Anti-Miscegenation Movement

Posted in Articles, Law, Louisiana, Media Archive, Mississippi, United States on 2013-01-29 05:02Z by Steven

Anti-Miscegenation Movement

Columbus Enquirer-Sun
Columbus, Georgia
1886-09-24
page 5, column 3

Source: Digital Library of Georgia

Organization In Louisiana to Prevent the Intermarriage of Whites and Blacks

New Orleans. September 20.—A practical movement has been inaugurated in Bossier parish, in this state, for the abolition of miscegenation. There have been during the past year or so several spasmodic efforts in this direction, both in Louisiana and Mississippi. Self-constituted vigilance committees have warned white men with negro wives and mistresses to leave them and lead a regular life, and when this failed have ridden through the parish, severely whipping both men and women who disobeyed this order.  In Mississippi there were several arrests, convictions and sentences for violation of the law prohibiting intermarriages between the races, and in Louisiana one man was severely cut in a scrimmage arising from this movement. But these anti-miscegenation raids were spasmodic, the freaks of a few wild young men. The present movement is more serious and more general, and is a thorough and practical organization, like that of the prohibitionist, to break up miscegenation.

The first meeting was held in Bossier parish in July, whore the subject was generally discussed, and adjourned over to this month to find the drift of public opinion. It was found that public sentiment among the whites was well nigh unanimous on the subject. The recent meeting held at Cottage Grove, in the upper portion of Bossier parish, was the result. There was no secrecy or mystery about it. It was an open mass meeting, in which all the people of the neighborhood—farmers, clergymen and others—assembled. The meeting was opened with prayer and presided over by a clergyman. The resolutions were of the strongest character. Those guilty of miscegenation were threatened with social boycott, and warned that they were insulting the race feelings and moral principles of the community. But the gist of the meeting was the appointment of a vigilance committee of nineteen to serve notices on these white men living with negro women—the vigilants were not instructed as to what they should if this warning is unheeded—and the appointment of another committee to assist in the organization of anti-miscegenation societies in other parishes in the state.

This plan of operation is warmly supported by the press. The Bossier Banner declares that race purity must be preserved at all hazards, the line must be sharply and distinctly drawn, and those who cross it must pay the penalty. The Robeline Reporter of Natchitoches, edited by the father of the present attorney-general of the state, approves the idea.

As this sentiment prevails in most of the neighboring parishes, it is thought that the present organization, by giving a start to the anti-miscegenation sentiment, which in this part of the state is now stronger than the anti-liquor sentiment, it will spread through north Louisiana if not into the neighboring states of Mississippi, Texas and Arkansas. There is no law in Louisiana against the intermarriage or cohabitation of f[r]aces, this prohibition, which was strongly urged by many persons, being voted down in the late constitutional convention, but miscegenation is growing rarer every day, in deference to the strong public sentiment on this point.

Tags: , , ,

Beyond Selma-to-Stonewall

Posted in Articles, Barack Obama, Gay & Lesbian, Law, Media Archive, Politics/Public Policy on 2013-01-29 01:57Z by Steven

Beyond Selma-to-Stonewall

The New York Times
2013-01-27

By including gay rights in the arc of the struggle for civil rights — the road “through Seneca Falls and Selma and Stonewall” — President Obama linked his presidency to ending antigay discrimination and underscored the legal wrong of denying gay people the freedom to marry.

 “Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law,” Mr. Obama famously said in his second Inaugural Address, “for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.”

Now that Mr. Obama has declared that he believes denying gay people the right to wed is not only unfair and morally wrong but also legally unsupportable, the urgent question is how he will translate his words into action. To start, he should have his solicitor general file a brief in the Proposition 8 case being argued before the Supreme Court in March, saying that California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional…

…ust a day after the inauguration, Mr. Obama’s spokesman, Jay Carney, said that while Mr. Obama supports same-sex marriage as a policy matter, the president still believes it is an issue for individual states to decide. That was Mr. Obama’s formulation when he first announced his support for same-sex marriage in May, and even then it made no sense, except perhaps as political cover approaching the general election campaign.

Marriage is traditionally regulated by the states, but there are constitutional limits on what states may do. The Supreme Court’s 1967 ruling in Loving v. Virginia prevented states from forbidding marriages between interracial couples like Mr. Obama’s own parents…

Read the entire opinion piece here.

Tags: , ,

A Race Question: A Negro Man With a White Wife—Some Nice Points of Law—Indians Have Greater Nuptial Privileges.

Posted in Articles, Law, Media Archive, United States on 2013-01-28 22:36Z by Steven

A Race Question: A Negro Man With a White Wife—Some Nice Points of Law—Indians Have Greater Nuptial Privileges.

Columbus Enquirer-Sun
Columbus, Georgia
Saturday, 1886-11-20
page 8, columns 3-4

Source: Digital Library of Georgia

A very interesting case, both as to the facts and the nice legal points involved, was tried this week at the circuit court in Seale [Alabama].  A negro man was on trial, charged with living in adultery with an alleged white woman.  The prisoner had been living with the woman as his wife for quite a number of years, and had begotten by her a family of children.  As the parties were seated within the bar of the court, they formed an interesting group. The man was as black as midnight, and in appearance, showed prominently every characteristic of the African make up. The woman, on the other hand, was white of skin and had in every liniament of her features the Caucassian cast of countenance. Their two boys, aged respectively about 8 and 10, sat between the black father on the one side and the white mother on the the other, and were of a yellow or copper color.

The defense was based on the position that the woman, although white to all appearances, was yet of mixed blood. The state conceded that if the woman was of such mixed blood, as in contemplation of law, she would be deemed a negro; that then the man could not be found guilty. But the state insisted that if the woman was in fact, or in law, a white woman, that then her marriage with the defendant was unlawful and invalid, and the living together being admitted, the man would be guilty as charged.  So the case tuned on the point whether the woman was of white or mixed blood.

On this point the woman herself testified that as far back as could remember she was living with negroes; that she had never seen either of her parents, but that her mother was a white woman, and she had been told that her father was a bright mulatto or part Indian.

No other positive testimony was introduced. The state asked the court to charge the jury that if they believed the woman’s testimony that then they must find the prisoner guilty, and argued in support of the request that the woman having been shown to be of white maternity, that by legal presumption she herself ws white until the contrary was shown, or until she was shown to be of negro paternity; that this legal presumption put the burden of proof upon the defendant, which burden was not lifted by her vague and hearsay testimony as to the mixed blood of her father. The court charged as requested.

