Before "white": Virginia 1662 says "Englishman" and "christian"; Maryland 1664 says "freeborne English women" (Virginia, December 1662; Maryland, September 1664)

SUMMARYBefore "white": Virginia 1662 says "Englishman" and "christian"; Maryland 1664 says "freeborne English women" (Virginia, December 1662; Maryland, September 1664) [Connections: Masonic color line, asylums, castles, wight, Nov 5, 2026]

RECORDVirginia's 1662 act (Hening, Statutes at Large, vol. 2, p. 170) reads: "WHEREAS some doubts have arrisen whether children got by any Englishman upon a negro woman should be slave or ffree," and enacts that "all children borne in this country shalbe held bond or free only according to the condition of the mother." It also provides that "if any christian shall committ ffornication with a negro man or woman," the fine doubles. The word "white" does not appear. Maryland's 1664 act (Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, pp. 533–534) makes "all Negroes or other slaues already within the Prouince" slaves. It says "divers freeborne English women forgettfull of their free Condicon and to the disgrace of our Nation" marry "Negro Slaues." Such a woman "shall Serue the master of such slaue dureing the life of her husband," and "all the Issue of such freeborne woemen soe marryed shall be Slaues as their fathers were." The word "white" does not appear

PATTERNIn the 1660s the lawmakers' side of the line was named by nation and religion ("English," "christian"), not by color

LENS (WW9)The first slave laws did not say "white." They said "English" and "Christian." The color word came later

OPENText is from transcriptions (Encyclopedia Virginia; Maryland State Archives OCR). Check the page images

SOURCEEncyclopedia Virginia: 1662 act (Hening 2:170); Archives of Maryland vol. 1 p. 533, p. 534.