Posted: Thu 15 Mar 2007 23:17 Post subject: Susie Guillory Phipps case and "passing"
I saw a post discussing the famous Susie Guillory Phipps. I am a distant cousin of Susie Guillory Phipps. We share the same two ancestors, Gregoire Guillory,a white creole, and his slave mistress, Marguerita.
I descend from their son, Jean Baptiste Guillory I, who after his emancipation, married into the gens de coluer libre Donato family of St. Landry Parish,Louisiana. The Donatos come from an italian immigrant of Moderate wealth named Donato Bello and a free woman of color(mulatto) named Marie Jeanne Tailleferr. The DONATOs and GUILLORY later became an elite slaveowning family of gens de coluer libre. Susie Phipps obviously decided to become "white" at some point in time while my line has remained Black American identified to this day. I dont know when her branch and my branch split into "black" and "white", but I find it interesting how families like this were very common in the United States. There is a book by Shirley Haislip that speaks of a similiar occurence in her family. What are you guys comments about this historical phenonenam?
Posted: Thu 15 Mar 2007 23:30 Post subject: Re: Susie Guillory Phipps case and "passing"
quin79 wrote:
What are you guys comments about this historical phenonenam?
Every year, between 0.10 and 0.14 percent of formerly Black-labeled youngsters switch to calling themselves Hispanic or White after high school. This comes to between 35,000 and 50,000 individuals who switch “race” every year. It means that just over 2,000,000 White American adults alive today started life as Black children. Add up the numbers since 1850, and about 9,000,000 Americans took this step over the past century and a half. Their 74,000,000 White descendants, on average, have the genetic equivalent of one pureblooded African ancestor within the past 120 years. The vast majority of them are completely unaware of this, of course. For details and footnoted references, I recommend The Rate of Black-to-White “Passing”.
Posted: Thu 15 Mar 2007 23:42 Post subject: Re: Susie Guillory Phipps case and "passing"
fwsweet wrote:
Every year, between 0.10 and 0.14 percent of formerly Black-labeled youngsters switch to calling themselves Hispanic or White after high school. This comes to between 35,000 and 50,000 individuals who switch “race” every year. It means that just over 2,000,000 White American adults alive today started life as Black children. Add up the numbers since 1850, and about 9,000,000 Americans took this step over the past century and a half. Their 74,000,000 White descendants, on average, have the genetic equivalent of one pureblooded African ancestor within the past 120 years. The vast majority of them are completely unaware of this, of course. For details and footnoted references, I recommend The Rate of Black-to-White “Passing”.
I just checked out the article. It was very informative and interesting. I didnt realise that there are people STILL "passing" in this day and age.
historically, I can understand why "black" people who looked "white" passed. Economics, to escape discrimination, I think were the main reasons. But I dont understand why today.
Posted: Thu 15 Mar 2007 23:58 Post subject: Re: Susie Guillory Phipps case and "passing"
quin79 wrote:
I can understand why "black" people who looked "white" passed. Economics, to escape discrimination, I think were the main reasons. But I dont understand why today.
Check out the thread Black Parents with White Kids in the "Molecular Anthropology and Genetics" forum. As far as I can tell, people change simply because some come out looking so "White" (Nordic even) that it would complicate their lives horribly to keep insisting that they are "really Black." It is easier for them to just go with the flow.
This does not mean that they lose touch with their familes. I have relatives on both sides of the color line. We all get together at family reunions, and all the kids know their grandparents. To be sure, many phenotypically Euro children of Black parents, like David Mathews, say, do not switch to calling themselves socially White. Perhaps most do not. But some do. I think that each person makes his/her own choice, and some change their minds.
that was very interesting. Genetics sure is complicated and unpredictable. I'm learning and posting at the same time. I guess it would be easier for a person who looks "white" to reclassify yourself as at instead of saying "black".
Posted: Fri 16 Mar 2007 05:33 Post subject: Quin79 and Mrs. Phipps
Quin79:
Quote:
historically, I can understand why "black" people who looked "white" passed. Economics, to escape discrimination, I think were the main reasons. But I dont understand why today.