The defense insisted that testimony about one’s own nativity, such as age, place of birth, parentage, etc., was, in the absence of better testimony, a matter of common report, and as the woman had testified that she had been told that her father was of mixed blood or part Indian, that her testimony on that point should have its due weight, and ashed the court to charge that, looking at the whole testimony, if the jury had a reasonable doubt us to whether the woman was of white or mixed blood, that then they must acquit.

The court again charged as requested.

It cropped out incidentally in the discussion that although it is unlawful for whites and negroes to intermarry, yet one of aboriginal blood may marry either white or black according to his own supreme election and not be subject to any legal penalty. So that, if one is arraigned on a charge of miscegenation, they have only to induce the belief that they are of Indian origin and thereby escape the clutches of the law. There are some curious things in municipal as well as natural law. In this case the verdict was not guilty.

Tags: , , ,

The District Court: The Miscegenationists on Trial—Able Argument of Mr. Irwin—The Ku-Klux Bill Threatened.

Posted in Articles, Law, Media Archive, United States on 2013-01-27 01:41Z by Steven

The District Court: The Miscegenationists on Trial—Able Argument of Mr. Irwin—The Ku-Klux Bill Threatened.

The Atlanta Weekly Sun
1871-08-16
page 7, columns 2-5

Source: Georgia Historic Newspapers

The District Court yesterday was the centre of much excitement, and as usual on such occasions, the negroes were out in full force. It was generally understood that the miscegenationists were to be placed on trial.

At the usual time the Court opened, Judge Lawrence in the chair.

  • The State vs. H. Ruddell, gaming, was argued.
  • The State vs. Wm. Beatte, was then taken up.
  • The State vs. Green Martin, larceny from the house, was tried.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty in each of the above cases.

The excitement rose to fever heat when WM. HOBBES, a miserably debased and brutal looking white man, who claimed to be married to a negro wench. Hobbes is an old man, over 60, with gray hair; while the wench who sat by him was black as the ace of spades. He looked the embodiment of all the utter and helpless depravity which it is possible to instil into a human being, while the wench looked really ashamed of her companion. It was stated by us some time since a collection was taken up in one of the negro churches to procure counsel for these persons.

The State was represented ably by Capt W. G.Irwin, District Attorney.—The prisoner was defended by B. H. and A. M. Thrasher, and T. K Oglesby, who, it is stated, have undertaken the defence of all the miscegenationists.

The defence moved for a transfer of the case to the United States District Court. They claimed that under tho 15th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States all persons are equal in the eye of the law; that they have an equal right to marry whom they please, and do what they please. They claimed that Wm. Hobbes, white, and Martha Johnson, colored, were legally married, and were guilty of no offence. They relied on the Civil Rights Bill, the Ku-Klux Bill, and other Congressional machinery, as maintaining their position, and asked this Court to forego action, and refer the matter to the United States District Court.

Capt W. G. Irwin, District Attorney, in a very forcible manner, resisted the motion. He claimed that all such questions as marriage and contracts were exclusively within tho purview of State law; that the Court was well able to attend to its own business, and should do its duty without regard to other bodies.

The Judge decided to go on with the case.

After being gone into and concluded, the jury brought in a verdict of guilty.

WILLIS HARRIS, NEGRO, AND MARY SILVEY, WHITE, were then called up, on a charge of fornication. The Thrashers and Oglesby defended them also. Mary Silvey is a poor, degraded looking woman, whose ignorance is her only excuse,. The parties claim to have been married in Tennessee. The point was admitted by the State.

Capt. W. G. Irwin produced a great array of authorities conclusive of the criminality of the parties, even if married in another State. In controverting the application of the law of comity to this case he claimed that where an act, performed and looked upon as valid in another State, and which was opposed to the interests, policy or Constitution of the State, it was not to be recognized by this State at all. Section 2696 of the Code of Georgia says:

“Sometimes persons are capable to contract by the law of the place of the con- tract, but incapable, under the law of this State. In such case, generally, the law of the place of contract is enforced, unless the circumstances show an attempt to evade the law of this State, or the contract is of such a character as contravenes the POLICY of our law.”

It is impossible for law to be more plainly adapted to a case than this. No intelligent lawyer will deny that if the law of Tennessee regards as valid mixed marriages, to recognize that law would not only be to “contravene” the policy, but the very Constitution of this State, which, in paragraph 9, section 1, article 5 (section 4988 Irwin’s Code) says:

The marriage relation between white persons and persons of African descent, is forever prohibited, and such marriage shall be null and void.

Among the preliminary provisions of the Code of Georgia is a paragraph which plainly declares the extent to which Georgia adheres to the comity of States, and reads as follows:

“Section 9—The laws of other States and foreign nations shall have no force and effect of themselves within this State further than is provided by the Constitution of the United States and is recognized by the comity of States. The courts shall enforce this comity, until restrained by the General Assembly, so long as its enforcement is not contrary to the policy or prejudicial to the interests of this State.

And, again, in Section 1707 of Irwin’s Code we read:

“The marriage relation between white persons and persons of African descent is forever prohibited, and such marriages shall be null and void.”

Capt. Irwin read many other authorities, and made an earnest, manly and patriotic appeal for the preservation of public morality by tho enforcement of the law and, the prevention of such marriages as tend to bring disgrace upon society and humanity.

Barton Thrasher replied, and repeated his ideas about United States Courts, quoting Dick Busteed’s decisions, etc.

The Judge reserved his decision until to-day.

These cases are creating a great deal of excitement among the legal fraternity. We have heard, whether the report be true or false, we do not say, that the defence of these cases had been refused by four legal firms at least. Society and sound morality demands that this disgusting crime shall be punished with the utmost severity of the law. The crime is such as to make the heart turn sick, and we hope that District Attorney Irwin will continue to discharge his duty until the evil is torn up, root, branches and all.

The Miscegenationists Convicted—Judge Lawrence Reads His Decision in the Tennessee Case—Sentences, Etc.

