Partus Sequitur: A Deeper Exploration
The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery and Legalized Rape
The legal doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem was derived from Roman civil law, specifically the portions concerning slavery and personal property (chattels), as well as the common law of personal property; analogous legislation existed in other civilizations including Medieval Egypt in Africa and Korea in Asia. The doctrine was not originally strictly racist. That came later, and originated on U.S. soil.
Partus sequitur ventrem differed from the Roman doctrine of paterfamilias, where the father held authority over the family. While the Roman system reinforced patriarchal power, the colonial American doctrine established that children born to enslaved mothers would inherit their enslaved status, thereby institutionalizing racial hierarchy. This legal shift marked a profound departure from Roman law and laid the groundwork for the racialized system of chattel slavery that would define America.
Partus sequitur ventrem was not an isolated legal doctrine but part of the broader system of racial subjugation that began with European religious doctrine and evolved throughout history, It was brought to these shores by colonizers. The law's racist legacy outlived slavery through the era of Jim Crow segregation, where laws mandated the separation of races in schools, public spaces, and employment. Blacks could not sit in cafes and were denied the use of libraries. The logic that justified slavery was repurposed to maintain racial divisions well into the 20th century.
In Roman law, the paterfamilias was the male head of the household, with authority over family and property. In contrast, Partus sequitur ventrem in colonial America transferred status not from the father, but through the mother. Because it applied to Black mothers, it embeddinged a racial caste system that ensured children born to enslaved women would remain enslaved.
Partus sequitur ventrem is Latin for “that which is born follows the womb.” It was a legal doctrine passed in colonial Virginia in 1662 and other English crown colonies in the “New World.” It defined the status of children following their birth, mandating that the status of the child would follow the status of the mother, regardless of the status of the father. Gregory M. Lamb, writing in the 2 August 2016 Christian Science Monitor, his article titled “The Peculiar Color of Racial Justice,” wrote that the doctrine “did more than just cement race-based slavery; it also laid the groundwork for systemic racism in America that would persist for centuries.”
In the 17th century, this seemingly small change had monumental political, legal, and social effects, most of which we no longer suffer with, but racism is alive and well as evidenced by a multitude of of small obstacles that Blacks face on a daily basis. As Lamb writes, “ […] codifying race-based slavery and encouraging the racial divisions […] would deeply infiltrate American society.
According to historian and writer Taunya Banks, The doctrine's “most significant effect was placing into chattel slavery all children born to enslaved women. It would spread from the colony of Virginia to all of the Thirteen Colonies. As a function of the political economy of chattel slavery in Colonial America, the legalism of partus sequitur ventrem exempted the biological father from relationship toward children he fathered with enslaved women and gave all rights in the children to the slave-owner. The denial of paternity to give children secured the slaveholder's right to profit from exploiting the labor of children engendered, bred, and born into slavery.”
Paul Heinegg, writing in Free African Americans in Virginia, North and South Carolina, Delaware and Maryland, “The doctrine also meant that multiracial children with white mothers were born free. Early generations of Free Negros in the American South were formed from unions between free working-class, usually mixed race women, and black men.”
Fact is… the residuals of the doctrine are alive and well in part of the Americas even as I write this. That part is my own nation―The United States. Sure it’s blunted, but ask Blacks living in Alabama or Mississippi about it and see if they don’t agree.
As legal scholar Michelle Alexander notes, this doctrine "laid the foundation for a racial caste system" that still reverberates today. So, let’s take a look at it.
The racialized system that the doctrine helped establish found both explicit and implicit support among the founding fathers. Although many were philosophically opposed to slavery, they were also deeply entangled in its economic and political benefits. Thomas Jefferson, for example, owned slaves throughout his life despite writing about the equality of all men in the Declaration of Independence. In Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson described black people as "inherently inferior" to whites in both body and mind. His views, steeped in the pseudoscience of racial inferiority, provided intellectual justification for the continued enslavement and subjugation of African Americans.
George Washington, while privately expressing some discontent with slavery, also owned enslaved people and took deliberate steps to ensure their continued subjugation, particularly through his estate. In many ways, the founding fathers’ inability or unwillingness to confront the full implications of slavery allowed racial hierarchies to become entrenched in the country’s political framework.