Would you ask Jews why they don't want to identify as "non-Aryans" and members of the "Jewish race" when decreasing anti-Semitism means they would not be discriminated against for calling themselves that? Try it. They'll look at you like you're nuts. Do you see the connection?
I also recall that Mrs. Phipps had siblings who were also white-identified.
Joined: 13 Mar 2007 {Posts: 261 } Location: Canada
Posted: Fri 16 Mar 2007 14:08 Post subject:
I had never heard of this story before and wondered what was Susie Phipps' motive for such a lawsuit. When I looked on the internet, I found this quote:
"It shocked me. I was sick for three days. I was brought up white, I married white twice."
Susie is sick alright but not about finding her African heritage. This is a very sad story.
Keeping with the title of this forum "Improving U.S. Society," we should consider what kind of a society we want, and the role of the state's coercive power.
The fact is that Louisiana used all of its power to deprive Phipps of free ethnic choice. Some might argue that this was right because she possibly had a trace of distant African ancestry. I would argue such a coercive role of the state is both impractical and immoral.
It is impractical because one-third of White USAmericans (74 million) have measurable African DNA from ancestors who passed through the U.S. color line within the few centuries. No government could possibly force them all to declare themselves ethnically "Black." It would be insane to attempt it. True, one could arbitrarily enforce it upon, say, one percent of Americans. Governments often enforce bizarre laws on the weak and powerless while turning a blind eye to crimes by the rich and powerful. But such elitist policies seldom produce just or equitable societies.
It is immoral because the foundation bedrock of U.S. society is that we are not limited by birth. We are all allowed to become whatever we are capable of. All of us. With the exception of the Jim Crow color line, no one in over two centuries has dared to tell Americans that we cannot choose our own lot in life, that we must "stay in our place" defined by the accident of birth.
For a more enlightened use of state power, consider the case of Louetta Chassereau:
The Rate of Black-to-White Passing wrote:
In early twentieth-century South Carolina, at the height of the Jim Crow era when the one-drop rule was supposedly the law of the land, Louetta Chassereau, an orphaned infant of known, documented, but invisible African ancestry was placed in a White orphanage and adopted by a White family. As the little girl matured, her White adoptive family became influential in the White community. She married very well indeed, to a wealthy White man (F. Capers Bennett), in an upscale White church (Spring Street Methodist Church in Charleston). Throughout her marriage to Bennett, she voted in White primaries (Democrat), her children attended White schools and when they grew up, joined White churches (two became Episcopalians and two were Methodists). The godparents of her children were White (Mr. and Mrs. I. M. Fishburne), he being the president of the local Farmers & Merchants Bank. The problem came when Mr. Bennett died. His will left all to his beloved wife, Louetta. But his relatives contested the man’s will on the grounds that their long and fruitful marriage had been illegal all along, because Louetta had started life as a Black baby. In a terse opinion, Bennett v. Bennett,1940 South Carolina, (most of which is the above summary), South Carolina Supreme Court Justices Milledge L. Bonham, D. Gordon Baker, E. L. Fishburne, Taylor H. Stukes, and L. D. Lide ruled that over her lifetime, Louetta had become irrevocably White, and they dismissed the will contestation unanimously. [For referenced footnotes, see The Rate of Black-to-White “Passing”.]
Some people sincerely believe that if you were raised as White, consider yourself White, married as White, and raised your children as White (like Chassereau, Phipps, Channing, and 74 million other White Americans) and then learn that you have a distant trace of African ancestry, you are duty-bound to call yourself "Black" thenceforth. Only thus can you show solidarity and loyalty to your true ethnic group. Perhaps so, perhaps not. I have no opinion on the choices that people make.
But some people also think that the state should enforce their personal beliefs by depriving Americans of life, liberty, or property if they choose "wrong." I would disagree. It is none of the state's business.
