Talk:Free people of color

Merge with Freedman - NO
The apparent consensus is no. --emerson7 21:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a proposal to merge this article with "Freedman". That is inappropriate, as Freedman generally refers to the 4.5 million former slaves emancipated by Pres. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil War (and then the constitutional amendments.) The chief thing about "free people of color" and Free Negroes was that their freedom preceded the Civil War, sometimes by centuries. In the Upper South, the percentage of free Negroes went from less than 1 to 10% in the early decades of the 19th c. after the American Revolution, chiefly through manumission of slaves in Maryland and Delaware, but also in Virginia.

Free people of color in Louisiana were chiefly Creoles of color, another distinct group who were free long before the Civil War and had an established class in New Orleans before the Louisiana Purchase. The number of free people of color in LA increased with refugees from the Haitian Revolution, esp. about 1809. As this article makes clear (and the sections on other societies could be expanded), free people of color were important in South America and the Caribbean, too. Both kinds of distinctions are important to understanding history in the US as well as in the Americas. --Parkwells (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, 'freedman' refers to any freed slave. From times farther than the roman times to the current dates... I find your (2nd person plural) narrow view offensive. Other than that, I don't agree with the merger either. If anything, it should be merged with Free Negro, not Freedman.--portugal (talk) 08:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * While I agree 'freedman' refers to any freed slave; this was not about my personal view. I was referring to the article on Freedman in wikipedia, which seemed mostly about the US (and was written mostly by other editors).--Parkwells (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge:Free Negro → Free people of color
Most of the content in the source article is pretty much already covered here. --emerson7 21:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The Free Negro article seems to be mostly about the United States. They could be merged but I would like to be sure that the material on the rest of the Americas doesn't get deleted in the process. Most Americans do not realize that the majority of African-Americans lived (still live) outside the United States in Central and South America and the Caribbean. Stewart king (talk) 03:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a good point above but we must also remember many Free People of Color refers to people of mixed origin. There were people who were of Native American, European, and African blood who were form the Americas and were not known as black or Negro in many places such as Virginia which the article asserts. in Virginia there were laws which Mulattoes and Colored had a separate designation than those who were black..and the Racial acts of 1823 and 1924 respectively in Virginia included those of solely Native American descent listed as colored and those whom were mixed or of East Indian and even Asian or Multi-racial origin. These people had a separate past and unique history that is quite separate than the majority of African Americans. Also in the Americas as then as today the "one drop rule" does not delegate one to the status of Negro, therefore the articles should be kept separate.Possibly linked in some fashion but completely separate, I know for a fact I am of mixed origin and I want my ancestors known for all of their genetic make up not solely one of them due to a perceived notion that only is pre-destined in the United states of America.People all over the world access Wikipedia and it is important we give readers accurate information, it should not be interfered with simply because one does not agree with another racial paradigm. J Thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.166.32 (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. One article deals directly with the US (according to the lead) and the other with the Americas as a whole (again according to the lead). "people of color" also disregards some of the historical context on the other article. This has been tagged for some time now so I will be removing the tags. Feel free to reinsert if you think discussion needs to continue.Cptnono (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Term usage
Was the term "Free person of colour" ever used? I would expect that 'person of colour' is a recently enough coined term that the adjective "free" was superfluous. This article seems to cover exactly the same subject matter as Free Negro. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The difference is Free Negro is only about the US; this article covers other societies in the Americas. "Free people of color" was a term definitely used in French-speaking societies, as the article notes. It was used in Louisiana before the purchase by the US; it was also used on some US Census forms (I think around the turn of the 18th-19th century, and maybe a little later.)  There is a Free People of Color forum for people exploring their family histories on www.afrigeneas.com.--Parkwells (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the term "free person of color" was actually used in documents, at least in North Carolina. I do research documenting free persons of color in antebellum North Carolina and work with original records and I often see the term "free person of color" after a name, sometimes "free negroe", they seem to be used interchangeably. One document on a person may say "free negroe" and another on the same person may say "free person of color". --Eabradfo (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So if "free person of color" is a historically correct term, why has someone moved the article to: Free people of color? Overt political correctness syndrom? 84.23.155.84 (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * thats because some people that are free peope o f color are very dark as well as very white so it is not unlikely someone would assume or put what they want  for a darker skin person it does not mean they are anyless a originally free person of color , please use a thinking cap . 151.197.236.78 (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not understand if you understand this new group of people are Latinos separate ancestry and lineage than a freeman black negro or recently most used African American. If you know the owner would you ask them to change were a group of people to are a group o f people. i am an original person o f color  so i  understand the free is pejorative . people people tend to be uneducated and need certain words to clarify  things  for their lack o f education thank you kind regards 151.197.236.78 (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if this is in the wrong place,(new to this) but is the line in this article "For a greater discussion of the liminal space of freedom created by these court cases refer to Edlie Wong's forthcoming Neither Fugitive nor Free: Atlantic Slavery, Freedom Suits, and the Legal Culture of Travel.[9]" not more advertisement than information? Is it actually helpful to the article? 94.2.210.218 (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * because they are all different groups . 151.197.236.78 (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Free people did not have paintings or photographs of themselves???
Free people of color in New Orleans owned mansions in the city, Plantations in the country, homes in Paris and were bankers, brokers, Doctors, Photographers, store owners, and more. People who owned $2,000,000. worth of real estate by 1830s were far from poor. In the early 18th century New Orleans has free blacks who came from France as well as indentured ones.

