marriage
![Picture](/uploads/2/3/6/6/23665705/14116.gif?300)
In 1865, the 13th Amendment passed and abolished slavery, which led the Whites to fear losing their dominance over African Americans. Their fear led to the Black Codes being created. [5] Foner, defines Black Codes as "laws passed by the new southern governments that attempted to regulate the lives of former slaves."[1] One of the Black Codes banned interracial marriage. This code banned marriage between whites and African Americans, who were either of “pure blood,” or were of African American descent.[4][11] Antimiscegenation laws prohibited the mixing of races through marriage, conception, living together, and intimacy. Wallenstein states, “As for interracial marriage, in contrast to segregation at a train seat or a school desk, segregated access in marriage utterly prohibited the right of two individuals who loved each other to marry each other across certain boundaries of racial identity.”[9] The Black Codes were mainly created to keep the white race “pure.” Antimiscegenation laws during Post-Reconstruction affected the African American culture by restricting who they married, by upholding laws against interracial marriage through trials. [5]
In 1870, the 1865 Black Codes were repealed and miscegenation laws were dropped. [5] Then in 1880 miscegenation laws were restored and people found guilty could pay a fine as high as $500 and/or imprisonment of up to ten years. [5] Before the reconstruction all seven states of the Lower South had laws against interracial marriage. [5] From 1867-68, six of the seven states had suspended those laws and by 1894, the laws against interracial marriage had been restored. [5] The South moved back and forth between banning interracial marriage and allowing it. States were able to mend the laws to what they deemed fit. During a trial in Georgia (1869), Chief Justice and former governor, Joseph E. Brown, stated that he believed that black-white marriages were evil and that the state had the right to outlaw miscegenation. [6]
The Courts were able to bend laws and come up with ways to dispute interracial marriages. Since the Courts and Jurors were white, they used their dominance to prohibit interracial marriage, by interpreting amendments to benefit themselves and to keep their dominance over the African American culture. In Pace v. Alabama, the Court upheld a miscegenation law.[7] This case didn’t address interracial marriage, but addressed interracial relationships.[7] The black-white couple had been convicted of violating the law that prohibited interracial relationships. Violating this law could lead to at least two years in jail for both the black and white offenders. [7] Wallenstein states, “The decision in Pace V. Alabama (1883) demonstrated that the concept of separate-but-equal constitutionally prevails in the realm of marriage.”[8]
The case of Maynard v. Hill (1888) involved the nature of marriage and federal authority over it. [7] The ruling was that marriage laws are a matter of state policy and not constitutional law. This case upheld the law prohibiting interracial marriage, by stating that marriage was upheld under the state and not under the constitution. [8] The court ruled that marriage was "not a contract." States were able to decide to have/not have miscegenation laws, because it was a matter of statutory authority and not constitutional limitation. [7][8]
In 1881, a trail was held against John Cravord (black man) and a woman whose racial identity was an issue. [10] The couple went on trial for being in an interracial marriage. The couple had known about a miscegenation law in North Carolina, so they moved to South Carolina, where no such law existed. They were arrested and tried to argue that the woman was of mixed-race. She was examined by a doctor, who could not answer if she was white or of mixed race. Jurors later determined that she was white and they were found guilty of violating a recently restored law against interracial marriage in South Carolina. [10] In this case, the Court assigned the woman her racial identity. [10] Wallenstein states, “When the state of Florida suspended its miscegenation law in 1872, or restored it in 1881, what difference did it make, or when South Carolina dropped its ban and then restored it? Dropping a ban, restoring it, leaving it off, leaving it on - any such actions presumably had consequences.”[10] Laws were being amended and changed all the time and no couple could keep up with all the changes. The changes were made at will by the state, whenever they desired or deemed fit.
The term race had different definitions in the south. There was the “one drop” of African blood rule, which meant a person was black or colored if they had one drop of African blood running through their veins.[4] Race was also defined by the actual color of someone’s skin. The definition of race kept being redefined and so this redefined the laws against interracial marriage. The whites wanted to remain dominate over African Americans, so they enacted laws that would keep them segregated and over all, keep African Americans beneath the white man. The courts upheld these laws and were able to find loop holes to keep interracial marriage illegal. [2]
[1] Foner, Eric. Give me liberty!: an American history. Seagull third ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2012. Print.
[2] Wallenstein, Peter. "Reconstruction, Segregation, And Miscegenation: Interracial Marriage And The Law In The Lower South, 1865–1900." American Nineteenth Century History 6.1 (2005): 57-76. Print.
[3] Wallenstein, Peter. 57
[4] Wallenstein, Peter. 58
[5] Wallenstein, Peter. 59
[6] Wallenstein, Peter. 61
[7] Wallenstein, Peter. 62
[8] Wallenstein, Peter. 63
[9] Wallenstein, Peter. 65
[10] Wallenstein, Peter. 68
[11] Wallenstein, Peter. 70
[12] "ohiohistory.org/ The African American Experience in Ohio, 1850-1920 / ." Under Construction. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sept.2013.
< http://dbs.ohiohistory.org/africanam/page1.cfm?ItemID=14687>.
Sources for Images in the Header:
"Springhill Avenue Area." University of South Alabama Homepage. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Oct. 2013.
<http://www.southalabama.edu/archives/html/guide
"African American Christianity, Pt. II: From the Civil War to the Great Migration, 1865-1920, The Nineteenth Century, Divining America: Religion in American History, TeacherServe, National Humanities Center." National Humanities Center - Welcome to the National Humanities Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Oct. 2013. <http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/nineteen
"Timeline." Brisbane Stories - Chermside and District History. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Oct. 2013.
<http://www.chermsidedistrict.org.au/chermsidedistrict/01_cms/details.asp?ID=4>.