Delaware
Legislature, 1770:
Delaware is "Indian-free"
What
happened to the Delmarva Indians?
RECORDS
WHICH DENOTE DELAWARE-BORN INDIVIDUALS AS BEING "INDIAN"
1.
Delaware Legislature, 1770:
Delaware is "Indian-free"
2.
Virginia History List, 1999 & other interested
From
Paul Heinegg, subject: Historians and the Magic Word --
Say
the magic word "Indian" and historians become anthropologists.
Ned Heite continues this tradition on his web page: "[Nanticoke]
Community members today report a tradition of extreme cultural
revulsion against intermarriage with blacks." Light-skinned
mixed race people who won't associate with darker skinned
African Americans become a proud people who are "maintaining
their cultural identity."
(Why,
they're just like some white folks!)
It
is not surprising that they have hidden their African ancestry
and claimed to be Indians. Most mixed-race people of the
Southeast who were free during the colonial period had some
Indian ancestry. And they employed some of the same tactics
to avoid racist laws.
Why
criticize historians for relying on the whims of a census
taker, and then write that the census taker's failure to
write "N" (Negro) next to one man's name in Delaware in
1800 "... provide(s) a clue to the racial nature of the
community."
The
census taker entered "N." (Negro) in front of nearly every
other member of the light-skinned Nanticoke community in
1800 [census pp.15-36]. It didn't matter what percentage
of African, white, and Indian ancestry they had, the census
taker lumped them together. It's obvious that it was the
"Negro" part of their ancestry that made them non-white
(and, therefore, not accepted by the white community)
And
in 1810 at least one member of the Francisco family "lumped"
herself with light-skinned African Americans when she called
herself a "free person of color." If she thought of herself
as an Indian, why didn't she say so?
I
suspect that most historians and even most of us "amateurs"
are aware that free people of color came in all shades and
social classes and that they made distinctions among themselves
along color and class lines. But we don't call people of
mixed African, white, and Indian ancestry who lead an "Anglo-American
way of life" Indians just because they were rejected by
the white community and have kept to themselves.
Finally,
what does this statement mean: "The law that later snared
Levin Sockum and Isaac Harmon was only one of the racist
regulations that lumped 'mulatto' Indians with the blacks."
Was
the law racist because it discriminated against all people
of color or was it racist because it degraded light-skinned
people to the level of the dark-skinned ones? ---Paul Heinegg
------------------------------
From
THROWERVA@aol.com --
"And
if I'm not mistaken wasn't it Lydia Clark, Nanticoke, who
admitted in open court that they were Afro-Indians?"
------------------------------
Ned,
I hate to give credence to the Melungeon stuff, but Ned,
the fact of the matter is that you are not studying Indians.
At best, you're a studying Tri-racial isolate group.
Your
group, like all the rest of the Melungeon groups, did (do)
not want to acknowledge any African ancestry because of
the devastating effects it had (and HAS) on people's lives.
I sympathize.
As
an historian, you should not be in the business of re-defining
people who have self-identified as Negro or FPOC in court
documents (especially when everything about them indicates
that they're knowledgeable enough to know the difference
between that and Indian).
There
is the political reality of the US. You usually only get
to belong to one group, and if there's any record of African
ancestry, that group is usually African American. If these
people had African ancestry by 1810, and they continued
to intermarry among their (mixed) group, then they are Indian-Africans
or African-Indians. OR. . .they can go with the current
trend and be Melungeon.
At
any rate, in the political reality of this country they
are MIXED Indians (as are a lot of "African Americans"
<mbunster@saturn.vcu.edu> on this board), and not
just plain Indians.
Self-identifications
and Mis-identifications
From Paul Heinegg via the VA history listserv, 21 Feb 1998 --
(Aminidab changed surnames from Oakey to Hanzer)
The
Virginia history of some Delaware families may help Ned Heite
in his search for the origin of the Nanticoke Indians:
Perhaps
the best known family among the Nanticokes descended from Aminadab
Handsor, the son of Mary Vincent, a white servant in Accomack
County, Virginia, and a "negro" slave. In 1665 Richard Johnson
("Molatto") and a white man agreed to support Mary's child by
Aminadab, a slave of Southy Littleton, a planter on Nandua Creek
in Accomack County [DW 1663-66, fol. 91].
Aminadab
died before 14 April 1665 when Southy Littleton gave Aminadab's
son by the same name "ye sonne of my servant Aminadab negro
deceased and Mary Vincent Three cows and there female increase
w'ch were formerly given to my said servant" [DW 1664-71, fol.
20].
Mary
Vincent later married John Okey and they moved to Sussex County,
Delaware, with the Johnson family [Torrence, Old Somerset, 399-400,
453, 474]. (Deal identified these court cases in Race and Class,
274-5).
