Re: John Bunch (New Kent, VA & Sarah Slayden Marriage
-
In reply to:
John Bunch (New Kent, VA & Sarah Slayden Marriage
Kathryn DeMarco 3/16/02
I also have been trying to locate info on Bunch & Slayden.
This is an extremely interesting series of legal actions and clearly
illustrates the law in action for our ancestors very much like it
would be today.
What happened was that John Bunch, a mulatto man (half
African/Indian/or
of other dark skin race and half white) and Sarah Slayden, a white
woman, wanted to marry within the church and thus have the church
recognize their marriage. Why? we can but guess their reasons at this
distance.
The Church of England Priest refused to "publish Banns," meaning
that he and his church would not permit that marriage.His
reason was that the criminal law of the day prohibited mixed marriages
and thus prevent the birth of "mulatto" children.
Then, either the priest or the couple filed a petition with the
VA Colonial Council asking that the priest be ordered to do his duty
publish Banns; the 1705 Council continued the case so the King's
Counsel (attorney general) could render an opinion by which that
Council might be guided; the KC opined that the Council should order
the priest to do so because the children of a mulatto and a white
woman are NOT mulattos (one half African) within the meaning of that
statute, but rather will be "mustees" (one-fourth African); the
Council
then ordered a hearing and directs that the KC come argue his
position, after which a decision was to be made.We do not yet know
what happened later.
"In the Executive Journals, Council of Colonial Virginia, Vol. III.,
5-1-1705/10-23-1721, pages 28, 30 and 31.There is as follows:
August 16, 1705
The Petition of John Bunch and Sarah Slayden praying that the
minister...may be ordered to publish the Banns...(of)...their marriage,
which he hath hitherto refused on pretence of the sd Bunch's being a
Mulatto was read, and referred to Mr. Attorney General...(as to
whether or not the marriage)...is within the intent of the Law to prevent
Negros & White Persons intermarrying...."
Sept. 5, 1705
...Mr. Attorney Gen reported his opinion on the Petition of Jno Bunch
and Sarah Slayden as followeth...'Upon perusal of a petition of John
Bunch and Sarah Slayden to his Excellcy Edwd Nott Esqr &c and
upon perusal of an Act of Assembly of this Colony entituled an Act for
suppressing Outlying Slaves; I am of opinion & do conceive that ye
sd Act being Penal is Coercive or restrictive no further then the very
letter thereof...cannot resolve whether the issue begotten on a White
woman by a Mulatto man can properly be called a Mulatto, that name
as I conceive being only appropriated to the Child of a Negro man
begotten upon a White woman, or by a White man upon a Negro
woman, and as I am told the issue of a Mulatto by or upon a white
Person has another name viz that of, Mustee; wch if so, I conceive it
wholly out of the Letter (tho it may be conjectured to be within ye
intent) of the sd act....'
Upon consideration of Which Report, and that the Petitionrs Case is
a matter of Law, It is therefore ordered that the Petition of the said
Bunch and Slayden be referred till next General Court for Mr. Attorney
to argue the reasons of his opinion before his Excellcy and ye
Council. The Council adjourned till tomorrow morning 9 oclock."