# 48 -- SOME PEOPLE'S KIDS!!

By Gary J. Gabehart

Some People's Kids?

Latest discussion on the RanD site concerns something I said on the Redbone site (Blog #47), about the Drakes concerning a 1705 Virginia law or ruling on the definition of the term Mulatto (according to a 1705 Virginia Law). Remember to dot all "i" and cross every "T," or she will attempt to spin something.

Now it seems pretty clear to me, and others, what the law states. But to "one" individual it just can't be so, even -- when supplied with overwhelming data, laws and references, and -- don't forget the important time of the RanD group. Of course, you can be charitable and write it off to good will or some such. Some People's kids, jeez.

But, let's do this, go to Blog #47 and read it over -- make notes and then tippy toe back over to Blog #48 and we will continue. Seen enough?

Let me first explain that the thrust of the article was two-fold in concept, but I guess you could read more into it. First, I thought it might be helpful to get some stuff on the record about the John Aaron Drake, Sr. family, as well as, the John Aaron Drake, Jr. family and some of their children. Note, that in Blog # 47 I even stated that all this stuff was under construction, and if you didn't like it, "let's talk."

Secondly, I was attempting to explain my concept of the color line and how really complex it was with "People of Color," in this country in the 1700's and 1800's, and perhaps even today. It was not a Black, White issue -- it never was! Even Indians were monkeyed around with when it came to the terms FPC and Mulatto.

What was offensive to this person was the term "Mulatto," and perhaps as it was applied to John Aaron Drake, Jr. -- the latter was never clear to me. But, his marriage bond was clear, it stated he was a Mulatto. What could be clearer than that?

Now John Aaron Drake, Sr., and his wife Elizabeth Charity Smith Chrieves (Chavis or Chevis)(better get it all on here so I don't get jumped on again) were born about 1750 -- both in Elizabeth, Virginia.

John Aaron Drake, Jr. was born about 1776 in the Carolina's. It was here, that he was known as a Mulatto, the offspring of an Indian. The family was Catholic or they could have been converted Anglicans, hard to know. We do know that the family attended St. Martin de Tours Catholic Church in Louisiana and their children were baptised there.

Since John Aaron Drake, Jr. was known as a Mulatto, he could not be married in the Catholic Church, to Rosalie Abshire, without the Church investigating his background -- it was Louisiana Law -- Negro's, Blacks could not marry a White. But, the offspring of an Indian or Indian Mulatto could.

So, the way it would break down would be White only were married in the Church. Indian/Black could not be, Black/White could not. White/Indian or Indian Mulatto could be. I expect that other cases were FPC and White "but a Church investigation had to be performed," and I expect there were many. As I said in Blog # 47, it's a complicated situation, but the one thing that "did not happen," by law, any where in Louisiana, was to officially allow a White/Black marriage.

Now, either Barbara Ellison is blind or she sees what she wants to see.

http://www.vagenweb.org/hening/vol03.htm

Here is the actual statue and citation from Virginia law:
ACTS OF ASSEMBLY -- OCT. 1705 (Acts IV-XI) page 252

"And for clearing all manner of doubts which hereafter may happen to arise upon the construction of this act, or any other act, who shall be accounted a mulatto,

Be it enacted and declared, and it is hereby enacted and declared, That the child of >an Indian< and the child, grand child, or great grand child, >of a negro< shall be deemed, accounted, held and taken to be a mulatto."

Now you read the actual language -- child of >an Indian< ("and" the connector) and the child, grand child, or great grand child, >of a Negro<. Can you see the word White in that? Can you see the words "Offspring of an Indian and a Negro" in there? The law is written so the "Indian" could be Male or Female. Certainly another twist.

The problem with Barbara Ellison is she includes or excludes the term White -- hard to tell what she is doing, and -- she connects Negro with Indian.

Now this is what Barbara Ellison wrote:

The *new* law was to ***include*** offspring of an Indian and a Negro, an Indian and the child of a Negro, an Indian and the grandchild of a Negro, and an Indian and the great grandchild of a Negro. Is she rewritting the law? If she keeps putting it in print, some folks will begin to believe it.

Now is that what the law stated or is this what Barbara Ellison is trying to palm off on you? She does not even understand what she is writing. She is the corrupter of fact!

Pony hill writes: I could refer you to about 50 census pages from 1850 of Indian reservation areas here in the southeast where it lists the Indian people there as "Mulatto"...even the ones who had very famous Indian-White ancestors (absolutely no African ancestors at all)!!!

Or how about in the historic compilation "Woodward's Reminences" written in the 1830's by a military officer who took part in the Creek and Seminole Wars....Woodward made reference to Jack McGee (if I remember the name right)..as "McGee that old Mulatto" and then goes on to talk about McGee's Indian mother and white Polish trader father.

Another private email gave me this link.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070416123630/http://www.heite.org/Indians/invisibleindians.html

Barbara Ellison admitted in one of her emails:

In a message dated 9/7/2007 9:39:18 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Falaya200@XXXXXX.XXXX.com writes:

As for our particular family, I can only go on circumstantial evidence and intuition that our Goins and Drakes do have African ancestry..everything I have seen thus far points heavily to that...(Not to mention my obviously African heritaged living Goins relatives) I DO care about the racial make-up of the family partly BECAUSE other people seem to want to negate part of the family...They want to double-talk any African ancestry into oblivion, and I SEE that...and it does bug me as well....

So now you can see what kind of researcher she is, "circumstantial?"
"Intuition?" "Shall we play let's suppose or make believe?"

The problem with this kind of research is that it leads the unwary down false genealogy paths. It takes time to research the phony stuff and separate it from the real deal.

Hopefully we have opened some eyes to the other people, the ones who did not exist, the "Free People of Color," the "Hombre Mulatto Libre de Carolinas," my fourth Great Grandfather.

http://www.tarver-genealogy.net/aids/spanish/sp_racial_terms.html

I told her I was offended by her personal attacks. If you think I'm too hard on her, wake up and ask yourself if you want someone misrepresenting your family?

Ask her to put her pedigree in print.

Jeez, some people's kid's! There is more to come to clear the air!

Gary J. Gabehart, Mishiho (Mish-eh-ho)
Mishiho@aol.com