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
The Brownsville affair—that is, the dismissal without honor, through the
order of President Roosevelt, of a whole regiment of Negro soldiers
because of the misconduct of some of them and the refusal of the others
to testify against the guilty ones, and the championship of the cause of
the Negroes by Senator Foraker—has brought into much prominence the
question of the Negro as a soldier.
The Southern States have been and are unfavorable to allowing Negroes to
serve in the militia. South Carolina,[308] in 1865, declared that
persons of color constituted no part of the militia of the State.
Arkansas,[309] in 1867, accorded to Negroes all the rights of white
citizens, with a few exceptions, one of which was that nothing in the
statute should be construed as modifying any statute or common law usage
in the State respecting the service of Negroes in the militia. North
Carolina[310] provided that white and colored members of the detailed
militia should not be compelled to serve in the same companies.
Georgia,[311] in 1905, by statute, abolished the colored troops of the
State, active and retired, and discharged the officers and men from the
military service of the State.
There is very little legislation on the subject in the other States. In
1879, the legislature of Connecticut[312] authorized the
commander-in-chief of the State militia to organize four independent
Negro companies of infantry to be part of the National Guard. West
Virginia,[313] in 1889, provided that, if any colored troops should be
organized, they should be enlisted and kept separate and apart from the
other troops, and should be formed into separate companies and
regiments. New Jersey,[314] in 1895, made provision for four companies
of colored infantry, presumably meaning that they should be all colored
and kept separate from the other troops.
SEPARATION OF STATE DEPENDENTS
The Southern States, as a rule, require a separation by race of inmates
of State charitable and penal institutions, and where it is not provided
for by statute, it is done as a matter of custom. Alabama,[315] for
instance, makes it unlawful for any jailer or sheriff, having charge of
white and colored prisoners before conviction, to imprison them
permanently together in the same apartments of the jail or other places
of safe-keeping, if there are enough separate apartments. It is also
unlawful[316] for white and colored convicts to be chained together,
allowed to sleep together, or confined in the same room or apartment
when not at work.
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account