Aminadab
Handsor/ Hanzer adopted the name Hanzer sometime before April
1683 when he recorded his cattle mark in Sussex County, Delaware
[Horle, Records of the Sussex County Court, 222]. He was about
24 years old in September 1688 when he testified with John and
Mary Okey in Sussex County Court about how they had helped John
Barker move his cattle from Accomack County to Sussex County,
Delaware.
Aminadab's
wife, Rose Hanser, also testified [Ibid., 606].
------------------------------
However
--
From:
Lynn Jackson 22 Feb 1998 -- In re: Aminidab Hansor and Aminidab
Oakey
I
thought we had shown that Aminidab HANSOR and Aminidab OAKEY
were two different people and that even the originator of that
story admitted he'd made a mistake in confusing the two men,
assuming that Aminidab Oakey had for some reason changed his
name to Hansor, when he appeared before the Accomac Co. courts.
In
May 1704, the Sussex Co DE Court Records clearly show that
the following action was continued to the next court "Aminidab
Hansour (sp.) against Aminadab Oakey in Ejectione firme" thus
proving the two were different men. The two men obviously
knew each other, but it was Aminidab OAKEY who was Mary Vincent's
child, not Aminidab Hansor. Why does Heinegg persist in confusing
the two?
------------------------------
Paul
Heinegg responds --
In
March 1689/90 he, "Aminidab Hanger Negro" (a 26 year old), and
his wife Rose (apparently a white woman) testified in Accomack
County Court about this same court case in which John Barker
was convicted of appropriating seven cattle belonging to William
Burton and Thomas Bagwell [W&cO 1682-97, 181, 181a].
His
son Aminadab, born 23 January 1688/9, left a Sussex County will
naming his father and mother, Aminidab and Rose Handzer, his
brother, Samuel, and his sisters, Ann and Mary [Turner, Records
of Sussex County, 146; Sussex County Will Book A:122].
The
seventeenth century Sussex County, Delaware Court records illustrate
why the Hanzer, Francisco, Johnson, and other mixed-race members
of the Accomack County community settled there. Amindadab was
able to purchase 200 acres in Sussex County in 1695. In February
1690 he acted as attorney for William Burton and Thomas Bagwell
in their Sussex County Court case [Horle, Records of the Sussex
County Court, 682, 1025-6].
The
Johnson family, called "Negroes," frequently testified in court
and were paid for taking up a runaway white servant. John Johnson
married an English woman. He was called "John Johnson, Free
Nigroe, Aged Eighty Years and Poor and Past his Labour" in 1704
when the Sussex County Court agreed to maintain him for his
lifetime on public funds [Ibid., 468, 1201]. Francis Johnson,
"the Negroe," lived on land in Rehoboth Bay, Sussex County,
in December 1690 [Horle, Records of the Sussex County Court,
757].
------------------------------
From
Ned Heite 22 Feb 1998 -- "Exactly my point"
Thanks
to Mr. Heinegg for sharing some well-known documentary sources,
that demonstrate my contention regarding communities who have
maintained their Indian identity and their Indian lineage for
three centuries on the Eastern Shore. People named Driggus,
Johnson, and Sisco today are self-identified as members of the
African-American community. I am acquainted with them. However,
one cannot ignore the fact that other descendants of these same
progenitors are now, and are descended from, people of mostly
Indian ancestry.
Heinegg's first fallacy is his acceptance of the term "negro"
or "mulatto" in early records as indicating African ancestry,
which simply is not the case. These terms were used indiscriminately
until the present century, to describe "colored" people of all
origins. Looking beyond the superficial labels that Mr. Heinegg
cites, there is a much more complicated racial picture.
The
true racial picture can be unravelled person-by-person, and
lineage-by-lineage, but the superficial labels are meaningless.
In-depth examination, based on a biographical and genealogical
analysis, reveals a class of people who spurned both white and
black contacts, who were treated at law very differently from
blacks, and who frequently intermarried with white women during
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
The
very records that Heinegg cites are among the body of information
that demonstrates the separateness of the Indian survivors.
My associates and I have come to a different conclusion because
we have approached the records with open minds. It is ideed
tragic that Mr. Heinegg has accumulated and published so much
useful information, but has squandered his research in pursuit
of an agenda.
------------------------------
From Maybelle Bordley 22 Feb 1998 --
The
only answer I can think of to reply to Lynn's question as to
why Mr. Heinegg persists in confusing the two Aminadabs is that
he is a bit confused. He also insisted that Aminadab is a "made
up" or invented name. Therefore, I think he then wrongly concludes
that the two Aminadabs are one man. He should look in the Bible
where he will find Aminadab (actually there are five Aminadabs
according to the Regency Bible dictionary).
------------------------------
From Gail
Peterson 23 Feb 1998 --
Okay
already, I think we've all determined that Mr. Heinegg's information
has a few holes in it as well as a few fancifully drawn conclusions.
This is no reason to continue to bash him. He is not the first
nor will he be the last researcher who passes on faulty facts.
We should learn from his example and strive to continue to do
our very best to document and site our own research with accuracy.
Sometimes the worlds greatest fools can be the most valuable teachers.