http://www.frenchcreoles.com/CreoleCulture/freepeopleofcolor/freepeopleofcolor.htm

http://nutrias.org/~nopl/exhibits/fmc/fmc.htm

http://library.nsula.edu/assets/Scholars-thesis/agnemet.jpg

http://library.nsula.edu/la-scholars-college-research/

http://www.everyculture.com/multi/Bu-Dr/Creoles.html

http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/6032/agnemet.jpg http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/2421/headdress.gif http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/4638/marielaveau.jpg http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/2162/tignon1.jpg

--Margrave1206 (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it would be a good idea to put one or two images such as these in the article, though I am not sure how to, so... perhaps someone else can do it (in three years ;P )75.73.114.111 (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Focus of article
In the discussion above, an editor noted that a reason for this article was to address that status of free people of color in French colonies, especially, but also in Latin America. For that reason, I'm moving several paragraphs that have mostly to do with laws and events in the British-dominated Thirteen Colonies to the article Free Negroes, as that was a different tradition. I think there is difficulty in defining this article - there are others on Slavery in the Spanish Empire, which also address their mixed-race class. Perhaps this article should be focused on the free people of color in the French colonies - laws affecting them, etc. Examples should come from this region - not other British colonies or US states. There is plenty of material there, especially if editors address Caribbean colonies as well as La Louisiane on the North American mainland. If the article is intended to describe, compare, and contrast the treatment of free people of color in the Thirteen Colonies, French colonies, and Spanish colonies, that's a different proposition. It covers a very wide canvas.Parkwells (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

This article thoroughly addresses the roles and options of free persons of color in societies that were predominantly white in the 19th century and earlier. However, there appears to be a complete lack of information about how mixed race people related to each other, specifically their internal hierarchy. There are already articles on colorism and brown paper bag test so why not mention the topic on this page? Colorism was/is still an issue in HBCU admissions in the 21st century. Martindo (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Merge with Gens de couleur libres?
As it stands, there does not seem to be sufficient reason to have this article as distinct from the one with the French title - that is where the term was derived, and the French colonies seem to be the focus and source of examples for both. In Saint-Domingue, gens de couleur libres meant something specific - free people of mixed-race, not all free people with any African ancestry. Toussaint Louverture was all African in ancestry and a freed slave, therefore affranchi.Parkwells (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that a merger has to happen, however I disagree with a lot of the content on this current article. Many editors are confusing a free negro, with a free person of color. A "person of color" does not reference someone who is black or a slave; rather one who is "mixed race." Especially in Louisiana, or in the French West Indies and Saint-Domingue (modern-day Haiti) of which the term originated from. For a merger to happen, there needs to be a limit to this falsity and to use the sourced person of color article as a starting point. It is also worth noting however that after the US Civil War and slavery ended, the rights of people of color were thrown into the same basket as blacks and former slaves; basically obtaining the same rights. Before this, people of color enjoyed a somewhat elevated status, especially in Louisiana (French-owned until 1803). However, in the French West Indies, Saint-Domingue included they enjoyed wealth (owned slaves and almost no evidence of ever being enslaved) but lacked political rights they sought from France which actually started the Haitian Revolution (See Vincent Ogé). This article should have more weight towards its usage in the French colonies. @, @. Savvyjack23 (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Free people of color are not African Americans. You do not call a Chilean a Peruvian the notion is ridiculous. If anything  original people of color are merged out of racial construct through triracial ancestry which can not be taken away from a monolithic merge. 151.197.236.78 (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Tense, "are" v. "were"
The use of "are" is incorrect. This is a historical term, no longer used, that referred to those people who were not enslaved at the time. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Elsewhere in the U.S.
A discussion of free people of color elsewhere in the USA is needed. For example, they are mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the unsuccessful slave rebellion in Virgina. Also, what about the free blacks in the North? 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:45F6:4D03:37DF:C696 (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

What is wrong about this article
What is wrong with this post is to refer to original free people of color as they were. As if we or our culture no longer exist. And all you people that are now just using and just learned the words of color just because  of George floyed political agenda. Please stop, no the free negro, African Americans, and blacks are not the same as original free people of color. We don't even think the same all above mention are the first to call original free people of color white or give us a hard time so no not the same. 72.94.16.88 (talk) 04:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)