Spanish word meaning mule, the
> subtext
>> being that white and black were to be considered as different as horses
> and
>> mules, so that their offspring would be sterile. The theory was
> disproven
>> nearly daily, but the unfortunate label stuck. Now that we know that
> all
>> currently identified human populations came out of Africa the "theory"
>> behind the label is simply laughable. In keeping with it's irrational
>> beginnings, there likely were times when bi-racial children with white
> and American
>> Indian parents might well have been called mulatto. But it and it's
>> related terms; "quadroon,"octoroon,etc." were just examples of the
>> "hypoethnicity" that continuously denied that half, or three-quarters,
> seven-eighths or
>> more of a child's ancestry was white. All of this helps explain why
> the
>> seemingly mulatto has become so offensive and less terms like
> bi-racial or
>> multi-racial have become the general rule for what has always been, in
> fact,
>> a middle race, blending the inheritance of both father and mother.
>>
>> 3. The observation that the 1870 census can give no indication as to
>> slavery status prior to emancipation is exactly right. The community
> of "free
>> persons of color" that had grown to considerable size in a number of
> cities
>> prior to the Civil War, was, at least officially, submerged in the far
>> larger class of all free black persons in 1870. However an obsession
> with
>> color was to continue in that census and many that followed. The
> instructions
>> given to those charged with taking the 1870 census included this: "
> 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 ["Inhabitants"] and 2
>> ["Mortality"]." (Ninth Census, United States, 1870, Instructions to
> Assistant
>> Marshalls, p. 10.) The instructions, of course, had far more to do
> with the
>> racial prejudice that immediately supplanted outright slavery than with
> any
>> "scientific" effort. Those same instructions were repeated for the
> 1880
>> census, but the use of sub-categories reached its apogee in the
> Instructions for
>> the "lost" [because virtually all of the original results were burned
> up]
>> 1890 census:
>>
>> Write white, black, mulatto, quadroon, octoroon, Chinese, Japanese, or
>> Indian according to the color or race of the persons enumerated. Be
>> particularly careful to distinguish between blacks, mulattoes,
> quadroons and
>> octoroons. The word "black" should be used to describe those persons
> who have
>> from three-fourths or more black blood; "mulatto," those persons who
> have from
>> three-eights to five-eights black blood; "quadroon," those persons who
>> have one-fourth black blood; and "octoroon," those persons who have
> one-eighth
>> or any trace of black blood.
>> Eleventh Census of the United States, "Instructions to Enumerators,"
> Under
>> the Provisions of the Act of Congress Approved March 1, 1889, p.23.
>> Emphasis added.
>>
>> By 1890 the federal bureaucracy appeared committed to providing the
>> statistics necessary to support the "Jim Crow" and anti-miscegenation
> laws
>> centered in, but not confined to, the South and the racial covenants
> that
>> increasingly controlled land development throughout the country.
>>
>> The "mulatto" category and its various subcategories disappeared for
> the
>> 1900 census, you were Black or White. But Black included anyone "of
> negro
>> descent" leaving the census takers free to lump anyone with any
>> African-American ancestry as Black. (Twelfth Census of the United
> States, 1900,
>> Instructions to Enumerators, p. 29.). Mulatto reappeared in 1910 (and
> again in
>> 1920) as a catch-all specifically intended to capture even the
> smallest
>> proportion of "negro blood."
>>
>> 108. Column 6. Color or race.--Write "W" for white; "B" for black; "Mu"
>
>> for mulatto; "Ch" for Chinese; "Jp" for Japanese; "In" for Indian. For
> all
>> other persons not falling within one of these classes, write "Ot" (for
>> other). and write on the left-hand margin of the schedule the race of
> the person
>> so indicated.
>> 109. For census purposes, the term "black" (B) includes all persons who
>> are evidently full-blooded negroes, while the term "mulatto" (Mu)
> includes
>> all other persons having some proportion or perceptible trace of negro
> blood."
>> Thirteenth Census of the United States, April 15, 1910, Instructions to
>> Enumerators, p. 28. Emphasis added.
>>
>> In 1930 the instructions did away with the formal mulatto category and
>> simultaneously created the clearest of paths for applying all race
> related
>> laws and covenants to those with even the remotest of African-American
>> ancestry:
>>
>> 151. Negroes.--A person of mixed white and Negro blood should be
> returned
>> as a Negro no matter how small the percentage of Negro blood. Both
> black
>> and mulatto persons are to be returned as Negroes, without
> distinction. ...
>> Fifteenth Census (1930), Instructions to Enumerators, p.26. Emphasis
> added.
>>
>> On the brink of the Second World War, with the "New Deal" firmly in
> place,
>> the 1940 census continued to officially support the same "any drop"
>> definition that had been continuously enforced since slavery. It now
> seemed to
>> stop at the first generation by stating that "457. Mixed Races.--Any
> mixture
>> of white and nonwhite should be reported according to the nonwhite
>> parent." But it was a distinction without a difference for those with
> any
>> African-American ancestry, by repeating the 1930 definition of a
> "non-white"
>> Negro:
>>
>> 455. Negroes.--A person of mixed white and Negro blood should be
> returned
>> as a Negro, no matter how small the percentage of Negro blood. ...
>> Sixteenth Census, Instructions to Enumerators, p. 43. Emphasis added.
>>
>> This last section turned out a bit long, but it seems important to note
>> just how quickly and thoroughly the United States reemployed words like
>> "mulatto" in moving from slavery to sanctioned prejudice after the
> Civil War.
>> To this day,
>> it remains difficult for a bi-racial individual to find a category that
>> does anything other than suppress his or her actual status by requiring
> a
>> choice between Black and White on a the great majority of official and
>> quasi-official forms.
>>
>> Jack Fallin
>> Walnut Creek, CA
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> There are 3 messages totaling 93 lines in this issue.
>>>
>>> Topics of the day:
>>>
>>> 1. status of children born of slave mothers in 1858 (3)
>>>
>>> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
>> instructions at
>>> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 12:43:45 -0700
>>> From: "R. C. Solomon" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Subject: status of children born of slave mothers in 1858
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 15:57:23 -0400
>>> From: "Carole D. Bryant" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Subject: Re: 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] 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
>>>
>>> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
>> instructions at
>>> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 16:07:13 -0400
>>> From: Elaine McHale <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Subject: Re: status of children born of slave mothers in 1858
>>>
>>> In 1870, everyone was free. It would not surprise me at all to find
>>> a
>>> former female slave's child living with her mother's family.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Elaine McHale
>>> Librarian
>>> Fairfax County (VA) Public Library
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/29/12, R. C. Solomon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
>> instructions at
>>> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> End of VA-ROOTS Digest - 27 May 2012 to 29 May 2012 (#2012-75)
>>> **************************************************************
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> End of VA-ROOTS Digest - 30 May 2012 to 31 May 2012 (#2012-77)
>> **************************************************************
>
>
> 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
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
|
