WI: Southerners did not adopt one-drop rule?

[Deleted member 109224]

When Jim Crow and the One Drop Rule became the legal norm, the US census saw a sudden drop in the number of people who identified as mixed-race.

If you don't have the One Drop Rule adopted into law, then you probably have a more diverse/broad sense of racial identity in much of the US.

 

[Ameck16]

Mixed Race recognition existed in the United States, mulatto status only ended in 1940 census and the social reality of a mostly european derived American Black upper middle class closely aligned with equally wealthy white families from the 17th and 18th century shows this.

I confused by this last part. Are you saying that upper-middle-class blacks were deprived of their wealth or the African American community was derived of upper middle class folks because they were absorbed into the greater white population.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

If happens you will end with a society not disssimilar to Brazil or LatinAmerica in general, with colorism and not much racism but a lot of Classism. Now if this is possibld I don't belive so, there is something in the English pattern colonialism, be USA, Australia, India, Canada or South Africa, that increment, and even create, the racist elements in the society they dominate. There is a reason you see that the more racist societies in the cololonial world come from english speaking colonies

Historically, Anglos were the most racist and insular europeans, even by the standards of northern euros. Notice that even the Dutch/Boers didn't do one drop rule and had the mixed "cape coloreds" in between white/black.

 

[Ameck16]

Historically, Anglos were the most racist and insular europeans, even by the standards of northern euros. Notice that even the Dutch/Boers didn't do one drop rule and had the mixed "cape coloreds" in between white/black.

That's because the British settled temperate lands and the and they Irish tended to migrate in mass with their families. This led to colonist living in he same social system as they were back on the islands.

In places where British colonist were unable to bring family along e.g. India before the mid 19th century you saw a lot of mixing with the natives.

As for the boer they often mixed with Africans due to their relatively small population.

 

[Gabingston]

Historically, Anglos were the most racist and insular europeans, even by the standards of northern euros. Notice that even the Dutch/Boers didn't do one drop rule and had the mixed "cape coloreds" in between white/black.

To be fair, the Cape Coloureds were barely above full-blooded Black Africans in the Apartheid racial totem pole, as can be seen by the median incomes by race in South Africa.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Historically, Anglos were the most racist and insular europeans, even by the standards of northern euros. Notice that even the Dutch/Boers didn't do one drop rule and had the mixed "cape coloreds" in between white/black.

I think that that was an American thing, rather than an "Anglo" thing. England was in many ways less racist than the US; even as late as the 1940s, for example, American GIs stationed in England were often scandalised at how freely the local girls talked with black servicemen.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

kind of, but even more specific than that. the puritan/midlander waves of settlers were unusually insular/xenophobic/racist even by anglo standards, note that it was all yankees pushing for the liberia solution/free soilers wanting zero blacks in the territories, etc.

 

[Lampiao]

kind of, but even more specific than that. the puritan/midlander waves of settlers were unusually insular/xenophobic/racist even by anglo standards, note that it was all yankees pushing for the liberia solution/free soilers wanting zero blacks in the territories, etc.

I think you did hit the nail there. A large amount of Anglos that migrated to the Americas are Puritan exiles fleeing with their families from a society that didn't want them and their beliefs. It's not that much different from the mentality of a Jewish settler in the West Bank. It goes without saying that in such extremely religious society extramarital relations are very much frowned upon, particularly if it's with the 'other'/enemy.

The Cape Colony under Dutch rule was somewhat different from that. They did have the good old strict morality of the Reformed Church, which is the complete opposite from the condescending approach of the Catholic Church. However, what they did have in common with the Catholic colonies is a completely broken social structure, i.e. familial bonds were clearly not as strong as in North America and in Europe and that lead to more mixed race people. The average settler was a retired sailors from the VOC that got tired of killing Indonesians, the Cape was a sailor's town and a commercial hub from the very beginning, it's hard to find a good Christian in these conditions.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

There's a great gap between a "one drop" rule and declaring mulattos "white". What the South adopted initially was matrilineal inherited slave status. There were no children of slave fathers and free mothers, so patrilineal slavery was a null issue.