The interest in this Court yesterday was unabated, and the new fledged “suffragists” were out in full force, to see whether the law would allow them to marry ad libitum, and gravely speculated upon the result. It was over an hour before the wheels of justice got into motion, when REV. ORION GEORGE, the negro who married William Hobbes, white, to Martha Johnson, black as charcoal, was called up. His counsel, Albert Thrasher and T. K. Oglesby, seemed to dwell considerably on George’s ignorance of the law, alledging that he was legally compelled to be ignorant of everything until within the last six years, seeming to forget that if he had equal rights under existing laws, that he is also under equal responsibility for his acts, and that if there is injustice in it, it attached to the United States, and not to the State of Georgia. Mr. Thrasher’s argument was based almost entirely upon the Civil Rights Bill. The defence also made a point that Hobbes gave George a regular license to perform the marriage, but forgot (we suppose) to state that the license only authorized George to perform the marriage if there was no legal impediments, and that Hobbes imd Martha Johnson were too dissimilar in color to escape the detection of even the bamboozled George, Mr. Oglesby’s speech sounded like the opening of the campaign of 1872. It made us feel like depositing our ballot instanter—on paper. District Attorney, Irwin, ably sustained the State, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty.

As soon as the verdict was rendered, WILLIS HARRIS AND MARY SILVEY, the Tennessee miscegenationists were called up to hear their verdict, previous to the reading of which the counsel asked leave to say something in mitigation, which was granted.

The Counsel—These parties were married in good faith, in Tennessee. Coming here they were not aware of the consequences. They are now willing to leave the State if the clemency of the Court is extended to them. One of the jurymen, Mr. King, has just informed me that he wishes to say something in mitigation.

The Court—Mr. King has leave to proceed.

Mr. King—Before saying anything, I would like to ask that girl a question.

“The Court—You may ask it.

Mr. King (addressing himself to the woman)—Are you the daughter of Washington Silvey, of Campbell county?

Mary Silvey—I am.

Mr. King—Your Honor, I knew that woman’s father well. He was an honorable man, as was also her grand-father.—Her mother died while this woman was a child, and her father died shortly after. She has never had any good influences around her, has been thrown into disreputable company, and I wish to God to take that poor unfortunate from the side of that nigger.

Mary Silvey—I was poor, with nothing to eat and no clothes. This man took me and gave me clothes and kept me from starvation.

Mr. King—I am sorry for the poor creature, but sincerely hope your Honor will divide them. She has no sense, and is a miserable specimen. I ask this for the sake of those who would be her friends.

The Court—The request will be taken into consideration.

Mr. King appeared to be deeply affected to see the daughter of an old friend and honorable man thus chained to degradation. His Honor then proceeded to read his DECISION IN THE TENNESSEE MARRIAGE CASE.

He spoke substantially as follows:—

This is an accusation of fornication against “Willis Harris, (colored), charging him with living in fornication with one Mary Harris, a white woman, and against said Mary Harris for same offence. The defence set up was Marriage. No evidence was introduced; but it was admitted between counsel that the parties were legally married in the State of Tennessee, as allowed by the laws of that State. At the enquiry of the Court it was stated that the Certificate of Marriage was in Court—but the District Attorney not pressing proof of its authenticity, it was taken to be a true Certificate of the fact of Marriage; and the case was argued at length and with ability by the Counsel on both sides before the Court, August 8th. The Court reserved its judgment until this morning, August 9th. At first glance, and before argument of Counsel, I was inclined to the opinion that the lex loci contractus would govern the case, and so intimated to Counsel, for the purpose of having the argument directed to that point I cannot award too much praise to the ability and zeal of the District Attorney exhibited in the array of law and precedent brought to bear on the question, and which served to dissipate from the mind of the Court all doubt prima facie entertained.

Upon examination of the law and authority cited by him, (viz: Code of Georgia—Sect 9, 1709—2696; a. a. 1868; Georgia Reports—34, p. 40; Georgia Reports—38, 75, 86; Georgia Reports—29, 321; Georgia Reports 36, 388, 389; Story, conflict of laws, Sect 29;) I am fully satisfied that the intermarriage of the parties in the State of Tennessee, however legal in that State, must be held to be null and void in this State.

The setting aside the general principle of the lex loci contractus in this case proceeds on the ground that such marriage is in contravention of the public policy of our State—vide authorities above cited. Public policy, adopted and upheld for the support and improvement of the morals, the peace, the good order and security of society in a State, is of itself ex-necessitate in view of the importance of these objects, of paramount authority, and must override special principles of law, however just in themselves, and long respected and observed, when these conflict with such public policy. Under the laws, for instance, of Utah, or customs having the force of laws with them, a man may have any number of wives. Now, though this may bo perfectly legal and right there, in the state of society these existing, can it be supposed that any State where the Monogamic relation between the sexes is preserved and upheld by law, would for an instant suffer a polygamic citizen of Utah to move into its midst, and corrnpt society by his example? Surely not. But is it less offence against the public policy of the State or the good taste and feeling of its citizens to suffer parties to cross the border of a neighboring State, and bring with them relations forbidden byoour laws or grounds of public policy? No—assuredly no.

In ruling then that the marriage of the parties in Tennessee is null and void, and that the lex fori must be given the case, it follows that the parties are guilty of the accusation.

The case of Ada Thompson, for vagrancy, was taken up, and a verdict of guilty was rendered.

His Honor then announced himself prepared for THE READING OF THE SENTENCES.

The miscegenationists, et. al., were ranged in a row, and received their various assignments with due composure.

  • The State vs. Wm. Hobbes, white, living in fornication with Martha Johnson, colored; fine of $1,000, or six months in limbo.
  • The State vs. Martha Johnson, colored, living in fornication with Wm. Hobbes, white; $200, or three months in limbo.
  • The State vs. Willis Harris, colored, living in fornication with Mary Silvey, white; $250, or six months in limbo.
  • The State vs. Mary Silvey, white, living in fornication with Willis Harris, negro; $1,000, or six months in limbo.
  • The State vs. Orion George, negro preacher, marrying parties forbidden by law; $50 and costs, or ten days in his prison cell.
  • The State vs. Green Martin, larceny from house; $100, or six months on the public works.
  • The State vs. Wm. Beatte, larceny from the house; $100, or six months on public works.

The miscegenationists, through their counsel, have given notice that they will certiorari the cases.

SENTENCE OF THE MISCEGENATIONIST. THE BALL SET IN MOTION.

The Boa Constrictor of Law Tightening its Folds around Vice and Immorality.

The Moral Feelings of the People Vindicated.

A NOBLE JUDGE AND A NOBLE DECISION.

At last we breathe easier. The fiat has gone forth that in Georgia crime shall not go unwhipt of justice, nor shall moral rottenness reek in our midst. Our State will not be a doggery for the depraved, the corrupt, and the vicious of other States. In our midst miscegenation, even when sanctioned by the unholy statutes of other States, shall be crushed out, trampled under foot, and the guilty parties shall meet with sure, certain, condign punishment.