From Ned
Heite 24 Feb 1998 --
There
is a fundamental difference between the research strategies
employed by genealogists and those commonly employed by historians.
Both groups could learn from the others. In my own research,
I try to satisfy the requirements of genealogists, historians,
and anthropologists, all at once. The results of merging all
these research agendas can be envigorating, to say the least.
Genealogists traditionally draw their conclusions from a disciplined
approach that must follow a certain course. When I was at the
state archives I was often frustrated by people who came in,
believing they could find their ancestors without step-by-step,
item-by-item proofs and verifications, starting at the
present and working tediously backwards. Of all the historical
sciences, genealogy is sometimes the most rigorous when it comes
to proof.
Among historians, there is the top-down approach, in which one
looks at the aggregated record, draws conclusions, and moves
on. This approach produces quick and generalized results, but
too frequently inspires inaccurate conclusions. A prudent research
strategy recognizes the pitfalls of top-down research.
In the current atmosphere of cultural resource contracting,
it is difficult to adopt the detailed, bottom-up, approach,
which is not commonly taught in universities. The bottom-up
method helps one avoid falling into some pretty terrible traps.
Heinegg chooses to view data through a filter of very old labels
that were attached haphazardly. These labels are meaningless,
unless you have done enough research into each case, to determine
exactly what those terms meant at the time and in the context
of their original application. Because labels were sloppily
applied centuries ago, modern researchers must go back and examine
the life history of each individual, assembling a picture of
the community from the bottom up, rather than from the top down.
The historical profession, and the "new" archaeologists, in
pursuit of the big picture, have frequently fallen into
the fallacy of lumping from the top down, which encourages facile
conclusions. Some recent trained scholars, who supposedly knew
better, have perpetuated fallacies because they chose to accept
superficial data without understanding underlying genealogical
data.
------------------------------
From Dan Mouer <dmouer@saturn.vcu.edu>
Ned Heite wrote: "The historical profession, and the "new"
archaeologists, in pursuit of the big picture, have
frequently fallen into the fallacy of lumping from the
top down, which encourages facile conclusions. Some recent trained
scholars, who supposedly knew better, have perpetuated fallacies
because they chose to accept superficial data without understanding
underlying genealogical data."
Ned, I have also noted that archaeologists and genealogists
share much in common because of their intense focus on a single
family or a single piece of ground over a long period of time.
Of course the heydey of the "New" Archaeology was about 1977,
don't you think? While there's still plenty of them out there,
many more of, like you, tend to seek theory which, in Geertz's
words, "hovers just above the data." I think you'll find, too,
that there has been an equally strong trend in historical writing.
Not everyone does "top down" work, as you imply.
There hs been a considerable amount of influence from "micro-histry"
and "historical ethnogaphy," etc., since the big peak of macro-scale
social history in the 70 and 80s. Now, as far as your assertion,
"scholars, who supposedly knew better, have perpetuated fallacies
because they chose to accept superficial data without understanding
underlying genealogical data..." I doubt that has anything to
do with the scale ("top-down," "micro," etc.), but with a scholar's
ability, pure and simple. The uncritical use of social categories
from the past as unproblematically translatable to the present
is just mediocre scholarship at best.
------------------------------
From: Clayton Cramer <clayton_cramer@dlcc.com> --I must confess
that I haven't received this "top-down approach" training in
my graduate education. Should I complain that our department
is behind the times, expecting careful, detailed, nuanced analysis
that sometimes admits that the answers are unclear? (I
must confess -- it sounds a lot easier, leaving more time for
political agitation, drunkeness, and casual sexual encounters
-- the norm among students and too many of the faculty at my
university.)
------------------------------
From:
Richard Lowe [SMTP:lowe@unt.edu] -- Which graduate schools are
training students in the "top-down approach?" Does this
mean I have spent countless hours sifting through dusty manuscripts
and cranking microfilm over the last thirty years when I could
have just made some quick generalizations from the top down?
Jeez! Why doesn't someone TELL me these things?!
------------------------------
From
Dan Mouer <dmouer@saturn.vcu.edu> -- He-he! I wondered how
long it would take for someone to sink their teeth into that
hook of Ned Heite's. Ned does have a way with words...fightin'
words. OK, Ned, come out of the bunker...
------------------------------
From:
ligea@juno.com (William A. Russell) --
This
discussion - ongoing now for a year - intrigues me for reasons
that I cannot explain. Having early disagreed with Paul Heinegg
about some of his conclusions, I have seen a veritable avalanche
of primary source citations from him which proved both his thoroughness
and the incorrectness of my original position. The responses
to his continuing documentation do more to illustrate the emotional
attachment that can be invested in a position than they do to
discredit his findings. I really shouldn't comment on this posting,
but I feel compelled (an irresistible impulse to commit an irrational
act) to do so and will try to do it gently.
