Race Distinctions in American LawStephenson, Gilbert Thomas
History
Race Distinctions in American Law
Stephenson, Gilbert Thomas
African Americans -- Politics and government; Law -- United States -- History; United States -- Race relations
In the interpretation of these statutes against intermarriage, it is
necessary, at the outset, to determine just who are included. If the
statutes had simply enacted that there should be no intermarriage
between Caucasians, on the one side, and Negroes, Indians, or
Mongolians, on the other, they would have left the great body of
mixed-blooded people to miscegenate as they pleased. Most of the States
avoided this difficulty by stating clearly to whom the laws apply.
Virginia and Louisiana are the only States simply to enact in general
terms that there shall be no intermarriage between white persons and
persons of color; and even in Virginia judicial decisions clearly define
the term “person of color,” so there is no difficulty in knowing who is
meant by the statute. Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, and Kentucky
prohibit intermarriage between white persons and Negroes or mulattoes.
Georgia, Texas, and Oklahoma place within the prohibition of their
statutes persons of African descent; West Virginia, Negroes; and
Florida, Negroes, expressly including every person with one-eighth or
more of Negro blood. Alabama makes its law apply to Negroes and their
descendants to the fifth generation, though one ancestor of each
generation was white. The Indiana and Missouri statutes extend to all
persons having one-eighth or more Negro blood; Maryland to Negroes or
persons of Negro descent to the third generation inclusive. Tennessee
includes within the prohibition Negroes, mulattoes, or persons of mixed
blood descended from a Negro to the third generation inclusive. The
Nebraska law applies to persons of one-fourth or more Negro blood.
The States which have a large Indian or Mongolian population include
these races within the prohibition. Thus, Arizona prohibits whites to
intermarry with Negroes, Mongolians, or Indians and their descendants;
California, with Negroes, Mongolians, or Indians and their descendants;
California, with Negroes, Mongolians, or mulattoes. It is interesting to
note that the word “Mongolian” was not added to the California
statute[190] till 1905. This addition, coming, as it does, so nearly
contemporaneous with the school trouble in San Francisco, is evidence
that California is facing a race problem which it considers serious. The
Mississippi law applies to Negroes, mulattoes, persons who have
one-eighth or more Negro blood, Mongolians or persons who have
one-eighth or more Mongolian blood. Nevada includes black persons,
mulattoes, Indians, Chinese; Oregon, in addition to Negroes, prohibits
intermarriage with Chinese and with persons having one-fourth or more
Negro, Chinese, or Kanaka blood or having more than one-half Indian
blood. Utah includes simply Negroes and Mongolians; North Carolina,
Negroes and Indians. South Carolina prohibits intermarriage between
whites and Indians, Negroes, mulattoes, mestizoes, or half-breeds.
EFFECT OF ATTEMPTED INTERMARRIAGE
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account