Mixed Race Studies

Anti-Miscegenation Movement

Columbus Enquirer-Sun
Columbus, Georgia
1886-09-24
page 5, column 3

Source: Digital Library of Georgia

Organization In Louisiana to Prevent the Intermarriage of Whites and Blacks

New Orleans. September 20.—A practical movement has been inaugurated in Bossier parish, in this state, for the abolition of miscegenation. There have been during the past year or so several spasmodic efforts in this direction, both in Louisiana and Mississippi. Self-constituted vigilance committees have warned white men with negro wives and mistresses to leave them and lead a regular life, and when this failed have ridden through the parish, severely whipping both men and women who disobeyed this order.  In Mississippi there were several arrests, convictions and sentences for violation of the law prohibiting intermarriages between the races, and in Louisiana one man was severely cut in a scrimmage arising from this movement. But these anti-miscegenation raids were spasmodic, the freaks of a few wild young men. The present movement is more serious and more general, and is a thorough and practical organization, like that of the prohibitionist, to break up miscegenation.

The first meeting was held in Bossier parish in July, whore the subject was generally discussed, and adjourned over to this month to find the drift of public opinion. It was found that public sentiment among the whites was well nigh unanimous on the subject. The recent meeting held at Cottage Grove, in the upper portion of Bossier parish, was the result. There was no secrecy or mystery about it. It was an open mass meeting, in which all the people of the neighborhood—farmers, clergymen and others—assembled. The meeting was opened with prayer and presided over by a clergyman. The resolutions were of the strongest character. Those guilty of miscegenation were threatened with social boycott, and warned that they were insulting the race feelings and moral principles of the community. But the gist of the meeting was the appointment of a vigilance committee of nineteen to serve notices on these white men living with negro women—the vigilants were not instructed as to what they should if this warning is unheeded—and the appointment of another committee to assist in the organization of anti-miscegenation societies in other parishes in the state.

This plan of operation is warmly supported by the press. The Bossier Banner declares that race purity must be preserved at all hazards, the line must be sharply and distinctly drawn, and those who cross it must pay the penalty. The Robeline Reporter of Natchitoches, edited by the father of the present attorney-general of the state, approves the idea.

As this sentiment prevails in most of the neighboring parishes, it is thought that the present organization, by giving a start to the anti-miscegenation sentiment, which in this part of the state is now stronger than the anti-liquor sentiment, it will spread through north Louisiana if not into the neighboring states of Mississippi, Texas and Arkansas. There is no law in Louisiana against the intermarriage or cohabitation of f[r]aces, this prohibition, which was strongly urged by many persons, being voted down in the late constitutional convention, but miscegenation is growing rarer every day, in deference to the strong public sentiment on this point.

A Race Question: A Negro Man With a White Wife—Some Nice Points of Law—Indians Have Greater Nuptial Privileges.

Columbus Enquirer-Sun
Columbus, Georgia
Saturday, 1886-11-20
page 8, columns 3-4

Source: Digital Library of Georgia

A very interesting case, both as to the facts and the nice legal points involved, was tried this week at the circuit court in Seale [Alabama].  A negro man was on trial, charged with living in adultery with an alleged white woman.  The prisoner had been living with the woman as his wife for quite a number of years, and had begotten by her a family of children.  As the parties were seated within the bar of the court, they formed an interesting group. The man was as black as midnight, and in appearance, showed prominently every characteristic of the African make up. The woman, on the other hand, was white of skin and had in every liniament of her features the Caucassian cast of countenance. Their two boys, aged respectively about 8 and 10, sat between the black father on the one side and the white mother on the the other, and were of a yellow or copper color.

The defense was based on the position that the woman, although white to all appearances, was yet of mixed blood. The state conceded that if the woman was of such mixed blood, as in contemplation of law, she would be deemed a negro; that then the man could not be found guilty. But the state insisted that if the woman was in fact, or in law, a white woman, that then her marriage with the defendant was unlawful and invalid, and the living together being admitted, the man would be guilty as charged.  So the case tuned on the point whether the woman was of white or mixed blood.

On this point the woman herself testified that as far back as could remember she was living with negroes; that she had never seen either of her parents, but that her mother was a white woman, and she had been told that her father was a bright mulatto or part Indian.

