“It was a hot summer day on August 5, 1865, when George Kiner and Diana Bumgardner arrived at the courthouse in Augusta County, Virginia, to apply for a marriage license. They brought with them an order from Capt. John Collins, Provost Marshall, directing the court to issue the license as ‘they being in all respects entitled to such license.’ While there were other couples that day applying for marriage licenses, George and Diana were the only couple with such an order. This was indeed a historical event as they were the first African American couple to be issued a marriage license in Augusta County.”

-African American Marriage Index 1865-1899, Augusta County, Virginia

At first glance the story of George Kiner and Diana Bumgardner is one of love triumphing over the tragedies of slavery and war. But documents found in the Augusta County Chancery Causes reveal not a lovely wedding born of true love, but a shotgun affair with a groom forced to the altar at gunpoint. In his bill for divorce filed in the Augusta County courts in February 1866, George Coiner (the predominant spelling in court documents was Coiner, but Kiner and Koiner were also used) painted a less than idealistic picture of his wedding day. George Coiner, a former slave, was working in a field when two armed soldiers, one white and the other black, came to arrest him and forcibly carry him off to Staunton. Without giving him time to protest or argue, George Coiner was arraigned before General Isaac Duval’s forces on the complaint of Dinah Bumgardner, a former slave of Frank Strouse.

In her own bill for divorce filed in 1868, Dinah, or Diana Kiner as she is named in her divorce suit, claimed that George seduced her with the promise of marriage and had “carnal intercourse” with her that resulted in a pregnancy. When he was deposed, Dinah’s former owner backed up her allegations stating that George admitted to sleeping with Dinah in March of that year, but George argued that he only knew of Dinah because of frequent visits to see his nephew, another member of the Strouse household. George repeatedly affirmed that “he never had carnal knowledge of her person… nor did he ever use any language toward her tending to express any passion or partiality for her.”

Coiner was not afforded an investigation or an opportunity to disprove Dinah’s claims but “was condemned unheard and informed that unless he married her forthwith, he would be sent off to Richmond the next morning.” Not wanting to risk being arrested and carried off by strangers, George “was obliged to yield to the superior power of those who had possession of him, and a license was obtained, and he was compelled, at the point of the bayonet, to submit to the marriage, though it was in opposition to all his wishes.” One of the officers told George “not to be uneasy, for as soon as the ceremony was over, he could leave her.” Which was exactly what George did, claiming that Dinah was a “woman of loose morals” and “little better than a common strumpet.”

In 1868 the marriage was dissolved and both parties were granted full liberty to marry again, so ended the first African American marriage on record after the Civil War in Augusta County. The chancery causes George Coiner vs. Dinah Coiner (1868-010) and Diana Kiner vs. George Kiner (1868-015) are open for research and available digitally as part of the Augusta County Chancery Causes, 1747-1912, a scanning project funded by the Circuit Court Records Preservation Program and a $150,000 grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC).

-Bari Helms, Local Records Archivist

On the night of 4 August 1882, James M. Duesbury heard pistol shots coming from the nearby home of Christopher Goode and ran to see what the matter was. Goode, a resident of Richmond, Virginia, lived at 709 West Marshall behind what is now the Siegel Center near Virginia Commonwealth University. When Duesbury arrived at the home, Goode stated “I have shot a man; here he is lying down on the floor.” When Duesbury asked why he shot him, he answered, “I caught him on top of my wife.” Policeman Lewis Frayser arrived at the scene and found Winston Robinson “lying on the floor with his pants and drawers down to his knees”  and met Mahala Goode, the wife, in a dress that was “very much disarranged” and “bleeding very freely” from the gunshot wounds she accidentally received during the altercation.

In his testimony to police, Christopher Goode stated, “My God Master, I couldn’t help it to save my life, I shot him and couldn’t help it.”  Mr. Goode further elaborated, explaining that he had been “under the porch and heard them hugging and kissing” and heard his wife invite Robinson upstairs, but Robinson declined saying he “didn’t care about going upstairs” because “if the old man came there would be a fight and one or the other would be killed.”  When Goode heard them get up and go into the parlor, “he took his shoes off and raised the basement window and crept very lightly up the steps and found the lamp turned down very low.”  He turned the light on and discovered his wife and Robinson on the floor and that is when he began firing. Robinson and Mahala both jumped up and advanced towards Goode, who continued to fire. Robinson seized Goode around the neck. Goode fired again, this time hitting his target.

Richmond’s The Daily Dispatch reported the story on 6 August 1882, referring to it as “The Colored Shooting Affair” and describing Christopher Goode as a “quiet, inoffensive man.” We never learn the rest of the story from either newspaper accounts or the 5 August 1882 Richmond (City) Coroner’s Inquisition.  All we know is that the inquisition concluded that Winston Robinson came to his death from the “effect of a pistol shot wound inflicted by Christopher Goode because of criminal relations between him and the said Goode’s wife and they [the jurors] are of the opinion that the killing was eminently proper.”

