[Hana]

Quote from an article on a Metis forum that seemed pertinent to changes I noticed in how the same family was designated in a later decade.

“Under the laws of Virginia from 1705 until at least 1785 the ‘child of an Indian’ was legally

categorized as a ‘mulatto’, along with persons of one-eighth or more African ancestry._ In 1785 the term ‘mulatto’ was applied to persons of only one-quarter or more African ancestry, thus allowing some persons to become white (or Indian) who had legally been ‘mulatto’ previously._ It is not clear if the 1705 definition was replaced, as regards American ancestry, and court decisions and other evidence are contradictory on this point._ Nonetheless, in prUnder the laws of Virginia from 1705 until at least 1785 the ‘child of an Indian’ was legally

categorized as a ‘mulatto’, along with persons of one-eighth or more African ancestry._ In 1785 the term ‘mulatto’ was applied to persons of only one-quarter or more African ancestry, thus allowing some persons to become white (or Indian) who had legally been ‘mulatto’ previously._ It is not clear if the 1705 definition was replaced, as regards American ancestry, and court decisions and other evidence are contradictory on this point._ Nonetheless, in practice, the term continued to be applied to virtually all reservation and off-reservation Indians in tax records, census enumerations, and in the ‘free negro’ registration book of at least one county.(F51)_ In 1866, after the Civil War, the following language was adopted: ‘Every person having one-fourth or more Negro blood shall be deemed a colored person, and every person not a colored person having one-fourth or more Indian blood shall be deemed an Indian.'(F52)

Here we see an apparent change, in that the ‘colored persons’ category was made to include

unmixed Black Africans as well as mixed persons and, of course, persons of three-quarters of

American ancestry if the other quarter was African._ This change was anticipated in 1860 when Virginia had made the terms ‘negro’ and ‘mulatto’ equivalent in all statutes._ By 1866 both terms were to be subsumed under the category of ‘colored’.

It should be noted that most local records prior to 1860 differentiate between ‘free mulattoes’ and ‘free negroes’ but there are instances where the distinction is not maintained. actice, the term continued to be applied to virtually all reservation and off-reservation Indians in tax records, census enumerations, and in the ‘free negro’ registration book of at least one county.(F51)_ In 1866, after the Civil War, the following language was adopted: ‘Every person having one-fourth or more Negro blood shall be deemed a colored person, and every person not a colored person having one-fourth or more Indian blood shall be deemed an Indian.'(F52)

[Author]

Posts