The cases which have been before the District Court for two days past have excited, not interest alone, but deep concern in the minds of our citizens. “Was this hydra-headed monster of corruption to be declared legal? “Was our sense of morality to be insulted? Was the marriage relation to be disgraced and rendered infamous? Were we to be compelled to see festering corruption walking about on the streets, jostling against us in the crowd, staring at us in the public places? These were the questions which arose and perplexed our citizens, and the threatened appeal to United States authority to override our laws, our customs, our sense of moral decency, added a strong feeling to them.

But Judge Lawrence and an impartial jury have spoken. Such things shall not exist. Let those who would disgrace humanity go to Tennessee, go to Massachusetts, go wherever corrupt and infamous lawmakers will protect them; but there is no place for them in Georgia. The ball is in motion, the law will be enforced strictly and to the very letter, and its boa-constrictor folds are now tightening around the neck of crime and corruption. Let it be proclaimed abroad that miscegenation cannot exist in Georgia.

DISTRICT COURT.

The City Council and Soda Water—Mr.Tignor Explains Sabbath Violations.

The Court room yesterday morning was not infested with as many niggers as usual; and, no doubt, the sad fate of the miscegenationists contributed to this absence. It was again over an hour after the regular time before tho Court proceeded to business…

…The case of Meister, white, miscegenationist, was continued until September.

  • Wm. Mathershed, an old white man, apparently on the brink of the grave, was found guilty of miscegenation. His sentence will be read to-day.
  • Squire Manuel, negro, miscegenation. Plead guilty. Sentenced to $500 fine, or six months at hard labor.
  • Hampton Scott, negro, miscegenation. Pleaded marriage. Fined $500 or six months hard labor.

Read the entire article here.

Tags: , ,

Outlawry in Robeson County, North Carolina

Posted in Articles, Law, Media Archive, United States on 2013-01-25 22:01Z by Steven

Outlawry in Robeson County, North Carolina

The Atlanta Weekly Sun
For the Week Ending 1872-03-27
page 5, columns 3-5

Source: Georgia Historic Newspapers

The Lowerys

The extraordinary persistence of the Lowery gang in their bloody work, in Robeson county, North Carolina, demands an outline sketch of their career, for the information of many who have not kept themselves posted in regard to the so-called “Mulatto War” that for several years past has been waged in the swamps and vicinity of Lumber River.

THE SCENE OF THE OUTRAGES referred to is Robeson county, which borders on the State of South Carolina. Lumberton is the County Seat. The present voting population is about three thousand, of which about fifteen hundred are men of mixed breeds, (some, part Indian, and some mulattoes), who were enfranchised since the surrender of the Confederate Armies.

The ancestors of the leaders of this motley crew of mulattoes and mustees were resident there in colonial times, and were never slaves.  Prior to 1835 they were entitled to vote. At that time, as was generally the case throughout the South, all free negroes were dis-franchised, owing to the alarm created by the aggressive abolitionism of mischievous agitators at the North.

At the close of the War of Independence many of these motley people were rich in the ownership of numerous slaves. But owing to prodigal living and indulgence in the grosser forms of dissipation, many years ago, they had become comparatively impoverished. Before the late war between the States they had become, in general, so degraded as to be regarded with great disfavor by most of their neighbors.

They reside for the most part near SCUFFLETOWN, on the line-of the Railroad, about half way between Florence, South Carolina, and Newbern, North Carolina. At the former place, it will be remembered, the Confederates had a prison, in which, during the war, many Federal prisoners were confined. Newbern was the scene of active operations on the part of the Federal armies.

This motley crew occupy a region of about ten miles square, much of which is swamp, interspersed with islands of fertile soil, and intersected by numerous bayous, called by the resident population bays. Much of it is thick set forest, impenetrable with safety by strangers save when accompanied by a trusty guide.

HENRY BERRY LOWRY, the chief of the outlaws, is said to be a cross upon the Cherokee and white man, though the negroes of North Carolina, feeling considerable pride in his reputation for courage, claim that he is mulatto. He is a very young man, and is said to have been only eighteen years of age when he commenced his career of bloodthirsty outlawry. The length of time, during which he has been able to baffle every attempt at capture, together with the shrewdness and boldness of his strategy, and the unerring aim of his rifle, stamp, him as a man of no ordinary ability, which, if exerted in the direction of law and good order, would rank him high among his fellows.

During the late civil war many of these free colored people—the Berrys, the Strongs, and the Oxendines, and their associates and neighbors—were impressed to WORK UPON THE CONFEDERATE FORTIFICATIONS, which provoked a spirit of resistance to the authorities, with whose cause they were not in sympathy. Many of them deserted. Federal prisoners, escaped from Florence, were harbored among them. Together, these prisoners and their motley hosts, followed a predatory life, robbing their neighbors, and sometimes extending their excursions far off from home, robbing and murdering defenseless people.

After the close of the war THE FREEDMEN’s BUREAU inaugurated its deviltry in Robeson county; and this motley gang of marauders, though none of them, fes far as has been ascertained, were ever slaves, became its especial pets. Carpet-bag Radicals had use for their votes. To the Freedmen’s Bureau agents and these conscienceless adventurers much censure is due for the aid and comfort given the outlaws, whose hands are so deeply stained in the blood of many innocent victims. By the secret of co-operation of such confederates, whatever occurs or is proposed in Wilmington affecting the outlaws, is known in less than fifteen hours on the islands and in the dense forests of Scuffletown.

On February the 8th, 1872, the Legislature of North Carolina offered a reward of ten thousand dollars for the capture of Henry Berry Lowery, and five thousand each for Stephen Lowery, Boss Strong, Andrew Strong, George Applewhite and Thomas Lowery. Several Republicans, among them the chief black members, voted against these rewards. Two colored members, to their credit be it remembered, voted for and made speeches advocating them. Mills, (colored), proposed increasing them. Mabs, (colored), opposed, and Page, (colored), proposed to give the outlaws thirty days to leave the State.

To such straits have the ba&ed people of the vicinity been driven, that it was suggested, (and we believe the suggestion was in part acted upon), that they might be driven away by operating upon their superstitious fears, by means of charms, so much dreaded by the believers in Fetischism.

In proof that the outlaws are believers in Fetisch, the fact is recalled that on the person of Henderson Oxendine, who was hanged for murder, was found A HUMAN BONE, probably taken  from a hand, together with a mixture of herbs.   But it seems that the charms proposed did not have the desired effect.