No other positive testimony was introduced. The state asked the court to charge the jury that if they believed the woman’s testimony that then they must find the prisoner guilty, and argued in support of the request that the woman having been shown to be of white maternity, that by legal presumption she herself ws white until the contrary was shown, or until she was shown to be of negro paternity; that this legal presumption put the burden of proof upon the defendant, which burden was not lifted by her vague and hearsay testimony as to the mixed blood of her father. The court charged as requested.

The defense insisted that testimony about one’s own nativity, such as age, place of birth, parentage, etc., was, in the absence of better testimony, a matter of common report, and as the woman had testified that she had been told that her father was of mixed blood or part Indian, that her testimony on that point should have its due weight, and ashed the court to charge that, looking at the whole testimony, if the jury had a reasonable doubt us to whether the woman was of white or mixed blood, that then they must acquit.

The court again charged as requested.

It cropped out incidentally in the discussion that although it is unlawful for whites and negroes to intermarry, yet one of aboriginal blood may marry either white or black according to his own supreme election and not be subject to any legal penalty. So that, if one is arraigned on a charge of miscegenation, they have only to induce the belief that they are of Indian origin and thereby escape the clutches of the law. There are some curious things in municipal as well as natural law. In this case the verdict was not guilty.

At last we breathe easier. The fiat has gone forth that in Georgia crime shall not go unwhipt of justice, nor shall moral rottenness reek in our midst. Our State will not be a doggery for the depraved, the corrupt, and the vicious of other States. In our midst miscegenation, even when sanctioned by the unholy statutes of other States, shall be crushed out, trampled under foot, and the guilty parties shall meet with sure, certain, condign punishment.

The cases which have been before the District Court for two days past have excited, not interest alone, but deep concern in the minds of our citizens. “Was this hydra-headed monster of corruption to be declared legal? “Was our sense of morality to be insulted? Was the marriage relation to be disgraced and rendered infamous? Were we to be compelled to see festering corruption walking about on the streets, jostling against us in the crowd, staring at us in the public places? These were the questions which arose and perplexed our citizens, and the threatened appeal to United States authority to override our laws, our customs, our sense of moral decency, added a strong feeling to them.

But Judge Lawrence and an impartial jury have spoken. Such things shall not exist. Let those who would disgrace humanity go to Tennessee, go to Massachusetts, go wherever corrupt and infamous lawmakers will protect them; but there is no place for them in Georgia. The ball is in motion, the law will be enforced strictly and to the very letter, and its boa-constrictor folds are now tightening around the neck of crime and corruption. Let it be proclaimed abroad that miscegenation cannot exist in Georgia.

“The District Court: The Miscegenationists on Trial—Able Argument of Mr. Irwin—The Ku-Klux Bill Threatened,” The Atlanta Weekly Sun, (August 16, 1871). (Source: Georgia Historic Newspapers). http://atlnewspapers.galileo.usg.edu/atlnewspapers/view?docId=news/aws1871/aws1871-0079.xml.

The District Court: The Miscegenationists on Trial—Able Argument of Mr. Irwin—The Ku-Klux Bill Threatened.

The Atlanta Weekly Sun
1871-08-16
page 7, columns 2-5

Source: Georgia Historic Newspapers

The District Court yesterday was the centre of much excitement, and as usual on such occasions, the negroes were out in full force. It was generally understood that the miscegenationists were to be placed on trial.

At the usual time the Court opened, Judge Lawrence in the chair.

• The State vs. H. Ruddell, gaming, was argued.
• The State vs. Wm. Beatte, was then taken up.
• The State vs. Green Martin, larceny from the house, was tried.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty in each of the above cases.

The excitement rose to fever heat when WM. HOBBES, a miserably debased and brutal looking white man, who claimed to be married to a negro wench. Hobbes is an old man, over 60, with gray hair; while the wench who sat by him was black as the ace of spades. He looked the embodiment of all the utter and helpless depravity which it is possible to instil into a human being, while the wench looked really ashamed of her companion. It was stated by us some time since a collection was taken up in one of the negro churches to procure counsel for these persons.

The State was represented ably by Capt W. G.Irwin, District Attorney.—The prisoner was defended by B. H. and A. M. Thrasher, and T. K Oglesby, who, it is stated, have undertaken the defence of all the miscegenationists.

The defence moved for a transfer of the case to the United States District Court. They claimed that under tho 15th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States all persons are equal in the eye of the law; that they have an equal right to marry whom they please, and do what they please. They claimed that Wm. Hobbes, white, and Martha Johnson, colored, were legally married, and were guilty of no offence. They relied on the Civil Rights Bill, the Ku-Klux Bill, and other Congressional machinery, as maintaining their position, and asked this Court to forego action, and refer the matter to the United States District Court.