Posted: Fri 16 Mar 2007 15:08 Post subject: Re: Quin79 and Mrs. Phipps
[quote="Powell"]Quin79:
[quote]historically, I can understand why "black" people who looked "white" passed. Economics, to escape discrimination, I think were the main reasons. But I dont understand why today.[/quote]
Would you ask Jews why they don't want to identify as "non-Aryans" and members of the "Jewish race" when decreasing anti-Semitism means they would not be discriminated against for calling themselves that? Try it. They'll look at you like you're nuts. Do you see the connection?
I also recall that Mrs. Phipps had siblings who were also white-identified.
I'm not talking about aspects of "Jewish identity". Mrs. Phipps like many Louisiana creoles, decided to "pass for white" to escape discrimination have more opportunties, leave their "black" family and culture behind.
I had ancestors who looked "white" enough to "pass" but they choose not too and thats why I exist as a Black American today. Besides, it was easier for Jewish person to assimilate..all they had to do was learn english, downplay their religion, and adopt american ideas and values. Only the "whitest" of "black" people could do that..and thats what Mrs Phipps(my relative) did. Funny thing, there are quite a few "White" Louisiana families who have origins similar to mine. I have copies and a books that discuss her case and the genealogy behind it. I didnt know I was related to her until I read "Who is Black?". I have an old story in my family that has been passed down that talks about my g grandfather having a "white" brother by the slaveowner of his mother. Supposely, the sisters of the slaveowner came from Texas to Louisiana and took the child to Houston. My ggrandfather never saw him again. I think they might of thought the child looked "white" enough.
Susie is sick alright but not about finding her African heritage. This is a very sad story.
Keeping with the title of this forum "Improving U.S. Society," we should consider what kind of a society we want, and the role of the state's coercive power.
The fact is that Louisiana used all of its power to deprive Phipps of free ethnic choice. Some might argue that this was right because she possibly had a trace of distant African ancestry. I would argue such a coercive role of the state is both impractical and immoral.
It is impractical because one-third of White USAmericans (74 million) have measurable African DNA from ancestors who passed through the U.S. color line within the few centuries. No government could possibly force them all to declare themselves ethnically "Black." It would be insane to attempt it. True, one could arbitrarily enforce it upon, say, one percent of Americans. Governments often enforce bizarre laws on the weak and powerless while turning a blind eye to crimes by the rich and powerful. But such elitist policies seldom produce just or equitable societies.
It is immoral because the foundation bedrock of U.S. society is that we are not limited by birth. We are all allowed to become whatever we are capable of. All of us. With the exception of the Jim Crow color line, no one in over two centuries has dared to tell Americans that we cannot choose our own lot in life, that we must "stay in our place" defined by the accident of birth.
Louisiana had some very unique laws concerning who was "black" or "white" it seems. I can bet that Mrs. Phipps still self-identified as "white" even though she found about her distant african ancestor.Its not like thats the only she had. The Guillory's continued to marry other "genes de coleur" over the generations who had similiar backgrounds. In reference to Louisiana, sometimes I dont like to use the word "black" because they had a three-caste system, really four if count free negros, slaves, genes de coleur, and whites.
Joined: 13 Mar 2007 {Posts: 261 } Location: Canada
Posted: Fri 16 Mar 2007 15:44 Post subject:
Yes Frank, I see that there are two aspects to this case. There is the legal and human rights aspect that you speak about.
There is also the private human tragedy which rings just as loud for me, because I came from a heritage of 'passing' (a deliberate act of ancestral denial = self-denial.) I've seen how harmful it can be to an individual, to a family and to society in general.
But these two aspects are both intertwined. Susie exhibits a culturally negative attitude towards African ethnicity which reflects the reason why the racial classfication laws began, and why they continue to exist despite making no logical sense. Racial laws also reinforce the belief system seen in Susie's reaction. It's bad and unhealthy cycle.
It would be interesting if the government did impose a one-drop rule across the board. My guess is that it would certainly mean 'African Americans' would then become the majority of voters in your country.
The fact is that Louisiana used all of its power to deprive Phipps of free ethnic choice.
This is a distortion. Phipps had every right to identify as whatever she liked. She, had been marking herself and her family as "white", for years on official documents (a fact that she pointed out during the trial) and the state of Lousiana did not take issue with that.