Slaves were slaves, period. The question of racial proportions only came in with free people. During the colonial period, AIUI, "free colored" people often asserted civil equality with whites. This got hammered down after the Founding. Property qualifications for voting had excluded nearly all blacks and a lot of whites, but after the Revolution, manhood suffrage became the norm. That meant an explicit race bar.

But the question of people with only a "trace" of black ancestry was, AFAIK, never resolved. Many such people simply "lost" their black ancestry by moving to a different area. The social stigma remained, to some degree. ISTR a passage in a story by Mark Twain: a woman is described as a wantonly malicious gossip, who once spoiled a promising romance by discoverng that the girl had a "teaspoonfull of negro blood".

OTOH there was a very remarkable incident in the 1890s. South Carolina was then ruled by white supremacist Democrats, who had largely disfranchised the black majority by fraud and intimidation. They had done enough of this to ensure that no black or black-allied candidate could ever win a statewide office, or a local office in most of the state. However, in a few very heavily black areas, blacks still voted in sufficient numbers to win a few seats in the state legislature and even a US House seat a few times.

In the 1890s there had been a political revolution; lower-class whites led by "Pitchfork Ben" Tillman overthrew the "plantation aristocrats", who had run the state before the War, and after Reconstruction. Tillman's followers held a convention to rewrite the state constitution, and one desired outcome was the complete disfranchisement of blacks. (How this was to be done without violating the Fifteenth Amendment's prohibition of racial limits on voting, Idunno.) Anyway, the initial proposal for this incorporated a "one-drop" rule. Then delegate George Tillman (Ben's brother) got up and said a one-drop rule was unworkable, because "we're all niggers to some extent". (!!!!!)

 

[Jurgen Wullenwever]

If there apparently were whites with partial black ancestry, how did that happen? I mean patrilineally, since the son in the second generation would look relatively dark, and perhaps had more difficulty acquiring a whiter wife, or were things less rigid in those days, and more centered on wealth for social standing?

Any examples from 1600s or 1700s?

 

[Lampiao]

There's a great gap between a "one drop" rule and declaring mulattos "white". What the South adopted initially was matrilineal inherited slave status. There were no children of slave fathers and free mothers, so patrilineal slavery was a null issue.

That was the rule everywhere in the Americas, and, yes, there were children of freed black women and white men, thus the presence of African DNA in about thirty per cent of White Americans.

If there apparently were whites with partial black ancestry, how did that happen? I mean patrilineally, since the son in the second generation would look relatively dark, and perhaps had more difficulty acquiring a whiter wife, or were things less rigid in those days, and more centered on wealth for social standing?

Any examples from 1600s or 1700s?

Most mulattoes were present firstly in the Chesapeake colonies, which were traditionally non-Puritan colonies, so you can see a pattern there.

I can't think of an example of a mulatto in the Colonial US right now, but IIRC the son of Pocahontas, Thomas Rolfe, was a wealthy planter and married a white woman. In the early days of the colony, racial boundaries weren't as strict as we tend to think.

 

[Revachah]

In my traditional discourse, it is expected for a question to be a reciprocal relation. That is, whence questions are given, there is an attempt by which a receiver seeks to gather nuance of questions and also to take into account what said person is asking. Do take this into consideration, rather than demanding of others particular mechanical questions, that are tailored to you. I am under no obligation to write according to the standards that make your answers easy, especially considering the hostile tones you oft-take.

My tone would be different if you did always respond with the verbosity of someone who knows what they are talking about but i always end up correcting.

Tbh i got no smoke with you but when i read your posts they dont always make sense to me.

I also dont take well to your passive agressiveness and respond in a clear and direct way because i dont care for thinly veiled jabs such as this whole quote.