Capt W. G. Irwin, District Attorney, in a very forcible manner, resisted the motion. He claimed that all such questions as marriage and contracts were exclusively within tho purview of State law; that the Court was well able to attend to its own business, and should do its duty without regard to other bodies.

The Judge decided to go on with the case.

After being gone into and concluded, the jury brought in a verdict of guilty.

WILLIS HARRIS, NEGRO, AND MARY SILVEY, WHITE, were then called up, on a charge of fornication. The Thrashers and Oglesby defended them also. Mary Silvey is a poor, degraded looking woman, whose ignorance is her only excuse,. The parties claim to have been married in Tennessee. The point was admitted by the State.

Capt. W. G. Irwin produced a great array of authorities conclusive of the criminality of the parties, even if married in another State. In controverting the application of the law of comity to this case he claimed that where an act, performed and looked upon as valid in another State, and which was opposed to the interests, policy or Constitution of the State, it was not to be recognized by this State at all. Section 2696 of the Code of Georgia says:

“Sometimes persons are capable to contract by the law of the place of the con- tract, but incapable, under the law of this State. In such case, generally, the law of the place of contract is enforced, unless the circumstances show an attempt to evade the law of this State, or the contract is of such a character as contravenes the POLICY of our law.”

It is impossible for law to be more plainly adapted to a case than this. No intelligent lawyer will deny that if the law of Tennessee regards as valid mixed marriages, to recognize that law would not only be to “contravene” the policy, but the very Constitution of this State, which, in paragraph 9, section 1, article 5 (section 4988 Irwin’s Code) says:

The marriage relation between white persons and persons of African descent, is forever prohibited, and such marriage shall be null and void.“

Among the preliminary provisions of the Code of Georgia is a paragraph which plainly declares the extent to which Georgia adheres to the comity of States, and reads as follows:

“Section 9—The laws of other States and foreign nations shall have no force and effect of themselves within this State further than is provided by the Constitution of the United States and is recognized by the comity of States. The courts shall enforce this comity, until restrained by the General Assembly, so long as its enforcement is not contrary to the policy or prejudicial to the interests of this State.“

And, again, in Section 1707 of Irwin’s Code we read:

“The marriage relation between white persons and persons of African descent is forever prohibited, and such marriages shall be null and void.”

Capt. Irwin read many other authorities, and made an earnest, manly and patriotic appeal for the preservation of public morality by tho enforcement of the law and, the prevention of such marriages as tend to bring disgrace upon society and humanity.

Barton Thrasher replied, and repeated his ideas about United States Courts, quoting Dick Busteed’s decisions, etc.

The Judge reserved his decision until to-day.

These cases are creating a great deal of excitement among the legal fraternity. We have heard, whether the report be true or false, we do not say, that the defence of these cases had been refused by four legal firms at least. Society and sound morality demands that this disgusting crime shall be punished with the utmost severity of the law. The crime is such as to make the heart turn sick, and we hope that District Attorney Irwin will continue to discharge his duty until the evil is torn up, root, branches and all.

The Miscegenationists Convicted—Judge Lawrence Reads His Decision in the Tennessee Case—Sentences, Etc.

The interest in this Court yesterday was unabated, and the new fledged “suffragists” were out in full force, to see whether the law would allow them to marry ad libitum, and gravely speculated upon the result. It was over an hour before the wheels of justice got into motion, when REV. ORION GEORGE, the negro who married William Hobbes, white, to Martha Johnson, black as charcoal, was called up. His counsel, Albert Thrasher and T. K. Oglesby, seemed to dwell considerably on George’s ignorance of the law, alledging that he was legally compelled to be ignorant of everything until within the last six years, seeming to forget that if he had equal rights under existing laws, that he is also under equal responsibility for his acts, and that if there is injustice in it, it attached to the United States, and not to the State of Georgia. Mr. Thrasher’s argument was based almost entirely upon the Civil Rights Bill. The defence also made a point that Hobbes gave George a regular license to perform the marriage, but forgot (we suppose) to state that the license only authorized George to perform the marriage if there was no legal impediments, and that Hobbes imd Martha Johnson were too dissimilar in color to escape the detection of even the bamboozled George, Mr. Oglesby’s speech sounded like the opening of the campaign of 1872. It made us feel like depositing our ballot instanter—on paper. District Attorney, Irwin, ably sustained the State, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty.