It is supposed that these well-armed outlaws are supplied with ammunition by the country merchants of their vicinity, who, through fear or for the sake of filthy lucre (most probably the latter) traffic with them.

The feud between the Lowery gang and their neighbors, began in 1863, growing out of the relations of the parties during the war. In 1864 the outlaws banded themselves together to rob. Yet after the war, as above stated, the Freed man’s Bureau took them under their esspecial guardianship.

The following is a brief recapitulation of some of the outrages committed by them, for all the details of which we have not the space to spare. These will, no doubt, some day furnish material of a volume which will be read with interest by the admirers of “Dick Turpin” and others of his ilk.

No better proof of the inefficiency of the Federal authorities in Robeson county, and of the direction of their sympathies, is needed, than the simple statement of the fact that of the eighteen or twenty men, who have been killed in cold blood in this war of the Lowerys, (so-called), only two have been Republicans in politics, and these two had been impressed to hunt Henry Berry Lowery.

In December, 1864, a man by the name of Barnes, was murdered by the outlaws, and in February, 1865, Brant Harris was also killed by them. The Freedman’s Bureau agent and the Radicals indicated  sympathy for them in these two murders, because they grew out of provocations alleged to have occurred during the war.

Thus emboldened they robbed and murdered Sheriff King January 25th, 1869. The persons said to have been present and participating in this murder were John Dial, Stephen Lowery, Geo. Applewhite, Henderson Oxendine, and Calvin Oxendine, Henry Berry Lowery, and Boss Strong. Steve Lowery and Geo. Applewhite were condemned to be hanged. They, together with a majority of the prisoners, escaped jail before the day set for their execution. It was for this murder that Henderson Oxendine was hanged.

The murderers when they went to Sheriff King’s house were disguised, having their faces blackened.

Owen C. Norment was killed in April, 1871, because he endeavored boldly to arouse the people against the Lowerys on account of their robberies and murders. He was shot in his own yard, into which he had stepped from his house to investigate an unusual noise. The physician sent for to attend him was fired upon while on his way to Norment’s. One of his mules was killed, and the Doctor and his driver forced to take to the woods for safety. On the same night, Archie Graham and Ben. McMillan, neighbors of Norment, were shot. Graham was dangerously wounded. The home of a Mr. Jackson was also fired into and his dog was killed.

Norment’s wound were in his lower extremities. One leg was amputated, he, however, died in a couple of days.

Some time prior to the killing of Norment, the Lowery gang shot and killed a negro belonging to one Joe Thompson, because they believed he was cognizant of their having robbed Thompson.

The Lowerys profess great contempt for coal black negroes.

ZACK M’LAUGHLIN, who is said to have inflicted the mortal wound upon Norment, was a native of Scotland. He and another renegade white man named Biggs were accustomed to consort with the mulatto gang, and spent their low energies in seducing mulatto girls. One evening this couple met at the shanty of a mulatto siren, where, in an altercation no doubt growing out of long standing enmity, Biggs killed McLaughlin, for which he received a reward of $400. McLaughlin was a meaner specimen of mankind than the Lowerys or Strongs.

On the 3d of October, 1870, the Lowery band robbed, the house o£ one Angus Leach, where was stored a considerable amount of brandy distilled from native fruits.  In the melee that occurred, (for resistance was made,) old Angus Leach was struck over the head with a gunstock, seriously injuring him. A negro man was tied up and whipped with a wagon-trace and his ears slit with a knife. The liquor they did not destroythey removed out of the reach of revenue officers.

Next night parties, whose fruit had been placed at Leach’s, went in pursuit of the party of robbers, whom they found at George Applewhite’s, (a thick-lipped, deep-browed, woolly-headed African,) and fired upon them, and wounded nearly every man in the party. Boss Strong was shot in the forehead, Henderson Oxendine in the arm, and George Applewhite in the thigh.

Steve O. Davis, a fine, brave youth, rushed ahead of the attacking party as the outlaws fled to the swamp. Henry Berry Lowery turning, took deliberate aim at him, and shot him through the head, killing him instantly.

In addition to these murders, detective Sanders was killed in 1870, and Taylor, Sanderson, the McLains, Archie Brown, Ben Betha and Henry Revels in 1871.

THE MURDER OF SANDERS is a most notable one among the many chargeable to the Scuffletown outlaws. John Saunders was a native of Nova Scotia, and a detective from Boston, who came to Robeson county to try his hand at earning rewards offered for the outlaws. He wired himself among them as a schoolmaster, and the swamps of Scuffletown. To offset the suspicions of the whites, which his extraordinary behavior aroused, it is said that he joined a so-called Ku-KIux band and participated in several alleged outrages. In the middle of December, 1870, he established himself in a bay near Moss Neck, near William McNeill’s. The McNeill’s were good citizens, and had engaged in some conflicts with the outlaws, whose suspicions after a time became aroused. They watched Sanders very closely. Saunders too, became much demoralized by his intimacy with mulatto sirens.

The outlaws having determined to kill Saunders, they subjected him to the most cruel tortures, lasting through three or four days. They fired over his head in derision, bruised him by beating him with their gun stocks or any other handy implements, administered arsenic to him, and opened veins in his arms. Steve Lowery finally killed him. They permitted him to write to his family, and when they buried his body they placed his wife’s daguerreotype upon his breast. That some of these outlaws still live and terrify the people in their vicinity, as the telegraph daily informs us, is a disgrace to Government that claims to protect its people. The encouragement that has been given them, directly and indirectly, by the emissaries of the party in power, should damn it forever in the estimation of all lovers of peace and good order everywhere.

P.S.—Since writing the foregoing we have received the Robesonian of the 21st inst., which says it may be accepted as true, that Henry Barry Lowery is not now with the band; that he is either dead as reported, or has left the country, and that Boss Strong too has disappeared, and has not been seen since he was reported to have shot and killed McQueen.