However, to gift you a set of affirmations to make matters clear for you; to clarify so that you may genuinely engage in conversation:

Actually your questions are not gifts to me, i was willing to do you a favor by answering but nah

 

[Jürgen]

If there apparently were whites with partial black ancestry, how did that happen? I mean patrilineally, since the son in the second generation would look relatively dark, and perhaps had more difficulty acquiring a whiter wife, or were things less rigid in those days, and more centered on wealth for social standing?

Free Biracial People of Color marrying White people, freed slaves with a vast majority of White ancestry, White looking "Black" people moving to regions where they're not known and ending up with a White spouse (the so-called passing). Even in a rare case a foundling of mixed racial ancestry (but majority White) being declared White because she was adopted by White parents. Mixed race people of majority White ancestry living in isolated communities and these communities being vicious and violent enough against outsiders trying to force their racial standards on them that the states just gave up and declared them White.

Fundamental there was a million ways to ignore the one drop rule, when it became ridiculous enough or if it meet real opposition.

 

[Revachah]

There's a great gap between a "one drop" rule and declaring mulattos "white". What the South adopted initially was matrilineal inherited slave status. There were no children of slave fathers and free mothers, so patrilineal slavery was a null issue.

This is absolutely false, the foundations of the free black community is rooted in European and indigenous women marrying African men. There are dozens of names associated with these early unions and their children became white, black and "other".

But the question of people with only a "trace" of black ancestry was, AFAIK, never resolved. Many such people simply "lost" their black ancestry by moving to a different area. The social stigma remained, to some degree. ISTR a passage in a story by Mark Twain: a woman is described as a wantonly malicious gossip, who once spoiled a promising romance by discoverng that the girl had a "teaspoonfull of negro blood".

It was not only "traces", George J. F. Clarke's half black children married into white prominent families.

The issue really only exists around money and resources right, the wealthiest children born of mixed race unions could and often would marry into white families. In the north and south.

Did most white people care yes and the prejudice could be pushed aside.

OTOH there was a very remarkable incident in the 1890s. South Carolina was then ruled by white supremacist Democrats, who had largely disfranchised the black majority by fraud and intimidation. They had done enough of this to ensure that no black or black-allied candidate could ever win a statewide office, or a local office in most of the state. However, in a few very heavily black areas, blacks still voted in sufficient numbers to win a few seats in the state legislature and even a US House seat a few times.

In the 1890s there had been a political revolution; lower-class whites led by "Pitchfork Ben" Tillman overthrew the "plantation aristocrats", who had run the state before the War, and after Reconstruction. Tillman's followers held a convention to rewrite the state constitution, and one desired outcome was the complete disfranchisement of blacks. (How this was to be done without violating the Fifteenth Amendment's prohibition of racial limits on voting, Idunno.) Anyway, the initial proposal for this incorporated a "one-drop" rule. Then delegate George Tillman (Ben's brother) got up and said a one-drop rule was unworkable, because "we're all niggers to some extent". (!!!!!)

I quoted that in the thread, it wasnt extraordinary this was a commonly recognized reality in the south and its the reason why ODR only came into being after 1900.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

If there apparently were whites with partial black ancestry, how did that happen? I mean patrilineally...

It didn't. Quadroons (1/4 black), octoroons (1/8 black), and mustees (1/16 or less black) resulted from multiple generations of white fathers and slave mothers.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

Anarch King of Dipsodes said: There were no children of slave fathers and free mothers, so patrilineal slavery was a null issue.

This is absolutely false, the foundations of the free black community is rooted in European and indigenous women marrying African men. There are dozens of names associated with these early unions and their children became white, black and "other".

This response appears to be a complete non sequitur. I referred to the non-existence of slave children of white mothers and slave fathers. Such children, being slaves, would have nothing to do with any "free black community". In any case, marriages between white women and non-white men were very rare compared to matings between white men and non-white women. As in most frontier societies, white men greatly outnumbered white women, and white men had (in general) much more wealth and power than non-white men.

It was not only "traces", George J. F. Clarke's half black children married into white prominent families.