-Mary Dean Carter, Local Records Archival Assistant

The Library of Virginia is pleased to announce the addition of Surry County to the cohabitation register digitization project.  This project, via the Virginia Memory website, aims to index, digitize, transcribe, and provide access to all known Virginia cohabitation registers and the related registers of children whose parents had ceased to cohabit.

The Surry County register contains some of the most delightful names that one may have had the opportunity to run across in a historical document.  Could one of these fine folks be an ancestor of yours? 

• Champion Blizzard
• Mike Blow and his wife Anarchy
• Champion Bird
• Squire Charity
• Nancy Drew
• Cherry Birdsong
• Jim Beets
• Queen Anne Gray
• Sharper Falcon
• Sam Wisdom
• Harry Honeycatt
• Sucky Blue
• Nancy Pooten
• Jupiter Cheeseman
• Indiana Charity
• Robin Wren and his wife Amy Falcon
• Cheeseman Smith
• Moses Twine
• Dolphin Morris
• Harry Falcon and his wife Susan Hasty

Cohabitation registers are among the most important genealogical resources for African-Americans attempting to connect their family lines back through the oftentimes murky past to their enslaved ancestors. The registers date from 1866 and provide a snapshot in time for the individuals recorded therein and a wealth of information that may otherwise be impossible, or at least very difficult, to uncover. Cohabitation registers were the legal vehicles by which former slaves legitimized both their marriages and their children. The information about an individual person contained in a cohabitation register is literally priceless as it is often the first time that a former slave appeared officially in the public record and because of the extensive kinds of information that the register recorded.

Prior to the close of the Civil War, Virginia law provided no legal recognition for slave marriages. On 27 February 1866, the General Assembly enacted a law that entitled formerly enslaved people who had married during slavery to all of the rights and privileges as if they had been duly married by law and declared all of their children legitimate, whether born before or after the passage of this act. The surviving Virginia cohabitation registers recorded the name of the husband, his age, place of birth, residence, occupation, last owner, last owner’s city or county of residence, the name of the wife, her age, place of birth, residence, last owner, last owner’s city or county of residence, name of children with the ages of each, and the date of commencement of cohabitation.

For more information on the cohabitation registers, see an earlier blog post “Solid Genealogical Gold,” about the Register of Colored Persons of Smyth County, Virginia, cohabiting together as Husband and Wife on 27^th February 1866.

The Surry County register, transcription, and searchable index are available online along with the other registers from Virginia localities in the Cohabitation Register Digital Collection in Virginia Memory. To find it use either the link provided or go to Virginia Memory, choose Digital Collections, then Collections A to Z, and finally Cohabitation Registers.

-Sarah Nerney, Senior Local Records Archivist

Three Highland County Commonwealth Causes (Barcode 0007281802) reveal a tangled web of conspiracy, murder, and secret affairs. The cast of players includes Elizabeth Sheridan, wife of the deceased; Mary Ann Wily, Elizabeth’s daughter from a previous marriage; Sam, a slave; and Ellen, a slave and Sam’s wife. Commonwealth vs. Sam (slave), 1856 August; Commonwealth vs. Ellen (slave), 1856 August; and Commonwealth vs. Elizabeth Sheridan and Mary Ann Wily, 1856 November concern the murder of Mr. Francis W. Sheridan by Sam, a slave hired by Sheridan from William Wilson. Sam’s wife, Ellen, was also charged with being “concerned in the murder,” while Elizabeth Sheridan and her daughter Mary Ann Wily were charged as accessories.  The cases contain assorted court documents including depositions and statements from various neighbors and acquaintances of the accused and the murder victim. 

A document entitled “Evidence in Support of Prosecution” offers a wealth of information.  Notes from the coroner’s inquest give revealing physical facts about Francis Sheridan.  He was described as a small man about the age of 21 or 22 years whose body displayed visible signs of trauma due to strangulation.  The report reveals that the body was found lying face down in a drain twenty or thirty feet away from the public road and gives a detailed forensic account of Sheridan’s bedroom, where the murder actually took place.

Francis Sheridan was noted around town for getting drunk and becoming quite belligerent, making verbal threats to kill his wife and step-daughter with a “pistol and a gun.” He often lamented the fact that he had gotten married and said his married life had been the worst six months of his life. Statements also suggest that Sheridan was not the most honest businessman in town. Several people felt they were treated unfairly by him and had ample motive to see Sheridan leave the earth quickly and violently. There are also accounts of Mary Ann telling people in town she wished someone would kill Sheridan, stating that “she would pay to have him killed or if she was a man she would kill him herself.”  