The issue in the Phipps case, was that she wanted retroactively change her birth certificate, claiming that it was an error. The court showed that it was correctly recorded when it was issued, and ruled that it should remain that way as a historical record. Thats it.
The court showed that it was correctly recorded when it was issued...
I wonder what the word "correctly" means in this context? Specifically, what interpretation of the word "correctly" would fit above but not then make one-third of the nation's birth certificates incorrect? Again, I submit that it is unwise public policy for the state to selectively apply some of the laws to some of the people some of the time.
I had never heard of this story before and wondered what was Susie Phipps' motive for such a lawsuit. When I looked on the internet, I found this quote:
"It shocked me. I was sick for three days. I was brought up white, I married white twice."
Susie is sick alright but not about finding her African heritage.
This is a very sad story.
To me what is sad that such a case had to even come to trial, let alone the verdict. No person of any other 'ancestry' in this country would have been denied a 'White' status. She should have been legally declared White by the lower court and that should have been the end of it.
Everyday, Hapas, Hispanics, Arabs, etc people far more 'ethnic' than her merely check the White box and that's that. This country will NEVER get past racism, etc if Blacks are forever thought of as inferior. And that's what this is all about. Too many White people (and to a lesser degree other ethnicities) cannot wrap their minds around the fact that 'Blacks' are just like everybody else. NEWSFLASH!!!
IMO, its not really all about power as Frank writes in his essay (IV), rather its more about the irrational FEAR that many Whites still have of Africans/Blacks, African admixture. HELLO? DNA/Human Genome Project proves that there are no genes for 'race' but it appears that IRREFUTABLE SCIENCE is still not enough for most people in America. About power, yes to a degree, thery do not want to share , but are Black Americans really going to go elsewhere and/or not support America at the end of the day? What really would happen if Blacks were given power? Would they handle it different from Whites? Would they not protect American interests?
We can look to countless African dictators, wealthy Blacks, and Black American tourists to get your answer - AW HELLO NO! Blacks would act just like Whites and still promote imperialism, trade imbalances, etc.
Do Black people really think electing Obama is going to change anything?
And its not as if the woman looked liked Vin Diseal or Hale Berry.
She was 100% phenotypically White. That's like me claiming to be Jewish (ethnically) because I am descended from German Jews. I am maybe 1/16 or so Jewish, but really? She was even LESS BLACK than that.
Now, I understand Black leadership wanting to concentrate what little power thay have, but 'Black people' and 'mixed people' do not just vote for 'Black causes' and FYI, I am registered Republican. By doing this, ultimately, they are doing the Black community/biracial community a disservice by keeping racial hatreds alive.
By enforcing hypodescent, they are promoting the theory that 'Africaness' is different, and should be subject to different rules which really results in discrimination or different treatment towards Blacks. Most Blacks, and I'll go out on a limb and say this, just want to be treated 'like everybody else'.
By segregating African genes (scientifically impossible) Blacks/Black ancestry will continue to be seen as different, aka 'invisible caste', 'alien', 'foriegn', AND NEGATIVE. This does not promote 'Africaness' as being unique or special (which may be the goal of some Balck leaders) AND POSITIVE. It puts it into a seperate class that no other ancestry is subject to and from history we know that seperate is not equal.
Patience
Now, I do not care how she feels about having African heritage, but I do agree with your point. It's not like she can cut 'it' out, now can she? LOL.
But understand this, she is merely expressing the same disdain that many Whites and Other Americans have for Africans/Blacks, etc. I was in junior high school in N.O. when this case made the paper. Remember this was probably an older woman at the time who lived thru Jim Crow, etc.
Irrational indeed is her response, , but generally speaking, Americans really need to get over such things as this. This was and conitnues to be a back-handed insult to Blacks. Just another derogatory thing about Blacks........
If ONE is personally happy with ones-self, ones 'race', ethnicity, gender, family, history, etc, ONE is usually not inclined to feel strongly about the racial choices of others. People ultimately have to live with themeselves and their personal choices.
"Correctly" meaning that it was filled out by her parents, and was consistent with the rest of her family at the time.