As soon as the verdict was rendered, WILLIS HARRIS AND MARY SILVEY, the Tennessee miscegenationists were called up to hear their verdict, previous to the reading of which the counsel asked leave to say something in mitigation, which was granted.

The Counsel—These parties were married in good faith, in Tennessee. Coming here they were not aware of the consequences. They are now willing to leave the State if the clemency of the Court is extended to them. One of the jurymen, Mr. King, has just informed me that he wishes to say something in mitigation.

The Court—Mr. King has leave to proceed.

Mr. King—Before saying anything, I would like to ask that girl a question.

“The Court—You may ask it.

Mr. King (addressing himself to the woman)—Are you the daughter of Washington Silvey, of Campbell county?

Mary Silvey—I am.

Mr. King—Your Honor, I knew that woman’s father well. He was an honorable man, as was also her grand-father.—Her mother died while this woman was a child, and her father died shortly after. She has never had any good influences around her, has been thrown into disreputable company, and I wish to God to take that poor unfortunate from the side of that nigger.

Mary Silvey—I was poor, with nothing to eat and no clothes. This man took me and gave me clothes and kept me from starvation.

Mr. King—I am sorry for the poor creature, but sincerely hope your Honor will divide them. She has no sense, and is a miserable specimen. I ask this for the sake of those who would be her friends.

The Court—The request will be taken into consideration.

Mr. King appeared to be deeply affected to see the daughter of an old friend and honorable man thus chained to degradation. His Honor then proceeded to read his DECISION IN THE TENNESSEE MARRIAGE CASE.

He spoke substantially as follows:—

This is an accusation of fornication against “Willis Harris, (colored), charging him with living in fornication with one Mary Harris, a white woman, and against said Mary Harris for same offence. The defence set up was Marriage. No evidence was introduced; but it was admitted between counsel that the parties were legally married in the State of Tennessee, as allowed by the laws of that State. At the enquiry of the Court it was stated that the Certificate of Marriage was in Court—but the District Attorney not pressing proof of its authenticity, it was taken to be a true Certificate of the fact of Marriage; and the case was argued at length and with ability by the Counsel on both sides before the Court, August 8th. The Court reserved its judgment until this morning, August 9th. At first glance, and before argument of Counsel, I was inclined to the opinion that the lex loci contractus would govern the case, and so intimated to Counsel, for the purpose of having the argument directed to that point I cannot award too much praise to the ability and zeal of the District Attorney exhibited in the array of law and precedent brought to bear on the question, and which served to dissipate from the mind of the Court all doubt prima facie entertained.

Upon examination of the law and authority cited by him, (viz: Code of Georgia—Sect 9, 1709—2696; a. a. 1868; Georgia Reports—34, p. 40; Georgia Reports—38, 75, 86; Georgia Reports—29, 321; Georgia Reports 36, 388, 389; Story, conflict of laws, Sect 29;) I am fully satisfied that the intermarriage of the parties in the State of Tennessee, however legal in that State, must be held to be null and void in this State.

The setting aside the general principle of the lex loci contractus in this case proceeds on the ground that such marriage is in contravention of the public policy of our State—vide authorities above cited. Public policy, adopted and upheld for the support and improvement of the morals, the peace, the good order and security of society in a State, is of itself ex-necessitate in view of the importance of these objects, of paramount authority, and must override special principles of law, however just in themselves, and long respected and observed, when these conflict with such public policy. Under the laws, for instance, of Utah, or customs having the force of laws with them, a man may have any number of wives. Now, though this may bo perfectly legal and right there, in the state of society these existing, can it be supposed that any State where the Monogamic relation between the sexes is preserved and upheld by law, would for an instant suffer a polygamic citizen of Utah to move into its midst, and corrnpt society by his example? Surely not. But is it less offence against the public policy of the State or the good taste and feeling of its citizens to suffer parties to cross the border of a neighboring State, and bring with them relations forbidden byoour laws or grounds of public policy? No—assuredly no.

In ruling then that the marriage of the parties in Tennessee is null and void, and that the lex fori must be given the case, it follows that the parties are guilty of the accusation.

The case of Ada Thompson, for vagrancy, was taken up, and a verdict of guilty was rendered.

His Honor then announced himself prepared for THE READING OF THE SENTENCES.

The miscegenationists, et. al., were ranged in a row, and received their various assignments with due composure.