Ned Heite wrote 22 Feb 1998 "Thanks to Mr. Heinegg for
sharing some well-known documentary sources, that demonstrate
my contention regarding communities who have maintained their
Indian identity and their Indian lineage for three centuries
on the Eastern Shore." (Russell) -- Well, so far,
sort of so good. They do somewhat support Mr. Heite's position
in the limited area of some peoples maintaining some identity,
but not to the detriment of Paul Heinegg's.
(Heite) "People named Driggus, Johnson, and Sisco
today are self-identified as members of the African-American
community. I am acquainted with them. However, one cannot ignore
the fact that other descendants of these same progenitors are
now, and are descended from, people of mostly Indian ancestry."
(Russell) -- Well, I suppose one could ignore it just as one
could ignore the plain language and meaning of later cited primary
source documents, but in neither case would it be relevant to
the point. Along some branches of the family tree they could
be descended from persons of primarily Polish or Tibetan ancestry.
Obviously, all people, even close cousins, do not share all
of the same ancestry. Just as obviously, cousins do share "some"
of the same ancestry.
(Heite) "Heinegg's first fallacy is his acceptance of
the term "negro" or "mulatto" in early records as indicating
African ancestry, which simply is not the case. These terms
were used indiscriminately until the present century,
to describe "colored" people of all origins." (Russell)
-- By the scribes cited, in the times cited, in the places cited,
those terms meant basically what they were meant to convey -
persons of African heritage or of mixed heritage. I believe
that Paul Heinegg has supplied overwhelming evidence as to the
meaning, usage, and frequency of the terms. I have yet to see
any such overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
(Heite) Looking beyond the superficial labels that Mr. Heinegg
cites, there is a much more complicated racial picture.
The true racial picture can be unravelled person-by-person,
and lineage-by-lineage, but the superficial labels are meaningless.
(Russell) -- I don't accept that anything to do with the "labels"
is superficial, particularly when they are labels used by persons
to describe themselves. It could be that these people
had enough strength of self to be proud of their heritage. (B&R
Terry) -- There's the rub. Were they truly describing themselves
or was the official recording his observations and predilections?
Witness some of the records on this page where persons of color
are described one way in Delaware and another way in a free
state, such as Michigan. Did they really change their description
of themselves when they moved to a more racially-free area?)
(Heite)
In-depth examination, based on a biographical and genealogical
analysis, reveals a class of people who spurned both white and
black contacts, who were treated at law very differently from
blacks, and who frequently intermarried with white women during
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. (Russell) --
Ah, they spurned white and black contacts and intermarried
with them. To both spurn and intermarry is an interesting trick
unless one is a Shaker. But then, of course, they would have
left no descendants. Maybe they spurned AFTER intermarriage,
something I recall as being fairly common. The problem with
this comment about an "in-depth examination" is that it
is Paul Heinegg who has offered the "in-depth" citations of
sources, not those attacking his work.
(Heite)
The very records that Heinegg cites are among the body of
information that demonstrates the separateness of the Indian
survivors. My associates and I have come to a different conclusion
because we have approached the records with open minds. (Russell)
-- Extraordinarily open minds if I do say so. It is a useful
practice to remember that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
(Heite)
It is ideed tragic that Mr. Heinegg has accumulated and published
so much useful information, but has squandered his research
in pursuit of an agenda. (Russell) -- I am old enough not
to be amazed at how frequently it occurs that when a person
supplies voluminous material supporting our position, he or
she has engaged in great scholarship, but when it runs the other
way, they are pursuing an "agenda".
What happened to the Delmarva Indians?
Ned Heite -- message posted to Sussex County, DE, Rootsweb
listserv 30 Jan 2000 -- "Indian Ancestry"
What
happened to the Delmarva Indians? Dr. Helen C. Rountree, in
her several excellent publications, has given us a picture of
those Eastern Shore Indian descendants who have been identified.
Many of our neighbors are clearly identified as Indians, and
their ancestry is not in doubt.
However,
I am coming to the conclusion that most of the Indian descendants
in the Middle Atlantic region today are identified as "white,"
and not "mulatto" or "black."
There
is plenty of unwritten evidence that intermarriage between Indians
and whites was the rule, rather than the exception, in the early
years of European colonization. In the latest issue of the Archaeological
Society of Virginia bulletin is Martha McCartney's insightful
analysis of the census records for the Virginia colony compiled
in 1619-1620. Most settlers were male; in some plantations,
all were male. There simply were no "available" English women.
Therefore,
we must assume that these fellows were either gay, celibate,
or mated with Indian women. Take your choice, but remember that
they were largely young and robust single Englishmen, away from
home and not terribly well regulated. So only the third choice
stands the test of reasonableness.
Flash forward nearly a century, and the Virginia legislature
passes a law stating that the child of a white and an Indian
is a mulatto, but the child of a white and a half Indian (that
is, with one Indian grandparent) is white. This rule seems to
have held in Delaware and Maryland, too.
