Any Way To Have Slavery To Have The Mobility Of The Roman System

I heard that the whole reason they chose Africa to import slaves from was so they could tell an escaped slave in hiding apart from a free person. If they made a habit of turning slaves into free people, that would screw up their plans, but societies screw up their plans all the time. I suppose one result of this might be that they wouldn't bother importing slaves from Africa, and instead take slaves from wherever it's convenient to take them from.
 
That's a huge problem. Some states had laws prohibiting free blacks - so if they WERE emancipated they were supposed to leave the state.
Had laws prohibiting emancipation of slaves to free blacks. Only Arkansas went so far as to pass a law requiring all existing free blacks to leave the state - in 1859.
Also in 1859, constitution of Oregon point blank forbade any negroes or mulattoes to move to Oregon. The constitution was approved by referendum. Two provisions were put to separate vote questions. The provision to forbid slavery passed by 75 %. The provision to forbid free blacks passed by 89 %.
No state had much use for free blacks.
Yes - neither slaveowner nor free states, by 1860.
In Virginia, the free black population grew from 1 % to 7 % of all blacks, between 1782 (when Virginia relaxed previous restrictions on manumission) and 1800. Yet in 1806, restrictions on manumission were put back.

What would be needed to get any US states to tolerate free blacks and permit further increase of free black population by manumission and immigration, after 1800?

Brazil did tolerate free blacks.
 
I've never heard of this idea in the slightest. If Indians are not regarded as "white" in comparitively liberal states like New York or New Hampshire, I don't know why that would be the case in Texas of all places, which has a reputation for being staunchly conservative.
What I mean, picking up subtle undertones which are only sometimes present (and which of course I might be mistaken about, for this is basically a poker read), is that an Indian physician is much more readily accepted as 'one of us.'

With an African-American physician, even one who is a good listener and clearly knows his or her stuff and who is respected as a physician, this is a much dicier proposition.

It is vaguely assumed that African-Americans have a different culture, and this assumption of course is only by some people and certainly not by all. And even by the people who assume this, probably only some of the time.

And all this might dovetail in with what someone suggested on page 1, that Indians are considered to be model minorities, meaning by contrast and compare that persons who are members of other minority groups are not so considered.
 
Last edited:
From the medium amount I've read, it looks like the response and over-reaction to Bacon's Rebellion accelerated laws and attitudes already in progress.

Good Wives, Nasty Wenches, and Anxious Patriarchs: Gender, Race, and Power in Colonial Virginia, Kathleen M. Brown, University of North Carolina Press, 1996, page 108:

‘ . . . The first such measure, passed in 1643 [in Virginia], consisted of a tithe levied on African women from which English women were exempt. This legal measure effectively made it harder for subsequent generations of Africans to do what Anthony and Mary had done earlier in the century: marry, purchase freedom, and establish families and independent households. . . ’
 
Last edited:
What I mean, picking up subtle undertones which are only sometimes present (and which of course I might be mistaken about, for this is basically a poker read), is that an Indian physician is much more readily accepted as 'one of us.'

With an African-American physician, even one who is a good listener and clearly knows his or her stuff and who is respected as a physician, this is a much dicier proposition.

It is vaguely assumed that African-Americans have a different culture, and this assumption of course is only by some people and certainly not by all. And even by the people who assume this, probably only some of the time.

And all this might dovetail in with what someone suggested on page 1, that Indians are considered to be model minorities, meaning by contrast and compare that persons who are members of other minority groups are not so considered.

I don't disagree with that, although I'd say that East Asians are generally considered even closer to white culture, given that they (in the U.S. anyway) are generally either secular or Christian, whereas Indians are usually Hindu, Muslim or Sikh. But I don't think many people consider either Indians or East Asians to literally be white, which is was the discussion was about earlier. The common racial definitions are certainly arbitrary to a degree, but not quite that degree.
 
Top