[log in to unmask] wrote:

>
> This past week I met a man, about 40, and his mother, trying to find
> newspaper articles about their ancestors.  I mentioned that I had
> previously researched part of their family and that one line came
> from Kentucky and although described as mulatto, they were actually
> Indian from the early 1800 records.  Because the census taker
> listed a mixed breed Indian as mulatto (this happens in many
> census records) people copying this information concluded this
> meant they were black and so recorded them as such.

I've often wondered how a white man could marry a black woman in the wilds of
Clinton County in the 1790's.  Thanks for the comment.

Tom