Why
do legislatures pass laws? Because some constituent believes
there is an issue to be addressed. We don't talk about gun laws
unless there is gun violence. Clearly there is a reason to enfranchise
as "white" anyone with only one Indian grandparent. My suggestion:
The legislators, or their constituents, needed to define a difference
between "mulatto" and "white" for purposes of the civil law.
The
logical inference from the Virginia legislature's definition
is that there must have been plenty of white planters with Indian
ancestry who wanted their franchise protected during a period
when racial divides were becoming sharper and sharper.
Indian
wives would help explain why so many genealogies are easily
traced through the male line, but hit dead ends at the female
side. If the mother was an Indian, and if the marriage was sanctioned
only in the most irregular way, a child's legal record (in cases
of probate for example) would refer only to his or her father's
side, the mother's family being outside the English legal system....
___________________
From
Ned Heite 23 Aug 2000 -- "Indians in the Constitution"
(Doug
Deal...has written some important works on the free mulatto
families of the Eastern Shore--Ned Heite.)
In
a previous message on Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Ned Heite wrote:
"
Enfranchisement certainly was the issue. No persons of color
voted in Delaware. The lumping-together is resulting in some
pretty skewed social history."
Douglas
Deal's response:
"Are
there some prime examples of such "skewed social history?" My
own impression is that one area of deficiency involves those
people "of color" who in reality were "lumped together" (i.e.,
had intermarried over several generations to produce biracial--black
and Indian--or triracial--black, white, and Indian--groups).
On the Eastern Shore, at least, this sort of mixing was pretty
common. By the 19th century, many of those who still identified
themselves as "Indian" were in the biological sense biracial
or triracial, and the same could be said about free 'blacks.'"
Ned
Heite wrote in response:
"Doug:
I am familiar with your work, and I respect it greatly, but my
offhand riposte would include the fact that we are all mongrels.
I'd start with Davidson's paper on the free negroes of the Maryland
Eastern Shore, in which all the examples were identified as mulattoes,
and I believe mostly were of Indian and white ancestry. Identification
of the Driggus family as negroes is also questionable, but I'd
rather not go into the details in this complicated matter, since
I have a Driggus neighbor who self-identifies as black. Yet in
the 1800 census the local Driggus branch was identified as white.
In the dissolution of the Gingaskin reservation, many of the Indian
descendants were named Drighouse, another branch of the same lineage.
"Self-identification
is the key to the whole issue of ethnic origins in Delmarva.
"In
the case of the Eastern Shore Indian population, many historians
have relied upon some legislative petitions that said the Indians
had merged into the black population and disappeared. This statement
was written by the people who wanted to grab the Indian land,
so it reeks of pretense, and has little credibility in my mind.
However, it has been picked up by other writers, from Jefferson
to Whitelaw. In spite of the statement's dubious credibility,
historians keep picking it up. I won't name names.
"First,
we need to recognize that the various mixed-race communities on
Delmarva are simulataneously related and different. My own research
on the central Delaware community, known today as Lenape, indicates
that they are mostly a mixture of white and Indian. African blood
is negligible, but acknowledged reluctantly. The Cheswold community
is directly related to virtually all the other Delmarva groups
by a genealogical trail we are only now beginning to unravel.
"Take,
for example, the case of the Puckham family.
"So
it is that we have John Puckham being baptised in 1682, instantly
becoming a "mulatto" before the law in Maryland when he marries
Joan Johnson, granddaugter of Anthony, or Antonio. A Puckham,
I believe his grandson, was involved in the Indian incident in
1742 at Winnesoccum, which led to the exodus of the Nanticoke
and Maryland's crackdown on Indians. In 1788, Eleanor Puckham
witnessed the will of John Durham, one of the progenitors of the
Cheswold community, and in the 1800 census two Puckhams, definitely
John and Joan's descendants, were identified as whites in the
same county. Today's Puckhams in Delaware self-identify as black
with Indian ancestry.
"Under
Virginia law, a person with one Indian parent was "mulatto,"
but a person with three white and one Indian grandparents was
white. I suspect that the General Assembly passed that law early
in the eighteenth century because of previous marriages to Indian
women. There were, after all, few marriageable white women in
the early years, and I can't believe that the Bollings are the
only white family with an Indian ancestress.
"It's
my theory that the Virginia law was passed at that critical
time to enfranchise some of the dusky voters. We have evidence
from court records that the same rule prevailed in Sussex County,
Delaware.
"My
recent research, and the research of some pretty good genealogists,
indicates that the self-identified Indian communities have remained
rigidly exclusive, at least from the beginning of the nineteenth
century to the present generation. They have frowned upon white
marriages and have ostracized those who married with blacks.
Weslager's books, though dated, were the first scholarly attempt
to sort out the differences, but few other historians have bothered
to make the distinctions among the various kinds of free persons
of color that they encounter in the records."
5.
Whoops!! How about these examples of "self-identification"?