An item of late news, in the same paper, says there is great excitement in Scuffletown and some great event has evidently happened among the mulattoes. An unusual amount of running, strange stories afloat—some asserting that H. B. Lowery is certainly dead—that he fell by the accidental discharge of his own gun, and others that he had only gone over the swamp to look after Boss Strong.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Canada’s First Nations: Time we stopped meeting like this

Posted in Canada, Law, Media Archive, Native Americans/First Nation, Politics/Public Policy on 2013-01-20 02:48Z by Steven

Canada’s First Nations: Time we stopped meeting like this

The Economist
2013-01-19

Protests by native peoples pose awkward questions for their leaders, and for Stephen Harper’s government

Back in the 18th century British and French settlers in what is now Canada secured peace with the indigenous inhabitants by negotiating treaties under which the locals agreed to share their land in return for promises of support from the newcomers. This practice continued after Canada became self-governing in 1867. These treaty rights were incorporated into the 1982 constitution. The Supreme Court has since said they impose on the federal government “a duty to consult” the First Nations (as the locals’ descendants prefer to be called) before making any changes that impinge on their treaty rights.

The Assembly of First Nations, which represents about 300,000 people living in 615 different reserves, reckons Stephen Harper’s Conservative government has broken the bargain. In protests over the past month they have blocked roads and railways, staged impromptu dances in shopping malls and chanted outside the office of the prime minister. Theresa Spence, a Cree chief from a troubled reserve in northern Ontario, has taken up residence in a tepee near the parliament buildings in Ottawa, and has refused solid food since December 11th…

…Mr Harper got off to a promising start with the First Nations and Canada’s other aboriginal groups, the mixed-race Métis and the Arctic Inuit, when he issued an apology in June 2008 for the treatment their children had suffered in residential schools (they were separated from their families and often abused). The prime minister promised a new relationship based on “collective reconciliation and fundamental changes”…

Read the entire article here.

Tags: ,

Peggy Pascoe’s What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America and the Use of Legal History to Police Social Boundaries

Posted in Articles, History, Law, Media Archive, United States on 2013-01-16 20:34Z by Steven

Peggy Pascoe’s What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America and the Use of Legal History to Police Social Boundaries

Michigan State Law Review
Volume 2011, Issue 1 (2011)
pages 255-261

Kristin Hass, Associate Professor of American Studies
University of Michigan

“‘Being black is not the only reason why some people have not been accepted . . . .’”

In 1980, Lena Santos Ferguson first sought membership in one of the thirty-nine D.C.-area chapters of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR). After three years and a great deal of struggle, Santos Ferguson was begrudgingly granted a limited membership-at-large. This meant that she was not a voting member and did not belong to any local chapter—the center of DAR activity. Despite having the same well-documented genealogical documentation that granted her nephew easy entry to the Sons of the American Revolution, Santos Ferguson met fierce resistance from local and national DAR bodies.

A few years earlier, in 1977, Karen Farmer had, in theory, broken the racial barriers of the DAR when she became the first African American to be accepted for membership in the organization. But, Farmer’s acceptance in a Detroit chapter did not help Santos Ferguson. It probably hurt; together Farmer and Santos Ferguson may have looked like a trend.

In 1984, when the Washington Post ran a front-page story under the headline “Black Unable to Join Local DAR,” the organization’s president general, Sarah King, had a very revealing response to the problem of Lena Santos Ferguson’s membership. King said, “‘Being black is not the only reason why some people have not been accepted into chapters . . . . There are other reasons: divorce, spite, neighbors’ dislike. I would say being black is very [far] down the line.’” This, of course, does not deny that being black is a reason for blocking admission to the DAR; it just claims that it might not be the most pressing reason. For King, the distance between a reasonable request and Santos Ferguson’s attempt to join “the society” is indicated by her insistence that “‘[b]eing black is not the only reason.’” It is as if she was unable to understand that this statement still assumes that being black was reasonable grounds for barring someone from membership.

Certainly King did not deny that African Americans had served in the Revolutionary War. In fact, in the first Post story, she mentioned the Rhode Island Reds and told the reporter, “‘See if you can find me one . . . . We want them [blacks], but I do think the lines should have integrity and legitimate descent. I don’t think you can have it any other way.’” This language, of course, was highly charged. “‘Integrity and legitimate descent’” did not refer to high-quality genealogical research; instead, it referred to the antebellum legal mechanisms by which African Americans were denied the right to marry. Further, it evoked this legal history to continue at the end of the 20th century to deny African Americans access to the kind of full cultural citizenship that the DAR worked to police. In 1979, two years after Karen Farmer successfully joined the DAR, the society revised its application process to include an added requirement—proof of marriage going back each generation. In 1984, the DAR National Congress proposed going one step further by amending the bylaws to include the language that only “‘legitimate’” descendants were eligible for membership. This would have serious consequences for African Americans wanting to join.

The DAR’s interest in rules—and in this intense policing of the boundaries of its membership—was new. From its founding in 1890, at the start of the first great memory boom in the United States, until the 1940s, the greatest obstacle to membership was the invitation of two sponsors. The rules about establishing a paper trail for a direct (not a “‘legitimate’”) lineage were far looser. It is also worth noting that the DAR requirements for membership understand service in the Revolutionary War rather broadly. Its definition includes civil service, political service, and what the DAR calls patriotic service, which includes: “[m]embers of the Boston Tea Party”; “[d]efenders of forts and frontiers”; “[d]octors, nurses, and others rendering aid to the wounded (other than their immediate families)”; “[m]inisters who gave patriotic sermons and encouraged patriotic activity”; and among other things, “[f]urnishing a substitute for military service.” Under the 1984 rules, then, you could join the DAR because your relative sent a slave to fight in his place, but you could not join the DAR if you were a descendant of that slave because he would have been unable to be legally married and therefore unable to produce “‘legitimate’ descendents.”…

…The DAR’s insistence that all women worthy of membership in either society were the products of legally sanctioned marriages harkens back to a past in which sexual racial mixing, or amalgamation or miscegenation, was not only not a topic of polite conversation, but was also a subject of great anxiety, especially for white women invested in defining a national family in particular highly racialized terms—a past in which it was unthinkable for someone like Lena Santos Ferguson to ask for membership, a past in which shame was the only imaginable response to the kind of relationships that would lead a person like Santos Ferguson to think that she deserved to be recognized as part of the national family that the DAR helps to name and shape.

