Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 5Colonialism, slavery, and tradeRace, History, and American SocietyAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 66 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 216 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Legislation and its effects on race relations in southeastern Indiana, 1785-1860.

Open access
Varble, D.·2015
DOI 10.18297/etd/1485
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Residents of Indiana debated the status of Blacks from the time the area was part of the Northwest Territory until the Civil War. An anti-slavery faction gained control of the Indiana territorial legislature and assured Black’s rights through early statehood; however, from the mid-1820s until 1851 anti-black leaders passed repressive legislation. Officials in the southeastern Indiana counties and cities ignored the repressive laws unless events forced them to act. In 1820 one in four Blacks in Indiana lived in the southeastern counties of Jefferson, Clark, and Floyd. By 1850, those county’s seats - Madison, Jeffersonville, and New Albany, respectively - were the largest urban areas in Indiana. Businesses of those counties and cities relied on trade with the slave state of Kentucky, but also relied on the industry of their Black residents. For these two reasons, those counties and cities developed distinctively from the rest of the state.

Overview

CoChat Summary

TL;DR

This thesis argues that Indiana’s early anti-slavery protections gave way to repressive anti-Black legislation from the mid-1820s to 1851, while officials in Floyd, Clark, and Jefferson counties often ignored those laws unless events forced action. It contends that those southeastern counties developed distinctively because of proximity to slave-state Kentucky and reliance on Black labor, and that the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act and 1851 state constitution failed to resolve racial tensions.

Key findings

  • In 1820 one in four Blacks in Indiana lived in Jefferson, Clark, and Floyd counties; by 1850 Madison was the largest city in the state with over 9,000 residents, New Albany was second with over 8,000, Jeffersonville had over 2,500, and the combined New Albany-Jeffersonville area was Indiana’s largest urban area. Nearly one in four Blacks in the state still lived in those three counties.
  • After 1824 Indiana shifted toward concessions to slaveholders: an 1831 law required new Black arrivals to post a $500 bond, an 1840 law prohibited marriages between whites and persons with one-eighth or more Black blood and imposed fines up to $5,000 and prison terms of 10 to 20 years, and the 1851 constitution’s Article XIII banned Black immigration, passing 113,828 to 21,873 while the constitution itself passed 113,230 to 27,638.
  • Courts and communities both constrained and occasionally protected Black residents: *State v. Lasselle* (1820) ended legal slavery in Indiana, *In re Clark* (1821) allowed adult indentured servants to seek release, and after *Prigg v. Pennsylvania* the Indiana Supreme Court overturned Luther Donnell’s conviction and reversed an Elkhart County verdict. In New Albany’s 1850 fugitive case, citizens raised $600 to purchase the freedom of a family who appeared white; in the Mitchum case, an elderly Black man who had lived near Vernon for 19 years was returned to a claimant based on dubious identification.
  • Despite exclusion laws, Indiana’s Black population grew by 4,536 in the 1830s and 4,094 in the 1840s; in 1850 Clark, Floyd, and Jefferson counties held 1,724 Blacks, 15.3% of the state total, and during the 1850s the state’s Black population increased by one percent to 11,428, with Floyd County rising by 183 to 757 in 1860 while Clark and Jefferson declined.

Methods

  • Historical and legal thesis covering 1785–1860, organized into chapters on the territorial period, the post-1824 legislative shift, 1850s national legislation, and historiography.
  • Focuses on Floyd, Clark, and Jefferson counties in southeastern Indiana, comparing when possible to Ohio and Illinois, and uses census data, statutes, court cases, legislative journals, the *Congressional Globe*, newspapers, and secondary histories.
  • Main analysis is a narrative synthesis of legislation, court decisions, and local incidents to argue that southeastern Indiana’s proximity to Louisville and reliance on Black labor produced distinctive race relations.

Limitations

  • The paper states that no records exist of the numbers of Blacks kidnappers carried into slavery, and that it is difficult to say with certainty whether the Fugitive Slave Act affected Indiana’s 1851 elections.
  • The paper states that more scholarship is needed and that few historians analyzed the motives behind the laws, calling for a more complete evaluation of lawmakers’ motives.
  • Evident from the text: the thesis relies heavily on secondary sources, especially Emma Lou Thornbrough, and its three-county focus limits broader claims about the rest of Indiana.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18297/etd/1485

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

383 Own result · 215 Sources not found · 83 Own interpretation · 44 No basis given · 41 Not checked yet

284 more claims

Create a free account to see all 766 claims and every source verdict.

See all claims — free account
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 318
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 260
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 6

Create a free account to see these claims.

Create a free account to see these assumptions.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Likewise, in 1848 Illinois produced a new 29 Journal of the Convention of the People of the State of Indiana to Amend the Constitution, 652, 751-762, 767-773, 776-777.
  2. Esarey, Logan, ed. Messages and Papers of Jonathan Jennings, Ratliff Boon, and William Hendricks. Vol. 3, 1816-1825. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Commission, 1924.
  3. Robertson, Nellie Armstrong, and Dorothy Riker, ed. The John Tipton Papers. Vol. 1, 1809-1827, comp. Glen Blackburn. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Bureau, 1942. Secondary Sources American Anti-Slavery Society. The Fugitive Slave Law and its Victims: Antislavery Tracts No. 18. New York: American Anti-Slavery Society, 1856.

Cited by

See all 5

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Varble, D.
Affiliations
University of Louisville (US)
Corresponding author
Varble, D.
Publisher
University of Louisville
Published
2014-01-01
DOI
10.18297/etd/1485
OpenAlex
W2256429018
Semantic Scholar
23e0b32b570afeab83b73d4264987fbfb21ea150
Cited by
5
References
65
Citations by year
2021: 1 · 2020: 4
Type
dissertation
Language
en
Open access
Locations
ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository (University of Louisville) (submittedVersion)
Funders
University of Louisville
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Colonialism, slavery, and trade
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Race, History, and American Society
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › American Constitutional Law and Politics
Keywords
race relations, anti-slavery legislation, Black rights, slavery, southeastern Indiana, Madison, Indiana, New Albany, Indiana, Black economic history

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-20, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-20 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.