This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

African diaspora Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Mid-importance). Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 2 May 2026, it was proposed that this article be moved from Free Negro to Free African Americans. The result of the discussion was moved to Free Blacks.

A Free Negro was a non-citizen who lived in the United States prior to 1870. Some Free Negroes were former slaves, usually called "Freedmen." Other Free Negroes were the offspring of former slaves; who were free since birth. If a slave bore a child, the child was also a slave; if a Free Negro bore a child, the child was a Free Negro (but not a citizen of the United States). In general, Free Negroes did not pay taxes, vote, or own land. Many Free Negroes lived by toiling at work which was physically demanding, while Americans paid taxes, voted, and owned land. Typically, Free Negroes paid rent or lived in poorhouses. Superslum 20:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Gilman, D. C.; Peck, H. T.; Colby, F. M., eds. (1905). New International Encyclopedia (1st ed.). New York: Dodd, Mead. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

In the most general acceptance of these terms, the first implies one who has inherited the full privileges and immunities of citizenship; the second, one who has been delivered from the restraints of bondage, but who, usually is not placed in a position of full social or even political equality with one who was born free.

With the Romans the equivalent for freeman (liber homo) comprehended all classes of those who were not slaves; but the distinction was preserved by the application of the term ingenuus to him who was born free, and of libertinus to him who, being born in servitude, was emancipated. [1]

The idea of a freeman was by no means peculiar to the Roman or Romanized population of Europe; on the contrary, it belonged to the constitution of society in all the Indo-Germanic nations. Among those branches of them commonly known as Teutonic, it was generally based on the possession of some portion of the soil. [2]

Thus in Anglo-Saxon England "the freeman was strictly the freeholder, and the exercise of his full rights as a free member of the community to which he belonged became inseparable from the possession of his holding in it." [3] Superslum 20:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Free Negro and the Freeman in the United States lived amongst land-owners who were Americans because of their ownership of land. Land-owners exercised their full rights as free members of the community to which they belonged (as in England). Free Negroes did not own land, therefore, they were not citizens. Superslum 20:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

757,208 Negroes (mostly slaves) were counted in the first census of the United States in 1790. The number accounted for 19.3% of the total population. (An estimation made by me, is that the number of free Negroes was roughly 30,000 in 1790). The number of land-owners amongst them was approximately zero, therefore, the numbers of citizens amongst them was approximately zero. Superslum 20:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free Negroes were legally called Free Negroes. Mulattoes were a type of Free Negro that appeared on legal documents in some of the States of the United States. Slaves, also, appeared on legal documents.

Legal documents are a part of the history of the United States, therefore, they cannot be made to vanish into thin air simply by changing Free Negroes into "free blacks." Who are the odd people who insist on describing Free Negroes inaccurately, stupidly, and casually? Superslum 20:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that these two sections be merged. It appears that the Free negro article focuses mostly on blacks in America, while the Free people of color article includes information about blacks both in and outside of the US. I propose that these two articles be merged under one name (which name is open for discussion), and have separate subheadings for free blacks in America and free blacks outside of the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howel2468 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completely support the merge (into a "Free black" article). The two articles essentially cover the same topic. MB298 (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These two should absolutely be merged. The first line of this here article speaks of "free blacks"... and this is a specific technical term used by South African sources to refer to South African free blacks. How would academic references discussing "free blacks" not be included in an article that defines itself as being about "free blacks."? XavierItzm (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing a major revision to this article. I am adding subsections that were not previously there and i am adding much more detail. I have greatly expanded the section on notable free blacks because it was missing some of the most famous examples, i.e. Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth. I have taken out some information that was poorly organized and restructured the information that was there to reflect a more chronological history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howel2468 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleted Elizabeth Freeman, as she was a slave when she challenged the state.Parkwells (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sections are hard to follow, as the history appears in one place, then historical sections are added that refer to earlier periods. I found it difficult to follow. Perhaps it should all be organized chronologically - at least put discussions about culture and social issues before the Civil War before sections that deal with society in the North and South after the war.Parkwells (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout the article, especially in the Introduction and Background, there are very few sources cited. Entire paragraphs with information relevant to the topic are placed in with no sourcing. "The southern colonies imported more slaves, initially from English colonies in the West Indies." is one such example. Those that are sourced with links (not book excerpts), do have working links and are reliable sources for the most part. The one glaring exception I found to this was a citation to a web archive of "slaveryinamerica.org", which has its own bibliography and explanations, with no citations. Though the article has that issue, there doesn't seem to be any plagiarism or close paraphrasing from the sources cited. The sources cited do not seem to have any specific bias, and all information is relevant to the topic, albeit a bit disorganized.--Hahmad1996 (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made this change because using thirteen makes this a U.S. centric article and perpetuates a perception that simply did not exist in the colonial era. New Sweden had slaves as did New Amersterdam along with the other British colonies that did not join the revolution.
http://slavenorth.com/delaware.htm
http://www.womenhistoryblog.com/2008/02/slavery-in-new-amsterdam.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_hist.htm
Bemcfarland (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article about a legal term in use in British North America (it states this) or is it about United States history and free people of African or other non-white ancestry? The introductory paragraph needs revision to move in one direction or the other.Bemcfarland (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before the Civil War, free negroes in the United States South needed "free papers" to travel to the northern states according to Frederick Douglass in My Bondage and My Freedom. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/My_Bondage_and_My_Freedom_(1855)/Chapter_XXI