Of course, the DAR’s policies and logic did not go unnoticed in 1984. Both Santos Ferguson and the Council of the District of Columbia initiated legal action and the major newspapers followed the story. A reading of the response to the Santos Ferguson case in the Washington Post reveals both a clear indignation about the prejudice Santos Ferguson faced and an avoidance of the obvious lurking question of miscegenation. Only one op-ed piece in the Washington Post directly addressed this question. Historian Adele Logan Alexander writes, “What is ignored (by the DAR and in Washington Post articles as well) and seems almost impossible for white Americans to accept, discuss, or articulate, is miscegenation.” She continues, “[n]o, formal marriages between slaves were not permitted prior to the Civil War, but more important, marriage and even cohabitation between the races was forbidden by law in most states from colonial times. In many jurisdictions these bans remained in force until 1967.” For Alexander, what needs to be said is that:

No other people on earth display greater variation in skin color, facial structure or hair texture than we do, yet white America hesitates to admit why this is so. Certainly in our country’s early history some few black men sired children by white women, but more commonly we twentieth century black Americans are descended, somewhere along the line, from black women who were sexually coerced by white men.

Alexander is interested in this obvious, unspoken truth in the context of the DAR. She writes,

[t]he tough question then is not so much whether the DAR members accept the handful of black women who will join the organization and who, for the most part (other than skin color) will greatly resemble the present members in education and background . . . but rather how they will deal with these women whose presence must continually remind them of the illicit, coercive and often violent acts of their mutual forefathers to whose valiant patriotic deeds their organization is dedicated.

Peggy Pascoe’s brilliant 2009 What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation and the Making of Race in America offers a dense web of explanatory tools for understanding how laws about marriage have been mobilized to police the boundaries of not only marriage itself but of ideas about what constitutes full cultural citizenship and who should have access to it…

Read the entire article here.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Racial Subordination in Latin America: The Role of the State, Customary Law, and the New Civil Rights Response

Posted in Books, Brazil, Caribbean/Latin America, Law, Media Archive, Monographs, Social Science on 2013-01-14 18:56Z by Steven

Racial Subordination in Latin America: The Role of the State, Customary Law, and the New Civil Rights Response

Cambridge University Press
October 2012
254 pages
2 maps; 1 table
228 x 152 mm
Hardback ISBN: 9781107024861
Paperback: 9781107695436
Adobe Ebook Reader ISBN: 9781139786676

Tanya Katerí Hernández, Professor of Law
Fordham University, New York

There are approximately 150 million people of African descent in Latin America yet Afro-descendants have been consistently marginalized as undesirable elements of the society. Latin America has nevertheless long prided itself on its absence of U.S.-styled state-mandated Jim Crow racial segregation laws. This book disrupts the traditional narrative of Latin America’s legally benign racial past by comprehensively examining the existence of customary laws of racial regulation and the historic complicity of Latin American states in erecting and sustaining racial hierarchies. Tanya Katerí Hernández is the first author to consider the salience of the customary law of race regulation for the contemporary development of racial equality laws across the region. Therefore, the book has a particular relevance for the contemporary U.S. racial context in which Jim Crow laws have long been abolished and a “post-racial” rhetoric undermines the commitment to racial equality laws and policies amidst a backdrop of continued inequality.

Features

  • Provides a comprehensive examination of the entire Latin American region with regard to racial inequality
  • Hernández is the first author to thoroughly consider the role of customary law in erecting and sustaining racial hierarchies
  • Offers a comprehensive examination of development of racial equality laws across the region

Contents

  • Maps
  • 1. Racial Innocence and the Customary Law of Race Regulation
  • 2. Spanish America Whitening the Race – the Un(written) Laws of Blanqueamiento and Mestizaje
  • 3. Brazilian “Jim Crow”: The Immigration Law Whitening Project and the Customary Law of Racial Segregation – a Case Study
  • 4. The Social Exclusion of Afro-Descendants in Latin America Today
  • 5. Afro-Descendant Social Justice Movements and the New Antidiscrimination Laws
  • 6. Brazil: At the Forefront of Latin American Race-Based Affirmative Action Policies and Census Racial Data Collection
  • 7. Conclusion: The United States–Latin America
  • Connections
  • Appendix A: Afro-Descendant Organizations in Latin America
  • Appendix B: Typology of Latin American Racial Antidiscrimination Measures
  • Bibliography
  • Index

I don’t think there is much racism in [Latin] America because we are a mix of races of all kinds of Europeans, Africans, Asians, and other races that were or will be; but I understand that in many other parts there is racism, above all in the United States and Europe, is where there is the most racism.1

There are approximately 150 million people of African descent in Latin America, representing about one-third of the total population (see Maps 1 and 2). Yet, these are considered conservative demographic figures given the histories of undercounting the number of persons of African descent on Latin American national censuses and often completely omitting a racial/ethnic origin census question. At the same time, persons of African descent make up more than 40 percent of the poor in Latin America and have been consistently marginalized and denigrated as undesirable elements of the society since the abolition of slavery across the Americas. Yet, the view that “racism does not exist” is pervasive in Latin America despite the advent of social justice movements and social science researchers demonstrating the contrary. When the BBC surveyed Latin Americans in 2005 regarding the existence of racism, a significant number of respondents emphatically denied the existence of racism. Many, for instance, made statements such as “Ibero-Americans are not racist,” and “Ibero-America is not a racist region, for the simple fact that the majority of the population is either indigenous, creole, or mixed.”

Thus the denial of racism is rooted in what many scholars have critiqued as the “myth of racial democracy” – the notion that the racial mixture (mestizaje/mestiçagem) in a population is emblematic of racial harmony and insulated from racial discord and inequality. Academic scholarship has in the last twenty years critiqued Latin American “mestizaje” theories of racial mixture as emblematic of racial harmony. Yet, Latin Americans still very much adhere to the notion that racial mixture and the absence of Jim Crow racial segregation are such a marked contrast to the U.S. racial history that the region views itself as what I term “racially innocent.” Indeed, the extensive survey data from the Latin American Public Opinion Project’s “Americas Barometer 2010” demonstrates that biased Latin American racial ideologies have not completely evolved despite the existing scholarly critiques of mestizaje as a trope of racial innocence. For instance, in the Americas Barometer 2010 survey of Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, and Peru, the vast majority of the country populations (of all races) agreed with the mestizaje notion that “racial mixture is good for the country.” In fact, more than 75 percent of all respondents agreed with the statement and largely endorsed the idea of interracial marriages. Yet, the Americas Barometer data also show that for those Latin Americans who did express disagreement with the idea of their children marrying black partners, the opposition level was dramatically greater from white respondents in contrast to black respondents. Specifically, in those countries where the Americas Barometer asked whether there was disagreement with one’s own children marrying a black person, such as Brazil, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, and Ecuador, the opposition by whites to interracial black marriages was on average 60 percent greater than the opposition of blacks to such marriages. (Other countries were asked about marriage to a person of indigenous descent.) These results thus accord with the long-standing data that marriage patterns in Latin America are generally racially endogamous.