A multitude of scenarios and implications concerning the murder abound within the records.  The predominant theory was that Elizabeth Sheridan and her daughter, along with Sam’s wife, Ellen, plotted to kill Sheridan and convinced Sam to carry out the deed. There is testimony that the three ladies were witnessed having a loud, quarrelsome conversation with Sam prior to Sheridan’s death and that at one point Ellen beat Sam with her fist and Mary Ann “cracked her fist together” toward Sam. Sam was supposedly madly in love with Elizabeth and desirous that no harm would come to her or her children, especially Mary Ann. Sam is quoted as saying that he loved Mrs. Sheridan “more than any woman on the face of the earth – that he would do more for her, risk his life further, than for anyone else – that he had been sleeping with her for more than twelve months whenever he pleased, that she was to continue to hire his wife [Ellen] as long as she was for hire and he was to continue to sleep with her [Mrs. Sheridan] whenever he pleased.”

While the true nature of the personal relationship between Elizabeth Sheridan and Sam remains unclear, Sam acknowledged that he was in a “bad fix.”  He confessed his guilt to the justice of the peace, claiming that he had been promised a hundred dollars from both Mrs. Sheridan and Mary Ann if he committed the murder. Sam claimed that Francis Sheridan was drunk on the day of his death and that he, Sam, was “drinking himself or he could not have done the deed.” Sam claimed to love the man as well as if he had been his own brother and “if he had opened his eyes he could not have killed him.”

Other theories tried to pass off the murder as a suicide. Sheridan was noted as being “smartly intoxicated” on the day of his death and Elizabeth and Mary Ann started telling people that Francis may have wanted to commit suicide because he appeared to be in a bad state. Mrs. Sheridan stated that when he came home that morning “if she had been standing up she would have sunk down, his looks was so dark and terrible.”

Ultimately, Sam was found guilty of the murder and sentenced to be “hanged by the neck until he be dead” and he was, on Friday, 26 September 1856. But despite Sam’s execution, the county did not stop investigating the murder of Francis Sheridan.  The investigation continued through November 1856 with the prosecution of Elizabeth Sheridan and Mary Ann Wily as accessories to murder. The lone document in the case states it is seeking costs incurred by the prosecution in the pursuit of the charges and lists witnesses and monies paid to them by the county. As there are no other documents concerning this particular court action, we will never know if Sam acted alone or if he was just a tool wielded by Mrs. Sheridan in an attempt to rid herself of an unwanted husband. 

-Joanne Porter, Local Records Archivist and Bari Helms, Local Records Archivist

Mildred Delores (Jeter) Loving, an African American woman, and Richard Perry Loving, a white man, were residents of Caroline County who married in June 1958. The wedding took place in the District of Columbia because Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act banned marriages between any white person and any non-white person. Upon their return to Caroline County, they were charged with violation of the ban. On 6 January 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty and were sentenced to one year in prison, with the sentence suspended for 25 years on condition that the couple leave the state of Virginia. The trial judge in the case was Leon M. Bazile who wrote the famous opinion of the court for the Lovings’ appeal of their original sentence – since God had created people of different colors and placed them on different continents He therefore never intended for the races to intermarry.

The Lovings moved to the District of Columbia even though they found it a great hardship for both them and their children to be separated from their families in Virginia.  Terms of their sentence directed that even when visiting family they were not allowed to come into the state together but had to make individual trips.  On 6 November 1963, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a motion on the Lovings’ behalf in the state trial court to vacate the judgment and set aside the sentence on the grounds that the violated statutes ran counter to the Fourteenth Amendment. Various other suits in state and federal courts followed.  On 12 June 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision, dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia’s argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute violated both the due process clause and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  In September 1967, the Virginia Supreme Court sent an order to the Caroline County circuit court ordering that the Lovings’ original conviction be overturned and prosecuted no further.

Caroline County (Va.) Commonwealth versus Richard Perry Loving and Mildred Delores Jeter, 1958-1966, contains documentation of the criminal case including arrest warrants, indictment for a felony, the opinion of judge Leon M. Bazile, and copies of birth certificates for both Loving and Jeter. The original case is housed at the Central Rappahannock Heritage Center, but the Library of Virginia holds microfilm copies.

On Tuesday, 14 February 2012, at 9:00 PM, HBO will present a new documentary titled The Loving Story about the couple and their landmark legal battle.  The documentary will show contemporary video footage and photographs that have been unseen until now.

On the same evening at 7:30, the University of Mary Washington in Fredericksburg, Va., will host a panel discussion and a showing of the documentary as part of the Chappell Great Lives Lecture Series.  The panelists will be Bernard Cohen, one of the two lawyers who argued the case before the Supreme Court, and Peggy Fortune, the Lovings’ daughter. 

-Sarah Nerney, Senior Local Records Archivist