Removing this basic fact seems obscurantist. --14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this to talk. Since they needed free papers even for travelling within their native state, I don't see the relevance of your addition. Why you should call my action "obscurantist" remains, well, obscure to me. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This term is considered very insulting by African-Americans. I know many who find Negro a more inappropriate term than N-----. This is about a historical status that was actually called many things. We should name it with a term people do not find offensive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would "free Black" be better? I'm curious about this too, I tend to only use the other term when quoting something Kotthu (talk) 10:37, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Lewisguile why did you remove the heinegg source? it's reliable on the topic of "free negroes", especially their history. i've readded it bc i think you might have mixed it up with the price citation

by the way i'd also like your input on the above topic started by john pack lambert, i.e. if this article should even be named that Kotthu (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the name, it could just as easily be "Free Blacks" and be acceptable. Then you can list "Free Negro" as an historic variant of the term. That seems accurate and less likely to cause offence.

As for the Heinegg source, it appears to be a poor quality work. What evidence is there of its notability? Lewisguile (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Checking Genealogical.com, it seems it could, in theory, be a useful publisher. I would want to see evidence of the book itself being widely cited to confirm that. It looks to me like it does popular self-help on genealogy, rather than scholarly works? Lewisguile (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

it's one of the main citations in hashaw (which you'd left up) on the history of free African Americans

i can show you if you'd like, but quite a few modern books about the topic of free African Americans cite heinegg, the US government cites him as well

let me know if you want more information about citation on the source, i'm currently looking at the other two articles we were discussing

why would it be poor quality? there isn't really a more comprehensive genealogical source on this topic Kotthu (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, scholarly sources are better than mainstream nonfiction published by non-academic publishers. I saw the price and the website of the publisher, and it looked more like a commercial title than a scholarly one—i.e., aimed at the amateur genealogist looking to do WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. But if others cite him, then I think it's okay to use him, too. At least for now. I couldn't find anything about Genealogical.com on the list of WP:PERENNIAL sources, and I couldn't find a Wikipedia article on the publisher (which would at least let us know they're notable). It may be that when we dig into the publisher more, we will know for sure one way or the other. We may still need to replace it with something better later on. Lewisguile (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was personally confused as to why he used that publisher. However he's pretty widely cited by academics/authors/the US government so i don't see an issue with him as a source

there isn't really a better source than him on the genealogy of free african americans in the regions he covers, it's part of why he's so widely cited Kotthu (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How would I go about requesting this change? It's very awkward linking to this page sometimes, and I notice modern sources will often say something different like "Free African Americans" or "Free Black people" rather than "Free Negro" Kotthu (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]