VA-ROOTS Archives

June 2012

VA-ROOTS@LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Kitty Manscill <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Research and writing about Virginia genealogy and family history." <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:33:53 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (392 lines)
And, Jack, tracking one's Mitochondial DNA can be difficult.  I go back 
finally to a woman who is listed as a widow when she married the man from 
whom I am descended.  I do not know what her maiden name was.  I only know 
Alice Laramore was in Isle of Wight County in the mid 1600s.
Kitty Manscill



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jack Fallin" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: VA-ROOTS Digest - 30 May 2012 to 31 May 2012 (#2012-77)


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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2