Clarke lived in Spanish Florida; the mores of Spanish and French colonial societies were very different from the British colonies, especially in the mid- to late- 19th century. Florida's different culture was quickly swept aside by American settlement after US annexation; Louisiana's different culture persisted in some degree up to the Civil War, though the special status of the gens de couleur was significantly downgraded. When white supremacist "Redeemers" seized control at the end of Reconstruction, any remnants of that special status were obliterated.

The issue really only exists around money and resources right, the wealthiest children born of mixed race unions could and often would marry into white families. In the north and south.

Often? There were a handful of such cases, widely regarded as scandalous.

One case was Richard M. Johnson, Vice President under Van Buren (1837-1841). Johnson was the only Vice President ever elected by the Senate under the procedure specified in the Twelfth Amendment. This happened because the presidential electors from Virginia abstained rather than vote for him, leaving him with exactly half of the total electors, not a majority. The Virginians did that because they were offended by Johnson's personal life. He had had a slave mistress, but openly acknowledged her and their two daughters, who married white men.

This case was so notorious that it was referred to by Abraham Lincoln in the 1858 debates with Senator Stephen Douglas. Douglas insinuated that Lincoln supported civil and soclal equality of whites and blacks, noting that he allowed Frederic Douglass to sit in a carriage with Mrs. Lincoln and other white ladies. Lincoln denied any such radical beliefs:

I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. I recollect of but one distinguished instance that I ever heard of so frequently as to be entirely satisfied of its correctness—and that is the case of Judge Douglas's old friend Col. Richard M. Johnson.

(emphasis added)

[Douglas had served as an Illinois judge; Johnson had been a militia colonel in the War of 1812, and was credited with personally slaying Chief Tecumseh. Both were Democrats.]

 

[pbrower2a]

Creoles are not the mixed race population term prior to the very recent era or perhaps after 1897 (Jim Crow laws become formalized). They were referred to as Mulatto/a/x and its French-Castilian equivalent. Meanwhile, the general European populace born in the state were referred to as Creole, similar to the Spanish imperial conception of Criollo (Louisiana racial policy is derived from the Spanish systematic). Today in the study of Louisiana and in the school system therein, the students are taught using the terms, Creole and Creole of Color, in reference to respecting the recent innovation in terminology among many of the African diaspora in how they term themselves, but recognizing too that in history, the term generally referred to the European ancestry (non Irish, Cajun, Sicilian and sometimes German, these were the European groups typically 'othered' by the racial viewpoints in 19th century Louisiana, especially prior to 1870) borne and raised in Louisiana or the Caribbean. African populaces were referred to as the N word (except in French, you may look this term up) or simply as Black (and its other language equivalents in Louisiana).

To the question, 'one drop' becoming not the standard begs a different question. Such as, what is the new standard for Creole or white? Does it become 25% or would it be 15%? This is important. I doubt that it could be made to be 50% as an accepted ratio for becoming white, it would require several tls to diminish the notions of white supremacy en vogue and change the nature of the wider Spanish colonial structure. However, it could be that the new custom becomes 20% and below is considered White, while 25%, the so-called 'castizo' becomes a class that is accepted for marriage and non-slave sexual relation and thus creates more so-called white people. While the Mulatto and wholly-African remain in their position but are more visually and legally stratified so as to depict the new nature of race relations in the Southern US.

Today we speak of genetics and not of 'drops of blood'. Obviously if I get a blood transfusion from a Polish-American I do not become a Polish-American.

At what point do people get so diluted of their African ancestry that they can seem 'white'? Two black people with significant Caucasoid ancestry can have a child who looks very white. So what defines someone as "black" with an ancestry largely Caucasoid? Skin color? That is surprisingly one of the weaker definitions of race. Note well that the skin color of most white Americans is within the range that one would expect in Japan, Korea, and much of China. Everted lips or frizzy hair might be enough to suggest that one is black.