The Americas Barometer 2010 data also indicate that white respondents in several Latin American countries are considerably more likely than other groups to state a preference for lighter skin. For instance, in Colombia, Ecuador, and the Dominican Republic, on average 26 percent of white respondents agreed that they would prefer lighter skin, in contrast to the 13 percent average of black respondents who prefer lighter skin. In Mexico and Peru, blacks on average had greater rates of preference for lighter skin (37%) than whites (26%). In Brazil the rate of white preference for lighter skin closely approximated blacks’ lighter-skin preference rate. Even socialist Cuba continues to manifest a preference for whiteness and a white opposition to interracial marriage. Moreover, in a 2004 comparison of implicit and explicit racial bias in the United States, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico, the rates of both implicit and explicit racial bias were higher in all three Latin American contexts as compared to the United States. Thus despite the overwhelming articulation of mestizaje as an indicator of racial harmony across much of Latin America and the different ways that it is articulated within each country, attitudes of racial distinction and superiority persist beneath the celebration of racial mixture. In part, the absence of a legal critique of the Latin American comparisons to the Jim Crow United States has enabled the Latin American “racial innocence” stance to remain. This book seeks to fill in that gap in the literature and provide the legal critique.

Specifically, this book is about the ways in which the Latin American denial of racism operating in conjunction with the notion that true racism can only be found in the racial segregation of the United States veils the actual manifestations of racism in Latin America. I will argue that an examination of the role of the state after the abolition of slavery in regulating race through immigration law and customary law disrupts this picture of Latin America as “racially innocent.” I will then assess the ways in which the contemporary Latin American antidiscrimination laws seek to eradicate the legacy of racial inequality wrought by the historic racism of the state. Finally, I will conclude the book with insights as to how the examination of the Latin American context may be helpful to the U.S. racial justice movement today, given the growing denial of the existence of racism in the United Sates. In doing so, I shall adopt the term “Afro-descendants,” which Latin American race scholars and social justice movement actors use to encompass all persons of African descent in Latin America who are affected by antiblack sentiment whether or not they personally identify as “black” or adopt a mixed-race identity such as mulatto or mestizo. This book will not focus upon the racial inequality issues of indigenous groups in Latin America given the extensive literature that already exists regarding that topic. Instead the analysis will focus upon the particular history of Afro-descendants’ relationship to the state as formerly enslaved subjects seeking visibility as citizens and full participants in the national identity despite the societal denial of racism…

Tags: , , ,

Census Race Change For Hispanics Sparks Criticism

Posted in Articles, Census/Demographics, Latino Studies, Law, Media Archive, Politics/Public Policy, United States on 2013-01-14 18:08Z by Steven

Census Race Change For Hispanics Sparks Criticism

The Huffington Post
2013-01-09

Tony Castro

Some Latino civil rights groups are questioning the U.S. Census consideration of designating Hispanics a race of their own, fearing the loss of national original designations.

The change, making “Hispanic” a racial instead of an ethnic category, would eliminate the check-off boxes for national origins such as Mexican, Cuban and Puerto Rican.

“There is no unanimity on what any of this stuff means,” says Angelo Falcón, director of the National Institute for Latino Policy and co-chair of a coalition of Latino advocacy groups that recently met with Census officials.

“Right now, we’re very comfortable with having the Hispanic (origin) question… Hispanic as a race category? I don’t think there’s any consensus on that.”

Scholars oppose “Hispanic” being considered a race

Fordham University law professor Tanya Hernández, author of the new book Racial Subordination in Latin America, is among the scholars opposing the proposal to join race and ethnicity as a “Hispanic” category.

“Census data is used in very important ways, for example to monitor compliance regarding civil rights and racial disparities,” says Hernandez, who fears that eliminating existing racial categories would have a negative impact…

Read the entire article here.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Circular Letter to “Local Registrars, Clerks, Legislators, and others responsible for, and interested in, the prevention of racial intermixture,” from Walter A. Plecker, State Registrar of Vital Statistics, Richmond

Posted in Law, Letters, Media Archive, Politics/Public Policy, United States, Virginia on 2013-01-04 19:59Z by Steven

Circular Letter to “Local Registrars, Clerks, Legislators, and others responsible for, and interested in, the prevention of racial intermixture,” from Walter A. Plecker, State Registrar of Vital Statistics, Richmond

Commonwealth of Virginia, Bureau of Vital Statistics
Richmond, Virginia
December 1943

Source: Rockbridge County (Va.) Clerk’s Correspondence, 1912-1943. Local Government Records Collection, Rockbridge County Court Records. The Library of Virginia. 10-0878-003.

In a 1943 letter to local registrars, clerks, and legislators, Plecker asserted, “[T]here does not exist today a descendant of Virginia ancestors claiming to be an Indian who is unmixed with negro blood.”

To Local Registrars, Clerks, Legislators, and others responsible for, and interested in, the prevention of racial intermixture:

In our January 1943 annual letter to local registrars and clerks of courts, with list of mixed surnames, we called attention to the greatly increased effort and arrogant demands now being made for classification as whites, or at least for recognitions as Indians, as a preliminary step to admission into the white race by marraiage, of groups of the descendants of the “free negroes,” so designated before 1865 to distinguish them from slaves.

According to Mendel’s law of heredity, one out of four of a family of mixed breeds, through the introduction of illegitimate white blood, is now so near white in appearance as to lead him to proclaim himself as such and to demand admission into white schools, forbidden by the State Constitution.  The other three people of this type are applying for licenses to marry whites, or for white licenses when intermarrying amongst themselves.  These they frequently secure with ease when they apply in a county or city not the home of the woman and are met by clerk or deputy who justifies himself in accepting a casual affidavit as the truth and in issuing a license to any applicant regardless of the requirements of Section 5099a, Paragraph 4, of the Code.  This Section places the proof upon the applicants, not upon the clerks.  We have learned that affidavits cannot always be accepted as truth. This loose practice (to state it mildly) of a few clerks is now the greatest obstacle in the way of proper registration by race required of the State Registrar of Vital Statistics in that Section. Local registrars, who are supposed to know the people of their registration areas, of course, have no excuse for not catching false registration of births and deaths.

Public records in the office of the Bureau of Vital Statistics, and in the State Library, indicate that there does not exist today a descendant of Virginia ancestors claiming to be an Indian who is unmixed with negro blood

Read the entire letter here.

Tags: , , , ,