“She is supposed to be his daughter”: Making Historical Connections in Albemarle County

The Library of Virginia’s collections include a document titled “Surnames, by Counties and Cities, of Mixed Negroid Virginia Families Striving to Pass as ‘Indian’ or White.”

The document, created circa 1943, lists the surnames of various Black and Multiracial families, as well as the surnames of Indigenous Virginians, that, according to Walter Ashby Plecker, the creator of the document, had attempted or were actively attempting to “pass” as Indigenous Virginians or white. To Plecker and other white government officials, Black and Multiracial individuals and Indigenous Virginians who tried to circumvent discriminatory measures that privileged whiteness threatened the white supremist ideals on which federal and state legal systems were founded.¹ One avenue through which white government officials curbed the rights and access of these communities involved recordkeeping and the recording of vital statistics.

The surname Moon – listed under Albemarle County – called to mind Albemarle County Chancery Cause 1856-023: William Moon vs. Stapleton C. Sneed; Asgn. of William Moon vs. Stapleton C. Sneed. This suit involves William Moon (W.S.) and his purported familial relationship with several people he enslaved. As is the genesis of many UncommonWealth blog posts, I started to wonder: could there be a connection between the Moon family listed in the document and the Moon family central to the chancery suit? An examination of the 1924 Racial Integrity Act in Virginia is crucial to placing the above document in context, and the subsequent exploration of the Albemarle County chancery cause may offer some insight into the possible origins of the Moon family referenced in the document.

Walter Ashby Plecker, a medical professional and known eugenicist, was appointed head of the Virginia Bureau of Vital Statistics following its creation in 1912. The 1912 Act that provided for the creation of the Bureau also mandated the recording of vital statistics, such as births and deaths, which prior to that time were inconsistently recorded across Virginia’s localities. It also specified what information was to be collected when filling out birth and death certificates. For example, certificates of birth were to include fields such as place of birth, sex of child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, color or race of father, and color or race of mother.² That such personal information was compiled by local registrars of vital statistics; reported to Plecker, the State registrar; and stored in a central location proved integral to the eventual passage of the 1924 Preservation of Racial Integrity Act and its enforcement.³

The 1924 Racial Integrity Act, passed by the Virginia General Assembly and signed into law by Governor Elbert Lee Trinkle,⁴ outlawed interracial marriage and stipulated that individuals residing in Virginia register their race through registration certificates. In defining whiteness, it prescribed that “the term ‘white person’ shall apply only to the person who has no trace whatsoever of any blood other than Caucasian.”⁵ However, those with “one-sixteenth or less of the blood of the American Indian and have no other no non-Caucasic blood” were also considered white.⁶ The one-sixteenth exception, or the “Pocahontas Exception,” catered to the white Virginians who claimed Pocahontas as an ancestor.⁷ Plecker promoted the 1924 Racial Integrity Act and, in his role as head of the Bureau of Vital Statistics, was responsible for its implementation.

The 1924 Racial Integrity Act was rooted in the eugenics movement, which gained prevalence in Virginia during the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. Eugenics, “the practice of controlling reproduction to alter the genetic characteristics of a population,”⁸ sought, among other things, to establish a link between genetics and “undesirable social outcomes such as poverty and crime.”⁹ In terms of race, eugenics was used to justify the separation of people into racial categories and the establishment of a racial hierarchy that emphasized the superiority of the white race.¹⁰

Eugenicists’ attempts to ensure “racial purity” among those of Caucasian origin, and consequently cement the place of whites at the apex of said hierarchy, is reflected in the Act, as the ban on interracial marriage was designed to prevent genetic intermixing.

Recordkeeping policies established by both the 1912 Act and the 1924 Racial Integrity Act were leveraged by white government officials to exercise control over communities and individuals they considered inferior. Vital records, such as birth certificates, marriage certificates, census records, and registration certificates, provided written documentation that noted each Virginian’s race. Access to such identifying information supported officials’ efforts to deny Black and Multiracial individuals, and Indigenous Virginians, access to the same amenities and educational opportunities afforded their white peers. Their ability to target specific communities and seek redress against those who disputed exclusionary policies was similarly buttressed.