1/8? 1/16? Appearance is real, and so long as 'blackness' is a disadvantage, people who might look white would pass solely for better jobs, treatment in public life, and other opportunities. Thomas Jefferson had children by Sally Hemings (who was only 1/4 black)... and her children were thus 7/8 white and 'passed'. Culture and affiliation are also real.

I am tempted to believe that getting free status from a white father (a black child of a white mother was considered black, just the same, when that happened) would have created an even larger population of free blacks... and that would have made a mess of slavery.

 

[pbrower2a]

If they'd had dna testing back then that probably would have quelled a lot of it.

I wonder how many people who think themselves white take one of those DNA tests and find that some mysterious ancestor was well hidden from the family history for a good reason in the time. No, not for being a pirate or a horse thief!

 

[Revachah]

This response appears to be a complete non sequitur. I referred to the non-existence of slave children of white mothers and slave fathers. Such children, being slaves, would have nothing to do with any "free black community". In any case, marriages between white women and non-white men were very rare compared to matings between white men and non-white women. As in most frontier societies, white men greatly outnumbered white women, and white men had (in general) much more wealth and power than non-white men.

You are wrong though. I imagine if you just spent time on the first two pages of a google search or used wikipedia as a sole source your view point would seem very real however that is not the case.

This compilation of 200 names are associated with free people of color families by Paul Heinegg and J. Douglas Deal.

1620's: Carter, Cornish, Dale/Dial, Driggers, Gowen/Goins, Johnson, Longo, Mongom/Mongon, Payne
1630's: Cane, Davis, George, Hartman, Sisco, Tann, Wansey
1640's: Archer, Kersey, Mozingo, Webb
1650's: Cuttillo, Jacobs, James
1660's: Beckett, Bell, Charity, Cumbo, Evans, Francis, Guy, Harris, Jones,Landum/Landrum, Lovina/Leviner, Moore, Nickens, Powell, Shorter, Tate, Warrick/Warwick
1670's: Anderson, Atkins, Barton, Boarman, Bowser, Brown, Bunch, Buss, Butcher, Butler, Carney, Case, Church, Combess, Combs, Consellor, Day, Farrell/Ferrell, Fountain, Game,
Gibson/Gipson, Gregory, Grimes, Grinnage, Hobson, Howell, Jeffries, Lee, Manuel, Morris, Mullakin, Nelson, Osborne, Pendarvis, Quander, Redman, Reed, Rhoads, Rustin, Skipper, Sparrow, Stephens, Stinger, Swann, Waters, Wilson.
1680's: Artis, Booth, Britt, Brooks, Bryant, Burkett, Cambridge, Cassidy, Collins, Copes, Cox, Dogan, Donathan, Forten/Fortune, Gwinn, Hilliard, Hubbard, Impey, Ivey, Jackson, MacDonald, MacGee, Mahoney, Mallory, Okey, Oliver, Penny, Plowman, Press/Priss, Price, Proctor, Robins, Salmons/Sammons, Shoecraft, Walden, Walker, Wiggins, Wilkens, Williams
1690's: Annis, Banneker, Bazmore, Beddo, Bond, Cannedy/Kennedy, Chambers, Conner, Cuffee, Dawson, Durham, Ford, Gannon, Gates, Graham, Hall, Harrison, Hawkins, Heath, Holt, Horner, Knight, Lansford, Lewis, Malavery, Nichols, Norman, Oxendine, Plummer, Pratt, Prichard, Rawlinson, Ray, Ridley, Roberts, Russell, Sample, Savoy, Shaw, Smith, Stewart, Taylor, Thompson, Toney, Turner, Weaver, Welsh, Whistler, Willis, Young

You had women such as this person born in 1845 whos great-great-great grandfather was an angolan man by the surname Mozingo

The majority of these family names were born of either african born men married to early metis or white families or the first generation of mixed race children who married into white lines in the 17th century. Only one of the names above is associate with a white male slave master.

