Definition
A historical legal classification applied in American law, primarily from the antebellum period through the civil rights era, to persons of African descent or African ancestry. The term was used in statutes, constitutional provisions, court decisions, and administrative records to identify individuals subject to legal disabilities, restrictions, or — in some contexts — specific protections based on race.
The term carried operative legal weight in a wide range of contexts: eligibility to testify, rights to contract, access to public accommodations, school assignment, voting qualifications, and inheritance. Its precise scope — how much African ancestry was required to qualify as a "colored person" under law — was itself a contested legal question, and different jurisdictions answered it differently.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): An archaic or dated expression for a person of African or other non-white descent. In modern usage, the term is considered offensive and has been replaced by contemporary terminology.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Applied broadly to persons not of the white race, particularly those of African origin. In the post-Civil War American context, the word "colored" appeared in the names of formal institutions (e.g., "Colored Troops," organizations bearing the name in their charter) without carrying the same pejorative register it later acquired.
The gap between common and legal meaning is historically significant in the opposite direction from most dictionary entries: the legal meaning was not narrower than ordinary usage — it was a formalization of a social category into an operative legal instrument. The legal definition determined rights, not merely description. Researchers must understand that what appeared in statutes and court records as a neutral classificatory term was, in legal operation, a mechanism for the imposition or denial of legal status.
---
Common Confusion
COLORED PERSON vs. NEGRO vs. MULATTO vs. FREEDMAN: These terms were not always interchangeable in historical legal sources. Many jurisdictions maintained distinct statutory definitions for "mulatto," "quadroon," "octoroon," and "negro," each triggering different legal consequences. A statute referring to "colored persons" might or might not encompass persons of mixed ancestry who were not classified as "negro" under the same jurisdiction's separate definition. Researchers must not assume these terms map onto one another across different statutes, periods, or states.
COLORED PERSON vs. PERSON OF COLOR: These phrases were sometimes used interchangeably in historical sources but could carry different implications depending on the jurisdiction and period. In some antebellum Southern codes, "free persons of color" was a distinct legal category with its own body of rights and restrictions — different from enslaved persons and different from free white persons. The phrase was not simply a synonym for "colored person" in every context.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term is among the most historically loaded classificatory terms in American legal sources, and researchers face several specific navigational challenges.
First, the term's legal definition was unstable over time and across jurisdictions. Black's Law Dictionary defines it simply as a person of African descent or negro blood, but that brevity masks a landscape of fractional blood-quantum rules, presumption rules, and evidentiary disputes that varied enormously by state and by era. Researchers working in antebellum sources, Reconstruction-era statutes, or Jim Crow materials must examine the specific jurisdictional definition operative at the time.
Second, the term appears across vastly different legal domains. In property law it affects inheritance, deed restrictions, and covenants. In civil procedure it affects testimonial competence. In constitutional law it is the category around which the Reconstruction Amendments were framed. In administrative records it determines classification in census data, military records, and vital statistics. Researchers following a single individual or transaction across document types will encounter the term in all of these registers.
Third, the term's disappearance from formal legal usage is itself legally meaningful. Federal and state legislation progressively removed racial classifications from operative statutes, and the term ceased to appear in newly enacted law during the mid-twentieth century. But it persisted in older instruments — deed restrictions, trust instruments, corporate charters — and litigation over the enforceability of those older instruments continued into the modern era. Researchers working on title history or trust administration must be alert to the term's presence in instruments that may remain technically in force.
Fourth, indexing in historical legal databases is inconsistent. Some sources use "colored person," others "negro," others "person of color," and still others use race-neutral language that nonetheless encodes the same classification through references to prior statutes. Boolean searches on a single term will miss significant material.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary defines the term as "a person of African descent or negro blood." The entry as it appears in the source material contains a typographic intrusion ("Af- ant; a count or earl") reflecting a printing artifact from adjacent columns — a reminder that historical dictionary digitization introduces error that researchers must identify and filter.
The Black's definition is notable for its brevity and its failure to capture the definitional complexity the term actually carried in American law. It does not address blood-quantum rules, the distinction between "colored" and "mulatto," the specific contexts in which the term was operative, or the variation across jurisdictions. For a term that functioned as the hinge of an entire legal regime, the dictionary entry is strikingly thin.
No other historical dictionary entries are available in the source material for independent synthesis. Researchers should supplement Black's with period-specific legal encyclopedias, state statutory compilations, and treatises on the law of slavery and racial status for the jurisdiction and era at issue.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The legal definition and consequences of the classification varied substantially by state. Southern states typically maintained elaborate statutory schemes defining racial status by fractional ancestry, while Northern states were less consistent in their formal definitions even when maintaining de facto racial distinctions in law. Reconstruction-era federal law, the Civil Rights Acts, and ultimately the constitutional amendments operated at the federal level but interacted with state definitions. Researchers must treat state law as primary when working with pre-twentieth-century materials.
---