White appearing slaves of the old south


Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
There is a paradox in U.S. history: the U.S. does not mention the serfs who came from Europe with their landlords. In Europe, every landlord had a serf, but noble people came to the United States without peasants for some reason. The peasants came by themselves - completely free or as slaves sold by someone. This cannot be the case.
No those people were "mustee", 1/16 Black (or less), i.e. one black great-grand parent, typically a Black slave grandmother (who had a daughter with a White man, the daughter being born a slave, then in turn having a daughter with another White man, etc.) . But that 1/16 meant they were effectively Black according to the "one drop" rule, and formally they were born to slaves and slaves themselves.

The New World slave societies paid extreme and obsessive heed to mixings between Whites, Blacks and others, creating an entire nomenclature to describe all manner of fractional mixings in the slave population. They would be lots of stuff in the end, but never just White. The progression was Mulatto, Quadroon, Octoroon, Mustee.

This is, or would have been had he lived in the New World at the time, a known Octoroon:

So is this:
  • Like
Reactions: JakeStarkey


Ad Honorem
Oct 2009
San Diego
betgo said:
You speak Russian and not English and don't understand that it wasn't like Russia. In Britain there were no serfs, but mostly hired farm workers. In the US south, land was mostly purchased and slaves were purchased. The landlords were whoever had money or connections to obtain land. Often originally they were younger sons of titled noblemen. However, land and slaves were property that could be bought and sold. Most people who had been peasants in Britain were eventually able to obtain small tracts of land to own and farm. There were no peasants, which is one reason they bought slaves.

No, serfs did not exist in law after the 1500s in Great Britain. Economic servitude on the manors should never be confused with serfdom in either Great Britain or the British colonies in the law.
Saying "after 1500" is simply marking the end of the feudal system- that is when nationalism began to arise- wherein englishmen thought of themselves more as subjects of the king than the subject of a given baron.
And the 'offical' end of "serdom" in law did not end indentured servitude in England Nor did it end manorialism- The very term "Commons" proves manorialism survived in England as the principal means of financially supporting the aristocratic leisure class.

Living on and Working land you do not own, without pay, because you owe the lord for even letting you live there is just one small step up from serfdom- About the only difference is you can not be sold- although your debt to your landlord can be tranferred to other lords. Its no different than the excesses of captialism in the late 19th and early 20th century that saw entire workforces owing years worth of their labor to a company that provided them with housing and food thru a company store.

Whether you call it Serfdom or something like sharecropping- tenant farming- or what have you; Its the exact same economic structure- Of strong-arming the peasants into supporting the guys who OWN.
May 2019
Salt Lake City, Utah
Sculptingman, no, it is not the same economic structure. You just want to use your terms in place of traditional and accepted terms.

Go ahead without further interference from me. I enjoy reading your comments.

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
This is, or would have been had he lived in the New World at the time, a known Octoroon:
Homer Plessy, too. Kind of explains why Plessy, who wanted to be fined in order to have standing to sue, had to tell the conductor when he boarded the train - I am going to break the law by sitting in the wrong car.