We have record of a law enacted to insure the wellbeing of female english subjects and their children be protected from male indenturers in 1681 by Lord Baltimore of Maryland attempted to protect christian children by discouraging marriage not for purposes of race but rather the shifting views of non-angolan africans. He did this because a woman he had indentured was forced to marry an indentured african man.

"Forasmuch as divers free-born English or white women, sometimes by the instigation, procurement or connivance of their masters, mistresses, or dames, and always to the satisfaction of their lascivious and lustful desires, and to the disgrace not only of the English, but also of many other Christian nations, do intermarry with Negroes and slaves, by which means, divers inconveniences, controversies, and suits may arise, touching the issue of children of such freeborn women aforesaid; for the prevention whereof for the future, Be it enacted: That if the marriage of any woman servant with any slave shall take place by the procurement or permission of the master, such woman and her issue shall be free

Thomas Branagan who visited Philadelphia in 1805 observed:

"There are many, very many blacks who...begin to feel themselves consequential...will not be satisfied unless they get white women for wives, and are likewise exceedingly impertinent to white people in low circumstances...I solemnly swear, I have seen more white women married to, and deluded through the arts of seduction by Negroes in one year in Philadelphia, than for eight years I was visiting [West Indies and the Southern states]...There are perhaps hundreds of white women thus fascinated by black men in this city and there are thousands of black children by them at present."

Clarke lived in Spanish Florida; the mores of Spanish and French colonial societies were very different from the British colonies, especially in the mid- to late- 19th century. Florida's different culture was quickly swept aside by American settlement after US annexationo

His children and grandchildren lived in anglo florida and married anglo men

Louisiana's different culture persisted in some degree up to the Civil War, though the special status of the gens de couleur was significantly downgraded. When white supremacist "Redeemers" seized control at the end of Reconstruction, any remnants of that special status were obliterated.

The position of free people of color existed whether mixed or unmixed and in the Adams Onis treaty all free people of color maintained rights into the 19th century.

Often? There were a handful of such cases, widely regarded as scandalous.

One case was Richard M. Johnson, Vice President under Van Buren (1837-1841). Johnson was the only Vice President ever elected by the Senate under the procedure specified in the Twelfth Amendment. This happened because the presidential electors from Virginia abstained rather than vote for him, leaving him with exactly half of the total electors, not a majority. The Virginians did that because they were offended by Johnson's personal life. He had had a slave mistress, but openly acknowledged her and their two daughters, who married white men.

This case was so notorious that it was referred to by Abraham Lincoln in the 1858 debates with Senator Stephen Douglas. Douglas insinuated that Lincoln supported civil and soclal equality of whites and blacks, noting that he allowed Frederic Douglass to sit in a carriage with Mrs. Lincoln and other white ladies. Lincoln denied any such radical beliefs:

(emphasis added)

[Douglas had served as an Illinois judge; Johnson had been a militia colonel in the War of 1812, and was credited with personally slaying Chief Tecumseh. Both were Democrats.]

I think its great that you took time to respond to me but you clearly dont know the basis of American race relations nor the social contexts of why this was heinous in his case.

 

[jmc247]

1/8? 1/16? Appearance is real, and so long as 'blackness' is a disadvantage, people who might look white would pass solely for better jobs, treatment in public life, and other opportunities. Thomas Jefferson had children by Sally Hemings (who was only 1/4 black)... and her children were thus 7/8 white and 'passed'. Culture and affiliation are also real.

Govenment officials had real issues categorizing Sally and at various points in time identified her as black, a free mulatto and in the 1830 census a free white Virginia woman.

As for her kids it depended on what they wanted to identify with. James Madison Hemings still wished to be identified as black. For Harriet being identified as black created issues for her marriage to a wealthy white individual so she identified as white.

Even 3/16th African ancestry was an issue for Sally’s grandson Colonel John Wayles Jefferson a wealthy cotton broker who fought in the Union Army in the Civil War who preferred his men not know he had African ancestry.

Spoiler