- This topic has 7 voices and 14 replies.
-
Posts
-
I am amazed at how many people do not know , census takers were not permitted to distinguish between natives and free blacks. Census takers were required to list natives as “free men of color” or mulatto. Isn’t that correct?
Welcome,
At least in NC and VA, after 1838, it was assumed that there were no ndns here… all having been removed. So, yes, at least in this area, if the census lists someone as FPC (free person of color) or M (mulatto) there is a good chance that they have ndn blood.
Yes, after 1830 it was illegal for an Indian to live in the Upper South. Those who did remain had to join ranks with the free ‘colored.’ Hopefully kidnappers wouldn’t facilitate their joining the ranks of the not-free people of color, though that happened a lot by way of kidnapping, especially of children, and incarceration that resulted in sentences of enslavement.
Keep in mind, though, the majority of people listed in ante-bellum days as FPC were the children of white servant women and men of color, usually black. I have a theory that the taboos concerning that relationship derived from the difficulty whites would have objectifying their daughter’s children, those adorable little bi-racial babies would have prohibited the callousness necessary to institute hereditary slavery, and without that there would have been no Birth of a Nation, the cash crops would have gone unharvested that bankrolled that birth. So this peculiar little classification was an attempt to deal with all the chaos those unions created in the (perverse) intended social fabric.
It’s important for people attempting to validate their Indian roots in the Upper South to keep in mind they are likely also uncovering African ancestry, every bit as significant. I’ve gotten quite irritated with the attitudes in many Upper South Indian communities living in denial about this. We don’t play that game here.
I ‘ve noticed the spellings of same name can run a variety. Such as Guy, Gui,Guise,Guice,Guys,Gye,Guye, Chaves, Chavous,Chavvers. What I’mtrying to figure out is that from census takers, or thedialect,or education?Any idea?
I kind of figured that out. In Loudon Co 1880 census it Alex Sara living in a neighborhood a lot of Hawkins families some were listed as black other as mulatto.So I kinda knew that. But can you tell me more about the kidnapping thing?
ginger guy;36836 wrote: I ‘ve noticed the spellings of same name can run a variety. Such as Guy, Gui,Guise,Guice,Guys,Gye,Guye, Chaves, Chavous,Chavvers. What I’mtrying to figure out is that from census takers, or thedialect,or education?Any idea?
The differences in spelling probably arise from both sides,the census takers and the residents.
Many people were illiterate and the census takers might have written the names down phonetically.
In my family,for example,ancestors have gone back and forth between Nightingale and Nightengale over the last few generations.
Try not to obsess on minor spelling differences when tracing your family.
roca;36841 wrote: The differences in spelling probably arise from both sides,the census takers and the residents.
Many people were illiterate and the census takers might have written the names down phonetically.
In my family,for example,ancestors have gone back and forth between Nightingale and Nightengale over the last few generations.
Try not to obsess on minor spelling differences when tracing your family.
No I wouldn’t. But when I firrst began , it took so long just to find my GGrandfather, But I finally did. It was spelled Gui. Thank u for ur reply. Ginger
I just found out that all slaves (regardless of race) and indentured servants (regardless of race) were documented in the Virginia Black/African American Slave records. Isn’t that something?
Indigenous Americans (indian) and East India Indians were documented in the Virginia Black/African American Slave records.
http://www.freeafricanamericans.com/free_Indians.htm
1_optimistic;36843 wrote: I just found out that all slaves (regardless of race) and indentured servants (regardless of race) were documented in the Virginia Black/African American Slave records. Isn’t that something?
Indigenous Americans (indian) and East India Indians were documented in the Virginia Black/African American Slave records.
I think I ‘m missing your point . I haven’t mentioned race. What I noticed first was the ages. Thank u for ur reply. Ginger
Hi Ginger,
My point was to highlight Indigenous Americans in other records that are labeled “Black” or “African American.” For instance, Virginia Slave Records. Free “Blacks” were also referenced in the same records….just record keepers mentioned “Free” before identifying the person’s race.
“…1759-61, p.116, 18 February 1760, Ordered the Church wardens of South Farnham Parish bind Adam a Free Indian the Child of Free Letty according to Law….”
Your original post referenced FPC and how non-black folks were labeled as such.
🙂
Oh yea I had to go back and look at the title page. Brainfarts ye see. Some of the ages on there got me to wondering. How much can a 4,5,6, year old child do in the sense of chores. Thank u for your reply
ginger guy;36837 wrote: But can you tell me more about the kidnapping thing?
Once the African slave trade was made illegal there was a lot of pressure to supply the demand for slaves. A lot of this I’ve heard anecdotely from people’s family stories. One family had a tradition wherein the women would go hide in a hut during childbirth, and I conjectured it had to do with this, there are other stories I’ve heard about why poor whites in the north were anti-slavery. They had alien abduction fears similar to what we have now from ET abductions, but in those days there were fears of being kidnapped into slavery and being sold as someone with just a little African ancestry which wasn’t showing up at the moment. I know one guy with family lore of someone Indian who got in trouble with the law and sentenced to slavery. Women without men in the household were at risk of having their children stolen. Most of the tribes absorbed some African admixture very, very early on, and individuals with that would have had better immunities and survived, so the people who stayed here would be at huge risk of being taken for someone subject to hereditary slavery.
There was a whole lot of money involved in kidnapping people into slavery, so you know there was skalawags willing to do it.
Linda;36847 wrote: Once the African slave trade was made illegal there was a lot of pressure to supply the demand for slaves. A lot of this I’ve heard anecdotely from people’s family stories. One family had a tradition wherein the women would go hide in a hut during childbirth, and I conjectured it had to do with this, there are other stories I’ve heard about why poor whites in the north were anti-slavery. They had alien abduction fears similar to what we have now from ET abductions, but in those days there were fears of being kidnapped into slavery and being sold as someone with just a little African ancestry which wasn’t showing up at the moment. I know one guy with family lore of someone Indian who got in trouble with the law and sentenced to slavery. Women without men in the household were at risk of having their children stolen. Most of the tribes absorbed some African admixture very, very early on, and individuals with that would have had better immunities and survived, so the people who stayed here would be at huge risk of being taken for someone subject to hereditary slavery.
There was a whole lot of money involved in kidnapping people into slavery, so you know there was skalawags willing to do it.
Wow – amazing. Thanks for this.
Linda;36847 wrote: Once the African slave trade was made illegal there was a lot of pressure to supply the demand for slaves. A lot of this I’ve heard anecdotely from people’s family stories. One family had a tradition wherein the women would go hide in a hut during childbirth, and I conjectured it had to do with this, there are other stories I’ve heard about why poor whites in the north were anti-slavery. They had alien abduction fears similar to what we have now from ET abductions, but in those days there were fears of being kidnapped into slavery and being sold as someone with just a little African ancestry which wasn’t showing up at the moment. I know one guy with family lore of someone Indian who got in trouble with the law and sentenced to slavery. Women without men in the household were at risk of having their children stolen. Most of the tribes absorbed some African admixture very, very early on, and individuals with that would have had better immunities and survived, so the people who stayed here would be at huge risk of being taken for someone subject to hereditary slavery.
There was a whole lot of money involved in kidnapping people into slavery, so you know there was skalawags willing to do it.
This is a jewel… Thank you 🙂
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