Plecker’s opinions regarding genetic intermixture and race influenced his recordkeeping practices. He believed, for example, that genetic intermixture between Black and Multiracial individuals and Indigenous Virginians had resulted in the extinction of many of the latter.¹¹ His conviction led to the classification of many Indigenous Virginians as “colored” in state and federal government records, which has left an indelible mark on Indigenous Virginians who have sought or are currently seeking to trace their ancestry for state or federal recognition.¹² Many have encountered difficulties when conducting genealogical research, as their ancestors’ race was incorrectly recorded in census records and other government documents.^1]

Historically, white government officials in Virginia utilized recordkeeping to establish control over a growing population of free Black and Multiracial individuals. As stated in the book Notorious in the Neighborhood:

Especially when they were not enslaved, people who could trace their ancestry both to Europe and to Africa (and sometimes to North America as well) threatened the ability of whites to draw clearly the distinctions and set the boundaries between free and unfree that were necessary for defining status in a society rooted in racial slavery.¹⁴

For example, in establishing these distinctions, white government officials passed legislation requiring free Black and Multiracial individuals to register themselves in the locality in which they resided. “Free Negro” registers and registrations were generated as a result; they generally recorded the name of each person, as well as their age, height, complexion, marks and scars, and whether they were emancipated or born free.

Eventually, the 1924 Act was nullified in 1967 due to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Loving v. Virginia, which rendered laws prohibiting interracial marriage unconstitutional.¹⁵ This also led to the overturn of the Act’s other provisions. There are several UncommonWealth blog posts that explore the 1924 Racial Integrity Act in more detail, especially as it relates to Indigenous Virginians.

The 1856-023 Albemarle County chancery suit involves William Moon (W.S.) of Albemarle County. The use of (W.S.) following William Moon’s name perhaps indicates his status as a Writer of the Signet, or “an officer nearly corresponding to an attorney at law.”¹⁶ Confirming the identity of the William Moon featured prominently in the suit was a little complicated, as several people named William Moon resided in Albemarle County around the same time. He is consistently referred to as William Moon (W.S.), and there are several Albemarle County chancery suits (1839-013, 1839-015, and 1843-029) that also include a William Moon (W.S.). This leads me to believe that they are the same individual, though it is possible they are not. The William Moon (W.S) in chancery suits 1839-013, 1839-015, and 1843-029 was the son of William and Elizabeth Moon and was one of several children. The Moon family enslaved numerous individuals. For example, a commissioner’s report in Albemarle County Chancery Cause 1843-029: Admr. of John Pollock vs. William Moon, etc., names the following the enslaved persons, who were to be divided among William Moon (W.S.) and his siblings following the death of their mother: Bob, Jane, Clara, Albert, Martha, William, Eliza, Mary, Ned, Isaac, Lewis, [Nomes?], York, Rachel, and Isetta.

In situations where sexual relationships existed between enslaved women and white enslavers, it is imperative to consider the imbalance of power that defined these interactions. While many enslaved women were forced into such relationships, others may have entered into them because they felt they had little choice, or because the relationship may have led to “better treatment…for themselves and their children.”¹⁷ When such relationships produced children, it “posed a formidable conundrum for the social order in Virginia before the Civil War,”¹⁸ especially “in a society in which its residents commonly derived their legal status from being either white or [B]lack, not both.”¹⁹ The children’s status was dependent on the status of their mother, meaning they were more often than not born into enslavement.

William Moon (W.S.), who was indebted to several creditors, sold Cary Ann, Everett, and Overton to Stapleton C. Sneed in 1842. However, Moon “felt the deepest solicitude that [Cary Ann, Everett, and Overton] should pass forever and hopelessly beyond his control,” due to what Moon described as “the peculiar relation existing between [Moon] and his slaves.”²⁰ As such, Sneed agreed to allow Moon to redeem Cary Ann, Everett, and Overton within ten years, and they entered into a contract to that effect.

A dispute related to the terms of the contract prompted the filing of both bills of complaint. Moon’s bill of complaint, which was filed in 1851, claimed that the original contract between himself and Sneed allowed him to redeem Cary Ann, Everett, and Overton “without any qualification whatsoever.”²¹  The contract Sneed filed as evidence in the suit, however, stipulated that Moon could buy them back so long as he did so with the intent of freeing them. According to Moon, the original contract was mislaid by Sneed, who subsequently drew up the contract he filed with the suit. Moon believed the latter contract laid out different terms than those to which he had originally agreed. When Moon attempted to reclaim Cary Ann, Everett, and Overton, he found that Sneed would release them only if Moon intended to free them. Additionally, Sneed “excluded from the right of redemption”²² Jesse and Mary Jane, two children born to Cary Ann during her time with Sneed.