The U.S. Constitution itself, in the Three-Fifths Compromise, legally defined enslaved individuals as less than full human beings for purposes of representation and taxation. This compromise was a direct result of Southern states’ desire to maintain their political power based on the number of enslaved people they controlled, while avoiding full acknowledgment of those individuals’ humanity.
There were certain key events that Fostered Racism in Early America, both before and after the ratification of our Constitution.
Bacon’s Rebellion of 1676 showcased the potential for unity between poor white and black laborers, which alarmed colonial leaders. In response, the ruling class implemented race-based laws to divide laborers along racial lines, cementing a system where poor whites were given privileges denied to blacks. This strategy reinforced the racial hierarchy established by Partus sequitur ventrem, ensuring that race—rather than class—became the primary axis of social control. The doctrine's legal foundation of inheriting enslaved status through the mother further entrenched these divisions, providing a model for controlling future generations of laborers and maintaining economic dominance. Historian Edmund S. Morgan wrote that "the solution to the problem of control over poor laborers was to create a racial divide."
There was the Stone Rebellion of 1739―one of the largest slave uprisings in the colonies. In its aftermath, colonial governments passed even more stringent slave codes designed to control enslaved populations. These laws codified racial differences further and placed greater restrictions on enslaved people’s movements, their ability to congregate, and even their access to literacy. It was clear that as enslaved people fought for their freedom, the colonial powers sought to tighten racial control.
Then came Scott v. Sandford―Dred Scott―the worst decision rendered by any Supreme Court (Until this current Court started pulling their tendentious shenanigans. But that’s another story.) The case came over 100 years after the Stone rebellion and nearly 200 years after partus sequitur ventrem created the racial caste system. It was still in full effect under law at the time of the Taney decision, which ruled that African Americans—whether enslaved or free—could not be citizens of the United States. The decision was based only on the color of the skin and the origin of the person, yet had no other rationale.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Taney declared that Black people "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect," making it clear that the legal system continued to uphold the racial hierarchy established centuries earlier. Historian Eric Foner has emphasized how the Dred Scott decision "exemplified the entrenchment of a racialized society where legal protections were explicitly denied to Black people."
As Michelle Alexander argues in The New Jim Crow, "the basic structure of our society" has not changed significantly since slavery and Jim Crow, with mass incarceration serving as a new form of racial control. "What has changed since the days of slavery and Jim Crow," Alexander writes, "is not so much the basic structure of our society, but the language we use to justify it" This legal lineage can be traced back to Partus sequitur ventrem, which laid the foundation for racialized systems of oppression.
Historians such as Ira Berlin and Nell Irvin Painter have extensively written about how laws like partus sequitur ventrem set in motion the construction of race in America. Berlin explains that the legal frameworks of the 17th century created "a society where slavery was synonymous with blackness and freedom with whiteness.” This association has persisted in American culture, making the struggle for racial equality an ongoing challenge.
Nell Irvin Painter emphasizes the "construction of whiteness" as a social category that emerged alongside the dehumanization of Black people. In The History of White People, Painter notes that race was not a biological reality but a social and political one, constructed through laws like partus sequitur ventrem that intentionally divided humanity along arbitrary lines.
The partus sequitur ventrem doctrine was a cornerstone in the legal invention of race in America. It transformed the lives of enslaved women and their children into tools of economic growth for their owners while embedding racial divisions into the country’s political and social systems. The racial hierarchy it helped to create would not end with the abolition of slavery; rather, it evolved and adapted through laws and policies that continued to marginalize African Americans.
From the founding fathers to modern judicial rulings, America’s legal framework has long reflected the racial divisions that partus sequitur ventrem institutionalized. As civil rights leader Malcolm X stated, "You cannot have capitalism without racism," highlighting the deep connection between economic systems and racial subjugation.”
The legacy of Partus sequitur ventrem is not confined to the past. From slavery to Jim Crow, to modern mass incarceration, this doctrine laid the foundation for the racial caste system that persists today. Understanding the origins of these systems allows us to more effectively dismantle them and work toward a more just and equitable society. The first step is recognizing the ongoing influence of these structures, and only through this awareness can we pursue true racial justice in America.