• The State vs. Wm. Hobbes, white, living in fornication with Martha Johnson, colored; fine of $1,000, or six months in limbo.
• The State vs. Martha Johnson, colored, living in fornication with Wm. Hobbes, white; $200, or three months in limbo.
• The State vs. Willis Harris, colored, living in fornication with Mary Silvey, white; $250, or six months in limbo.
• The State vs. Mary Silvey, white, living in fornication with Willis Harris, negro; $1,000, or six months in limbo.
• The State vs. Orion George, negro preacher, marrying parties forbidden by law; $50 and costs, or ten days in his prison cell.
• The State vs. Green Martin, larceny from house; $100, or six months on the public works.
• The State vs. Wm. Beatte, larceny from the house; $100, or six months on public works.

The miscegenationists, through their counsel, have given notice that they will certiorari the cases.

SENTENCE OF THE MISCEGENATIONIST. THE BALL SET IN MOTION.

The Boa Constrictor of Law Tightening its Folds around Vice and Immorality.

The Moral Feelings of the People Vindicated.

A NOBLE JUDGE AND A NOBLE DECISION.

At last we breathe easier. The fiat has gone forth that in Georgia crime shall not go unwhipt of justice, nor shall moral rottenness reek in our midst. Our State will not be a doggery for the depraved, the corrupt, and the vicious of other States. In our midst miscegenation, even when sanctioned by the unholy statutes of other States, shall be crushed out, trampled under foot, and the guilty parties shall meet with sure, certain, condign punishment.

The cases which have been before the District Court for two days past have excited, not interest alone, but deep concern in the minds of our citizens. “Was this hydra-headed monster of corruption to be declared legal? “Was our sense of morality to be insulted? Was the marriage relation to be disgraced and rendered infamous? Were we to be compelled to see festering corruption walking about on the streets, jostling against us in the crowd, staring at us in the public places? These were the questions which arose and perplexed our citizens, and the threatened appeal to United States authority to override our laws, our customs, our sense of moral decency, added a strong feeling to them.

But Judge Lawrence and an impartial jury have spoken. Such things shall not exist. Let those who would disgrace humanity go to Tennessee, go to Massachusetts, go wherever corrupt and infamous lawmakers will protect them; but there is no place for them in Georgia. The ball is in motion, the law will be enforced strictly and to the very letter, and its boa-constrictor folds are now tightening around the neck of crime and corruption. Let it be proclaimed abroad that miscegenation cannot exist in Georgia.

DISTRICT COURT.

The City Council and Soda Water—Mr.Tignor Explains Sabbath Violations.

The Court room yesterday morning was not infested with as many niggers as usual; and, no doubt, the sad fate of the miscegenationists contributed to this absence. It was again over an hour after the regular time before tho Court proceeded to business…

…The case of Meister, white, miscegenationist, was continued until September.

• Wm. Mathershed, an old white man, apparently on the brink of the grave, was found guilty of miscegenation. His sentence will be read to-day.
• Squire Manuel, negro, miscegenation. Plead guilty. Sentenced to $500 fine, or six months at hard labor.
• Hampton Scott, negro, miscegenation. Pleaded marriage. Fined $500 or six months hard labor.

Read the entire article here.

Miscegenation

Banner-Watchman, Athens, Georgia
1884-02-26
page 2, column 1
Source: Athens Historic Newspapers Archive (Digital Library of Georgia as part of Georgia HomePLACE)

The New York World, in a recent article upon the marriage of Fred Douglass [to Helen Pits], has this to say upon the subject of miscegenation:

“What offense does a lady commit who marries such a man? She takes a husband with a dark skin and a little negro blood in his veins. That is the head and front of her offending. If she had married one of the many low, ignorant, white scamps who, having been kicked out of all decent circles, have found a resting-place in the public departments, her friends would not have objected. But she has chosen an intelligent, honorable, able colored man and has given a terrible shock to ‘Washington society.’ Is it not time that these prejudices against race should cease? Are they not out of place in a republican government in which all men are now happily considered ‘free and equal?’”

In reply to the World the Mobile Register says:

“If the New York World entertains such ideas as these and proposes to promulgate them, it must not be surprised if it soon comes to be considered an improper paper to be introduced into a Southern family circle. The Southern people can stand much, have stood much, but their very souls within them revolt at the idea of miscegenation. There was no occasion for the World making a comparison between Fred Douglass and ‘ignorant white scamps.’ That has nothing to do with the question involved, which is the preservation of the integrity of the white race. Mr. Pulitzer is entitled to hold whatever view he pleases, but if he seeks to force views favoring miscegenation upon the public, the Southern portion of the public will soon give him to understand that they will have none of them.”