John
Sanders 1892 newspaper article
Seaman's
protection papers
Puckham
marriage, Heinegg claim, Heite rebuttal
Tax
lists changing from mulatto to negro to colored to fcp
Testimony
-- Sarah Seeney Sullivan
Weslager's
interviews
RECORDS
WHICH DENOTE DELAWARE-BORN INDIVIDUALS AS BEING "INDIAN"
"(We
made) inquiries into the history of a local Native American
remnant population, often misnamed "moors," historically
centered around the town of Cheswold (formerly Moortown) in
Little Creek and Duck Creek hundreds of Kent County.
From
the end of the seventeenth century, until the last decades
of the nineteenth century, no Native Americans were legally
recognized in Kent County.
Census,
tax, and school records contain no record of any race other
than black or white during that period. What happened to Kent
County's original Indian population? Why were the local Indians
invisible for more than 200 years? The history of "invisible"
Indians, and the context in which they lived, is essential
to an understanding of today's Kent County Indian population.
During
the eighteenth century, a free person's race was seldom if
ever reflected in the public records. Not until the end of
that century do we find any regular system of designating
free people according to their race. This official absence
of references to race during the eighteenth century has complicated
the historian's task of making a racial or cultural identification."
-- Ned Heite
A funny
thing happened to emigrants from segregated Delaware to unsegregated
states: some 'blacks', 'Negroes', 'mulattoes' and 'coloreds'
became 'Indian.'
William
B. Lecount, died Brooklyn, NY, 1 Mar 1875, Age 45
yrs., 11 mos., 16 d., Color, Indian, Married, Occupation,
Bootmaker, Birthplace, Pennsylvania, Father's Birthplace, Delaware,
Mother's Birthplace, Delaware. William B. LeCount was a son
of Joseph (b. ca. 1780) and Mary LeCount, resided in Philadelphia
from at least 1814.
(Joseph
Romeo writes) I also have a record of the family of Joseph
Waterford, b. ca. 1800, sailmaker, b. Pennsylvania, resided
in 1850 in Philadelphia, moved to San Francisco where he appears
in 1860 and 1870 census. He died in 1874. He had a daughter
named Pocahontas who married a Durham. In the 1870 census
he and a daughter Mary are listed as Indian, otherwise
the family are listed as Mulatto. It seems to me that one of
the census records gives his birthplace as Delaware, but I cannot
find it at this time.
-----------------
Ooops. Someone in official Delaware did not get the word --
Return
of a Marriage for Fred Willard Morris and Reba Hester Miller,
Sussex County, 1900 -- both parties listed as "Indian."
Return of a Marriage: In the State of Delaware Sussex County.
Full name of Groom: Fred Willard Morris; Age: 31 years; Color:
Indian; Nation or State: Delaware; Residence: Harbseson,
Del; Occupation: Farmer Full name of Bride: Reba Hester Miller;
Age: 18 years; Color: Indian; Nation or State: Delaware;
Residence: Warwick, Del; Name and birthplace of bride's parents:
Major Miller, Sarah H. Miller, Warwick, Delaware. Date of Marriage:
Sept 22, 1900. Number of previous marriages: Of Groom 0. Of
Bride 0.
I hereby certify that the marriage of the parties above named
was duly solemnized or contracted by or before me, at the time
and place stated. Witness my hand this 22nd day of Sept 1900.
Signature Frank Holland, Official Designation Minister, Address
Harbeson, Del
To the Recorder of Deeds of Sussex County.
(no
parents listed for Fred)
--------------
Benjamin
SAMMONS is recorded on the 1861 Ontario, Canada Census
as; Race - Indian.
From Donald W. Fisher and Preston L. Sammons
2 May 1999
There is also the following 1871 listing from the Ontario census:
SAMMONS
FN=BENJAMIN; Age=45. BP=UNITED STATES; Eth= INDIAN;
Occ= FARMER. District=2; Subdist=E; Div=2; Pg=86. KEN Dover
Twp.
Note
the Indian ethnicity. District 2 is just to the east of District
1 (Windsor/Essex Co), and includes all of the eastern shore
of Lake St. Clair. Of the six with the S-A-M-M-O-N-S
spelling, two are Scotch, two are African, one English, and
this Benjamin (Indian).
Based
on the Maryland census records, William Carty was born in Maryland,
either in Dorchester or Caroline counties, sometime around 1792.
He was white and the son of James McCarty and Barsheba Dean
McCarty. He moved to Caroline County, Maryland, with his parents
sometime before 1800 and continued to live there until his death.
Based
on the birthdate of his first child , William married a woman
named Elizabeth (her last name is unknown) sometime before 1813.
The Carty Family bible contains a great deal of information
about William's family and a family called "Wyatt"
so it is possible that Elizabeth's maiden name was Wyatt.
Elizabeth
and William appeared in the 1820 Caroline County, Maryland census.
William was listed as white but his wife and 3 children were
listed as "M". William's daughter, Henrietta Carty
MORGAN, told her son Napoleon Morgan that her mother was a full
blood Maryland Indian although she did not know the tribe.