Actually, it was filled out by an ignorant midwife, but even if it had been filled out by infallible parents, and even if it matched all her relatives (which it did not), Phil345's use of "correctly" merely argues that one must submit to the accident of one's birth--a notion that violates every principle of post-Revolutionary justice.
Posted: Fri 16 Mar 2007 17:03 Post subject: Re: Quin79 and Mrs. Phipps
quin79 wrote:
Quin79:
I'm not talking about aspects of "Jewish identity". Mrs. Phipps like many Louisiana creoles, decided to "pass for white" to escape discrimination have more opportunties, leave their "black" family and culture behind.
I had ancestors who looked "white" enough to "pass" but they choose not too and thats why I exist as a Black American today. Besides, it was easier for Jewish person to assimilate..all they had to do was learn english, downplay their religion, and adopt american ideas and values. Only the "whitest" of "black" people could do that..and thats what Mrs Phipps(my relative) did. Funny thing, there are quite a few "White" Louisiana families who have origins similar to mine. I have copies and a books that discuss her case and the genealogy behind it. I didnt know I was related to her until I read "Who is Black?". I have an old story in my family that has been passed down that talks about my g grandfather having a "white" brother by the slaveowner of his mother. Supposely, the sisters of the slaveowner came from Texas to Louisiana and took the child to Houston. My ggrandfather never saw him again. I think they might of thought the child looked "white" enough.
Ultimately we can never look into the hearts of ancestors long dead and place current value judgements on their choices. The past is what it is -
in the past. Washington, Jefferson, etc are still great men, who did a great act in establishing this country (good) despite the fact they owned fellow human beings (bad).
You call that (BOLD above) easy? Hmmmm, sometimes it is of greater courage and morality to take the less traveled path? Like Shakespeare said: '... to thy ownself be true'.
Mixed/ethnic/religious people denying WHAT THEY ARE, going along with the majority, IMO, is easier than standing up for what you know, feel, think is right for ONES-SELF.
And there are many narratives of Whites kidnapping or taking White, but Black identified, children.
Actually, it was filled out by an ignorant midwife, but even if it had been filled out by infallible parents, and even if it matched all her relatives
It matched her direct family...her siblings and her parents. It was not a "mistake", clerical error or mix-up, as Phipps claimed. The midwife, filled out what the family intended.
Quote:
Phil345's use of "correctly" merely argues that one must submit to the accident of one's birth--a notion that violates every principle of post-Revolutionary justice.
Information on a birth certificate, is determined by the family of the child, for obvious reasons.
A person does not have to "submit" to the specifics on the birth certificate that were determined for them, and can choose to change their name, "race", ect....but the birth certificate remains the same, as a historical record.
They even offered to give her a copy of her birth certificate with no mention of race on it....
I dont believe it was a mistake by an ignorant midwife on the birth certificate.She knew her parents obviously. You have to understand the history and genealogy of Mrs. Susie GUILLORY Phipps along with the history of Louisiana. She descended from a long line of people who were of various degress of europeon and african ancestry who were classified as neither by the dominant french and spanish society for over 240 years. Those individuals saw themselves as the "gens de coleur". They didnt go by the English "one drop rule". People in this group showed many variations of phenotypes. My family members cover the entire spectrum. Some look really "europeon" and others look "Black" and lot resemble "biracial" people. My Aunt looks more "europeon" than Halle Berry. Our Guillory branch comes from four siblings descended from Gregoire Guillory, a white creole, and his black slave mistress, Marguerita. My ancestor Jean-Baptiste married a free quadroon, Catherine DONATO. His sister, Marie, married a Mexican named Juan MATEO. I dont know from which sibling Susie came from..But I will ask around on the creole group I am a member of. And far as Louisiana... the hyperdescent rule was applied in this case I think. She obviously was ashamed by the african ancestor because it sickened her. Which is very sad. She denied who she was a looong time ago it seems. What I mean by denying..is her cultural heritage...not her "race".
This is some background info on the Guillory's so you can get a better understand of the context of the case historically.