Whereupon the Nashville Banner remarks:

“With the Register we admit that intermarriage between the races would not be endured by Southern people. But, in morals and reason, where is the greater disgrace in intermarriage than in illegitimate intercourse? We scoff and scorn the man who would take a negro woman as his wife, but accept him as a gentleman if he only keeps her as his mistress. To be consistent we should accept both as right, or reject both as wrong and disgraceful.“

Georgia Historical Society Announces Georgia History Book of the Year [Writing The South Through The Self]

Georgia Historical Society
2012-05-07

Brandy Mai, Director of Communications

SAVANNAH, Ga., May 7, 2012 – The Georgia Historical Society has named Writing The South Through The Self by John C. Inscoe as the recipient of its 2012 Malcolm Bell Jr. and Muriel Barrow Bell Award. Given for the best book on Georgia history published in the previous year, the award is named in honor of Malcolm Bell, Jr., and Muriel Barrow Bell in recognition of their contributions to the recording of Georgia’s history. Published by University of Georgia Press, Writing The South Through The Self is a series of essays on the southern experience as reflected in the life stories of those who lived it, and explores the emotional and psychological dimensions of what it has meant to be southern…

Read the entire press release here.

Writing the South through the Self: Explorations in Southern Autobiography

University of Georgia Press
2011-05-01
246 pages
6 x 9
Cloth ISBN: 978-0-8203-3767-8
Paper ISBN: 978-0-8203-3767-8
Ebook ISBN: 978-0-8203-3968-9

John C. Inscoe, Albert B. Saye Professor and University Professor of History
University of Georgia

Using autobiography as an invaluable means for understanding southern history

Drawing on two decades of teaching a college-level course on southern history as viewed through autobiography and memoir, John C. Inscoe has crafted a series of essays exploring the southern experience as reflected in the life stories of those who lived it. Constantly attuned to the pedagogical value of these narratives, Inscoe argues that they offer exceptional means of teaching young people because the authors focus so fully on their confrontations—as children, adolescents, and young adults—with aspects of southern life that they found to be troublesome, perplexing, or challenging.
 
Maya Angelou, Rick Bragg, Jimmy Carter, Bessie and Sadie Delany, Willie Morris, Pauli Murray, Lillian Smith, and Thomas Wolfe are among the more prominent of the many writers, both famous and obscure, upon whom Inscoe draws to construct a composite portrait of the South at its most complex and diverse. The power of place; struggles with racial, ethnic, and class identities; the strength and strains of family; educational opportunities both embraced and thwarted—all are themes that infuse the works in this most intimate and humanistic of historical genres.
 
Full of powerful and poignant stories, anecdotes, and testimonials, Writing the South through the Self explores the emotional and psychological dimensions of what it has meant to be southern and offers us new ways of understanding the forces that have shaped southern identity in such multifaceted ways.

Table of Contents

• Preface
• Introduction
• Chapter 1: Lessons from Southern Lives: Teaching Race through Autobiography
• Chapter 2: I Learn What I Am”: Adolescent Struggles with Mixed-Race Identities
• Chapter 3: “All Manner of Defeated, Shiftless, Shifty, Pathetic and Interesting Good People”: Autobiographical Encounters with Southern White Poverty
• Chapter 4: Railroads, Race, and Remembrance: The Traumas of Train Travel in the Jim Crow South
• Chapter 5: “I’m Better Than This Sorry Place”: Coming to Terms with Self and the South in College
• Chapter 6: Sense of Place, Sense of Being: Appalachian Struggles with Identity, Belonging, and Escape
• Afterword: “Getting Pretty Fed Up with This Two-Tone South”: Moving toward Multiculturalism
• Notes
• Selected Bibliography
• Index

Frau Doktor Nancy Stafford of Georgia: From Slave to Physician

The African Diaspora Archaeology Newsletter
March 2009
ISSN: 1933-8651
95 pages

Mary R. Bullard

Tracy Moxhay Castle

Chapter 1

In 1850 a cotton planter named Robert Stafford fathered a daughter (later named Cornelia) by a woman named “Juda.” Three years later Juda bore him a second daughter (later named Nancy). On an inventory made for Stafford’s tax records they were simply young females, listed only by age, not by name or family. One was six years old, the other was nine years old. They were the only female mulattos in their age group. All the others in their age group were black. “Mulatto” indicated to the county tax assessor that, in this case, their father was a white man.

