Search

Start Over Collection Rockbridge County (Va.) James Clark vs. J. P. Moore, Clerk of Court, 1876 December
Library of Virginia

Rockbridge County (Va.) James Clark vs. J. P. Moore, Clerk of Court, 1876 December

Rockbridge County (Va.) James Clark vs. J. P. Moore, Clerk of Court, 1876 December. This judgment consists of the petition of James Clark (alternately spelled Clarke in the documents) for a writ of mandamus to force the clerk to issue him a previously denied marriage license to marry Cerinda Robison, a whtie woman, on the grounds that he is a black man. Clark claims to be of mixed blood and less than the one fourth minimum negro or Indian blood that the law required. Included is a letter from the clerk of court of Amherst County to whom Moore had written to inquire about Clark's racial background and ancestry. Clark was successful in getting the court to order the clerk issue him a marriage license.

1 result

Rockbridge County (Va.) James Clark vs. J. P. Moore, Clerk of Court, 1876 December

Rockbridge County (Va.) Circuit Court.

Rockbridge County (Va.) James Clark vs. J. P. Moore, Clerk of Court, 1876 December. This judgment consists of the petition of James Clark (alternately spelled Clarke in the documents) for a writ of mandamus to force the clerk to issue him a previously denied marriage license to marry Cerinda Robison, a whtie woman, on the grounds that he is a black man. Clark claims to be of mixed blood and less than the one fourth minimum negro or Indian blood that the law required. Included is a letter from the clerk of court of Amherst County to whom Moore had written to inquire about Clark's racial background and ancestry. Clark was successful in getting the court to order the clerk issue him a marriage license.

Content Warning

ARVAS is an aggregator of archival resources. ARVAS does not have control of the descriptive language used in our members’ finding aids.

Finding aids may contain historical terms and phrases, reflecting the shared attitudes and values of the community from which they were collected, but are offensive to modern readers. These include demeaning and dehumanizing references to race, ethnicity, and nationality; enslaved or free status; physical or mental ability; religion; sex; and sexual orientation and gender identity.

Many institutions and organizations are in the process of reviewing and revising their descriptive language, with the intent to describe materials in more humanizing, inclusive, and harm-reductive ways. As members revise their descriptive language, their changes will eventually be reflected in their ARVAS finding aids.