In the early 1980's, a Louisiana court case made headlines when a woman sued the State of Louisiana to have herself declared to be of the white race, questioning a state law which required her to be registered as "colored" because her descent included 1/32 Negro blood. This woman was a direct descendant of my ancestor, Joseph Gregorie Guillory, and his slave, Marguerite (Spanish = Margarita). This 20th century court case brought to light long buried details of a 200-year-old courtcase that has become known as "The Margarita Case".
Joseph Gregorie Guillory was born c1712 on what is now called Dauphin Island (Alabama), the son of Francois Guillory and Jeanne Montfort. Francois Guillory had arrived in colonial Louisiana (Mobile, Alabama) c1707-1708 from Montreal and established himself on the eastern end of Dauphin Island (then called Massacre Island).
In 1739, Joseph Gregorie married Marie Jeanne LaCasse, the daughter of Jean LaCasse and Marie Anne Fourche. At the time of her marriage to Joseph Gregorie Guillory, Marie Jeanne was the widow of Joseph Stameyer (aka: Estamier dit Chateauneuf). Joseph, a soldier in the company of Le Sueur, had died in 1738, less than 10 months after his marriage to Marie Jeanne.
Joseph Gregorie Guillory and Marie Jeanne LaCasse produced at least 8 children before the death of Marie in April 1764 at the age of 38. Soon after Marie's death, two sons-in-law of Joseph Gregorie sued for their portion of Marie Jeanne's estate and an inventory was taken at that time which included nine slaves. Among them was Marguerite, a "Negro" slave who was pregnant on the date the inventory was made, 22 July 1764. Shortly thereafter, Joseph moved his children and slaves to Louisiana and settled at Opelousas Post where he had recently received a land grant of 640 acres. It is here that the "Margarita" case begins.
It is not known if Marguerite gave birth to the child she was carrying before arriving at Opelousas Post. It is now assumed, however, that the child Marguerite was carrying was "Catherine" (called Catiche), born c1764, fathered by Joseph Gregorie Guillory.
After the move to Opelousas Post, Marguerite produced three additional children fathered by Joseph Gregorie: Jean Baptiste (c1766), Joseph (c1769), Marie (c1770). (The fact that Joseph Gregorie Guillory was the father of Marguerite's children was never disputed.) After the birth of Marie in 1770, Joseph Gregorie Guillory went thru the motions of freeing his Negro mistress and their children. At the same time, he convinced his legitimate children (who owned an undivided half interest in the slaves) that he was capable of paying them their portion of their deceased mother's estate without having to sell the slaves or divide them between the heirs. Joseph Gregorie Guillory then had a local schoolmaster draw up the emancipation paper. However, unbeknownst to Marguerite, the document was technicially invalid because the schoolmaster was not qualified to officiate at the manumission. Whether Joseph Gregorie was aware of this fact is unclear. However, as stated by Winston Deville in the article entitled "The Margarita Case: Historical Perspectives on a Controversial Case in 18th Century Louisiana" (Louisiana Bar Journal, Volume 31, Number 2):
"We are left with the distinct impression that Guillory probably wanted to appease his
mistress by giving her and her children what they would believe to be their freedom,
yet have a loop-hole for the future."
On December 31, 1770, the emancipation act was recorded in New Orleans before Andres Almonester y Roxas, Notary Public.
However, in 1773, in order to settle the estate of his deceased wife, Joseph Gregorie Guillory legally conveyed his mistress, Marguerite, and his four mulatto children to his legitimate children, ignoring the 1770 emancipation. Their value was placed at 2000 livres.
Four years later, as death grew near for Joseph Gregorie, he went at night to the residence of his white children, threatened his son, Jean Baptiste Guillory, at knife point and abducted Marguerite. His legitimate children showed no opposition to their father's actions as he promised the return of the slave to them after his death, indicating he needed her services only during his life. Joseph Gregorie Guillory died between 1777 and spring of 1778 but not before giving Marguerite, once again, her freedom.
On April 27, 1778, my ancestor, Jean Baptiste Guillory, conveyed the story of the abduction to the commandant at Opelousas. In his petition, he demanded the return to slavery of Marguerite to his and his sibling's ownership. The Opelousas Post commandant transferred the petition to the high court of the Cabildo in New Orleans (January 20, 1779).