Due to accusations that Moon’s original suit was flawed, Robert Walker, assignee in bankruptcy of Moon who possessed the “power & authority to sue for & recover any property to which the said bankrupt was entitled,”²³ filed his bill of complaint. The bill repeats the same arguments made in Moon’s original bill. Due to their similarity, the two suits were combined and heard together.

In answer to Moon and Walker, Sneed stated that Moon had relayed his intent to “emancipate [Cary Ann, Everett, and Overton] either at or before his death.”²⁴ Thus, Sneed claimed he signed the contract to appease Moon, who was worried that they would be sold into “perpetual bondage;”²⁵ Sneed insisted that he would not have agreed to part with them otherwise. He also believed that Jesse and Mary Jane should remain in his possession, as “this desire for [Cary Ann, Everett, and Overton’s] freedom grew out of the plaintiff’s peculiar relation & affection to those negroes who had lived with & been reared by him, a relation that could not apply to any borne afterwards & who would be strangers to him.”²⁶ In 1853, Sneed filed an amended answer to Moon’s bill asserting his right to refuse the redemption of Cary Ann, Everett, and Overton, as the ten-year limit had passed.

Moon also sold Maria and Willy Ann, Mary Jane, and Levenia, Maria’s three children, to satisfy his debts. They appear to have been similarly related to Moon, which is supported by the deposition of John W. Chewning. In answer to the question “What relation is William Moon (WS) reputed to bear to the woman Cary Ann?”, Chewning stated that “She is supposed to be his daughter and so is Maria, and all the rest that were Alesy’s children.”²⁷ Similarly, Fontaine Wells, another deponent, was asked the following question in reference to the individuals sold to cover Moon’s debts: “Were any of the other Negroes besides Cary Ann and her children related by blood to Moon?” Wells replied, “I believe all were – except the old woman of all – the others were her’s & his descendants.” Wells also claimed that Moon despaired of “‘making sale of his own flesh and blood.’”²⁸

There is no decree in this suit, and it can be reasonably assumed that Cary Ann, Overton, and Everett, along with Jesse and Mary Jane, remained with Sneed. In writing the contract – or re-writing the contract as Moon claimed – did Sneed include a provision requiring Moon to free Cary Ann, Overton, and Everett upon their redemption knowing that Moon would not or could not do so? When asked whether Moon was “in a condition to liberate [Cary Ann, Everett, and Overton] if he redeems them,”²⁹ Wells replied that he didn’t think so. In doing so, Sneed would have ensured that Cary Ann, Everett, and Overton remained in his possession. A note on a document containing information about case proceedings states that the death of William Moon was suggested on October 20, 1855; the suit was subsequently struck from the docket around May 1856. Ultimately, the familial ties between Moon and Cary Ann, Maria, and their children did not preclude their sale. They were considered property and treated as such despite their connection to Moon.

This blog post is more exploratory in nature, rather than seeking to irrefutably prove a familial connection between the Moon family mentioned in the document and Cary Ann, Maria, and the white Moon family of Albemarle County. However, could the Moon family mentioned in the document have common ancestry with Cary Ann and Maria? It is possible that they were descendants of Cary Ann, Maria, and the white Moon family who remained in Albemarle County following emancipation. The following explanations are also feasible: they were descendants of people enslaved by the Moon family who adopted their surname upon emancipation; they were Indigenous Virginians who Plecker refused to recognize as such; or they moved to Albemarle County from elsewhere and had no relation to the white Moon family whatsoever. Unfortunately, Black and Multiracial individuals, as well as Indigenous Virginians, are historically under documented in archives, increasing the difficulty of genealogical research. Often, the records that do survive preserve the perspective of their white creators rather than the people they describe, which can add to the difficulty.

The processing and scanning of the Albemarle County chancery causes was made possible by funding from the innovative Circuit Court Records Preservation Program (CCRP), a cooperative program between the Library of Virginia and the Virginia Court Clerks Association (VCCA), which seeks to preserve the historic records found in Virginia’s Circuit Courts. With the recent addition of the 1851-1871 chancery causes, the Albemarle County chancery causes that ended between 1768-1871 are now digitized and freely available for viewing and download on the Chancery Records Index (CRI).