It is interesting to note that, in later censuses, William's
race was changed to "M" to reflect that of his wife
and children. His brothers and their families continued to be
listed as "white". This is just one of many indications
that race in the 18th & 19th century on the Delmarva peninsula
was more about the perceptions of the record keepers than about
accurately reflecting the true racial make-up of the community.
It is difficult to pin down Elizabeth's tribal background. Small
pockets of remnant Choptanks, Lenapes and others remained in
Maryland (just as they did in Delaware) after the big northbound
migrations in the early 1700's. As late as the mid 18th century,
Nanticokes in New York were asking permission to return to the
Delmarva peninsula to visit family members they had left behind.
The Maryland records, however, note their presence only briefly.
What is clear is that the Carty family became a mixed race family
around 1813 when William Carty married Elizabeth. What is also
clear is that, when looking for mates, many of their children
looked across the border into Kent County, Delaware to the mixed
race community centered around Moorton, which today is known
as Cheswold.
On
7 May, 1867, William Carty died in Ridgely, Caroline, Maryland.
His wife, Elizabeth, had died three years before on 15 July
1864. Most of their children had by then moved across the
border to live with the mixed blood community in Kent County,
Delaware.
Franklin
Perkins Indian b Mich
Perry
Perkins & Sarah Dean Indian b Delaware &
Delaware
William
B. Lecount Indian
Joseph
and Mary LeCount Indian
Fred
Willard Morris & Reba Hester Miller Indian
Major
Miller & Sarah H. Miller Indian
Maggie
Simons, French & Indian b Dover, Ontario
Emma
I. Beckett Indian b Mich
Peter
& Mary E. Beckett Indian b Delaware &
Philadelphia
Arvila
Simons Indian b Mich
Robert
and Mary Simons Indian "Both Descendants
of Delaware Indians" (no birthplace)
Mary
Farmer Indian b Delaware (parents unknown)
Charles
Norwood Indian b Delaware
John
Norwood, Indian & Rebecca Francisco b Delaware
Emma
J. Perkins Indian b Mich
Isaac
Perkins, Indian, Michigan & Eliza Perkins,
Michigan
Isaac
H. Perkins, Indian b Michigan
Wayne
County, Michigan Vital Records --
Name,
(if any, and color other than white) Emma I. Beckett
Indian Sex Female Condition, as Twin, Illegitimate,
etc. Birth-Place Romulus Full Name of Each [Parent] Peter
Beckett & Mary E. Residence [of Parents] Romulus Birth-Place
[of Parents] Delaware - Philadelphia Occupation of Father Farmer
Date of Record 13 Nov 1873 Record extracted by Joseph A. Romeo
1 Aug 1999 Source Wayne Co., Michigan births. Volume 4 starts
with Page 1, [Entry] No. 225 of 1872 and runs through Page 319,
[Entry] No. 976 of 1873. Births 1872 (part) and 1873 (part).
Page No. 238 [Entry] No. 3805 Date of Birth 16 Aug 1872.
Date of Birth 09 Oct 1872 Name, (if any, and color other than
white) Franklin Perkins Indian Sex Male
Condition, as Twin, Illegitimate, etc. Birth-Place Romulus Full
Name of Each [Parent] Perry Perkins & Sarah Residence
[of Parents] Romulus Birth-Place [of Parents] Delaware Occupation
of Father Farmer Date of Record 13 Nov 1873 Record extracted
by Joseph A. Romeo 1 Aug 1999. Source Wayne Co., Michigan births.
Volume 4 starts with Page 1, [Entry] No. 225 of 1872 and runs
through Page 319, [Entry] No. 976 of 1873. Births 1872 (part)
and 1873 (part). Page No. 238 [Entry] No. 3803
FRANKLIN PERKINS (Source: 1880 census.), b. October 9, 1872,
Romulus, Wayne, Michigan (Source: Wayne Co. Records.).
Notes for FRANKLIN PERKINS: Wayne Co birth record 238
- 3803 - 09 Oct 1872 Franklin Perkins - Indian - Male
- Romulus. Perry Perkins - Sarah - Romulus - DE - Farmer Recorded
13 Nov 1873.
Date of Birth October 27, 1867 Name, (if any, and color other
than white) Arvila Simons Sex Female Condition, as Twin,
Illegitimate, etc. Indian Birth-Place Van Buren
Full Name of Each [Parent] Robert and Mary Simons Residence
[of Parents] Van Buren Birth-Place [of Parents] Both Descendants
of Delaware Indians Occupation of Father Farmer Date of
Record May 24, 1869 Record extracted by Joseph A. Romeo 20 Jul
1999. Source Wayne Co. Michigan Record of Births Vol. 1. Births
1867, 1868, and 1869 (part). The births were reported annually
by townships or, in Detroit, by wards. The reports generally
cover births for the preceding year. Page No. 67 [Entry] No.