The defendents, Marguerite and her Guillory mulatto offspring, contended that they had been freed in 1770 and that the plaintiffs had approved their emancipation. The plantiffs, on the other hand, insisted that the alleged manumission of 1770 was illegal; they were young at the time and their father had taken advantage of that fact; the so-called freed slaves had become solely their property in 1773, when their father had conveyed them to the heirs. Due the the obvious complexity of the case, the case was transferred to the high court in Havana, Cuba.
Note: Upon close examination of the case outline that appeared in the January 1935 edition of Louisiana Historical Quarterly, it appears that Marguerite's four mulatto children remained as slaves in the household of the legitimate Guillory children although the mulatto children maintained that they had been set "free". I have seen no evidence to suggest that Marguerite's children were with her between her 1777 abduction and the 1783 settlement of this case.
In 1781, Claude Guillory, another son of Joseph Gregorie's, brought forth a suit in order to recover a slave that had run away (January 20, 1781, No. 3494, 13 pp. Court of Alcade Jacinto Panis, New Orleans). This slave, of course, was Marguerite, who was now reported to be living in New Orleans. As a result of this suit, Marguerite, and her employer, Miguel Barre, were arrested and put in prison. After producing the document to prove her emancipation, both Marguerite and Miguel Barre are released. The 1770 emancipation document, certified copy presented in this case, stated as follows:
"I, Gregoire Guillorie, over my ordinary mark, of my own free will and that of my children,
for the life and thirty years services rendered me by Margarita, my slave, not only to me
but to my children before and after the death of my wife I declare that I give her her
freedom as well as that of her children, on condition that she serves me up to my death.
Done and executed of my own free will, April 13, 1770. Juan Batiste Guillorie, son, Ordinary
mark of Mr. Gregoire Guillorie, Claude Guillorie, son, Luis Guillorie, son. Signature of
Mr. Guillorie approved by Benoit."
On March 9, 1782, Marguerite, a free Negress, filed suit against the Guillory heirs to compel them to declare her children free (No. 3440, 71 pp. Court of Alcade Panis, New Orleans). Marguerite, once again presented the act of emancipation and indicated that her four children were suffering under the power of the Guillory heirs who were unwilling to free them. Marguerite maintained that her children had been held by force and treated with cruelty by the Guillory heirs. (Click here to see a copy of Marguerite's petition.)
Although the case dragged on for another year, the final outcome was this (as detailed in the act dated at New Orleans, April 5, 1783):
Marguerite, a free Negress, and her four mulatto children, were ordered to pay the Guillory
heirs 600 pesos, in confirmity to and under the following conditions: 150 pesos which has to
be counted as diminished by the personal labors of her son, Juan Bautista, during two years
and two months that he must remain in the service of Juan B. Guillory, and 150 pesos that
she has to pay in cash, 50 pesos more to be paid within three months, and the remaining 250
pesos within two years counted from this day. As soon as the amount shall be paid, the
Guillory heirs agree to give Maria, Joseph, Juan Bautista, and Catalina their freedom.
Little is known about Marguerite's life after the 1783 settlement. It is known, however, that she was still alive on February 23, 1808 when her daughter, Marie, married Juan Mateos of Vera Cruz. Both Marguerite and daughter Marie are listed as "free". What few people knew at the time, however, was the intense struggle that Marguerite and her children went thru to become that way.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
No person of any other 'ancestry' in this country would have been denied a 'White' status. She should have been legally declared White by the lower court and that should have been the end of it. 
This country will NEVER get past racism, etc if Blacks are forever thought of as inferior. And that's what this is all about. Too many White people (and to a lesser degree other ethnicities) cannot wrap their minds around the fact that 'Blacks' are just like everybody else. NEWSFLASH!!! 
, but are Black Americans really going to go elsewhere and/or not support America at the end of the day? What really would happen if Blacks were given power? Would they handle it different from Whites? Would they not protect American interests?
Blacks would act just like Whites and still promote imperialism, trade imbalances, etc.