Their first appearance in the historical record was in an 1860 inventory in Camden County, Georgia. It was a slave inventory. They were slaves because Juda was a slave.

These events were not so unusual on the southern plantations of the United States, but ensuing developments were remarkable. This paper focuses upon Nancy’s life, for she grew up to follow a career. It was an unusual one for an African-American girl born before the Civil War. Considering that she was born of a slave mother, her choice of career was downright incredible. The child grew up to became a physician, to practice in Europe. She died in 1933. The location of her grave is unknown. Although her descendants told us she was buried in London, no confirming evidence has appeared.

The story is also one of Robert Stafford, an independent thinker, who did not follow the usual pattern of slave master. Nonetheless, he was a southerner and a Georgian. The location of his plantation is important for it throws some light upon the special circumstances of Nancy Stafford’s life. The people with whom Robert Stafford grew up were unenthusiastic about slave ownership, although its usefulness for them was absolute…

Read the entire article here.

Deconstructing a Manumission Document: Mary Stafford’s Free Paper

The Georgia Historical Quarterly
Volume 89, Number 3 (Fall 2005)
pages 285-317

Mary R. Bullard

This article examines the manumission document of Mary Stafford. In early nineteenth-century Georgia, manumitting one’s slave property was a personal matter loosely regulated by the state. In exchange for a one dollar token sum, Robert Stafford conveyed to Belton Copp and his heirs a piece of real estate in downtown Norwich, Connecticut, to be held in trust for Armand, Robert, and Mary. If these legatees died without legitimate heirs, then Stafford’s estate was to comply with Georgia law and go to his heirs-at-law equally, meaning his white niece and nephews, children of his two sisters, who resided in Georgia.

In early nineteenth-century Georgia, manumitting one’s slave property was a personal matter loosely regulated by the state. Bonds of affection between slaveowners and their housekeepers or mistresses were by no means unusual, and manumission was sometimes the reward for faithful service. Reversing an earlier trend, however, by the 1820s manumission became illegal in Georgia unless followed by immediate expulsion of the enfranchised from the state. A slaveowner’s personal ability to manumit had been proscribed as early as 1801, and owners attempting to “free negro slaves, mulatto, mustizo, or any other persons . . . of color” deemed slaves, had been wrarned that the only way to do so was to apply to the legislature. The individual runaway raised ominous images of thievery and rebellion. Nonetheless, fugitive slaves managed to make their way to areas in free states, where they found work, hopeful that former owners would not find them. As the…

The Herndons: An Atlanta Family

University of Georgia Press
2002-06-21
272 pages
8 x 10
Cloth ISBN: 978-0-8203-2309-1

Carole Merritt, Director
The Herndon Home, Atlanta, Georgia

A compelling portrait of one of Atlanta’s most prominent African American families

Born a slave and reared a sharecropper, Alonzo Herndon (1858-1927) was destined to drudgery in the red clay fields of Georgia. Within forty years of Emancipation, however, he had amassed a fortune that far surpassed that of his White slave-master father.

Through his barbering, real estate, and life insurance ventures, Herndon would become one of the wealthiest and most respected African American business figures of his era. This richly illustrated book chronicles Alonzo Herndon’s ascent and his remarkable family’s achievements in Jim Crow Atlanta.

In this first biography of the Herndons, Carole Merritt narrates how Herndon nurtured the Atlanta Life Insurance Company from a faltering enterprise he bought for $140 into one of the largest Black financial institutions in America; how he acquired the most substantial Black property holdings in Atlanta; and how he developed his barbering business from a one-chair shop into the nation’s largest and most elegant parlor, the resplendent, twenty-three chair “Crystal Palace” in the heart of White Atlanta.

The Herndons’ world was the educational and business elite of Atlanta. But as Blacks, they were intimately bound to the course of Black life. The Atlanta Race Riot of 1906 and its impact on the Herndons demonstrated that all Blacks, regardless of class, were the victims of racial terrorism.

Through the Herndons, issues of race, class, and color in turn-of-the-century Atlanta come into sharp focus. Their story is one of by-the-bootstraps resolve, tough compromises in the face of racism, and lasting contributions to their city and nation.