973
Date of Marriage 31 Oct 1880 Place of Marriage Van Buren Full
Name of Bridegroom and Bride (and Color) John W. Norwood,
W[hite] - Maggie Simons, French & Indian
Residence of Each at time of Marriage Van Buren - Nankin Age
of Each in Year 24 - 20 Birthplace of Each Philadelphia, Penn.
- Dover, Ontario Occupation of Bridgegroom Dyer(?) Name and
Official Station of Person by Whom Married David J. Parker -
Minister Witnesses to Marriages: Names, Residences Abel Farmer,
Nankin - Mary Farmer, Nankin Date of Record 24 Nov 1880 Record
excerpted by Joseph A. Romeo 1 Aug 1999. Source Wayne Co., Michigan
marriages - Liber H contains marriages for 1878 (part) though
1881 (part). The volume begins Page 1, No. 1 and ends Page 319,
No. 4784, consecutively numbered. Page No. 227 Entry No. 3394.
Date of Death Feb. 17, 1881 Full Name of the Deceased Mary
Farmer Male or Female Fem[ale] White, Black, Mulatto, etc
Indian Married, Single, Widow or Widower Mar[ried]
Age 90 y. 5 m. Place of Death Romulus Disease or Cause of Death
Old Age Birthplace Delaware Occupation Farmer Parents Names,
Residences unknown, Romulus Date of Record June 10, 1882 Record
extracted by Joseph A. Romeo 11 Jul 1999. Source Wayne Co.,
Michigan death records, LDS film 1377694. Reel contains: Book
#5, 1880-1882, pp. 75-335 Book #6, 1882-1885, pp. 1-335 Book
#7, 1885-1886, pp. 1-140. Page No. Bk. 5, p. 243 Record Number
2161
Date of Death 15 Jun 1898 Full Name of the Deceased Charles
Norwood Male or Female Male White, Black, Mulatto, etc Indian
Married, Single, Widow or Widower Married Age 78 y 3 m 2 d Place
of Death Van Buren Disease or Cause of Death Kidney Disease
Birthplace Delaware Occupation Farmer Parents Names, Residences
John Norwood - Rebecca Francisco, Delaware Date of Record
06 Jul 1898 Record extracted by Joseph A. Romeo 5 Sep 1999.
Source Wayne Co., Michigan deaths 1898-1911. LDS film 1377698.
This reel contains Book 18, Book 19, and Book 20 (part), excluding
City of Detroit. Book #18: 1898, Pages 1-41; 1899, Pages 42-87;
1900, Pages 88-135; 1901, Pages 136-181; 1902, Pages 182- 231;
1903, Pages 231-287; 1904 (part), Pages 287-337 (end of register).
Book #19: 1904 (part), Page 1-6; 1905, Pages 6-63; 1906, Pages
63-114; 1907, Pages 114-166; 1908, Pages 166-213; 1909, Pages
214-267; 1910, Pages 267-324; 1911, Pages 325-386 (end of register).
Some 1908 deaths appear near the end of 1909. Book #20 (part):
1912 (part): Pages 1-30 [end of reel] Page No. Bk. 18, Page
35 Record Number 768
Date of Death Feb. 24, 1884 Full Name of the Deceased Emma
J. Perkins Male or Female Fem[ale] White, Black, Mulatto,
etc Indian Married, Single, Widow or Widower Single
Age 14 y. 8 m. 11 d. Place of Death Romulus Disease or Cause
of Death Consumption Birthplace Michigan Occupation None Parents
Names, Residences Isaac Perkins, Michigan; Eliza Perkins,
Michigan Date of Record June 17, 1885 Record extracted by Joseph
A. Romeo 11 Jul 1999. Source Wayne Co., Michigan death records,
LDS film 1377694. Reel contains: Book #5, 1880-1882, pp. 75-335
Book #6, 1882-1885, pp. 1-335 Book #7, 1885-1886, pp. 1-140.
Page No. Bk. 6, p. 291 Record Number 3258
Date of Death Feb. 9, 1884 Full Name of the Deceased Isaac
H. Perkins Male or Female Male White, Black, Mulatto,
etc Indian Married, Single, Widow or Widower
Single Age 5 y. 7 m. 26 d. Place of Death Romulus Disease
or Cause of Death Inflammation of bowels Birthplace Michigan
Occupation Farmer's Son Parents Names, Residences Isaac
Perkins, Michigan; Eliza Perkins, Michigan Date
of Record June 17, 1885 Record extracted by Joseph A. Romeo
11 Jul 1999. Source Wayne Co., Michigan death records, LDS
film 1377694. Reel contains: Book #5, 1880-1882, pp. 75-335
Book #6, 1882-1885, pp. 1-335 Book #7, 1885-1886, pp. 1-140.
Page No. Bk. 6, p. 291 Record Number 3257
IMAGES
One
of the rare Delaware references to "Indian" -- marriage
of
Morris
Mosley to Caroline Hansley
Birth
of Emma
Beckett
|
%201998-2002.jpg)
